Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Closed discussions

Background

I made a comment on the ArbCom case that I would be happy to moderate a discussion. I would be looking to draw people together on the broader issues that concern contributors. One of the concerns I have noted is regarding the amount of material in the article, and I think that might be a useful starting point. However, the first stage would be to ensure that nobody has an objection to a moderated discussion, or to me being the person to hold it. I'd like to wait a day or two for responses or queries to my offer of doing this before getting fully stuck into a content discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC) support and thanks Darkstar1st (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC) support We need it. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Support even though I do not qualify as active here really. Collect (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Oppose for now. per comment on ArbCom talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Support I reviewed a few ArbCom pages and can see why, in comparison to other cases, the TPM is not on the front burner, so I see no reason to delay until this case is settled. Also, I read again Silk Tork's comments on ArbCom and feel he is very insightful and likely to help sort the situation here to everyone's satisfaction. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Support Moderation by a previously uninvolved person with some authority is badly needed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Support ----Snowded TALK 18:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Support Of course, after the Arbcom case is closed. Mediation could be integrated into the remedial measures forthcoming there.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Support. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC) No objection. I understand Malke's point of view, but I think SilkTork could do something to ameliorate her (Malke's) concerns. As she is a major contributor to the talk page, I think that her concerns need to be dealt with to the extent possible. I should add that now there is strong evidence toward Xenophrenic's tendentious editing in intentionally disregarding the obvious meaning of Malke's comments (in the "anti-immigration" section) in favor of an absurd interpretation, so I'm not sure that Malke's concerns can be met without unjustly protecting Xenophrenic. I would like to support, as it may provide a way out of this mess, but Malke's concerns need to be met so that she can freely participate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Would the editor who made the redactions kindly so identify themselves? Referring to edits is generally not cnsidered a "personal attack" on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC) <Collect please undo your post, so I can revert Xenophrenic's redaction of Arthur Rubin's comment. Your edit is in the way. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Nevermind, I reverted it manually. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Xenophrenic has redacted Arthur's comment three times now and that seems WP:Disrupt to me. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Xenophrenic reverts/redactions [1] and again [2] and again [3]. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC) It's too late to formally add Xenophrenic to the RfAr, as it's already past the workshop stage. And, if someone would point me to an appropriate forum to comment on WP:TE by editors not already named in the RfAr, I would do it there instead of here, for the most part. However, it's also a potential reason why I might object to this proposal, so it's not completely out of line to mention it here, even if Xenophrenic thinks it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Redaction was wrong but so was your one sided accusation. P&G would also be a candidate and you're not an innocent. I suggest you try and reduce the temperature rather than provoking others ----Snowded TALK 06:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Arthur didn't make a one-sided accusation. He's simply pointing out Xenophrenic's behavior in an accurate, measured, well-written comment that is not at all a personal attack. Xenophrenic has also violated WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT. It's disruptive to keep redacting another editor's comments without bringing it up on the talk page. Why not post an explanation here for other editors to see and comment, too? That gives the editor the chance to redact his own comments. It's also disruptive for Xenophrenic to imply that sources he's using are sanctioned by "ArbCom" because Silk Tork suggested them on the Workshop talk page. And his incivility and refusal to strike through his comments are worrisome. Xenophrenic is quick to demand that other editor's redact their comments about him, but he won't extend the same courtesy when they object to what he's said about them. In fact, he argues more vigorously that's he right and the editor is wrong. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Malke's concerns are that editors "must be extra careful in what they say", and that an editor has used something from one of the sources I noted. The sources I mentioned were The Guardian, Britannica, The Independent, and infoplease. I'd rather people were extra careful. I'd always rather people were extra careful - all the time, on every page, not just ones that are being watched. Having said that, I understand frustration when editing contentious subjects, and expect tempers to fray now and again. However, when moderating content discussions I encourage focus on content not contributor, and let people know I will hat discussions that are off-topic and distracting. As regards concerns about any sanctions coming from the ArbCom case. I cannot speak for the other Committee members, but I don't see sufficient poor behaviour in those editing this article to justify sanctions. This is a highly contentious and polarising topic, and - if anything - I have been impressed by how you folks have held it together for so long. What I am interested in is not sanctioning anyone, but in helping you folks improve the article and reach a compromise that satisfies the main contributors, and so results in a fair, honest and balanced article that will be helpful to the general reader. I don't think it will be easy, nor will it be quick, but if everyone is willing to have a positive attitude toward this attempt, then I think it will work. I'm not clear on the problem as regards the sources. I suspect, Malke, what you saying is not that you have an issue with the sources, but that suggestions I make may be used to justify actions that may not be helpful. My aim as a moderator, is to assist you folks reach the decisions and actions yourself, rather than me make the decisions for you folks to follow. But, yes, at times I may be pushing for a decision, and if things are deadlocked I will offer suggestions. As Malke is the main contributor to the article, I think working with an objection would be difficult, so will wait for further comments. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Although I have been in some correspondence with Malke off-Wiki, I would like to ask here on-Wiki, whether Malke's objection is that edits based on sources mentioned by SilkTork might be perceived to have a "stamp of approval", and not be as subject to critical review. If so, if SilkTork could give what asssurances that he honestly can, it might be adequate for Malke. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I have not given my approval for any edits. And that is not the role I would envisage taking. I am not here as a member of ArbCom, but as a fellow editor. My role would be to moderate discussions, assist with keeping them on task, and look for agreement and consensus on how to move the article toward a balanced and acceptable position. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I believe the Britannica is a problematic source at best - it is tertiary by definition, and solicits proposed edits from readers (one step from a Wiki). In short, we would best be advised not to use it as a source here. IMHO. Collect (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC) As Malke still appears to have an objection I will withdraw my offer of assistance. I do urge folks here to get someone in to moderate a discussion to look at the bigger issues. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC) @Malke, I'm waiting to hear your response to ST's withdrawal of his offer to moderate based on a perception that you have some objection to that. Since your objection seems irrational to me, and as I do not particularly share your opinion regarding EdJohnson's qualifications, I would be categorically opposed to him being the moderator. If you are intent on cherry-picking a moderator, perhaps mandatory mediation with Arbcom appointed mediators would be the proper way to proceed.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 14:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC) While my opinion was opposite to Malke's, I think that they expressed sincere considerations, and a sincere attempt at making a good suggestion. I think it is not warranted and not very nice to call that "cherry-picking" a moderator, which implies several other things. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Setting up

Malke has been in touch - User_talk:SilkTork#Moderator. We can start. I suggest we create a subpage in which to hold the discussions. It can be linked and/or transcluded on this page. I know there has been friction and frustration, but in order to move the discussions forward there should be no personal comments. Allow me to hat any personal comments that creep in. It would be better if I, or another uninvolved person, did that; and if, while waiting for the comment to be hatted, people did not respond, even if the comment sits there for a while. Something I have found useful, is when annoyed, type out what you want to say - but don't post it; edit it down to something polite, then discard it. It gets it out of your system, but doesn't upset anyone. If there's no objections I will start a subpage sometime tomorrow, and on that we can briefly discuss and lay out the main issues, and consider if the article needs trimming, and if so, the best way of doing that. There was a suggestion recently of creating split-off articles. We could also consider that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Hello SilkTork. I think that it is important to acknowledge that the underlying cause here is conflicting goals, not personal chemistry. (Although good chemistry would make a lot of other things go better). I think that it must also be acknowledged that if an article has been pulled to one "side" that the objectives on that one "side" are to maintain the status quo, while the immediate objectives of the other "side" are to pull it towards neutral. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I'd like a clarification about the "personal comments" restriction. In some cases, a particular edit may strike me as absurd (in some cases, to the point where I do not see how any competent person could see it as appropriate), regardless of the identity of the editor. Since we will be talking about the future of the article, rather than the past edits, this shouldn't come up, but, I'd like clarification. I would avoid commenting that a particular editor is taking inappropriate actions, but it may be necessary to indicate a particular edit is absurd. Any ideas? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Anything judgemental not factual is probably a mistake here. I would say why you thought it was absurd, avoiding sarcasm and irony. Ive had irony taken as consent for absurdity before now. ----Snowded TALK 10:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, Arthur, comment on the edit rather than the editor. And yes, Snowded, it is helpful to explain one's thinking. I would hope, however, at this stage, that we would be considering broad issues, and getting consensus for actions rather than dealing with individual edits or smaller points. Once the broad issues are agreed, folks here can deal with the fine tuning, and I would think at that stage my role would be over. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks SilkTork, for setting this up and serving as our moderator. It will generally be a difficult, time-consuming and thankless task, but I hope we can resolve some issues and improve the article. Individual edits concerning use of the terms "grass-roots" and "anti-immigration" to generally describe TPm (installing the first term in the lede and removing the second term from the "Agenda" section) have been very contentious, and devoured a great deal of editor time and Talk page space. Most troublesome to me is the apparent lack of any real progress regarding these two edits, which I consider to be self-evident, based on the number of reliable sources which actually support these terms per WP:WEIGHT. Somebody with authority needs to be able to step up and say, "We have consensus for this," or "There's no consensus for that, and I doubt there ever will be." Are you that person of authority? If so, would you review the article Talk page and try to make these determinations? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Establishing broad issues This is just a suggestion, but it might be a good idea for editors to briefly name an issue they feel needs addressing, like 'article length,' etc. Just list something and sign your name. Then once we have a list, we could sort it and decide which issues seem most important, as I imagine that would be respectful of Silk Tork's time here. Then we could work our way through the revised list. If editors agree, then simply name an issue below and sign your name. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Article organization. It should be laid out like the other articles about political movements. All commentary, particularly by persons, publications or entities that can reasonably be construed to be politically opposed to the Tea Party, should be near the end of the article if it gets into the article at all. After all, if we allow politicians and political organizations to be defined by their opponents, there would be a certain biography starting with the words, "Barack Obama is a socialist born in Kenya ..." To control the length of the article, we create sub-articles with links such as Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party movement. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Comment The TPm is not a political party, and I strongly disagree with your suggestion that criticism of any portion be relegated to the end of the article.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 13:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Compare Take a look at Wikipedia's articles describing the Occupy movement, or Organizing for Action, which are not political parties. Where's the criticism and commentary from persons outside the organization? In the final 1/4 of the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC) The organizations/movements are not the same, nor is the scope of the material covered in the articles. There is no Wikipedia policy that mandates the comparing articles deemed to be peers based on some extraneous political criteria in order define how the respective articles are to be written, which again, is based on what RS have to say and policy.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 07:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC) No, they're not the same. But they should be treated in a consistent manner at Wikipedia. Consistency = NPOV. We can't have all articles about progressive organizations and movements with a tiny, cramped section of conservative criticism at the end, and all articles about conservative movements with progressive criticism splattered all over them like birdshot. Try to be objective, and just look at a random sample of articles about both conservative and progressive organizations at Wikipedia. That's what we've got. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Agree that the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement are not the same, but criticisms by political enemies, of either movement, should be trimmed and isolated. I'm not sure about criticism of methods by those who agree with the (apparent) goals, but I tend to believe it should be given the same treatment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC) P&W, I would say that insofar as consistency is relevant to NPOV, it would have to be consistency with RS, not on the basis of what a given editor defines in terms of attribute matching as equivalents in some extraneous categorization schema. I would venture to say that there are more reasons to be critical of the TPm than Occupy, for example, which resonated with people in countries throughout the world in the wake of the finance crisis. Such reasons seem to generally relate to a perception on the part of observes from various backgrounds that the TPm includes constituents that are advocating for private interests from behind a facade of patriotism and American values, whereas Occupy and the other group that has been mentioned are involved in advocating for well-defined causes that are more narrow in scope and readily intelligible to the general public. There's very little for political opponents to expose when causes are out in the open and plain to see. You either agree or disagree with the cause, and can debate its merits but not its status as that for which advocacy has been undertaken. On the other hand, where people feel a facade has been erected to project a public image aimed to deceive while pursuing ulterior motives, then there will be efforts to expose the facade as well as the actual causes that are being advanced from behind the facade. This is where the AstroTurf question comes in with respect to the TPm.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 00:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Ubikwit, there's a lot to criticize about the Occupy movement but much of it just doesn't seem to find its way into the article: [4][5][6] Raping a student who is developmentally disabled. Dozens of other cases of sexual assault. Repeatedly masturbating in front of children. Multiple incidents of violence against police, including one officer who was allegedly stabbed. Anti-Semitic overtones. Chronic thefts, including expensive personal electronic items. Most disturbing, an effort to keep reports of sexual assault away from police, so that the Occupy community could handle the sexual assault reports internally. And an enormous number of the usual complaints, heard whenever there's a large mass of people like this gathering for extended periods, about urinating and defecating in public spaces and on private property. Just in case you think it's the corporate media or evil conservatives making up a pack of lies about the Occupy movement, here's a couple of reports from within the Occupy movement itself about sexual assaults and some of the other issues I've mentioned: [7][8] Here's another from the very progressive Feminist Wire, describing an "Occupy rape culture": [9] In the Tea Party movement article, we see a laundry list of every incident that could possibly be construed as bigoted in any way. But members of the Occupy movement are alleged to have committed a multitude of genuine felonies — VIOLENT felonies — and where's the laundry list in that article? There's just two sentences about them, and those two sentences are split up and "buried." I would venture to say that there are more reasons to be critical of the TPm than Occupy, for example ... Are you kidding me, Ubikwit? The two movements need to be treated the same: objectively, consistently, and NPOV. None of the reliable, neutral sources claim that the TPm or organizations within it are Astroturfing, despite misrepresentations by some editors to the contrary. Give up on that. And we should also be talking about a reduction of the "bigotry laundry list" in the TPm article to the buried single sentence treatment we see in the Occupy movement article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC) P&W, you have raised some valid criticism of Occupy, assuming that they are attested to to in RS. I would suggest that you edit that article, and engage in appropriate dispute resolution processes if the sources are challenged, etc. The fact remains, however, that the movements are vastly different, and the both movements need to be treated in accordance with the respective body of RS that is created in relation to them. In the case of the TPm, the breadth and depth of the types of criticism emanating from a wide variety of sources testifies to the fact that there is more material in its scope that is subject to critical evaluation. Moreover, there are already several studies published in academic sources by professors, legal scholars and researchers. I don't believe that you've pointed to a single such reference with respect to Occupy--not that there might not be such sources forthcoming. It is not permissible under WP:DUE to try and exclude coverage of the RS relating to an article because the article in question is deemed to be about a topic that has an oppositional counterpart. NPOV with respect to RS, as determined by WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT are the policies at issue, primarily. Furthermore, with respect to the TPm, primary sources are of limited applicability, so you need to find more secondary sources if you want to counter statements made in RS, especially those published by academic presses.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 05:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I'm not trying to exclude coverage of any reliable sources, Ubikwit. I'm only trying to give them the WP:WEIGHT they're due. Majority opinions, such as "grass-roots" and "opposed to illegal immigration" should be stated in Wikipedia's voice in the first 10% of the article, and expanded upon in the heart of the article. Minority opinions, such as "Astroturf" and "anti-immigration," should be stated in the final 1/4 of the article, and carefully attributed to the tiny handful of people who are making the claims. "The breadth and depth of the criticism" is almost entirely coming from partisan sources that are opposed, like Rachel Maddow, Nancy Pelosi and The Huffington Post. And as I said on the main Talk page, I categorically ignore the "go and edit some other article" defense. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Hot button words. Certain terms, such as "grass-roots" and "anti-immigration," have proven to be very controversial. They trigger edit wars, reams and reams of text on the article Talk page, and ultimately a lot of frustration and anger. Let's find a way to short circuit all the frustration and anger. I propose a procedure to be limited to this moderated discussion. All participants are asked to sign on below. The procedure is this: an editor seeking to introduce or change a particular descriptive word proposes the edit in a new section on this page. All editors active on this page have seven days to Support or Oppose the edit, and present policy-based arguments supporting their positions. At the end of the seven days, SilkTork determines whether there is consensus one way or the other, and announces that finding at the end of the section. Support. It's relatively fast, and it has finality and certainty. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC) We should establish that the highest priority objective is to make this article informative. Endless effort/ battles/ on trying to fight/wiki-lawyer in swipes or praise should be recognized as contrary to that. 02:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.248.152 (talk) Reduce content The article should provide a good overview of the Tea Party movement and not stay mired in excessive details. Perhaps merge 2010/2012 elections with another article like List of Tea Party politicians. Merge anything that deals with protests over to Tea Party protests. If it's something that happened at a protest, it really belongs in that article. Nothing should be duplicated here in this article, which is a bit long to begin with. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Comment What do you mean by "not stay mired in excessive details"? This is an encyclopedia and should provide as much detailed content in covering the topic as appropriate according to the reliable sources and policy.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 13:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Framing of the article The article currently is disjointed, and uninformative. (Personal attack removed) The article should be organized more on topical issues as addressed in secondary sources, not primary source material by TPm activists or leaders. The Agenda section is the prime example of the problem. Whereas secondary sources addressing topical issues related to the TPm focus on issues such as the constitution and immigration, the Agenda section is taken up almost entirely by the "Contract from America", which is basically a document that has been used in an effort to recruit people, including politicians to the TPm. The Tea Party Patriots are the only group apparently involved in the largely failed effort to have the platform adopted (it lists a total of four legislators from 2010!). In other words, the Contract from America is given undue prominence, even though it is for all intents and purposes obsolete, having been eclipsed by the Republican "Pledge to america", etc.; moreover, there is not a single secondary source discussing it. Seeing as it has its own article, perhaps it should be substantially trimmed down in accordance with WP:UNDUE, and secondary sources introduced. With respect to immigration, an argument has been put forth that immigration reform is now the current issue. If such shifting of the time frames is permissible there, then the Contract for America should be considered to be something of a dated document, and the content of the issues in it that are still current addressed. It is still may be necessary to trace the development of some positions where the transitions between past stances and the current stance are relevant. The domestic issues having the greatest import include: The constitution Taxation Immigration The role/size of the government Considering that the TPm is almost entirely restricted to the USA, it is very strange that the Agenda section obscures the domestic issues that could be considered as primary motivators for the grass-roots participants, relegating them to blurbs, yet prominently features foreign policy. That belies a total lack of balance in the Agenda section. And the "Tea Party Caucus" is defunct, so why was it described in terms that make it seem current and viable with respect to foreign policy? There must have been substantial criticism of the contract when it came out, in light of controversial contents, such as items 2 and 10 on the list. Why is there absolutely no input from secondary sources? There is some criticism and analysis reltated to the foreign policy pronouncements. Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 05:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Extended content Ubikwit, SilkTork mentioned above that the focus is on the edit and not the editor. We're trying to come to an agreement here. Comments such as "proponents. . .use the article for advocacy," and naming editors and your uninformed assumptions of their supposed motivations, are not helpful. You have no evidence of advocacy and it's a personal attack against editors to even suggest that, especially when you then name editors. You have no evidence or knowledge of anyone's motivations or their personal or professional lives. You are simply attacking volunteer editors. I've redacted your comments. I can't speak for the other editors, but if you accuse me of advocacy again, I will take you to a noticeboard. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I don't believe that mentioning an editor in response to a claim they make is precluded, but I will refrain from suggesting you are engaged in advocacy, and admit, in retrospect, that it was improper (largely due to lack of sleep, basically). On the other hand, you should re-read the opening paragraph by SilkTork regarding personal comments, and not take matters into your own hands by removing my comments, accusing me of a personal attack and then threatening me with ANI. Are you also implying that my comments related to statements made by P&W and North suggested advocacy on their parts. My comment primarily have addressed the content of the edits by the editor, not the editor on a personal level. I have reentered my remarks that relate directly to other editor's posts as comments following the relevant edits.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 13:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) The purpose of the list is to establish what editors see as changes that will benefit the article. Questions and comments can come later. I've moved your post down here. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC) And yes, you were accusing all three of us of advocacy. Re-read your own comment. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Malke, I don't care to engage in a prolonged argument with you, but I'm going to have to ask you to stop moving/removing my comments. If SilkTork finds anything inappropriate or misplaced, he can hat it or move it to the place in the discussion that he finds appropriate, at his discretion as moderator. Thank you.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 15:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Malke. If you become aware of personal comments in future, please draw it to my attention rather than deal with it yourself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Oh,aye. I see your point. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Reduce the trivia and marginally germane material Most items should be about the TPM movement at a regional or national scale. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Comment It seems to me that this represents another attempt to artificially constrain the scope of the article in a manner that is not in conformance with policy. There is, incidentally, WP:HTRIV, but the qualification that "Most items should be about the TPM movement at a regional or national scale" does not seem to be included in that policy. The operative phrase in that policy is ...trivia is information that is not important to the subject it is being presented in relation to. The encyclopedic article we are drafting should not be a simple chronicle of the exploits of the TPm, but comprehensive in scope, including the full compliment of analysis and criticism found in reliable secondary sources, in paricular.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 18:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I've not talking about criticism, I'm talking about trivia, which the article is loaded with. North8000 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Fair enough, let's address it on a case-by-case basis. The article certainly is disjointed, so there may be some information that might make more sense if better integrated, and I wouldn't be surprised if there turned out to be some trivia, too. Maybe that would fall into place if the article were framed in a more coherent manner, making the clean up easier.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 19:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC) trim, specifically criticism like much of the the section On issues of race, bigotry and public perception. the tea party is multicultural (the % is irrelevant, everyone is welcome and represented [10], [11]) I also question the benefit of the section Obama's thoughts. the section on polling from 2010 does little to explain what the movement is about, rather backs up claims already made above such as the tp is a minority not liked by the majority. this is the second of 2 sections devoted to polling, which i question if either really fit. polls are easily manipulated and the very lowest rung of what is considered a rs. wp is not a democracy, neither is the usa, a quasi-democratic poll of a tiny minority is perhaps not the best sources we have available for the message intended to convey Darkstar1st (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Trim Definitely, per recommendations by Darkstar and North8000. Too much trivia. Plenty of opportunity for sub-articles here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Trim, per recommendations by Darkstar and North8000. However, I disagree with some of the Framing of this framing section; reliable sources commenting on the stated agenda of TPm organizations should be preferred to politically opposed, but still reliable, sources commenting on the "actual" agenda as those sources see it. "Reliable sources" which are sufficiently biased can only be used for clearly factual material (e.g., a stated agenda), not for interpretation or opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC) I'm not clear as to some of the terminology and phrases used above. What do you mean by "commenting on the stated agenda", for example, and how does that differ from "the actual" agenda? I would suggest that there are several types of commentary, some which are topical analysis carried out considering the historical context, etc., and some are critical, attempting to expose aspects that the constituents of the movement may seek to portray themselves as standing for when in fact others see something else in the actions, etc., of the movement that contradicts the official stance. It would not be in accord with WP:DUE (or WP:NPOV) to exclude analysis of any part of the TPm "stated agenda" set forth in secondary sources. as for criticism, I think there could be a separate section for critical commentary that is more contestable than straightforward analysis.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 14:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC) What I'm saying is that biased (normally) biased reliable sources talking about the TPm's "agenda" should be disregarded except as in it reports on the TPm's stated agenda. Those sources' opinions on the TPm's "actual" agenda would be seriously biased, and cannot possibly be part of the article, except under a "media" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, you're right Arthur, and that has been the problem with the article from the beginning. Now even the 'origins' section about the early protests has been prefaced with the opinions of those who want to support the new claim that big tobacco started the movement. Prefacing everything they do and say with a counterclaim first, is the same as if every time the president were about to give a speech, someone got up before him and said, "Here's everything he's going to say, and here's why you shouldn't believe him." Malke 2010 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Two followup points: 1) How would you distinguish between "biased" "and critical" 2) Where would you suggest that the content of academic sources (i.e., not mass-media sources) that you consider to be biased but reliable be included?Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 00:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 1) It's a problem. I think we can all agree that a self-described liberal would be biased against the TPm. One could argue that anyone who takes a stance which the TPm generally (I know it's a weasel-word) opposes would be considered biased, but it's possible that some such correspondents could act in an unbiased manner. The liberal and conservative opposition is valid, but that doesn't stop both Fox News and the Huffington Post from being RS.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 05:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC) It doesn't stop Fox News and the Huffington Post from generally being RS, but we cannot accept opinions or "conclusions" from clearly biased sources. Some sources can be reliable for (verifiable) facts, some for interpretations, and some for commentary. In this case, Fox News and the Huffington Post are reliable for facts, but not for interpretations or conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 2) Probably still media. We might put it in the "agenda" section with a cavaet, such as "Tobacco Control asserts that the TPm's goals were to deregulate tobacco." (If they actually said that, which I doubt.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Peer-reviewed journals and scholarly studies published by academic presses are not mass media; in fact, the are that in contradistinction to which the term "mass" of the compound noun "mass media" has been adopted. Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 05:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Peer-reviewed journals are not "mass media", but they are still not necessarily reliable for interpretation, if sufficiently biased (which Tobacco Control is). Tobacco Control is not presently used for the agenda of the TPm; if it were, it also could only be used for demonstrable facts, not interpretations or conclusions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I think that the Tobacco control article would fit best in a Criticism section in relation to AstroTurf. The Criticism section might be divided into Scholarly and Mass Media sections, for example. The connections detailed in that paper relate primarily to organizations that pre-date the appearance of the TPm, and most of the information analyzed in the study is from that period, too. So I think that the tobacco excise tax issue is basically subsumed under the general taxation agenda as proclaimed by the TPm, and I'm not aware that it has been proclaimed as an agenda item since the TPm started articulating an agenda. On the other hand, the studies by legal scholars relating to the stances on the constitution that have been articulated by various TPm activists and leaders are illuminating for their objective analysis against the backdrop of the historical development of theories of interpretation and application of the constitution. Informative sources such as those should be integrated into the main body of the article.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 07:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Much as I would like to include scholarly studies of the agenda as it relates to the Constitution, most are hopelessly biased. If you would suggest a specific study, I would give my opinion as to whether it's an RS for analysis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Any and all of these, for example: Schmidt, Christopher W., The Tea Party and the Constitution (March 18, 2011). 39 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 193 (2011); Chicago-Kent College of Law Research Paper, p. 194 (2011) Rebecca E. Zietlow, Popular Originalism? The Tea Party Movement and Constitutional Theory, 64 Fla. L. Rev., p. 483 (2012) Foley, Elizabeth Price , Sovereignty, Rebalanced: The Tea Party and Constitutional Amendments (August 3, 2011). Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 78, p. 751, 2011Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 09:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC) They all cover what might be a position (not necessary, part of an "agenda") taken by some factions within the TPm. Probably includable with that phrasing, with two adjustments: My might be depends on the precise wording of the paper; it should be noted that abstracts represent the position of the author(s), not necessarily vetted by the journal. It's been known to happen that abstracts take the exact opposite position to that supported by the paper. Law review journals include student papers, which should be considered to have less reliability than those presented by established professionals. I haven't read even the ones available for download in full, but the third one seems to refer to a movement which the TPm is associated with, rather than one which is actually part of the TPm. If that's the case, it's only usable to support that the TPm associates with the named movement, rather that that the named movement is part of the "agenda" of the TPm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Well, I'm not sure how you are distinguishing between a position and an agenda in this context. There is the general problem of clarifying agenda items that most TPm activists support, but it would seem that the proclamations related to constitutional amendments are fairly widely reported and studied. If you don't have time to read the sources, there's little to discuss. Regarding the third source, I'm not sure to which associated movement you are referring, but the so-called Repeal amendment is more widely discussed than the so-called Federalism amendment, which I gather was drafted in repose to the onset of the TPm by a libertarian law professor. It is true that the third paper does not discuss the TPm in depth in the same manner that the other two papers do, so I haven't used it except for citing facts, namely this passage< 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). Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 10:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC) I've now read those for which the actual article is available, and there's no "there" there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Just correcting one point, "clarifying agenda items that most TPm activists support" is not enough to make it germane, it would need to be in some TPM context. As a whimsical but useful illustrations, if a poll found that most TPM supporters preferred dogs over cats, that does not weigh towards considering dogs to be a TPM agenda item. The more realistic areas are social conservatism/liberalism issues, where the libertarians and conservatives within the TPM have conflicting views, which the agenda has mostly stayed away from. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Trim, per Darkstar, North8000. Also, agree with Arthur on the TP groups stating their agenda. The agenda should be brief but include mention of fiscal goals, opposition to Obamacare, opposition to U.N. Agenda 21, pro-immigration reform, and amnesty with secure borders. And 'get out the vote,' and mention the super PAC. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Comment First, that sounds like a proposal to populate the Agenda section with exclusively primary source material, while excluding analysis of the policy positions set forth as points in the agenda. Primary sources are not used indiscriminately on Wikipedia to promote a certain image a given entity seeks to project of itself. Thepolicy is WP:PRIMARY, which states Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. See my comments under Arthur's post regarding WP:DUE, etc. It also seems like you are proposing items that are clearly not part of the agenda under the Agenda section, such as the super PAC, for example, which would seem to belong under the Organization section. The same probably holds true for the "get out the vote" stuff. Participating in electoral politics is a means to effect the agenda, but I'm not sure it can be categorized as an agenda point in and of itself unless it were taking aim at voter apathy, for example.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 14:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Agree that some of those are not part of the agenda, but strongly disagree about what a reliable source for the agenda might be. WP:PRIMARY suggests that we should use secondary sources which talk about the primary sources, not those which speculate on the "true meaning" of those sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC) IMO, the first order of business should be to decide what the article is actually about. The sources so far presented do not indicate that the TPM is a single identifiable organism at all -- in fact dealing with its very disparate nature is one of the problems the current article has. It does not appear to be monolithic, nor to require that its "members" hold particular views, nor that the views of many subset of its members then become the views of the group as a whole in the sources presented so far. Thus I would suggest that we have sections showing historical use of the term "tea party", the history of some of the identifiable organizations using the term "tea party", the nature of the most prominent groups forming the TPM, and the "mathematical intersection" of the beliefs espoused by all of those groups, not just any belief expressed by a single segment of such groups. And we must consider the article as a whole (WP:PIECE) as the curent melange looks like a horse desgned by a committee <g>. Collect (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Avoiding the most likely failure mode One way to help achieve success is to identify the most likely forms of failure and then try to avoid them. The most likely failure of the process is when the people who are trying to fix the article get ground down and give up and mostly go away. ("mostly go away" = only sporadically comment rather than make real efforts.) Unfortunately, I think that that is starting to happen. Then the article would end up being determined by the few "persistent" folks. That has been its history; we should work to avoid that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC) That is a good point, and why I wish to involve all the main contributors in a consensus decision. If some people do not get involved in a decision to remove some content, but come back to edit in a months time and reinstate thst content, then this effort has been for nothing. However, we are all volunteers on this project, so people cannot be made to do anything. On the other hand, people can be sanctioned for doing something against consensus, so it might be useful to have strong sanctions in place, such as ArbCom DS. Anyway, the contributors tool is back working - so I will shortly contact everyone. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Expanding

SilkTork, I hope you don't mind, but until others present more specific proposals on "trimming", and that gets rolling, Id like to propose addressing the text of recent edits that has been blanket reverted three times (different versions) related to the constitution in the Agenda section. The article needs trimming, to be sure, but it needs more than that. Do you think these two processes could be carried out in tandem here? Or should I open a content dispute case at DR/N in relation to the Agenda section? Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 15:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Agenda I would like to propose a collective evaluation of the constitution related text that has been the subject of contention over the past few days, with blanket revsions even after I modify, expand and incorporate new material, the last edit including new material from a source first introduced by Malke. The version of the page in question is here, and the first section I would like to request input on is the following paragraph from the Schmidt source. Please look at the paragraph in context and comment on its relevance, whether it is well-integrated into the flow of the opening of that section, etc. If a consensus is reached to include this passage in the above-linked version of the opening of the Agenda section, then the proposed section on the Constitution can be scrutinized. There is substantially more material available than what I've posted there, incidentally. The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting Agendas... Yet within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party. This core is particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters. Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 15:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC) It will be slower moving, but much more likely to achieve success if we do one thing at a time, and keep discussion in one place. The main concern arising, and so the first action to discuss is trimming. When we have moved through that, we can discuss and agree what would be the next focus - which may well be what additional areas need covering. I will leave this open for a short while, and then hat it, so people remain focused on the trimming discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Silktork, there are ongoing discussions on the Talk page regarding three troublesome words, and a fourth issue regarding "planned obsolescence" of some terms used in the Agenda section, for which I've proposed a very simple solution. Discussed in a little greater detail in the Trimming section above. I would appreciate it if you'd clear these items off our plate first since they've devoured an enormous amount of time and effort in recent weeks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC) IRS acts The following from the AP [12] 10 May 20913 is likely to be of interest in the article as generally applying to the Tea Party Movement: The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday. Organizations were singled out because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for their list of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said. "That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association. The forms, which the groups made available at the time, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members. IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told Congress in March 2012 that the IRS was not targeting groups based on their political views. Is this usable? Collect (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, I think so. And it's very disturbing. The Associated Press is an eminently reliable source. How does this sound: The Associated Press reported that the Internal Revenue Service inappropriately "flagged" Tea Party groups and other conservative groups for review of their tax-exempt status during the 2012 election. Some groups were asked for donor lists, which is usually a violation of IRS policy. Groups were also asked for details about family members and about their postings on social networking sites. Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, apologized on behalf of the IRS and stated, "That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate." Testifying before Congress in March 2012, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman denied that the groups were being targeted based on their political views. Tom Zawistowski, who served as president of an Ohio coalition of Tea Party groups, said, "I don't think there's any question we were unfairly targeted." Zawistowski's group applied for tax-exempt status in July 2009, but it wasn't granted until December 2012, one month after the election. Lerner stated that about 300 groups were "flagged" for additional review, and about one quarter of these were due to the use of "tea party" or "patriot" in the groups' names. Jenny Beth Martin,national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, called on the Obama Administration to apologize to these groups for "harassment by the IRS in 2012," and "ensure this never happens again." Does that about cover it? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC) I might say "had testified" just as a grammar choice, though. Collect (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Is there a place for this information in the main article? Likely. I'm not sure where in the article it would be best positioned. Would the above proposed text be acceptable? Not at all, in its present form; too many deviances from the source material, after just a cursory review. (i.e., source doesn't say "IRS inappropriately 'flagged' Tea Party groups and other conservative groups", it just says "conservative political groups"; location of Lerner's "That was wrong..." statement is misplaced per the immediately preceeding text; the ≈75 groups flagged for additional review weren't flagged for having tea party or patriot "in their names", but in their applications; no mention that none of the political groups were denied their requested status; no mention that "patriot" and "tea party" were among numerous low-level keywords used by low-level workers to determine if groups were participating in political activity; etc. This will probably be hatted for now, like other 'expansion' proposals above, but it should definitely be raised again later. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC) This should not be "hatted" as it is very important to the article. As for the wording, the AP states Organizations were singled out because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups which does seem to say "tea party." You also must have read a different article than the AP wrote - you assert that no groups were denied the status? It is clear that some were denied the 501c3 status for 3 years or more, and others never got the status - or simply refused to tell the IRS every detail about family members and their Facebook pages. Again -- I am only citing the exact wording from the AP which you appear to know is wrong. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC) As am I. The exact wording from the source. And you are correct: seem to. We appear to agree. (And I didn't say this "should" be hatted or that it wasn't important. I just noted that SilkTork has hatted similar divergances before.) Where everybody knows your name. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC) New York Times [13] The Internal Revenue Service apologized to Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations on Friday for what it now says were overzealous audits of their applications for tax-exempt status. Lois Lerner, the director of the I.R.S. division that oversees tax-exempt groups, acknowledged that the agency had singled out nonprofit applicants with the terms “Tea Party” or “patriots” in their titles in an effort to respond to a surge in applications for tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012. seems pretty clear and more supportive of P&Ws proposal than the mere AP dispatch. Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, rejected the apology as insufficient, demanding “ironclad guarantees from the I.R.S. that it will adopt significant protocols to ensure this kind of harassment of groups that have a constitutional right to express their own views never happens again.” likely should be included. BTW, I consider "in their titles" to be pretty close to "in their names." Collect (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Survey on addition of IRS 'harassment' to main article mainspace I propose adding the following section to the main article mainspace, directly beneath the "Current Status" subsection of the "History" section: ===IRS 'harassment' of Tea Party groups=== In May 2013, the Associated Press and The New York Times reported that the Internal Revenue Service inappropriately "flagged" Tea Party groups and other conservative groups for review of their tax-exempt status during the 2012 election. This led to both political and public condemnation of the agency, and triggered multiple investigations. Some groups were asked for donor lists, which is usually a violation of IRS policy. Groups were also asked for details about family members and about their postings on social networking sites. Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, apologized on behalf of the IRS and stated, "That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate." Testifying before Congress in March 2012, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman denied that the groups were being targeted based on their political views. Tom Zawistowski, who served as president of an Ohio coalition of Tea Party groups, said, "I don't think there's any question we were unfairly targeted." Zawistowski's group applied for tax-exempt status in July 2009, but it wasn't granted until December 2012, one month after the election. Lerner stated that about 300 groups were "flagged" for additional review, and about one quarter of these were due to the use of "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications. Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, called on the Obama Administration to apologize to these groups for "harassment by the IRS in 2012," and "ensure this never happens again." Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, rejected the apology as insufficient, demanding “ironclad guarantees from the I.R.S. that it will adopt significant protocols to ensure this kind of harassment of groups that have a constitutional right to express their own views never happens again.” Strongly support. Very notable, still unfolding, could be a major scandal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Support With wide coverage in all the major nespapers - thus not rug-sweepable at this point. Collect (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC) We already have a mainspace article on it — IRS Tea Party investigation — and we should do a "main article" hatnote with link at the top of this new subsection. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Support and it should include the comments by Axelrod that the government is "too big" for Obama to be aware of everything. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Comment It would have been helpful to provide links to the sources sited. Also it is not necessary to provide in-text mention of sources of facts. Words in 'scare quotes' should not be used in headings, since they raise the question of who is using the term. Comparing the text with a summary provided by the CSM,[14] I find a few apparent inaccuracies in the text. The IRS did not flag the 75 groups for review of their tax-exempt status. Instead they flagged new applications for tax-exempt status for new Tea Party groups formed in the run-up to the 2012 election. Groups whose main activity is support of political candidates and parties are ineligible for tax-exempt status. The CSM does not say that asking for donor lists is a "violation of IRS policy", just that it is not typically required. I do not see either the need to quote so many people. Just citing Republican and Tea Party sources makes it appear that they are the only ones who hold that opinion. Why not just summarize the general reaction to the story - that the IRS has abused its power by failing to be "nonpolitical, nonpartisan and neutral." TFD (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Support Major and prominent, more major and prominent than 80% of the material in the article. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC) I understand the desire to do this, but the current discussion is on trimming the article and creating sub-articles. Discussions on expanding or adding material to the main article are being held back for the moment. I will shortly move this section to the #Expanding section above, where I think there's already a discussion started on this matter. This is not a comment on the appropriateness of the material proposed to be added, simply an attempt to keep matters in hand so that several discussions do not start at once. When we have completed the current discussions, we can make this the next discussion if that's what folks want. This is a postponement, not a cancellation. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Agree with Silk Tork. One thing settled at a time. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Accordingly, I am now copying the entire survey with all "votes" to the main Talk page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Just a thought - but would stopping the talk page discussion (which is going no where) until an agreement is reached here be one way to make progress? ----Snowded TALK 08:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Stopping the Talk page discussion to get some sort of consensus on sources and policies here regarding a few points would be very helpful. For example, newspaper Vs academic sources...we have unresolved arguments that both be given equal weight despite evidence the newspapers are aligned with the Tea Party, especially the argument that the larger number of newspapers Vs number of academic sources means academic opinion is basically fringe. We also face the argument that a newspaper not mentioning something is equivalent to it being a source for it not existing. Terminology...we have unresolved arguments that sources using words with definitions that do not match exactly the Wikipedia definition cant be used, ie: Sources say TP is both grass-roots and astro-turfed but astro-turfed doesn't allow grass-roots at all so we can't say astro-turfed. These may sound silly but they are real stumbling blocks on the Talk page. Wayne (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC) "Newspapers aligned with the Tea Party"? Never mind. It's more that the academic sources that have been provided, and that I've been able to read, are from ultra-left-wing commentators. (And one libertarian source.) If the authors thought the the TPm agenda was possible, they wouldn't say so. Authors, even in "academic papers", make choices as to what to discuss and what to ignore. Some editors (on the article talk page) are using the fact that certain concepts are not named in the academic papers to demonstrate that they aren't there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC) As for "newspaper vs. academic sources", if the newspapers almost always state one position, and academic sources a contrary position, then we can't reasonably say either is fringe. However, if the academic sources only occassionally present a contrary position, and are mostly silent, then you could make a reasonable case that those academic papers are minority, if not fringe. It's a difficult problem; perhaps that issue should be brought up as a named issue on this page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC) [ec]If you scroll up, you'll see that SilkTork is reluctant to act on these questions "without a broader consensus." The comment immediately preceding that was mine, where I asked specifically for a decision on consensus for the two terminology disputes — "grass-roots" and "anti-immigration." SilkTork moved that comment under an "extended discussion" hat. Without it, it isn't clear what he's talking about specifically. Taken in its entirety, that exchange of comments indicated that SilkTork believes we do have consensus on these two issues, but it isn't as strong as he would have liked. I feel much the same way. Based on the sources we've found, WP:WEIGHT is telling us what to do very clearly; but a vocal minority of editors chooses to interpret policy another way. I've been saying this for weeks. We need to listen to policy-based arguments, focus on what policy is telling us to do on these two intractable points, and do it. Then we need to move on. It should be obvious that we will never achieve a unanimous consensus on these points, because some editors cannot check their partisanship at the Wikipedia door, or have come to this page to pursue a grudge. No solution will ever be perfect. We need to accept a good solution that isn't perfect. In both cases, there is a strong majority of reliable sources that say one thing very clearly, and a small minority of reliable sources that are being carefully and laboriously contorted by a few partisans to say something else. WP:WEIGHT tells us what to do. We need to accept it, and do it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC) According to Wikipedia policy, I believe that academic sources take precedence over news media. Academic sources offer in depth analysis of topics, whereas news media articles are more informational, with some analysis. It is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to attempt to assert, for example, that news media should be given equal weight because of strength in numbers of citations. -The statement by Wayne related to the news media favoring the TRm was intended to be made, I believe, with reference to the "conservative media outlets" referred to by Skopol as comprising one constituency of the "tripartite mix". -With respect to the criticism of Skopol and Fromisano's framing of Astroturfing, it is not the case that they are wrong and the Wikipedia article is right, but that Wikipedia article needs to be updated to reflect their statements on the topic.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I do not agree that "academic" sources take precedence over news media. Academic sources usually offer more analysis, but it may require an expert librarian to determine whether an academic source is discredited, while newspapers issue retractions. An academic book should be better-researched, but usually is not as carefully edited, and there is no place to look for retractions. P&W above uses a different tone than I would have, but he's right. There is a strong majority of reliable sources that say one thing very clearly (anti-illegal-immigration, and grass-roots), and a small minority which may say something different (anti-immigration, and astroturfed). As for astroturfed, we do have a definitional question — my understanding is that the majority view is that for something to be "astroturfed", the funding has to be hidden, which is not the case, here. It's not organized enough to be hidden. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Yes Arthur, that is my understanding as well. And that's what the well-sourced WP article on Astroturfing says, along with a few other things. One political operative pretends to be several people, and generally there's one or more computers involved. So if you have a team of four political operatives, it can be made to appear that 20-30 people are all writing letters to the editor of the same newspaper, for example. It looks like a grass-roots movement even though there aren't really any grass-roots there. That is the commonly accepted definition of the political science term "Astroturfing." And there is no allegation that it's happening here. In this case, all sources agree that there is (at least) a very strong grass-roots component to TPm. No reliable source is saying that fake grass-roots have been manufactured. And there's no need to manufacture a fake when you have the real thing. That's why any other component that isn't grass-roots can't fairly be described as Astroturf. I came up with the descriptive term "watering the grass." Rather than manufacturing fake grass-roots, the big money elites are making sure that the very real grass-roots are able to thrive. It isn't Astroturf. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Your extraction from the article is too narrow in scope, and insofar as Astroturfing can be characterized as relating to the attempt to unduly influence public opinion, the mere involvement of FOX NEWS in exaggerating the TPm and attempting to promote it could be regarded as a form of Astroturfing. What is it that Skopol says about Fox and the TPm? Sorry that I don't have access to the book or the time to read it.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC) This is a damn good opinion column that expresses my thinking on the matter. Why is it that when one side does something, it's called "community organizing," or "get out the vote," but when the other side does exactly the same thing in exactly the same way, it's called "Astroturfing"? The people with the money are doing what they can to make sure that everybody who agrees with them shows up. It's not Astroturfing. And what reliable, neutral source is saying that Fox News "exaggerated" or "promoted" TPm, rather than just reporting the facts as they appeared? It isn't exaggeration or promotional to say that the winner of the 2010 election cycle was the Tea Party, the losers were Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, and the Tea Party defeated them with its millions of grass-roots voters. Perhaps Fox News paid attention to the Tea Party because they deserved the attention, when other networks were reluctant to mention them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Spill over guys you are just carrying on the same discussion as on the talk page. ----Snowded TALK 12:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Yeah, that's right. But on the Talk page, SilkTork wasn't participating. Here, I hope he will participate and resolve this. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Solving this is going to take rising above endless correct or policy-misrepresenting wikilawyering to add / remove stuff to make the TPM look good or bad. Some concepts that might help in this area: Avoid "characterization" words regarding the overall movement that are not significantly informative. Remove trivia, including the cherry-picked trivia that this article is loaded with. If it isn't about some larger scale aspect of the movement it should be left out. Maybe go one step down to briefly include Congress and governor-level elections/elected officials. Additions and wording should recognize that it is a phenomena, not an entity. Although this sounds abstract, I think that it would lead to a lot of fixes. Get rid of constructions from primary sources. The polling data on TPM supporters on non-TPM issues comes to mind Sources that are used as actual sources (i.e. not framed as just statements of their own opinion) should be better than just meeting the low floor of wp:RS. We should lean towards ones that are objective and knowledgeable in the particular area where they are being used/cited. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Unless there is focus on completing one task at a time, then no matters will get resolved. I understand there is concern about sourcing, and that it would be helpful to have a discussion regarding sourcing. However, the main problem that has been identified is the size of the article, and a start has been made on discussing what to trim. I am hatting the sourcing discussion until the trimming matter has been resolved. I would ask that until one matter has been resolved, that no other matters are raised. The main talkpage is still open, and people can discuss other matters there if they wish, in preparation for bringing them here. But I am unwilling to moderate several discussions at the same time. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed solution for 'grass-roots'

TFD posted a quote from the Columbia Journalism Review's article about the Skocpol & Williamson book, and I think it provides us a rather elegant solution for this impasse: "Skocpol and Williamson see the Tea Party as neither solely a mass movement nor an Astroturf creation, arguing for something in between: a grassroots movement amplified by the right-wing media and supported by elite donors."[15] I see no reason why we can't incorporate part of this quote into the lede. Here is the current lede: The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution, reducing U.S. government spending ... Here is the lede I propose: The Tea Party movement is an American grass-roots political movement, "amplified by the right-wing media and supported by elite donors," that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution, reducing U.S. government spending ... It avoids use of the word "Astroturfing" since we'll clearly never reach an agreement on using that word, and it accurately describes what the reliable sources are actually saying. Does that adequately address everyone's concerns? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC) The Tea Party's list of 16 "Non-Negotiable Core Beliefs" doesn't even mention the Constitution or reduced government spending. In fact the core beliefs only mention of government spending is advocating increased military spending. Wayne (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC) With something that is a phenomena (not an entity) it's hard to generalize, but I believe that the agenda that had the widest net cast / most input received was the contract from America. I think that at least 7 of the 10 points were on one of those two. If one interprets less spending to sort of mean smaller government, then I think it's up to 10 for 10. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Specifically, how do the two of you feel about this edit to the lede sentence? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC) If I might be permitted to but in, something that involves Astroturfing cannot be characterized as a "phenomena", as phenomena occur spontaneously and naturally, without corporate funding.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I meant "phenomena" in the vaguest sense of the term, and mostly to point out that it is not an entity. It's really a combination of many different things,.....and agenda, several hundred organizations, instances of actions, instances of support of all types, speeches, influences on elections, a concept and rallying cry, and a general decentralized "push" for certain changes. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Now that (the use of the word "phenomena") is an example fighting over definitions when the word isn't to be used in the article. Could we stop that, and get back to discussing proposed text? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC) "amplified by the right-wing media and supported by elite donors," comes across as weasel wording considering the substantial input both have had. I prefer some version of Skocpol's take. I think something along the lines of the following covers most points, is factual and pretty much how it's seen by the rest of the world (I copy/pasted some from the Encyclopaedia Britannica): The Tea Party movement is an American grass-roots political movement, supported by national political and corporate interests and conservative media outlets, that advocates less taxation, immigration, and government intervention in the private sector. Wayne (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Agreed -- with the possible change to "...taxation and government intervention in the private sector, and strong enforcement of immigration laws." placing the two primary concerns which appear to be in common for the various groups first (removing comma after taxation to show that "less" also applied to government intervention - else we ought add "less" also before the word "government"), and then strengthening the comment about immigration laws. Collect (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC) If we're talking about the first sentence, I commend the good effort by P&W, but think that the current one is more informative. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC) The version I've proposed contains more information. It calls the movement a grass-roots movement with qualifications contained in a direct quote from the CJR review TFD posted. Then there's the version which Wayne proposed. The trouble with both is that they fail to illustrate the complex nature of the movement. A few elements accept money from corporate donors. Some do not. Some are coordinating with, and being coopted by, the Republican Party to various degrees. Many are not. It's a complex situation and needs a lengthy, complex explanation — but this is the lede sentence, and there are obvious WP:WEIGHT implications. And we must choose our few words carefully so that they're free from any bias. "Conservative media outlets" is certainly better than "right-wing media" for example but I think we're on the right track. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Maybe I should make sure we're talking about the same thing. Are we talking about the first sentence in the first paragraph in the lead? And if so, what would be inserted where and what, if anything, would be eliminated? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC) I see a number of problems with the above-proposed versions. First, there is no agreement that the movement should be called a "grass-roots movement". There is no agreement that the term Astroturf not be included. I consider it something of a logical fallacy to claim that the TPm calls for strict adherence to the constitution when in fact they call for radically changing the constitution through the addition and subtraction of amendments. Constitutional originalism is more involved than "strict adherence". The constitution figures prominently in the agenda as it embodies various themes of government at which respective constituencies of the TPm have taken aim. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Well, yes. We are talking about the first sentence in the first paragraph in the lede. There should be an agreement that the movement should be called a "grass-roots movement" in the lede, since each and every source at least mentions a grass-roots component, and the strong majority just calls it "grass-roots," period. There should be an agreement that the term "Astroturf" will not be included in the lede. Only one source (Ronald Formisano) actually uses that term to describe any portion of the TPm. He only uses it once, on page 100. He is demonstrably biased in favor of Barack Obama, the Tea Party's political enemy. He is a tiny minority of one. Skocpol describes TPm as a mix of grass-roots activism, nationally-known conservative leaders, conservative media and corporate donors. And Formisano describes the same components — he just uses a different word to describe one component, and uses that word in a way that doesn't follow its conventional meaning. If you'd like, Ubikwit, we can end the lede section by saying, "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, once described the Tea Party movement as 'Astroturf' before being forced out as Speaker of the House by the Tea Party in the November 2010 election. Theda Skocpol, a Harvard University political scientist has refuted that description, calling it 'poppycock.' " That's the only way I'd agree to putting that word in the lede — at the end of the lede, in a manner that illustrates the political motivation behind it, and instantly followed by a refutation from a reliable source. "Strict adherence to the Constitution" doesn't mean you can't support an amendment. It only means that until it's amended the way you want it, you have to obey it as written. After all, the Constitution contains a provision for its own amendment by the American people, through their elected representatives. This provision can be strictly adhered to, and strictly followed. It seems to me that the Tea Party believes Obama and the Democrats, and to a lesser extent the Republicans, have exceeded their constitutional authority. That's where the desire for "strict adherence" comes from. It also seems to me that certain amendments, such as the Second (right to keep and bear arms) and the Fifth (freedom of speech, right to peacably assemble for a redress of grievances) are very near and dear to their hearts. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC) "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, once described the Tea Party movement as 'Astroturf' before being forced out as Speaker of the House by the Tea Party in the November 2010 election." P&W, I do not know if you meant that suggestion as a joke or actually expect others to accept it. But it is wrong on so many counts, we will never make progress with suggestions like that. The Republican Party, not the Tea Party, beat the Democrats. And Pelosi's comments on the Tea Party had nothing to do with the outcome. It also implies that she was the only person who actually called them that. "Strict adherence to the constitution" by the way means strict adherence to their interpretation. Another interpretation is that they are misinterpreting the constitution. TFD (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC) For the first half: no, I didn't expect any of the "Astroturfing" advocates to actually accept that proposal. regarding the proposal at the top of the thread, I'm a great deal more serious. For the second half: sounds like WP:OR to me, unless you can come up with some reliable, neutral sources to support the two statements, "strict adherence to their interpretation," and "they are misinterpreting the Constitutioon." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Skocpol never said that astro-turfing was poppycock. She said that claims that the Tea Party was entirely astro-turfed was poppycock and that the TP was a "tri-partite mix" of grassroots, astroturf and media. It is also incorrect to say that Only one source (Ronald Formisano) actually uses that term to describe any portion of the TPm. In his book, John Dryzek says that "a significant portion of the Tea Party" is astro-turfed. Lester Salamon talks about the effect of grass-roots and astro-turfed organisations then gives examples including "the Tea Party movement emerged on the right with substantial corporate contributions." Lawrence Rosenthal, Professor of Sociology at Berkeley says in his book The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party, "Democratic blogs say the Tea Party is astro-turf, social movement analysis supports them" and "The Tea Party Movement is not, then, a purely grass-roots phenomenon or a spontaneous force...in it's initial stage the Tea Party was an astro-turfed grass-roots contrivance" which gained some "marginal autonomy" when it grew too large to be controlled. Clarence Lo, professor of sociology from University of Missouri says that the media "put forward a romantic narrative of a movement composed of policical neophytes" when it is documented that the Tea Party groups themselves claimed [in 2009] to be political activists. One Tea Party leader, Robin Stublen, actually stated that the Tea Party had lost it's grass-roots and that the Tea Party Express was "a GOP Astro-turf." Wayne (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Having said that I like User:Collects suggestion The Tea Party movement is an American grass-roots political movement, supported by national political and corporate interests and conservative media outlets, that advocates less taxation and government intervention in the private sector, and strong enforcement of immigration laws. Astro-turfing, anti-immigration and other beliefs can be covered in the article. I just read that the Tea Party had supported a bill to prevent teachers with foreign accents from teaching in public schools so anti-immigration is definitely not too strong a word. Wayne (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC) I think that's a reasonable lead. However, having had a professor (in a non-language course) who had such a thick accent that I couldn't understand her, I can sympathize with that bill. But, that would be "anti-immigrant", rather than "anti-immigration". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC) In the Skocpol & Williamson source, the researchers do not describe a "grassroots movement", but instead repeatedly refer to the "grassroots activists" and "grassroots people" (and grassroots-adherants/supporters/participants/Tea Partiers...) — in other words, the individual activist component of the movement. That is what the 'grassroots' description is applied to, instead of the movement as a whole. Given the heterogeneous (or tripartite) nature of the movement as described by reliable sources (including pgs. 10-13 of S&W), I would adjust Collect's proposed lead wording to say: The Tea Party movement is an American political movement comprised of grassroots activists, wealthy national political action committees, corporate interests and conservative media outlets. It advocates less taxation and spending, smaller government and ... I'm leaving the second sentence open-ended, as I suspect "what the movement advocates" might spark some additional discussion given the range of agendas across the movement, and the apparent reprioritization of some goals since 2009. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC) That seems reasonable. The fact that it originated as a grass-roots movement probably should be in the lede, but there are few sources which accurately talk about the origins of the movement, so I would be willing to have that only in the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Regarding Xenophrenic's suggestion, there aren't any sources to support an edit like that, either in the lede or in the body of the article. Who are these 'wealthy national political action committees,' and 'corporate interests,' 'media outlets,' etc. And Skocpal and Williamson don't say it either. They also don't say anything about 'anti-immigration.' Collect's suggestion is neutral. And Wayne, do you have a source you can show us that the Tea Party is proposing to ban teachers with "accents?" Malke 2010 (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Which TPm affiliated organization was it that spent $10 million on the last election? What type of organization is One Tea Party leader, Robin Stublen, actually stated that the Tea Party had lost it's grass-roots and that the Tea Party Express was "a GOP Astro-turf." The Koch brothers would seem to represent an obvious corporate interest. The lead itself should be worded slightly differently for logical consistency, as the conservative news groups aren't officially a dedicated part of the TPm, though some, like FOX, wold seem to have sometimes served in an actual organizational capacity. Something more along the lines of The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that comprises grassroots activists and astro-turfed groups funded by wealthy national political donors and corporate interests. It has also benefited from support provided by conservative media outlets. Generally speaking, the Tea Party movement advocates less taxation and spending, smaller government... --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC) The "Astroturf" advocates keep citing the same two or three sources. I've already cited 11 on the main Talk page — three from the New York Times, two from the Washington Post, one from Reuters, one from National Public Radio, one from Huffington Post of all places, a very interesting 30-minute webcam round-table discussion hosted by the Huffington Post, and a Harvard PDF in which Theda Skocpol, of all people, says that "Thus the grassroots Tea Party phenomenon is real ..." [16] [17] [18] [19][20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] — and I can cite many more, stating that they are a "grassroots" organization, period. Without any qualifying statements. Here are a few more: one from ABC News, one from Politico, two from the Dallas Morning News, one from the Boston Herald,and one from the Houston Chronicle. [27] [28] [29] [30][31] [32] To this list we can also add the scholarly, peer-reviewed work of Elizabeth Foley. Some editors believe that in order to count in a WP:WEIGHT comparison, these sources would have to explicitly deny that there's an Astroturf component in TPm. In this case, all 18 sources stated that they are a "grassroots" organization, period. Implicit in that statement is a denial that any part of the movement is Astroturf. It is abundantly clear that the two or three sources claiming any part of the Tea Party is Astroturf are a tiny minority per WP:WEIGHT. Those sources do not include Skocpol and Williamson; the "tripartite mix" they described did not use the word "Astroturf," or any other term that was equated with "Astroturf" elsewhere in their book. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Why do you keep citing newspaper sources which Skocpol, whom you support for anything she says that you agree with, has explicity said are part of the Tea Party and therefor unlikely to be partisan on the issue. I'm not familiar with Williamson but on page 63, Skocpol specifically equates the "resource-deploying national organisations" she says are part of the "tri-partite" with astro-turfing. Wayne (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Hatting for now as per my comment above. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

racist, religious, and homophobic slurs

since the TPM has disavowed those using such terms, would anyone object to removing them from the article? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I think the matter needs to be mentioned. The left-wing media are really making a big deal out of it. A sectional lede sentence referring in a general way to these allegations of bigotry, without specifically calling out each and every incident. Then several reference cites to linkable reliable sources making these allegations. Maybe a couple of sentences on one or two of the most notable examples of the behavior and language that's being complained about, like the spitting and name calling before the vote on Obamacare. Then a statement or two from the major Tea Party organizations that disavow such behavior and the use of such terms. Darkstar, I suggest you write one or two paragraphs that follow this framework, and I'll see what I can do about gathering consensus for it. Unless somebody has a better idea. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Hatting for now, per my comments above. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

using entire sources rather than only half a source

I suggest that where criticism is given with a specific source as a reference, and that source contains other material which balances the claim, that it misrepresents the source to only present the criticism - when we use a source, we use the entire source, and where the source has balancing comments, we also include those balancing comments in an article. I rathber think this is intrinsic to WP:NPOV which is a non-negotiable core principle of the project. Thus I made two edits top show why such nbalance from the sources is essential to the article at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion/Allegations_of_bigotry_in_the_Tea_Party. Collect (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Using what the reliable source conveys, rather than just a portion, is required practice across all articles. Looking at the two edits you made, it appears that your concern is not that "balancing comments" were not used, but that they were used in summary style. Your edits indicate that you would prefer to have text to the effect of "...and then they kicked him out ...or 'shunned' them" appended to each incident, rather than stated at the end of the examples. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC) To illustrate, I see you subsequently removed this text from the article: After each incident, other prominent Tea Partiers were quick to denounce the actions. In each case, public announcements were made strongly stating that the controversial actions were neither condoned by, nor representative of, the Tea Party movement. Where Tea Party leaders were involved, they were forced to relinquish their position, or were ostracized from the movement. And you also removed this: Some Tea Party organizers have started taking steps to prevent potentially controversial situations from arising, including hiring off-duty police officers and restricting attendance at their events, uninviting speakers espousing controversial views, and urging attendees to self-police events for troublemakers. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC) I note your addition in the middle here ... if each claim is balanced and NPOV, then adding a paragraph at the end of a long list is not required for NPOV. You appear to feel that the weaselly "some" is sufficient balance rather than use the actual original sources cited for the balancing material already in those sources. You are on the fringe of SYNTH when you say "we use what the reliable source conveys" We use what it says not what anyone wishes it said, and we do not say what it says twice in one section <g> -- we use its entire content, and we do not repeat its content. Where it gives balancing material we are absolutely bound by WP:NPOV to include such material. And we do not quote an entire article in order to reinforce a claim already made using the same article as a source <g>. Lastly, WP:BLP requires strong sourcing for contentious factual claims about lining persons -- opinion articles and the "Baxter Bulletin" sort of sourcing does not cut it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC) I know what BLP requires, and the sourcing for the Marler content is more than policy compliant, especially with the news reporting from the newspaper covering the event, The Baxter Bulletin. If your concern is just about sources, why have you not added as many as you like? Or is your real concern about the content? It's accurate (there are even recordings), well covered, and there were even follow-up reports and repercussions (she resigned from the TP steering committee). I'll hold off reverting your deletion for now because I am curious to see if you'll remedy your own "BLP" concern or not. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Using what reliable sources convey is not "SYNTH", it's policy. And no one has suggested using "what anyone wishes" a source said. If you wish to balloon each bullet-point in size, go right ahead (note that I didn't revert that), but that is a matter of style, not NPOV. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Baxter Bulletin: Circulation 10,000. (ABC has it at 8,800 total) Major newspaper suitable for making strong BLP claims. Not. Collect (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC) "Not" what? Circulation has nothing to do with meeting reliable source requirements. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Local newspapers with trivial circulation (in this case, under 9,000) quite likely do not do extensive fact-checking at all. This is a fact of life - and WP:RS refers to "fact checking" as being important. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. seem applicable here. No sign that the paper engages in extensive fact-checking, that it regularly issues corrections, that it has an extensive staff etc. [33] The paper has a total of 3 "staff writers" with the largest section being ad sales, and "sports" as its main department. Major paper it ain't, and no sign of any copyeditors etc. to find errors - what the writer produces is what gets issued. I think this is a case where WP:RS is clear: No fact-checking, no staff, and nothing to ensure it is more reliable than "paper refusing ink." Oh -- and a glossy ad supplement [34]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC) That circulation is actually phenominal, considering they are in a city of only 10,000, within a coverage area of 40,000 people. They are the newspaper of record for that area; have been since 1901, and their staff includes several editors. Just because they still have a pulp-paper circulation does not disqualify them as a reliable news source. Looking through their news stories, they do implement corrections, retractions and editorial revisions as required to maintain accuracy -- a hallmark of a reliable source. Please review their policy and principles regarding their reliability as a news source. Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way; We will dedicate ourselves to reporting the news accurately, thoroughly and in context. To help protect these Principles, practices have been drafted to address such subjects as unnamed sources, correcting errors and other issues. These guidelines have been distributed within the newsroom and are available upon request. This newspaper and its news professionals are committed to observing the highest standards of journalism, as expressed by these Principles. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC) [35], [http%3A%2F%2Fsabew.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2FCode_of_Ethics_for_Gannett_Newspaper_Division.pdf&ei=j-OPUceDFIGm9gTy9IF4&usg=AFQjCNGyyH6V_ReNRzRQbgQad93U3aeGdQ&sig2=OJ2YBzcm-IR15ZEw9Pi9_A&bvm=bv.46340616,d.eWU] , etc. Gannett boilerplate used by every single newspaper owned by that company. If you wish to think the BB wrote it - more power to you. But then a huge number of papers are violating the copyright on it <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC) The Baxter Bulletin is a Gannett newspaper, and has been since the early 1990s; I thought you understood that. (And most of the quote above is not from the that standard practices "boilerplate".) So were there any other concerns? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC) The boilerplate: WE ARE COMMITTED TO: Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way (same) We will dedicate ourselves to reporting the news accurately, thoroughly and in context. (same) Note also: [36] among scores of websites: We will dedicate ourselves to reporting the news accurately, thoroughly and in context. • We will be honest in the way we gather, report and present news. To help protect these Principles, practices have been drafted to address such subjects as unnamed sources, correcting errors and other issues. These guidelines have been distributed within the newsroom and are available upon request. This newspaper and its news professionals are committed to observing the highest standards of journalism, as expressed by these Principles. (all identical to the Baxter Bulletin which you claim is not a copy of all the Gannett terms) Found in a whale of a lot of papers -- and you aver it is not boilerplate? Looks to me like it is entirely Gannett boilerplate! Collect (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC) No, I aver the Bulletin is a Gannett newspaper, just like the ones to which you linked above. Are you now asserting that Gannett newspaper publications are not reliable sources? Or are you suggesting that a news agency standardizing its practices and principles across its newspapers is some sort of detriment? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry -- it sure looked like you were claiming it was not boilerplate. In my experience, when scores of papers use the same wording exactly, the word "boilerplate" is correct. I am glad you now acknowledge the wording did not originate in any way at the BB and is, in fact, boilerplate from its owners. As for your straw man that I am somehow anti-Gannett -- that is a silly and weird claim. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Not a claim. Not a straw man. I asked a question (two, actually). I'll take your response as a 'negative' to my questions. Happy Mother's Day :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC) I fear you will have slog using that at NPOV/N as a claim -- that we use what the sources "convey" and not what they "actually say" is not in any policy page I can find. "Convey" is not found in WP:RS at all. Period. Try: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Now you are just playing with semantics. Replace "convey" with "say" and re-read what I said; I stand by it. Let's stick to what policy dictates, and what our article says. Your comments about using "what we wish" sources to say, or not using what sources actually say, are not useful here, as no one has suggested doing that. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC) (e/c)Where there is an edit that gives such weight to what Dale Robertson says, someone who doesn't even have a legitimate tea party organization, and does not include what actual Tea Party leaders say, that edit should be eliminated. The fact that Dale Robertson doesn't have a legitimate tea party group, tried to sell the domain teaparty.org to legitimate groups who refused it, should be included in anything about him, along with comments from legitimate groups, like Tea Party Patriots. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Wait, when is a Tea Party group legitimate? Is there a registry? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Also best practice is to ensure NPOV in each and every case -- not to have "but this may all be wrong" after a litany of "examples." Sorry -- but WP:NPOV is pretty strong on this sort of thing. It is also why "criticism" sections are generally deprecated on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC) This appears to be a discussion best held on the general talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Mother Jones Magazine as a reliable source

I'd rather not use Mother Jones as a source for anything if we can help it. It's a left-wing version of World Net Daily and, in fact, there are several such publications and websites on both sides. They use inflammatory language and innuendo, they cherry-pick their facts, they use "confidential sources" to make some really outrageous claims, and they generally play it fast and loose for partisan purposes. Dale Robertson is a nobody. TeaParty.org is just a website. For every reliable source describing him as a "Tea Party leader," there are probably at least two reliable sources identifying him as a cybersquatter or a wannabe. WP:WEIGHT tells us what to do. Show me links to your sources. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC) It certainly be used for its opinions properly described as such - but it is not a particularly good source for making claims, especially contentious claims about living people, in Wikipedia's voice. It is generally considered, in fact, to have a political agenda by others. Collect (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Left-wing version of WND? Not even close; the most distinguishing difference is that Mother Jones has a well established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is why it is generally suitable as a reliable source and WND generally is not. Your various assertions about MJ don't ring true (with the one exception that they do have a politically liberal orientation). What specific article content are you proposing to cite to which specific MJ source? Yes, Tea Partiers are (generally) nobodies; just average Joes, right? And yes, TeaParty.org is a website, just like TeaPartyPatriots.org is a website. Yes, there are plenty of reliable sources that have described Robertson as a TP leader, organizer, president and founder of TeaParty.org, etc., and I'm sure there are plenty of sources disparaging him since his fall from grace. The same happened with Williams. What links are you asking for? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Not even close; the most distinguishing difference is that Mother Jones has a well established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... Really? Among its more slavishly devoted left-wing partisan readers, I suppose you might be right. I'm a progressive as well, but I don't allow that to blind me to its partisanship. Mother Jones cherry-picks the facts to produce a biased narrative. In my opinion, the only reason they've chosen to tell the whole story on Robertson (without any cherry-picking) is that it embarasses both the Tea Party and, to a much larger extent, the mainstream media (for whom Mother Jones relishes its role as gadfly — something else you and Mother Jones have in common), because a few of them fell for his bullshit. And yes, TeaParty.org is a website, just like TeaPartyPatriots.org is a website. This is an example of cherry-picking the facts. Yes, they are both websites and both espouse a fiscal conservative POV, but there the resemblance ends. TeaPartyPatriots.org is huge. It has hundreds of thousands of people visiting the site. TeaParty.org is an empty shell. Check the Alexa rankings. Yes, there are plenty of reliable sources that have described Robertson as a TP leader, organizer, president and founder of TeaParty.org, etc. ... Links, please. For every one you post, I'm sure that two more can be posted exposing Robertson for the charlatan and cybersquatter that he is. Then we look at WP:WEIGHT and we know what to do. Majority opinion is that Robertson is a charlatan and a cybersquatter. To the everlasting shame of the Washington Post, he fooled them for a while. You're being tendentious again. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Please refrain from making personal attacks, Phoenix and Winslow. Also unhelpful are your claims to being "a progressive" (or a Democrat, or having voted for Obama, etc.); you should leave that at the doorstep when you are editing Wikipedia articles. I'll re-ask my question to you: What specific article content are you proposing to cite to which specific MJ source? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Personal attacks? I didn't make any. And yes, I check my progressive nature at the doorstep when I'm editing Wikipedia. But I frequently notice others from the left who are unable or unwilling to do so. Personally, I'm not proposing that anything should be sourced to Mother Jones. If it's carefully attributed to "Stephanie Mencimer, writing on the left-wing Mother Jones website," I suppose that Collect's proposal to use this [37] regarding Dale Robertson might be acceptable. Something about him being a "bogus Tea Party leader." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Wow - I am sorry but "proof by assertion" is not how moderated discussions" function. I would also note we not iterate the demonstrator charges in your edit of the proposed subarticle (reverting my attempt to make the section NPOV by using the actual wording of the Ombudsman article!) -- and since the same source is used twice to say Frank was called a slur etc., that is "overkill". I fear such an edit is contrary to best practice in any article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC) I recommend using Lawrence Rosenthal and Chrisine Trost, Steep The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party, University of California Press, 2012, pp. 73-75.[38] My objection to Mother Jones is not that it is unreliable, but that we should be using the best sources available. Publications like 'Mother Jones are sometimes useful when they cover subjects that have been ignored by the mainstream media. TFD (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC) IOW you do not like the notable opinion expressed in the MJ article, therefore it is not RS for presenting that opinion properly labelled as such? Pray tell -- what source would you require to allow such a copyrighted opinion to be allowed in an article? The single "best source" for it is the article in which it appears. Collect (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Robertson is notable, but I don't see what makes the MJ opinion exceptional. It certainly is far more editorial in character than the information in the abovementioned academic source, which is factual and includes actual statistics, etc.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Collect, neutral editors identify the most reliable sources and use them to write articles. You on the other hand choose sources that support your personal point of view then argue for their inclusion. In this case we see that you have gone to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to argue that an article was not rs because it did not reflect your opinions then argue that an article by the same writer in the same publication is rs because it supports your personal opinion. TFD (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC) For once and for all - THIS PAGE IS NOT FOR SNARKY ATTACKS ON EDITORS. And your accusatiopns are false, errant, misleading, egregiously ad hom in nature, and of no value whatsoever to this page or any page on all of Wikipedia. I trust I made my position clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC) You appear to be appyling a dual standard. When Mercimer's articles in Mother Jones support the TPm they are reliable; when they do not, they are not. Can you please explain your reasoning. TFD (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Read this please: my standards are, and have been consistent for years on many topics on Wikipedia. Opinion articles are usable for opinions cited as such. Cheers - now go. Collect (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Concerns regarding appropriate sources can be raised at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I would rather we spend this time looking at broad strokes to improve and stabilise the article than at single phrases, sentences or individual sources. My hope is that with general assent that the article is roughly balanced, the article can be unlocked, and general editing resumed where folks can fine tune the details. The sooner we get the broad strokes done, the sooner folks can get back to editing the fine details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, were this merely a question of sourcing that would be correct. The tendentiousness evinced in the discussion, however, would seem to clearly indicate that such is not the case. It is a thread that is highly representative of partisan POV pushing vis-a-vis attempts to unduly assign weight to sources that don't deserve it and the wholesale ignore other sources in violation of WP:DUE. According to sources other than MJ, obviously Robertson is notable, so the question with respect to sourcing is which of the reliable sources carry the most WP:WEIGHT, not whether the multiple sources commenting on the individual at issue themselves are reliable or not. Some editors appear to simply have been intent on going through the list of documented incidents of bigotry by TPm activists detailed in the article at present in order to whitewash that list. And they pursued that agenda in a tendentious (and obstructionist) manner, primarily with respect to sourcing. The policy based arguments would seem to be clear enough at this point in relation to the academic source, in particular, versus the MJ opinion piece. Is it productive to ignore the tendentious arguing regarding sourcing in the related thread here? I have repeatedly stated since the beginning of the Arbcom case that this was at the heart of the problem. If I am wrong about the policies at issue, then I would appreciate someone detailing how so.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC) If contributors to an article are unable to reach agreement regarding the reliability of a source, they are advised to get an independent opinion via a venue such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sometimes there isn't a conclusive decision from such a venue, but when there is, it would be expected that contributors follow consensus. Continued arguments on the same point when no progress is being made is not helpful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Well, I don't see the point at issue here, whether or not Dale Robertson deserves to be mentioned on the article, as being dependent on whether the MJ article is RS, but about notability and sourcing a such. That is a false, diversionary ploy that detracts from the efforts to determine how to describe him, as he would clearly appear to be notable according to policy. But I would welcome your input on the question of notability. Therefore, I've opened an RS/N thread on the academic source, instead Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Steep_The_Preceipitious_Rise_of_the_Tea_Party_a_reliable_source_for_the_inclusion_of_Dale_Robertson_in_TPm_article.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Mice try -- but "Steep" was not the issue here, and no one at all has questioned it. The issue is whether MJ is a reliable source for opinions properly cited as such - and your RS/N post forgot to link to this discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)"Mice try"? That was a typo, I gather. I don't agree that the issue at stake here is simply whether MJ is a reliable source or not. That would seem to have been answered already. The issue is whether the opinioin stated in the opinion piece has any relevance or WP:WEIGHT with respect to the edit in question. With respect to the book Steep, I think that the answer clearly is that it has far less weight overall in any context. So the result would be the opposite of the ends you are trying to pursue by dismissing Steep and pushing the MJ source in an undue manner.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Duplicative articles query

Are we going to also discuss articles which to a major extent duplicate what we are discussing her? Vide Tea Party protests etc.? Or only the one main article "movement" and direct subarticles thereof? I rather think that all should be under the one main article - and the examples in each sub-article well ought to be covered by discussion here, but others may differ. Collect (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC) The understanding is that this is a moderated discussion on the Tea Party movement article. Not any other articles. However, as a result of editing the TPm article, sub-articles have been created. But the focus is here, this article. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Malke is correct - I'm willing to help out on the main article, which has meant creating sub-articles, but I don't wish to extend the moderated discussion to other existing Tea party articles. I think by the time that editors are in a position to consider merging material, I would hope - as with the expanding issue - that the main article could be unlocked and general editing resume. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Content discussion, resumed

One editor suggests that "alleged" means we are saying in Wikipedia's voice that the sources are not factual, though the use of "alleged" here seems clearky to refer to whether they actually represent bigotry for the TPM in general. Collect (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC) That is still slightly inaccurate, the way I see it. It doesn't seem to me that there is an issue as to whether each of the incidents in and of itself is bigoted--that would seem to be a given. Even other TPm activists have spoken out against the incidents and attempted to implement preventative measures according to the first paragraph of an earlier post by Xenophrenic here. The question is whether isolated incidents by individual activists can be aid to substantiate the assertions that bigotry is rampant throughout the TPm.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC) And, in at least one case, the question of whether the bigot is really a TPm member, other than in his own mind. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC) To whom, specifically, would you be referring?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) (ec)First of all-- the WaPo ombudsman found one of the specific "incidents" was incorrectly reported, thus "that would seem to be a given (that the act was bigoted)" is belied -- which does make that one a "fact" even in your view. Second, your "attempted to implement" is clearly a POV claim on your part -- either measures have been implemented or they have not, there is no "attempt" (channeling Yoda). Lastly, no reliable source now says "bigotry is rampant throughout the TPM" making that sort of claim a non-starter as far as the direction this moderated discussion seems to be headed. Now the goal is to reach WP:CONSENSUS and to that end we must either seek to reach rational agreements and compromise subject to policy, or throw in the towel. I ain't throwing in the towel. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Are you attempting to categorically deny that the majority of the incidents were bigoted? Why haven't you addressed any of the items specified by Xenophrenic in the above-diffed paragraph indicating recognition on the part of other TPm groups and leaders and countermeasures? The Uni-Tea rallies, FreedomWorks' "Diverse Tea" campaign, the Tea Party Race Summit, the formation of the National Tea Party Federation formed to respond with messaging damage control and public relations, etc. What WaPo ombudsman finding about which incident? Why don't you spell out the specifics instead of namedropping and vagueries? What the hell do you mean "Channeling Yoda"? I take that as an insult, and a blatant personal attack for which I'm going to see that you are called to account.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Try using some humour, for gosh sake! [39] The full quote is "Try not. Do or do not!! There is no try" the quote means that one should not approach a task with the attitude that only an attempt will be made Finding an attack in that is pretty weird. Collect (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC) I'm not as well-versed in Star Wars as you, apparently. And by the way, why did you remove the following passages that Xenophrenic asked you about here, and then try to feign ignorance of their existence when discussing the topic with me? After each incident, other prominent Tea Partiers were quick to denounce the actions. In each case, public announcements were made strongly stating that the controversial actions were neither condoned by, nor representative of, the Tea Party movement. Where Tea Party leaders were involved, they were forced to relinquish their position, or were ostracized from the movement. Some Tea Party organizers have started taking steps to prevent potentially controversial situations from arising, including hiring off-duty police officers and restricting attendance at their events, uninviting speakers espousing controversial views, and urging attendees to self-police events for troublemakers. I'm getting tired of going around in circles here.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC) As I discussed this in the past and think your use of feign ignorance is blatantaly an attack, I would point out what I wrote at the time: (this paragraph in weasel terms ("some") is less effective than using the actual sources originally cited for the NPOV balance) I fear you forgot that edit summaries exist to show the reasoning for an edit. As using the sources already given allowed us to add the proper blanacing material, the use of a weasel paragraph seemed rather duplicative, if not duplicitous as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Well, you seem to recall the edit summary well as well as the rationale, which is unclear to me. At the same time, in light of your response to me above, you would seem to have forgotten the content of the passages you deleted, otherwise you wouldn't have responded in that manner and caused me to have to make all this effort to rebut the tautologies in your arguments. The substance of those passages is that the incidents were recognized by TPm leaders and action was taken to repair the damage and prevent repeat performances. Yet you went through a lot of verbal gymnastics to make it seem like I was talking nonsense (channeling Yoda?).--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC) This is not a high school debating class - this is a discussion seeking a WP:CONSENSUS on an article. Your personal asides, therefore, are irrelevant to the process taking place, and may actually be disruptive of such process. And your accusation of "verbal gymnastics" is quite nicely Python-esque, indeed, and I shall take care not to assume I am in the "The Argument Sketch." Collect (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Collect, please review WP:Weasel, specifically the part about using "Some..." Note where it says, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Well, gosh, let's check the reliable source now to see if the text you removed accurately represented that source: Sensitive that poor public perception could sink their movement, some rally planners have uninvited controversial speakers, beefed up security and urged participants to pack cameras to capture evidence of any disrupters. That looks darn close to me. Since we're seeking consensus, would you have any objections if we reinstate that particular paragraph? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC) IIf the actual sources are used with their balancing comments, that paragraph is not only not needed, it is detrimental to the article. You make your position quite clear that it is our task to show how evil a group is. Unfortunately, that is precisely what Wikipedia policy tells us not to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC) That's not my position at all. Our task as Wikipedia editors is to build neutral, informative articles based on reliable sources. Where have I said our task is to show how evil a group is? (And if you mean the Tea Party, on what reliable sources do you suggest we use for that, as I haven't seen them.) I ask that you please strike that. On the matter of the paragraph, are we speaking of the same one? I refer to this one: Some Tea Party organizers have started taking steps to prevent potentially controversial situations from arising, including hiring off-duty police officers and restricting attendance at their events, uninviting speakers espousing controversial views, and urging attendees to self-police events for troublemakers. I'm not seeing how that content would be detrimental to the article. It's factual, and appears to convey a natural evolution in event organizing that any group would go through. Could you explain in more detail what concern you have with it? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC) If the sources are used in full, they each have balancing comments which would make the added weasel paragraph duplicative. Encyclopedias are best served by dealing with each incident and blancing the reportage of each incident. Adding a "some" bit implies that not all of the incidents had a result of that nature, and that many of the TPMs did not do anything at all about such incidents. As that is clearly a POV position, we can not take it. Collect (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC) re: "If the sources are used in full..." - there is no "If" about it; we should use what a source says on a matter, not just select portions of what it says to the exclusion of other portions that may provide balance. Your concern appears to center on our article not saying that "every" TP event organizer proactively removes controversial speakers and protesters, correct? Our present sources do not convey that totality - that Point of View - so can you point me to sources that would support that? When I look at the small sample (6) of "examples" presently in the sub-article, the sources describing them show plenty of denouncement and ostracization after the actions and words of TPers generate controversy, not before or proactively. Yet it sounds as if you are saying there is something in those sources we aren't "fully" using that would convey your point of view, but I'm not seeing it. Maybe a specific example would help? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Looking at another reliable source that has recently been receiving a lot of discussion (Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party), I see that pages 80-82 cite specific examples that go contrary to your POV and assertion above. They give examples of Tea Party organizations who not only failed to proactively address controversial TPers among their membership, but actually refused to acknowledge them, despite their policy that they do not tolerate descrimination of any kind in their chapters. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC) I think that discussing characterizing individual incidents is a diversion. Just as if one searched the millions of statements and actions by Democratic Party personnel and found three that kicked dogs, and anti-DNC media gave max coverage to that and implied that it was representative of the DNC being a dog-kicking party. The question isn't whether those three actually kicked the dogs, it's allegation / implying / question , whether dogkicking a attribute / characterization of the DNC. And maybe also turn the lens around and also look at the process of what the media did. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, North, you've expressed that thought before. No, North, not even "anti-DNC media" would equate dog kicking with racism and give it equivalent "max coverage". (I note that's right up there with equating racism with "farting", "trivia" and a "gaffe".) However, if there were many, many more dog-kickers in the DNC compared to the general public AND if whole "extreme dog kicker clubs" gravitated to the DNC as a welcoming home AND if "dog-kicking ideology" could be found at the core of many DNC policy stances AND if DNC members were found to have higher animosity toward dogs than the general public ... yeah, I think you'll find a section on it in the DNC Wikipedia article. (Personal observation: I personally feel that racists doing racist things should be made to feel the burning public spotlight and accompanying ridicule as much as possible, and I find it more than odd when some folks think the media pays too much attention to them.) Xenophrenic (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your position racists doing racist things should be made to feel the burning public spotlight and accompanying ridicule as much as possible, That is not what Wikipedia tells us to do in policy and guidelines, and shows an apparent belief that we are here to "right great wrongs" and to preach the "truth." If that is your position in trying to reach consensus, I ask you set your position aside and abide by poliies you appear to disagree with. If you wish to alter WP:NPOV, then do so - but until then, it is the non-negotiable backbone of the project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC) You need to read again, Collect. I said racism is bad, and folks deserve what they get for it. I have opinions on rape and murder, too. That was a personal opinion of mine, and not a "position" having anything to do with Wikipedia, consensus or editing. That pretty much makes the whole of your comment nonsense, and your thinly veiled attempt to conflate the two insulting. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "Conflate"? Wow -- that is such an extreme misstatement of my position that I am loath to reply. Try WP:AGF please, have a cup of tea, and note that I came here not opposed to the Robertson incident being in the article - but was persuaded by others on this page. Yes - "racism is bad" but that has absolutely no value as a dictum for editing any page on the entire project. Your words above, unfortunately, appear to convey a different attitude here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, "conflate", as in merge, combine, blend. I shared a personal opinion with North on the specific matter of racism, (I'm quite certain every Wikipedia editor has personal opinions), and I was very careful to identify the comment as just my opinion. I also edit Wikipedia. You conflate the two; you implied that my personal opinions and my Wikipedia editing are related. Is that not what you said? Isn't that just another way of accusing an editor of "editing from a POV instead of from reliable sources?" Please explain how that is an "extreme misstatement of your position". If, however, that is indeed your position, then I re-request that you refrain from expressing it as it is inaccurate, insulting and a personal attack. Regarding Robertson related content, you should note that I came here hoping that the Robertson material (indeed, "incident" lists in general) would be replaced with balanced, concise encyclopedic coverage -- but now it appears that some editors would like a whole article dedicated to such incidents and allegations. I don't have strong opinions about Robertson-related material either way; you'll recall that when an editor introduced Robertson's "Principles" from TeaParty.org as part of the 'Agenda' section, I commented it out and expressed concerns about using it on the Talk page, hoping to remove it. Your assessment of "my attitude here" is ill-informed. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC) None of the 6 incidents presently described are "alleged" incidents. Each of them happened, and there is recorded proof that each of them happened -- including the fact that several congressmen said they heard racial slurs. Please note that our article only factually says the congressmen said they heard slurs; it doesn't say that "racial slurs were hurled at the lawmakers" in Wikipedia's voice. That presently factual content only moves into the realm of "allegation" when we add that some people allege the congressmen made it up. Even the WaPo Ombudsman expressed incredulity at that assertion. We can change the header to "Incidents and alleged incidents" after we add some incidents that don't rise above the level of "allegation", which will no doubt happen now that there is apparently going to be a whole distinct article dedicated to such incidents. Here comes Rand Paul's laments about the passage of civil rights laws; Tancredo's keynote speech at the TP convention; ... Related: Please don't be upset that most people find humor in this argument about the Health Care Protests in Washington, D.C.: "Yes, we called gay lawmakers "faggot" and "homo commie", and yes we called Jewish lawmakers "shlomo Weiner" and post swastikas on the office doors, and yes we portrayed Obama in tribal garb with a bone through his nose, and yes we called hispanic protesters "spics" (all these are recorded, by the way), but don't you dare claim someone said the N-word because we're not about that! You must be making it up! Show me proof!" There is proof; multiple credible eyewitnesses. Regarding the argument that positioning the list of allegations of bigotry near the top of the artical gives it "too much weight" -- say what? You might be able to make a weak argument like that if we're talking about the Tea Party movement main article, but we are not. We're talking about /Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party, where such germane content gets top billing. TPers do bigoted things that get news coverage, which in turn prompts academics and pollsters to study the phenomenon and talking heads to comment on the phenomenon. Not the other way around. The article should properly reflect that. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC) We now know what you WP:KNOW. Unfortunately what you "know" is not how Wikipedia works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Can you be more specific? What you said is meaningless to me. What is it you are trying to say? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC) When seeking a WP:Consensus, it is wise to accept that what you know may not be absolute truth - and compromising to reach a collegial result is what Wikipedia requires. Collect (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Collect, "what I know" about this subject matter has all been gleaned from reliable sources. I don't have any first-hand knowledge or experiences with the subject to draw from, so I'm stuck with what the sources say. If you are suggesting that the reliable sources "may not be absolute truth", I suppose it's possible you may be right, but how could I know that unless other equally reliable sources make it evident? Regarding compromise, we don't disagree. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC) We have just trudged through yet another lengthy tutorial discussion explaining what WP:CONSENSUS is: Xenophrenic and Ubikwit, opposed by everyone else. Ubikwit sees how it is, and moves on. Xenophrenic, undaunted by such things as being outnumbered four-to-one (or worse), erects a Wall of Words. Excellent masonry, but not productive for Wikipedia's goals. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Another personal attack, P&W? Real nice. Which "consensus" are you claiming exists this time? Is it the one where you asked for a vote on an edit version you falsely described as "All right Xeno, I've restored the missing refs etc. that you've complained about."? Consensus is the formulation of solutions that address the legitimate concerns expressed by editors; it isn't achieved by trying to "outnumber" editors or ignoring legitimate issues until editors "move on". Xenophrenic (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC) It's not a personal attack; it's (almost entirely) an observation about your actions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Make up your mind, Arthur, which is it? Is it not a personal attack, or did he indeed make "observations" about a contributor rather than content? If you can't decide, perhaps you could ask an admin for assistance. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC) It's entirely observations about your actions, although I haven't investigated whether the observations are entirely justified. There's no point in my doing so, as I couldn't sanction you for making those comments pretending you didn't know they were against consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC) So you agree that he made "observations" about a contributor instead of about content, regardless of whether his comments were "justified"? Fine; my concern was that those kinds of comments, or "observations" if you prefer, don't advance the discussion, and actually poison what should be a collaborative editing environment. That's why we have policies against it. May I ask what you meant by, "I couldn't sanction you for making those comments pretending you didn't know they were against consensus"? Are you making stuff up out of whole cloth again, or am I misreading, because it looks to me like you are now saying I'm "pretending" something. I'd like an answer, but the response should probably resume on one of our Talk pages, as discussion here has strayed from "article improvement". Xenophrenic (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC) There's no place to put this discussion. Xeonphrenic, in addition to violating the guidelines for this page, is seriously misinterpreting what I wrote; I must say, at this point, that no one with a basic knowledge of English could unintentionally misinterpret the statement, so I must ask that Xeonphrenic be banned from this page. What I intended to say was that P&W's comments were on Xenophrenic's edits, not Xenophrenic as editor. I said "almost entirely" because I'm not sure the comments were accurate. After reading your comments here, I'm now convinced they were and are accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't you be asking that I be desysopped, too? P&W's comments were about behavior; note that he didn't comment on a specific edit (or edits), but instead about being "undaunted", consensus, erecting a "wall of words". Why you felt the need to drive by and throw a log on that fire is beyond me. Your comment served no useful purpose that I can see. And then you add to it with that "pretending" snipe. Good job. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC) I think we should seriously consider Arthur's suggestion that we vote to ban Xenophrenic from this page, and I'd add we should vote on whether to topic ban him from Tea Party movement. It's obvious he is not here to edit in a collegial way, nor he is interested in neutral POV. His personal attacks, battles, and disruption are directly opposing the work here and hence, the work on the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC) @Xenophrenic, responding to your 02:56, 18 May 2013 post, you partially missed the point of my analogy. The core of it was not deciding whether the statement about the individuals said is accurate, it's whether this material is about the TPM, and whether it is an attribute of the TPM movement. And the more poignant note on racism aside, I believe that the general gist of your your post (and some previous comments) is that you know that the TPM is those bad things and therefore it is the article's job to (in my words) select (= cherrypick) and insert things that individuals said to "show" what you "know". North8000 (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification, North, but I didn't miss your point as much as disagree with it. You contend certain material should be removed because it isn't "about" the movement. My disagreement with that isn't centered so much on whether the material is or is not "about" the movement, but whether your "must be 'about'" assertion is valid justification to exclude this information from our article. The article is filled with information not specifically "about" the movement (Gadsden flags ... the original Boston Tea Party ... Sarah Palin's personal opinions and world view ... "teabagger" memes ... Promotional news media coverage ... dismissive news coverage ... Young Americans for Liberty ...). While not being explicitely "about" the TPm, content that is significantly relevant to the topic is allowed, which is in line with the prevailing inclusion criteria. I should also note that I haven't seen even application of your "must be about" requirement, as it appears to be only applied to less-than-flattering content. So far, anyway. May I ask what in my post prompts you to suggest I am saying "I know that the TPM is those bad things and therefore it is the article's job to ... "show" what I "know"? What I actually said is that reliable sources have conveyed this information with such significance, prominence and relevance that our article should cover this information as well. I am interested to know what lead you to assume I have some sort of personal knowledge on the matter, so that I can go strike that text and make it clearer. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC) North, I've heard you say back in 2010 that any content involving race or racism should only appear in our main article in the context of being part of an "inuendo campaign" by opponents of the TP. Are you still of that opinion? If not, what would be your "in a nutshell" summary description of what information should be conveyed by a race/racism section in the main article? Or do you even think our article should have such a section? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Xenophrenic, I'll answer your post in order by paragraphs. I am going from memory and so am going by the overall gist. I am good at extracting and remembering the gist of things. Directly about is the core of what I advocate, but is an oversimplification. As a preface, the TPM is a movement, which means that it is not an entity, it is a phenomena defined by its agenda, activities and methods. News about a larger scale / higher level item (national or regional level, persons of ongoing prominence who accept the moniker, impacts on higher level elected positions, intelligent criticism of the TPM on a large scale) all would be in the article. When one gets to small scale stuff, the criteria of whether this is directly about the agenda, and methods of the TPM would apply. A refined version of what I just quickly wrote would apply to all aspects, including race/racial. That is sort of how I read your post above in combination with other comments you have made in the past along that line. I never was of that opinion, the categorical way that you worded it. But for the argued three trivia/wp:undue incidents, (the BBQ grille, the twitter tweet by a low level TP'er, and the "somebody said that some unknown person in the crowd said something racist") then yes, I think that the only notable angle is coverage of which media worked so hard to give those three uninformative non-notable items big coverage and why. BTW, in those cases, those media are participants, not coverers. North8000 (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC) On your response #1 as you have just written it, we don't really disagree. Perhaps the disagreement only arises when you apply this agreeable standard to specific content on race/racism, so I'll respond further on this in #3. On your response #2, that appears non-responsive. You previously expressed a belief you said is based on my above post and some previous comments. I asked if you would point out the specific verbiage that lead you to that mistaken belief so that I could correct it and make it clearer. You responded by simply repeating that you formed the belief from "your post above in combination with other comments you have made". Which text, North, so that I can go strike that text and make it clearer? On your response #3, I was referring to your "inuendo campaign" comments in this discussion, although I think you reiterated that same opinion at other times. I understood the thrust of your comment to mean that you felt the race material, as well as the polling material, needed to be presented as part of a campaign to discredit the TPm. Now you have clarified that you hold that opinion specifically about the content on racist slurs against hispanics and black congressmen at the healthcare protests (what you call "tweet" and "said something racist" trivia), and the posting of a congressman's address on a TP website with an exhortation to "visit him" (what you call "BBQ grille" trivia)? (Note: parenthetical bold content in this paragraph was added for clarity after North8000's response below. -Xenophrenic) Is this correct? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Additional questions to help narrow this down to a solution: 1) You do realize that the half-dozen incident "examples" (including 2 of the 3 you mentioned above) in the racism section are being moved to a separate article from our main article, right? Are you objecting to that content appearing in that sub-article as well? 2) Do you feel that an encyclopedically-written section on race/racism would meet your "about" content requirement for the main article, as you've described it in #1 above? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC) I mean all of the following in my usual blunt, honest (even if a bit rough) friendly way: On your #2, one is on this page, and the others it would take me an hour to find. The fact that you have said something to this effect 2-3 times is how I formed my opinion. I'm not up to sepnding an hour just so that you can scrub it. If you wish to discount my opinion, fine. Your #3 is full of spin and incorrect items...those would make it take too long to answer. On your last paragraph, no I have not seen anything that makes it the sure thing that you describe. And I haven't discussed much less objected to the material being in the sub article. Certainly the problem would be less egregious is a narrower article. I consider the wording of your final question to be hypothetical/manipulative/vague. You are describing the putative high quality of the material but not the content. North8000 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Point #2: ...just a comment to nudge you to change your behavior ... cool, point out which specific behavior so I'll know what to change? ... I can't/won't/don't have the time to find the example ... Discount your opinion, North? I see right through the ploy. Point #3: I just added your spin to the items I asked about for your convenience, but you need not answer the simple Yes/No question if you think it will take you too long. As for my last question, I simply wanted to know if you are okay with having the content covered in the main article. You didn't say no, so I'll run with that until you tell me otherwise. I only asked because every comprehensive source specifically about the Tea Party (these are books, by the way - a dozen) sitting before me on my desk has content on race/racism/racial attitudes - even sources considered "sympathetic" to the movement. Many have whole chapters covering it. If all these reliable sources have sections and chapters covering the subject matter, we would be remiss if our article didn't do likewise. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Xenophrenic, now you are changing comments of yours that I already responded to, making my responses appear off target. Please self-revert. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Your concern is valid, and I apologize. I've now added an editorial note explaining that the paragraph was modified. No confusion was intended, as I did mention that I had added to my original comment - but I see now that mention was woefully inadequate. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I don't see the above discussion as being helpful so I have closed it. I am now waiting to see if Collect and Ubikwit wish to continue in the editing of the sub-articles. When they have made their positions clear, I'll unlock the Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party, and then we can look into moving this forward again. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I've responded on my talk page basically to the effect that it would seem to me that the relationship between the main article and subarticles needs to be clarified as having a certain degree of dependency. If that premise is not problematic, then it would seem that the focus needs to be put on putting the corresponding material in the main article in order before proceeding to deal with the subarticles. Like Collect, I don't feel that my single revert was edit warring per se, just resistance against false claims of consensus being made in terms of 2 against 1; that is to say, P&W and Collect as outnumbering Xenophrenic. That being said, I'm not altogether sure that the core policy of WP:V is being recognized in the course of the discussion, and that poses a fundamental problem that will only be resolved by addressing conduct issues in respect of that policy and the use/abuse of sources, particularly academic sources.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I have left a note for everyone involved in the above discussion as it was too personal. At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in this discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them on the discussion page. I am not watching this page 24 hours - indeed, I may go a day or two and not look here at all. Such is the nature of volunteers on Wikipedia. It is far, far, better to be patient and wait a day or two for me to look into the matter, than to escalate it by responding immediately. If I see any more personal comments, I will start to issue formal block warnings. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Silk Tork is right. We should be more respectful of his time and wait for him to address comments. It might be helpful to leave Silk Tork a brief message on his talk page with any concerns about an editor's comments. Or, if he's willing, simply drop him an email. An email will help avoid the walls of text that most likely will follow any comments about editors left on his talk page. For now, I'd like to suggest that everyone here agree to not comment on the editors. And if they break the rule, they get an automatic block for 24 hours. Of course, Silk Tork would have to agree to enforce the block. Sometimes consequences are the only thing a person understands. "Once burned, twice shy." That works with fire, so it should work here. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Trimming 1

Well, we already have enormously time-consuming discussions underway on the main Talk page regarding three troublesome words: "Generally," in the Agenda section; "Anti-Immigration," in the Agenda section; "Grass-roots," in the lede of the article. There's also a question regarding the "planned obsolescence" of certain terms in the Agenda section. I proposed a very simple solution here, to simply make a Wikilink out of each term that may be unclear to future readers, with the Wikilink going to the appropriate article. Please make a determination regarding consensus on the first three issues, and make all four edits. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Let's work on the broad issues. We may well find that the smaller issues are taken care of as part of the broader actions. However, we will take up time and energy diverting off into smaller discussions. We agree what should be dealt with, and we tackle that. And then we agree the next item. I will hat this brief discussion shortly. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Remember when I said we "have enormously time-consuming discussions underway on the main Talk page regarding three troublesome words"? One of our more contentious editors has chosen to try reopening those enormously time-consuming discussions on the main Talk page. (I suspected, when I was directing your attention to those three troublesome words, that he'd do something like this if given the opportunity.) He's never voiced support or any objection regarding moderated discussion, and now he's declining to participate on this page. What do you suggest? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC) My apologies for directing my comments toward the inappropriateness of the specific discussion, rather than noting it has already been resolved. Still, something needs to be done there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Locked

I just locked the article as there is a slow moving edit war going on. I have locked it in the version it was in when I went there - that it is locked in that version doesn't imply any support of that version. Whatever version an article is locked in during a dispute, is always The Wrong Version! When an article is locked nobody, not even an admin, can edit the article without first gaining consensus for the edit, unless it is to correct minor and obvious errors or to do simple maintenance. We will discuss edits here on this page, and I will action the edits for which there is consensus. When there is broad agreement that the article has been trimmed satisfactorily, it will be unlocked. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Trimming 2

Looking through the above comments it appears there is broad agreement that the article needs trimming, though some are concerned that too much or the wrong sort of stuff will be trimmed, such as the criticism section. Can we discuss what people feel should be trimmed, and what should be done with the trimmed material - create sub-articles or remove it completely? And I stress again, we are discussing broad strokes, not individual words or sentences. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC) I would say that almost all of the election related material is obsolete, and therefore, perhaps somewhat trivial at present. The 2010 and 2012 election sections, and the entirety of the "Ground game and Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts" section seem superfluous to me. Perhaps the issue of immigration should be incorporated under the current section "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception". Aside from election related reporting-style content (chronicle of results, etc.) and random media noise, there is a growing body of high-level academic secondary sources providing much needed analysis of the sort of which the article is sorely lacking, in my opinion. Media coverage should be better integrated with analysis where possible, in an effort to present the topic in a more encyclopedic manner.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 15:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC) disagree, the election material is relevant as several primary challengers defeated establishment gop incumbents. Darkstar1st (talk) 9:00 pm, Today (UTC+1) Would it be possible/acceptable to summarise the main points of the elections, such as "several primary challengers defeated establishment gop incumbents" rather than list all the incidents? SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Support A brief summary of the significance of the election results to the movement as a whole should be described on the main page, and a sub-page (or multiple sub-pages) on the details of candidates, campaigns, etc., would serve to remove excessive information in the article that is peripheral to describing the movement as such. Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 01:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC) support, main point being about the TP challenging the establishment gop. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Tea_Party_movement#2010_election section. Trim or create sub-article? What material to remove? Keep the lead paragraphs, but remove the bullet points? Is there material in the bullet points worth keeping as a brief summary of the 2010 election. Can the whole section be reduced to one or two sentences? SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Trim and create sub-article. The 2010 election cycle was the first and most powerful showing by TPm. It reduced Nancy Pelosi from Speaker of the House to Minority Leader. There were more seats lost in the House by the party controlling the White House than in any election since the Great Depression. Even Ted Kennedy's Senate seat was lost. It was an unmitigated disaster for Obama and the Democrats, and TPm was the bulldozer pushing that event to happen. It deserves an entire article of its own, but it also deserves two paragraphs here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Trim and create sub-article. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Tea_Party_movement#2012_election section. As above. Trim or create sub-article? What to keep. Can it be summarised in one or two sentences. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Trim and create sub-article. In the 2012 election, the TPm failed to remove Barack Obama (although the main reason may have been lukewarm TPm attitudes about Mitt Romney) and lost a few of the congressional seats it had gained in 2010. Some really stupid and insensitive statements by a pair of TPm Senate candidates prevented them from taking the Senate. But despite these key losses, the Tea Party survived a fierce counteroffensive by progressive organizations. It deserves an entire article of its own, but it also deserves two paragraphs here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Trim and create sub-article. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Tea_Party_movement#Ground_game_and_Get_Out_The_Vote_.28GOTV.29_efforts section. Trim? What to keep if it is trimmed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Trim and move to Agenda section. This is an important aspect of the movement's growth from protests to lobbying congress to getting out the vote. One national group also has created a super PAC. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Oppose move to Agenda section This section appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the agenda of the protests. It relates strictly to a strategic shift to campaigning from protesting, and the tactical aspects of implementing the campaigning. It is completely unrelated to platform points, etc. It's about converting protest momentum into election results, not about the ideological basis of the protests. All of the election stuff should probably be integrated into a single article organized along chronological lines, paralleling the current presentation of the material, reflecting in the presentation of the article the changes that occurred over time Its scope on the main article page can be greatly reduced.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 23:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Here is a quote from an article by Zernike in the NYT Shaping Tea Party Passion Into Campaign Force that probably expresses the gist of the matter. “This movement, if we can turn out hundreds or thousands to the streets to protest and wave signs and yell and make an impact on public policy debate, then we can make a lot of difference,” Brendan Steinhauser, FreedomWorks’s chief organizer for the Tea Party groups, told the leaders gathered here. “But if those same people go and walk neighborhoods and do all the things we’re talking about, put up the door-hangers in the final 72 hours and make the phone calls, we may crush some of these guys.” Strictly speaking, the TPm agenda is comprised of the stances that they have proclaimed in relation to "public policy".Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 00:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC) I think that the best criteria for material is that it that it be informative about the TPM. I think that if we follow a fleshed out version of that sentence it would be a good guide to almost every area of this article. A few thoughts about "fleshing out" that statement or the effects of such: We recognize that the TPM is not an entity, it is a phenomena consisting of hundreds of organizations, activities, events, actions, happenings. So any thing that is informative about the TPM needs to be dealing with it on a larger scale, or high-impact happenings. To be about the TPM, it needs to be 'about the TPM. If a local TP'er farted in public, and some papers hostile to the TPM decided to maximize coverage of the fart, that does not aromatically automatically make the fart germane to or suitable for or useful for the top level TPM article. We need to have discussions about what is useful and information to include. Criticism should be of the informative type, not just talking points of / swipes by opponents. A movement is defined by it's agenda, and defines it's agenda. That's how it pursue it. If an opponent newspaper writer says that the agenda of the US Democratic party is to be hostile to business and drive non-government US jobs overseas, that does not mean that that is their agenda. Top level stuff (e.g. their platform etc.) defines their agenda. The same for the TPM, even though it is much moroe decentralized. North8000 (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Most of this is reasonable but, it should be noted that we should let coverage in reliable sources decide whose public farts are relevant to the TPM and which arent. Similarly we should never restrict descriptions of agenda to the the TPMs own statements about it, and we also wouldnt do that to the democratic party, or anyother group. That would be disinformative. Their agenda is defined by how it is described in reliable sources. Their own publications is one such source, but not the only one. And exactly because it is a decentralized movement their agenda may include the view points espoused publicly by their most prominent members whether or not they are articulated in their official agenda.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC) I think there's some useful and positive discussion taking place here, though it would be helpful if more people were involved so a true consensus can be formed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC) I'm reluctant to take any actions on the article without a broader consensus. Contributors are not compelled to take part in this discussion, though it would be helpful. I will leave a message for each of the main contributors. I will leave a standard message, and leave it for each, regardless of if they have already contributed here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC) The contributors tool is currently down, so - rather than attempt manually to work out who the main contributors are on a busy article - I'll wait until the tool is up and running. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC) is there anyway everyone can yield a tiny amount in hopes of making some progress? i sincerely think all of us will be happier with the final result. we seemed to be making progress timing the election sections which would be considered positive material. so if we can agree to do that much, perhaps the next section we trim will be some of the negative material. SilkTork came here ready to help and we can't accept the help without all of us making some minor concessions.(no edit is permanent and almost anything would be better than what we have now)Darkstar1st (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Speaking only for myself, I consider moving most of the election material to subarticles an improvement (remembering to retain duplicate references which would otherwise be lost.) However, most of the material should be moved to subarticles or to the bit bucket. I think we need to wait to consider an action as having consensus, if, in addition to the normal requirements, at least one party on each "side" must agree. I still don't think I'm really on a "side"; almost all of the negative material, and most of the postive material, doesn't belong here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC) There would appear to be some consensus (although a limited number of editors have participated) to create subarticles for the 2010 and 2012 elections. I would propose a single subarticle comprehensively covering elections and electioneering. There are a couple of outstanding issues regarding the treatment of PACs and "Get out the vote". Get out the vote would seem to be part of electioneering to me, and could be incorporated in the elections related article under and "Electioneering " section. I think that PACs should fall under the "Organization" section. Not much progress has been made on whether the question of immigration and xenophobia can be integrated with the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section, or anew section created under which all of those topics are addressed. Immigration reform is still pending, and there may be people that feel it merits a separate section, but the question of xenophobia would seem pertinent to both. That could wait, but the election related material should be moved to subarticles and the gist relevant to the main article summarized, etc. It has dawned on me that if we were to use the Skopol "tripartite" quote in the lead, maybe putting astroturfing in parenthesis, we could incorporate the content of the current "Composition" and "Media coverage" sections into respective subsections under "Organization" corresponding to the tripartite (i.e., grassroots activists/groups, astroturfed groups/wealthy individuals/corporate interests, and conservative media outlets). It seems that some of the polling information from 2010, such as this An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of 647 local Tea Party organizers asked "which national figure best represents your groups?" and got the following responses: no one 34%, Sarah Palin 14%, Glenn Beck 7%, Jim DeMint 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Michele Bachmann 4% is dated and belongs with the election information from the corresponding years. The survey results for Glen Beck might be notable under a "Conservative media outlets" subsection (on Fox News at the time, I believe) of the "Organization" section--assuming that the tripartite model is adopted. That a poll would produce such results would seem to substantiate Skopol's characterization. Maybe three subsections wouldn't be enough, but there seems to be latitude for removing a significant amount of basically obsolete information and reorganizing the data that has a longer shelf life in a more coherent fashion.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC) I have notified all significant contributors of this discussion three days ago, and there is still little on task contribution. What we can say is that people taking part here have all agreed with trimming, and that there have been no objections even with personal notifications. Is there enough consensus to move forward with the trimming? SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC) support unconditionally. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC) support--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Support trimming all material not generally applicable to the TPM as a movement Collect (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Support trimming The best criteria is "how directly is it about the TPM (not just some connection to) the TPM? BTW, many items most needing trimming have not even been discussed here. The twitter comment, the "somebody said that somebody said something racist", the cub BBQ grill line, the POV synthesis from primary sources (polls) and the probably BLP-violating and certainly false line that implies that Ron Paul (the guy who wants to legalize trade with Cuba) is an isolationist. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC) support----Snowded TALK 06:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Action on trimming I will propose material here to be trimmed. Two supports with no objections after at least 24 hours will be taken as consensus to action the trimming. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC) It was suggested that the election material should be trimmed, moving the bulk to a sub-article. I have created a draft sub-article here: /Tea Party-endorsed candidates in the elections And made a draft of what could could be left behind in the main article: The Tea Party have had a number of endorsed candidates in the elections. In the 2010 midterm elections, The New York Times identified 138 candidates for Congress with significant Tea Party support, and reported that all of them were running as Republicans—of whom 129 were running for the House and 9 for the Senate. The Wall Street Journal–NBC News poll in mid October showed 35% of likely voters were Tea-party supporters, and they favored the Republicans by 84% to 10%. The first Tea Party candidate to be elected into office is believed to be Dean Murray, a Long Island businessman, who won a special election for a New York State Assembly seat in February 2010. According to a calculation on an NBC blog, 32% of the candidates that were backed by the Tea Party, or were on a ballot line with a "Tea Party" name, won the election. Especially the Tea-party backed Senate Republican nominees for: Colorado, Nevada and Delaware, who had all defeated "establishment" Republicans that were expected to win the Senate races. The three Senate nominees were seen by many in America and the media as either amateurs or too far-out there to be electable as their positions on certain aspects were viewed as extreme. Several of the Tea Party-endorsed candidates won victories against established Republicans in primaries, such as Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Nevada, New York, South Carolina, and Utah. For the 2012 election, four of the 16 Tea Party candidates won a seat on the Senate, and Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann was re-elected to the House. The media, such as ABC and Bloomberg, commented that Tea Party candidates did less well in 2012 than in 2010. Please support, oppose, or raise concerns. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC) I suggest that since the "Tea Party" is not established by discussion to be a single entity, that we use the phrase "Various Tea Party groups" instead of just "the Tea Party." The "percentage winning" should reflect 50% for the Senate and 31% for the House, as the NBC blog source states. And I would avoid "especially" as being problematic verbiage in any event. I would also reduce the sentence about the three "odd" Senate candidates to being "seen as having views too far from the mainstream" as bing short, simple, and accurate per sources. I would also shorten the 2012 result comments to "The general media in 2012 noted that the Tea Party candidadtes did less well than in 2010" as being accurate and to the point. IMHO, shorter is generally better. Collect (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Looks OK, especially with Collect's ideas. But for clarity, could you state the action on the proposed changes, e.g "replace the section named "Ibsum factum" with the following:" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, it's as discussed above, replacing the two election sections with the text in green, and moving the two election sections to a new sub-article to be called Tea Party-endorsed candidates in the elections - the draft for that is here: /Tea Party-endorsed candidates in the elections. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Support The only point raised by Collect that seems necessary is to remove the term "Especially". Other than that, in this context simply "The Tea Party" seems fine and is easier to maintain consistency. The organization/movement will have been more thoroughly defined elsewhere in the preceding sections of the article. I also don't agree with eliminating what little detail there is for the 2012 election as it makes it clear that there was a precipitous decline in the number of and success of candidates associated with the TPM in contrast to 2010. I also don't see what "percentage winning" passage Collect is referring to.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC) ... blog, 32% of the candidates that were backed by the Tea Party, or were on a ballot line with a "Tea Party" name, won the election is the section which I suggest should more closely follow what the blog actually states. And I still feel that there is nothing in any source which suggest the "TPM" is a specific "entity" rather than a whole slew of separate and disparate entities with some overlapping and some non-overlapping of positions. Lastly, Wikipedia is not here to "make clear" anything other than what reasonable weight determines to be salient - we are not here to make any point about anyone or anything, which appears to be a problem at times. Collect (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC) support (editors, let's try this approach please. anything would be an improvement over the last 2 years of junk status) Darkstar1st (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC) There are many reliable sources that refer to the Tea Party movement as a movement, not an entity or a centralized, monolithic organization. Skopol's tripartite characterization has repeatedly been mentioned, and there are commonalities found across the movement, especially with respect to the agenda. I don't have a problem with going with "A number of Tea Parties" here, so long as you are not attempting to surreptitiously undermine the discussion of the Tea Party movement as such, particularly in the Agenda section.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC) support (editors, let's try this approach please. anything would be an improvement over the last 2 years of junk status) Darkstar1st (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC) The text with Collect's suggestions: Various Tea Party groups have had a number of endorsed candidates in the elections. In the 2010 midterm elections, The New York Times identified 138 candidates for Congress with significant Tea Party support, and reported that all of them were running as Republicans—of whom 129 were running for the House and 9 for the Senate. The Wall Street Journal–NBC News poll in mid October showed 35% of likely voters were Tea-party supporters, and they favored the Republicans by 84% to 10%. The first Tea Party candidate to be elected into office is believed to be Dean Murray, a Long Island businessman, who won a special election for a New York State Assembly seat in February 2010. According to a calculation on an NBC blog, of the candidates that were backed by a Tea Party group, or were on a ballot line with a "Tea Party" name, 50% were elected to the Senate and 31% to the House. The Tea-party backed Senate Republican nominees for: Colorado, Nevada and Delaware, who had each defeated "establishment" Republicans that were expected to win the Senate races. The three Senate nominees were seen by the media as having views too far from the mainstream to be electable. Several of the Tea Party-endorsed candidates won victories against established Republicans in primaries, such as Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Nevada, New York, South Carolina, and Utah. For the 2012 election, the media commented that Tea Party candidates did less well than in 2010. Is this OK? SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC) No objection to the above selected content, in general. I'd recommend some minor cosmetic edits, however: The second sentence of the second paragraph should have this appended to the end: , lost. The [citation needed] tag should be replaced with a citation. (I'll see if I can locate one.) The first sentence of the second paragraph should read "identified themselves as a Tea Party member" instead of "were on a ballot line with a 'Tea Party' name", in order to comply with the cited source. The present wording is unsourced. I'm not sure if this is a problem or not, but the first paragraph claims 129 House and 9 Senate candidates. The second paragraph gives percentages based on 130 House and 10 Senate candidates. Question: Is the reliability of the NBC Blog source challenged in some way? If not, I'd suggest dropping the "According to a calculation on an NBC blog" verbiage, and just start that sentence with "Of the candidates". Xenophrenic (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Conditional oppose I would be OK with the first two paragraphs if the information regarding the 2012 election were restored and that paragraph written in a manner reflecting a more balanced and neutral POV with respect to the elections overall. The lone term "media" is also somewhat misleading due to the close relationship between FOX News and the TPm. As it stands, this cannot be said to be an NPOV text, because it doesn't even come close to representing what the sources say. The first two paragraphs attempt to portray the TPm's success in elections as some sort of juggernaut, and the extremely vacuous single sentence covering the 2012 election gives no detail compared to too much detail for 2010, making it seem somewhat promotional on the one hand and in denial on the other. Just look at the tiles of the articles (references) from the media: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/tea-party-election-results_n_2084506.html Tea Party Election Results: Conservative Movement Of 2010 Takes Pounding In 2012 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/tea-party-candidates-losing-steam-in-2012/ Tea Party Candidates Losing Steam in 2012 http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-07/has-the-tea-party-lost-its-mojo Has the Tea Party Lost Its Mojo? I would think a paragraph more along the lines of For the 2012 election, the Tea Party movement could only claim 16 affiliated candidates, of whom four were able to win a seat in the Senate, while Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann was the only candidate re-elected to the House. would reflect the actual state of affairs as portrayed in the cited RS.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC) I don't mean to be contrarian by the above post, as I am aware of how difficult it has been to make it this far. On the other hand, it seems necessary to declare that the focus on policy should not be sacrificed in pursuit of expedience. I feel somewhat out of order in being compelled to state that policies such as RS and NPOV, etc., apply when an ARBCOM member is moderating the discussion, but I am not in consensus with the above passage as currently drafted.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC) The trouble is that your version isn't accurate. Those 16 candidates were only the ones for the Senate, and did not include House candidates. Also, Bachmann was not the only House candidate from TPm who won. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC) OK, I did not read through the sources, so that sentence was drafted on the fly, assuming that the previous version somewhat accurately reflected the content of the sources. I do not have time to go through the sources, but would assume that they can be summed up in a single sentence along the lines of that rough draft.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Support the emended version as being in strict compliance with the sources. I would note that the suggestion that "lost" be appended to the second sentence of the second paragraph is both grammatically and factually incorrect. The NBC blog was the source for the wording about "anyone who has either been backed by a Tea Party group or has identified themselves as a member of the Tea Party movement", which is broader than Xeno's choice. If we decide to use the full definition used in the blog, we must clearly denote it in quotes, of course. The numbers are from the source cited - if sources disagree, then we do not try to "correct" the source named. Where a calculation is made in a source, Wikipedia guidelines say to name the source used for the calculation. The NYT source is uded to indicate actual party affiliation, the NBC blog does not make that claim, so if we start with the NBC blog, we pretty much lose the "Republicans" claim - we can not use both without then hitting SYNTH. If we combine the two in any way without making it clear that the NBC blog did not make such a claim, we would be making a claim which is not found on the NBC blog. Collect (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Sorry but it's inaccurate. See above. I'll come up with a version that's more accurate later this morning when I have a bit of time. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Collect, why don't you respond to the question about the sentence on the 2012 elections? Unfortunately, I don't have the time to go through the sources at the moment to directly refute in a detailed manner your claim that the sentence I questioned is in "strict compliance with the sources".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Sorry but I find language such as could only claim etc. to be quite likely found by other editors to be excessively POV and thus contrary to absolute Wikipedia policy. CONSENSUS is not "perfection" but it does require scrupulos adherence to the NPOV policy. Hope this helps. Collect (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Fair enough, that was just a quick modification of the existing text along the lines of what I assumed to have been a sentence originally drafted to reflect the content of the cited sources. It looks like I will have to pound out an actual edit for the 2012 elections. Unfortunately, I do not see a source comparable to the NBC blog for numbers related to 2012. It appears that the TPm lost about 20% of its seats. Would that sound about right to you? I want to keep the edit to a single concise sentence. There is a lot of predominately negative commentary about the TPm in the 2012 election, but this is about the only source with extensive numbers I have found What Happened to The Tea Party in the 2012 Election?. The data was gathered from the state websites detailing election results.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Try this one: Various Tea Party groups have endorsed a number of candidates in the elections. In the 2010 midterm elections, The New York Times identified 138 candidates for Congress with significant Tea Party support, and reported that all of them were running as Republicans—of whom 129 were running for the House and nine for the Senate. The Wall Street Journal–NBC News poll in mid October showed 35% of likely voters were Tea-party supporters, and they favored the Republicans by 84% to 10%. The first Tea Party candidate to be elected into office is believed to be Dean Murray, a Long Island businessman, who won a special election for a New York State Assembly seat in February 2010. According to a calculation on an NBC blog, of the candidates that were backed by a Tea Party group, or were on a ballot line with a "Tea Party" name, 50% were elected to the Senate and 31% to the House. The Tea-party backed Senate Republican nominees for: Colorado, Nevada and Delaware, who had each defeated "establishment" Republicans who were expected to win the Senate races, eventually lost in the general election. The three nominees were seen by some media sources as having views too far from the mainstream to be electable. Several of the Tea Party-endorsed candidates won victories against established Republicans in primaries, such as Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Nevada, New York, South Carolina, and Utah. For the 2012 election, four of the 16 Tea Party candidates for the Senate won a seat, and Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann was re-elected to the House. The media, such as ABC and Bloomberg, commented that Tea Party candidates weren't as successful in 2012 as in 2010. With all due respect to contributors who worked on previous versions, the grammar was a bit awkward and not 100% accurate compared to the sources. I realize everyone is trying very hard to improve this article and I commend you for your efforts. I'm trying to keep up. Let me know what you think. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC) For the NBC blog I used "5 WON - 50% of Tea Party candidates won" for the Senate and "40 WON - 31% of Tea Party candidates won" for the House. based on the numbers of races decided at the time pf the post as being more informative than a mixed "32%". The prominence of Senate candidates is not identical to that of house candidates, and simply adding the totals is misleading. Posit a party gaining 20 House seats v. a party gaining 20 Senate seats -- which has greater weight in Congress? Thus I suggest using the more detailed figures from the source is better information for the average reader. Also all the media commented on "less success" even including Fox et al -- restricting it to ABC and Bloomberg is not necessary. Really. Lastly, I find the "amateur" asides about the odd candidates is not necessary, and adds nothing for the reader (what, precisely, is a "political amateur" if they had actually held office in the past or worked for years in politics? - they were viewed as too far out of the mainstream per tons of sources). Collect (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC) There is no problem using the more detailed information, but you have left out relevant context in a manner that seems to portray the TPm candidates as gaining more than they did in the senate, for example. What percentage of the senate does 5 members account for? If you are going to insist on details, then the context is necessary to maintain NPOV. The more I look at the sources the more apparent it becomes that the text in the article is not even close to reflecting what they say. With respect to the percentage of candidates fielded (according to the NBC blog), 10/100 (=10%) for the Senate is significantly lower than 130/435 (=@33%) for the House. From that perspective, the TPm was able to field supportive candidates in only 1/10th of Senate races whereas the figure is 1/3rd for the House. It would seem that you are trying to blow the numbers out of proportion to make it look like they accomplished more than they did by saying that they won 50% of the races for the Senate and only 31% for the House, without including the combined total of 32%, which puts those figures in perspective. From another angle, the TPm supportive candidates that won in 2010 accounted for 5/100 (=5%) of the Senate and 40/435 (=@9%) of the House, so again the numbers tend to be more relevant with respect to the House, not the Senate. Excuse the WP:OR analysis of the sources, but it is to counter the current NPOV presentation. The coverage of the 2012 election, in particular, is almost exclusively negative with respect to the results for TPm affiliated candidates. Not one reliable source cited or that I've found portrays anything that could be deemed a plus for TPm supporters, so the description has to reflect that. I am in favor of keeping the election information in the main article to a minimum, so I will attempt to make a one or two sentence description relating to the 2012 election coverage.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Collect's reasoning behind the use of 50% and 31%, instead of the aggregate 32%, is sound -- but it should be noted that the content thrust of the cited source is: For all the talk of the Tea Party's strength, only this many won. The use of the 32% aggregate statistic better conveys that narrative, but that doesn't mean we need to use that statistic, unless we're conveying that narrative, too. Are we? I have no preference either way. I still don't see where this wording is supported in a source: were on a ballot line with a "Tea Party" name. Also, I agree with Collect regarding the text about media comments and specifically mentioning Bloomberg, etc. Why not replace that with the generic but accurate "Political observers have commented..."? And finally, I believe these two sources would suffice as citations supporting the sentence presently tagged as "citation needed": New York Times and NPR. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Support as conforming to all the requirements of Wikipedia here. Collect (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Support per Collect. I'm fine with any of Silk Tork's versions above also. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC) More action on trimming Good progress. When there are no further queries or changes, I will edit the article with the latest amended version after at least 24 hours have passed. Meanwhile, would people take a look at /Tea Party-endorsed candidates in the elections, as I think some of the amendments made above may apply to the proposed sub-article. It would be useful to have the sub-article ready at the same time as making the edit to the main article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC) I had a moment of boldness and created an article called Tea Party effect on U.S. elections, 2010-2014. I suggest with all due respect that it's a better title. "Elections" is a bit vague for a worldwide encyclopedia and someone from Australia or New Zealand, or from India who reads the English Wikipedia, may not have heard of the American Tea Party. Specifying a range of dates suggests it may be the start of a series of articles chronicling the Tea Party's effect on U.S. elections farther down the road. I've used SilkTork's subpage article but added the subsection on ground game/GOTV from the Tea Party movement article, adding "2014 election cycle" to the section header, and we can expand it as time passes — more news and analysis gets published. I'm sure it will be edited a great deal in the next few hours, days and weeks, but thought it was appropriate to get it out there in the mainspace. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC) This is not about being bold or about rushing things. We need to work by consensus. It is because people have been bold rather than patient that there are problems on this article. Please don't do that again as it undermines what we is trying to be achieved here. I have redirected the article title to the main article. If you have concerns about the title or the spelling of a word, or the structure of a sentence, or any of the other everyday editing that crops up, please either bring it here to the discussion table, or go ahead and work on the draft. Let's let this right. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC) I think you're on the right track. Once again, I definitely think that the subsection on Ground game/GOTV from the Tea Party movement article belongs in a separate article related to elections. It only seems natural to integrate the material on the elections along with the electioneering, and an article title referring to the effect or impact on the elections serves to focus that information in a more coherent manner.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC) By the way, I successfully resisted the powerful urge to add the word "grass-roots" to the new article's header. I may have been a bit hasty creating the article at all, and I apologize for that. I would like to offer a gentlemen's agreement. No high-profile editing decisions, especially to the lede, should be made to the content of any of these spin-off articles without prior agreement here, in this moderated discussion. Can we agree on that? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC) The definitive version? Note that there was a reference in the second paragraph, which relates to the 2010 election, related to Todd Akin and the 2012 election and mixed up with the three senate races. I don't see how that could have gotten mixed up like that and missed by everyone, but I have moved it to the third paragraph, and added a brief mention. There is this passage that from an entry in the section being moved to the subarticle Akin caused controversy with his legitimate rape remarks. Akin subsequently lost the election to McCaskill. Also, as Collect indicated that Fox News also downplayed the TPm election results, I eliminated reference to "media" in the third paragraph. The second paragraph has been whittled down substantially, and the third expanded in part due to relocation of the controversy related information that had been buried and obscured in the second. The controversy is related to the poorer performance, and should probably be included per WP:DUE, though I have left out the specifics, including only a Wikilink to the relevant article. Various Tea Party groups have endorsed candidates in the elections. In the 2010 midterm elections, The New York Times identified 138 candidates for Congress with significant Tea Party support, and reported that all of them were running as Republicans—of whom 129 were running for the House and 9 for the Senate. The Wall Street Journal–NBC News poll in mid October showed 35% of likely voters were Tea-party supporters, and they favored the Republicans by 84% to 10%. The first Tea Party affiliated candidate to be elected into office is believed to be Dean Murray, a Long Island businessman, who won a special election for a New York State Assembly seat in February 2010. According to statistics on an NBC blog, overall, 32% of the candidates that were backed by the Tea Party or on a ballot line with a "Tea Party" name won election. Tea Party supported candidates won 5 of 10 Senate races (50%) contested, and 40 of 130 House races (31%) contested. Tea-party backed Senate Republican nominees for Colorado, Nevada and Delaware all defeated "establishment" Republicans that had been expected to win the respective Senate races. Tea Party candidates fared poorly in the 2012 election, winning four of 16 Senate races contested, and losing approximately 20% of the seats in the House that had been won in 2010. Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann was re-elected to the House by a narrow margin. The 2012 election was marred by controversy involving Tea Party backed candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Oppose "A store sold 5 of 10 Mercedes in white, and 30 of 100 bicycles in white. 32% of its total sales were in white." Senate races != House races in either number or in importance. Since the blog specifies the percentages by house, so ought we. You then proceed to add "stuff" which we had decided, I thought, to be placeable in the subarticles and not simply muddy up the main article. The three Senate nominees were seen by many in America and the media as either amateurs or too far-out there to be electable as their positions on certain aspects were viewed as extreme is not an improvement on the version proffered above. losing approximately 20% of the seats in the House that had been won in 2010 is argumentative and not an improvement to the version proffered above. The 2012 election was marred by controversy involving Tea Party backed candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock simply does not belong - as I had thought we all agreed -- when we set up the subarticles. Collect (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Well, I integrated the house-by-house data after the overall figure of 32%. And for the record, the title of the blog article is "Just 32% of Tea Party candidates win". Also, I eliminated the reference to the "amateurs" passage as well as the media, as per your suggestion. I don't recall agreeing not to include the controversy aspect, and had forgotten about that until I uncovered the reference to the article o Akin burried in the second paragraph. I'm not married to the above version. I basically took the first version posted by ST, went through it line by line comparing it to the other versions and with reference to the sources. The reference to 20% loss in seats if from the Daily Kos article linked to above, which seems reliable enough for statistical data, and perhaps should be included if that line winds up in the final version. If you have comprehensive numbers for the 2010 election, why not for the 2012 election? The only mention of the House races is about Bachman?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC) The objective of seeking consensus is to figure out what is "important" and what is "unimportant" to various editors and to try to find a balance between the two. That is where my "version" came from, and why I suggest is meets most of the proper NPOV concerns of editors and does so without tossing the whole stew out. And again - if an editorial opinion column is to be used - it likely belongs in the subarticle and not in the main article. More is not generally better on Wikipedia. I also commend you to read WP:PIECE. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC) OK, I'll read that. By the way, I just noticed that the "media" and "amateurs" lines were tagged at the end of the third paragraph--a copy and paste error--among all of the refs. Anyway, I've redacted those. Now, what do you think about the Dean Murray reference with respect to a NY State Assembly seat election? Trivial or notable? If you really think that the Akin et al controversies are not something that should be mentioned in this context, I'll have to defer to hear what ST has to opine on the matter. Wouldn't you agree that those controversies directly contributed to several important losses in the election?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC) I thought we were pretty close to an agreement. If the Akin and Mourdock remarks "directly contributed to several important losses in the election," then it's obvious that Senate races have a lot more WP:WEIGHT than House races. And this would mean that "Just 32% of Tea Party candidates win" is misleading, because on a percentage basis, the Tea Party did a lot better with its Senate candidates than its House candidates. You can't have it both ways. Either the Senate races are treated the same as the House races throughout the discussion, or the Senate races are of elevated importance throughout the discussion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure that I follow the logic of how the Akin and Mourdock remarks relate to the percentages, but the cited source does imply that the controversy had serious consequences, at least in the Akin race. I didn't mean to spoil the pot, so to speak by bringing that up--though personally I think it is relevant--so I'll remove that sentence and the related source that had been buried in the second paragraph. I'll remove that source if its content isn't going to be addressed, and add the Daily Kos source for the statistics. If the Akin/Mourdock controversies were the only thing standing in the way of consensus at this point, maybe this version will work. As for the 20% statistic, it seems to me that from the standpoint of parallelism between the treatment of the 2010 and 2012 election it is necessary to give balance to the section. Does anyone have another source with such data?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Let's just get it close and keep this process moving. Perfection is the enemy of progress. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC) The shortest distance to consensus is if Ubikwit changes his "vote" to Support. Failing that, if we get a flood of support he can be "outvoted." North8000, what do you say? Support? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Revised version Various Tea Party groups have endorsed candidates in the elections. In the 2010 midterm elections, The New York Times identified 138 candidates for Congress with significant Tea Party support, and reported that all of them were running as Republicans—of whom 129 were running for the House and 9 for the Senate. The Wall Street Journal–NBC News poll in mid October showed 35% of likely voters were Tea-party supporters, and they favored the Republicans by 84% to 10%. The first Tea Party affiliated candidate to be elected into office is believed to be Dean Murray, a Long Island businessman, who won a special election for a New York State Assembly seat in February 2010. According to statistics on an NBC blog, overall, 32% of the candidates that were backed by the Tea Party or on a ballot line with a "Tea Party" name won election. Tea Party supported candidates won 5 of 10 Senate races (50%) contested, and 40 of 130 House races (31%) contested. Tea-party backed Senate Republican nominees for Colorado, Nevada and Delaware all defeated "establishment" Republicans that had been expected to win the respective Senate races. Tea Party candidates fared poorly in the 2012 election, winning four of 16 Senate races contested, and losing approximately 20% of the seats in the House that had been won in 2010. Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann was re-elected to the House by a narrow margin.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC) That's a big step in the right direction, but which reliable source said that they "fared poorly"? Try this compromise version of the first sentence in the last paragraph: Tea Party candidates were less successful in the 2012 election, winning four of 16 Senate races contested, and losing approximately 20% of the seats in the House that had been gained in 2010. That change of a few words at the start of one sentence more closely paraphrases the sources I've been reading. What do you say? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC) support Your suggested wording would be fine. I don't see a problem.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I'll also support, if the two uncontroversial changes I noted above are implemented: 1) replace the unsourced text "on a ballot line with a 'Tea Party' name" with "identified themselves as a Tea Party member", and 2) Note in the "Colorado, Nevada and Delaware all defeated" sentence that they went on to lose the general election, which was I think the point of the sentence. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC) OK, that referred to the primaries, so clarified. Note that there is no source for that, and I'm not sure if that text wouldn't fit better at the head of the paragraph, followed by the stats for the general election.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC) This source, which says "...those of Delaware, Nevada and Colorado, states where Republicans blew a chance for Senate control in 2010 by nominating candidates who were amateurs or too far-out for the general election...", is referring to both primaries and the general election, but I've added an academic source as a citation instead. I'll let you swap the text around if you think it will flow better. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC) It's good to have a source, but introducing the text about being "too far-out" would be difficult and the result not likely to flow better. I'm for just leaving it as is, with the source simply as a citation.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Version incorporating changes per P&W and Xeno Various Tea Party groups have endorsed candidates in the elections. In the 2010 midterm elections, The New York Times identified 138 candidates for Congress with significant Tea Party support, and reported that all of them were running as Republicans—of whom 129 were running for the House and 9 for the Senate. The Wall Street Journal–NBC News poll in mid October showed 35% of likely voters were Tea-party supporters, and they favored the Republicans by 84% to 10%. The first Tea Party affiliated candidate to be elected into office is believed to be Dean Murray, a Long Island businessman, who won a special election for a New York State Assembly seat in February 2010. According to statistics on an NBC blog, overall, 32% of the candidates that were backed by the Tea Party or identified themselves as a Tea Party member won election. Tea Party supported candidates won 5 of 10 Senate races (50%) contested, and 40 of 130 House races (31%) contested. In the primaries for Colorado, Nevada and Delaware the Tea-party backed Senate Republican nominees defeated "establishment" Republicans that had been expected to win their respective Senate races, but went on to lose in the general election to their Democrat opponents. Tea Party candidates were less successful in the 2012 election, winning four of 16 Senate races contested, and losing approximately 20% of the seats in the House that had been gained in 2010. Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann was re-elected to the House by a narrow margin.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Support Yes, I got the impression that we had achieved consensus for all of this. It should go into the main article to replace removed material for the sub-article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party in US elections

Sub-article title and draft Would people please take a look at /Tea Party-endorsed candidates in the elections. Phoenix and Winslow has suggested the name for the sub-article should be "Tea Party effect on U.S. elections, 2010-2014", and also suggested adding Tea Party shifts focus from demonstrations to ground game/GOTV, which I have now done. So, three areas to look at: 1) Is the draft acceptable to be put into mainspace. 2) What is an appropriate title? 3) Should the ground game/GOTV material be discussed as part of the current election material discussion, or should we put that aside for now (and temporarily remove the "Tea Party shifts focus..." material from the sub-article draft) in order to get this part of the discussion wrapped up, and move onto ground game/GOTV next? Thoughts and comments please. And the draft on /Tea Party-endorsed candidates in the elections is open to editing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I have reorganised the discussion so that each point is dealt with separately. In doing this I moved over two comments, closing down the section in each that was now no longer relevant to the section it was in. There was no intention to alter meaning or impact, but please check to make sure everything is clear, and as it should be. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Is the draft acceptable? Vote on 'Is draft acceptable?' Acceptable Though I am sure that this does not mean "cast in stone" but it furnishes an area where structured discussion ought well exist. Collect (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Support Malke 2010 (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Support Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Support Still needs a bit of work but that's no reason not to get it out into the mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC) support Darkstar1st (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC) support Have not analyzed in detail, but supporting to keep the process moving forward.North8000 (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Support - the basic structure, while noting that it still needs work. (The problematic non-sentence starting with "Especially the Tea-party backed..." still exists in this draft, for example, although it has been corrected in the main article summary.) Xenophrenic (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC) But I don't see the point of having the Tea_Party_movement#Tea_Party_ground_game.2FGOTV_before_2012 and Tea_Party_movement#Challenge_of_the_ground_game_for_the_Tea_Party_in_the_2012_election_cycle remain on the main article, as they are not integral to the flow. The evenn have dates corresponding to the respective time frames of the 2010 and 2012 elections.Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC) While the ground game is appropriate in the subarticle and should be developed there, it must also remain as a section on the main article. The main article must show the progression of development by the tea party from organizing rallies through social media, to organizing tea party groups that lobbied congress to offering support to candidates who at first were not electable to supporting electable candidates to organizing superpacs to oppose establishment Republicans. It is about the Tea Party movement afterall, and this is what they've been doing. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Ground game/GOTV material ... But I don't see the point of having the Tea_Party_movement#Tea_Party_ground_game.2FGOTV_before_2012 and Tea_Party_movement#Challenge_of_the_ground_game_for_the_Tea_Party_in_the_2012_election_cycle remain on the main article, as they are not integral to the flow. The evenn have dates corresponding to the respective time frames of the 2010 and 2012 elections.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Vote on Ground game/GOTV Support Keeping a Ground game/GOTV section in main article. While the ground game is appropriate in the subarticle and should be developed there, it must also remain as a section on the main article. The main article must show the progression of development by the tea party from organizing rallies through social media, to organizing tea party groups that lobbied congress to offering support to candidates who at first were not electable to supporting electable candidates to organizing superpacs to oppose establishment Republicans. It is about the Tea Party movement afterall, and this is what they've been doing. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Oppose The Ground game/GOTV material should be summarized briefly in the section that covers elections on the main article.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC) The point regarding the "Tea Party shifts focus..." material Tea_Party_movement#Tea_Party_shifts_focus_from_demonstrations_to_ground_game.2FGOTV is probably the issue on which handling the "Ground game/GOTV" material hinges. If, as the long inline quote comprising essentially the entire first paragraph of that two-paragraph subsection states, "Largely gone are the disorderly rallies", and that is followed by a statement that "the movement has retooled into a loosely organized network of field operations", maybe there is something besides "Ground game/GOTV" being addressed. It sort of sounds like the "shift" away from protests (or, "Tea Parties") is a shift toward advocacy and/or lobbying in "support of legislation". Although the section is based on a single long quote from a single news media piece, it begs the question that if there are no more "Tea Parties", what becomes of the "Tea Party" movement per se? Here are other quotes from that piece FreedomWorks says that almost 190,000 activists have joined its “FreedomConnector” online network and that it expects fundraising in 2012 to exceed the approximately $21 million it collected last year. Through the end of May, tea-party-associated political action committees had raised almost $18 million. Tea Party Patriots, an organization that says it is affiliated with more than 3,500 local tea party groups, reported raising $12 million in donations in 2011 and says it is on track to match or surpass that number this year. Across the country, once-fractious tea party groups are working in concert with state and national Republican parties on key campaigns, especially in critical swing states. “We had some success as a movement, but we realized we just didn’t have the knowledge that we needed. How many signatures do you need? Campaign law? How do you qualify?” said Tom Zawistowski, president of Ohio’s Portage County Tea Party. “We went from a protest movement to an activist movement with a structure.” The tea party campaign in Indiana, which included more than $600,000 spent by FreedomWorks, visits by volunteers to 125,000 homes and more than 400,000 phone calls, was key to the resounding primary defeat of Lugar, the longtime senator. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Oppose The purpose here is to trim the length of the main article. The GG/GOTV facet of TPm activity deserves to be mentioned in the main article, but it doesn't need its own section. It should be dealt with briefly in the section that covers elections, with a link to a full section of the sub-article where GG/GOTV would be covered thoroughly. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC) We must avoid SYNTH, and only issues which are directly related to the TPM should be in any articles. Thus "Candidate X was convicted of bigamy" or the like is related to that particular race, but not toi the TPM as a movement. Also claims which are clearly opinion must be cited as opinion and ascribed to the person holding that opinion which means most of the Ubi suggestion fails, alas. Thus the "Freedomworks" stuff becomes SYNTH all too easily, as do statements about individual "groups" unless we decide that each individual group is also tepresentive of the entire TPM, which, to my regret, we have not thus far discussed. Collect (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC) On the draft article about candidates, I again aver that the percentage for each house as given on the blog is whayt ought to be used - with the exact same arguments as previously presented. Collect (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Please clarify to which of my suggestions you are referring. The blockquotes above are not my suggestions, incidentally, but quotes from the sole source upon which the abovementioned subsection appears to be based. Would that be what you are referring to as WP:OR/SYNTH? I would say that some of those quotes, especially the one that states, “We went from a protest movement to an activist movement with a structure”(my emphasis) is viable material in discussion the TPm as such, as it is the opinion express opinion of an activist reported in a secondary source. I have basically expressed my concurrence above with the notion that election specific scandals and the like should be described on the corresponding subarticle page, perhaps with a mention on the main article if highly notable.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Rather than point out things that are "wrong" I think it is a better use of discussion space to state that the draft presented above by SilkTork was acceptable to me ... trying to deal with something not on the table as a side discussion is a waste of time here, IMHO. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC) When one actually looks at the sources cited and evaluates the text in the article against said source(s), the general outcome has been a mismatch for me, thus far. That is basically the extent to which my comments you characterize as being "side discussions" reach. Anyway, I don't have a problem with the draft, and am happy simply to get that stuff off of the main article page. I do, however, feel that the remaining subsections of the Ground game/GOTV section should go, too. What are they doing there?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Title I think that the proposed title is a step in the right direction, but am not sure that using "effect", or even "impact" (which sounds more appropriate to me) quite reflects what the article would cover as a whole. It does seem that things like scandals, which occur during respective election cycles, should be covered under the respective election cycle. I would submit that along the same line of reasoning, the "Ground game/GOV" strategy and activities would also change with each election season, and therefore also belongs in the subarticle, not the main article.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC) The working title is Tea Party-endorsed candidates in the elections - a proposed alternative title is Tea Party effect on U.S. elections, 2010-2014. I don't wish to insert my views into this, and would rather people discussed themselves what is the most appropriate title, but I do have some reservations regarding Tea Party effect on U.S. elections, 2010-2014 on two counts: 1) The date range is both restrictive and misleading - what happens after 2014? - and readers may wonder where the other "Tea Party effect on U.S. elections" articles are, given that this one is disambiguated by a specific time range. 2) Using "effect" in the title implies that is the focus of the article, which I don't think it is - it is a record of what happened in the elections with those candidates who are believed to be endorsed or associated with the Tea Party, or one of the Tea Party groups. I am suggesting as a title Tea Party-endorsed candidates in the United States elections as being neutral, factual, informative, and what sources tend to be using. However, I may be misunderstanding where people wish to take the sub-article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Vote on Title Support Tea Party-endorsed candidates in the United States elections That solves the problem of the date range. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Needs further discussion See comment below. The issue of what to include in the article is related to how to title it. I think that the question as to what to include has to be settled before the title can be settled.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Would like further discussion. See discussion below. I've taken the liberty of moving this "Title" discussion and vote to the bottom of this section, because apparently the title may take the longest to work out. Titles have a tendency to be chiseled in granite once they get out into the mainspace for a while. Let's see what we can do to improve it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Question: Is this sub-article going to be a superset, subset or redundant to this List of Tea Party politicians article, or completely unrelated? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC) That's a good question. Surely we don't want redundant List articles, so the proposed sub-article would probably be of a higher order than the List article and a lower order than the main article. I think that since we have two in favor of incorporating the GG/GTOV material in the sub-article at this point and are brainstorming a title, some input from Silk Tork on this might be helpful. I suppose that the articles could be merged, but the resulting article would probably be rather unatrattictive and challenging to navigate for a reader looking more for analysis than simple information on a list.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Regarding the draft, I'm fine with it. Regarding the title, I concede taking out the "2010-2014" time bracket. It can be added again in a few years, if this develops into a series of articles spanning a longer period. But I think "Tea Party effect" would be an accurate description. In these elections the Tea Party has had both positive and negative effects for the Republican Party, and therefore has had both negative and positive effects for the Democratic Party. They've challenged establishment Republican Party incumbents in the primaries, forcing them to invest money and other resources just to win the nomination. And in some cases they replaced well-known, professional, moderate candidates with relatively unknown amateurs whose views are out of the mainstream, and incompatible with the people they wish to represent. And they can't seem to get excited about any presidential candidates, unless those candidates are also out of the mainstream and have little chance of winning in November. This has lost some key November races that the Republicans could have won, hurting the Republicans and helping the Democrats. On the other hand, the Tea Party has produced a very real conservative grass-roots movement that has mobilized millions of people who were previously ambivalent about politics, and now they're marching against Democratic Party leaders and agendas with a full-throated roar and their clenched fists in the air. Many of their favorite candidates are far from amateurish and directly refute any claims of bigotry or "anti-immigration" the moment one looks at their photos, such as Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Herman Cain, Allen West, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley and Mia Love. Some are becoming prominent national figures — and possibly very formidable 2016 presidential candidates. These effects are very good for Republicans and very bad for Democrats, as the 2010 results demonstrated. So I think using the term "effect" is appropriate. Speak up if you agree, or if you disagree. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC) While no one questions that the TPm has had an effect on elections, including the term effect term in the title would constrain the scope, just like the date range would. I feel that the title proposed by Silk Tork is somewhat insufficient insofar as it tends to resemble a title for a List article. If you want to address more comprehensively than a list what role the TPm has had in elections, you need to move all of the election related material to the article and give it a more comprehensive title. Maybe something like "The Tea Party Movement's Influence in US Elections". I think that would provide scope for covering the background of TPm participation, the candidates endorsed, and the results as well as both the effect on the Republican party and the overall impact. It should be noted that the references on the Constitution indicate that a conspicuous effect that the TPm has had is that citizens are talking about the constitution more than has been the case in recent history. Does that relate to elections directly?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC) I must say that I'm starting to like the way you think. Complete agreement with you on GG/GOTV coveragein the main article and for the same reason. SilkTork's title does look like a title for another dreary List article. Unfortunately, the sub-article itself resembles another dreary List article. It needs a little work but that's no reason not to put it out into the mainspace immediately. On the title, I like the word "effect," since the Tea Party is having a very profound effect on U.S. elections in several ways. "Influence" sounds like it's behind the scenes, with a slightly nefarious connotation. Titles have a tendency to be chiseled in granite once they're out in the mainspace for a while, so this part we do have to get right first. Let's try thinking and talking about it for one more day. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the vote of confidence, hombre. You are probably right that the title is going to be somewhat difficult, but at least deciding what is going to be in the article facilitates the advancing of the processes to that next step. I don't have any ideas at the moment, but let me just say that the word influence, in its generic sense, encompasses the meaning of effect, and is not necessarily limited to behind the scenes (e.g. influence peddling). One way to look at it is the example of how the TPm has influenced the actions or policy positions taken by Republicans, for example, and then see what effect that has in later stages, such as elections, positions taken by Democrats, etc. Anyway, I would imagine that a better title than the one I suggested will be found, but the above-described usage was what I had in mind with respect to the term "influence".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC) "The perfect is the enemy of the good." I'd like to commend everyone for a job well done so far. Let's try to reach an amicable compromise on some of these points and move things along. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Summary of GG/GOTV I think that a single sentence might suffice here, probably preceding the above posted summary of the elections related material. How about something along the lines of this? Aside from rallies, some groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement began to focus on getting out the vote and ground game efforts on behalf of candidates supportive of their agenda starting in the 2010 elections. That would lead directly into the summary of the 2010 election results.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC) VERSION INCORPORATING SUMMARY OF GG/GOTV The following includes the above sentence as a preface. Incidentally, we haven't discussed a title for the section that is to include the summary of material moved to the subarticle. How about the following? The Tea Party movement's involvement in US elections Aside from rallies, some groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement began to focus on getting out the vote and ground game efforts on behalf of candidates supportive of their agenda starting in the 2010 elections. Various Tea Party groups have endorsed candidates in the elections. In the 2010 midterm elections, The New York Times identified 138 candidates for Congress with significant Tea Party support, and reported that all of them were running as Republicans—of whom 129 were running for the House and 9 for the Senate. The Wall Street Journal–NBC News poll in mid October showed 35% of likely voters were Tea-party supporters, and they favored the Republicans by 84% to 10%. The first Tea Party affiliated candidate to be elected into office is believed to be Dean Murray, a Long Island businessman, who won a special election for a New York State Assembly seat in February 2010. According to statistics on an NBC blog, overall, 32% of the candidates that were backed by the Tea Party or identified themselves as a Tea Party member won election. Tea Party supported candidates won 5 of 10 Senate races (50%) contested, and 40 of 130 House races (31%) contested. In the primaries for Colorado, Nevada and Delaware the Tea-party backed Senate Republican nominees defeated "establishment" Republicans that had been expected to win their respective Senate races, but went on to lose in the general election to their Democrat opponents. Tea Party candidates were less successful in the 2012 election, winning four of 16 Senate races contested, and losing approximately 20% of the seats in the House that had been gained in 2010. Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann was re-elected to the House by a narrow margin.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Taking stock The trimmed draft has consensus. The sub-article has consensus. There is still ongoing discussion regarding GG/GOTV, though we can deal with that later. What is holding up implementing changes is the proposed title for the sub article. I would rather the material that is being removed and linked was placed in a linkable mainspace article at the same time, and I understand hesitations regarding having a temporary title because temporary titles have a tendency to hang around. A section title has been proposed above, that may also be appropriate for the sub-article: The Tea Party movement's involvement in US elections. If we can get consensus on this as a title, then we can move forward with the first change, and then tackle the next stage(s). I feel to push this forward we need to get consensus fairly quickly - I would prompt people, but I'm chilling out today on a number of private projects, so if someone would alert the significant contributors to this discussion, that there's a new proposed title, that would be useful. If not, no worries - I'll get round to it at some point over the weekend. But not now, as I already have so many tabs open my browser keeps freezing and threatening to crash! SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC) That proposed section title / sub-article title is acceptable to me, as it avoids the problems and limitations that come with adding "effects on..." or "influence on...", etc. Suggestion: Should the word (The) be dropped from the beginning of this proposed title when creating the new sub-article, for search functionality concerns? Most readers enter "Tea Party" rather than "The Tea Party" when using Wikipedia's Search function, and the hyper-auto-complete then suggests ...movement; ...protests; etc. This isn't a big issue, but I'm a fan of standardization across related articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC) support good work everyone helping this article along, well done! Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Support But on grammar grounds I don't recommend Xenophrenic's change, but could go along with it if others want it. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Support Xeno is right — dropping the word "The" at the start of the proposed title is appropriate. Very few articles (with the exception of book titles and such) start with the word "the" — it's usually dropped along with words like "a" or "an". The word "movement" also seems unnecessary as the nature of the group ("movement," not unified party, slightly organized mob, whatever) is dealt with elsewhere. But the part that says "involvement in US elections" is correct. It's just got a lot of characters. It's like headline writing for a newspaper. The word "involvement" is perfect here; but because it's so long, the rest of the title needs to be kept short. I think we can remove "movement," would like to discuss it, and I'm certain we can remove "the". Finally, it appears that Wikipedia style requires periods in "U.S." so let's do that as well. I'm also chiming in on the Good work everyone. Cooperation and collegial work is improving. I started the (discontinued) Talk page for Tea Party effect on U.S. elections, 2010-2014 with such a commendation, and repeat it here. I know we are a lot closer to a stable, long-range solution for this family of articles, and trust is growing. Let's consider Tea Party involvement in U.S. elections, agree on a title, get that article out on the mainspace, and start trimming the main article this afternoon. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC) OK by me Concise titles are generally a good thing, and uniformity between titles of related articles is probably standard practice. Should there be some slight variation between the title of the Sub-article and the title of the corresponding section in the main article?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Question: What exactly is to be the title of this subarticle? It's not at all clear to me. Is it to be the title voted on earlier, or is "Tea Party involvement in U.S. elections" to be the title? Malke 2010 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Oppose for now See comment below. Malke 2010 (talk) Comment: Sorry for not understanding the question, I got the message from Ubikwit on my iPhone and didn't want to search threads. Thank you, Ubikwit for the message. Two problems I see with the proposed title above: 1) the phrase 'Tea Party movement' isn't on the tip of people's tongues. In general, it's referred to as The Tea Party, though I agree with Xenophrenic that "the" should be dropped. And 2) The Tea Party isn't "involved" in U.S. elections per se. The tea parties do not field candidates, and the groups as organizations do not give candidates money. Their IRS tax status doesn't allow that. This is why Tea Party Patriots had to create a very separate group when they wanted a SuperPac. The tea parties in general endorse candidates and get out the vote which are activities allowed by the IRS. Saying "involvement," however, brings up a whole different impression, like saying, "Alleged U.S. involvement in elections in (pick name of third world country)." It sounds like they are causing interference, which is something Karl Rove has said they're doing. But for Wikipedia, I think it's better to say exactly what they are doing which is endorsing candidates and supporting elected officials who agree with their agenda(s). Maybe something like Tea Party endorsements in U.S. elections or Tea Party endorsed U.S. candidates and elected officials. Don't want to be the monkey in the wrench here, but let's get the language right. I'm mostly on my phone and not my laptop for the next several days, but if someone will just message my talk page, I'll see it on my phone. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC) You're welcome Malke. There are a couple of points. First, using "endorse" would probably not sound to the average reader like it included the "get out the vote and ground game" activities. Secondly, I think that the usual meaning of "involvement" does not mean "participation" in the same sense as that of a political party, but can be taken to mean any activities undertaken in relation to elections, with a broader connotation. As far as the IRS is concerned, I don't think that the PAC issues are being discussed in this sub-article, but might fall under ground game if those are activities being funded, and that would still be encompassed by "involved", whereas "endorse" seems more narrow. Anyway, the title is important, so it should be discussed thoroughly to ensure that it accommodates everything that is going to be in the article and doesn't give the wrong impression, etc. At least we have reached the stage where only the title remains to be decided at this point.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC) To move this forward, I am proposing to action the trimming, and to create the sub-article in the next 24 hours under the working title of Tea Party in U.S. elections. It's a minimal title, not designed to be the final one, but it provides the key words of "Tea party" and "U.S. elections", so readers know what it is about, and is easy to find, and there's nothing in there to take issue with at this stage. Once the article is up and live, you folks can have a separate debate about the title in a formal Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion, with an independent admin to decide the matter. I will leave that sub-article unlocked, and it will be interesting to see how editing evolves there. I have been encouraged with the discussion here, where people are able to express disagreements without getting heated or making personal remarks. I hope that continues on the new article. After I have actioned the agreed trimming and created the new article, we'll move on to the next stage of the trimming. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC) That sounds like a good plan for the next step. Get the subarticle out into the mainspace and put a minimalist working title on it. Regarding Wikipedia:Requested moves ... I'm not sure the discussion on the permanent subarticle title needs to be that controlled. We are getting along and moving toward a solution. But that's cool. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC) support--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC) support though I find "actioned" as a verb to be a tad unusual <g> Collect (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Support Malke 2010 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC) I've actioned the edit and created the new article Tea Party in U.S. elections. Yes Collect, "actioned" can be a bit jarring when you first encounter it, but as I've been part of management business meetings and committees for a few years now, I'm quite accustomed to it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC) The elections material has indeed been removed from the main article, but the GG/GOTV section is still there, and the elections summary section appears to be missing. Are those aspects of the edit still pending?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Agreed. I got the impression that we had achieved consensus on the content of the elections summary section. See the end of the preceding Talk page section on "Trimming." For Collect's benefit, I can confirm that the use of "action" as a verb is acceptable in some circles of business management and higher education administration. The language is constantly evolving, and music lyrics isn't the only edge of its evolution. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC) I don't see a consensus on removing/summarising the Ground game/GOTV material in the main article. I see two in favour, and one opposed. I feel we need to finish that off before moving to the next discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Ground game/GOTV How should the Ground game/GOTV material be dealt with? SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Move to Tea Party in U.S. elections and summarise in main article as Aside from rallies, some groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement began to focus on getting out the vote and ground game efforts on behalf of candidates supportive of their agenda starting in the 2010 elections. Move to Tea Party in U.S. elections and summarise in main article in own section in wording yet to be decided. Other. Support 1 ...but my suggestion: Number 1 above, but also move the elections summary (version dated 13:01 4 May) into the main article, too. The GOTV summary sentence can be appended a preface to it. In the new Tea Party in U.S. elections sub-article, we can integrate the GOTV material properly into the various date sections. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Support 1, basically as per Xeno but the GG/GOTV summary seems best as a prefacing statement leading into the main article summary of the elections section, as per the final version of the draft proposed above referred to by Xeno (version dated 13:01 4 May). Apparently I had the wrong impression that the whole point of going through the process of agreeing on the draft was primarily focused on the summary of what could be left behind in the main article with the draft of the subarticle almost an afterthought. It doesn't seem to make any sense at all that we have gone through seven versions since the first working proposal of the draft of the main article summary of the elections sections over a period of seven days. I was under the impression that posting of the main article summary would have occurred simultaneously with the actioning of the edit removing the election sections from the main article.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Support 1. Let's make it official and move on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Support the change, object to the choice of section to work on. This article is full of trivia, constructions from primary sources etc. and other problematic material, and we have just been working on the long-but-enclyclopedic sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 12:38 6 May 2013 When are we going to start on the trivia? (the gas grille, the twitter tweet etc) North8000 (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Fire up the chainsaw. As far as I'm concerned, all of the trivia and most of the alleged incidents of bigotry can be chopped, or very briefly summarized. Compared to most other political movements, TPm has been extremely well-behaved. I compared them to the Occupy movement at one point, which has been the venue of a large number of very serious, violent crimes such as sexual assault and the stabbing of a police officer. Compared to this, the rude remarks and insensitive signage of a few Tea Party people are eminently non-notable, and have most likely been added by people who are trying to smear TPm, rather than write an objective, NPOV article. Let's remember both NPOV and summary style, and get rid of the trivia and what I would call "Daily Kos cruft." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Wow, things have really slowed down to a crawl around here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Support 2. The article needs to highlight what they are doing. There is enough in GOTV/ground game to justify it's own section. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC) I'd like to see Malke's comment addressed, or sufficient consensus to judge that concern as minority before taking an action here, so I'd like to leave this discussion open a bit longer. Meanwhile, as per comments above on trivia, I'll open a new discussion looking into what can be agreed is trivia, and so removed from the article without being placed in a sub-article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I don't think that there is anything of merit to address in Malke's comment, and it is the second time she has proposed without receiving any support in this discussion except from you, SilkTork. Let me also point out that the ground rules you laid out with respect to the time frame (24 hours) for such discussion have been exceeded, as Xenophrenic's first vote in support of moving the material after your request was made on 23:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC), and Malke's only contrary vote was made on 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC). Perhaps I should mention that P&W also pointed out the delay. being busy with other matters with one thing, but providing indirect support for a twice failed proposal in this discussion seems to me quite another matter. Therefore, I request that you reverse your decision and action the agreed upon changes by the majority of participants of this discussion as per the original terms.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I appreciate that people want to move on, but I would much rather we waited and overcome objections than actioned something that may cause conflict later. What I set out was: "Two supports with no objections after at least 24 hours will be taken as consensus to action the trimming." The 24 hours is a minimum, not an action target. And I would only proceed if there were no objections. As there is not unambiguous support for one solution, I would rather clarify the situation before moving forward. My ideal would be that this matter is resolved quickly so I can take it off my watchlist and get on with other matters more enjoyable; however, for the sake of a little time and care now, we can avoid the possibility that actions done now are undone later. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Getting out the vote was a major move forward for the tea party. They started out with rallies, then formed tea party groups and lobbied congress. Then they supported candidates, disastrously at first, without any savvy like the established parties have. They have the ability to self-correct. GOTV shows how they've matured as a movement. Silk Tork has sorted the choices well. He clearly understands the issues. If no one else agrees, I will certainly go along with the majority, but I think the progressive changes, like GOTV, deserve their own sections and bears a second look. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC) First, you have brought nothing new to the conversation, and make not a single compelling argument as to why it doesn't belong in the elections sub-article. You neglected to participate in the initial discussion, so I find it somewhat unusual that SilkTork is engaging in this prolongation, but let me repeat one point, namely, that the entire subsection "Tea Party shifts focus from demonstrations to ground game/GOTV" is based on a single source, and is composed almost entirely of inline quotes from that source, which in fact addresses a broader range of issues than GG/GTOV, as per the block quotes from the article that I have posted above. In particular, this passage mentions a transition to a more structured movement “We had some success as a movement, but we realized we just didn’t have the knowledge that we needed. How many signatures do you need? Campaign law? How do you qualify?” said Tom Zawistowski, president of Ohio’s Portage County Tea Party. “We went from a protest movement to an activist movement with a structure.” And then there is this passage Tea Party Patriots, an organization that says it is affiliated with more than 3,500 local tea party groups, reported raising $12 million in donations in 2011 and says it is on track to match or surpass that number this year. Across the country, once-fractious tea party groups are working in concert with state and national Republican parties on key campaigns, especially in critical swing states. That subsection itself needs to be either eliminated or rewritten as a preface to the section on the subarticle page. I don't see how it wasn't challenged when posted initially. The source it's based on is good, but deals with more than simply GG/GTOV exclusively by isolated TP groups, there is context relating to collaboration with Republicans, funding, and greater organizational structure overall.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Two quick points: 1) All views are welcomed and encouraged at any time. There is no requirement that someone need to have engaged at an earlier part of the discussion. 2) Where there is no need to mention other users, please don't. Focus only on discussing the content. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC) As regards the content under discussion. As the content has now been reviewed again, and valid reasons put forward for reducing it along the lines suggested above, and Malke 2010 has said she is willing to go along with consensus, and there have been no further objections, I will action the trimming. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Done. Please check and let me know of any errors. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC) That's progress (and I finally noticed that the summary material is located under the "U.S. elections" section).--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Trivia material What material in the article can be agreed is unimportant, unencyclopaedic, unhelpful and/or distracting, and so can be proposed to be removed from the article completely without being placed in a sub-article? SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC) i doubt it will be agreed, but i think we should remove all racist, homophobic, and religious slurs as undue. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I think that the overall narrative flow of the article has to be established before you can decide what can be considered to be irrelevant trivia, because insofar as "trivia" is being used to designate material deemed peripheral to the balanced presentation of all views presented in RS. For example, one-off remarks by random activists may indeed be insignificant, but on the other hand, if they relate to the development of a more formal stance in relation to an issue, then it may be the case that such a remark should be presented as the cause that sparked debate within the movement that resulted in the current position, etc. If much of what is of concern relates to statements about race, religion, etc., perhaps people should figure out where to address questions related to immigration and xenophobia (as addressed in academic sources), and plot a temporal trajectory from early statements through to present stances related to immigration reform, and evaluate what is appropriate to that narrative and what isn't.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC) What you just described / defended is wp:synthesis, editors selecting and collecting trivia to create a particular desired impression. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I don't think I said anything of the sort. I pointed out was that according to NPOV and WP:DUE, the article is supposed to reflect all points of view expressed in reliable sources according to their weight. Accordingly, if something has weight within any meaningful narrative thread found in RS, then it should not be treated as insignificant trivia. Therefore, I suggested framing the significant narrative threads of the article first before haphazardly looking to remove material, as there may be cases where there would be no solid grounds for arguing whether something has weight or is insignificant otherwise. Granted, there may be isolated pieces of information that might be seen as insignificant before going through that process, but I would imagine there will be contentious cases. Anecdotal material in general is of trivial significance. "George Gnarph, a TPM member, killed his wife" and that ilk do not belong in the article on the movement. Additionally assertions about "subsets" of the movement or small groups within subsets of the movement are not of encyclopedia value, even if the "world's foremost authority" wrote about it - this is about a general group, and it is unfair to the members thereof to ascribe specific pejorative attributes to it as a result of someone saying some members may have those attributes. In an article on the Republican party, it would be wrong to incluse "some Republicans are polygamists" for sure, and similar logic should apply here as to pejorative assertions which are not applied to the movement in general. Encyclopedia articles are not collections of anecdotes, and assertions by third parties of pejorative material. They are not even "naratives" as that opens a large can of worms - they are intended to represent fairly and in a neutral manner the facts about a topic, and nothing else - and most especially they are not supposed to tell the "truth" or "right great wrongs" or to "make sure people know the "right" material about a person or group. Once we get there, we can actually make genuine good articles. And again, I feel WP:PIECE is a good place to start. Collect (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC) If enough material is interrelated enough to define a topic, then it is not anecdotal, and is amenable to be described in terms of the topic, which in turn develops over time with respect to the movement; that is to say, you wind up with something like a narrative, or a group of sub-narratives each of which relates to a different aspect discussed in RS. If you want to avoid a haphazard collection of anecdotes then you need a better structure. Remember, the Tea Party is a movement that is tending toward greater consistency across groups that were more disparate at the beginning. Incidents related to xenophobia and immigration have contributed to that, and at present this is being addressed with respect to immigration reform, for example. You only need so many examples of a certain sort of behavior, such as racial slurs, to make the point that there was a juncture at which that issue was addressed, and resolved by the adoption of "this (hypothetical) stance", for example, if you have an integrated approach.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC) First to go should be the part about the gas grille, and the twitter comment by the low level TP'er. After that the "somebody said that somebody in the crowd said something racist" section. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Are you talking about the guy Thomas referred to here? It seems that RS talk about people like him (as the founder of a TP group in Ohio), and that his actions have disturbed enough people within the TPm to have repercussions throughout.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Are you asserting that the "fact" is relevant to the topic of the tea party movement in general? If it is not related to the topic of the article then it is entitled to zero weight at all. The word germane comes to mind -- and a lot of the "trivia" is simply not germane to the actual topic of the article. Your position appears to be that if a TPM demonstrator were found to owe alimony, that it could be used simply because someone reported it somewhere. That is not the case, and may be part of the overall problem regarding this article. Collect (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC) That's not exactly what I'm saying. In terms of the level of "facts", I would say that you have two levels. The first would be facts recognized at a first level in analysis, particularly that found in academic sources, such as immigration as a category, for example. The you would have facts that relate to the category at the second level, where immigration as addressed within the Tea Party and reported in news media, etc, is what is relevant. So what I was implying is that you don't need to list every fact at the second level to demonstrate a point at the first level. Therefore there is probably some redundant material that could be eliminated if the facts at the metalevel were framed and defined along the lines of a narrative tracing the development of TPm position and the like over the past several years in relation to various incidents.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC) IOW you would not have the CNN person calling a TPM person a "bigot" into the article because it is only tangentially related to the movement as a whole? I had thought you said it would belong. Which position do you hold? Collect (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Can you re-ask that question using an actual, specific example from the article? That might produce a more informative response. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I am using the precise example given by Ubikwit. I assumed it was "clueful" and certainly nothing for an ad hom directed at me for being "not clueful" on this page of all pages -- where we are trying to reach a reasoned consensus and not trying to "score points." Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC) There has been no "ad hom directed at you"; are you trying to create drama where none exists, Collect? Can you please not do that here? I asked if you could pose an actual example, so that we might move the discussion from the realm of hypotheticals. The TPm article does not convey that a "CNN person called a TPM person a 'bigot'", nor do I see Ubikwit discussing that the TPm article should or shouldn't convey that. Let me know if that still isn't clear. Where everybody knows your name. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I couldn't state an opinion--particularly about that source--until the narrative context was available. That source is "The Raw Story", which was something that a simple google search returned, but the fact that the CNN reporter made the statement seems to make it notable, and reported in a source other than CNN indicates that it might be RS. For example, there could be a discussion about immigration in which it would fit insofar as the CNN guy is Hispanic and the TPm speaker made racial slurs about Hispanics and comments about illegals. And then the narrative would take up the reaction to those remarks by others in the TPm and address stances adopted subsequently, etc. leading up to the present questions regrading immigration reform. I think that in relation to such a narrative one such example as an inline quote and maybe just references detailing others would suffice to define the catalyzing moment that sparked action in the TPm on whatever issue is being addressed in a given narrative (sub/section, etc.). It would not be necessary to explicitly describe more than one instance of a racial slur, for example, in relation to the immigration discussion, the role of the NAACP, etc. So while the material to be removed wouldn't exactly be trivia, it would be redundant to the narrative, and therefore could suffice with simple being listed in the reference section, if at all. I don't have time to put into building the narratives and am primarily interested in the constitution related material, so this is basically a suggestion I'm making as to how the article could be better organized and the problems addressed in a more rational manner.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC) (od) IOW - you might use that clearly tangential CNN comment as though it related to the movement in general -- which is what I asked. I suggest that we bar such tangential trivia -- so we may be at a roadblock until this particular issue is settled. My proposal is that Material not related to the general topic does not belong in this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Agree with Collect. That's a good solution. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Clearly that would seem to be incorrect insofar as some such incidents appear to have served to catalyze responses in the TPm that had lasting consequences. Even if they were somewhat isolated incidents, the guy in Ohio was the founder of a TPm group so other TPm groups acted to contain the damage and prevent recurrence. To that end they made pronouncements, adopted quasi-official stances, etc.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC) The invention of the automobile (being usefully whimsical) and the deaths of TPM people also have effects on the TPM, but neither are about the TPM, so they are not suitable for the article. Something should be about (not just somehow connected to) the TPM to be in this top level article. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC) When the founder of a TPm group makes bigoted statements while at a TPm rally about people in attendance that he broadcast through social media then it is about the TPm, obviously. What does your definition of about mean? Those twitter broadcasts elicited comments from the media as well as other TPm groups, etc. He is(was?) the founder of a group comprising the movement. How is that not about the movement? What I am suggesting is that you have at present in the article a litany of offenses committed by TPm activists in the like that are categorized under a section that could itself be reduced if some of the material were organized under the topic of The TPm and Immigration, for example, which would probably enable some redundant information to be eliminated, resulting in trimming and more coherence. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Well, at least we have an example emblematic of the ongoing issues with this article. To put it in my own biased way, a selected one of the hundreds of thousands of twitter tweets from one of the thousands of local TPM leaders is a gaffe or sounds really bad, and so we have a group here that says that it should be in the top level TPM article and another group that says it shouldn't. And a twitter tweet is called a "broadcast" instead of a twitter tweet, and now is proposing that the twitter tweet by a low level TP'er be a part of the immigration section of the top level TPM article. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I'm not trying to give that individual more coverage than he deserves, that was simply an illustration of an action that happened at a level you want to classify as insignificant that had far reaching consequences. Social media is instantaneous broadcasting in technical terms. Twitter is fairly pathetic as far as I'm concerned, but it has been an effective communications tool. The example was based on a simple google search from a search of the article for twitter (as per one of your posts) strictly to illustrate a hypothetical point about the article structure. It might be possible to go through the list one item at a time and do the same thing, but I would imagine that a few of those items could be consolidated, thereby eliminating direct descriptions of all of the material. When your dealing with the evolution of a decentralized movement comprised of disparate groups toward something more structured, you plot the history with respective to notable issues. I really don't want to prolong the debate as I actually am aiming to pare down the amount of time I'm spending on this topic. The only thing I'm interested in is the constitutional material, but you folks need to sort out these type of coherence issues so that the article itself isn't disjointed and incomprehensible.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC) My answer to SilkTork's question at the top of this section, specifically as he has asked it (what can be deleted outright?): Nothing stands out. If the options of "moving it to a sub-article" or "condensing it" or "replacing it with an encyclopedic rewrite" aren't on the table, then wide agreement may be difficult to establish. I'd like to propose an alternative course of action. To summarize the initial 'Trimming' input at this Moderated Discussion, Darkstar1st proposed deleting "criticism" (read: negative material), and North8000 proposed deleting "trivia" (read: more negative material), and then other editors added their "Me too, per DS1 and North!" comments. That is followed by other editors disagreeing on what content is "trivia" or "not relevant". This mirrors comment threads on many past article Talk pages, as North just pointed out. Speculating that negative content was added to the article by Wikipedia editors trying "to smear TPm" isn't helpful to our discussions; neither is speculation that positive content is added "to promote TPm". Equally unhelpful is the mischaracterization of informative content as "trivia", "aromatic farts" or "Daily Kos cruft". To cite just one popular example, editors opposed to the content characterize it simply as a tweet by one individual that sounds bad. Other editors, however, characterize the content as a racist remark and insinuation of violence via Springboro Tea Party social media by its founder and leader, during his attendance at a widely publicized protest rally in Washington, D.C. This resulted not only in negative publicity in news media (including national cable news), but in the cancellation of appearances by several politicians scheduled to appear at a Springboro Tea Party organized event, and in harsh retorts from other TP group leaders. I don't believe the arguments that such content is "trivia" or "not relevant" hold up to scrutiny. I do believe that a reasonable argument can be made (and, indeed, has been made in reliable sources) that the sentiments of TP leaders like Thomas, Williams, Phillups, etc., are not held by the majority of those in the movement -- but that is not justification for "taking a chainsaw" to such material. Exactly 3 years ago, I expressed my suggestion on how to handle this content: As for treating the subjects of racism, homophobia and other bigotry, I liked the idea proposed above of establishing a sub-page somewhere, and collaboratively developing a comprehensive, encyclopedic section on the subject. If written properly, it could replace the whole section presently listing isolated incidents, and it might also replace a portion of the media bias content. It would serve to get rid of the laundry list, as well as stem the inclinations to edit to the two (highly inaccurate) extremes that the tea partiers are a bunch of racists and the tea partiers are not combatting an image problem. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC) That was 3 years ago, but no one (including lazy-ass me) picked up the reigns and attempted it. Part of the problem was scarcity of scholarly sources on the movement, but I think that isn't as much of a problem now. Now that SilkTork has taken the first step and created a sub-page, is it possible that we can use it to address the problematic section properly now? Exactly two years ago, I reiterated my suggestion: Let's work on developing that encyclopedic treatment of the issue. Do that first, and you'll find the need for the present disjointed laundry list of examples and anecdotes will disappear, and we won't need them anymore. Removing them now without first properly addressing the whole issue is inappropriate, and might be misconstrued as leaving the article in a POV state. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC) I'm willing to devote a few days to doing just that, if others will help, and if SilkTork has no objections. If we're successful, I can see this reducing the constant squabbling over this article by a huge amount. And I won't be back here in May of next year suggesting the very same thing. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC) See WP:SNOW. This is the top-level article about the Tea Party movement and we are trimming it. Any trivia about twitter tweets, racially insensitive signage, gas grills, jokes in poor taste etc. needs to be either removed, or sharply reduced and summarized. Yes, on North8000's User Talk page I described this garbage as "Daily Kos cruft." Yes, I called it bullshit on the same User Talk page. Because that's exactly what it is: snarky bullshit that the political polar opposites of our article's subject find amusing, and wish to preserve. Compare all these allegations to the allegations against members of the Occupy movement (dozens of sexual assaults, the stabbing of a police office, etc.) and the very subdued treatment these multiple violent felonies received in the top-level Wikipedia article. It is not representative of the movement as a whole; it has very little, if anything at all, to do with the movement as a whole. Wikipedia is not here to provide an opposition research trivia drawer for political factions that loathe our article's subject. Summary style is what should be guiding us, even moreso at the top level article of a series of articles, like this one. So let's give Xeno's proposal the proper burial at sea in the Marianas Trench that it deserves, and move on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, you called it "Daily Kos cruft" on this page (see above), but thank you for bringing to my notice your additional efforts on North's Talk page. Very enlightening. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC) The comparison with the Occupy incidents doesn't work because those are simply criminal acts ("violent felonies"), and had no relationship to the policy stances of the movement. It could be said that the twitter tweets were a product of the rallies, but the tweeter was an organizer using social media as a communication tool. The big difference is that there are narratives accompanying the impact of such incidents on the TPm, and those should be described. In doing so, the material you find offensive could be substantially reduced. The TPm has been transforming from a decentralized protest movement addressing multiple agenda items to a more structured activists movement, with a trend toward consolidation of positions across the movement on such agenda items. Though immigration reform promises to show what direction the TPm takes. Occupy as a single-purpose protest movement against corruption on Wall St. and associated collusion of politicians. It spread world wide, but didn't evolve into anything more than a protest movement. The comparison to Occupy could be seen to be somewhat tendentious insofar as it rests on a partisan presumption that skews policy. I suggest that the subject matter itself--as described in RS--be the focus of the discussion. There is a book coming out this month from a top flight academic publisher that promises to have things to say on the race/bigotry issues, so I think it better to handle these questions until that has been assessed. I don't see anything concrete in the way of proposals for the "Summary style" you mentioned. I wouldn't be opposed to eliminated a substantial amount of specific items if the relation of such incidents to the TPm overall is adequately represented in any text. The fact that the national civil rights group like the NAACP as well as other prominent groups and individuals continue to address these issues and incidents and that the RS describe them makes the subject matter itself notable.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Not just the NAACP and other external groups and individuals, but there was notable internal response as well. The Uni-Tea rallies, FreedomWorks' "Diverse Tea" campaign, the Tea Party Race Summit, the formation of the National Tea Party Federation formed to respond with messaging damage control and public relations, etc. Tea Partiers obviously didn't consider it "trival". What may not be obvious (P&W missed it) is that this content has already been "sharply reduced and summarized" in the article, and stripped down to a half-dozen minimal bullet-points from many paragraphs of detail. Gone are the swastikas, the mocking and harassment of the guy with Parkinson's, the 'White Pride' t-shirts, the anti-gay remarks by TP leader Tim Ravndal, the "Schlomo Weiner" anti-semitism, the racist photoshop-fun of TP speaker Marilyn Davenport, and more ... all vanquished from the 'top level article'. I, too, would like to see what the latest "Summary Style" translates to, with actual proposals. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC) I don't see anything concrete in the way of proposals for the "Summary style" you mentioned. Ubikwit, in the past we've disagreed rather sharply with one another but we're developing a collegial rapport, and we've recently reached a compromise on something that at first seemed intractable — please, let's continue. On his User Talk page, I asked North8000 to come up with such a concrete proposal: create a sandbox page, copy the main article from the View Source tab to the sandbox, fire up the chainsaw, start chopping out all the trivia — and replacing whole sections of that with single paragraphs, supported by six or eight reflinks, in summary style — and then when finished, link it here and ask for a "vote" to transfer it in the main article mainspace. North8000 seems to be reluctant to do it, so I'll do it if you think it would move the ball toward the goal. To quote another editor, "I'm willing to devote a few days to doing just that. ... If we're successful, I can see this reducing the constant squabbling over this article by a huge amount." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Kudos for offering to create a proposal. Do you have any objection to it being a group effort, or do you intend to propose your own draft for an up/down vote with no modifications allowed? If you are okay with a community effort, why not have SilkTork create the draft subpage and moderate the process as he did with the last content section? I recommend this only because past editing of this content has sometimes been contentious, and moderation could be helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, good proposal P&W, and I am glad that we have developed a good working rapport. I honestly am too busy to participate much on this particular area, but I find Xenophrenic's suggestion to ask SilkTork open a sub-page to this page where you could work on specific proposals would be a good start, as it seems it may take some time. Cheers.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC) P&W said it best here [40]. The bbq gas grills, and all the rest of it, are nothing but a source of contention on this article. What we are really trying to do here is eliminate as much as possible the battles, the tendentious editing, the personal attacks, and the edit wars, which have all arisen especially from sections such as 'race, bigotry, et al,' which is nothing but drivel. Removing all of it will take the oxygen out of the fire. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Do you have any objection to it being a group effort, or do you intend to propose your own draft for an up/down vote with no modifications allowed? I'm aiming for the middle here. I would create a first draft on a sandbox page, various sections loaded with trivia would be cut down to single paragraph size (with reflinks for those who are really interested) or possibly removed entirely, and we would "vote" on the modification of each section. Once we have consensus for each section per the abbreviated process SilkTork established, we move on to the next one. If a particular modification does not gain consensus, we (meaning all of us) are going to tweak it until it does. I'm fine with SilkTork moderating this part of the process but I'm sure that the amount of time necessary for the task would be a challenge for him, and I would be happy to handle it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Vote on Trivia Material not directly about the general topic does not belong in this article. Support Malke 2010 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Would you consider replacing "related" with "directly about"? Everything is related. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Done. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Support This directly addresses the main problems with this article. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Support This is a very logical cource of action. Collect (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Support. Could be in subarticles, if about the topic of the subarticle. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Support this general statement of principle, but the devil is in the details ... if somebody wants to create a sub-article on Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party, now might be a good time. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Comment This strawman pole represents the continued proclivity for attempting to circumvent policy to push a POV. This is not a the place to try and rewrite or create policy. The notion of trivia has been discussed at length, and your definition of "material not directly about the general topic" is not a definition of trivia found in any relevant Wikipedia policy. Even if there were a negative remark about some aspect of the TPm in a reliable academic source, there would be editors arguing to exclude it as trivia or on the basis of some other false pretense. Though SilkTork has decided to entertain the introduction of this section, the fact that a vote has been called to circumvent meaningful discussion on the material tends to support a conclusion that there are intractable dimensions to the proclivity for tendentious editing in relation to this topic. P&W's suggestion to create a subarticle Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party is reasonable, but some of the material relates directly to the internal development of the TPm with respect to agenda issues such as immigration, and therefore must be included in the main article, as is plain with respect to WP:DUE and WP:V.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Ubikwit, I think by now you realize that I'm not going to just dump the material out. You know me better than that. I'm going to summarize it. And if reliable sources indicate that early accusations of bigotry led to recent changes in agenda about immigration, and that theory survives inspection through such lenses as WP:WEIGHT, you are going to get exactly what you want: a paragraph, maybe two, that summarize the allegations, the policy changes that resulted, and the emergence of such individuals as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, and Bobby Jindal as the faces of change in the Tea Party. I will observe again that I'm starting to like the way you think. If it's consistent with policy, that is the way forward. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks again for the camaraderie, P&W. I support your efforts on this, and have tried to provide as much input as possible to facilitate a compromise solution, one that actually takes care of two problems at once, I think. That would be addressing the immigration issue in conjunction with some of the material at issue here. I just don't find anything productive in this vote. I think that you and Xenophrenic should get to work on this, as I am confident you could produce a viable solution. I think it might take some time, as there is a pertinent book being released this month that probably should be taken into consideration before putting a lot of effort into finalizing text, etc. But I would think that trying to frame the issues and look at how things have developed over time is readily doable.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Ubikwit, nobody said that "Material not directly about the general topic " was a definition of trivia, although it would tend to take what is trivia in the context of this being the top level TPM article. And I see it as a way to implement, not circumvent policy. North8000, fair enough, but it seems to me that only P&W and Xenophrenic are thinking seriously about the material in a way that will facilitate progress toward producing an viable edit that is acceptable to the majority and compliant with policy. I'm going to be only minimally involved with this stage, and feel that I have shared what I can see as far as possible ways forward. There are various views and approaches, however, so it is probably going to take a concentrated effort to accomplish the task at hand. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Ubiwit, you just said, ". . .only P&W and Xenophrenic are thinking seriously about the material in a way that facilitates progress. . ." You seem so ready to attack others and to assume bad faith. That seems to prove that you are not here to find a solution to the battles, the edit wars, the personal attacks, all of which you have helped create since your 'recent' arrival here. Please stop attacking everything and everyone on this page. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Ubiwit, your take on that is very much in error at best. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC). Sub-page Rather than remove from Wikipedia it has been suggested that material which is felt to be not directly related to the main topic, be moved to a sub article. It may be that material may need to be moved to several sub-articles, as at this stage it's not clear exactly what material would be proposed to be moved. However, as an intermediate stage, it may be helpful to have a sub-page where material is placed for later closer examination. This sub-page would not be intended in itself to be moved to mainspace, but would simply serve as a holding space accessible to editors to work on and perhaps use to create new sub-articles at a later stage. If that makes sense, we can create a sub-page, to be called /Tea Party material, and when folks agree on what material should be removed, it can be placed on the sub-page, and decisions on deleting it completely or reusing it in a sub-article can be made at a later stage. I suggest the procedure here would be that material (paragraphs or sections) is proposed here for moving - and when there is sufficient consensus (75% agreement) after at least 24 hours, I will move the material to /Tea Party material. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Also see below for "Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party" sub-article proposal. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit actioned and Perceptions of the Tea Party now on mainspace

I will unlock the main article after people have looked over my edits to check I did it right. If it's OK, we can discuss what to look at next, and archive the bulk of this talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC) O rather think "about the Tea Party" is clearer than "of" as the latter might also refer to perceptions held by TPM adherents. As to spelling - that is a trifle. Collect (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC) I opposed the edit because the first two sentences of the paragraph were redundant. Xenophrenic agreed that those two sentences are "not very necessary." Compare those two sentences to the lede paragraphs of the article. They are still redundant, and they should be removed. Other than that, I am very pleased that an enormous amount of trivial content, which was unencyclopedic and really quite poisonous, is gone from the main article. I will spend the rest of the morning celebrating. What to look at next: a new section on the campaign by news media figures and prominent Democrats to blame the Tea Party, using everything from clever innuendo about "Tax Day" to in-your-face false accusations, for every horrific act of mass murder in the United States since the Tea Party was founded. Another thing to look at next is moving the stuff about the politically-motivated Tobacco Control "study" to the "Perceptions" spin-off article, since the mainstream media haven't touched it, it's not really very notable is it? Not notable enough to go into a top-level article. The rest of that paragraph needs to go to the end of the "History" section, not the beginning, if it belongs in the main article at all. I also welcome the move to archive much of this page, I tried to archive much of this page myself less than a week ago but was reverted, and I'm glad SilkTork agrees with me. Apart from confusing newcomers into believing long-completed surveys and discussions are still active, a Talk page that's almost a megabyte in length is very hard to download on many machines. The idea here is to make it easier to participate. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC) I'll now unlock the article so people can make minor edits. Significant edits should come here for discussion and agreement first. I'll put an editnotice to that affect. After 24 hours I'll archive everything above this section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The view from 30,000 feet

I've already offered a series of three minor improvements. Adding the word "grass-roots" to the lede since there are so many RS to support it, the handful of RS that say "Astroturf" are redefining the term "Astroturf" in order to use it, and we had consensus on this point before the moderated discussion started. Cutting the "Other events" section at the end and adding it to the bulleted points in the Perceptions spin-off article, and cutting the paragraph about the gas grill incident in half. Cutting the "Commentaries on origin" section and moving it to the Perceptions spin-off article. These are changes that would actually be supported by consensus. Here we have all the trivia that so many editors have been complaining about. It's trivial. It's been annoying people on the Talk:Tea Party movement page for years. It has generated 20 pages of archives. It does not belong in the top-level article about a complex topic. It belongs in the spin-off article. And the sourcing about the word "grass-roots" defines that opinion as the majority opinion per WP:WEIGHT, therefore the word belongs in the lede sentence of the article. This is what we can work on to get something accomplished quickly, with a minimum amount of argument. This is offered in the spirit of wanting to get the ball rolling and get something finished. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Agree. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Grassroots should be an easy fix. The tea party movement is part grassroots and part astroturf. It should be in the lede because the history section has examples of grassroots organization that came about spontaneously after Rick Santelli's rant and people like Keli Carender. The order of the article is all upside down. We should then be focused on making sure the article reads like an encyclopedia entry. The history section should come after the lede, and it should not have the "commentaries on origin," at all. That's like having the president get ready to speak and some guy jumps up and yells, "This is what he's really all about." Let the reader decide who the tea party are by reading what they say about themselves with quotes from tea party leaders and a summary of what they say they're all about. Protest rallies should be sent off to the Tea Party protests article. Foreign Policy: What foreign policy? And Sarah Palin? She talks about the tea party, she's not a tea party member or leader. The article should be a general overview. The wording about the constitution that is in the article right now is stable and should be left alone. Scholarly claims and arguments about popular constitutionalism and constitutional originalism don't belong in the article and would read as undue weight for an overview. There is already an article about "constitutional originalism" and perhaps a section could be opened up in that article. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 98% agree. The 2% is that I think that the protests are a core TPM item and should have coverage in this article, albeit more condensed/ summarized here. Also there is association of Sarah Palin with the TPM, but Malke's overall sentence on that is correct because it is certainly not enough to consider here foreign policy to to be the TPM foreign policy. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC) This seems good and thoughtful. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Since the proposed Sarah Palin edit is beyond the scope of my proposal, I understand all three of these comments to support my proposal. The Palin edit and other matters raised by Malke can be discussed next, after we action this edit. Thanks for your support. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose all three "edits" proposed by P&W You need provide a source-based rationale, citing the sources for your proposed edits, and then call a vote on consensus, at the minimum. In my view, your proposals would serve to remove a substantial amount of well-sourced material related to astroturfing, for starters, as well as other negative coverage. The section on commentaries of the origin of the TPm are not subjective perceptions, they are statements that embody a degree of interpretation, but they are substantiated by research and analysis.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Regarding the addition of the word "grass-roots" to the lede sentence. We had this discussion around April 23 at Talk:Tea Party movement and a record of the discussion can be found at Archive 23. We also had this discussion around April 26-28 here in the moderated discussion and it can now be found at /Closed discussions. Here's a partial sampling of the eminently reliable sources that define TPm as a grass-roots movement — three from the New York Times, two from the Washington Post, one from Reuters, one from National Public Radio, one from Huffington Post of all places, a very interesting 30-minute webcam round-table discussion hosted by the Huffington Post, and a Harvard PDF in which Theda Skocpol, of all people, says that "Thus the grassroots Tea Party phenomenon is real ..." [41] [42] [43] [44][45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] Here are a few more: one from ABC News, one from Politico, two from the Dallas Morning News, one from the Boston Herald,and one from the Houston Chronicle. [52] [53] [54] [55][56] [57] To this list we can also add the scholarly, peer-reviewed work of Elizabeth Foley.[58] I've demonstrated that Formisano is a member of the Barack Obama Fan Club by posting links to his op-ed columns: [59] [60] Formisano clearly likes Barack Obama very, very much, and speaks from a progressive perspective. And he only claims that some organizations that are affiliated with TPm are Astroturfing. The other source, Skocpol, never actually says the Tea Party is Astroturf, or even part Astroturf. She says that the arguments that TPm is 100% Astroturf aren't accurate, and that the arguments that it's 100% grass-roots aren't accurate either. She says that the TPm is "something in between," but never uses the word "Astroturf" to describe any part of that "something." Regarding the other two edits I've proposed, yeah they're already sourced. We're not arguing about sources regarding that material. We're arguing about whether these events and criticisms are notable enough to take up space and WP:WEIGHT in the top-level article on a complex subject, when we have a nice spin-off article where they would fit quite nicely. It's trivia, Ubikwit. Seldom has there ever been trivia that was so trivial, that trivialized an article for so long. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC) The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been described as an example of astroturfing. [61] Source actually purports to show how Tea Party is not astroturf. In an April 2009 New York Times opinion column, contributor Paul Krugman wrote that "the tea parties don't represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They're AstroTurf (fake grassroots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey. [62] Published: April 12, 2009. Appears to be knee-jerk opinion by heavyweight partisan. Has he continued with this assertion? Maybe backed it up. Explaining how organized events (other than union, OFA and ThinkProgress) are considered astroturf. Are there not more encyclopedic sources available? Past the scrambling to answer this uprising in 2009. The same month, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) stated "It's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class." [63] Pelosi, 2009: "They're not real, my side is real. Really, just look at the polls. No, not that poll. Not that other poll, either." Where is the NPOV? Intellectual analysis? Are we to believe this is the best we can do? †TE†Talk 15:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, there needs to be more analysis and more encyclopedic presentation in terms of tone and organization. We should be working on one item at a time, and that is supposed to be the Agenda, one would imagine. The reason why these dual parallel threads have been started is unclear to me, but maybe something can be gleaned from the comments.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC) We can multitask. I was just looking over the Koch section and it's purpose seems dubious to me. Truly an POV-laden overstatement of their role in the Tea Party, going further than the sources. Even editorializing them. And what's the deal with: Main article: Political activities of the Koch family That's not a subarticle. The Koch content is not a summary of it. Not even close. One mention of the Tea Party. Whoever added this has some explaining to do. †TE†Talk 15:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC) We are supposed to be focusing on one item at a time, and that issue has come up before.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Enough distraction. Focus on one thing at a time. Work on the Agenda section. When that's done work on the next item. And so on. If every proposal is met with a counter proposal then no work gets done, all that happens is a lot of talk and grandstanding. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended discussion of 'grass-roots'

ThinkEnemies, that's a very good point about the Koch brothers edits. They set up FreedomWorks, Citizens for a Sound Economy. That's where their money goes. Those aren't tea party groups. We should include that edit, too. These should be easy fixes with reliable sources: Add "grassroots" and "astroturf" to lede Re-order the article Merge "Protest rallies" with Tea Party protests article. Remove Foreign Policy/Sarah Palin (and the picture) Remove Koch brothers P&W, you should write a sentence that adds grassroots and astroturf to the lede for everyone to decide on. I'll write up a suggestion for the order of the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC) "Astroturf" doesn't belong in the lede. It's a minority opinion. See, for example, the article on Waterboarding. A majority of legal experts who have expressed an opinion on the matter have agreed that waterboarding is torture, and a minority have said that in some cases it isn't. What does the lede sentence say? After a lot of arguing and an ArbCom (if I'm not mistaken), it says, "Waterboarding is a form of torture." No exceptions. No qualifications. No hesitation. We go with the majority opinion in the lede and the majority opinion is that the TPm is a grass-roots movement. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC) First, the above comparison doesn't work. There is a different between a minority opinion among academics regarding the interpretation of established facts and a minority opinion among rogue intelligence officers that have now been deemed to have broken the law, but not to have been culpable for their behavior. Sources say both grassroots ad astroturfung, and both are considered contentious, so populist, libertarian and conservative should be considered the majority views and grassroots and astroturf the minority. Second, the point is moot, because the main body of the article has not been revised in a manner such as to more coherently address the question. Moreover, editing the lead has basically been specifically postponed by Silk Tork until the body of the main article is complete, as the lead is supposed to summarize the article, but I digress.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC) First, apparently you believe that two academics outweigh 18-20 stories by fact-checked news organizations plus one academic. Please review WP:RS. They're all reliable sources. On the Waterboarding article, it wasn't just rogue intel officers, it included the Vice President of the United States, the Attorney General, and two deputy attorneys general. The kind of people who, when they're not taking a leave of absence for a few years to work for the Justice Department, have permanent careers as law professors at places like Harvard and Stanford. Second, SilkTork is a moderator, not chairman of a committee. He has stated on multiple occasions that he does not want to direct content. He was making a suggestion, not issuing an order, and clearly I'm not the only one who thinks the "agenda" section should be left alone for now. Clearly it's a minefield. Adding one abundantly well-sourced word to the lede sentence is not the kind of major surgery that SilkTork suggested we should avoid, particularly since it's so well sourced. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC) FreedomWorks is part of the Tea Party movement, as are other astro-turf groups. Even if we decide, contrary to what reliable sources say, that they are not part, we need to mention them. TFD (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC) As I said earlier, calling even FreedomWorks an "Astroturf" group requires a redefinition of the word "Astroturf," which is a commonly used and long-standing term in the political science lexicon, meaning political or corporate operatives who pretend to be several ordinary people at once, to create the appearance of a grass-roots movement. Read the WP article on Astroturfing. It's quite good and it sets the bar very high. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is even making any kind of allegation that those activities have taken place, let alone offering proof. Political adversaries like Pelosi and Krugman, who are trying to discredit the Tea Party movement, tossed out the word "Astroturf" like they were flinging crap at a wall, hoping some of it would stick, and are trying to redefine it to include any acceptance of any money from any corporation. But under the commonly accepted, long-standing meaning of that word, it just ain't happening. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC) The technique was used, the only discussion is the extent to which the movement is astroturf or grassroots. Informed adversaries of the Tea Party movement btw acknowledge the grass roots aspect. Both are essential for it to survive. TFD (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Please post a link to just one reliable source — just one will do, TFD — which specifically states that any organization that is part of the Tea Party used paid political or corporate operatives, who pretended to be several people at once, in order to create the false appearance of a grass-roots movement. Post that link and I will withdraw this edit proposal instantly. I look forward to your prompt response, TFD, since you so confidently stated that "the technique was used." The fact of the matter is that partisans like Pelosi and Krugman tried to redefine the word to discredit the Tea Party. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Formisano and others have described the TPm as partly astroturfed, and that is more than enough. The attempt to use statements from a Wikipedia article as a source is against WP:RS, and amounts to WP:OR. No viable grounds for questioning the statements made by the authors of the reliably published academic sources have been presented.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Formisano and others have described the TPm as partly astroturfed ... Formisano's bias has been demonstrated, and the "others" are named Krugman and Pelosi. They have already been quoted in the article. They are the minority opinion. ... and they are more than enough. They are not enough to overcome 18-20 articles by fact-checked news organizations, plus one academic named Elizabeth Foley. "Grass-roots" is the majority opinion, it should be stated unequivocally in the lede just like "Waterboarding is a form of torture," and that's really all there is to it. Please stop beating your dead horse, Ubikwit. The attempt to use statements from a Wikipedia article as a source is against WP:RS ... Please stop mischaracterizing my arguments. I am not trying to insert my personal opinion of constitutional law into the article as you claimed on the main Talk page, nor am I trying to insert the Wikipedia definition of Astroturfing into the article. Perhaps you'll believe Molly Ivins. She clearly writes from a progressive perspective,[64] inventorying every bogeyman of 1990s progressives from Rush Limbaugh to Ralph Reed to the health insurance industry. And how does she define Astroturfing? For example, John Davies of Davies Communications, quoted in the commendable publication PR Watch, explains how to "make a strategically planned program look like a spontaneous explosion of community support." Using mailing lists and computer databases to identify potential supporters, he described how telemarketers turn "passive supporters" into what appear to be advocates. "We want to assist them with letter writing. We get them on the phone, and while we're on the phone, we say, `'Will you write a letter?' 'Sure.' 'Do you have time to write it?' 'Not really.' `Could WE write the letter for you? I could put you on the phone right now with someone who could help you write a letter. Just hold - we have a writer standing by.' " The call is then passed on to another Davies employee who creates what appears to be a personal letter sent to the appropriate public official. Davies said, "If they're close by, we hand-deliver it. We hand-write it out on 'little kitty stationery' if it's a little old lady. If it's a business, we take it over to be photocopied on someone's letterhead." Hand-written letters on "little-kitty stationery" are, you see, so much more real than the hundreds of form postcards sent in by the old-style astroturf specialists. Once again: any opponent of this proposed edit who can post a link to a reliable source, stating specifically that a Tea Party group is using these techniques to create the false appearance of a grass-roots movement, please post that link and I will withdraw this proposal instantly. Fair enough? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Yes. That technique of applying for permits, organizing events and utilizing the interwebs to promote them was certainly used. Hard part is finding non-hacks to call it astroturfing. †TE†Talk 10:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC) There's no denying that the movement began as a grassroots effort. The lede can say that. "The Tea Party movement began as a grassroots effort. . ." It can then mention other groups that claimed to be affiliated. FreedomWorks has certainly tried to claim it's part of the movement. But you can't deny that Tea Party Patriots was entirely grassroots. And Keli Carender and others used social media to promote rallies and draw attention to the financial crisis. This can't be denied and the reliable sources are there, including Kate Zernicke of the New York Times. Her articles can be used. There are plenty of articles from WashPo, L.A. Times, St. Louis-Post Dispatch, Sacramento Bee, that all call it grassroots. This shouldn't even be an argument. As Silk Tork said, people pushing their political agenda should edit elsewhere. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC) There's no denying that the movement began as both a grassroots and Astroturfed movement. Academic sources who have studied the origins of the movement all come to that same conclusion (yes, even Formisano and Skocpol). There are a few major problems with some of the arguments presented above. Attempting to discredit scholarly reliable sources as unreliable because they appear to come from a "fan of Obama" or from a "progressive" is unproductive; according to recent polls and two presidential elections, it's likely more than half of all reliable sources in existence can be described that way, so it would be more productive to focus on the information instead of the messengers. Also, citing 3 or 30 sources that claim the movement is "grassroots" doesn't negate the Astroturf component, and putting one without the other in the lede would be misleading. In addition, arguing over varying definitions of Astroturfing, or complaining that a source only describes Astroturfing while not actually using that exact word, doesn't advance the discussion. I find this to be an informative description: An Astroturf campaign is a fake grassroots movement: it purports to be a spontaneous uprising of concerned citizens, but in reality it is founded and funded by elite interests. Some Astroturf campaigns have no grassroots component at all. Others catalyse and direct real mobilisations. The Tea Party belongs in the second category. It is mostly composed of passionate, well-meaning people who think they are fighting elite power, unaware that they have been organised by the very interests they believe they are confronting. We now have powerful evidence that the movement was established and has been guided with the help of money from billionaires and big business. Much of this money, as well as much of the strategy and staffing, were provided by two brothers who run what they call "the biggest company you've never heard of". Charles and David Koch own 84% of Koch Industries, the second-largest private company in the United States.[65] Xenophrenic (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC) An opinion column in The Guardian??? Please. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Yes. Do you have any problem with what it says? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, I do. It's an opinion column. George Monbiot doesn't have a degree in law or economics. Not even political science. His degree is in zoology, and he's a professional opinion writer and amateur political hack. Please read this section of WP:RS. Also please read this section. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Do you have any problem with what the article says? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Let me be clear. George Monbiot isn't going to steer the content of this article. He's just another partisan hack who wants to change the long-standing, widely-accepted definition of the political science term "Astroturfing," so that he can fling it at the Tea Party like a bucket of crap, hoping some of it will stick. Reliable, neutral sources will steer the content of this article. Is there a fact-checked news story in The Guardian or anywhere else that you'd like to use, which specifically states that a Tea Party group is using recognized Astroturfing techniques — techniques that Molly Ivins [66] would recognize as Astroturfing — to create the false appearance of a grass-roots movement? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC) That's not what I asked. I asked if you had any problem with what the article says. So far, the only thing close to a disagreement from you is that you think the author wants to change the definition of Astroturfing. In what way? As for Molly, she is a columnist just like George mentioned above, and McGrath mentioned below. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC) I'd refer to your source as rubbish, Xeno, to take a cue from our neighbors across the pond. No redeeming qualities whatsoever. When searching for sources you should look for something fairly neutral and informative. The easiest way to demonstrate NPOV is to start with even-handed references. From there we can insert more biased ones for certain notable opinions (if necessary) and temper them for weight. Here would be a good example, if you care to indulge. †TE†Talk 21:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Just checked TPM and this Mcgrath piece is there, but seemingly of no use. After the date of an event easily covered: "On February 19, 2009, in a broadcast from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CNBC Business News editor Rick Santelli criticized the government plan to refinance mortgages, which had just been announced the day before." And some kind of ORish-type addition. Probably collateral damage from a content dispute: "According to The New Yorker writer Ben McGrath and New York Times reporter Kate Zernike, this is where the movement was first inspired to coalesce under the collective banner of "Tea Party". By the next day, guests on Fox News had already begun to mention this new "Tea Party"." I'm sure we can make better use or it and probably a dozen other refs hidden in TPM. †TE†Talk 21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC) I'm curious as to why you refer to that source as "rubbish". Please note that I haven't offered it up as a citation for anything; in fact, I found it while looking through the footnotes and references of a reliable academic source. Do you disagree with the description of astroturfing in that article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenophrenic (talk • contribs) Looking past the false premise from title to finish, I take issue with his new category of astroturfing. The "second category," as he calls it, undercuts the entire purpose, means and definition of actual astroturfing. Not to say fringe opinions don't have their place in BLP's, just not without being appropriately presented and weighted. †TE†Talk 22:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, I disagree with it. Astroturfing is far more accurately described in the Wikipedia article Astroturfing, or in the Molly Ivins article I just linked. No, I'm not suggesting we use either of these as a source. Just demonstrating why we cannot use Monbiot, or anyone else trying to redefine "Astroturfing," as a source — except Formisano, who is an academic and at least he seems to be trying to write seriously. So he goes at the end of the section, very briefly. Not in the lede sentence. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC) The Tea Party did not begin as a "grass-roots" movement. The first protest Feb. 10 2009 was organized out by FreedomWorks. The second protest carried out Feb. 16 was organized by Keli Carender, and can be seen as a grassroots effort. TFD (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC) This really isn't my dance......I'm more worried about informative terms than characterization terms. But I think that it's about as grass roots as any large movement can be, and about as little astroturfed as any large movement can be. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Seems to still be a prevalent misconception round these parts that organizing equals astroturfing, which is unfortunate. †TE†Talk 18:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Close. One item at a time folks. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I cut this from the introduction?

Does anyone care if I cut this from the introduction? References to the Boston Tea Party were part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier. By 2001, a custom had developed among some conservative activists of mailing tea bags to legislators and other officials as a symbolic act. One, the article doesn't really touch on pervious use of the Boston Tea Party anyway. Second, even if it did, that isn't the main thrust of the article. It should be a summery of the article, which should be focused on the current tea party. I think you all need to add a bit to the introduction, but this should come out.Casprings (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC) That stuff could be covered in the "Commentaries on origin" section instead, perhaps, but at present we are focused on the Agenda, and have been implored to focus on one item at a time to facilitate progress on producing actionable edits to the main body. Please check Silk Tork's recent comments. Have you had a chance to read the Schmidt paper?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't mean to mess with the flow of the conversation. I had a bit of wine last night and was mess around. Not that it is an excuse, but otherwise, I would have not posted that. No, I haven't.Casprings (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Ubikwit is correct. Edits to the lead will come later, when the main body of the article is sorted. I will hat and move this section shortly. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)