Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:16, 13 July 2013

This page is used for the focused discussion on improving the Tea Party movement article. Requests for minor edits, general discussion on sources, individual queries about the article which are not related to the focused discussion, etc, should take place on the main article talkpage. In order to maintain focus, the aim is to discuss one editing aspect at a time. Currently we are looking at trimming the article, and moving some of the material into sub-articles. Following a discussion there is a show of hands to establish there are no significant outstanding objections, and to establish consensus, and then the edit can be actioned. Commenting on the contributors is not allowed, and while up to now such comments have simply been hatted, from this point, anyone making a personal comment will be formally warned, and if necessary will be blocked. Anyone who has concerns about a comment that has been made, should not respond here, but leave a note for me either on my talkpage or by email. I am not able to carefully read this page every day, so patience and communication to me about concerns is needed. Progress is being made, and though there are sticky patches, the article is improving. SilkTork 09:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC) The article has been unlocked, so I have amended the above notice. And add here: If someone new to the article makes an inappropriate edit, inform them of this moderated discussion, and discuss the edit on this page. If someone who is already aware of the restrictions in place makes an inappropriate edit, inform me, and I will deal with it. SilkTork 14:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This page and its editors are subject to discretionary sanctions

Archives

(and other useful links) Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Tea Party movement Perceptions of the Tea Party movement Agenda of the Tea Party movement

Closed discussions

/Closed discussions

An edit for Agenda section has been actioned

Malke's condensed version of Xenophrenic's V12d has been actioned, following a 4-1 consensus "vote." As a concession to Collect, who wasn't here for the final "vote," I've simplified some of the language for the sake of the readability index ("organizations" became "groups," for example). I did change the name "Heckler" to "Hecker," which is the correct spelling, and added a few Wikilinks. Thank God we're done with that. Thanks to North8000 for seeing an opening and making the right move. And thanks to TE and Malke for supporting the move.

Now let's move on to those three minor improvements I was talking about a few weeks ago, and a couple of months ago, and three months ago .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A bare majority vote after less than two days is not a consensus ----Snowded 05:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It was 4-1 when I actioned the edit. That's not a "bare majority." That's an overwhelming majority, it's consensus by any reasonable definition, and I have yet to see a single word of a policy-based argument against it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've self-reverted and posted at Silk Tork's talk page, as there was a previous procedural directive relating to non-consensus edits made by editors aware of the discretionary sanctions, the fine print of which I'd momentarily forgotten.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

With new "!voters" entering, this may take quite a while, indeed. Collect (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching all the discussions every day Collect but I have been reluctant to re-engage. P&W at the time you made that call there were two proposals both of which had support. We went through this before, a majority vote is not consensus and this is a mediated discussion in which you are not the mediator.----Snowded 17:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It had 3:1 support at the time (all people who have been actually working at this) and one active person who had yet to weigh in was a co-author of sorts. It was a good faith and much needed effort to move this forward. Lets just move on instead of working to describe people negatively. Either keep it and modify it, or put in a different one and modify that one. This process is dying under it's own weight and complexity. Let's just move forward, even a baby step. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to be the first to welcome you back, Snowded. While I don't personally doubt your assertion of observation from a safe distance, it doesn't necessarily help us to understand your rationale applied in voting on proposals without an accompanying explanation. Can you please help us to address your concerns and/or preferences? †TE†Talk 18:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

North, you do realize P&W's effort didn't "move this forward", right? Either SilkTork is going to revert the problematic action, or the content now in the article will be brought into compliance with consensus (you know, the real kind per the Misplaced Pages policy ... not a vote) before we move forward (something that should have been done first). In either case, P&W's action hasn't advanced the situation, and now we have even more distraction and drama as a result. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My point was that it was a good reasonable effort to move it forward. I don't know whether or not it will actually do so. However, I would consider getting some semi-OK version into article space and the modifying from there to be a step forward. Trying to design an entire section by writing entire drafts of a section will require 100 drafts. And the talk page format does not support ongoing editing of a version. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification please

The current process was to find an Agenda version that people agreed was the most workable. To work on that one, overcoming objections to any wording. And if there was consensus, to place that version in the article. I've been busy so have not looked at this page in the two days since that process was set up. It was worded such that I would assess the consensus, though I would have no objection to someone moving things forward if consensus was clear and agreed by all. I note that a version has been actioned, but then there was a revert of that, then that was self-reverted. So where are we now? Is the current state of the Agenda section in the article acceptable to all - is that the edit that people agreed should take place? SilkTork 07:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll speak up first.

After several editors asked Xenophrenic to come up with a suggested text, once he did, they have almost (not entirely) unanimously rejected two paragraphs added to the beginning of the proposed section that address social issues in relation to the decentralized organizational structure and disparate goals and priorities, which are statements that have been in the text since I arrived at the article but were unsourced until I introduced the blockquote from Schmidt. Xenophrenic has produced four solid sources in support of that material, and there is no reason to omit it, though WP:UNDUE has been invoked, despite the multiple discussion in RS, including Schmidt and Zernike in addition to the four refs produced by Xenophrenic. I have also been told I was pushing a POV and being "pointy" by supporting the inclusion of those paragraphs.

One vote after another has been called in rapid succession with the pretense of reaching a consensus to action an edited placing the non-consensus text on the article.

Xenophrenic, who hasn't been participating in votes much, did place an oppose vote yesterday, seeing the worrying trend, I suppose. With Snowed weighing in, it is very clear that there is no consensus for the text that has been placed in the article, whereas there is now a 3-1 vote count in favor of taking Xenophrenic's original text as the starting point versus a 4-2 vote count for taking the text that has been actioned without going through the process of discussing perceived problems.

I would suggest checking the respective version with respect to the well-sourced paragraphs with respect to which an attempt is being made to exclude without considered deliberation with participation of the moderator. All versions in the 12 series starting with 12d, as well as the version of that I revised in its entirety with the aim of improving readability (version 15), particularly the first three paragraphs followed by the Schmidt blockquote.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 08:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Some further clarification of the voting-->actioning time frame would seem in order.

The section entitled "The final vote" was started with this edit, while a second vote call was made in quick succession after a single "oppose" vote had been register in the previous vote call.

The edit was action starting with this edit, less than 8 hours after the corresponding vote call had been made.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we're looking / desperate to see some forward progress and this process has been dying under it's own weight/complexity, not significantly due to any disputes. We can't craft an entire section by just creating drafts of that whole section. I proposed/framed it as just the version to be put in with the understanding that it will need evolution/changes, and to park the two subsections for separate consideration. I supported it despite what I see as a big problem in it. (Calling it conservative, without mentioning libertarian) Of the people who have been participating/working here there is 4:1 support, and that does not yet include Xenophrenic who is a sort of co-author of the version. I'm running out of gas; others probably also are. We need some forward progress. Let's just put it in and then start discussing changes to it. North8000 (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification in a nutshell? A proposed version was actioned into the main Tea Party movement article against consensus. A !vote was called, and the first few responses were quickly mischaracterized as WP:CONSENSUS and the problematic proposal was quickly installed within hours. The several concerns raised about that content were ignored, as were other proposals with equal support. Ubikwit, noticing the improper addition of the content against consensus, reverted it -- but he apparently recalled that several of us had agreed not to make reverts during this moderated discussion, so he undid his revert. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any addition against consensus. It was 4:1 at the time before the non-participating drop-ins showed up. And it was a good (apparently wrong) guess that as the one who wrote all of the material in it that you would be a likely supporter. I supported both versions. I'm running out of gas. Trying to build the whole section via drafts of the entire section, and then having drive-bys kill whatever gets worked out will take a hundred versions. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed your objections above the final vote, Xeno. It's regrettable those subtle changes weren't performed prior to the vote as your support might have proven more productive than opposition. I'm sure we all have minor concerns, but the goal should be giving a little in the name of consensus. †TE†Talk 11:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There's obviously been canvassing here. And another pass for reverting and then "self-reverting?" Why do we even bother?Malke 2010 (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It was 4:1 at the time --North8000

There had been enough discussion. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite certain I wasn't the only '1' with objections at that time, North. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant of people who had weighed in at that time, which was 4:1. I also supported/support your version as written. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite certain I wasn't the only one with objections at the time - Xenophrenic

Where are your objections then? Malke 2010 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit was clearly made in good faith and a reasonable belief that a consensus existed - thus not something to be punished. I propose that we allow a minimum of 48 hurs for "new !voters" to appear - but such new entries should be asked to read the entire prior discussion at this point lest they be seen as only looking at a handful of posts while the prior discussion would likely help them assign weight to particular positions with a finer ear to the background arguments. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

They should also offer versions. If we are to count their ivote, they must participate. You can't just show up out of the blue without any prior participation and derail the hard work of the editors spending their volunteer time here. They've contributed absolutely nothing to this process and they appear only well after the fact. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit was made in utter disregard to my posting several hours therebefore a link to Silk Tork's relevant procedural directive, as it was becoming apparent that an attempt was underway to action an edit without first having Silk Tork assess consensus in a situation where it would seem clear that there was no consensus.

On a related more general note, with respect to the content dispute, note that in recent days we have seen opposition to using material from reliably published sources that attributes certain traits to the entirety of the movement on the basis that the traits only apply to certain "subsets". Meanwhile, in the current discussion objection has been raised to material because it applies only to subsets in a "chaotic disorganization"--a meme that is repeated about 10 times in a single paragraph above.

Both of the above-described characterizations would seem to aim at excluding points of view articulated by reliably published authors on the basis of one sort of logical fallacy or another.

In one case we are told that because the TPm is comprised of a plurality of groups espousing disparate views, any attribution of a particular view (or agenda) to the whole movement is false. On the other hand, we are told that because the movement has a "chaotic disorganization" we can't say anything about the agenda of separate groups that would seem to be in conflict with each other, because that is information that should be addressed in the organization section.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What does the blockquote mean in plain English? Malke 2010 (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's html markup language jargon, not plain English.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit: What does this blockquote mean in plain English?

“…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.”

Malke 2010 (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It means: "I haven't got the foggiest idea what, if anything, unites the Tea Party except, perhaps, the stated belief in the importance of the Constitution." Can anyone restate it more clearly? Collect (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the quote is fairly straight forward and self-explanatory. That is to say, it is not "unreadable". With respect to our shared endeavor here as editors of Misplaced Pages, explicating it with respect to the decentralized structure of the TPm is illustrative. That is to say, this quote from Schmidt can be effectively used to convey to the reader that there are many viewpoints in the TPm, some of which are at odds with each other, but at the same time, there is a common recourse to the Constitution.

Conversely, with respect to the material newly introduced by Xenophrenic, another side of the movement with respect to the existence of a multiplicity of agendas, some disparate, can be illustrated in a concrete manner with respect to social issues.

Both the quote from Schmidt and the sources and text by Xenophrenic are therefore mutually reinforcing with respect to enhancing readers' intelligibility with respect to the decentralized amalgamation of disorganized chaos otherwise known as the Tea Party movement. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you don't know. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowded hadn't participated in weeks. No idea where he came from. He didn't register his "oppose vote" until after I'd actioned the edit. ArtifexMayhem???? WTF ???? Never saw him or even heard of him before in my life. I will be speaking about it at great length on SilkTork's User Talk page, when I have the time and I've had some rest and some quality time with my family. Probably late tonight. Now consider the context. Context is important.

• Many editors besides me were suffering from serious exhaustion and burnout issues. Something really needed to happen.

• Because I took the additional steps (for readability) of simplifying a little bit of the language and keeping the blockquotes in footnotes, I had every reason to expect Collect to support the proposal as well, whenever he showed up. That would have made it 6-1.

• SilkTork had repeatedly stressed that July 1 was the deadline and we had to take action, that ArbCom was going to reactivate its investigation, and that one possible result was topic bans for a whole lot of people, hoping that a fresh group of editors would come in and get something done effectively. The deadline was repeatedly stressed.

• SilkTork also repeatedly stated that he wanted to see us work this out by ourselves. This contradicted the admonition Ubikwit posted as a diff, about SilkTork wanting to review all consensus discussions and determining consensus for himself.

• I've also been communicating with SilkTork off-Wiki. The content of those communications further underscored the need to take action immediately — not for any personal agenda of mine or his, but for the good of the project.

• The one and only "oppose vote" came from Ubikwit. No explanation. Just the word "Oppose." Here at Misplaced Pages we don't normally count votes. We determine consensus by the strength of policy based arguments, see WP:CONSENSUS and see also WP:CLOSE. The policy based arguments were all on our side. In fact, in some venues the closing admins are instructed specifically to ignore any and all "votes" that are not supported by policy based arguments.

Considering all these factors cumulatively, the totality of circumstances told me to action the edit. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons I had not edited before is the difficulty of dealing with you manner of participation. I have however been monitoring the issue every day. When you took what I considered premature action I felt that I needed to engage again. Communication "off-wiki" concerns me as does your tendency to treat a vote as meaning consensus. ----Snowded 19:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• One of the reasons I had not edited before is the difficulty of dealing with you manner of participation. Duly noted, Snowded.
• ... as does your tendency to treat a vote as meaning consensus. Very good point, thanks for putting an exclamation point on my previous musings on the topic. "Votes" do not determine consensus in most circumstances. Policy based arguments determine consensus ... see WP:CONSENSUS and see also WP:CLOSE.
• I have yet to see the first word of a policy based argument against Malke's condensed Version 12d by Xenophrenic. ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In Medias Res

This is sort of a personal appeal to "new !voters" to please read all of the prior discussions here - where we are is a function of past discussions, and if we simply argue about material which was already discussed at great length in the past, we are in the position of an editorial Sisyphus at best. If new editors here will please read the "old stuff" we, I hope, can move on to get the job done. If we have to rehash all that was already discussed for months, it will definitely take more months to re-discuss it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it will keep you from thinking that the ivote was made after only two days. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't a !voter (new or otherwise), but I'll read the discussions. Is there a brief summary about the key sticking points(s)? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Alas not - but it is shorter then War and Peace by quite a bit. Collect (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It could just as easily be said that where we are is a result of the dysfunctional state of past discussions, but I digress, and to say as much may be an insult to the intelligence of many an editor wading (or re-wading) into this discussion.

By the way, what does "In Medias Res" mean, in plain English?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

See In Medias Res. It refers to people starting off in the middle of the story, instead of reading the background. In the case at hand, there is a great deal to be gained by reading the past discussions, but if we rehash all that was said in the past, then I will absolutely be out of here. There is a term called mental masturbation which appears to be all too relevant to that sort of exercise. Collect (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC

It's Latin. It means "in the middle of the subject." Or "in the middle of the process." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I previously wanted to use that same Wiktionary example in reference to the various lawyers' 'academic' law review opinion pieces of the tea party. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Version 12g

New Version The Tea Party movement doesn't have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the movement, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group in the movement to set its own priorities and goals. Sometimes these goals may even be in conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. Many Tea Party organizers see this as a strength rather than a weakness, as decentralization has helped to immunize the movement against co-opting by outside entities and corruption from within. Despite the disparate nature of the many individual groups, a few defining principles and core ideologies have been embraced by a large majority of the movement. Most political observers agree the Tea Party is largely motivated by the conservative principles of constitutionally limited government, free market economy and fiscal responsibility.

The Tea Party is a conservative movement, but it has avoided involvement with conservative social, religious and family-values issues. National Tea Party organizations like the Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, and FreedomWorks are focused on economic issues, but they support immigration reform if it includes securing the borders first. Other Tea Party groups like Glenn Beck's 9/12 Tea Parties, the Iowa Tea Party and Delaware Patriot groups focus more on social issues such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools and unlawful immigration.

The Tea Party movement generally focuses on government reform. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases. To this end, Tea Party groups have protested TARP, stimulus programs, cap and trade emissions trading, health care reform and perceived attacks by the federal government on their First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights. Tea Party groups have also supported right-to-work legislation and tighter border security, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. They have formed SuperPacs to support candidates sympathetic to their goals and have opposed what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates. After President Obama's reelection in 2012, the movement again shifted its focus. The Tea party led efforts to challenge the constitutionality of the federal health care law in the courts, and also mobilized locally against the United Nations Agenda 21. They have protested the IRS for controversial treatment of groups with "tea party" in their names.

The movement places the Constitution at the center of its reform agenda, and supports an originalist view. Several amendments have been targeted by some groups for full or partial repeal, including the 14th, 16th, and 17th. There has also been support for a proposed Repeal Amendment, enabling a two-thirds majority of the states to repeal federal laws, and a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would limit deficit spending.

The Contract from America was a legislative agenda created by Ryan Hecker, a conservative activist. He launched a website which encouraged people to offer possible planks for the Tea Party platform. Hecker worked with Dick Armey of FreedomWorks in crafting the suggestions into ten agenda items which include: "identify the constitutionality of every new law, reject cap and trade legislation, demand a balanced federal budget, simplify the tax code, assess constitutionality of federal agencies, limit growth in annual federal spending, repeal Obamacare, new energy policy that supports exploration, reduce earmarks, and reduce federal taxes."

Please offer support or oppose for this version but please also include your rationale for your vote.

• Support - it combines elements from several recent versions. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Grade level of 17 (post college) and readability of 18 make this, IMO, a very difficult proposal to remedy. The extensive detail seems to increase the problem here. Collect (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Extensive detail about the subject ("Agenda") is a good thing. Extensive detail about just one aspect of the subject (i.e.; Is the constitutionalism "originalist", "popular", neither, a unique blend of both, etc., etc., etc.,) is not so good. I've found that I can increase the readability score of the whole section simply by adding more information. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Collect, we can fix that during the next phase. North8000 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Agenda section should be thorough. Perfection is the enemy of progress. Let's put it in and evolve it from there. One big problem to fix in the next phase would be calling it simply a conservative movement. (if we're using labels, it should include libertarian). We could also tighten up the wording in the next phase. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support I am 100% certain that with the arrival of new editors and the return of others, this has absolutely zero chance of making it into the mainspace. Readability suffers so we have lost Collect, and there are others who have always been here and will never go for it anyway. I anticipate five "Oppose" votes. Nevertheless, my opinion is that it is an improvement over the version that's already in the mainspace, because it contains more details and it's presented in a fair and accurate way. And I recognize that Malke has done some excellent work here. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I think this is ok. I didn't like the quote that had been in previous versions. This is better. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose While this includes the first two paragraphs of Xenophrenic's 12d, that material has been worked on continually, resulting in Version 15, to which Xenophrenic has recently made further revisions and expressed approval. Considering that a formal vote has never been called on version 15, that version deserves consideration.

This version, 12g, would seem to have the primary objective of eliminating the Schmidt quote, but if that is the case, then an argument as to whether that is desirable or not could be more effectively examined under the moderation of Silk Tork after selecting a version for the starting point that includes the quote. I see no convincing rationale for excluding the quote beforehand while several editors have expressed support for including it.

The descriptions of perceived divisiveness of social issues in the original text of Xenophrenic is not only much more informative but a more accurate refection of what the sources explicitly state. That should be restored.

The other material from Schmidt and Foley should be restored.

Meanwhile, I do not agree that the IRS material is an agenda item. Furthermore, the material on the Contract for America seems unbalanced, listing every point in the CfA but not discussing the fact that it flopped with the Republican Party, nor its relation to the Contract with America and the subsequent Pledge to America. In other words, the paragraph seems more promotional than informative of the overall circumstances and present status of the Contract from America. The sentence regarding the role of Dick Armey may represent an improvement in describing that specific point, but I'll defer to Xenophrenic and TE on that. Moreover, the question of why he is not mentioned as a co-author of the Contract with America, from which the Contract for America takes its name (which is stated in RS), would also seem to be an omission in the light of the weight accorded to other aspects.

In sum, I see a potential improvement in one sentence and the addition of a related sentence that may be accurate (sourcing); otherwise, version 15 is far superior.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:20, 3 July 2013 and 14:18, 3 July 2013(UTC)

• Present While I don't have a preferred version which I've authored and lack the audacity to use such a thing as rationale for opposition to this consensus-driven proposal -- I see no reason to vote on any proposal until SilkTork reasserts his goals and desired methods to achieve 'em on this moderated talkpage. †TE†Talk 04:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I must admit that I, too, was a bit taken aback to find yet another version proposed, and a vote immediately called as well. On the other hand, if there is "audacity", it would seem to lie in that act, not in meeting the call for responses including the corresponding rationale.

Furthermore, the above comment includes a reference to a "consensus driven proposal", but it is unclear whether that is meant to assert that 12g is the only such proposal. Accordingly, it bears pointing out that Version 15 has evolved through several previous versions including input from multiple authors.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have reason to believe this thread has been corrupted by out-of-place additions lacking a proper timestamp and placement of chronological order. I would rather not spend time looking back hours into this page's history to make sure I'm not being deceived. I have nothing else to say as time could've been better spent not addressing this fundamental no-no for wikipedians. †TE†Talk 05:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, in light of the comment you left on my Talk page, I've added to the time stamp in my above-posted "oppose" vote with respect to material expanding on my rationale therefor.

Since no one has responded directly to the content of my rationale, it would seem that the material added could be considered as part of the same edit. There certainly was no intent to deceive on my part.

Maybe you'd care to point me to the policy regarding the "fundamental no-no for wikipedians"?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review the original proposal by North8000. The one you opposed, and TE supported. The proposal was to get Malke's condensed verion of Xeno's V12d into the article mainspace, to replace the execrable crap that was there, but only as a starting point for further improvement. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Scatological descriptions are not helpful.

There are two issues with the presumptions embedded in your reply, both of which are problematic.

First, the "starting point for improvement" was to be a text subjected to discussion of objectionable wording and the like here on the moderated discussion page before being finalized for placement on the article in mainspace.

Second, the problem with all the versions that attempted to omit the first two paragraphs of 12d is that you can't discuss something that is not there in a "starting point for improvement" text, because you already agreed to a text without it as the starting point. Therefore, I could not support any such version. In the meantime, Xenophrenic and I improved his original 12d and arrived at version 15 as it stands today.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Are the two of you now in the position of "15 or nothing"? Collect (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Scatological descriptions are not helpful. In this specific case, it was accurate. In the case of the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section, it was also accurate. But now the sanitation department has had its way with them. It the future, I think references to "garbage" would suffice for these other sections that need work.

• ... you can't discuss something that is not there in a "starting point for improvement" text ... I think we can. Just start talking about it if you'd like. If you want something that is not there, you simply start a discussion about putting it in there; and if you get consensus for it, we could put it in there.

• In the meantime, Xenophrenic and I improved his original 12d and arrived at version 15 as it stands today. Good for you. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. On the other hand, you could just work it into that /Agenda of the Tea Party movement spin-off article I was working on, because that would be brilliant.

• We've just demonstrated that we can act quickly and effectively as a team when we choose to do so, Ubikwit. So do it, or do nothing. If there isn't any progress on that by the end of the day, I'd like to go back to those three minor improvements I've had tabled for three months, and start discussing those. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think we all intend that "going in as a starting point" means open to changes in all respects, and that it will need some changes. In fact, we should specifically say that. IMO About 3/4 of the recent versions are good enough for that. Let's get this baby moving! North8000 (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Malke's latest V12g proposal has a 4-2 "vote." That's a weak majority and weak consensus by Misplaced Pages standards. Ubikwit has offered some argument in opposition but I fail to see how it's supported by policy. I am not sure whether we can proceed at this point. Ubikwit has gone on a Wikibreak (see User:Ubikwit), so it's very unlikely he'll proceed any time soon with his V15 proposal. The "agenda" section has been through at least 22 different versions (V1-V15, plus V12b-V12g), and I feel we've done enough to improve it for the time being. There are other areas of the article that need attention and have been waiting a long time for it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No need to rush to meet the WP:DEADLINE. The goal is to reach consensus - and that does not appear to be reached here. I have an proposal-in-progress on my UT page which I invited Malke to view - I suppose others should as well. It puts some elements which seem placed at random into what I consider a more rational order vis-à-vis the "conservative libertarian dichotomy" clearly present in the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Collect, IMHO you the person who is the most skilled here at writing things succinctly and well. But you keep coming up with versions that are lacking content / too short for this all-important section. But since the selection will be a starting point for making changes, I also support yours. Any of the recent versions by you, Xenophrenic or Malke IMHO would be a good starting point, each with flaws that should get fixed in the following phase. Let's get this baby moving! North8000 (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Edit I've edited the existing V12d in the mainspace, adding a few Wikilinks and changing "conservative movement" to "part conservative and part libertarian" per concerns raised by North8000. These are the minor tweaks that are, or should be, allowed without discussion here. Please let me know if you approve. Regarding Malke's V12g above, one or two more "Support votes" would mean consensus strong enough to action the edit, and one or two more "Oppose votes" would kill it. Right now, I see it hovering in a weak consensus limbo until some more people weigh in. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's really not my edit. I took Ubikwit's version, and Xenophrenic's version and put them into a word file. I put Ubikwit's first paragraph first, then the rest is Xenophrenic's version. I eliminated the blockquote because it didn't make sense to keep it. First, who is Schmidt? Why would the reader care about what he has to say? He's not notable. And the quote doesn't support any of the content. Plus it's obscure. So far, no editor has been able to paraphrase it. For the last paragraph, I included the details about the Contract for America because editors had earlier expressed a desire to eliminate the Contract for America section all together. That's really the only contribution I made. I thought this version was the best of all worlds and would be supported unanimously, allowing the process to move forward. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Schmidt is a law professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, and he's one of the few academics I've seen cross this page who has written in an informative and truly unbiased way about the TPm. He's not notable yet but in my opinion, perhaps he should be. My personal opinion is that Ronald Formisano wrote a hit piece disguised as peer-reviewed academic research; his fawning op-eds for Obama and the Democrats betray him. Skocpol and Perrin (who is discussed on the main article Talk page) are substantially less biased, but I still detect a little bit of bias there. Elizabeth Price Foley is that most rare of creatures: an academic who's actually a little biased in favor of the Tea Party. Schmidt, Zietlow and Zernike write with no detectable bias. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I know all about Schmidt. I'm the one who came up with his article when I attempted to rewrite the edit Ubikwit placed in the main article without any discussion and/or consensus. (I'm referring to the first time Ubikwit made the edit without consensus/discussion, and not this most recent time where he did the same thing again without consensus and discussion.) Whether or not he's notable is not my only point. The quoteblock does not fit in any of the versions. It's awkward in a section that is talking about the agenda in general. As I said, it's not like someone famous is being quoted and that quote speaks directly to the content, highlights it. Instead, the Schmidt quote makes no sense. If what Schmidt has to say is so vital, then simply paraphrase it with a cite. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Malke, you've raised a good point about the akwardness of the blockquote (and the other quote as well, which just rather hangs there unconnected to the text before or after it). I've paraphrased the salient points, and removed the quotes, as you've suggested. I did much the same as you did, by taking your recent version and combining it in a file with the previous popular version. Then I went through and tried to address each of the concerns expressed about both versions. I re-added the IRS protests after I found a source; I'm not sure it qualifies as a widely-held agenda point yet, but it certainly has recently become a focal point concern, so I re-added one sentence. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

’’Version 17’’, (version 12d revised for readability)

Overall readability scores 14/30

The Tea Party doesn't have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the Tea Party, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group to set its own priorities and goals. Goals may conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. Many Tea Party organizers see this as a strength rather than a weakness, as decentralization has helped to immunize the Tea Party against co-opting by outside entities and corruption from within.

The Tea Party has generally sought to avoid placing too much emphasis on traditional conservative social issues. National Tea Party organizations, such as the Tea Party Patriots and FreedomWorks, have expressed concern that engaging in social issues would be divisive. Instead, they have sought to have activists focus their efforts away from social issues and focus on economic and limited government issues. Still, many groups like Glenn Beck's 9/12 Tea Parties, TeaParty.org, the Iowa Tea Party and Delaware Patriot Organizations do act on social issues such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools, and illegal immigration.

The Tea Party generally focuses on government reform. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases. To this end, Tea Party groups have protested TARP, stimulus programs, cap and trade, health care reform and perceived attacks by the federal government on their 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendment rights. Tea Party groups have also voiced support for right-to-work legislation as well as tighter border security, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. They have formed SuperPacs to support candidates sympathetic to their goals and have opposed what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates. After setbacks in the 2012 elections, the movement again shifted its focus. With repeal off the table, the Tea party now leads efforts to nullify federal health care law. It has also mobilized locally against the United Nations Agenda 21. They have protested the IRS for controversial treatment of groups with "tea party" in their names.

Even though the groups have a wide range of different goals, the Tea Party places the Constitution at the center of its reform agenda. It urges the return of government as intended by the Founding Fathers. It also seeks to teach its view of the Constitution and other founding documents. Scholars have described its interpretation variously as originalist, popular, or a unique combination of the two. Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter. Several constitutional amendments have been targeted by some in the movement for full or partial repeal, including the 14th, 16th, and 17th. There has also been support for a proposed Repeal Amendment, which would enable a two-thirds majority of the states to repeal federal laws, and a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would limit deficit spending.

One attempt at forming a list of what Tea Partiers wanted Congress to do resulted in the Contract from America. It was a legislative agenda created by conservative activist Ryan Hecker with the assistance of Dick Armey of FreedomWorks. Armey had co-written the previous Contract with America released by the Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections. One thousand agenda ideas that had been submitted were narrowed down to twenty-one non-social issues. Participants then voted in an online campaign in which they were asked to select their favorite policy planks. The results were released as a ten-point Tea Party platform. The Contract from America was met with some support within the Republican Party, but it was not broadly embraced by GOP leadership, which released its own 'Pledge to America'.

• Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. --Phoenix and Winslow

Good plan. I'd like to introduce this to the Agenda section if there are no significant objections. It addresses several problems with the text that was boldly introduced to the main article (and also rates better on the Grade/Readability meter as well). I've removed the blockquote from the above version (without prejudice - it can be reconsidered later). Xenophrenic (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears we await an admin here per Snowded's request -- did you sign on to the continuation below? Meanwhile, no edits at this point appear to have "uncontested consensus" behind them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That includes the present edit actioned by P&W. Rather than revert it outright per WP:BRD, I was hoping to avoid that and retain much of our constructive work with the above content. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic - After an extended weekend drunken debauchery, I can't even remember what problems you had with the 12 series. There was an oppose vote pointing to your objections as stated above at that time, I subsequently mentioned them as being minor fixes in a response to P&W. Maybe we start there? †TE†Talk 22:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The above content IS the "12 series", after everyone's objections were addressed. Do either of you have any further objections to the content proposed above? (Glad to hear you had fun, by the way -- as did I. But I'm a physical wreck at the moment because of it...) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, perhaps the lead-in from Ubikwit deceived to me: "I've further copy edited the version posted by Xenophrenic, and renumbered it, divorcing it from the "12" series." As I recall, there were significantly more objections for any version other than the one actioned by P&W (the shorter version of Xen). I would like to discuss your objections to the live version, and see if we can't tweak it a bit. I'm glad we have all had a little time away from this process. Hopefully we're coming back reinvigorated and refocused on seeing tangible results. †TE†Talk 22:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, don't let the "divorcing" word deceive you -- he basically said he took the most advanced "12" version, and gave it a new number after some copy-editing. Many of the same objections still exist, plus new ones about content that either isn't cited, or goes contrary to sources. The content on immigration is wrong (as well as redundantly mentioned), TP Express mention is unsourced (and likely inaccurate), the evolution of their focus isn't mentioned, the relationship between the Constitution and the "originalist" description is misapplied, the "Contract" text doesn't adhere to the cited sources, etc. I'll mark you down as "no objections" to the above version, but that isn't engraved in stone, of course. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's find an acceptable working version (perhaps 12), and then look at the issues in that version, and make it better - if that means paring it down, and parking the contract and foreign policy sections for later, that's OK. But the first stage is to find a version that most people agree is the best one to be working on. And then we look at the issues arising from that. Does that make sense? Let's find an acceptable working version (perhaps 12), and then look at the issues in that version, and make it better - if that means paring it down, and parking the contract and foreign policy sections for later, that's OK. But the first stage is to find a version that most people agree is the best one to be working on. And then we look at the issues arising from that. Does that make sense?

Yes it does, Silk. At least it did for me. Why am I mentioning this? Because, while preparing my comments on the re-posting of Version 15, I've noticed more has been done to it than just removal of one "blockquote from the above version (without prejudice - it can be reconsidered later)." It's been significantly altered (and improved), more inline with the current consensus version.

In light of this, I'll ask the OP -- Why would you present this as Version 15, with a quote from another editor in response to Version 15 (from a week ago)? This certainly doesn't seem to be constructive. It could be construed as a way to deceive fellow editors. Possibly an attempt to ridicule and marginalize others. I'm legitimately pissed off. Seriously, WTF!?! †TE†Talk 03:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Your SilkTork quotation (which is incomplete) was from days before several more advanced versions were proposed from multiple editors (and even before the version boldly pasted into the main article). There was much collaborative back-and-forth between Ubikwit and Collect as improvements were made (along with new proposals). You'll recall SilkTork said, "I'd like an indication now which two of the versions (I think the viable versions run from 7 through to 13) people feel they can live with, and is better than what is currently in the article. The process will be to indicate first and second preference. No need for additional comments at this stage. I'll assess which version is favourite, and then ask what specific objections people have to that version. Depending on the result of that discussion the outcome will be to either insert the chosen version, work on amending it, or continue to search for another version." That you find disruptive anything that was improved after version 12 (when SilkTork first asked) is curious.

Yes, the "version 15" has been modified. Many, many times. Yes, it has been significantly altered and improved. You act like that was a secret or something. No secret, no deception, TE; see my comment to Malke, for example: Malke, you've raised a good point about the akwardness of the blockquote (and the other quote as well, which just rather hangs there unconnected to the text before or after it). I've paraphrased the salient points, and removed the quotes, as you've suggested. I did much the same as you did, by taking your recent version and combining it in a file with the previous popular version. Then I went through and tried to address each of the concerns expressed about both versions. I re-added the IRS protests after I found a source; I'm not sure it qualifies as a widely-held agenda point yet, but it certainly has recently become a focal point concern, so I re-added one sentence.

• Why would you present this as Version 15, with a quote from another editor in response to Version 15 (from a week ago)? --TE

Because that's what another editor suggested should be done, 5 days earlier, back before my holiday departure. You seriously asked that? As for your "ridicule", "marginalize" and "pissed off" comments, I can't make heads nor tails out of what you just said. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To avoid distraction by deflection, I'll post SilkTork's comment as it appeared, when it appeared. Now we can keep our focus.

• 16:22, July 8, 2013 - Xenophrenic resurrected section ’’Version 15’’, (version 12d revised for readability) "from the grave" (Archive 4).
• 16:33, July 8, 2013 - Xenophrenic reposts a comment about Version 15, added by P&W on 08:24, July 3, 2013, directly under the resurrection of Version 15, presumably in response.
• 19:21, July 8, 2013 - Xenophrenic responds to comment by Malke added 17:55, July 5, 2013 (referring to the awkwardness of Ubikwit's use of quotes in Version 15), directly above Xenophrenic's newly added section containing the resurrection of Version 15. It would appear at this time Xenophrenic is pointing to his significant alterations to Ubikwit's Version 15 (which curiously enough, still carries the name of Version 15).

People can draw their own conclusions. Perhaps, if the OP had taken these actions in reverse order and denoted his new proposal (15a without the reposted section title and lead-in from Ubikwit), there wouldn't be much of an issue. But alas, that was not the case. Goes to illustrate more of the dysfunction caused by bad decorum. †TE†Talk 10:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, you have linked to just one of SilkTork's comments - an older one. The discussion didn't stop there, nor did the suggested improvements to various proposed versions. If you'll look at the last half of of the discussions in Archive 5, you'll see that there were two significantly different versions each with 5 nods of approval. Now we have problematic text that was actioned into the main article over objections (see: bad decorum), and our moderator has withdrawn before addressing that issue. If "there wouldn't be much of an issue" if the most recent text was renumbered, and didn't have old remnant comments from Ubikwit still attached to it (I thought I had cropped that out ... I admittedly missed some), then I suggest we rewind and start from that point. I'll change the number, alter the section title, and crop out the last of the old comments by other editors. If we're going to spend this much energy arguing with each other, we should at least direct it at content improvement, and not at whether the text should be labeled 15 or 15a. On a side note, I'm encouraged that there have been no objections so far. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's SilkTork's final comment before withdrawing. Moving on, I'll support your corrections applied to the appearance of this thread. Might have done a couple things differently myself, though. Either way, it brings us to a better position for cleaning up the dialogue. On your proposed additions to the Agenda section -- Much is redundant. It would help greatly to delete the walls of green for more concise discussion. Personally, I have a good idea of your objections to the current text, but we need to make this moderated talkpage more friendly to newcomers. Thanks in advance. †TE†Talk 22:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to what green text you are suggesting needs deletion. Any redundant text (appearing in both my proposal and P&W's proposal) should appear in the Agenda section, since there appears to be wide agreement for it. Any non-redundant text (corrections, copy-edited wording for readability, encyclopedic content) should also appear in the Agenda section. Do you have any objections with any of that green text appearing in the Agenda section? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just thought it would easier for everyone to understand your proposed additions if we removed all the redundancies which are currently present in the article. I'll do my best to speak on the OP's behalf.

With redundancy discarded, the OP would like to:

1) Remove: "Tea Party groups have also supported right to work laws, and immigration reform that includes border security."

Replacement: Tea Party groups have also voiced support for right to work legislation as well as tighter border security, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants.

 Done - I don't think Marco Rubio's role in the Gang of Eight makes for Tea Party support. OP introduced refs to the opposite effect. †TE†Talk 23:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

2) Add nullification.

Remove: "Prior to the June 2012 Supreme Court decision on the new health care law, the Tea Party led efforts to challenge the new law in the courts."

Replacement: After being signed into law, the Tea Party led efforts to challenge Obamacare in the Supreme Court and legislatively at both state and federal levels.

 Done †TE†Talk 23:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

3) Introduce OR/SYN that Tea Party (in some form) supports a Living Constitution, in addition to an originalist interpretation.

• Oppose - Misunderstanding by OP of popular constitutionalism as used by legal scholars. †TE†Talk 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

4) Introduce the pedestrian understanding of constitutional originalism by sociologists: Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter.

• Oppose - You don't call a plumber to tell you why the furnace is acting up. †TE†Talk 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

5) Add Dick Armey and Freedom Works to the Contract from America text.

• No vote - Probable merge with and partial rewrite to https://en.wikipedia.org/Tea_Party_movement#Contract_from_America. †TE†Talk 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

6) Add a lead (of sorts) to Agenda: The Tea Party doesn't have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the Tea Party, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group to set its own priorities and goals. Goals may conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. Many Tea Party organizers see this as a strength rather than a weakness, as decentralization has helped to immunize the Tea Party against co-opting by outside entities and corruption from within.

• Support †TE†Talk 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There you have it. Limited discussion to specific proposals to the existing text within Agenda. †TE†Talk 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Malke and P&W's versions both have this sentence in their proposed paragraph on Contract from America, which I don't object to adding if we intend to scrap the present subsection on that same topic:

The top ten included "identify the constitutionality of every new law, reject cap and trade legislation, demand a balanced federal budget, simplify the tax code, assess constitutionality of federal agencies, limit growth in annual federal spending, repeal Obamacare, new energy policy that supports exploration, reduce earmarks, and reduce federal taxes."

Xenophrenic (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd keep the list, but we do need a merge for reduced redundancy. †TE†Talk 21:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just went ahead with the merge. If you'd like, we can start discussion on adding Dick Armey and Freedomworks to the text. †TE†Talk 23:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

V17 is a non-starter and I'm Opposed to it, mainly because it's just too long. This is an encyclopedia, and it's supposed to be written in summary style. Furthermore, the following shouldn't be stated as a fact in Misplaced Pages's voice: "Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter." Claiming that Tea Party members don't have a "commitment to the test," or that they are "selective and inconsistent," is someone's opinion. And I suspect that after careful analysis it would turn out to be a minority viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT. I suggest all this time and effort should be directed into /Agenda of the Tea Party movement, a new spin-off article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Same answer as the previous 5 versions. Good enough to go in as a starting point for further work. With the understanding that it needs changes which we can handle then. (Including later fixing the travesty "Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent." If someone advocates blacks' right to vote and cites the constitution, but fails to advocate the right to bear arms in the same speech, do you put that "inconsistent" statement in their article?) Would not replace the subsections which would be handled separately. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

re: "It's just too long" - not really, it's 5 paragraphs just like P&W's proposed version, and both are close to the same length, with the above version being far more readable. In fact, I can see that section getting longer as the movement takes on more issues, and as its priorities continue to evolve.

re: Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter.

Two objections have been raised about that text. The first, is that it is opinion, rather than reliably sourced fact. This is incorrect; the sources do not say they are opining, and the sources (the Oxford University published book, and the peer-reviewed academic paper) are indeed reliable. Also, equally reliable sources calling that text into question have not been produced. Further objections along those lines would be better handled at WP:RSN.

The second objection, as I understand it, is that the text is inaccurate or false. The "right to vote/right to bear arms" example doesn't exemplify the reasoning behind the "inconsistent" description being used here. Here is some of the source content supporting the

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 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. (Perrin, Pgs. 7-8)

They are doing what every political endeavor does: using history as a source of inspiration and social identity. 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/Williamson, Pgs. 50-51)

The "inconsistency" is not so much that they do advocate one part while not advocating another part of the Constitution (although they do that, too), but more that they advocate adherance to the constitution while at the same time advocating amending or repealing. Did I incorrectly word what the sources are saying, or is the contention that the sources are just wrong? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC) (I note that North8000 is travelling, and says we can fix this later, but I thought I'd at least try to get a clearer picture of the objection.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd call it misleading POV wording, including if a source said it. Again, we can fix this after it's in. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

In where -- Perceptions? †TE†Talk 14:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Any opposition to Proposal #6? Seems the least contentious of the remainders. †TE†Talk 16:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawing

The ArbCom case has re-opened. The moderated discussion has not achieved what I hoped it would, and I apologise to everyone for my part in that failure - but would also like to thank everyone who took part and made some positive improvements to the article: there have been steps forward, and the article is in a better shape now than what it was when we started. As the case has reopened and the discussion has not been fully successful, and as I will be away from home all next week with uncertain internet access, I am withdrawing from the discussion as of now. It is highly likely that some people are going to be topic banned, and that a number of those involved in the discussion are going to be among those who are topic banned. As such it is uncertain what the best course of action would be in regards to the discussion: if it continues without a moderator, or a new moderator should be sought, or if it should be closed down completely, and discussion returned to the main talkpage. It may be best to await the outcome of the case before making any firm decisions, though I leave that in your hands. SilkTork 22:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I regret your decision on this. I would ask you contact one of the neutral parties you might know to see who would be willing to act as shepherd at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork, thank you for the excellent job that you have done. The challenge is due to the policy weaknesses that leave all contentious articles articles in this state. The article was chugging along in such a sad routine state when someone asked someone to light a bonfire, and they listened. So there are 2 people to blame for the bonfire (who have evaded scrutiny) and nobody to really blame for the article state. We'll see if Arbcom figures that out. North8000 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, SilkTork, for your service here. Please don't describe this effort as a "failure." As you said, there have been "some positive improvements to the article," despite the enormous obstacles, and that's been due to the diligent work and patience of a significant number of people, particularly you. I couldn't agree more with North's assessment that the contents of the policy toolbox need to be supplemented, and sharpened. When facing a thicket of negative trivia, placed in an article by people who loathe the subject of the article, the best tool is a chainsaw; and any policy restraining the immediate use of that chainsaw very badly needs to be actively reviewed with an eye toward revision. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Silk Tork. You were very generous with your time. The article has progessed and is much improved, thanks to your efforts. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Lis alibi pendens or muddle on?

This is a sort of vote -- who wishes to muddle on as best we can? (Option 1) Or to invoke Lis alibi pendens and suspend this effort (Option 2)? Collect (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Since SilkTork provided the rules, and disagreed with some of the editors about interpretations, I don't think I could vote to continue option 1 without specifying the rules. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Suppose we we posit that Option 1 has: 1. Absolutely no mention of another editor by name in any critical context, period, including the implicit use of "you" to make critical comments about an editor in any post. (basically a "civility rule). 2. No "consensus" shall be claimed without a plurality of four !votes for any proposal. 3. "Drive-by" !votes are to be discouraged. (ones with no constructive discussion to be weighed minimally - but not discouraging constructive suggestions from added editors) 4. Any non-involved admin shall interpret these rules and be allowed to enforce them as though they had been posited in arbitration through AE. 5. If and only if this option is selected, we shall then decide on procedural matters including the questions of whether we deal with existing sections or deal with a general overview of the topic, etc. (such as the "plan A" suggestions) Collect (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As there is a clear consensus to proceed, I have asked at WP:AN for a moderator to abide by the posited rules and to proceed to get this job done. Collect (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Votes:

• Yes The article will go on regardless of what we decide. And anyone who is willing and able with work on it will. So I guess that you are asking whether or not to continue with this semi-organized effort. That is how I interpreted the question. Not sure yet on those details. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes We should proceed immediately. Same rules, with the clarification above by Collect regarding the occasional drive-by editor. We just need a new moderator. And for heaven's sake people, the discussion of my three little improvements has been put on hold for three months so can we start there first please? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes The 'civility rule' above is a particularly fine idea. The intense personalization of discussion can be highly discouraging. Capitalismojo (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes I'd be fine with continuing on. We need to find another moderator. I don't know how best to find one. Perhaps a general notice at ANI, if such a thing is allowed?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  I think AN might be more appropriate than ANI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes but It will beed to be moderated but its not going to work if we get lengthy posts, multiple propositions and an attitude based on vote stacking rather than consensus. So I'd suggest that we need moderation even to formulate the votes and all of that needs to wait for the ArbCom case to be resolved. We all know its going to change then anyway----Snowded 12:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • ArbCom only deals with behavior, and makes absolutely no content decisions. Thus I am taking your !vote to be part of a clear consensus to ask for a moderator. Collect (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I do know that Collect, but their judgement on behaviour is likely to change the nature of participation and thus the context of moderation. ----Snowded 13:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • As long as the behaviour is under control for the duration of a moderated discussion, do you think that a later ArbCom decision would reverse a reasonable consensus? I would trust that is not your position, of course. If we wait ofr a behavior decision first, we will lose a full month or more, IMO. Collect (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - ...on some of your (Option 1) rules, it appears we've already disregarded Rule #5. Rule #1 is standard Civility/NPA policy. Don't comment on editors, period. It's a shame that such a basic rule needs reiteration. Rule #2 - Instead, let's stick with Misplaced Pages policy, and not introduce numbers in any way, shape or form to the determination of WP:CONSENSUS. Quite simply: when a proposal is made and objections are raised, the objections need to be addressed. Gathering 4 like-minded editors to say "Me too" is not how consensus is achieved. Same applies to Rule #3. Of course not all objections can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties when achieving consensus, but any proposal that is actioned while ignoring legitimate concerns is not an act of consensus. To the more general question of whether or not we can continue to be productive, I don't see any reason why not. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

IOW you would agree to abide by the posited rules? If you wish to veto this entire process here, then do so - but as for the rest of us, we really want to get the job done. Now do you object to the posited rules or not? Collect (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your summary of the rules as you've stated them in your request for a moderator at WP:AN, it doesn't appear we disagree all that much. To quote you, "The primary criteria here are that the moderator ensure that WP:CONSENSUS be followed..." My objection was over your apparent deviation from that when you redefined consensus as tied to an arbitrary number of "!votes". Did I misunderstand you? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You managed to dispute every single rule to which everyone else assented. I decline to stay here for the weeks of wrangling which are implicit in your cavils. I have posted my opinion at the bottom of this page. The Misplaced Pages Bar Association seems to have a new member. I also suggest you read up on the role of mistletoe in Norse mythology. Collect (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Scroll up just a little and you can verify for yourself. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes but - Let us remember human nature is such that while one can do their best to abide by Rule 1, we can't just go around speaking to eachother like robots. Some degree of informality is inevitable. †TE†Talk 23:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A little bit of thick-skin is a good thing, too. More than once I've had my sarcasm or attempts at humor completely misconstrued, so I try to use extra care now. No amount of care will suffice, however, when an editor has already prejudged anything you might say as an attack or affront, even before you've clicked "Save page". Xenophrenic (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A plan?

If one reads this page one realizes that things have gotten much better. Instead of there being a battle, we now have just a truck that is stuck in the mud and collectively we can't figure out how to get it moving. Let's create a framework that will do that and get somebody who will oversee it. I think that the following would help:

• BRD with teeth on the "D" would be a good plan.
• Decide smaller pieces at a time, not entire sections
• Decide that each questioned section/item must get decided on. The status quo does not rule (absent a supermajority), it becomes merely one of the choices of what will go in.
• Fix the math problem that occurs when there are three or more choices. Encourage editors to weigh in on every choice, not just pick a favorite
• Other than the above, use the normal methods in other areas
• Agree that outlandish behavior needs to get smacked. Also agree that the process of ginning up / spinning up minor issues to try to get people smacked should stop.
• I could handle the gnome organizing work if folks want on a trial basis. 1 week trial then 1 month trial. But we need an admin to oversee / enforce the above.

North8000 (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting plan - but we need to decide on whether we go on at all first. Collect (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The article will go on regardless of what we decide. So I guess that you are asking whether or not to continue with this semi-organized effort? North8000 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to work

Suggestions on what to work on next

It might be a good idea to open a section addressing the specific government programs the TP opposes and include the Social Security and Medicare programs which TP members depend on. Tea Party members and their supporters don't seem to be against them, yet these programs represent the same kind of huge government programs they are opposed to.

Malke 2010 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That would prove difficult. How do we delve into the complexity of Medicare which older Americans paid into their entire lives only to see cut for another entitlement (Obamacare), and social security which is backed by IOU's the federal government can only pay back with increased taxes or borrowing? Even saying they oppose these programs is troublesome. Opposition is more to the administration of such programs. †TE†Talk 15:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was an interesting dichotomy. Look at the demographic. They're all headed for retirement and will need these programs. I've mentioned this several times back in 2010 but nobody ever wanted to do it. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Malke, please feel free to write a couple of paragraphs on that topic and post them here for approval. If there's a reliable source which specifically addresses that "interesting dichotomy," it should be identified and cited like this:

Joe Blow, a political science professor at Wassamatta U., has examined the "paradox" created by the Tea Party movement's support for reform of Social Security and Medicare. Blow observes this support is not in the self-interest of many Tea Party members, since they tend to be over 50 years old and will be relying on these programs in a few years.

• There are three steps I'd like to take right away:

1. One thing I think we should take action on immediately is adding the word "grass-roots" (with the Wikilink) to the lede sentence. We were discussing it just before the moderated discussion started. I felt we had consensus for it, since there were so many reliable sources to support it. The allegations about Astroturfing have one or two sources, and are clearly a minority opinion per WP:WEIGHT.
2. Another thing we should consider immediately is removing the Other events section. The removal of the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section has kind of orphaned THIS section. I suggest we cut the length of the paragraph about the gas grill in half, and add both events to the list of bulleted incidents at the end of Perceptions of the Tea Party movement, in chronological order.
3. Also, there's a subsection at the beginning of the "History" section called Commentaries on origin. Nothing there is notable enough to remain in this top-level article. It should be moved to the spin-off article, Perceptions of the Tea Party movement, after the bulleted list of incidents.

• Strongly support. Now that the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" roadblock has finally been removed, we can move forward with several other items that have been waiting patiently. The "grass-roots" edit, for example, has been waiting for two months. Let's get these three items done and move on. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose First, I believe that we are to be focusing on one item at a time, not multiple items in a haphazard manner.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(A) There's nothing "haphazard" about it, and we have previously discussed more than one edit at a time — usually removal of the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section, plus some other edit. (B) I don't see any substantive objection, just a procedural one, which has just been addressed — see (A). Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have a chance to get back yesterday, but I realized the first goal here is to reduce content. I will postpone the Soc Sec issue until the reductions have been completed. My suggestion for further reducing content that might take the tension off from that last edit, is to reduce the protest/rally sections. We already have Tea Party protests and the content could easily be transferred there. My suggestion for a remaining para, with a link to the main, is focus on the beginnings and then mention the spread to national, without too much detail. Just generalized. I'd be happy to write up a sample para if anybody is interested.

On the grassroots bit, because there's so much controversy about it (with editors), it is something that needs to be addressed here. We do have to take things one at a time. I just thought something easy, like reducing the protests section, might be something that is easy and could help foster a more collegial atmosphere. The race/bigotry section was stressful for all. (And I agree about the History section with it's "commentaries" subsection. I also agree with transferring the "Other events" section the subarticle.)

Malke 2010 (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe leave "grass roots" for later. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that possibly the most messed up section in the article is the "polling of supporters". It's a wp:synth wp:or fest, about the worst abuse of primary sources I've ever seen, uses hostile op-ed pieces as a "source" of polling data, and has misleading or inaccurate summaries. Many "gems" in there. For example "predominantly white" (any group representative of US polulaiotn is going to be "predominantly white") A good candidate to take a close look at. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This article was loaded with gems like that when we started. It was like the home of a hoarder. Now that responsible Wikipedians have taken charge of the situation and we're trying to clean it up, we're going to be hauling rubbish out of here for weeks. Every time we open the door to a new section, there's going to be a little avalanche of garbage falling out. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's get back to work

I think we should get back to work. The article has been substantially improved, but we still have a lot of work to do. SilkTork has left us since he's traveling during the next week and won't have Internet access. The ArbCom case has started up again, so I'm sure we'll all be on our best behavior, and we have a rough framework of rules for future procedure proposed by North8000.

The race/bigotry section and the agenda section were very difficult and stressful for everyone. It seems to me that to a very substantial extent, they are done. There may be some follow-up work to do with the agenda sub-sections, and some tweaking of the language we've already added/changed in that section (including refcites — ). But I think the big problems have been resolved, and we can go forward with some less challenging portions of the article.

Let's get on the stick.

My proposal for three minor improvements will be slightly modified as described below. This is to make it more attractive to those who may have been opposed to the original proposal. Modified portions and some explanation and argument have been added in italics and strikethrough.

1. One thing I think we should take action on immediately is adding the word "grass-roots" (with the Wikilink) to the lede sentence. We were discussing it just before the moderated discussion started. I felt we had consensus for it, since there were so many reliable sources to support it. The allegations about Astroturfing have one or two sources, and are clearly a minority opinion per WP:WEIGHT. Astroturfing allegations have already been presented in the body of the article. If necessary, these can be expanded upon, particularly with footnoted blockquotes from Formisano and Skocpol.
2. Another thing we should consider immediately is removing the Other events section. The removal of the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section has kind of orphaned THIS section. I suggest we cut the length of the paragraph about the gas grill in half, and add both events to the list of bulleted incidents at the end of Perceptions of the Tea Party movement, in chronological order.
3. Also, there's a subsection at the beginning of the "History" section called Commentaries on origin. Nothing there is notable enough to remain in this top-level article. It should be moved to the spin-off article, Perceptions of the Tea Party movement, after the bulleted list of incidents. I think it's important to identify this as "criticism and commentaries," since that's what it is, and identify critics as progressives and anti-tobacco activists, since their motives in raising these criticisms are most likely partisan.

• Strongly support. Now that the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" roadblock and the agenda roadblock has have finally been removed, we can move forward with several other items that have been waiting patiently. The "grass-roots" edit, for example, has been waiting for two three months. Let's get these three items done and move on. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The addition of grass roots was opposed P&W and you continue to confuse voting with consensus. Otherwise I really don't see the point until the Arbcom position is settled. It ha gone back there because this approach did not work. ----Snowded 04:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no confusion on my part, Snowded. The TPm is a grass-roots movement; this is the majority position per WP:WEIGHT. The example that I used in previous incarnations of this thread was the Waterboarding article. Even though a minority of reliable sources, including (at that time) the Vice President of the United States, the Attorney General, and two Deputy Attorneys General were of the opinion that in some cases waterboarding was not torture, a majority of sources stated that it was torture. Accordingly, the first six words of the Waterboarding article are, "Waterboarding is a form of torture" In previous incarnations of this discussion thread over the past six months, I've linked at least 18 reliable sources stating that the TPm is a grass-roots movement. These included both peer-reviewed academic and fact-checked news organization sources. Those editors who opposed the edit cited two sources: one by Ron Formisano, who claims that a few groups associated with TPm are engaged in Astroturfing, and one by Theda Skocpol, who observes that the TPm is neither grass-roots nor Astroturf, but something in between. Even if we count both of these sources as sharing the same minority opinion, it's eighteen to two — clearly a majority opinion and a minority opinion per WP:WEIGHT.

But it isn't even that good for those who oppose the edit, Snowded. It's eighteen for the majority opinion, one for a minority opinion, and one for a different minority opinion, because Formisano and Skocpol don't share the same opinion. Clearly, the authors of the Waterboarding article have shown us how to handle this situation. Review the archives of that article's Talk page. Those who opposed that edit were very determined, but they lost the content dispute. Here, we also see support for treating obvious minority opinions as something other than the minority. This is a policy based argument, Snowded. Policy based arguments, not votes, determine consensus per WP:CLOSE and WP:CONSENSUS. You see, there's no confusion on my part about what constitutes consensus at Misplaced Pages. Do you have a policy based argument?

Next, let's examine your desire to wait until the ArbCom decision. Are you waiting for ArbCom to issue topic bans for one side in the content dispute, and then the other side can have its way? ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes. Policy decides content disputes and here, the policy is WP:WEIGHT. Also, you claim that "this approach did not work." It wasn't allowed to work. The first time, we had consensus and SilkTork shut down the discussion to steer us into "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception." The second time, SilkTork shut down the discussion to steer us into the "Agenda" section. Let's get an admin from WP:AN to close this, and provide him with links to the previous two discussions. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That response illustrates why the Arbcom resolution is needed before progress can be made ----Snowded 09:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Now you are back here - your !vote is solicited above in Lis alibi pendens. Collect (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A month block for a problematic editor on various Philosophy articles has given me some time Collect but I'm not 100% on my continued participation. I'm waiting to see what comes out of the Arbcom ruling. However I have responded to your request and personal hat tip to you by the way. We've had our disagreements over the years but you do seem to be trying to make some progress here. ----Snowded 13:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• That response illustrates why the Arbcom resolution is needed before progress can be made Perhaps you'd care to explain, Snowded. I politely provided a fairly thorough policy based argument. Do you have a policy based argument that explains why the edit shouldn't be actioned? If not, why shouldn't the edit be actioned? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I and other editors have explained the issue elsewhere P&W, this is just another manifestation, counting votes, repeating your arguments as if they were uncontroversial conclusions and at length. Sorry been here too many times to go through it all again ----Snowded 02:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a persuasive argument has yet to be made, and the past discussions are being misrepresented here as an "18 sources versus just 2 sources" weight discussion, which simply isn't the situation. To use a clearer analogy, if Blitzo Motor Company makes a hybrid car (gas/electric), we don't put a sentence in our article lead about that car saying simply "this car is gasoline-powered". Sure, you can come up with 18 sources that say it runs on gas, and it does, but that isn't the whole truth. It also runs on electricity, and that isn't a "minority opinion", it's a fact - and it remains a fact regardless of how many sources are produced saying so. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, it's being claimed that a source must also say "There is no part of TPm that is Astroturfed" in order for that source to be counted as a "TPm is grass-roots" source. When a source says "TPm is grass-roots," that necessarily contains the implicit statement, "There is no part of TPm that is Astroturfed." See my previous analogy about the Elephant article. If several reliable sources state, "The elephant is an animal," necessarily implicit in that statement is, "The elephant is not a plant." Finding reliable sources which describe elephant ears as plants, and then trying to insert the statement, "Many scholarly sources have indicated that extensive portions of the elephant are a plant" in the Elephant article, and keep the statement, "The elephant is an animal" out of the lede, is analogous to this effort to describe TPm in this article as Astroturfed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where that claim is being made. Reliable sources say there are many grassroots activists in the movement, which has been significantly astroturfed. Are you claiming, against reliable sources, that there has been no astroturfing of the movement, or are you only claiming that we shouldn't mention that fact in the lead of the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: The new posited rules disallow such colloquy - I suggest we start now with not mentioning any editors by name in any post, not even using "you." Collect (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• The "explanation" I recall was to focus on Formisano and Skocpol, over and over again, in infinite detail; to dismiss such eminently reliable fact-checked news organizations as The New York Times, Politico and The Washington Post as birdcage liner and fish wrap, compared to the founts of wisdom contained in the pages of a book by a history professor at the University of Kentucky; and to pretend that Elizabeth Price Foley (for example) wasn't at least as reliable, and at least as notable as Ronald P. Formisano. In other words, to claim that seventeen WP:NEWSORG sources (yes, seventeen) plus one WP:SCHOLARSHIP source (Foley) saying

TPm = G

are somehow outweighed by one WP:SCHOLARSHIP source (Formisano) saying

TPm = (1⁄2 G) + (1⁄2 A)

and one WP:SCHOLARSHIP source (Skocpol) saying

TPm = D

(neither A nor G, but something in between). If anyone's recollection of the opposing arguments is any different — or if you have some other, more convincing argument besides

1 + 1 > 18

then please post it, and enlighten me. Because perhaps I'm just too stupid, but I really don't understand why the policy based argument I've just posted is NOT an uncontroversial conclusion. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the removal of the Other events section, and putting that material in the bulleted list of incidents at the end of the Perceptions spin-off article, in chronological order: this is the top-level article in a series on a complex subject, which has at least three satellite articles. Please see WP:N and the notability guideline on WP:EVENT. The vandalism of someone's gas grill, for example, fails notability on several counts for a top-level article. These events clearly belong in the "Perceptions" spin-off article, not this top-level article.

• Regarding removal of the Commentaries on origin subsection and its placement in the "Perceptions" spin-off article, again this fails notability requirements for a top-level article in a series. These are minority opinions at best, and fringe theories at worst. The article in Tobacco Control magazine, especially, has been carefully ignored by mainstream news organizations, and there are well-grounded questions regarding its political motivations. WP:N, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE all indicate that the spin-off article is where these commentaries belong.

• Again, if anyone would like to offer a policy based argument against any of these three proposed edits, I look forward to your response. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note, P&W: The guidelines you linked above (WP:N and WP:EVENT) apply to notability of an "article", and not to notability of content within an existing article, which is what we are discussing. I made that same mistake years ago, and was corrected by a couple helpful editors. WP:WEIGHT is the applicable guideline here. You should also be aware that content determined to be inappropriate for our main article due to policy reasons is equally inappropriate for a spinoff article. Material is moved to spinoff articles only because it has grown too lengthy or detailed, not because the content "fails notability", "is minority opinion" or "is fringe". Moving it for those reasons means you are trying to create a POV-FORK, and that's against policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• The material does fail notability for the top-level article in a series. See WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT for the official Misplaced Pages guideline. Perhaps the most directly on-point WP policy/guideline is not WP:N, but a section of WP:SUMMARY called WP:DETAIL:

Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs ... The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in child articles and in articles on specific subjects.

• Particularly since the list of alleged racist incidents has been moved to the spin-off article, the "Other events" section has been orphaned and should be moved as well. See also WP:SCOPE. Personal opinions held by notable, but partisan individuals about the origins of the Tea Party are beyond the topical scope of this article. The Perceptions article is a more appropriate place for them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• The material does fail notability for the top-level article in a series. --P&W

There is no "notability" requirement for content, but there are several guidelines on whether content is appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. However, if content is not policy-compliant for the main article, it is also inappropriate for subarticles. See WP:NNC. Regarding the origins of the movement, that kind of content is definitely within the scope of the main article. The brief paragraph you refer to as commentary actually appears to be a mix of commentary and fact, and should instead be re-written. re: the "Other events" section (that header, frankly, sucks), are you now claiming it is too detailed or long (per WP:DETAIL)? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• The brief paragraph you refer to as commentary actually appears to be a mix of commentary and fact ... There are no "facts" here at Misplaced Pages, because it doesn't matter whether we as editors believe a statement is true. There are only viewpoints expressed by (and verifiable in) reliable sources — and, when we find enough reliable sources expressing the same viewpoint, it's the majority viewpoint and we are required to treat it as the majority viewpoint. Here, the majority viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT is that the TPm is a grass-roots movement, period, full stop. The Waterboarding article tells us how we should state this majority viewpoint:

"Waterboarding is a form of torture ..."

"The Tea Party movement is an American grass-roots political movement that advocates ..."

• There is no "notability" requirement for content ... WP:SUMMARY, particularly WP:DETAIL, requires that the Perceptions of the Tea Party section must be written as "general summary information" regarding the topical scope of the Perceptions of the Tea Party movement sub-article, which is about allegations of "racism, bigotry and intolerance." It's that "intolerance" bit at the end that steers this discussion. It was alleged that some TPm people in Maryland were "intolerant" of a congressman who voted i favor of the Affordable Care Act, and gave Tea Party members directions to what they thought was that congressman's house as an expression of this "intolerance." These allegations, and the related vandalism of a gas grill at that house in Maryland don't belong in the "general summary information" in the parent article. They belong in the spin-off article. The relevant sections of Misplaced Pages policy/guidelines that govern this are WP:DETAIL and WP:SCOPE. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You are still arguing to mention grassroots in the lead? As noted several times before, there isn't any real opposition to that (correct me if I'm wrong). The objection is to your suggestion that we cover "grassroots" without also covering "astroturf" in the lead. The prominence of both descriptions, in reliable sources that cover them, requires that we not mention just one of the descriptions, per WP:WEIGHT. That would be misleading to the readers. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No it wouldn't mislead readers. Look at the lede to the Waterboarding article. It doesn't mention the viewpoint of several reliable sources that waterboarding, in some circumstances, is not torture but a "harsh interrogation" technique. Do you feel that its failure to mention the minority viewpoint in the article lede is misleading to readers? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would mislead readers. Look closely at what you just said: "is not torture but a 'harsh interrogation' technique..." -- that is an either/or logic statement, which is a completely different situation. With the Tea Party, the reliable sources say we have an "and" situation ("grassroots activists AND astroturf influence"). And I still don't know what "minority viewpoint" you are talking about. The astroturf aspect of the movement is a fact; minority and majority quantifiers only apply to competing viewpoints. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Responding to Snowded, it would take quite an effort and major course change by Arbcom to help this, because the case was so badly sent off on a tangent from the start. We need to and should keep trying here.

I am down to a few minutes per day on Misplaced Pages this week and in-depth analysis in beyond me this week. But P & W's ideas look good. I'm not big on worrying about vague characterizations like "grass roots" and no movement is without some purposeful organization / support, but if there ever was a movement where this term applies, TPM is it. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition to questioning the reliability and bias of the Tobacco Control article, it does not say anything in regard Grassroots v. AstroTurfed. At the most generous interpretation that they know what they're talking about, it says that one TPm organization was funded by (some of the) same people as the anti-anti-tobacco organizations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure

I am about to file a Request for Closure at WP:AN. Accordingly, I've reopened the collapsed subsection that had our mid-June discussion of these three minor improvements. The only objection at that time was Ubikwit saying we should only work on one thing at a time (the agenda section). Now that the agenda section has been substantially improved, we can get back to these three minor issues and get them resolved. Previous discussion at great length may be found here, here and here, during most of the month of April. The closer is asked to review all these discussions over the past three months, and indicate whether we have consensus for each of these three edits. Policy based arguments, not votes, determine consensus per WP:CLOSE and WP:CONSENSUS. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the minor issue of whether we should mention the Grassroot & AstroTurf aspects of the movement in the lead, or just mention one of those aspects in the lead to the exclusion of the other, it would be informative to note that a similar discussion was had in this mediation. The consensus was that if both descriptions are to appear in the lead, both would appear together. I don't see a change in that consensus, nor a valid argument to the contrary. As for your 2nd and 3rd minor issues, have those been discussed yet in any detail? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That mediation was almost three years ago. One of the most active advocates for "Astroturfing" and opponents of "grass-roots" left Misplaced Pages a month later. And a large number of reliable sources, both WP:NEWSORG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP varieties, have been published since then. Regarding the other two proposed edits, there have been abundant opportunities to express concerns and no concerns were expressed, except Ubikwit saying we should only work on one thing at a time. The "one thing" we were working on has now been substantially completed. This has been discussed and tabled off and on for three months. It's time to turn it over to a closing admin and let him (or her) sort it out. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The other 2 issues haven't been discussed because an editor (and also our Moderator) said we were to work on something else first, and you say the next step is to turn the issues over to an admin? Wouldn't the next step be to begin discussions it first (so the Admin will have something to "sort out")? As for the Grassroots/Astroturf descriptions matter, yes, other sources have been published since then -- and still the facts haven't changed. There are just more sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

On the mediation page we find an enormous number of additional sources (notably The Economist) to join the overwhelming number of reliable sources stating that it's a grass-roots movement. Thanks for providing the link to that wealth of additional reliable sources for the majority opinion per WP:WEIGHT. For the other two proposed edits, the material fails WP:N at for the top-level article in a series, but would be fine for a spin-off article. If there really is a policy based argument against them that has been withheld until now, when a closer has already been requested at WP:AN, please post it immediately rather than just talking about it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. WP:N applies to articles, not content within an article. To quote: The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. And as noted above, per policy, if it is against policy in a main article, it is against policy in a sub article. I'm sure a knowledgable "closer" will confirm that for you. Regarding the Grassroots & Astroturfed nature of the movement, neither of those descriptions is "opinion", majority or otherwise (even though the Lexington piece in the Economist is an opinion piece), they are reliably sourced facts. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT describes them as "viewpoints," not "facts." My mistake, I should have called them "viewpoints," rather than "opinions." One viewpoint — that the TPm is a grass-roots movement, and the fact that some components have accepted corporate donations does not compromise its essentially grass-roots nature — is clearly supported by a majority of the reliable sources, including Elizabeth Price Foley in her peer-reviewed works, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS News, National Public Radio and many other fact-checked news organizations. The other viewpoints are each supported by a small minority of the reliable sources. Regarding WP:N, that policy directs editors to several guidelines, one of which is WP:EVENT. There are various subsections within that guidelines such as WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:GEOSCOPE which provide clear guidance in demoting such events as the vandalism of someone's gas grill in Maryland to the spin-off article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific about what the reliable sources convey, the TPm consists of both grassroots activists as well as big-monied players and professional politicos, thinktanks and conservative elites that have sought to direct, fund, coordinate and use these "grassroots" efforts. And this fact is neither minority nor majority viewpoint. What "other" viewpoints are you speaking of? Regarding your alphabet-soup of policy links, please simply quote the section of the policy you are acting under, and the content you are applying it to, and let's discuss it. All the ones you linked do not apply here. They apply to the creation of Misplaced Pages articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that some RS support "A + G" while others support "G" does not negate the fact that the ones supporting "G" vastly outnumber the ones supporting "A + G" and are therefore the majority per WP:WEIGHT. Is there any argument in favor of treating "Astroturfed plus grass-roots" as the majority viewpoint? How many reliable sources support this viewpoint? We've been over this exhaustively. Many of the sources just don't support "Astroturfed plus grass-roots." Some, such as NPR ask the question "Is TPm Astroturfed plus grass-roots?" but do not answer "yes." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the movement has genuine grassroots activists in it is a majority viewpoint (as contrasted with not having grassroots activists in it), not the majority viewpoint. It is also a "majority viewpoint" that the movement has been extensively astroturfed, is conservative, takes stances on fiscal issues, had influence in the 2010 elections, etc. Minority viewpoints, for example, would be the ones saying there are no grassroots activists in the movement, or there is no astroturf influencing of the movement, or that the movement had no influence on the 2010 elections. The fact that RS saying the TP movement is concervative vastly outnumber the ones mentioning grassroots doesn't mean the grassroots description is a minority viewpoint. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Extended discussion of 'grass-roots' and 'astroturf'

• Please use colons to indent properly when responding per WP:TALK policy.

• It is also a "majority viewpoint" that the movement has been extensively astroturfed ... This is a false statement.

• Minority viewpoints, for example, would be the ones saying ... there is no astroturf influencing of the movement ... This is also a false statement. What makes these false statements is the overwhelming number of sources saying, "It's a grass-roots movement," without any hesitation or qualification (including not only both peer-reviewed academic and fact-checked news organization sources, but also the Tea Party groups themselves, which must be considered reliable in this limited context under WP:SELFSOURCE), compared to the ones like Formisano saying, "It's partially Astroturfed." The ratio is at least 3-to-1 and may be as high as 10-to-1.

• Most of the sources presented in this three-year discussion, which were claimed by some editors to say, "It's partially Astroturfed," turned out after investigation to be either (A) not actually saying that or (B) the opinion of some notable, but highly partisan opponent of the Tea Party, such as Nancy Pelosi or Paul Krugman. These minority opinions are already properly attributed and quoted farther down in the article, and no one is suggesting they should be removed.

• Now then, if there is a genuinely policy based argument to be made against any of these three edits, please post it. "It's partially Astroturfed" is obviously a minority viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Colons were used to indent properly (check the edit history); that the movement has an astroturfed component is the majority viewpoint, and trying to say it has absolutely no astroturfing involved is the minority viewpoint; Pelosi and Krugman are being cited for their opinions only; can't comment on the other two edits, as they haven't really been discussed. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• that the movement has an astroturfed component is the majority viewpoint ... This is a false statement. We've been over all these sources with a fine-toothed comb. Out of all the claims that this is the majority viewpoint, here is the single grain of truth: Formisano says that the Institute For Liberty (IFL) is an Astroturfed TPm component. However, IFL doesn't identify itself as part of the TPm, and I've never seen any other source identify IFL as part of the TPm.

• There is no valid policy based argument opposing any of these three edits. From WP:CLOSE: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. ... He (or she) is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently enough to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding an unqualified statement, such as "The Tea Party is a grassroots movement.", to the lede would not satisfy WP:NPOV anymore than using "astroturf" in lede would.

Considered in its entirety, the Tea Party is neither a top-down creation nor a bottom-up explosion. This remarkable political outpouring is best understood as a combination of three intertwined forces. Each force is important in its own right, and their interaction is what gives the Tea Party its dynamism, drama, and wallop. ...snip... Grassroots activists, roving billionaire advocates, and right-wing media purveyors—these three forces, together, create the Tea Party...
— Skocpol, T.; Williamson, V. (2012). The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199832637.

More weight is accorded to sources that actually discuss the meaning of "grassroots" as it applies to the Tea Party movement. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I would hardly call it "unqualified". But, if I'm to read your comment correctly -- You feel the use of grassroots ought not be construed as all-encompassing.

My solution: The Tea Party is a political movement primarily based in grassroots activism. †TE†Talk 14:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• More weight is accorded to sources that actually discuss the meaning of "grassroots" as it applies to the Tea Party movement. YES. EXACTLY. I simply could not agree with you more on this point. After an insightful observation like that one, you could be my new best friend.

• Generally speaking, those sources that have endeavored to define TPm as "Astroturfed" or "partially Astroturfed" have consistently attempted to redefine the word "Astroturfed" in a much more expansive manner. The expanded definition is intended by these sources to include activities that were never perceived as Astroturfing before. The term was first coined in the 1980s and 1990s, when paid political and corporate operatives were each pretending to be several ordinary people at once, writing letters to congressmen, senators, and the editors of major newspapers and news magazines, artificially manufacturing the appearance of a grass-roots movement, or popular support or opposition to a particular thing, where there was none.

• This term was and continues to be a well-recognized and well-understood term in the political science lexicon. Its meaning has never actually changed, unless you can demonstrate a consensus across all of political science, discussing all movements and all activities by political and corporate operatives, that supports such a change in the definition. The meaning is limited to the activities I've described: pretending to be the elements of a grass-roots movement where no such elements exist.

• In this case, not even Ronald P. Formisano has claimed that there are absolutely zero grass-roots elements in the Tea Party movement. The effect of corporate involvement, and involvement by established political parties (the Republican Party) and conservative leaning news media (Fox News, Daily Caller and the like) is only to amplify these grass-roots elements — elements that genuinely do exist.

• There was a video teleconference recorded and posted by The Huffington Post where political experts were discussing this effort to change and expand the definition of the term "Astroturfing." I've posted the link to it at least twice and will try to find it again, and post it again. But yes, my new best friend, more WP:WEIGHT is accorded to sources that actually discuss the meaning of "grass-roots" as it applies to TPm without attempting to change the meaning of that long-established term of art, to include activities that, had Barack Obama and Organizing for America engaged in them, would be cheerfully described by the very same sources as "community organizing."

• The difference here is that the community that's being organized is much more fiscally conservative. And that's really the biggest and most salient difference between the community organizing that's being done by the Koch Brothers, and the community organizing that was done by Barack Obama. Opponents and critics of the movement tend to focus instead on the fact that the Tea Party is mostly white. Considering that some of the most beloved candidates of the Tea Party have included Herman Cain, Mia Love, Allen West, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, race is simply not the salient factor. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to skip past the new twists on old memes above ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." and "Some of my best friends are black.") and comment on these:

• You feel the use of grassroots ought not be construed as all-encompassing. My solution: The Tea Party is a political movement primarily based in grassroots activism. --TE

That's a tiny step in the right direction, but still leaves us saying that the hybrid car "runs primarily on gasoline" to the neglect of mentioning that it also runs on electricity. By "unqualified statement", I think the other editor is noting that most sources (and this is particularily true of news media sources) use words like 'grassroots', 'conservative', 'anti-tax movement', without qualification because they are convenient and true, but our article would be remiss and misleading if it mentioned taxes without also mentioning spending, or mentioned conservative without also mentioning libertarian, or mentioned grassroots without also mentioning astroturfed.

If we look at sources that actually discuss the meaning of "grassroots" as it applies to the Tea Party movement as suggested above, we see that the description is most frequently applied to the masses of Americans upset at proposed bailouts (activists), not a movement, which was actually developed by more than just grassroots activists.

• not even Ronald P. Formisano has claimed that there are absolutely zero grass-roots elements in the Tea Party movement --P&W

Nor have any Misplaced Pages editors, as far as I know. That's not where the disagreement is here. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Grassroots - 24 29 †TE†Talk 22:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Astroturf - 0

It's time to let go. †TE†Talk 19:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oooh, how very scientific! Your count is off, by the way. It's 29 to 0; but even at 29 the mentions of "grassroots" are still outnumbered by mentions of Elites and Funders of the movement. Not a single mention of a "grassroots movement", but plenty of references to activists, adherents and TPers that are one part of it. Oh, and did you realize several of those "grassroots" are mentions of other conservatives from the past, not TPers? Or is it at all important to you that most of those "grassroots" mentions actually are questioning or qualifying that term?

... has been beset with controversy about its grassroots authenticity ... These elites have long since developed a policymaking infrastructure in Washington, but had previously achieved only limited success in directly connecting themselves to an activist grassroots base ... and how grassroots undertakings relate to the Republican Party and to national organizations claiming to further Tea Party efforts ... (TPP), whose website was up and running within days of the original Santelli rant, has been more closely associated with grassroots activism than TPE ... TPP rhetoric and the group’s homespun website gives the impression of an entirely grassroots, volunteer-run organization ... dubs itself the “official grassroots American movement” ... not clear how much grassroots Tea Partiers know about the national advocacy and funding organizations promoting and trying to capitalize on their efforts ... a partnership formalizing long-time ties between the pro-business lobby and the conservative media’s grassroots mobilization efforts ... conservative media’s social coordination of willing local activists and participants, the anti-regulation big-business lobby could harness new grassroots networks to accompany their already powerful DC presence ... elite Tea Party funders and grassroots activists ...

But we wouldn't want to let a little thing like context get in the way. No one is arguing that there are not genuine grassroots activists in the movement; the disagreement with reliable sourcing only arises when a suggestion is made to describe the movement only as "grassroots". Sorry to see you move on, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

OR/SYN. Personal beliefs of what constitutes astroturf has no place in the mainspace. †TE†Talk 22:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

None were stated. The concern is over describing the movement as only grassroots. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the reliable sources' research or synthesis, and it appears to be well-founded conclusion rather than "personal belief". Are we speaking of the same reliable sources? We can raise the issue at WP:RSN to verify if they have a place in mainspace, if needed. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just doing my best to abide by Rule 1. Unfortunately, I must break it to avoid further misunderstanding: "Your personal beliefs of what constitutes astroturf has no place in the mainspace."

It's quite clear that if the RS wanted to use the term "astroturf," they were free to do so. Elites and Funders, your personal opinions of what is established by their presence, has no bearing here. †TE†Talk 16:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course Misplaced Pages editor opinions and beliefs have no place in mainspace; yours nor mine. I don't see why you feel compelled to state the obvious. We're discussing reliable sources, aren't we? Now returning to those, we see that funding sources and elite establishment influence are indeed important components when describing astroturf/grassroots. Skocpol, Williamson, Formisano and other reliable sources all clearly indicate that the TP movement cannot be described as wholly "grassroots". Our Misplaced Pages article shouldn't either, nor should it misleadingly imply it by inserting the unqualified 'grassroots' description in the lead to the exclusion of the other aspects. The RS does use the term astroturf (and "not grassroots" and "top-down" and "co-opted" and "faux-grassroots" ...) if you've examined their fuller work on the matter.

"Many supporters also proclaim the Tea Party to be purely a grassroots rebellion, a "mass movement of ... 'regular' Americans with real concerns about losing the right to live their lives as they choose." This view captures only a small part of the truth, ignoring the fact that Tea Party participants are in many respects even more ideologically extreme than other very conservative Republicans. Similarly, the ‘mass movement’ portrayal overlooks the fact that the Tea Party, understood in its entirety, includes media hosts and wealthy political action committees, plus national advocacy groups and self-proclaimed spokespersons – elites that wield many millions of dollars in political contributions and appear all over the media claiming to speak for grassroots activists who certainly have not elected them, and to whom they are not accountable. What kind of mass rebellion is funded by corporate billionaires, like the Koch brothers, led by over-the-hill former GOP kingpins like Dick Armey, and ceaselessly promoted by millionaires media celebrities like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity?”

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Finally, something we can agree on: "he TP movement cannot be described as wholly 'grassroots'." There's no such thing in this day and age that could gain a foothold in American politics. You need some muscle behind that hustle. The point of contention is erroneously throwing the term astroturf about as if it's suddenly been redefined. So and so says astroturf, I'm sure there's a place for it in this BLP, attributed, but would be a stretch to consider it lead-worthy. Weight and all. On "their fuller work," I'm of limited resources. I have overdue books, my google machine is the best I can do. But it's not all bad. For instance, by using parts of your excerpt, my google machine led me to the very text that completes said excerpt, for context:

The opposite illusion is also there among those who proclaim the Tea Party to be nothing more than an "astroturf" phenomenon, an illusion pushed by Fox News, or a "billionaire's tea party" in which "corporate America is faking a grassroots revolution." This take on the Tea Party as a kabuki dance entirely manipulated from above simply cannot do justice to the volunteer engagement of many thousands of men and women who travel to rallies with their homemade signs and, even more remarkably, have formed ongoing, regularly meeting local Tea Party groups. The citizens we have met, who spend hours meeting with one another, arguing with officials, and learning about the workings of local, state, and national government—these people do not fit the caricatures espoused by some on the left. They are unglamorous, mostly older middle-class Americans. Billionaire-funded political action committees and longtime free-market advocacy organizations are certainly doing all they can to leverage and benefit from Tea Party activism. But they did not create all that activism in the first place, nor do they entirely control the popular effervescence.

Hope this helps. †TE†Talk 22:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever disagreed on that part; the movement is neither wholly grassroots or astroturfed. I provided the paragraph that shows the movement isn't entirely grassroots, and you just added the paragraph that shows the movement isn't entirely astroturfed. (By the way, I have dead-tree copies of each of the above sources if Google's "preview" function fails you.) No one has "redefined" astroturf or grassroots here. Neither grassroots nor astroturf needs to be attributed to "so and so", unless you suggest we start citing opinion pieces, and I'd recommend against that. (Pssst ... by the way, this isn't a BLP.) See more of this same discussion below. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What I posted, when the RS actually used the phrase astroturf, in parenthesis, shot it down with the quickness. And this is very much a BLP. †TE†Talk 02:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

By "in parenthesis", did you mean "in quotes"? If so, the only thing shot down was the notion that the movement is "nothing more than" or "entirely manipulated" or "entirely controlled" astroturf, and no one is suggesting it is. Like I said, we've never disagreed on that point. And no, Tea Party movement is not a Biography of a Living Person. Just go to WP:BLPN and search the archives for "tea party" and see for yourself, as that one has been tried a couple times before. If you meant that BLP rules still apply to living people regardless of what article they are mentioned in, then we agree. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Quotes" would be a safe assumption. But, I guess it always good to ask to avoid any further misunderstanding. Those "quotes" have a funny way of surrounding what the RS views as extremely fringe viewpoints. If you would like, I propose we use the RS as the counterpoint to the Pelosi/Krugman '09 astroturf allegations. †TE†Talk 03:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please stop beating your dead horse. It's dead.

• It's 29 to 0; but even at 29 the mentions of "grassroots" are still outnumbered by mentions of Elites and Funders of the movement. "Elites and funders" do not equal "Astroturf," except in the opinion of Ron Formisano. None of these 29 sources describes the activities of these "elites and funders" as Astroturfing, nor does any of these 29 sources describe what they're doing as having a compromising or diluting effect on the essential grass-roots nature of the movement. All they're doing is amplifying the genuine grass-roots elements that are actually there. And as I said before, these very same activities would be described as "community organizing" without the slightest hesitation, rather than "Astroturfing," if it was Barack Obama and Organizing for America instead of conservatives with money. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

29 sources? No, that is a single source, with 29 iterations of the word "grassroots" used to describe what is and is not grassroots, and yes they do describe the activities of the funders and established elites. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree: There is no source which calls the movement Astroturfed, which doesn't (1) redefine Astroturfed to include any corporate funding, nor (2) quotes political opponents of the movement. I could almost support a statement that it's a grass-roots movement said to be Astroturfed, but even that doesn't seem to be correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's true that (1) RS include funding sources in their definitions of grassroots and astroturfing (not "redefine", as funding sources have been part of the definition since the terms were created). (2) None of the sources we're presently discussing "quotes political opponents of the movement", so perhaps Arthur Rubin would be so kind as to indicate which sources he's talking about. Even our Misplaced Pages article notes that "grassroots" implies that the creation of the movement and the group supporting it are natural and spontaneous, highlighting the differences between this and a movement that is orchestrated by traditional power structures. While the reliable sources note there are grassroots activists, they also note the "movement" is controlled, directed and funded by traditional special interests. Why all the aversion to conveying what the reliable sources actually say? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• (not "redefine", as funding sources have been part of the definition since the terms were created) There are other essential elements of the definition of "Astroturfing," and they've been essential elements of the definition since the term was created in the '80s. Not just (A) corporate and PAC money, but also (B) a genuine Astroturfing operation conceals the source of the money, and (C) one political or corporate operative pretends to be several people at once — and the people he's pretending to be have no connection to the source of the money. Is there any evidence of anything like either (B) or (C) going on here? Both are essential elements of the political science term "Astroturfing."
• If the TPm does not have both (B) and (C), then what's happening here is called "community organizing." Rich, powerful people are simply providing funds to make sure that all of the very real, grass-roots people who share their beliefs show up at the next protest, or the next election. And without (B) and (C), individuals like Ronald P. Formisano are most certainly trying to redefine "Astroturfing" to include activities that would have made Barack Obama one of the most notorious Astroturfers in the history of politics.
• Here's the link to that Huffington Post video of a discussion about the definition of Astroturfing. According to my new best friend ArtifexMayhem, this source deserves more weight than Formisano because it actually discusses the definition of the word it's using. This is a 30-minute video but it's worth a very careful review. Watch for the comments by Edward Walker, the guy with eyeglasses who had to connect to the discussion via telephone, and John Hawkins, the guy wearing the headset. They're the ones who, in my opinion, really hit all the points we've been talking about. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm the last person to break up a beautiful friendship, but AM said nothing specifically about that video clip and I think you may have missed his/her point. What was said is, "More weight is accorded to sources that actually discuss the meaning of 'grassroots' as it applies to the Tea Party movement." This video clip source is indeed more weighty than one of the many news reports that merely stick in the word "grassroots" by rote when reporting about a protest or activist, etc., (you are up to 18 now, you said?). But that puts it on par with Formisano's The Tea Party: A Brief History, which goes to great lengths to discuss the grassroots and astroturfed aspects as they apply to the Tea Party. Same with Skocpol & Williamson's The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Starting at 26:30, Walker gives an accurate popular astroturf versus grassroots description, which doesn't contradict what reliable sources have been saying. He admits he is "unclear" about co-opting, and who co-opted whom, but he does acknowledge the grassroots activists, although he gets the timeline wrong about involvement in the movement. Walker is one of the lead proponents of the line of thought that (and I quote him) "The dividing line between “grassroots” and “Astroturf” may be more of a political Rorschach test than a precisely measurable concept. But, in any case, changing relationships between companies and the public—especially in the health domain—are leading more and more industries to institute grassroots mobilization programs." (See the "grassroots lobbying" form of astroturfing.)

• And as I said before... --P&W

Repeated time and again, yes, without much change in the discussion. Instead of continuing to spin our wheels, how about we try to move the discussion forward? Maybe if we first developed this topic better in the body of the article, then summarize that content in the lead? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it has been repeated — and no argument has been presented for inclusion of "astroturf". But perhaps we should concentrate on other matters. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Except for the arguments that have been presented for inclusion of astroturf, but you would not be expected to know about those. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"(See the "grassroots lobbying" form of astroturfing.)" - Xenophrenic

All I've seen was not one mention of astroturfing. OR/SYN has no place in the mainspace. †TE†Talk 02:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the reliable sources' research or synthesis, and it appears to be well-founded conclusion rather than "personal belief". Xenophrenic (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Just doing my best to abide by Rule 1. Unfortunately, I must break it to avoid further misunderstanding: "Your OR/SYN has no place in the mainspace." †TE†Talk 03:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm the last person to break up a beautiful friendship, but AM said nothing specifically about that video clip ... Specifically, AM said, "More weight is accorded to sources that actually discuss the meaning of 'grassroots' as it applies to the Tea Party movement." He did not include Formisano specifically, but the HuffPo video clip is included by definition because it actually discusses the meaning of that word. Formisano does discuss the grass-roots aspects, and what he's trying to redefine as "astroturfed" aspects of TPm. But he never really talks about what Astroturf means, let alone admit that he's trying to expand the definition by leaps and bounds. The multiple experts in the HuffPo clip do talk about what the word means. And it does not mean merely donating money to a Tea Party group. So no, according to AM, the HuffPo video clip deserves more weight than Formisano's book.

• "... are leading more and more industries to institute grassroots mobilization programs." Right. "GRASSROOTS mobilization programs." Community organizing. Not Astroturf. I think it's important to make it very clear how few of these sources actually say, "The Tea Party movement is partially Astroturfed." Skocpol doesn't say it, for example. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Except for the arguments that have been presented for inclusion of astroturf ... References to Astroturf are already included down in the body of the article, where minority opinions belong. Nobody is suggesting that they should be removed. What should be changing is the article's treatment of the word "grass-roots." That word goes into the lede sentence, where the majority opinion belongs. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I really don't think AM indicated that your video clip is weight-ier than Formisano or Skocpol. Let's see if he'll clarify for us. And yes, the grassroots mobilization programs being referred to are astroturf; it's the new grassroots lobbying. As for Skocpol not being quoted as saying the TP movement is partially Astroturfed, how would you propose to convey what she did say? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

End of the process

We can not, as I see it, continue when any editor decides that the posited rules that six editors accepted should now be discussed at length - the idea that such a devotion to process, which would surely take weeks at the least, needs to be done when a single editor dislikes the ground rules is clearly going to make any solutions here totally impossible. My goal in proposing such rules was to prevent the absurd wikilawyering found in all too many discussions, and that any editor would desire to promote such behavior I find distressing. My hands are in the bowl of water, and unless everyone actually decides to work on the article instead of on arguing about process, there is no way in (insert expletive) that this can ever be resolved. Will some admin please lock this puppy down? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your extensive concern about process is noted, but most of us here would just like to be productive with regard to the Tea Party movement and related articles. P&W has reiterated a few content concerns he'd like to see addressed, and I have some as well. By "please lock this puppy down", are you suggesting that we no longer try to improve the article, or is this just a "venue" concern? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• As some of you are aware, I have volunteered to be the moderator of this page per a request at AN. No one has yet opposed me being moderator so I have accepted the offer. As I settle in as moderator, and getting to know my role, a helping hand at knowing my limits as moderator is appreciated. If anybody objects to me being a moderator, please speak, or write that is, now.—cyberpower _Online 02:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to party, Pal! ;-)

But on a serious note, we do appreciate anyone who's willing to help. Hopefully this proves to be a fruitful endeavor for you. †TE†Talk 02:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

1. "Group Think: Inside the Tea Party’s Collective Brain"; National Journal; Jonathan Rauch; September 11, 2010
5. ^ Cite error: The named reference "Fringe" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
7. ^ Foley, Elizabeth Price, "Sovereignty, Rebalanced: The Tea Party and Constitutional Amendments" (August 3, 2011). Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 78, p. 751, 2011
8. ^ Davis, Teddy (9 February 2010). "Tea Party Activists Craft 'Contract from America'". ABC News. American Broadcasting Company. Retrieved 18 September 2010.
9. ^ Davis, Teddy (April 15, 2010). "Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract from America'". ABC News. Retrieved June 7, 2011.
10. ^ "Group Think: Inside the Tea Party’s Collective Brain"; National Journal; Jonathan Rauch; September 11, 2010
11. ^ Tea Partiers shaking up races across country; KTVB News; January 28, 2010
15. Tea Party groups ramp up fight against immigration bill, as August recess looms; Fox News; July 5, 2013
16. Tea Party - vs - Immigration Reform; National Review; Betsy Woodruff; June 20, 2013
17. The Tea Party's Next Move; National Journal; Jonathan Rauch;March 2, 2011
18. Carey, Nick (October 15, 2012). "Tea Party versus Agenda 21: Saving the U.S. or just irking it?". Reuters.com.
19. Tea Party Protesters Rally Against IRS, Government; Wall Street Journal; Rebecca Ballhaus; June 19, 2013
20. Schmidt
21. Tea-ing Up the Constitution; New York Times; Adam Liptak, March 13, 2010
22. Elizabeth Price Foley, law professor at Florida International University College of Law, writing on the Tea Party's proclamations regarding the Constitution, observed: "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)." (Foley, Elizabeth Price. "Sovereignty, Rebalanced: The Tea Party and Constitutional Amendments." Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 78, p. 751. August 3, 2011.)
23. The Tea Party and the Constitution; Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly; Christopher W. Schmidt; May 9, 2012
24. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism; Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson; Oxford University Press; 2012; Pgs. 50-51
25. Cultures of the Tea Party; Contexts May 2011 vol. 10 no. 2; Andrew J. Perrin, Stephen J. Tepper; Pgs. 7-8