Talk:Contract from America

Notability tag
I am removing the notability tag because there is no question that this article meets the general notability guidelines. Here are just some of the reliable sources that have given significant coverage to the subject: Sbowers3 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/15/tea-party-protesters-descend-dc-new-contract-america/
 * http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-activists-unveil-contract-america/story?id=10376437
 * http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0415/Tea-party-Contract-From-America-Real-plan-or-bumper-sticker
 * http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzJjOWY0ODRhNTE4ZTNjN2VkMmQyZWFiZTExZGM3ZDc=
 * http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35859.html
 * http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002631-503544.html
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15contract.html
 * http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/15/gingrich-to-sign-contract-from-america/?fbid=CJ4NQfGzHct
 * http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36538
 * http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/how-the-contract-from-america-got-started/39028/
 * http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Tea-Partiers-unveil-results-of-Contract-From-America-survey-90823264.html
 * http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/contract_from_america_giving_t.html
 * http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/22/nation/la-na-gop-contract22-2010feb22
 * http://www.aarp.org/community/groups/displayTopic.bt?pageNum=1&groupId=1472&topicId=8955552
 * http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1415470365&play=1
 * http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/03/19/gop-testing-a-new-contract-with-america.html

Not worthy of its own article at the present
The content may be notable, but even if so, it currently stands as a stub and the details available here are already covered IN FULL in a Tea Party movement article. BigK HeX (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, but "Contract with America" has it's own page, and wasn't relegated to the authors wiki. I believe this suggestion is biased in an attempt to bury it, and is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.128.16 (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not belong or adhere to the Tea Party per se, however the "Contract with America" does interest me. In fact I came to wikipedia today in search of information on the contract, not the tea party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.38.94 (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Biased wording of the list
The language of the original list is very muddled and biased. I tried to explain it in plain english on the Tea Party Movement page. Please tell me what you think.--Johnnybgoode409 (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
This article was a near duplicate of the material at Tea Party movement, and editors preferred to keep the full treatment there, so I redirected this article there too. No information was lost.  Will Beback   talk    11:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is deletion of an article not only without consensus, but also unilaterally and without discussion. This deleting/redirect should be reversed. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Readers coming to wikipedia might only want information on it, and not have to wade through the Tea Party movement page.  There's more content that can be added here as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing was deleted. But this is simply a duplicate of the material in Tea Party movement. And a copyvio to boot. The first step has to be to deal with the copyvio. Would one of you like to volunteer to re-write the long version of the Contract? I think we could get away with using the short version as is. Which do you folks prefer?   Will Beback    talk    18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can get permission for use on wikipedia. I've sent them an email.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. Did you follow the format at WP:PERMISSION? The permission has to be pretty specific and allow for all future uses, including commercial. A lot of copyright holders find that last requirement unacceptable, but if they agree then we're in the clear.
 * If they do grant free license, then we should move the list to Wikisource, the repository of source materials. We'll still need to address the issue of duplication, etc. Let's wait a day or so to see how they respond.    Will Beback    talk    19:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ryan Hecker says we can use the full document on any Wikipedia articles. I forwarded the email to Moonriddengirl.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please ask Moonriddengirl to forward it to OTRS for processing.   Will Beback    talk    20:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is any issue with the scope of the approval, and since this is borderline on even needing permission, even just getting a reading that they consider it to be fair use should be enough. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not how things work. See WP:NFC.   Will Beback    talk    20:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO wp:nfc establishes yet another route for usage rather than nullifying the route that I suggested. North8000 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but note what it says about using non-free text. WP:NFC.   Will Beback    talk    20:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the core of what I was saying/thinking is that regarding the one criteria (of all of those) where this is borderline is whether or not the excerpt is too long, and that a reading from the owner of the material on this (fair use) question could be (informally) relevant and useful. North8000 (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I sent him the forms. We should ask Moonriddengirl if the paperwork came through yet. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. Until that comes through the most that we can use are "brief quotations". Do one of you two want to pick a couple of brief quotations? We can paraphrase the rest.   Will Beback    talk    06:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think top level "slanted" tag should go
I think that that top level "slanted" "neutrality" tag should go. This is just coverage of a particular political agenda/platform. What would constitute "balance" ......somebody arguing that this is not accurate coverage of the that item? Maybe find some mud to cover on the author of the agenda (that they kick dogs or whatever)? Listing opposing agendas that are not the subject of the article? Political arguments against this agenda? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)