Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Archive 3

Add a paragraph at the beginning of the Perceptions of the Tea Party summary section?
While a copy editing solution has been put forth as an option, maybe each of the three characterizations in the opening sentence"The movement has been called partly conservative, partly libertarian, and partly populist."should be explicated briefly one sentence apiece for a new paragraph to replace the verbatim repetition of the sentence in the lead. The point, as Silk Tork has indicated, being that "...the article now does not contain key information regarding perceptions of the Tea Party". In fact, these three characterizations are more than likely more fundamental to the perceptions of the TPm than racism.

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

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


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


 * Good question. I don't know.
 * I'd basically agree with your statement in the context of a copy edit for the opening sentence, but think the section should probably be slightly expanded--though I don't want to spend a lot of time on it.
 * The meaning of the statement that it has been described as encompassing elements of the three would remain largely unchanged even with your statement.
 * The same questions would remain, and could be explicated along the lines:


 * 1) In what sense is it populist (and who has described it as such)?
 * 2) In what sense is it conservative (and who has described it as such)?
 * 3) In what sense is it libertarian (and who has described it as such)?
 * The details and specifics as to "and who has described it as such?" can be addressed in the subarticle. That gets into contentious territory relating to the extent to which the entire movement can be characterized along such lines verses factions that espouse different orientations, and the perceptions thereof, etc.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 02:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This seems rather late in the process to make such major changes here ... I rather thought ST had considered this mainly completed at this point. I would also suggest the rather editoriail addition from Viriditas on the IRS actions should also require extended discussion here -- ot os a major change and appears on its fact to be argumentative (I do not follow the sub-article, but suspect my cavil holds there as well). Collect (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I should think rather that as it has been said that the paragraph was not perfect and would be subject to improvement, what has brought this to the fore was a premature deletion of the sentence in question. Refer to the reply I left on Silk Tork's talk page.
 * Regarding the IRS material, considering that there is a main article on that topic, wouldn't the description of that issue on the TPm article necessarily be largely derivative of that article as a matter of principle?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * There are two references to “populist” in the main body of the main article, as follows, but none in the main body of the Perceptions article.
 * "Mead says that Jacksonian populists, such as the Tea Party, combine a belief in American exceptionalism and its role in the world with skepticism of American's 'ability to create a liberal world order'."
 * "Former ambassador Christopher Meyer writes in the Daily Mail that the Tea Party movement is a mix of 'grassroots populism, professional conservative politics, and big money', the last supplied in part by Charles and David Koch."


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


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

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

Therefore, we should probably replace the sentence that has been removed with a copy edited sentence, such as that proposed by TFD. How about a vote? Is TFD's sentence (I've replaced the pronoun "It" with the proper noun, and removed the adjective "social" before conservative, as fiscal conservatism might fall outside social conservatism) acceptable? "'The Tea Party movement is a populist movement that is partly conservative and partly libertarian.'"-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Acceptable-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I consider the partly conservative and partly libertarian aspects to be informative, not only worthy of mention, but very worthy of expansion. I consider the populist, grass-roots and astroturfed to be less informative characterizations. Of course some folks would want only the positive or negative sounding ones of those three in or out. None are true of the whole movement. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I consider the populist description to be highly informative. Consider the fact that legal scholars have coined a neologism, "popular originalism" to describe the TPm's approach to the Constitution.
 * Perhaps the populist, conservative and libertarian characterizations could be treated as majority views and the others as minority views. In any case, since I found that there is too little discussion of any of the views, with the possible exception of conservatism, it doesn't seem that the summary paragraph would be the place to start elaborating on those views.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never been a fan of calling the movement populist, but there was a consensus years ago to keep it. Agreed elaboration is missing and need to be addressed. Conservative is no problem and doesn't take much in addition to all the labels attached to supporters of the movement. Libertarian is trickier because of the Paulite exodus. I'm sure we can put something together to keep these descriptors in the lead. †TE†   Talk  12:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Acceptable although I would prefer the term "social conservative." American conservatism is generally defined, following Frank S. Meyer, as a combination of traditional conservatism, libertarianism and anti-Communism.  Formisano's book identifies the Tea Party movement as populist in the first chapter.  There seems no doubt on this, only the nature of its populism.  There may also be doubt about the relative weight of social conservatism and libertarianism, but not that it combines both.  @ThinkEnemies, why do you have a problem with calling a movement populist?  TFD (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD, good points, but I think that the the TPM's widespread agenda (and it is defined by its agenda)is the overlap / common ground between USA-definition-conservatism and libertarianism. I think that to a great extent this specifically excludes social conservatism.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @TFD. I'm going back years ago before the label was applied so liberally, but I generally opposed it due to populism meaning so many different things to different people. It's contentious, albeit more accurate than 85% of the other loaded terminology in the article. †TE†   Talk  11:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is contentious. See the article populism - it is basically seeing political conflict as the regular guy against the elites/parasites.  It helps in comparing them with similar movements of the past and in other countries, and explains how they differ from traditional republicans, who also combine social conservatism and libertarianism, or to compare them with Occupy Wall Street.  North8000, USA-definition-conservatism is social conservatism + libertarianism.  The TP movement does not advocate anything that is conflict with social conservatism.  TFD (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, since there are now two votes supporting the copy edited sentence as acceptable and none opposed to replacing the sentence that duplicates that found in the lead, when more than 24 hours since the last vote have passsed, I'm going to carry out that edit. The finer points regarding the specific brand of conservatism of the TPm should be taken up at a later date.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I don't really have an issue with the term. Not anymore. It's generally been accepted as fact. But it's still contentious, which is why there was an issue years ago. I'd avoid comparisons to other so-called populist movements. Lots of baggage there. †TE†   Talk  21:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Constitution, Agenda section, opening sentence of lead, etc.
Though the text of the second paragraph of the current Agenda section and the following sentence are interrelated, to keep this as simple as possible, I'm going to simply state that the content of the source does not support the statement".The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution,[1]"

Curiously, the text of the (ref) for that source contains a long quote. Why the quote is in the

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

I had edited the text after reading the source, with the edit summary (coherent and according to the source, to be precise), as follows"The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates a version of constitutional originalism,[1]"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support restoring the edit.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 02:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I think it's accurate, but it's synthesis to apply a definition of Constitutional originalism to apply it to the TPM. The source explicitly noted the "TPM's view" was not what the author called originalism, but a combination of textualism and originalism. If the author redefines a term within the article, it would be absurd to use the redefined term in our article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's not in the citation given. I think it's likely accurate, but the reference is just wrong.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The comments somewhat unclear, please clarify. This previous version of the article contains other relevant sourcing in the Consitution subsection . Note the following passage, in particular"Rebecca E. Zietlow characterizes the overall orientation as a combination of two schools of thought on interpreting the constitution: “originalism”, and “popular constitutionalism”."
 * "Tea Party activists have invoked the Constitution as the foundation of their conservative political philosophy. These activists are engaged in “popular originalism,” using popular constitutionalism—constitutional interpretation outside of the courts—to invoke originalism as interpretive method."
 * Incidentally, the cited NYT article contains, for example, the following passage"Those arguments can and should have consequences, according to scholars who endorse what they call “popular constitutionalism.” “Basically, it’s the idea that final authority to control the interpretation and implementation of constitutional law resides at all times in the community in an active sense,” Larry D. Kramer, the dean of Stanford Law School, wrote in The Valparaiso University Law Review in 2006."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 02:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the fact that more than 24 hours have passed with two in support and none opposed (a couple of comments, somewhat unclear), I have restored the reverted edit, adding another source in light of citation tags that have appeared recently, and reworded slighty in a manner facilitating retention of the reference to "the Constitution" and clarifying that it is an interpretive methodology, not an interpretation per se. The clause reads"The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates a version of constitutional originalism for interpreting the United States Constitution"-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have to say that the first source doesn't support the statement at all, but the second one is a reasonable source. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


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


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


 * Wrong page, moved comment to Silk Tork's talk page.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 10:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I believe that edits have been actioned before from the moderated discussion with the same amount of support. There was also a third vote of support after I introduced another reference, the text of which had been revert-deleted out of the article.
 * I don't see the point of the comment, however, since all but one of those who are now objecting failed to participate in the discussion.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * My comments on the agenda generally, and Constitution-related content specifically:
 * 1) Ample reliable sourcing supports the fact that the TPm takes a Constitutional originalist view (and arguments that sources are referring to activists instead of "the movement" appear to be inapplicable semantic wordplay). Our article should convey this.
 * 2) The Constitution is a major subject in relation to the movement; it's often mentioned as part of the few generally agreed-upon principles common to TP groups and organizations. It is significant enough to warrant a section covering this information.
 * 3) Formisano notes (pgs. 52-54), "The Religious Right's strong biblical fundamentalism, meaning belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible, finds a parallel in Tea Partiers' constitutional originalism. They maintain that for much of the twentieth century and especially during the New Deal, Congress exceeded its powers and violated the Constitution. The federal government, especially Congress, must be held to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Like other Americans, however, Tea Party supporters are selective about which passages to ignore and which to revere." Skocpol (pgs. 49-54) echos Formisano's observations about selective use of the Constitution, "Just like other political actors, past and present, Tea Partiers stretch the limits of the Constitution, use it selectively, and push for amendments. Tea Partiers have argued for measures such as restrictions on birthright citizenship, abridgements of freedom of religion for Muslim-Americans, and suspension of protections in the Bill of Rights for suspected terrorists. Some parts of the Constitution are lauded over others." Skocpol also echos Formisano's observations about the strong "ties between the Bible and the Constitution" and Tea Partiers fundamentally religious understanding of the Constitution.
 * 4) Both Formisano and Skocpol explicitely refer to the TPm as populist, and frequently refer to TP populism - that is as uncontroversial as describing the TP as "conservative".
 * 5) To the editors claiming that the main article needs to be reverted to one version or another before that content can be discussed: HUH? Any version is going to be "the wrong version" to some editors, so ignore that and focus instead on resolving whatever disagreements exist about that content. It's also unproductive to pronounce "I oppose that edit, change it back!" without actually explaining why you oppose the edit. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The explanations are very clear. There was no discussion about changing the lede. There was certainly no discussion about making a major change that puts in constitutional originalism and to do so without sources to support such an edit. The sources there speak to something else. It appears the new editor's contribution was used as an excuse to change the lede altogether without discussion and without consent. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you have an actual substantive objection to either the Constitution-related content or the lede content? I can't find one on either this page or the TPm Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could define what you consider to be a substantive objection that would qualify? I'd say that making this change without discussion and without proper sources is a good start, not to mention taking advantage of the new editor's edit to revert stable content in the lede of all things. Also, there's an important difference between popular constitutionalism and constitutional originalism. Making a claim about an entire movement that ties them to constitutional originalism is WP:OR at best, and the way it was done certainly violates the rules on this page and the general wiki WP:DISRUPT. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's an actual, substantive OBJECTION — there is no RS support for the statement that the entire Tea Party movement is in favor of constitutional originalism. However, there is ample RS support (in the form of Rebecca E. Zietlow's article in the Florida Law Review for the statement that some Tea Party activists favor constitutional originalism. The passages quoted above from Skocpol and Formisano do not support such a broad, sweeping generalization about the entire Tea Party movement in the lede sentence of the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What text from the Zietlow source gives you the impression that only "some" TP activists are being discussed, instead of "the movement"? I see nothing so ambiguous in, "The Tea Party movement is therefore engaged in “popular originalism”—constitutional interpretation outside of the courts—to invoke originalism as interpretive method." Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Xeno, there's a really enormous difference between "engaged in" and "part of their core beliefs." Furthermore, as Malke pointed out below, "There's an important difference between popular constitutionalism and constitutional originalism." Just as there's an important difference between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine. For example, we know from reading his books that Barack Obama "engaged in" the recreational snorting of a little powdered cocaine from time to time in his younger days. Does this mean that smoking crack is part of Obama's core beliefs, and that we can say so in his Wikipedia biography? No, of course it doesn't. To make that claim in Wikipedia's voice is an example of WP:SYNTH. In this section, we're talking about the Tea Party's core beliefs, Xeno, and we need some ironclad proof. No SYNTH. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To your and Malke's point. Would you consider: "Tea party supporters largely advocate an originalist adherence to the constitution." †TE†   Talk  01:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Further support from NYT source as REFUTATION to above-stated objection Though the text already quoted from the sources should suffice, I'm going to quote the entire paragraph of the NYT source that was cited as the basis for the WP:OR text that has been replaced, by consensus. The sentence left out from the quote in the text of the (ref) for the first source cited in the article has been bolded."It is, of course, hard to say anything definitive about the Tea Party movement, a loose confederation of groups with no central leadership. But if there is a central theme to its understanding of the Constitution, it is that the nation’s founders knew what they were doing and that their work must be protected. “I think it’s some loose, ill-informed version of originalism, but it’s plausible,” said Professor Kramer, the author of “The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review.”"Note that I have underlined the phrase "version of originalism", which is essential the same as the phrase "a version of constitutional originalism" appearing in the present text of the sentence in the lead. This is definitive insofar as the text refers to the "Tea Party movement", so the insubstantial objection to the second source on the basis that it refers to "activists" is fully refuted.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but two of the scholarly sources defined "constitutional originalism", provided a new definition, and said the TPm met the new definition. That "trumps" the NYT, or, at least means we cannot Wikilink the term.  I don't see what is wrong with the keeping the "original" stable form, rather than attempts to shoehorn the TPm doctrine(s) in regard the Constitution into the existing term "originalism".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I imagine that you are referring to the term "popular originalism" that legal scholars (lawyers and professors of Constitutional law, etc.) have applied to the specific version of originalism embodied by the TPm.
 * Nevertheless, an objection to the reliability of the sources on such grounds seems unfounded. The sources I and others have quote more than cover the objection.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 10:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey: Let's be clear about this
This is in response to Ubikwit's editing of the lede sentence and introducing the words, "constitutional originalism." Phoenix and Winslow (talk)


 * Oppose until the lede has been returned to the stable edit and consensus has been reached regarding the next issue to be taken up. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. The sources I've seen do not support the contention that the entire TPm favors constitutional originalism. As Arthur pointed out, it's WP:SYNTH. One would have thought, with all the topic bans that have been handed out recently for proceeding with less than perfectly clear consensus, Ubikwit would have seen Arthur's post as an objection. I certainly did, which is why I didn't find it necessary to speak out against Ubikwit's edit at that time. I support going back to the original wording for the lede sentence, that lasted for so long and was so stable before the article was unlocked. And rather than discussing this, which is clearly not a constructive edit, we should be discussing the three action items I suggested immediately after the article was unlocked. The fact that Ubikwit has chosen to completely ignore those proposals tells me a lot. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - as provided in reliable sources. In the two "opposes" listed above, the first gives no reason for opposing the content, and the second claims the sources are not discussing the movement, which, after having read the sources, I find to be an invalid objection. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Strict interpretation of the constitution" says it all, was in for years, and was a result of the mediation. The POV nightmare that was recently put in should go and it should remain "Strict interpretation of the constitution". North8000 (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "was in for years" isn't really relevant, as much of our moderated recent efforts have been to address sub-optimal content that has existed for years. "Strict interpretation of the Constitution" is flawed wording, as evidenced by the Tea Partier's efforts to repeal some amendments, introduce new amendments, and "interpret" still other amendments in a controversial manner. Reliable sources have described how the movement strives for "originalism", yet in practice produces its own "popular interpretation" of the Constitution -- and that is what I believe editors have been trying to address here.  How would you propose we remedy the vast factual descrepency between "Strict interpretation of the Constitution" and reality? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First, good point on your first sentence; I meant the "here for years" to say that it is the last stable version and should remain while we discuss. On to the other points:
 * You can seek to amend while still supporting it.
 * Can you point to an example of the TPM producing it's own interpretation?
 * Your final question is faulty and unanswerable as it has a false or merely-asserted item (that there is a discrepancy) inserted as an implied premise.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - supported by WP:RS and is WP:NPOV.Casprings (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Those sources which refer to the TPm as supporting Constitutional originalism redefine the term.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To what, exactly, does "redefine the term" refer? That is a far remove from the supporting comment of yesterday to the effect that "acceptable, although the first source doesn't really support the statement either".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, in addition to the sentence added above in refutation of certain other objections, there is this sentence, which directly follows the above quoted paragraph from the NYT source (first citation in the article)"“Originalism” has many flavors and levels of specificity, but in essence it says the constitutional text should be applied as it was understood at the time it was adopted."
 * Accordingly, the objection based on the unsupported claim that the sources "redefine the term" is hereby refuted.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Arthur - Wikipedia is not a place for Humpty-Dumpty redefinitions of terms of art. Collect (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support "Strict adherence to the constitution" is POV. What they mean is "originalism", the belief among other things that the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" in the Bill of Rights does not exclude punishments that were common in the late 18th century.  TFD (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The latter half of your comment is unproductive, if not terribly ignorant. Not a personal attack. I'll agree with the former. Strict adherence is more to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Why not just say, "Tea party supporters largely advocate an originalist adherence to the constitution," and be done with it? †TE†   Talk  01:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @TFD By "what they mean" do you mean that: #1 That is what this term means? #2 You feel that they mean something different than the term.  The answer to EITHER is that that is an admission that "strict interpretation of the constitution" is correct. #1 is a direct confirmation of this, and #2 says "this term is correct but I don't think that they mean this term." So both say that "strict interpretation of the constitution" is correct.  North8000 (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Advocates of the natural law theory believe that strict adherence to the constitution means laws that were considered to be uncruel and usual may in fact be cruel and unusual. To them the Tea Party does not support strict adherence to the constitution.  TFD (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The originalist understands that evolving social norms will decide what's cruel and unusual, and amendments can be enacted and repealed through the legislative process with democratic elections being the ultimate judge. †TE†   Talk  01:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The decision written by Scalia in D.C. v. Heller clearly shows that the originalist position does not mean that interpretation of the Bill of Rights is left to legislators.  And if the originalists had lost the case, they would have backed a constitutional amendment so  that there was no ambiguity that the right to bear arms is an individual right.  TFD (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This can better help you frame the argument. There is no perfect solution, just the lesser of two evils. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say, honestly. Are we about to argue clauses in the 14th Amendment? Do you think originalism only applies to the Bill of Rights? †TE†   Talk  02:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That both originalist and non-originalists believe that they are in strict adherence with the constitution, which is what Scalia says in your link. To say that one or the other is in strict adherence, implying that the other is not, is POV.  Your comment that the legislative process is the ultimate judge is not what Scalia said, but might be the views of some Tea Party supporters, in which case they would not be in strict adherence to the constitution as understood by Scalia and legal opinion since Marbury v. Madison.  TFD (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Popular constitutionalism versus Constitutional originalism


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

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

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

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

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


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

The Agenda section and subsection entitled "The Constitution"
First, because there is probably more material in print in RS about the TPm's approach toward the Constitution, I feel strongly that it deserves a subsection. Consider, for example, that the "Contract from America" subsection is almost as long as the main page on that topic Contract_from_America, with the entire list copied, while there is comparatively little discussion of that in RS on the TPm. Meanwhile, the volume of material is perhaps too large to be adequate covered in the main article without completely dominating it, so there should probably be a subarticle on the subject, perhaps entitled The TPm and the Constitution.

Before getting started, some background work is necessary, which probably means that those who haven't followed the discussions and the like have some reading to do. I will temper that by saying that I myself have not even read through the sources in their entirety, and have only looked at three of at least four papers from legal journals. Here is a link to a text that I had posted in a subsection called "The Constitution", which was reverted out just before the article was locked. All references used to compose that text are available online, just check the links.
 * With regard to the issue of immigration in general, I think that the proposals to repeal the 14th Amendment are indicative of more than a simple opposition to illegal immigration. See the passages regrading the governor of Minnesota above from another source cited by the same sentence.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

PHASE 1

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

First, a sentence from the present version of the lead of the Agenda section"Since the 2012 elections, many local Tea Party factions have shifted their focus to state nullification of the health care law, and protesting the United Nations Agenda 21.[24][25][26][27][28][29]" Note that the sentence starts with a date, establishing a time frame; however, of the six cited references appended to the end of the brief sentence, no less than three of them (nos. 26, 27, and 28) are news media articles published in 2010, and one is an online encyclopedia. Some of the articles from 2010 do mention health reform.

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

Reference 24 - NYT US Politics, 12-25-2012 "Mr. Cummings, who is the Midwest coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, a national group, said a major issue he would be focusing on now was Agenda 21, a United Nations resolution that encourages sustainable development. It has no force of law in the United States, but a passionate element of the Tea Party sees it as a plot against American property rights."

Reference 25 - No author,“Times Topics”commentary piece, 12-26-2012 "In the wake of the vote, leading Congressional Republicans, though they remain far apart from Mr. Obama, have embraced raising tax revenues in budget negotiations, repudiating a central tenet of the Tea Party. Even more telling, Tea Party activists in the middle of the country are skirting the fiscal showdown in Congress and turning to narrower issues, raising questions about whether the movement still represents a citizen groundswell to which attention must be paid." "Grass-roots leaders said in December that after losing any chance of repealing the national health care law, they would press states to “nullify” or ignore it. They also plan to focus on a two-decade-old United Nations resolution that they call a plot against property rights, and on “fraud” by local election boards that, some believe, let the Democrats steal the November vote."

Reference 26 - NYT, US Politics, 2-15-2010 "Urged on by conservative commentators, waves of newly minted activists are turning to once-obscure books and Web sites and discovering a set of ideas long dismissed as the preserve of conspiracy theorists, interviews conducted across the country over several months show. In this view, Mr. Obama and many of his predecessors (including George W. Bush) have deliberately undermined the Constitution and free enterprise for the benefit of a shadowy international network of wealthy elites." "At a recent meeting of the Sandpoint Tea Party, Mrs. Stout presided with brisk efficiency until a member interrupted with urgent news. Because of the stimulus bill, he insisted, private medical records were being shipped to federal bureaucrats. A woman said her doctor had told her the same thing. There were gasps of rage. Everyone already viewed health reform as a ruse to control their medical choices and drive them into the grip of insurance conglomerates. Debate erupted. Could state medical authorities intervene? Should they call Congress?" "As the meeting ended, Carolyn L. Whaley, 76, held up her copy of the Constitution. She carries it everywhere, she explained, and she was prepared to lay down her life to protect it from the likes of Mr. Obama." "Yet for all her efforts, Mrs. Stout is gripped by a sense that it may be too little too late. Yes, there have been victories — including polls showing support for the Tea Party movement — but in her view none of it has diminished the fundamental threat of tyranny, a point underscored by Mr. Obama’s drive to pass a health care overhaul." Reference 26 is focuses on affiliations with religious right and analysis of the fringe conspiracy theories embraced by TPm, but does include interesting discussion related to health care reform.

Reference 27 - NYT US Politics, 2-15-2010 "The governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, a non-movement conservative, has embraced the Tea Party’s general anti-immigration posture; he actually endorsed changing the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to bar citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants." The Tea Party agenda is not well defined, though it is anti-government, anti-spending, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics. The Tea Party’s official 10-point agenda, called the Contract From America, is not so incendiary, though calls for a balanced budget, a single flat tax rate and lower taxes, including those on capital gains and estates, are a challenging policy prescription. "Some of the money behind the Tea Party movement or its offshoots has little in common with grass-roots populism. The New Yorker magazine recently detailed the movement’s ties with the brothers Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, oil and gas billionaires from Kansas who privately and aggressively pursue very conservative policies as well as provisions favoring their far-flung corporate empire." "And one Tea Party offshoot demands that “special interests be eliminated.” That would be enough to give heartburn to a Tea Party supporter like Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi, formerly a rich and important Washington lobbyist." Reference 27 contains substantial material that might be deemed negative by TPm activists, including material on immigration and astroturfing, none of which is mentioned.

Reference 28 - Encyclopedia Britannica "Tea Party movement, conservative populist social and political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation, immigration, and government intervention in the private sector." Reference 28 contains a relevant mention of immigration that has been deemed negative by TPm activists.

Reference 29 - Independent, 1-22-2010 "…the most significant recent development in US politics is the emergence of the Tea Party movement, a populist organization..." "So they are conservatives? Basically yes, though of a very fundamentalist and angry variety. They are defined less by what they are for, than what they oppose: runaway government spending, high taxation, and large deficits, epitomised by Obama's healthcare reform and the $787bn stimulus package in February. It is also a cry of fury by the average Joe – ordinary Americans suspicious of pampered elites, and disgusted by bailouts of the undeserving. These range from those who stupidly buy homes they can't afford to greedy Wall Street banks and incompetent, eternally loss-making car companies. As Santelli said on February 19 last year, far better 'to reward the people who carry the water, rather than drink the water'. Tea Party-ers also oppose immigration. But there's a powerful libertarian, anti-establishment streak in the movement as well. In that sense it appeals to independents, who refuse to align themselves with either established major party." "So the Tea Party will remain a movement? That seems the most likely outcome. That way, it can portray itself as above the sordid political fray in Washington. Its lack of a detailed policy agenda will, if anything, broaden its appeal, while the establishment of a leader and an internal bureaucracy might create the impression that it is just another party – as corrupt, selfish and petty-minded as those that are so grievously failing the country now. Possibly, the Tea Party will end up like MoveOn.org, borne of left-wing anger at the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998, but which is now a liberal ginger group – influential and important, but which does not run its own candidates at elections." Reference 26 contains much relevant material that might be deemed negative by TPm supporters, none of which is mentioned.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I'm not sure I follow your argument, and maybe that is why Silk Tork hatted the edit.
 * First, the article is RS as a news source. Moreover, the articled is cited as a source by the above-quoted sentence from the Agenda section. Do you have a problem with some parts of the article but not others?
 * How would such a statement be sourced in the context of a news article. It is a statement about the movement as a whole based on the expert knowledge of the author, who is a reporter who appears to primarily write on American politics, as well as sports and other topics, with 68 articles published since 2010 .-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not clicking your links. If you say so and so is a good political writer, I'll take your word. Michael Wilbon, much accomplished and respected in his field spent last year defending Derrick Rose's decision to sit out the season based on "cautionary tales" of other athletes who injured their knees and returned "too soon" by his account. All of his examples just happened to have had microfracture surgery instead of acl reconstruction, which are completely different procedures on all accounts other than being surgery of the knee. It wasn't Wilbon's fault for not recognizing this fundamental flaw of his argument, and certainly doesn't diminish his status as an expert sports writer. Sometimes, we just need to seek out those with a better understanding of certain issues. †TE†   Talk  16:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with his work, but believe his article to be RS as a news source.
 * A primary objective of "phase 1" is to examine the sources currently used in the Agenda section. They need to be looked at in terms of whether they support the statements in respect to which they have been cited, and with respect to other relevant content to the Agenda section, etc., in order to assess NPOV, etc.
 * I agree with Silk Tork that the Agenda section is in need of a thorough reworking, and have in fact made a number of edits to improve the section before the article was locked, some of which were reverted, particularly those addressing the Constitution. I have posted a link to the last version containing that series of edits above. Because there are so many sources, I found it attractive to work only with the peer-reviewed journal articles by legal scholars. Since then, a number of other editors have read books that also address the questions.
 * With respect to immigration, I think that the tone could be kept relatively civil if the topic were explicated in part, at least, with respect to the proposal to repeal the 14th Amendment. In fact, however, I don't want to focus this discussion on the immigration issue, that could be raised later. The only reason I have highlighted the statements in the above-quoted sources is because they are there, first of all, and because the statement regarding the 14th Amendment does directly relate to the Constitution, but the 14th Amendment is not mentioned in the Agenda section or anywhere else in the article. Only the 16th and 17th Amendments are.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agenda is easy. Just go with their stated agenda. Perceptions, i.e., "anti-government, anti-spending, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics," belongs elsewhere. With considerably more care to attribute those opinions. †TE†   Talk  16:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The proposal to repeal the 14th Amendment is not a perception, but an actual goal which TPm activists are working as part of their agenda, along with proposals to repeal other Amendments .-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an agenda of denying natural born citizenship to babies of illegal aliens would certainly belong in Agenda. Perception that it's anti-immigration, as opposed to anti-illegal immigration would fall under Perceptions. †TE†  Talk  17:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * re: "their stated agenda" - They who? Agendas differ widely between local groups, and even the several "national" umbrella organizations can't agree on a unified agenda or even a set of goals.
 * re: Perceptions - the reliable sources covering the generally anti-immigration sentiments of the Tea Party do not say it's a "perception". Also, no one is arguing "anti-immigration, as opposed to anti-illegal immigration", as if the two are mutually exclusive - they are not. The movement's activist stance specifically against "illegal" immigration should be covered in the article as well.
 * Good point that it's not an actual "agenda" point, however. The main article is in need of a concise "Overview" section near the beginning of the article to broadly define the movement for the reader, before delving into specific agenda points, policy positions and protest stances. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Who can be the prevailing positions of they as a whole. It can be stated agenda items. It can be legislative actions of tea party-backed politicians. It doesn't have to be fringe and local issues, if that's what you are asking.
 * Anti-immigration and anti-illegal immigration are mutually exclusive. There's a clear distinction between the two. I'm not sure what else to add to this fact. There is no "stance specifically against 'illegal' immigration" that can be added "as well" or in addition to a perceived "anti-immigration" position. No begs the question or "stands to reason". Not in Agenda, anyways. And certainly not without attribution.
 * I'm open to suggestions on Overview. Don't believe perceptions should be included. There's a lead and summary of the sub-article already. †TE†   Talk  00:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding "nativism":


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


 * Oppose an "Overview section." It's not necessary. The history section should come after the lede. No more "commentaries." They are POV pushing. Not constructive in an encyclopedia. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I started reading this and was pleasantly surprised by Ubikwit's take on nativism by the link provided, then I looked down. LOL. This talk page will forever be a mess. †TE†   Talk  02:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * An Overview section might be useful, but implementing one might prove prohibitively contentious, once again. I imagine it would have to encompass elements relating to origins, organization and agenda, at the very least, in order to provide scope.
 * The suggestion to keep material that could be regarded as subjective perception is something we should try to follow, focusing on explicating what concrete policy stances, proposals and actions that the TPm and affiliated politicos have supported and attempted to enact, etc. Incidentally, anti-Amendment 14 sentiment relates not only to the children of illegal immigrants, but also the phenomenon seen reported about the maternity hotel industry in Los Angeles, for example, which caters to mothers coming to the USA only to give birth and then return to their country of residence.
 * As there is little time, and the discussion is not focused on the above-listed sourcing, I suggest that we move on, coming back here as necessary for reference.
 * Silk Tork has pointed to the lack of sourcing with the first paragraph, so I think looking at that would be a good place to start, and might provide some insight as to whether an Overview section is feasible. I'm going to simply open a phase 2 subsection to start working on actual text.

The first sentence of the current second paragraph of the Agenda section reads as follows"While not uniformly so, the Tea Party movement tends to be anti-government, anti-spending, anti-Obama, anti-tax, nationalistic, in favor of strict immigration legislation[22], and against political compromise." Reference 22 is Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe Quotes from reference 22: "They are more likely than Republicans and Americans overall to see illegal immigration as a serious problem (82 percent)…" You just never imagine any thing that could be Big Enough or omnipresent enough to take away the world we all have grown up in. But it is happening. I and others have seen it with our own eyes...The increasing numbers of "strangers" in my state who do not even speak English. In some areas of towns they have grown in large numbers and there is no attempt by Immigration Law officers or Maryland Police officials to stop this madness... ( I have heard the illegals are encouraged to get voting cards and to vote democrat in elections. But this is illegal...) The source does not support the claim regarding “in favor of strict immigration legislation”. The entire paragraph is the same; that is to say, the text is not supported by the sources, and in some cases the sources are misrepresented.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support scraping that entire garbage sentence as stated above. †TE†   Talk  10:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Phase 2
Here is the present version of the first paragraph, as well as a blockquote that I had appended immediately after it relating to the Constitution in support of the last sentence, which was something of a paraphrase of statements from a couple of sources, and as a presentation of the expansive scope that would serve as linkage to the subsection on the Constitution.

"The Tea Party movement is not easily defined, primarily because it comprises hundreds of groups at the grassroots level, of varying size, influence and priorities. It is highly factionalized, with no clear leadership or centralized structure. This is highlighted by the fact that it is not uncommon for different groups affiliating themselves with the movement to adopt disparate stances with respect to a given issue. Nonetheless, the generally consistent recourse to the Constitution across the movement with respect to various issues has helped facilitate scholarly examination of the movement."
 * "The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting Agendas... Yet within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party. This core is particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters.[26]"

Does anyone have any input regarding the viability of that first paragraph as far as the substance of the content is concerned? Any thoughts on the use of that blockquote in conjunction with the preceding sentence? Would such a combination allow for the paraphrased sentence to remain unsourced, based on the implicit support in sources?

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

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

The following are paragraphs relating to the Constitution from the paper Cultures of the Tea Party, pp. 7-8. "The TPM’s cultural work begins with the name itself: a nostalgic connection to the American Revolution's protest against taxation without representation. It can further be found in the TPM’s recurring cultural theme of returning to the ideals of the Constitution. Like the Tea Party name, this theme is selectively nostalgic; it encourages TPM members and the public to “return” to values claimed to have been lost. According to one Tea Party volunteer: “We don’t want the big government that’s taking over everything we worked so hard for…the government’s becoming too powerful… we want to take back what our Constitution said. You read the Constitution. Those values – that’s what we stand for.”" In our followup poll, 84% of those positive towards the TPM said the Constitution should be interpreted “as the Founders intended,” compared to only 34% of other respondents. Other respondents were also three times more likely not to have an opinion on the issue, highlighting the salience of the question for TPM supporters. Support for Constitutional principles is not absolute. TPM supporters were twice as likely than others to favor a constitutional amendment banning flag burning; many also support efforts to overturn citizenship as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. That TPM supporters simultaneously want to honor the founders’ Constitution and alter that same document highlights the political flexibility of the cultural symbols they draw on. "The TPM supporters’ inconsistent views of the Constitution suggests that their nostalgic embrace of the document is animated more by a network of cultural associations than a thorough commitment to the original text. In fact, such inconsistencies around policy, whether on the right or left, highlight what many sociologists see as the growing importance of culture in political life. The Constitution – and Tea Party more generally – take on heightened symbolic value and come to represent a ‘way of life’ or a “world view” rather than a specific set of laws or policy positions."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A paper by non-doctoral writers (no degrees shown for any of them, in fact) covering two contiguous southern states is scarcely significant enough to make the sweeping claims you wish to ascribe to it. In fact, a non-editorial reading finds that similar numbers of TPM supporters are authoritarian and libertarian -- which makes it really, really hard to make the conclusions you draw from it. Sorry -- not a strong scholarly source, and not broad enough in scope to make sweeping claims about an entire nation where only two adjacent sourthern states are considered. Collect (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They are all professors at their receptive Universities. I am sure they have at least submitted it for publication.  I will check to see if it is published yet today.  That said, more then strong enough to provide some sources for this article.Casprings (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No c.v.s were given with the article (which is what is usually done with published articles), and no indication that it was published in a scholarly journal. And a paper dealing with two contiguous southern states != a good source for national claims.  Collect (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First, Andrew Perrin, Associate Professor Ph.D, Unversity of California-Berkeley, 2001.
 * Second, I haven't made any claims. The text has been presented on another page, with a link to the pdf, so I read it and posted relevant passages here for consideration.
 * Why would you state that the authors are "non-doctoral" and ascribe claims to me that I haven't made?
 * Along with the sources quoted above by Xenophrenic and the sources I used in the revert-warred out version of the Constitution subsection, there should be ample material for drafting a solid section, without even resorting to news media sources, though such sources are not being excluded.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Checking out: Perrin is an "associate professor." Ditto Tepper. Caren is "assistant professor." Morris is a student. "All professors"? Not quite - and not submitted for publication that I can find. (noting that the above post was altered before I posted this in ec mode) Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, it appears that you have spoken too soon, before investigating the substance of the claims you make, this time in terms of publication. The article was published in a peer-reviewd journal called Contexts, in May 2001, and has been cited in two other articles appearing in peer reviewd journals ."Contexts, peer-reviewed and published quarterly"
 * Any other strategies of exclusion? By the way, what was the point of the "ec mode" comment? There is a 23 minute difference between posts.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That edit took a minute or so to complete after I got the ec message (I have to cut from the "your text" box, then insert it above in the "current" box in oder to make the edit -- and 4 minutes is an eeensy bit less that your claim of 23 minutes ... or is that a problem here?  was 4 minutes before my edit, the prior post was at 5 minutes before my edit - thus a double edit conflict for me - but your edits are not dated on the talk page)  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)Found it ... published by Sage ... but by Berry is likely a better source and much more nuanced in its wording.  Although they seem not to recall the Prohibition Movement which shares a lot of the same nature as the TPM, IMHO.  That movement also "took over" parties on a single issue basis.
 * We find that the lack of a centralized national organization with authority over chapters has had a profound impact on the ways in which state and local Tea Parties have mobilized and on the types of advocacy that have materialized.
 * Seems fairly on point here. And I suggest their findings that it is, if anything, a disorganization more than an organization is borne out by other sources.  And not based on a study of two states. (after initial try to post -- you seem hell-bent on attacking here -- I thought that was "off-limits" for damn sure.)  Collect (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have refuted the false assertions you've made, in succession. Not only did I address the content of the erroneous assertions, I asked you why you made two unfounded statements in your first comment, one of which falsely attributed me ascribing claims. After I asked that question, you made another false assertion.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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

Working draft of Agenda section (partial) with section on the Constitution
The response has been sparse and input very limited, so I've cobbled together some references and statements that have been proffered recently.

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

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

""

""

-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Before we get into it, there should be clarity on what this is proposed to replace. Only the constitution-related items? North8000 (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that basically that is the case. It starts from the beginning of the Agenda section, includes the first paragraph in its present form, adds a block quote that follows, adds a sentence on the Contract, and eliminates the current second paragraph, which is where the matter on the Constitution is at present.
 * I don't know whether there is anything to say in the opening regarding foreign policy, as it has been indicated that the main statements there seem to be of questionable significance, with the possible exception of Mead.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's still vague. Especially on whether it is seeking to get rid of the one description of the actual agenda which is the contract.  North8000 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This text would be for insertion preceding the Contract section. I tried to make that clear at the beginning, and added a sentence in the opening summarizing the Contract section, as the lead is supposed to do.
 * Silk Tork has called for trimming of those sections, but since that is pending, I have not included a summary of the Foreign policy section.
 * To make it even clearer, the above text is not meant to replace (or delete) the Contract and Foreign policy section, and that is also why it is referred to as "(partial)" in the section title.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

iVote on above proposals

 * Oppose This is entirely out of proportion for the article. The tea party movement is about fiscal reform. It did not begin with any issues with the constitution. As Silk Tork said, "No more making political statements. If you are more interested in grandstanding your political views, then this article is not for you. There is some serious encyclopaedic work that needs to be done in the next two weeks. I'd like to see folks focus on that." Plus, all the above really is, is an attempt to analyze a couple of law review articles and then graft that onto the Tea Party movement article. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose — See my repeated statements that academics are not better sources than the Tea Party organizations themselves. We have a policy for this. It's called WP:SELFSOURCE. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves ..." The statements by the Tea Party groups themselves are the most reliable source for their agenda and Ubikwit hasn't even mentioned these reliable sources in his proposed text. Nor has he given Elizabeth Foley the appropriate amount of WP:WEIGHT. Foley, an academic reliable source who had a lot to say on the matter, has been buried (and carefully not quoted) at the bottom of the proposed "Agenda" section with a few brief words mentioning that she talked about the subject, but carefully making no reference to what she actually said. It is as though Formisano, Schmidt and other academics who agree with Ubikwit's opinion of the Tea Party's agenda (a group of academics which pointedly excludes Foley) are to be considered reliable enough to mention in the article. I appreciate the amount of work Ubikwit has clearly devoted to this project, but it's badly misdirected and these vigorous efforts should be redirected into other productive, reliable sources on this topic. If and when Ubikwit's proposed section prominently includes Foley and the Tea Party groups themselves, and gives them the appropriate lion's share of the WP:WEIGHT, I will reconsider my "vote." Until that happens, please count me as Strongly opposed. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just one more point regarding the notion that I have given Foley short shrift, I haven't mentioned this source at all PROFILING ORIGINALISM, which is another legal scholar paper that is 63 pages long, and was referenced in the NYT article that is citation #1 in the article. The text I've sketched out above could be considered somewhat skeletal in relation to the amount of material in print in RS on the topic. We're talking about repealing three Amendments and adding one, and that has generated a due amount of response from experts in constitutional law and others.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * These proposed amendments are not even the core beliefs of the Tea Party. The core beliefs of the Tea Party are that (A) taxes are too high, (B) this deficit spending is outrageous and must be stopped, and (C) the national debt and our unfunded commitments to future entitlement spending are positively horrific, and something effective must be done about them. You are wasting far too much time and effort, and proposing the investment of far too much article space, on issues that are not even the real founding principles of the Tea Party. Please redirect your efforts. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose A few good pieces in there, but this is going way off track. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The text has to have a logical progression. I avoided going into detail on the Amendment proposals, adopting a summary style using quotes that were on a more conceptual level. The feeralist/libertaria agenda represents only a small portion of the significance of TPm stances on the Constitution, and the quote from Foley makes note of several points not mentioned elsewhere "Tea Party opposition to bailouts, stimulus packages and health-care reform is reflected in various proposals to amend the Constitution, including proposals to require a balanced budget...".
 * Why don't you post the primary source text you are interested in seeing in the Agenda section?
 * Reliably published sources do consider the TPm position on the Constitution to be an organizing principle, as per the quote from Schmidt in the opening.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not the core beliefs of the Tea Party? Nothing could be more integral than the Constitution to the core beliefs of the movement. The oft-quoted Tea Party Patriots list "Constitutionally Limited Government" as one of the three defining core values. The FreedomWorks 10-point agenda (ghostwritten by Hecker, and presently in our wikiarticle under Agenda) lists constitutionality of every law as their primary, #1, concern (and goes on to mention the Constitution in 4 of the top 5 concerns as well). The relevance of the Constitution to the movement needs to be adequately covered in the main article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not the core beliefs of the Tea Party? Nothing could be more integral than the Constitution to the core beliefs of the movement. The oft-quoted Tea Party Patriots list "Constitutionally Limited Government" as one of the three defining core values. Yes, excellent. Brilliant, in fact. Thank you so much for pointing that out. The "defining core value" that you quote does not say "Amending The Constitution." Nor does it say "Protecting The Constitution." It says "Constitutionally Limited Government," doesn't it? They're talking about the way the government should be run.
 * The FreedomWorks 10-point agenda ... lists constitutionality of every law as their primary, #1, concern ... Yes, thanks again, that's positively brilliant. Very insightful of you. Again, talking about the way they feel the government should be run. They're focusing on governing, and the way the government should understand its powers — more to the point, understand the constitutional limitations on those powers. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then we appear to be in agreement that the Tea Party's "Constitutionalism" is an integral, important and vital component of the movement, worthy of encyclopedic treatment in the article. We also agree that the stated (by TPPatriots) core values doesn't go into detail about amendments, or other details about what they think "Constitutionally Limited Government" entails. We have plenty of sources for that information, as outlined above. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On a related note, it isn't at all informative to simply state that the TPm is "against excessive taxation, excessive spending and excessive government overreach". That actually describes the sentiments of nearly every American, regardless of political stripe. Our article should inform the reader as to what distinguishes this "movement" from the rest of the Amrican populace. The devil is in the details: At what point, according to the TP, does taxation become excessive, or spending become wasteful, or government become too intrusive? And yes, at what point should the Constitution be revered as it was written, or instead be "popularily" interpreted? There is significant disagreement between the TPm and others on each of these points, and our article should explain the differences. Or, we could cite the Tea Party spokespeople and end up with an article that says only "We are about Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets!" —— which is about as vague and uninformative as possible. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Although they unfortunately don't say so, statements of agenda are actually: #1 Statements that those items are prioritized  #2 Statements that they feel that some change/ movement in that direction is needed.  Generally most agendas do not have the specificity on how far that movement should be.  North8000 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose after due consideration, using these sources for extended discussion in a section is of undue weight as most sources do not ascribe these issues as generally dispositive of the views of the disparate groups involved. Nor, in fact, do these sources make claims that the Constitution has a single view within the TPM as a group, nor that the views expressed by some subset of TPM supporters are held in any way by the TPM as a group.  Collect (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Although it remains unclear what this "voting" is about, the "oppose" votes seem to be opposing the inclusion of a section on the Constitution, regardless of the length. I propose that the substance of the text has yet to be discussed, and as at present there are two in favor of including the section, it merits discussing.
 * The following four quotes from the text demonstrate a common thread of constitutionalism articlulated to varying degrees and ascribed it to the Tea Party or Tea Partiers as a whole, across groups. I would be interested in more discussion addressing each of the sources in terms of WP:DUE/UNDUE, and WP:WEIGHT. It might be worthwhile to introduce primary source statements and see if corollaries or contrasts can be drawn, etc. Meanwhile, one would assume that reliably published secondary source academic analysis stands on its own.
 * ...there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party…the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters.
 * Tea Party opposition to bailouts, stimulus packages and health-care reform is reflected in various proposals to amend the Constitution
 * The central tenets of Tea Party constitutionalism can be distilled down to four basic assumptions.
 * Tea Party activists have invoked the Constitution as the foundation of their conservative political philosophy. These activists are engaged in “popular originalism,”
 * Tea Partiers' constitutional originalism. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is opposed to in-depth constitutional content. Just not a mashup of excerpts with no rhyme or reason or trying to define "popular originalism." And even that (coining a new term) I'm open to provided we keep it small and don't try to promote its stature to lead-worthy material. There's some good stuff above like the four basic assumptions, but also useless stuff like the sociologists' view of constitutional originalism. †TE†  Talk  14:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good! I don't think that the coining of that term needs to be in lead--which is partly why I went with " a version of constitutional originalism" in the lead, but I do think it is notable and deserves a brief explication, as I don't think it's very common for such terms to be coined in the legal field.
 * I would agree that the connection of he sociologist passage is weak, but I included it as it does share a common thread with the other sources. I think that would fit better under academic commentaries.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a "version of originalism." It is originalism. I've suggested an originalist adherence to, or originalist interpretation of the Constitution which has yet to get feedback. Makes the most sense to me. †TE†   Talk  15:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason I qualified that was that the sources above contrast TPm constitutional originalism and popular constitutionalism with the precursors to the originalism the TPm embodies. There is significance in the fact that the sources do that. Originalism is an interpretive methodology, one among several, including Living_Constitution. The wikipedia article on Originalism describes several forms of it that have been advocated over since the term became accepted parlance. To some degree, I think Schmidt's four basic assumptions also draws attention to the fact that there is something somewhat novel in the combination of the four, and that would seem to relate, at least obliquely, to the following contrast drawn by Zietlow"...originalism is resistant to change in constitutional meaning, scholars who advocate originalism tend to be politically conservative or libertarian. On the other end of the spectrum are scholars who advocate popular constitutionalism. Perhaps because many of the successful political movements that have engaged in popular constitutionalism have been progressive, scholars who study popular constitutionalism tend to be liberal or progressive. If you substitute 'scholars' with 'adherents', the contrast between people espousing a combination of these somewhat opposite schools of thought appears."
 * With regard to the suggested wordings an originalist adherence to, or originalist interpretation of the Constitution, the former might be workable, but the later seems too static insofar as it posits an "interpretation", making the act of interpreting something that occurred in the past.
 * Even with originalism, people have to study the document and interpret it, so the interpretive horizon should be kept open, not stated in terms of being predetermined. The wikipedia article states, in relation to the two main theories of originalism, "original intent" and "original meaning""Both of these theories share the view that there is an authority, contemporaneous with a constitution's or statute's ratification, which should govern its interpretation; the divisions relate to what exactly that authority is: the intentions of the authors or the ratifiers, or the original meaning of the text."
 * That's part of the rationale for referring to it as an interpretive methodology, or something to that effect. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Step back and take a breather. You are waaay over-thinking it. As I said, it's originalism. There's no there there. It's an umbrella term, but a rather specific one. As for adherence vs. interpretation, the latter would be the absolute correct usage. Adherence was just an attempt to inch closer to the "strict adherence" text in an attempt at consensus. I truly don't care for it and wouldn't support it over interpretation. †TE†   Talk  18:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

comments on ivote
This vote is premature (I stated above that a vote would be called after the text was presentable) in relation to a working draft awaiting input and comment; however, I welcome your comments on Foley and any other constructive, collegial input. 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 and this Repeal_Amendment, 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  連絡見学/迷惑 15:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Enough mention is already made about the constitution. It's not a central issue, and can't be discussed without the fiscal goals. Plus, the paragraph you suggest for the "agenda" section is entirely OR and is contradictory to the constitution section you propose. On the one hand you say they're all disparate with different agendas, but then the constitution section is presented and suggests tea partiers are all right wing religious nuts with an obsession for the constitution. Doesn't make any sense. Plus, huge walls of text with block quotes suggests to me a lack of understanding of the topic. When a writer can't paraphrase something and relies on block quotes instead, it usually means a lack of understanding of the topic to begin with. The fiscal goals were the reason the tea party came into existence. That is the 'agenda' item that can be appropriately given this much weight. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense. Schmidt has described the scenario in a very apt manner. The TPm consists of various factionalized groups, each espousing separate agendas, and the only points on which they consistently overlap is in relation to their recourse to the Constitution and the common disposition toward the Constitution. Accordingly, examining the TPm's pronouncements on the Constitution has been taken up as an effective way to analyze the agenda of the movement as a whole.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 10:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Foley text is relatively short ... Put her at the top of the section, with the same space and weight that you're giving Formisano. Focus on what she says about Tea Party agenda items that actually relate to the reasons that the Tea Party exists: out of control deficit spending, taxes, the national debt. Put Formisano at the bottom, with the same space and weight you're currently giving Foley. (Formisano is most likely biased against the Tea Party. I've already linked his op-ed columns.) Then on the front end of the whole thing, before Foley, summarize the agenda statements of both the Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party Express, with links to those webpages. That would be an excellent starting point for any future discussion of this section. I told you already that this section is a minefield, and you've already stepped on several landmines. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The section is already rather long, and there is much material that I have left out ... Also, note that I have further suggested that a subarticle may be in order due to the amount of material published on this topic ... 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)
 * Upon reflecting on the content of the quote from Foley, it dawned on me that putting her at the beginning of the section was advantageous insofar as it jibes very well with the introductory paragraph, directly tying together the issue of Amendments and the TPm agenda. I decided to try and group the commentary by academic discipline and adopt a logical progression moving from more concrete analysis to more abstract.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I say we break off into pairs to do these sub-articles and sections. You down? I call dibs Academic analysis, which I'm beginning to believe will be separate from Perceptions. Only problem is that studies are poll-based, and polls are perception. I just don't see how can fit everything into the summary section of Perceptions. Also like the idea of Malke's to move all protest details into Tea Party protests, which will be repurposed into a sub-article (and summarized in TPM). All the "incidents" are already in Protests where they truly belong. Not in Perceptions. †TE†   Talk  22:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree that perceptions is not the place for high level research and analysis, which probably belongs in the Commentaries section. Along with the subsection for Obama administration commentary, there could be a subsection for academic. I've mentioned earlier that the reference to the article by Fukuyama would probably fit there.
 * 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  連絡見学/迷惑 09:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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. In fact, moving the misplaced Incidents out of Perceptions will go a long way to making room for Academic studies. I'll just go ahead and make clear my preference that we not separate Academic studies from Perceptions unless absolutely necessary. †TE†   Talk  11:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Working draft 2 of only "The Constitution" subsection
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. Meanwhile, the Perrin paper's relation to the Constitution is more focused on the sociology of the movement and the role the Constitution plays in the ethos of the movement, etc., so I would think papers such as that and the Fukuyama paper could be treated in the Commentaries section, creating a subsection for the Obama administration commentaries and a subsection for scholarly commentary.

There is some overlap in Schmidt's excellent paper, so I have removed a paragraph derived from that and related comment, as he also has more to say on the topic than can adequately be covered here.

""

-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Party movement and the Constitution
(for discussion only)


 * Several articles linking some parts of the movement to positions about the Constitution have been published, linking the desire for limited government to related Constitutional issues.


 * Professor Elizabeth Price Foley states:


 * Tea Party opposition to bailouts, stimulus packages and health-care reform is reflected in various proposals to amend the Constitution, including proposals to require a balanced budget, repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, and give states a veto power over federal laws (the so-called Repeal Amendment).[16]


 * The "constitutionalism" seen by some in the Tea Party generally refers to a belief that the Founding Fathers views provide insight into interpretation of that document. Second, that the language of the Constitution is clear to the general public.  Third, that the public and the government has a duty to abide by the Constitution.[17]


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


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

Which I trust removes some of the "religious" analogues placed there, and tightens the actual claims a lot. Collect (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the anlalogies to religions is a discussion that needs to be had.


 * I think that there are two basic components to the analogies: first, a comparison of central authority (i.e., the federal government) versus decentralized (states's rights, the Repeal Amendment); and second, the relationship of originalism ("textualism" is also mentioned somewhere, but not quoted) to biblical literalism with respect to the mode of interpreting the Constitution.


 * At present, I haven't had the time to finish reading the Schmidt paper to see if he ties the issues of Protestant decentralization and constitutional originalism to the agenda of the TPm vis-a-vis the federal government, but it wouldn't surprise me if he does, considering that he addresses the work of Codevilla fairly early on. I also haven't read the Formisano and Skocpol books--or any other, for that matter--so if others who have would be so kind as to comment...


 * In the meantime, I would find the removal of the "four basic assumptions" described by Schmidt and the additional brief explanation by Zietlow to be somewhat objectionable, as they don't involve religious analogies, but do clarify aspects for the reader.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to research the religious comparisons to the constitution, nor am I confident we can add them without risk of spinning off topic, but Schmidt has my support on the four basic assumptions. †TE†   Talk  14:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I found only 3 really -- the fourth is implicit in the first -- that it, it states what the TPm views as the views of the Founding Fathers. I suppose redundancy can be repeated a few times again, but I rather think the three points cover the gist of the matter.  If we use a quote, we are stuck with four, but I find the shorter wording pretty clear here.  Collect (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, then I'll default to you because if I downloaded Schmidt it's buried in a bunch of untitled pdf's which are difficult to navigate. Bad habits are hard to break. †TE†   Talk  14:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Schmidt source is the most comprehensive source I've seen available online. I would highly recommend downloading it. I'm going to post something in response to Silk Tork's challenge for a couple of paragraphs shortly that is sourced almost exclusively to Schmidt, with an additional primary source reference to the Contract for America website for good measure. If you get a hold of that, then maybe we can make some headway, collaborative like.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not find the religious analogues to be common in articles on the topic at all, and thus the consideration of the weight to be given your favoured sources is quite up for discussion. As for your desire to make this a long section where most articles do not stress the "constitutionalism issue" at all seems outré, alas.  Generally where only a few sources make a given point, that point is not given major coverage in Wikipedia articles.  The goal is to reach WP:CONSENSUS and not to add every source desired by any editor.  Collect (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is true our founding documents are almost regarded as scripture, but I wouldn't know where to begin in addressing it. The Protestant vs. Catholic stuff is a Zeichen 267 - Verbot der Einfahrt, StVO 1970.svg in my book. †TE†   Talk  14:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a taboo area for a lot of people, I would imagine, but here, Schmidt, who is a professor of law at Harvard, draws on the work of Levin, another professor of law at a university in Texas, in making the analogies. Formisano is another professor that draws and the analogy.
 * I will try to get through more of the Schmidt paper to see where he takes that, and whether he has anything further to say specifically on the agenda, as he is one of the few sources that I have scene that specifically addresses the TPm "agenda(s)".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Working on Agenda section
Lead paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


 * Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Contract for America was the most widely discussed /determined agenda within the TPM and thus I believe the most accurate and representative. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal of Contract from America. It's one of the only things in the article actually about the Tea Party movement agenda. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not called for the removal of the section, just trimming, summarizing it in accord with the above-posted paragraph by Silk Tork, which says"The Contract from America subsection has a list of 10 items which appears to be more about Contract from America than the Tea Party movement. On looking at Contract from America, it appears that almost all of that article is copied into the Agenda section. This looks like the Contract from America subsection could be trimmed by summarising the Contract from America article, and that would help readers to understand the relationship between the two. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)"-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In this case, to a certain extent I agree with Ubikwit. This is the top-level article and it is possible that summarizing the Contract from America is the best way to go. It's a fairly old document by Tea Party standards. One thing I must caution against is any attempt by people who are outside the Tea Party, including academics, to have the defining word on what constitutes the "Tea Party agenda." .... But especially in the "Agenda" area, such accounts must be treated as no better than equals of what the Tea Partiers are saying about their own agenda. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Trimming the Contract from America section. I had thought I'd simply delete the list of points (er, planks) and copy edit the text, but once I started checking the sources, it became apparent that, once again, there are issues that need to be addressed beforehand.

First of all, the entire first paragraph is unsourced. The first paragraph of the main article on the CfA is sourced to this NTY article, which is short and doesn't contain much of the information in that paragraph. In fact, much of that information appears to be lifted and paraphrased from the "About" page of the website "The Contract from America". Does that represent a prohibited form of use of a primary source?

Moreover, one of the following quotes from that page claims that Hecker is a Tea Party activist, but the background to that affiliation is unclear."The Contract from America is a grassroots-generated, crowd-sourced, bottom-up call for real economic conservative and good governance reform in Congress.""The Contract from America initiative was developed within the decentralized tea party and 912 movements. Ryan Hecker, a Houston Tea Party Society activist, developed the concept of creating a grassroots-generated call for reform prior to the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party rallies.""The Contract from America website was launched on September 1, 2009...the final Contract from America, was unveiled at tea parties around the country on April 15, 2010.""Adam Brandon, Max Pappas, and Tabitha Hale of FreedomWorks have been instrumental in helping organize and unite a broad-based coalition of grassroots organizations, new media outlets, and public policy experts behind the Contract from America, as have Adam Radman with Americans for Tax Reform, Andrew Moylan with National Taxpayers’ Union, Ginni Thomas with Liberty Central, Adam Waldeck with American Solutions, and Lori Roman with Regular Folks United."

Silk Tork commented on helping readers understand the relationship between the TPm and the CfA."On looking at Contract from America, it appears that almost all of that article is copied into the Agenda section. This looks like the Contract from America subsection could be trimmed by summarising the Contract from America article, and that would help readers to understand the relationship between the two."Considering that the website claims he is a TPm activist but wikipedia has no mention of that, there would appear to be a gap that needs to be filled.The Contract from America subsection has a list of 10 items which appears to be more about Contract from America than the Tea Party movement.

Another source from the main CfA article, and ABC News piece entitles "Tea Party Activists Craft 'Contract from America'", descrcribes Hecker as a TPm activist, and includes the following passages."Republicans on Capitol Hill are developing an election-year alternative to the Obama administration's agenda. But a Tea Party activist in Texas says the politicians in Washington - including the out-of-power Republicans - don't have the 'credibility' to offer a contract.""He says he came up with the contract idea shortly after Barack Obama was elected president in November 2008. Hecker, a 29-year old lawyer from Houston, spent the 2008 GOP primaries working as an opposition researcher for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign. ABC news"

So the question I have is, what is the relationship between the Contract for America and the TPm? From the above, it would seem that Hecker was a TPm activist, and the Contract a product of the TPm.

The Houston Tea Part Society website contains no information on its founding, etc. Their facebook page states "Founded in February 2009", when you click on the timeline link for "Founded". But there are no entries to the page until 1 January 2010].

Meanwhile, another primary source, the website for Freedomworks contain the following"FreedomWorks for America is proud to announce the addition of Ryan Hecker as Chief Operating Officer and Treasurer of the Super PAC. Previously a Houston attorney at Vinson & Elkins LLP, Ryan Hecker was also heavily involved in the Tea Party movement both locally and nationally."

"Hecker served as a board member of the Houston Tea Party Society and the Chief Organizer of the Contract from America, a grassroots, bottom-up fiscal conservative reform plan signed by over 80 current Senators and Congressmen and over 300 Senate and House candidates."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 07:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A check of the Zietlow paper turned up one relevant mention of "agenda", and a footnote linked to another paper with multiple mentions of the TPm agenda. I don't have time to examine them closely at the moment, but thought someone else might want to take a look.

Schmidt p.6 Any social movement that attempts to place the Constitution at the center of its reform agenda faces a basic challenge: To locate ways in which movement participants can actively participate in debates about the meaning of the Constitution and its role in American life. For this reason, it is important to consider those aspects of the Tea Party movement that have addressed the challenges inherent in popular constitutional engagement. The Tea Party’s constitutional vision is designed to be mobilized. The core elements of the Tea Party Constitution are relatively easily grasped and they readily lend themselves to translation into tangible political action. Tea Party constitutionalism challenges its adherents to do more than just passively accept its basic tenets. There is, as observers and participants in the movement regularly note, something bout Tea Party constitutionalism that is akin to a fundamentalist religious revivalism, with the text of the Constitution serving the role of scripture.8 Tea Party leaders encourage supporters to internalize the core principles of the Tea Party Constitution, and then to act to ensure that these principles are acknowledged and accepted by others, particularly those in power.

Schmidt, p.14 While textualism and originalism are distinguishable as methodologies of constitutional interpretation, the version of textualism that one finds in the Tea Party tends to conflate the two. The reason the words of the document must be elevated above all else—above subsequent interpretations of the text, even by the highest court in the land; above established political practice; above settled societal assumptions about the Constitution—is because these words are the product of a particular moment of insight and inspiration. By taking the words seriously, by reading them according to their plain meaning, one is expressing fidelity not only to a document, but to a generation of past Americans who, quite simply, knew more about the principles of liberty and power than any generation since. In this way, textualism and originalism join as a common project, both reinforced by the more general assumption that we are a society in decline, with the Constitution providing a beacon of redemption.

Schmidt, p. 20 Tea Party Patriots, a national umbrella organization of the movement: “We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent.” Mission Statement, TEA PARTY PATRIOTS,

Schmidt, p. 26-7 But the Tea Party’s embrace of these state-level projects of resistance to federal policy is significant not only because of the way they align with the movement’s constitutional vision, but also because they provide an arena for constitutionally driven political activism that offers near-term, feasible targets and the possibility of occasional victories… Even if these campaigns are often dismissed as merely symbolic, the states nonetheless provide a powerful forum for ongoing popular mobilization of the Tea Party’s constitutional agenda.

Schmidt, pp. 27-8 ...The nonbinding “10th Amendment Resolution.”99 It includes some rather prosaic Tea Partyesque rhetoric—a statement that sovereignty resides in the people, not the government; the text of the Tenth Amendment; a reference to unnamed federal “powers, too numerous to list for the purposes of this resolution” that “infringe on the sovereignty of the people of this state” and may be unconstitutional.100 It also includes some stronger language—a demand that the federal government “cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally delegated powers”... The next step of the Tea Party’s state-level constitutional project has been the passage of state laws aimed at nullifying specific federal regulatory policies.

10th Amendment Resolution, TENTH AMENDMENT CENTER,

Schmidt, p. 30-31 ...Some of the proposed constitutional revisions, such as repealing the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments (providing, respectively, for a federal income tax and the direct election of senators), are easily justified as in line with the larger Tea Party project of revitalizing lost constitutional principles.112 Tea Party groups have also rallied behind a proposal called the “Repeal Amendment,” which is intended to empower the states so as to, according to its advocates, return the state-federal balance back to its proper constitutional foundations. …One target has been the Sixteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1913 and gave Congress the power to directly tax income. Libertarians have long argued that the most effective way to limit the size of the federal government would be to limit its revenue-raising capacity. Congressman Ron Paul, who has become a kind of godfather of the Tea Party,113 has long called for repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and his son, Rand Paul, now U.S. Senator from Kentucky, has also called for its repeal.115 “This single change,” Randy Barnett has written about the effort to repeal the income tax power, “would strike at the heart of unlimited federal power and end the costly and intrusive tax code.

Another Progressive Era target of the Tea Party is the Seventeenth Amendment, under which members of the Senate are selected through statewide elections rather than being appointed by state legislatures, as required in the Constitution of 1787.

Zietlow p.5

The popular originalism of the conservative Tea Party movement is thus particularly intriguing because of the counterintuitive nature of its political agenda from the perspective of constitutional theory.12 The footnote is to a a number of sources, including: Albert, “THE CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICS OF THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT”

Somin, “THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT AND POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM” 

Somin p. 3

There are some obvious commonalities between these movements and the Tea Party. First, and most important, all of the movements listed above argued that major elements of their agenda were not only prudent and just, but mandated by the Constitution. While arguing that that federal power should be rolled back for policy reasons, Tea Party activists also contend that the federal government has exceeded constitutional limits on its power.11

Somin pp. 7-8

Another possible way to gauge the degree of political knowledge in the Tea Party movement is to consider 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, thereby eliminating the requirement that senators be popularly elected. If these proposals turn out to be particularly foolish or obviously based on misinformation, that would be some indication that the Tea Party agenda is the product of greater-than-average levels of political ignorance.

Somin p. 9

One can argue about whether the ideas embraced by the Tea Party movement are correct or not. But its agenda is not driven by voter ignorance among Tea Party supporters above and beyond that which exists throughout the electorate as a whole.

Somin p. 13

The Tea Party ―Contract From America, perhaps the most widely publicized statement of the movement’s agenda, includes no social conservative proposals among its ten points, and does not even mention such issues as immigration, gay marriage, or abortion.65

Somin p. 14

To the extent that the Tea Party movement succeeds in focusing right-wing populist energy on limiting the power of government, it makes it less likely that the current economic crisis will lead to the rise of a much more dangerous right-wing populist agenda. Even opponents of the Tea Party’s limited government agenda should welcome this aspect of its activism. ...Given the virtual inevitability that a right-wing populist movement of some kind would emerge during the current recession, this should be considered a positive development even by people on the left who otherwise dislike the Tea Party agenda. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment
Please focus on one item at a time. Don't make or get drawn into political commentary or views of the Tea party, or opinions on people who have written about the Tea Party, or arguments or opinions about other editors. Don't start a new discussion on editing a different part of the article until the current discussion is finished. Focus on the current discussion only. A few days discussion on one section should be able to result in some edits actioned on that section. Can folks please do some research for reliable sources commenting on the agenda of the Tea Party, and suggest content in the form of sentences or paragraphs. If someone (anyone) can put down a suggested paragraph or two here in green in the next 48 hours I will be a very happy man, and will hand out a barnstar. And I don't want objections to the suggested paragraph. I want improvements and amendments. Either suggested improvements, or directs amendments to the paragraph(s) in green, in a new version below the previous version> example:


 * 1) {{ex|The agenda of the Tea Party movement is that it advocates protection of the work of the founding fathers of the United States,[1]} reducing U.S. government spending and taxes,[2][3] and reducing the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.[2]}}
 * 2) {{ex|The Tea Party movement's agenda concerns protection of and upholding the original aims of the Constitution,[1]} reducing U.S. government spending and taxes,[2][3] and reducing the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.[2]}}
 * 1) {{ex|The agenda of the Tea Party movement is that it advocates protection of the work of the founding fathers of the United States,[1]} reducing U.S. government spending and taxes,[2][3] and reducing the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.[2]}}
 * 2) {{ex|The Tea Party movement's agenda concerns protection of and upholding the original aims of the Constitution,[1]} reducing U.S. government spending and taxes,[2][3] and reducing the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.[2]}}

Each change, addition or amendment goes under the previous one. And number them, so it makes it easier to refer to them in discussions.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Grammatically "the agenda of ... is" is strange. So try:

1. How does this one sound? Collect (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reduced government spending and reduce the deficit is a goal. But I'm not sure about literal adherence. I read an article the other day that says there's a belief that at the time of the revolution, anonymously written pamphlets were put out supporting the overthrow of British rule, and that the first amendment right to free speech came out of that. So would a literal interpretation mean you can put out all the anonymous pamphlets you want advocating the overthrow of the government? No, you can't. I don't think anybody here really understands the issue sufficiently, nor are we required to understand it on that level. Law review articles are written for lawyers and legal scholars. We need a generic term that defines it simply without walls of undue text. Just a sentence should do it. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Incorporating the concerns Malke and Collect have just expressed: Use the fourth example, change "concerns" to "advocates" and "aims" to "purposes," add the phrase "in limiting the powers of government" after "Constitution," and remove the words "protection of and," since what immediately follows is a restatement:

2.
 * Thoughts and comments, please. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

3.

4.


 * The agenda section could have mention of the deficit, etc. It's best kept simple for the average reader with accessible citations that can explain details further if the reader wants more.

Malke 2010 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

*Comment: Yes, P&W has it best. I'd not keep mentioning U.S. It's understood that they're talking about the United States Constitution. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

5.

Malke 2010 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

6(a).

-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:36, 22 June 2013; 12:37, 24 June 2013‎(UTC)


 * The 17th amendment relates to current elections of senators by popular vote as opposed to appointments by state legislators trying to restore accountability to the state. You're referring to the sixteenth amendment. The 14th amendment is absolutely critical to the protection of our civil liberties from state laws. It would be about repealing specific parts of it. Also, states laws can't "nullify" federal laws. That term has special meaning and the states can only challenge laws in federal courts on the grounds of their constitutionality. The Repeal Amendment would give the states power to repeal federal law and regulations, but focusing on state elections alone won't get a constitutional amendment passed, obviously. I also have trouble accepting the constitution as being the absolute core of TPM's agenda. That just doesn't bear true as I understand it. Nor does talk of the "Tea Party's interpretation[5] of the Constitution" (after declaring it largely originalist) being the vehicle used to "achieve" their "goals". I wonder if we shouldn't just seek the help of constitutional wikipedians to see if that can't better present this limited text. †TE†   Talk  17:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops, made a mistake with that number. I just revised that, thanks.
 * All of the statements above are sourced to the stellar paper by Dr. Schmidt, to whom we are indebted. Not a single remark can't be sourced to that document, and the use of "reform agenda" by Schmidt is supported by the webpage of the CfA.
 * The only possible problem might be the phrasing "Tea Party's interpretation of the Constitution" to which you point. I included that on the basis of a statement by Schmidt on p. 6 that"Tea Party leaders encourage supporters to internalize the core principles of the Tea Party Constitution, and then to act to ensure that these principles are acknowledged and accepted by others, particularly those in power."
 * Numerous times he refers to the "Tea Party's constitutional agenda" or the "Tea Party's constitutional vision". He specifically refers to educational outreach efforts with respect to the Constitution as well, and since the repeal of Amendments and the like is encompassed in that, I'm assuming that Schmidt has analyzed their respective positions and that is the meaning to which he is referring by the phrase "Tea Party's Constitution".
 * I think it would be highly beneficial to this endeavor if people could at least download that readily available source and input their views where appropriate.

-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll look it over later today, but I think the problem is interpretation of sources. Personally, I still feel uneasy about speaking in constitutional terms and I have a decent understanding of them. On the Tea Party vision -- If it's considered originalist (which is true), we ride with that. Or else awkward and confusing. †TE†   Talk  18:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's best to speak in general terms. And also to stay aware that there's no centralized tea party movement and no central agenda. Perhaps we should stop using the word "agenda." And I recommend not using terms such as "targeting, tact, advocates." These create POV slants. Too many specifics will only blanket all the various tea party groups. Just because the writers in otherwise reliable sources choose to lump them all together with the phrase, "The tea partiers," or "The tea party movement does xyz," doesn't mean we have to do the same. This is an encyclopedia, afterall. And it is for the average reader. It's not for legal scholars. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of the other papers are also very good, but Schmidt's paper is of a different scale; even some of his footnotes pointing to other references and delimiting the scope of his own paper, et., would seem sourceable. For example, here's a footnote from page 2."In this Article I do not take on the difficult and important question of how to actually define the Tea Party. While there are nationally oriented Tea Party organizations, such as FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Patriots, the Tea Party has no central organizational apparatus. In order to engage with the Tea Party’s constitutional agenda, I focus on the positions and actions taken by people who, for the most part, explicitly align themselves with the Tea Party movement. What I have identified as the central tenets of Tea Party constitutionalism are almost uniformly present in the mission statements of local Tea Party groups and in the published manifestos by Tea Party leaders."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, read it and admittedly my eyes glazed over during the religious stuff. You are mistaken that all statements above were sourced to the paper. Not that they aren't true or unsourceable. The 14th amendment was buried in a footnote for one. And as I mentioned, full repeal would never be an option. Then there's the entire first sentence. I still don't see the constitution being the absolute core of the movement, but one of many blocks in the foundation. I believe the author would agree. Totally wrong on nullification was I, but like Schmidt, see those actions as symbolic. The real teeth is in refusal to allocate state resources in the enforcement of certain federal laws like done in the sanctuary states for illegal immigrants, or recent marijuana legalization. All goes to show that great care must be taken while disseminating sources. †TE†   Talk  23:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, now we're talking!
 * Yes the Fourteenth is in a footnote, but as you note, it is also sourceable elsewhere. But note, too, that I didn't focus any discussion on that, just listed it as an agenda item in its taxonomical category, so to speak. I'm no expert, but I would be inclined to agree with you that it wouldn't be implementable. I also didn't go into detail here about the Seventeenth Amendment, as I think the state-federal power issue was adequately covered without directly addressing the related Amendment.
 * It's fine if you have a POV that the Constitution is not the absolute core of the movement, but you would acknowledge that Schmidt's POV is such that the Constitution is at the center of the TPm agenda, I gather. Correct?
 * I haven't seen many direct mentions of the "agenda" in the limited number of sources to which I have access, so supporting other POVs might be a task. And note that Frmisano, skocpol, Foley and Zietlow also put a lot of weight on the Constitution.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The other POVs are the ones looking at the Tea Party as it relates to the constitution, being presented here as if their agenda only relates to the constitution. This mustn't be lost in the formation of an Agenda section. We are still talking about their political agenda, right? I'm having trouble keeping track of it with all the other constitutional stuff being posted. †TE†   Talk  14:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow the comment, but I can venture a response. The agenda of the TPm is political: it aims at government reform. That is asserted on the website of the Contract from America, a primary source, and confirmed in the secondary source by Schmidt.
 * In earlier versions of the lead for the Agenda section, I stated that the agenda of the TPm has been explicated with respect to its positions vis-a-vis the Constitution. Here, following Silk Tork's examples, I simply listed the most salient points of the agenda first, and then measures the TPm has called for to achieve those goals, which are related to the Constitution on two levels. Those levels are the popular originalism that they attempt to inculcate in supports, which is educational and supports mobilization, and the other relates to the Amendments and other concrete proposals for reform. The state-level initiatives are peripheral to the constitutional issues insofar as they relate to limiting the power of the federal government and increasing the power of the states, which is in turn related to the 17th Amendment.
 * It is likely that the agenda of any political movement calling for repealing three Amendments and enacting another would be subjected to close scrutiny with respect to such proposals. Zietlow specifically mentions the "political agenda" of the TPm. That quote is contained in the hatted online references section. Moreover, the first sentence of the paper by Albert (link in hatted sources section) states"The Tea Party movement and its constitutional vision for the United States is perhaps the hottest topic in American public law today."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I see one problem -- the sources do not ascribe "repealing three amendments" to the TPM as a group - but only to some subset thereof.  It is the concept that every position taken by some subset of a group is ascribable to the entire group which is a problem as far as I can tell.   And where one does so ascribe every such position held by a subset to the entire set, one is pushing the limits of SYNTH to an extreme.  Cheers.  We would be far better off stating clearly that positions are held by a subset where it is clear that the positions are held by a subset of the group. Collect (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I see a couple of problems with that view. And I hope that we are not transgressing the rules on this moderated page by discussing policy.

First, academics are professional researchers that are permitted to do what wikipedia editors are prohibited from doing with respect to WP:SYNTH. They analyze real world scenarios and make synthetic statements about their observations, which are the reliably published as secondary sources. It would seem that the statements of authors in reliably published secondary sources should not be held to the WP:SYNTH policy; here, WP:RS would seem the applicable policy.

Second, some of the papers do specifically mention examining the publicized agendas of major TPm groups, such as TP Patriots, Freedomworks, Contract from America, etc., and can be seen to apply the same evaluative criteria articulated in WP:WEIGHT when evaluating their real world subjects. Others address their discussion at "Tea Partiers" or the "Tea Party", which would seem to be intent on proffering a description that encompasses the entirety of the movement.

In conclusion, I feel to see how wikipedia could say anything at all about the TPm as a whole were the "subset" suggested prescribed, as the reliably published authors do not generally focus their analysis on subsets, but the movement as a whole, at times referring to a primary source or the like from one group as representative of a statement made in relation to the whole, etc. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, these authors are precisely describing a subset of the Tea Party Movement, the "Tea Party constitutionalism" as described by Schmidt. Or popular originalism as described by so and so. Or just plain originalism, an originalist interpretation, described by all of the above during their arguments. This interests them. They want to talk about the historic implications as they relate to their particular fields of study. Drawing comparisons to other movements which cultivated popular constitutionalism. Especially given the right-wing position of the Tea Party. †TE†   Talk  16:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are comparisons made to historical precedents, yes, as that is necessary to provide context. Schmidt compares reading the Constitution out loud in Congress, for example, to FDR fireside chats focused on cultivating a broader interest and understanding of the Constitution among citizens.
 * On the other hand, Schmidt refers specifically to the "reform agenda", and Zietlow to the "political agenda".
 * Concrete proposals, as in policy proposals toward achieving political objectives, are discussed with respect to the context provided, and beyond.
 * But this discussion seems to be drifting of course from the stated objective and posting of .-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone is free to begin posting the Tea Party's political agenda in green text, except those under punitive topic bans. Perhaps we can refocus our attention to the Agenda section. †TE†   Talk  16:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Page break for convenience 1
I suggest we restrict ourselves to a narrow interpretation of the TPm, and thus restrict ourselves only to asserting that positions generally true for the entire set be given, and not get bogged down in positions held by varying subsets - which may, n some cases, be distinctly a minority of the entire set. Collect (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with TE and Collect. Also, I'd like some clarification from Silk Tork on exactly what we're doing here. The edit seems to focus on the constitution but should the agenda section be dominated by it? And what about other issues like fiscal policies, and do we keep or delete the foreign policy? It doesn't appear to be TPm related. Palin seems to talk about the TP but she's not a TP leader/member, so don't know why she's mentioned in the agenda, let alone has a photo. It might be better to have a photo of Jenny Beth Martin who is the national director of the Tea Party Patriots. Not an expert, just saying. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There are certainly TP agenda items that have varying levels of support in the movement. As noted in the Schmidt source, "The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting agendas, some quite pedestrian, others the disturbing offspring of right-wing conspiracists." Core agenda positions with the widest support across the movement should be given more weight, and one of those is certainly the movement's constitutionalism. Schmidt cites this as a constant across the movement, "Within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, however, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party, a core particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters." FreedomWorks (and Armey and Kibbe) agree, "First and foremost, the Tea Party movement is concerned with recovering constitutional principles in government." Whether protesting TARP and the bailouts, or the Affordable Care Act, the first justification given for the protests is always that the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority. Even so, other visible agenda points shouldn't be overwhelmed by the constitutional aspects - I'll see if I can condense some of that. (Specifics about repealing Obamacare, Agenda 21, illegal immigration should be added between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs.) Xenophrenic (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree, the other items must be included. And we should also look at Schmidt's sources. What is the basis for his drawing these conclusions. Also, we should keep the starting para that says there is wide variation but in general they support xyz. Also, on the illegal immigration, there needs be mention that that is getting sorted by the tea party elected reps. And I noticed in one source that the Tea party Patriots said immigration wasn't "in their wheelhouse." But they do support secure borders. The secure borders bit should be mentioned. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In order to make progress toward consensus, it would seem that stating only what RS ascribe to the TPm in general and constraining the scope here to a general overview focused on concrete aspect would be most likely to succeed. The quote used in the opening from Schmidt in earlier versions is very well composed, but the bottom line (the conclusion arrived at in that quote), was that the stable ideological core was to be found with respect to the positions on the Constitution. The quote from Foley below (version 7) has a high degree of affinity with the statement by Schmidt, basically indicating that they have arrived at a similar conclusion through their respective analysis.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 19:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

6(b).

Xenophrenic (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Alas - the error is in ascribing such specifics to an amorphous group - the bit about "nullifying" Amendments bit is clearly only from a small subset of the TPm, as are the claims of "originalism" which has been discussed above,  and the "repeal amendment" which I can not find any source making it a core position of the whole set at all.  Thus my query - ought we ascribe positions of small subsets to the entire set?  AFAICT, the core belief is that taxes are quite sufficiently high, and that is the major unifying "agendum" for the movement.  All the rest is ascribing any view found from anyone who says that they support the TPM and ascribing that mélange to the entire movement.  I demur that such is proper.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The agenda issues are discussed across multiple RS that ascribe them to the entire movement, making coverage of those compliant with WP:DUE.
 * 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.
 * I and look forward to seeing the material on health care and Agenda 21, as I think we will have a presentable text at that point.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no "POV" as you assert - other than to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I do not like your assertion that I have a "POV" here.  I have consistently sought to follow the policies and guidelines, and find aspersions on this page to be quite out-of-keeping with the purpose of this page.  Further, it appears that we may have a discussion on how we should treat clear subsets of the TPm, and I do not see others supporting inclusion of every subset as though it represented the entire set.  I further note that the sources specifically do not ascribe the positions to the entire set.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In light of WP:YESPOV and the like POV is not necessarily a derogatory term. At any rate, I didn't mean to cast "aspersions" by making that statement, and I apologize for any emotional duress caused by that statement. I have revised the statement in a manner such as to redact that term, accordingly.
 * Meanwhile, this is the second time we have discussed the issue of "subsets" with respect to policy. And allow me to point out that one specif directive in the opening paragraph to the section states"And I don't want objections to the suggested paragraph."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And again - my position is that:
 * The Tea Party movement's agenda primarily seeks lower taxation and reduced government size, and is based on literal adherence to the Constitution and a belief in limited government.
 * is both accurate and neutral, and does not in any way contravene the "one specif(sic) directive in the opening paragraph" at all, and is in proper conformance with the discussion as set up here by SilkTork.  And, in fact, if ST wishes to state that such additional phrasing is contrary to the purpose of this page, that ST will do it, and you are not his amanuensis that I can see.  Nor do I see any real reason why, while sort-of-redacting a claim, you then go on to justify that claim in your retraction :)  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I would implore you to post that position in, as that is what we have been asked to do. Moreover, we have been asked not make objections, which I presume would include expressing a view that there is a "problem" or an "error" in a suggested text. Note that in the first response I ventured to the comment regarding "subsets" I also referred to a "view". I should probably not have responded at all and waited until Silk Tork got around to checking the page. I have apologized for using the phrase "That is a POV" instead of "That is a view", and I hope you accept that. The gist of the statement was basically the same as the first response, with respect to WP:DUE instead of WP:SYNTH/WP:RS.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Read this section. Read the green text. Xenophrenic below appears to have the position that any position ascribed by any source to any supporter of the TPm is "fair game."  That is precisely where I demur.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I read that the comment as basically agreeing not to focus on minority views ("small subsets"), but on majority views ("large subsets").
 * In the case of text I've suggested, I have tried to be upfront with the sourcing, and all of the sources I've used attribute the statements to the TPm in general, not specific groups.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've said nothing like what Collect asserts. Ubikwit has accurately understood what I said. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of this Agenda section, we should agree that we're not going to be able to list items that are agreed upon and espoused by 100% of the movement. That rigid uniformity simply does not exist. Even "taxes are quite sufficiently high", while probably a universally held sentiment among all Americans (not just TPers), is not a stated agenda item for many branches of the movement (unless one stretches the "Fiscal Responsibility" agenda point to vague extremes). In response to Collect's query: No, we shouldn't waste a lot of ink on positions held by "small subsets" of the movement, but we do need to cover the more widely-held positions — held by "large subsets", as indicated by our sources. Constitutional limitations on government is demonstrably near the top of the agenda list, as are the reduction of taxes and the promotion of free markets.
 * I can't speak for SilkTork, but I don't think he explicitly prohibited "objections"; rather, he wants us to propose solutions and fix things, instead of just object and walk away. To use Collect's sentence above as an example; "reduced government" and "limited government" in the same sentence appear redundant, and "is based on literal adherence to the Constitution" is actually quite contested in reliable sources, so how about this instead: The Tea Party movement's agenda primarily seeks lower taxation and reduced government size, and proclaims adherence to original Constitutional concepts is the way to achieve these goals. Adherence to the original constitution has been espoused, but as for the "corrupted" present version, especially as interpreted by the courts, not so much. From Zernike's Boiling Mad, (from the chapter titled "We look at the original, primary source" pgs. 65-66):
 * It could be hard to define a Tea Party agenda; to some extent it depended on where you were. In the Northeast, groups mobilized against high taxes; in the Southwest, illegal immigration. Some Tea Partiers were clearer about what they didn't want than what they did. But the shared ideology — whether for young libertarians who came to the movement through Ron Paul or older 9/12ers who came to it through Glenn Beck — was the belief that a strict interpretation of the Constitution was the solution to government grown wild. [...] By getting back to what the founders intended, they believed they could right what was wrong with the country. Where in the Constitution, they asked, does it say that the federal government was supposed to run banks? Or car companies? Where does it say that people have to purchase health insurance? Was it so much to ask that officials honor the document they swear an oath to uphold?"
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there are source for the following statement?"...as having corrupted the original intent of the Constitution"-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That is mostly sourced to Schmidt (pgs 19-20; 32-36), where the source discusses the proposed repeal of amendments, and the Tea Party's insistance that courts interpret the Constitution through what they view as “original public meaning”. The TP calls this "restoring" the Constitution to its original intent before the "Progressive Era", where additional amendments have strayed from original intent. If you are asking specifically about the "corrupted" word, that's verbiage favored by Judge Scalia (pg 19) to describe societal changes that spawn these new amendments. "Perverse" is favored by Paul Broun when speaking of repealing those amendments (page 32), “We need to do a lot of tweaking to make the Constitution as it was originally intended, instead of some perverse idea of what the Constitution says and does.” It's easy enough to leave out the 'why' they seek to repeal, as you have in your newest proposal below. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Foley quote is useful in that it addresses the agenda in terms of concrete agenda items correlated to the Constitution. If the statement focuses more on the Progressive era aspect in this context the specificity of the objectives could be lost or seem to contradict a purely ideological basis (corruption --> revival, etc.) for the sought measures.
 * Without going into details about the Progressive era history and the Amendments it seems like the ideological aspect would be overemphasized and the specificity of the correlation blurred. I'd suggest avoiding overtly ideologically oriented statements here and trying to start a new section to address details, maybe even a subarticle.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 00:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

7.



I've added a couple of blockquotes explicitly describing agenda points relating to the Constitution to the TPm in general.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Page break for convenience 2

 * I think Xeno's onto something there with the Zernike quote. Well done. We could paraphrase her. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see an additional paragraph in the above proposed Agenda text that covers other notable agenda items. We may first have to come to an agreement, however, as to what is notable enough. Significant segments of the movement have mobilized or taken a stand with regard to a variety of issues over the past 4 years, but has TP attention to these matters risen to the level warranting mention: immigration - border security - birthright citizenship - "ground zero" mosque construction - Agenda 21 - Cap & Trade - School choice/vouchers - collective bargaining (Wisconsin?) - and, with the advent of Tea Party Express and recent PACs, "political candidate support". I know there are others.


 * One thing is certain, Manatee Protection definitely needs coverage. This one is non-negotiable. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the tea party member was utilizing WP:CANVASS with the email notification of 800 members. We should mention that. They know if they make noise about anything it'll get into the papers. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One suggestion on how best to choose what to include given the disparate groups is to perhaps Google it. This is the first I've heard of the Mosque-Ground Zero bit being a tea party protest. My impression was that the protest was Americans in general and 9/11 families in particular. I don't recall any specific tea party focus. The fiscal issues must be there, of course, because they sparked the initial protests and Rick Santelli's rant, etc. They certainly qualify for the agenda section, i.e., the bailout, Obamacare. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And yes, the SuperPac, and the effort to beat the Republican establishment selection of candidates. They're especially against Karl Rove. One group even portrayed him in a Nazi uni and had to take it down and apologize. I believe that was TPP if I'm not mistaken.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears that covering to many peripheral issues dissipates the focus that the text has managed to achieve at great effort. I've added one paragraph pointing to the post 2012 election and two main focuses of the health care law and Agenda 21. I added another blokquote from the Schmidt paper as it facilitates the issue of the judiciary to be raised as well in this context. I think that a sentence tagged onto the end about Agenda 21 would suffice to round off this text and bring it up to date.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 00:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Block quotes are never a good idea and they invite reverts. This is because they wander off into undue weight land. The goal is stable edits and a happy SilkTork. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Using blockquotes is common practice on Wikipedia. Weight, though sometimes related, is a somewhat separate issue that needs to be assessed in terms of the relative prevalence of a POV in RS. In the case of the blockquote in question, I have explained the rationale for its use above. It facilitates the transition to the post 2012 election scenario, focuses on health care reform and the Constitution as well as the relation to the judiciary, which is another agenda point in the federal-state power sphere. It also provides a segue into Agenda 21, which I believe has been asserted to not have been on the TPm agenda before 2012, but I'm waiting to see what Xenophrenic's text will look like on that, because I am not familiar with the topic and am working on the assumption that things said thus far on this page about that issue are valid. The blockquoted text is just a suggestion, and subject to modification and the consensus process.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added 2 reference citations to the brief mention of Agenda 21 and nullification of the health care legislation in the above proposed green text, but I haven't expanded that text. The NYTimes source supports both of those agenda items as well as the content that says the TP is shifting its focus to other agenda matters after it lost clout in the Nov. 2012 elections. The Reuters source is specifically about Agenda 21; it's mostly local opposition to "sustainable development" laws and projects. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a small clarification in the green text above, to indicate opposition to Agenda 21 rather than support. Also, just an FYI, I joking when I demanded that the "Manatee Protection" issue be an agenda item. The mosque thing, while significant, probably didn't rise to the level of "widely supported agenda" item. Cap and Trade and illegal immigration, on the other hand, appear to qualify as movement agenda items (with even the sideline-sitter groups now chiming in on the immigration debates). Xenophrenic (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks sufficiently reasonable to me. If there are no other proposed changes, shall we put it to a vote? I would try writing the content of the last quote from Schmidt, but the paragraph says it so well it would be hard to paraphrase. Aside from what I already said about it, I also like the fact that it reiterates the two central points in the preceding description in terms of "the political process" and "popular attitudes toward the Constitution". So it also serves to sum up and refocus what has been said and add one final point. about the judiciary-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 10:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SilkTork that extensive blockquotes are almost invariably a problem. Especially when a quote says "various proposals" and that is then misused as a claim for the TPm in general, I suggest the use of the blockquote to support what it does not say is contrary to Wikipolicies. Again, I iterate that unless a source makes a claim about the TPm as a set, and not delve into silly subsets (the inane "manatee issue" for example) this article can never meet the requirements of the project. Collect (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Did I miss something? When (where?) did Silk Tork mention that?
 * Personally, I don't find them to be excessive. The final quote could be paraphrased, but the fact that it is an eloquent statement by a respected scholar that nicely sums up what precedes it in the section and succinctly describes a new focus in closing seems to add credibility to the Wikipedia article.
 * Furthermore, the objection to the Foley quote, "various proposals to amend the Constitution" would seem to be a repeat of the "subsets" argument in different form. I have already stated my position on that; here, however, Foley specifically connects sevreal specific TPm-wide agenda points, some of which are not mentioned elsewhere in the suggested text, with various proposals to amend the Constitution, and then she lists several specific proposals. A better use of a blockquote and more thorough sourcing is hard to come by.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your claim seem to read more into the quote than is there in words. He does not say that all of the "various proposals" as generally ascribed to the set - only that such proposals exist.  I respectfully decline to read more into what is written than what is clearly there.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence quoted starts with "Tea Party opposition to...", which in an explicit ascription of the assertions that are included in that statement to the Tea Part as a whole. It's a fairly straightforward sentence in plain English. Nothing in the quote would indicate that she is speaking of anything other then the entire movement. And I'm not "reading more into the quote than there is there in the words", as you put it.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet you seem to elide the actual gist of Foley's essay:
 * The reason why federalism-based constitutional amendments are being widely proposed, discussed and debated is because it does not take a degree in rocket science (or its rough equivalent, law) to realize that the federal government’s powers have spun out of control. Supreme Court interpretations of some of the most important constitutional provisions defining the division of power between people, states and federal government have cumulatively eroded the fundamental architecture of the Constitution itself. The Federalism Amendment, the Repeal Amendment, the balanced budget amendment and others are designed to restore this architecture, rebalancing sovereignty in the name of protecting “We the People" 
 * Foley is not writing an essay on the Tea Party - he is writing one on his personal support for "restoring the Constitution" and, as such, he makes no claims whatsoever about this being the primary focus of the entire Tea Party. We can not properly take a block quote out of an essay which does not accurately reflect the entire content of the source, and use it to support a claim which the source does not make, and, in fact, has no intention of making.  Foley states his own support for Constitutional change, and, as such, using it for anything more than that (trying to tie his personal views to the Tea Party movement as a set)  is errant per Wikipedia policy.   Collect (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, the title of the Foley paper is SOVEREIGNTY, REBALANCED: THE TEA PARTY & CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
 * The paper is explicitly about the Tea Party, and more specifically about its agenda vis-a-vis the Constitution; moreover, that is made prominent in the title.
 * The discussion of Federalism is intrinsic to the state-federal balance of power issue, which is one of many, and it is addressed in the suggested text with respect to the Repeal Amendment. I had also included a brief statement on the Sixteenth Amendment and libertarianism, but that has been redacted in favor of a more summarized form. And I have read the entire text.
 * You are entitled to your interpretation; however, so am I. Whose interpretation is more accurate? -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Have a cup of tea. The paper is clearly a personal essy:

"One of the most pervasive themes in this journey into constitutional Wonderland—where constitutional law professors teach at least six impossible things before breakfast—is the loss of vertical separation of powers, or federalism. Year after year, the drumbeat of expanding federal power grows louder, drowning out objections and concerns voiced by the states. The noise has recently reached a fevered pitch, fueled by actions of the Obama Administration: massive industry bailouts overloaded with federal strings, mind-numbing trillion-dollar stimulus programs laden with earmarks, aggressive use of federal powers to shut down states’ efforts to fight illegal immigration, and, the coup de grâce, Obamacare." "This essay will explore the major themes of these calls for constitutional amendments and conventions, who is behind them, what problems they seek to solve, and their likelihood of success."
 * Foley refers to his essay as an "essay!!!" He does not call it an "essay about the Tea Party" - it is an essay about the constitutional amendments he personally favours.    Clue: he uses the first person singular in many places in the essay.  Thus we can not legitimately bend it to a wondrous quote mine here - we can only use it for his personal opinions as stated in an essay at most.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The statements in your comment do not seem to be related to calling into question the use of the quote with respect to Wikipedia sourcing policies. You characterize the paper as an "essay!!!" as if that were somehow significant, when it doesn't appear to be so, as 'essay' is a general term and the article is published in a peer-reviewed legal journal, which is the relevant factor with respect to Wikipedia sourcing policy.
 * You suggest that I "elide the gist" of the paper, but I did not use the quote with the intent of "eliding the gist of the essay". Is there a policy based rationale behind the implicit suggestion that I should have?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

'Viable' versions of the 'Agenda' section
8.)

Blah, blah, the Tea Party has protested TARP, stimulus, cap and trade, Obamacare and perceived attacks by the federal government on their first, second, fourth and tenth amendment rights. Also have promoted right-to-work legislation and immigration enforcement at a state level. More recently, protesting the IRS for discriminative actions against conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Encyclopedic green text if there's support for some or all of this.
 * Note that the quote from the Foley paper explicitly mentions several of those points, "bailouts, stimulus packages and health-care reform... proposals to require a balanced budget" -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

†TE†  Talk  14:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

iVote on version
Well, there would appear to be no further modifications of the above final version of the suggested text, so I am going to take the initiative and call a vote of the sort that has been used on this page to assess consensus before actioning an edit.


 * 'Support -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the proposed change? (I.E. what is proposed to be removed?) Doubly important because the main focus of the agenda is missing from the above. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is intended to replace the entire Agenda section, to my understanding.
 * If you are referring to the Contract from America section, please see Silk Torks's related comments, as well as the material I posted above in regard to the connection of Hecker to the TPm. If that question were answered, it would be possible to add to expand that paragraph by introducing a summary of the gist. Also see Silk Tork's and Malke's comments on the Foreign policy section, with which I am basically in agreement. I have started the Mead article, and though it is interesting, it hardly seems that a single source merits mention, and there are no pronouncements from any of the main TPm groups on foreign policy to the best of my knowledge (i.e., none have been introduced here).
 * There will just be this one section, no subsections in the Agenda section under this schema.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The Agenda section does not have to be perfect. So if folks are agreed that the section as proposed is a reasonably fair and balanced summary of the agenda of the Tea Party - enough that the general reader would be given a reliable and unbiased idea of the issues that appear to concern the movement, even if only roughly, then could it be actioned? And then folks can talk about what next needs doing.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as being misleading to users of the project I believe the proposed wording is inapt, inaccurate, and ascribes positions to the TPm which affect only one group or a small number of groups using that umbrella term, and by ascribing them to the entire group, they mislead the Wikipedia reader. I further suggest that support by only one or two editors does not meet the requirements for consensus on this discussion page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Note also that Foley's essay in support of changes to the Constitution, which is not about the Tea Party but is primarily about his own personal opinions, can not properly be used as it does not reflect the content of the source.  we do not (and ought not) quote mine to prove a point on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support actioning the edit We spent several days achieving this text, and there is only about a week left on the moderation period.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose If this were to substitute for the agenda section it largely misses the main items. 95% of this is talking about 5% of what they are doing, and 5% is talking about 95% of what they are doing.   North8000 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I prefer a version which balances out the constitutional angle with more detail given to their political agenda. Doesn't make sense, IMO, to use block quotes in an Agenda section not by Tea Party politicians or talking heads. Also think major protest items would be a nice break between the constitution and 'Contract from America'. I forgot Agenda 22, but included reference to all other main points in preceding green text. †TE†   Talk  14:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

9.

.}} -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

10
10.


 * Oppose as uninformative and eliding the gist of the Tea Party movements's constitutional agenda, while calling undue attention to local issues and neglecting those national in scope.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Of all the sources, Zemike appears to be the most comprehensive and usable in the context in which he writes. I get rid of the useless word "agenda" here (as if readers can not figure this one out), and add the CfA as being influenced by the TPm. I avoid long quotes (Zemike quote would be in ref), and avoid all really iffy claims - that Foley wants 17th Amendment repeal does not mean this is generally true of the TPm as he makes no such direct claim. I also do not include manatees. Again - the Foley block quote is wrenched from the full context of the essay favouring Constitutional change by Foley. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well then, "Of all the sources", it appears that there may be questions relating to WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT.
 * By the way, I didn't use a wrench--copy&paste!-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Might you tell us which sources are most comprehensive in discussing the TPm in its variegated forms? And why you would not like Zemike who seems pretty accurate from all I have read now?  BTW, "DUE" and "WEIGHT" are pretty clear (they are the same material, so referring to each is outré).  When making a short summary statement, there is no requirement that every possible position and factoid be included to meet the requirements of Wikipedia.  Rather, our task is to provide readers with an encyclopedia article which is usable and accurate.  Adding in the :"manatee" issue, for example, is pure silliness were we to do so.   And please exclude essays by folks pushing their own views of the Constitution here, and taking single quotes fully out of context therefrom in a Quote mine exercise. . Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To whom does the statement "folks pushing their own views of the Constitution" refer? For the record, I reiterate that Wikipedia has a policy WP:YESPOV, and that the POVs of authors of reliably published secondary sources are valued as RS statements on the respective topics addressed WP:RS.
 * The suggestion that the use of the passage quoted from the Foley paper is "quote mining" is also objectionable. I've already pointed at the the explicit prominent mention of "The Tea Party" as indicative of the focus on the TPm, and have referred to the Repeal Amendment with respect to the "stated aim of restoring the constitutionally defined balance between federal and state power.", which is the crux of Federalism. The paper by Foley is not a paper about Foley, but about the TPm and its agenda viewed through proposals to amend the Constitution. There is nothing misleading in the excerpting of the quote from that paper. Seeing that there is already resistance to describing any measures related to the Constitution in depth in the Agenda section, one could reasonably expect that a brief mention would not only suffice, but be widely acceptable.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The person to whom I referred is Foley, and his "essay" is clearly promoting his own views of the Constitution. I had thought the context was crystal clear.  And he makes no effort to hide his POV and the fact that he is using his essay to promote his POV.  And as in all cases, using an essay for a claim of fact is intrinsically problematic.  And again the "paper" is an "essay" and is described as such by Foley.  I think we have now shown that it is not usable for the broad factual claim you seem to think it makes as fact.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that you have started a thread on the RS/N regarding the Foley paper, the matter has not yet been resolved. Note that in that posting it was not stated that the "essay" was published in Foley, Elizabeth Price, Sovereignty, Rebalanced: The Tea Party and Constitutional Amendments (August 3, 2011). Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 78, p. 751, 2011, instead, a website "constitution.org", which appears to be unrelated, was cited. The source has been cited five times on this page as being published in the Tennessee Law Review, which I would generally assume to be peer reviewed. Furthermore, the paper is cited in a recent publication that is part of a series entitled "Routledge Research in Constitutional Law" Routledge being an academic press, and the book being on the Constitution, with Foley being cited in relation to the TPm's position on the Constitution Engineering Constitutional Change, 10th September 2012, Routledge.
 * Third, the term "folks" is plural, so the subject of the statement was unclear, particularly in light of the fact that the content of the legal papers by Schmidt and Zietlow have also been questioned.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Might you tell us the source that describes the "variegated forms" of the TPm? I focus on sources that describe the movement as a whole, in general terms, as they are most informative to the reader with respect to the scope of the article.
 * Incidentally, I find it interesting that this version proposes to do away with the term "agenda", considering that a
 * "Tea Party Agenda: Contract From America"
 * section first appeared in the article no later than 29 April 2010.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We have had a slew of sources already given referring to the fact that there is no central organization, that the various groups have differing agendas and you ask me for sources for this????  I can simply give you Zemike if you like, and the NYT and about a hundred other sources which make the point.   As for using the word "agenda" when it is awkward in normal English grammar here - I think that the NYT MOS etc. would help you understand that simple language is better than convoluted language.  NPR   the book is a guide for people to organize decentralized movements like the Tea Party.,  Willey THE DECENTRALIZED SOCIAL MOVEMENT: HOW THE TEA PARTY GAINED RELEVANCY IN THE NEW MEDIA ERA,   Feinberg The Tea Party is not a new cohesive party but a large number of disorganized and disparate groups largely comprised of conservative Republicans,   Rasmussen noting its "disorganized quality."  and so on ...       Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources cited describe the organization of the TPm, not their agenda.
 * Perhaps the following quote will serve to illustrate the value of blockquotes in relation to controversial topics."The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting Agendas... Yet within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party. This core is particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Mindful of ThinkEnemies', Malke's and Collect's opposition to undue weight vis-a-vis the Constitution in Agenda section and usage of blockquotes while also conforming with Ubikwit's, Xenophrenic's and ThinkEnemies' support for having a Constitution section. I see the latter being a subsection in Academic studies. †TE†  Talk  15:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Small steps toward compromise, perhaps, but the text is somewhat muddled, and therefore questionable with respect to readability and the degree to which it is informative to the reader. There is no question of undue weight vis-a-vis the Constitution, as every source that discusses the TPm agenda addresses its relationship to the Constitution in a prominent manner. The only issue would seem to be providing adequate coverage for all of the views, but that could be handled in a separate section if the summary in the Agenda section were balanced.
 * Blockquotes are efficient and add credibility, when used appropriately. Here, when strong statements are being made in the voice of the encyclopedia, particularly in relation to controversial topics such as this, it helps to quote authoritative sources.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My preferred text "unmuddles" what I perceive to be unnecessary, overly-confusing insertions of detail which add little to the overall encyclopedic value. I also believe there was a plagiarized sentence if memory serves. I'm glad we both agree your sources have given the constitution undue weight to the Tea Party's political agenda. And I'm aware other editors were concerned about having Tea Party supporters identify their own agendas. My second paragraph can fix that as actual legislation they've protested is easily-sourced and actions speak louder than words. An editor mentioned at "unmoderated" TPM-talk that the USSR had a way of misrepresenting their agenda in ways which flew in the face of their actions. †TE†   Talk  16:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which sentence was plagiarized?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that really relevant? Just observations while copy-editing. Not criticism focused on anyone.  †TE†   Talk  16:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a policy violation, and though it can occur inadvertently, since you raised the issue, what is the problem in responding?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Checked, just a few words here or there in succession. No need to sound the alarm. Retracted. †TE†   Talk  16:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Blah, blah, the Tea Party has protested TARP, stimulus, cap and trade, Obamacare and perceived attacks by the federal government on their first, second, fourth and tenth amendment rights. Also have promoted right-to-work legislation and immigration enforcement at a state level. More recently, protesting the IRS for discriminative actions against conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Encyclopedic green text if there's support for some or all of this.

†TE†  Talk  15:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like input on my solutions for all stated concerns, to whom it may concern. †TE†   Talk  17:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks good, TE. 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)
 * Forgot to mention, I love the 'blah, blah, blah.' Please keep that. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Malke. I was conflicted about using two blahs instead of the standard three. It was a tough decision, but I'm happy with the results. In all seriousness, I was hoping for more feedback on paragraph two. Not exactly surprised by virtual silence given the uninviting environment of this page. Chilliest summer ever.
 * 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)

Suggest we work out a version that has has some small problems but no big problems and put it in. Then tweak it from that, recognizing that it has some problems and that such is planned. I think that a tidied up version of #11 might be that. The overemphasis on constitutional details could be be fixed later. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At the least, it would be a moral victory for all involved to see some actionable results. I'm open to any and all tweaks. The groundwork is there, IMO. †TE†   Talk  12:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In short, let's put a tidied up version of #11 in, agreeing that it will still need some work after that. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)