Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Agenda of the Tea Party movement

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Allen3 talk 15:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Despite being nominated over a month ago, article is still subject to frequent bouts of edit warring and neutrality disputes (Rule D6). An arbitration request that has been open for almost six months without a decision indicates this situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

DYK toolbox

Agenda of the Tea Party movement edit

(
)

Created by Phoenix and Winslow (talk). Self nominated at 05:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC).

  • There are unreferenced paragraphs, and the article has not been categorized Cambalachero (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not very sure about the proposed hook. "seeks to both protect and change the US constitution" sounds like their ideas are contradictory, but for what I read (note that I'm not from the US and I don't know anything about this political party before checking this DYK) it seems that they support the original US constitution, and not some of its later amendments. That sounds consistent as a political platform, and not contradictory (without making an opinion of the amendments themselves). Did I understood it correctly? Cambalachero (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That's why it's a hook. Supporters of the Tea Party movement say there is no contradiction. The changes they seek are intended to restore the Founding Fathers' original intent and meaning. Critics of the Tea Party movement say there IS a contradiction. Note that it is not a political party, it's a political movement, there is a difference. Political parties are organized, they have structure, they have leaders who are clearly identified. Movements do not usually have identified leaders, they are usually very disorganized. But that doesn't mean they can't be effective. One of the proverbs about U.S. politics that I've learned is "the most impossible thing to stop is an idea whose time has come." It is possible that the Tea Party represents an idea whose time has come, and neither of the major parties was prepared to embrace that idea. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
If some people say that they are contradictory and others that they are not, we should not suggest either thing at the main page. Perhaps a better hook may be like this.
However, I'm not sure if the first United States constitution that the Tea Party supports is the 1777 Articles of Confederation or the one drafted by the Constitutional Convention in 1787 (either link may be better than "history of the United States Constitution"). Cambalachero (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
How does that look as a nice, neutral, non-controversial hook? Linking to Constitutional Convention (United States). Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

While DYK articles are not expected to have the comprehensiveness of a Featured Article, if we are to feature an article on the front page, a certain level of comprehensiveness is required, especially when dealing with controversial political topics. This article skips over a number of issues that we know have been of importance to the Tea Party (race, healthcare, etc.) and largely presents their agenda in uncritical terms. Even the block quote from Kate Zernike of The New York Times, who would be an ideal source for such material, is mostly a restatement of the Tea Party's own professed agenda. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Party's attitudes about race are already explored with exquisite attention to detail in another spin-off article, Perceptions of the Tea Party movement. I'm relying almost exclusively on academic, peer-reviewed sources such as law journals. Even the source that I've used by Kate Zernike, a journalist rather than an academic, should be viewed as very reliable per WP:RS. Zernike agrees that the Tea Party's statement of its agenda is, in fact, its true agenda. According to the academic sources such as Christopher Schmidt and Elizabeth Price Foley, various Tea Party positions on specific legislative issues should be viewed through the lens of their constitutionality as perceived by Tea Party members. Zernike also touched on this aspect of the agenda — how the Tea Party's understanding of the Constitution affects its views on everything else — and that passage from Zernike's work is blockquoted.
Health care is specifically mentioned. The Tea Party argued that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to enact the new health care law. This constitutional challenge is well described. The Tea Party's views on such issues revolve around their perceived constitutionality, or perceived UNconstitutionality. For that reason, examination of the Tea Party's views on the Constitution is of paramount importance, and an indispensible first step toward understanding everything else on their agenda — because that's what the very reliable sources are saying.
Your use of the word "uncritical" is inaccurate, since both Ronald Formisano and Theda Skocpol are critical of the Tea Party movement's agenda, and both are cited. Skocpol's criticism of the agenda is blockquoted, since she's a very reliable source (political science professor at Harvard). There's no shortage of criticism in this article. As usual, the disagreement arises over how much criticism should be included. Editors who enjoy criticizing the topic of an article in real life will want to see that amount soaring up to 50% or higher, while editors who are able to suppress any bias they may have are inclined toward a lower criticism level. Of the total article content, current criticism is in the 5%-10% range. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
You are right, healthcare is mentioned in passing, so I struck that aspect of my comment. But I think that is a problem with this article, is that even the issues that are mentioned are mentioned in passing. When you have breakout articles like this, there is going to be material that is more comprehensively covered in other articles, but each article should stand on its own. You keep citing RS but I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought Zernike, Fromisano, Skocpol, et al are unreliable sources. On the contrary, my comment specifically cited Zernike as an ideal source, my issue was with how this source was employed. Citing or mentioning critical authors does not necessarily mean that the article itself is critical. Also, I think you misunderstand how I used the word "critical". I mean it in the sense of (to quote Wikitionary) "Relating to criticism or careful analysis", not "Inclined to find fault or criticize", so your comments about the perceptions and biases of editors aren't pertinent. I should have been more explicit. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, Okay. So when we look at the "Relating to criticism or careful analysis" definition, you were thinking of the "careful analysis." I think the blockquotes I've selected demonstrate some very careful analysis. Some more careful than others I suppose. Schmidt, Zernike, Foley and Zietlow are rather good. I'm also impressed by Skocpol. It's really too bad we can't quote more of these works, but the article is getting a little blockquote heavy already. It's a work in progress.
The scope of the article was determined at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion under the supervision of SilkTork, a member of ArbCom, who served as moderator. Unfortunately SilkTork stepped aside when he went on vacation, and a couple of other key people also took a Wikibreak, so after the topical scope was decided on — focus on TPm's views on the Constitution, and other issues are of secondary importance — I finished it up. The Agenda section of Tea Party movement is now a spin-off article, just as the "Issues of race, bigotry and public perception" became a spin-off called Perceptions of the Tea Party movement, which is essentially an entire article focused on allegations of bigotry. I think this one is worth featuring in DYK, although clearly there's more work to do. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I've raised your creation of this subarticle with SilkTork on his Talk page, and am following his counsel on how to go about remedying the scenario.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
NOTE: I've added some more (sourced) material about the Tea Party protests against certain legislative initiatives. Please review. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Time for fresh eyes? --PFHLai (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would appreciate another review. A lot of work has been done to address the concerns of the previous reviewer and Iselilja has also started contributing to the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

P&W set this page up on the sly in order to divert attention from the centrality of The Constitution to the agenda of the Tea Party. I say that so bluntly because the proposal for creating this subarticle was originally made by me in the Moderated discussion on the TPm article, which most of you will probably be aware is the subject of an Arbcom case at present.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to the discussion where I originally proposed the subarticle 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. P&W is deliberately ignoring my proposal in order to push his own POV agenda, which is totally unacceptable.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  • This article is clearly a POV fork and must be deleted or merged back into the Tea Party movement article. We cannot have a POV fork accepted at DYK. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a "POV fork" as it was basically developed at the moderated discussion - and apparently the subarticles were agreed to there. I note Binksternet did not participate in those extended discussions to which everyone was invited. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Apparently? Perhaps you can show a quote or a diff to aid me in understanding. Earlier, I looked at the moderated discussion but I did not see suggestions of a content fork. I saw discussion about sections of the TPm article, especially the "Agenda" section. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Binksternet, until you have participated fully in the moderated discussion rather than attempting a rhetorical drive-by shooting like this — or at least thoroughly reviewed the archives which I have personally created and maintained, so that interested parties can catch up on their own time — perhaps you should reconsider driving through here with your rhetorical guns blazing. The concerns you expressed have already been addressed. See, for example, my response to Gamaliel above. If you would like to participate in editing the article due to some flaw that you've observed, then by all means, make your proposal in the moderated discussion and establish that you have consensus for your proposal, just like everyone else. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The original proposal was to consider a sub-article specifically covering the Tea Party's Constitutionalism. There are no diffs of agreement to have a separate Agenda sub-article. P&W did announce (more than once) that he was unilaterally creating one, but I didn't agree. I don't believe North agreed either, as he voiced a preference for a comprehensive Agenda section in the main article. I know Ubikwit also disagreed more than once to this Agenda sub-article:
Incidentally, the subarticle was to called "The Tea Party and the Constitution", not the title you mentioned above.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
As for merging this fork into the main article, I wouldn't recommend it with all of the inaccuracies and POV still present in this sub-article. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
What "inaccuracies and POV"? PLease be specific. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There are numerous problems, and I'm not real motivated to repeat that process again on this duplicate content. You can see where the same problematic content has been tagged, fixed or removed in the Agenda section of the main article (you may have to check the older version before your last revert to see all the corrections implemented). Xenophrenic (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not real motivated ... Then please stop wasting our time with unsubstantiated claims. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't do unsubstantiated claims. Here, let me correct your misquote of me: I'm not real motivated to repeat that process again...
I've told you where the substantiation is already. Problems reading? I can't help you with that. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Binksternet's participation just about everywhere consists of a rhetorical drive-by shooting followed by an immediate departure, it seems. Ubikwit participated, but repeatedly announced that he was abandoning the discussion. If he's changed his mind and chosen to participate again he is more than welcome. And Collect is right, this was one of multiple spin-off articles that were discussed, so nothing was done "on the sly." Collect is also welcome to participate in the editing of this article, joining me and Iselilja, and if Ubikwit wants to propose any changes he is more than welcome to do so. I'm looking forward to the consensus discussion. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link. I see where you suggested a sub-article named something like Tea Party movement and the Constitution, twice, but that is a different article than this one. P&W suggested /Agenda of the Tea Party movement ( [sic], redlink in original), but North8000 disagreed by saying that the agenda of the movement was too important not to cover in the main TPm article. To me it looks like no consensus was reached regarding this sub-article, only a couple of tentative comments pro and con. Binksternet (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I basically replied on the Talk page request discussion before noticing this, but yes, there was never any question that the Agenda wouldn't be a substantial section on the main article. I believe it was the longest section before the Arbcom case was launched. Anyway, please refer to the other response I posted as I included more background there. Thanks.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Both the proposed merge and the proposed title change are faring poorly in the early "voting," so let's proceed with another DYK review. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  • It's the final result that counts, not the early voting. At DYK, we wait for merge proposals to be closed before resuming the review process, just as we wait for AfDs to complete. (Working link to the merge proposal is here.) BlueMoonset (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
That good, because it is absolutely ludicrous that this article in its present form would be fit for placement on the main page. It is far from compliant with NPOV, and in clear violation of WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, etc. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine.I'll submit all these questions for RFC in the appropriate venues so that they can be closed in precisely 30 days. Then we remove all of the templates you and your friends have been hanging on the article, and then we can have a DYK review. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  • - The proposed hooks are all completely out of compliance with the neutral point of view policy, as they assert contested political claims in the guise of factual statements made in Wikipedia's voice. "Protect and change the U.S. Constitution" is nonsensical - how can you simultaneously "protect" something that you believe is flawed (and hence in need of "change"?) "Protect" from whom? Similarly, stating that the Tea Party's agenda is to "restore the main principles of the United States Constitution" establishes Wikipedia as taking sides in a contentious political argument. There are a great number of Constitutional scholars, political scientists and just plain ordinary people who would argue strongly that the Tea Party's agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with "restor(ing) the main principles of the United States Constitution," but rather would implement a number of right-wing political principles which none of the Founding Fathers remotely contemplated. If this article is to be a DYK?, it needs a neutral, non-partisan hook that does not put Wikipedia in a position of accepting or rejecting a political argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Agenda_of_the_Tea_Party_movement&oldid=1022411163"