Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion

Closed discussions
/Closed discussions

Copied over (and edited) from my talkpage:


 * ...I want people to edit the article. But I want those who edit it to be trustworthy, and to only edit by consensus, not to revert or encourage or incite others to revert, not to remove or add content that alters meaning without first establishing that it is OK to do do, not to make edits based on guessing or assuming, but to follow the academic principles of doing research FIRST, and then supporting statements with citations, and to follow Wikipedia guidelines on building an article. This is editing basics, and should be done on every article. It is particularly important that it should be done on this article. This is not the article to be making bold edits, nor uncertain edits. This is an article where we need people to be putting their proposals down on the talkpage and getting consensus. Who actually makes the edit after consensus has been done, doesn't matter. As long as that person actions the edit as agreed, and does not add their own twist as they are doing so. I am concerned there is not much time before ArbCom reconvenes, and I don't want edit wars to start up on the article between now and then. So I want all edits to the article to be secure and agreed. And if there are editors who are not able to discern when an edit has been agreed or not, they should be discouraged from editing the article. If necessary, permanently. I can't make that clear enough. The article has suffered for years because editors have taken unilateral action on the article rather than seeking consensus first. On a contentious topic like this it is vital to discus and get consensus. Doubly so when there's a moderated discussion taking place. And triply so when there's an ArbCom case being held in suspension....  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, someone just made an extreme undiscussed change in the first sentence of the article.  What happens now? North8000 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just notified that editor of the Moderated dicsussion User_talk:John_Paul_Parks.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 02:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the appropriate approach. I will copy this over to the talkpage so people are clear.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If someone is already fully aware of the restrictions in place on the article, and they make an inappropriate edit, they will be sanctioned. If someone is not aware, they should be informed of the situation, and directed to this discussion page. Their edit can then be discussed and consensus sought as to what is to be done with it. Only obvious vandalism (such as "Wikipedia sucks", "My balls are big", "Wombats are best") and BLP violations should be reverted on sight. If it's a possible BLP violation it's best to revert and to let me know immediately - I will allow a fair amount of leeway on reverting possible BLP violations. Somebody in good faith adding, removing or altering content is not to be reverted. However, somebody who adds, removes or alters content without consensus and after being informed of the restrictions in place, will be sanctioned. Notify me, and I will deal with it. I will revert the edit and sanction the editor. Anyone can inform an editor of the restrictions in place, but only an independent admin or myself can carry out reverts and sanctions.

Summary:
 * If someone new to the article makes an inappropriate edit, inform them of this discussion, and discuss the edit here.
 * If someone who is already aware of the restrictions in place makes an inappropriate edit, inform me, and I will deal with it.

I hope that is clear.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good 3/4 of a plan but is missing an important item. So drive-bys can edit it any way, and their edits can only be reverted by consensus? Guess where that will end up.   North8000 (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing is missing. A "drive by edit" is not by default a bad edit, and editors need to accept that the principle of Wikipedia editing is that we welcome contributions from all - not just those who have edited an article for a long time. An expert on the Tea Party movement may read the article, note some errors, or missing information, and quickly amend the article and move on. This is to be encouraged, not reverted. It would be better for folks to concentrate on sorting out the article rather than quibbling at attempts to moderate the process.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "one somewhat personified by Ron Paul and the other by Sarah Palin. "Paulites" have a Jeffersonian, "neo-isolationist" approach" which says or implies that Ron Paul, (the person who wants free trade with Cuba) is an isolationist. This says or implies that a living person has a belief/agenda that is opposite to his actual belief/agenda. An erroneous word in a source is certainly not enough to place/repeat the false statement/implication (particularly about a living person) in Wikipedia.

Also, although the source used the word/said it, there is no requirement that everything that every source says and every word used (right or wrong) must get put into the article.

The proposal is to reword (or delete the whole sentence if necessary) to remove any statement/implication that Ron Paul is a (neo)isolationist. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * well said! Paul is a non-interventionist, meaning free trade with all, entangling alliances with none. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, Jefferson's approach has conventionally been referred to as isolationist, but he was not against free trade or interacting with other nations, or even sending the military to deal with pirates.
 * good point and part of the problem, few people, including RS know the actual def of Isolationism, the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign trade... Darkstar1st (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So, if a reliable source says "Jeffersonian" neo-isolationist (does the quote include Jeffersonian?), then it should not be considered misleading, as there is a historical context for that discourse. If a more modern and nuanced parlance is preferred, find a reliable source that uses such phraseology. If it has been found to be sufficiently objectionable, then there should be corresponding sources.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just leave out calling Ron Paul an "isolationist". Simple. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have removed the word "neo-isolationist" from the mainspace. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the basis of the presumption of consensus on that? I don't believe that the discussion of the sources had even been concluded. Note that I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the terms removal, I just want to see a source-based rationale.
 * I haven't looked at the edit, but the term non-interventionist would be significantly more narrow in scope than "Jeffersonian neo-isolationist", which appears to have been cited from a reliable source, if I recall correctly.
 * I do not believe that the unlocking of the article is a license for anyone to make such edits without adequate discussion here, first.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 06:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Try reviewing the edit. The entire meaning of the statement has been well preserved. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the statement can be made without mislabeling Ron Paul as an isolationist. Doubly so since the statement isn't even about Ron Paul. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not encouraging.


 * An edit "boldly" removing sourced information regarding perceptions of the Tea Party. I am assuming this was done under the impression that if information is in the lead it does not have to be in the article. That is a misunderstanding of how articles are constructed - see WP:Lead. I had indicated earlier that "The lead should be a summary of what is in the main article, so there will be duplication of information". Following the edit removing that information, the main body of the article now does not contain key information regarding perceptions of the Tea Party; and there is material summarised in the lead that is not mentioned in the main body. These are basic errors that should not be taking place at this stage as we move toward improving the article. Please, nobody make any "bold" edits. Removing sourced material should not happen without a discussion here. To underscore the importance of this, Phoenix and Winslow is topic-banned from the article for one week for removing sourced content without first getting consensus. I will reinstate the information. If people are uncomfortable with the wording in the lead and the main body being so similar, that is a copy-editing solution in which the wording is altered, but the information remains.


 * There has been a revert with the instruction "Please take it to talk". A significant part of the problem with this article has been the reverting. The approach to be taken is to approach the editor responsible for the questionable edit, and discus the matter with them first. If unable to resolve the matter, get a wider consensus on this talkpage. Nobody should be reverting unless the edit is clear and obvious vandalism or BLP violation, or there is consensus for the revert. Reverting because of disagreement over content should not be taking place, and any instances of that happening, the reverter will be sanctioned.


 * There is a complaint on my talkpage regarding two edits by North, both of which are marked "Please revert me if you do not agree". If you are unsure about an edit, do not make it - come here for consensus first. Do not ask people to revert on an article with a revert restriction. This is tantamount to a honey trap. Reverting as a standard mode of editing needs to stop on this article. We should be aiming for an editing approach that does not involve reverting at all. I have looked at both edits. The first is acceptable as North was correcting a clear error. Such edits are encouraged. The second edit alters information without first having checked the source. We don't do that in any article. We don't guess. We don't make assumptions. We check our facts. A basic editing error. That is unacceptable in any article. It is particularly bad on this one. For making a revert without consensus. And for altering information without consensus. North8000 is also topic banned from this article for one week.

I am not comfortable that in less than 48 hours of the article being unlocked there have been such poor examples of editing. I don't wish to put a chill effect on this article. But I do want to send out the message that if your editing skills and judgement are not up to the job you should not edit this article. If your contributions to this article are more negative than positive, then you need to either stay away voluntarily, or you will be forced to stay away. In just over two weeks ArbCom will reconvene to decide what is to happen regarding this article and those editors involved in editing it. I really want this article to be in good shape and making progress. If that means cutting out some editors along the way, then so be it. Time is running out. Let's get some quality editing done please. No more reverting. No more making assumptions. No more "bold" edits that remove sourced content. No more making political statements. If you are more interested in grandstanding your political views, then this article is not for you. There is some serious encyclopaedic work that needs to be done in the next two weeks. I'd like to see folks focus on that.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "I don't wish to put a chill effect on this article."
 * Well, that effect is already present. I've felt the inclination to remove editorializations of RS's and apply other corrections that would be proven non-controversial 95% of the time. Foresight of knee-jerk reactions have steered me towards inaction. Make of that what you will. Being said, North8000's removal of the 17th amendment was wrong. Both factually and procedurally. As for P&W's edit, there's a problem with the statement "...called partly conservative,[4] partly libertarian,[5] and partly populist.[6]" (which appears in the lead) not being supported in the body of subarticle, Perceptions of the Tea Party movement, let alone the summary thereof in the body of Tea Party movement. So, what we have is a violation of WP:Lead in both articles. Perhaps, the best course of action would be removal in both the lead and body of TPM until it's supported in the body of "Perceptions." Lest we continue to support more "poor examples of editing." †TE†   Talk  18:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I think Silk Tork's clarification of editing rules is brilliant and very clear and certainly easily followed from now on. So no excuses ever again. Second, I'm confused now about what the para is supposed to say, and I've asked P&W below to clarify his perceptions of what was to be included. We absolutely must all be on the same page here to prevent this happening again. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

User:North8000 and User:Phoenix and Winslow are banned from editing the Tea Party movement article until this time on 21 June 2013. If they do edit the article they will be blocked. They may continue to join in the discussion on this page.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That was unnecessary. I did not remove sourced content from the article since it's still there, in the lede section of the article. I removed redundant material in an effort to proceed in a constructive way. That's all. Is trying to work constructively here going to be like a walk through a minefield every day? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm having a "Junior moment" (as opposed to a senior moment), but I was under the impression that the material in the perceptions section was to be moved to the subarticle once the remaining para in the main was agreed upon. Did we not agree to the version by Collect which you then changed? Or did we agree to the version you crafted earlier and did Silk Tork not action that edit? Please clarify, thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That was totally uncalled for! It was a gnome edit, the edit summary asked anybody who disagreed to revert me'. Where is the controversy? Who is going to argue that a TPM agenda item is to prevent the states from being allowed to pick their Senators by an election? And I don't even see that rule that you are describing anywhere. Where is it? You are going to turn this article into a fifth rail that nobody is going to want to risk working on. North8000 (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW: It might be best to just have Silk Tork 'hat' discussions rather than archiving. Especially in case of any misunderstandings, the previous discussions are readily viewed. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I recognise there is a desire to keep the discussion all on one page, and I did try to hat all the closed discussions, but the page was becoming unwieldy, so I have moved all the closed discussions to a subpage: /Closed discussions. I note there is an archive system in place, though there has been some disagreement over archiving, and how to do it. As part of the discussion on archiving, there should be consideration on how the archives of this page are to fit into the archives of the article talkpage. My moving of the closed discussions to a subpage is not ideal, as that subpage will need attention as it is not easy to navigate due to being very long, and the discussions are all hatted rather than being visible. So that should be seen as simply a temporary measure to free up editing of this page.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 Overall readability scores  14/31 - partially de-archived The Tea Party doesn't have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the Tea Party, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group to set its own priorities and goals. Goals may conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. Many Tea Party organizers see this as a strength rather than a weakness, as decentralization has helped to immunize the Tea Party against co-opting by outside entities and corruption from within.

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

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

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

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

Unresolved concerns:


 * 4) Introduce the pedestrian understanding of constitutional originalism by sociologists:
 * Oppose - You don't call a plumber to tell you why the furnace is acting up. †TE†   Talk  21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Malke and P&W's versions both have this sentence in their proposed paragraph on Contract from America, which I don't object to adding if we intend to scrap the present subsection on that same topic:
 * The top ten included "identify the constitutionality of every new law, reject cap and trade legislation, demand a balanced federal budget, simplify the tax code, assess constitutionality of federal agencies, limit growth in annual federal spending, repeal Obamacare, new energy policy that supports exploration, reduce earmarks, and reduce federal taxes."
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd keep the list, but we do need a merge for reduced redundancy. †TE†   Talk  21:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


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


 * re: Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter.
 * Two objections have been raised about that text. The first, is that it is opinion, rather than reliably sourced fact. This is incorrect; the sources do not say they are opining, and the sources (the Oxford University published book, and the peer-reviewed academic paper) are indeed reliable. Also, equally reliable sources calling that text into question have not been produced. Further objections along those lines would be better handled at WP:RSN.
 * The second objection, as I understand it, is that the text is inaccurate or false. The "right to vote/right to bear arms" example doesn't exemplify the reasoning behind the "inconsistent" description being used here. Here is some of the source content supporting the proposed text:


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


 * I'd call it misleading POV wording, including if a source said it. Again, we can fix this after it's in. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "A source" didn't say it, many sources have. Here's another one:
 * And another one in this academic, peer reviewed paper contrasting conservative originalism with progressive living constitutionalism (cited in no fewer than 33 academic journals and papers):
 * Another highly regarded source published by Johns Hopkins University Press makes this observation in his book specifically about the Tea Party movement:
 * So, to recap, here's the proposed text based on many reliable sources: "Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so more as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter." That accurately conveys what the multiple reliable sources say, without being misleading. Are there other concerns?
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So, to recap, here's the proposed text based on many reliable sources: "Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so more as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter." That accurately conveys what the multiple reliable sources say, without being misleading. Are there other concerns?
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Malke 2010 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would prove difficult. How do we delve into the complexity of Medicare which older Americans paid into their entire lives only to see cut for another entitlement (Obamacare), and social security which is backed by IOU's the federal government can only pay back with increased taxes or borrowing? Even saying they oppose these programs is troublesome. Opposition is more to the administration of such programs. †TE†   Talk  15:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it was an interesting dichotomy. Look at the demographic. They're all headed for retirement and will need these programs. I've mentioned this several times back in 2010 but nobody ever wanted to do it. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * "Joe Blow, a political science professor at Wassamatta U., has examined the 'paradox' created by the Tea Party movement's support for reform of Social Security and Medicare. Blow observes this support is not in the self-interest of many Tea Party members, since they tend to be over 50 years old and will be relying on these programs in a few years.[37][38]"


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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

I think that possibly the most messed up section in the article is the "polling of supporters". It's a wp:synth wp:or fest, about the worst abuse of primary sources I've ever seen, uses hostile op-ed pieces as a "source" of polling data, and has misleading or inaccurate summaries. Many "gems" in there. For example "predominantly white" (any group representative of US polulaiotn is going to be "predominantly white")  A good candidate to take a close look at. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This article was loaded with gems like that when we started. It was like the home of a hoarder. Now that responsible Wikipedians have taken charge of the situation and we're trying to clean it up, we're going to be hauling rubbish out of here for weeks. Every time we open the door to a new section, there's going to be a little avalanche of garbage falling out. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Let's get on the stick.

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


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


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


 * Comment The addition of grass roots was opposed P&W and you continue to confuse voting with consensus.  Otherwise I really don't see the point until the Arbcom position is settled.  It ha gone back there because this approach did not work.   Snowded  TALK 04:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no confusion on my part, Snowded. The TPm is a grass-roots movement; this is the majority position per WP:WEIGHT. The example that I used in previous incarnations of this thread was the Waterboarding article. Even though a minority of reliable sources, including (at that time) the Vice President of the United States, the Attorney General, and two Deputy Attorneys General were of the opinion that in some cases waterboarding was not torture, a majority of sources stated that it was torture. Accordingly, the first six words of the Waterboarding article are, "Waterboarding is a form of torture[.]" In previous incarnations of this discussion thread over the past six months, I've linked at least 18 reliable sources stating that the TPm is a grass-roots movement. These included both peer-reviewed academic and fact-checked news organization sources. Those editors who opposed the edit cited two sources: one by Ron Formisano, who claims that a few groups associated with TPm are engaged in Astroturfing, and one by Theda Skocpol, who observes that the TPm is neither grass-roots nor Astroturf, but something in between. Even if we count both of these sources as sharing the same minority opinion, it's eighteen to two — clearly a majority opinion and a minority opinion per WP:WEIGHT.
 * But it isn't even that good for those who oppose the edit, Snowded. It's eighteen for the majority opinion, one for a minority opinion, and one for a different minority opinion, because Formisano and Skocpol don't share the same opinion. Clearly, the authors of the Waterboarding article have shown us how to handle this situation. Review the archives of that article's Talk page. Those who opposed that edit were very determined, but they lost the content dispute. Here, we also see support for treating obvious minority opinions as something other than the minority. This is a policy based argument, Snowded. Policy based arguments, not votes, determine consensus per WP:CLOSE and WP:CONSENSUS. You see, there's no confusion on my part about what constitutes consensus at Wikipedia. Do you have a policy based argument?
 * Next, let's examine your desire to wait until the ArbCom decision. Are you waiting for ArbCom to issue topic bans for one side in the content dispute, and then the other side can have its way? ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes. Policy decides content disputes and here, the policy is WP:WEIGHT. Also, you claim that "this approach did not work." It wasn't allowed to work. The first time, we had consensus and SilkTork shut down the discussion to steer us into "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception." The second time, SilkTork shut down the discussion to steer us into the "Agenda" section. Let's get an admin from WP:AN to close this, and provide him with links to the previous two discussions. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That response illustrates why the Arbcom resolution is needed before progress can be made Snowded  TALK 09:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now you are back here - your !vote is solicited above in Lis alibi pendens. Collect (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A month block for a problematic editor on various Philosophy articles has given me some time Collect but I'm not 100% on my continued participation. I'm waiting to see what comes out of the Arbcom ruling.  However I have responded to your request and personal hat tip to you by the way.  We've had our disagreements over the years but you do seem to be trying to make some progress here.  Snowded  TALK 13:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That response illustrates why the Arbcom resolution is needed before progress can be made Perhaps you'd care to explain, Snowded. I politely provided a fairly thorough policy based argument. Do you have a policy based argument that explains why the edit shouldn't be actioned? If not, why shouldn't the edit be actioned? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I and other editors have explained the issue elsewhere P&W, this is just another manifestation, counting votes, repeating your arguments as if they were uncontroversial conclusions and at length. Sorry been here too many times to go through it all again  Snowded  TALK 02:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that a persuasive argument has yet to be made, and the past discussions are being misrepresented here as an "18 sources versus just 2 sources" weight discussion, which simply isn't the situation. To use a clearer analogy, if Blitzo Motor Company makes a hybrid car (gas/electric), we don't put a sentence in our article lead about that car saying simply "this car is gasoline-powered". Sure, you can come up with 18 sources that say it runs on gas, and it does, but that isn't the whole truth.  It also runs on electricity, and that isn't a "minority opinion", it's a fact - and it remains a fact regardless of how many sources are produced saying so. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, it's being claimed that a source must also say "There is no part of TPm that is Astroturfed" in order for that source to be counted as a "TPm is grass-roots" source. When a source says "TPm is grass-roots," that necessarily contains the implicit statement, "There is no part of TPm that is Astroturfed." See my previous analogy about the Elephant article. If several reliable sources state, "The elephant is an animal," necessarily implicit in that statement is, "The elephant is not a plant." Finding reliable sources which describe elephant ears as plants, and then trying to insert the statement, "Many scholarly sources have indicated that extensive portions of the elephant are a plant" in the Elephant article, and keep the statement, "The elephant is an animal" out of the lede, is analogous to this effort to describe TPm in this article as Astroturfed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see where that claim is being made. Reliable sources say there are many grassroots activists in the movement, which has been significantly astroturfed. Are you claiming, against reliable sources, that there has been no astroturfing of the movement, or are you only claiming that we shouldn't mention that fact in the lead of the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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


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


 * TPm = G


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


 * TPm = ($1/undefined$ G) + ($1/undefined$ A)


 * and one WP:SCHOLARSHIP source (Skocpol) saying


 * TPm = D


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


 * 1 + 1 > 18


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * "Waterboarding is a form of torture ..."


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


 * There is no "notability" requirement for content ... WP:SUMMARY, particularly WP:DETAIL, requires that the Perceptions of the Tea Party section must be written as "general summary information" regarding the topical scope of the Perceptions of the Tea Party movement sub-article, which is about allegations of "racism, bigotry and intolerance." It's that "intolerance" bit at the end that steers this discussion. It was alleged that some TPm people in Maryland were "intolerant" of a congressman who voted i favor of the Affordable Care Act, and gave Tea Party members directions to what they thought was that congressman's house as an expression of this "intolerance." These allegations, and the related vandalism of a gas grill at that house in Maryland don't belong in the "general summary information" in the parent article. They belong in the spin-off article. The relevant sections of Wikipedia policy/guidelines that govern this are WP:DETAIL and WP:SCOPE. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are still arguing to mention grassroots in the lead? As noted several times before, there isn't any real opposition to that (correct me if I'm wrong). The objection is to your suggestion that we cover "grassroots" without also covering "astroturf" in the lead.  The prominence of both descriptions, in reliable sources that cover them, requires that we not mention just one of the descriptions, per WP:WEIGHT. That would be misleading to the readers. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't mislead readers. Look at the lede to the Waterboarding article. It doesn't mention the viewpoint of several reliable sources that waterboarding, in some circumstances, is not torture but a "harsh interrogation" technique. Do you feel that its failure to mention the minority viewpoint in the article lede is misleading to readers? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would mislead readers. Look closely at what you just said: "is not torture but a 'harsh interrogation' technique..." -- that is an either/or logic statement, which is a completely different situation. With the Tea Party, the reliable sources say we have an "and" situation ("grassroots activists AND astroturf influence"). And I still don't know what "minority viewpoint" you are talking about. The astroturf aspect of the movement is a fact; minority and majority quantifiers only apply to competing viewpoints. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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

Request for closure
I am about to file a Request for Closure at WP:AN. Accordingly, I've reopened the collapsed subsection that had our mid-June discussion of these three minor improvements. The only objection at that time was Ubikwit saying we should only work on one thing at a time (the agenda section). Now that the agenda section has been substantially improved, we can get back to these three minor issues and get them resolved. Previous discussion at great length may be found here, here and here, during most of the month of April. The closer is asked to review all these discussions over the past three months, and indicate whether we have consensus for each of these three edits. Policy based arguments, not votes, determine consensus per WP:CLOSE and WP:CONSENSUS. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the minor issue of whether we should mention the Grassroot & AstroTurf aspects of the movement in the lead, or just mention one of those aspects in the lead to the exclusion of the other, it would be informative to note that a similar discussion was had in this mediation. The consensus was that if both descriptions are to appear in the lead, both would appear together. I don't see a change in that consensus, nor a valid argument to the contrary. As for your 2nd and 3rd minor issues, have those been discussed yet in any detail? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That mediation was almost three years ago. One of the most active advocates for "Astroturfing" and opponents of "grass-roots" left Wikipedia a month later. And a large number of reliable sources, both WP:NEWSORG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP varieties, have been published since then. Regarding the other two proposed edits, there have been abundant opportunities to express concerns and no concerns were expressed, except Ubikwit saying we should only work on one thing at a time. The "one thing" we were working on has now been substantially completed. This has been discussed and tabled off and on for three months. It's time to turn it over to a closing admin and let him (or her) sort it out. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The other 2 issues haven't been discussed because an editor (and also our Moderator) said we were to work on something else first, and you say the next step is to turn the issues over to an admin? Wouldn't the next step be to begin discussions it first (so the Admin will have something to "sort out")? As for the Grassroots/Astroturf descriptions matter, yes, other sources have been published since then -- and still the facts haven't changed. There are just more sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On the mediation page we find an enormous number of additional sources (notably The Economist) to join the overwhelming number of reliable sources stating that it's a grass-roots movement. Thanks for providing the link to that wealth of additional reliable sources for the majority opinion per WP:WEIGHT. For the other two proposed edits, the material fails WP:N at for the top-level article in a series, but would be fine for a spin-off article. If there really is a policy based argument against them that has been withheld until now, when a closer has already been requested at WP:AN, please post it immediately rather than just talking about it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. WP:N applies to articles, not content within an article. To quote:  The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. And as noted above, per policy, if it is against policy in a main article, it is against policy in a sub article. I'm sure a knowledgable "closer" will confirm that for you. Regarding the Grassroots & Astroturfed nature of the movement, neither of those descriptions is "opinion", majority or otherwise (even though the Lexington piece in the Economist is an opinion piece), they are reliably sourced facts. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT describes them as "viewpoints," not "facts." My mistake, I should have called them "viewpoints," rather than "opinions." One viewpoint — that the TPm is a grass-roots movement, and the fact that some components have accepted corporate donations does not compromise its essentially grass-roots nature — is clearly supported by a majority of the reliable sources, including Elizabeth Price Foley in her peer-reviewed works, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS News, National Public Radio and many other fact-checked news organizations. The other viewpoints are each supported by a small minority of the reliable sources. Regarding WP:N, that policy directs editors to several guidelines, one of which is WP:EVENT. There are various subsections within that guidelines such as WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:GEOSCOPE which provide clear guidance in demoting such events as the vandalism of someone's gas grill in Maryland to the spin-off article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To be more specific about what the reliable sources convey, the TPm consists of both grassroots activists as well as big-monied players and professional politicos, thinktanks and conservative elites that have sought to direct, fund, coordinate and use these "grassroots" efforts. And this fact is neither minority nor majority viewpoint.  What "other" viewpoints are you speaking of?  Regarding your alphabet-soup of policy links, please simply quote the section of the policy you are acting under, and the content you are applying it to, and let's discuss it. All the ones you linked do not apply here.  They apply to the creation of Wikipedia articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that some RS support "A + G" while others support "G" does not negate the fact that the ones supporting "G" vastly outnumber the ones supporting "A + G" and are therefore the majority per WP:WEIGHT. Is there any argument in favor of treating "Astroturfed plus grass-roots" as the majority viewpoint? How many reliable sources support this viewpoint? We've been over this exhaustively. Many of the sources just don't support "Astroturfed plus grass-roots." Some, such as NPR ask the question "Is TPm Astroturfed plus grass-roots?" but do not answer "yes." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that the movement has genuine grassroots activists in it is a majority viewpoint (as contrasted with not having grassroots activists in it), not the majority viewpoint. It is also a "majority viewpoint" that the movement has been extensively astroturfed, is conservative, takes stances on fiscal issues, had influence in the 2010 elections, etc. Minority viewpoints, for example, would be the ones saying there are no grassroots activists in the movement, or there is no astroturf influencing of the movement, or that the movement had no influence on the 2010 elections. The fact that RS saying the TP movement is concervative vastly outnumber the ones mentioning grassroots doesn't mean the grassroots description is a minority viewpoint. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Extended discussion of grass-roots and astroturf

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * There is no valid policy based argument opposing any of these three edits. From WP:CLOSE: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. ... He (or she) is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently enough to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding an unqualified statement, such as "The Tea Party is a grassroots movement.", to the lede would not satisfy WP:NPOV anymore than using "astroturf" in lede would.

 Considered in its entirety, the Tea Party is neither a top-down creation nor a bottom-up explosion. This remarkable political outpouring is best understood as a combination of three intertwined forces. Each force is important in its own right, and their interaction is what gives the Tea Party its dynamism, drama, and wallop. ...snip... Grassroots activists, roving billionaire advocates, and right-wing media purveyors—these three forces, together, create the Tea Party...

—
 * More weight is accorded to sources that actually discuss the meaning of "grassroots" as it applies to the Tea Party movement. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call it "unqualified". But, if I'm to read your comment correctly -- You feel the use of grassroots ought not be construed as all-encompassing.
 * My solution:  †TE†   Talk  14:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I'm going to skip past the new twists on old memes above ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." and "Some of my best friends are black.") and comment on these:
 * You feel the use of grassroots ought not be construed as all-encompassing. My solution: The Tea Party is a political movement primarily based in grassroots activism. --TE
 * That's a tiny step in the right direction, but still leaves us saying that the hybrid car "runs primarily on gasoline" to the neglect of mentioning that it also runs on electricity. By "unqualified statement", I think the other editor is noting that most sources (and this is particularily true of news media sources) use words like 'grassroots', 'conservative', 'anti-tax movement', without qualification because they are convenient and true, but our article would be remiss and misleading if it mentioned taxes without also mentioning spending, or mentioned conservative without also mentioning libertarian, or mentioned grassroots without also mentioning astroturfed.


 * If we look at sources that actually discuss the meaning of "grassroots" as it applies to the Tea Party movement as suggested above, we see that the description is most frequently applied to the masses of Americans upset at proposed bailouts (activists), not a movement, which was actually developed by more than just grassroots activists.
 * not even Ronald P. Formisano has claimed that there are absolutely zero grass-roots elements in the Tea Party movement --P&W
 * Nor have any Wikipedia editors, as far as I know. That's not where the disagreement is here. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Why waste so much precious time on the trivial -- Are we still stuck in the past? Astroturfing allegations were fun while they lasted, but the world has moved on. Since mentioned above, I decided to do a count: The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism Vanessa Williamson,  Theda  Skocpol,  and  John  Coggin

It's time to let go. †TE†  Talk  19:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Grassroots - 24 29 †TE†   Talk  22:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Astroturf - 0


 * Oooh, how very scientific! Your count is off, by the way. It's 29 to 0; but even at 29 the mentions of "grassroots" are still outnumbered by mentions of Elites and Funders of the movement. Not a single mention of a "grassroots movement", but plenty of references to activists, adherents and TPers that are one part of it. Oh, and did you realize several of those "grassroots" are mentions of other conservatives from the past, not TPers? Or is it at all important to you that most of those "grassroots" mentions actually are questioning or qualifying that term?
 * But we wouldn't want to let a little thing like context get in the way. No one is arguing that there are not genuine grassroots activists in the movement; the disagreement with reliable sourcing only arises when a suggestion is made to describe the movement only as "grassroots". Sorry to see you move on, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OR/SYN. Personal beliefs of what constitutes astroturf has no place in the mainspace. †TE†   Talk  22:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * None were stated. The concern is over describing the movement as only grassroots. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with the reliable sources' research or synthesis, and it appears to be well-founded conclusion rather than "personal belief". Are we speaking of the same reliable sources? We can raise the issue at WP:RSN to verify if they have a place in mainspace, if needed. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just doing my best to abide by Rule 1. Unfortunately, I must break it to avoid further misunderstanding: "Your personal beliefs of what constitutes astroturf has no place in the mainspace."
 * It's quite clear that if the RS wanted to use the term "astroturf," they were free to do so. Elites and Funders, your personal opinions of what is established by their presence, has no bearing here. †TE†   Talk  16:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course Wikipedia editor opinions and beliefs have no place in mainspace; yours nor mine. I don't see why you feel compelled to state the obvious. We're discussing reliable sources, aren't we? Now returning to those, we see that funding sources and elite establishment influence are indeed important components when describing astroturf/grassroots. Skocpol, Williamson, Formisano and other reliable sources all clearly indicate that the TP movement cannot be described as wholly "grassroots". Our Wikipedia article shouldn't either, nor should it misleadingly imply it by inserting the unqualified 'grassroots' description in the lead to the exclusion of the other aspects. The RS does use the term astroturf (and "not grassroots" and "top-down" and "co-opted" and "faux-grassroots" ...) if you've examined their fuller work on the matter. "'Many supporters also proclaim the Tea Party to be purely a grassroots rebellion, a 'mass movement of ... 'regular' Americans with real concerns about losing the right to live their lives as they choose.' This view captures only a small part of the truth, ignoring the fact that Tea Party participants are in many respects even more ideologically extreme than other very conservative Republicans. Similarly, the ‘mass movement’ portrayal overlooks the fact that the Tea Party, understood in its entirety, includes media hosts and wealthy political action committees, plus national advocacy groups and self-proclaimed spokespersons – elites that wield many millions of dollars in political contributions and appear all over the media claiming to speak for grassroots activists who certainly have not elected them, and to whom they are not accountable. What kind of mass rebellion is funded by corporate billionaires, like the Koch brothers, led by over-the-hill former GOP kingpins like Dick Armey, and ceaselessly promoted by millionaires media celebrities like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity?”"
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally, something we can agree on: "[T]he TP movement cannot be described as wholly 'grassroots'." There's no such thing in this day and age that could gain a foothold in American politics. You need some muscle behind that hustle. The point of contention is erroneously throwing the term astroturf about as if it's suddenly been redefined. So and so says astroturf, I'm sure there's a place for it in this BLP, attributed, but would be a stretch to consider it lead-worthy. Weight and all. On "their fuller work," I'm of limited resources. I have overdue books, my google machine is the best I can do. But it's not all bad. For instance, by using parts of your excerpt, my google machine led me to the very text that completes said excerpt, for context: "The opposite illusion is also there among those who proclaim the Tea Party to be nothing more than an 'astroturf' phenomenon, an illusion pushed by Fox News, or a 'billionaire's tea party' in which 'corporate America is faking a grassroots revolution.' This take on the Tea Party as a kabuki dance entirely manipulated from above simply cannot do justice to the volunteer engagement of many thousands of men and women who travel to rallies with their homemade signs and, even more remarkably, have formed ongoing, regularly meeting local Tea Party groups. The citizens we have met, who spend hours meeting with one another, arguing with officials, and learning about the workings of local, state, and national government—these people do not fit the caricatures espoused by some on the left. They are unglamorous, mostly older middle-class Americans. Billionaire-funded political action committees and longtime free-market advocacy organizations are certainly doing all they can to leverage and benefit from Tea Party activism. But they did not create all that activism in the first place, nor do they entirely control the popular effervescence."
 * Hope this helps. †TE†   Talk  22:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've ever disagreed on that part; the movement is neither wholly grassroots or astroturfed. I provided the paragraph that shows the movement isn't entirely grassroots, and you just added the paragraph that shows the movement isn't entirely astroturfed. (By the way, I have dead-tree copies of each of the above sources if Google's "preview" function fails you.) No one has "redefined" astroturf or grassroots here.  Neither grassroots nor astroturf needs to be attributed to "so and so", unless you suggest we start citing opinion pieces, and I'd recommend against that. (Pssst ... by the way, this isn't a BLP.) See more of this same discussion below. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What I posted, when the RS actually used the phrase astroturf, in parenthesis, shot it down with the quickness. And this is very much a BLP. †TE†   Talk  02:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * By "in parenthesis", did you mean "in quotes"? If so, the only thing shot down was the notion that the movement is "nothing more than" or "entirely manipulated" or "entirely controlled" astroturf, and no one is suggesting it is. Like I said, we've never disagreed on that point. And no, Tea Party movement is not a Biography of a Living Person. Just go to WP:BLPN and search the archives for "tea party" and see for yourself, as that one has been tried a couple times before. If you meant that BLP rules still apply to living people regardless of what article they are mentioned in, then we agree. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Quotes" would be the safe assumption. But, I guess it's always good to ask so as to avoid any further misunderstanding. Those "quotes" have a funny way of surrounding what the RS finds to be fringe viewpoints. If you would like, I propose we use the RS as a counterpoint to the Pelosi/Krugman '09 astroturf allegations. In their same quotation form. †TE†   Talk  03:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Quotes" would be the safe assumption. But, I guess it's always good to ask so as to avoid any further misunderstanding. Those "quotes" have a funny way of surrounding what the RS finds to be fringe viewpoints. If you would like, I propose we use the RS as a counterpoint to the Pelosi/Krugman '09 astroturf allegations. In their same quotation form. †TE†   Talk  03:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


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


 * It's 29 to 0; but even at 29 the mentions of "grassroots" are still outnumbered by mentions of Elites and Funders of the movement. "Elites and funders" do not equal "Astroturf," except in the opinion of Ron Formisano. None of these 29 sources describes the activities of these "elites and funders" as Astroturfing, nor does any of these 29 sources describe what they're doing as having a compromising or diluting effect on the essential grass-roots nature of the movement. All they're doing is amplifying the genuine grass-roots elements that are actually there. And as I said before, these very same activities would be described as "community organizing" without the slightest hesitation, rather than "Astroturfing," if it was Barack Obama and Organizing for America instead of conservatives with money. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 29 sources? No, that is a single source, with 29 iterations of the word "grassroots" used to describe what is and is not grassroots, and yes they do describe the activities of the funders and established elites. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree: There is no source which calls the movement Astroturfed, which doesn't (1) redefine Astroturfed to include any corporate funding, nor (2) quotes political opponents of the movement.  I could almost support a statement that it's a grass-roots movement said to be Astroturfed, but even that doesn't seem to be correct.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's true that (1) RS include funding sources in their definitions of grassroots and astroturfing (not "redefine", as funding sources have been part of the definition since the terms were created). (2) None of the sources we're presently discussing "quotes political opponents of the movement", so perhaps Arthur Rubin would be so kind as to indicate which sources he's talking about. Even our Wikipedia article notes that "grassroots" implies that the creation of the movement and the group supporting it are natural and spontaneous, highlighting the differences between this and a movement that is orchestrated by traditional power structures. While the reliable sources note there are grassroots activists, they also note the "movement" is controlled, directed and funded by traditional special interests. Why all the aversion to conveying what the reliable sources actually say? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (not "redefine", as funding sources have been part of the definition since the terms were created) There are other essential elements of the definition of "Astroturfing," and they've been essential elements of the definition since the term was created in the '80s. Not just (A) corporate and PAC money, but also (B) a genuine Astroturfing operation conceals the source of the money, and (C) one political or corporate operative pretends to be several people at once — and the people he's pretending to be have no connection to the source of the money. Is there any evidence of anything like either (B) or (C) going on here? Both are essential elements of the political science term "Astroturfing."
 * If the TPm does not have both (B) and (C), then what's happening here is called "community organizing." Rich, powerful people are simply providing funds to make sure that all of the very real, grass-roots people who share their beliefs show up at the next protest, or the next election. And without (B) and (C), individuals like Ronald P. Formisano are most certainly trying to redefine "Astroturfing" to include activities that would have made Barack Obama one of the most notorious Astroturfers in the history of politics.
 * Here's the link to that Huffington Post video of a discussion about the definition of Astroturfing. According to my new best friend ArtifexMayhem, this source deserves more weight than Formisano because it actually discusses the definition of the word it's using. This is a 30-minute video but it's worth a very careful review. Watch for the comments by Edward Walker, the guy with eyeglasses who had to connect to the discussion via telephone, and John Hawkins, the guy wearing the headset. They're the ones who, in my opinion, really hit all the points we've been talking about. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm the last person to break up a beautiful friendship, but AM said nothing specifically about that video clip and I think you may have missed his/her point. What was said is, "More weight is accorded to sources that actually discuss the meaning of 'grassroots' as it applies to the Tea Party movement." This video clip source is indeed more weighty than one of the many news reports that merely stick in the word "grassroots" by rote when reporting about a protest or activist, etc., (you are up to 18 now, you said?). But that puts it on par with Formisano's The Tea Party: A Brief History, which goes to great lengths to discuss the grassroots and astroturfed aspects as they apply to the Tea Party. Same with Skocpol & Williamson's The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Starting at 26:30, Walker gives an accurate popular astroturf versus grassroots description, which doesn't contradict what reliable sources have been saying. He admits he is "unclear" about co-opting, and who co-opted whom, but he does acknowledge the grassroots activists, although he gets the timeline wrong about involvement in the movement. Walker is one of the lead proponents of the line of thought that (and I quote him) "The dividing line between “grassroots” and “Astroturf” may be more of a political Rorschach test than a precisely measurable concept. But, in any case, changing relationships between companies and the public—especially in the health domain—are leading more and more industries to institute grassroots mobilization programs." (See the "grassroots lobbying" form of astroturfing.)
 * And as I said before... --P&W
 * Repeated time and again, yes, without much change in the discussion. Instead of continuing to spin our wheels, how about we try to move the discussion forward? Maybe if we first developed this topic better in the body of the article, then summarize that content in the lead? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been repeated &mdash; and no argument has been presented for inclusion of "astroturf". But perhaps we should concentrate on other matters. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Except for the arguments that have been presented for inclusion of astroturf, but you would not be expected to know about those. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "(See the "grassroots lobbying" form of astroturfing.)" - Xenophrenic
 * All I've seen was not one mention of astroturfing. OR/SYN has no place in the mainspace. †TE†   Talk  02:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with the reliable sources' research or synthesis, and it appears to be well-founded conclusion rather than "personal belief". Xenophrenic (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just doing my best to abide by Rule 1. Unfortunately, I must break it to avoid further misunderstanding: "Your OR/SYN has no place in the mainspace." †TE†   Talk  03:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course Wikipedia editor opinions and beliefs have no place in mainspace; yours nor mine. I don't see why you feel compelled to state the obvious. We're discussing reliable sources, aren't we? I don't see where I've placed "OR/SYN" in mainspace, or even made a proposal that we do so. Maybe some other editor? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "[G]rassroots mobilization programs being referred to are astroturf" - Xenophrenic
 * Well, definitely not in the source provided. Which is why I sometimes feel compelled to state, and restate the obvious. †TE†   Talk  03:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


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


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


 * Except for the arguments that have been presented for inclusion of astroturf ... References to Astroturf are already included down in the body of the article, where minority opinions belong. Nobody is suggesting that they should be removed. What should be changing is the article's treatment of the word "grass-roots." That word goes into the lede sentence, where the majority opinion belongs. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I really don't think AM indicated that your video clip is weight-ier than Formisano or Skocpol. Let's see if he'll clarify for us.  And yes, the grassroots mobilization programs being referred to are astroturf; it's the new grassroots lobbying. As for Skocpol not being quoted as saying the TP movement is partially Astroturfed, how would you propose to convey what she did say? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, I did not "indicated that [the] video clip is weight-ier than Formisano or Skocpol." Per WP:RS, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." I.e., Formisano and Skocpol are the types of sources we should prefer. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Quote her directly. At one point she says that the TPm is a grass-roots movement, supported by deep-pockets money like the Koch Brothers and "amplified" by conservative media such as Fox News and Breitbart. That is what she actually said: her own opinion, in her own words, which didn't include the use of the word "Astroturf." Quote that paragraph of her book. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Quote "her" directly? Don't you mean "them"? Neither Skocpol nor Williamson mention a "grassroots movement". They do mention grassroots activists-people-enthusiasts-adherents-protesters ... you know, the individuals who are genuinely grassroots but only part of the movement. One component of the movement out of three. Perhaps that is part of the misunderstanding here. You make a big deal out of the fact that the word "astroturf" is rarely used by Skocpol, yet she nonetheless writes a lot about astroturfing. She explains how the movement is neither wholly grassroots or astroturfed. It isn't necessary to repeatedly spell out a-s-t-r-o-t-u-r-f to discuss "top-down" organizing, or "supposedly" grassroots activity, or "elitist" co-opting and control or "the super rich fat-cats who have manipulated Tea Party activism with such glee". It is still astroturf she is describing. Formisano spells it out as well: So what is the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this chapter: "Astroturf or Grassroots Populism?" The simple answer is that the Tea Parties have been created by both kinds of populism, in part by the few -- the corporate lobbyists from above--but also from the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism. Or The Tea Partiers, finally, are routinely referred to in the media as conservatives. But their blend of astroturf and grassroots populism is more accurately labeled right-wing or reactionary populism. You claimed above that if pro-Obama groups were to do what FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, etc., were doing, it would be called "community organizing". No, it wouldn't. It would (and has) been called what it is:
 * This has been acknowledged as astroturf activity for decades. If you insist on having such nuanced subject matter appear in the lead of the article, we could say something similar to:
 * The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates reducing the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes.[1][2] The movement comprises both grassroots and astroturf components, including passionate activists, wealthy political action committees and national advocacy groups, establishment elites and conservative media outlets. The movement has been called partly conservative,[3] partly libertarian,[4] and partly populist.[5] It has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.
 * What are your thoughts? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The video teleconference posted by The Huffington Post interviewed four different academics simultaneously. It deserves at least as much weight. And as you said, the four academics do actually discuss the meaning of the words they're using, so unless I'm mistaken about what you said, or you've suddenly changed your mind, that source deserves even more weight than Formisano or Skocpol. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Four different academics? Walker was the only academic in that group, and there were two Tea Partiers and an executive from "Yes! magazine". Information from Walker can be considered, although he admits he is "unclear" about the co-opting of the Tea Party.  Formisano and Skocpol do indeed discuss how the TP is grassroots and astroturfed, so it appears that you are mistaken about what was said. Hopefully that helps. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And yes, the grassroots mobilization programs being referred to are astroturf ... According to who? A pseudonymous Wikipedia editor's WP:OR? One history professor at the University of Kentucky? Or a demonstrated consensus across the entire profession of political science, supporting that redefinition of the term "Astroturf" by that history professor from the University of Kentucky? Because only the third one will be sufficient to support that statement. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You lost me with the U-of-Kentucky reference ... name? I'm also not citing any Wikipedia editors. As for your characterization that astroturfing has been redefined, I'd like to see what source you are citing that to, because that's news to me.  I do see that there are newer terms like "grassroots lobbying", "astroturf lobbying" and "grassroots mobilization" being introduced over the past decade, but I am unaware of any actual redefining of astroturfing. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I caught the "history professor at the University of Kentucky" reference right away, and that's even without previously bragging about owning his book. †TE†   Talk  07:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish I was as quick on the uptake; you are both speaking of Formisano? I do have the book (borrowed, not owned), and nowhere in it does it mention him as a professor at UofK. He's been referred to simply as "Formisano" in these discussions, so the new referense threw me. I've just Google'd him - looks like an impressive fellow. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Opponents of the proposed edit adding the word "grass-roots" to the lede have cited three sources, generally referred to here as "Skocpol," "Formisano," and "Zellner." Skocpol doesn't support use of the term "Astroturfing." Formisano does, but is trying to expand the definition of "Astroturfing" in doing so. Here's a link to an op-ed column by Formisano: Here's another:  Formisano clearly likes Barack Obama very, very much and his bias most likely seeps into his writing about TPm. Zellner, while focusing his article on Astroturfed lobbying efforts, decided to do a drive-by on the Tea Party. He not only supports the expanded definition of "Astroturfing," but he relies exclusively on sources that Wikipedia would not consider reliable sources: an AlterNet article, and the partisan Paul Krugman op-ed column. (Check his footnotes.) Furthermore, at the time he wrote the article in November 2010, he was not a professor. He has never been a professor. He was a law student at the time, seeking to obtain a JD the following spring. This is not an academic, certainly not of the same caliber as Elizabeth Price Foley, and should not be presented as one.

Meanwhile here is a sampling of the reliable, neutral sources supporting a description of TPm as "grass-roots," period, full stop: 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, one from the Chicago Tribune, and a Harvard PDF in which Theda Skocpol, of all people, says that "Thus the grassroots Tea Party phenomenon is real ..." 

The 30-minute webcam round table hosted by HuffPo, in a very interesting exchange of ideas, explores what is actually meant by the term "Astroturfing." The mere addition of money, even from people like the Koch Brothers, does not negate the grass-roots nature of the movement. Only if the money is being used to pretend that there is genuine grass-roots support for a particular position where no grass-roots support actually exists can it legitimately be called Astroturfing. It is painfully obvious that the majority viewpoint, per WP:WEIGHT, is that TPm is a grass-roots movement, even if we don't count the Tea Party's self-serving claims — which we should count under WP:SELFSOURCE. Accordingly, using the Waterboarding article as an example, this majority viewpoint should be stated in the lede sentence.

Regarding the "Other events" section, it was orphaned by removal of the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section, and should accompany that section in the spin-off article. These "other events" are not notable enough to be included in a top-level article written in summary style.

Regarding the "Commentaries on origins," they're partisan and, for the most part, not notable enough to be included in a top-level article written in summary style. The Tobacco Control article never should have been mentioned in this article's mainspace. Here's a harsh analysis of that Tobacco Control study. And in their grant proposal to obtain public funding from NIH, the authors of the study basically admitted that they had a political agenda in seeking this funding: the anti-smoking lobby "requires understanding [of] how the tobacco industry maintains a favorable social and policy environment[.]" As the contributor at Huffington Post sarcastically observed, it's hard to tell the difference between this stated objective, and political opposition research. Also, here's an examination of the chief author of the study, Stanton Glantz, and his research:


 * It isn't necessary to repeatedly spell out a-s-t-r-o-t-u-r-f to discuss "top-down" organizing ... Yes, it is necessary to say it at least once: "These activities by this Tea Party group were Astroturfing." To establish a different standard violates WP:SYNTH. Astroturfing has a very specific meaning, and the activities described by Formisano and Zellner do not satisfy that definition. The term has very negative connotations, indicating that something fraudulent (or at least very dishonest) is going on, which is why the TPm's political enemies have been trying so hard for so many years to hang that word around the Tea Party's neck. We've officially discussed this to death. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why argue against "Opponents of the proposed edit adding the word 'grass-roots' to the lede"? That's why this conversation keeps repeating itself, because of mis-framing of the discussion. I have no problem with "grassroots" being in the lead, as long as the astroturfed aspect of the movement is also added according to reliable sources. Here is a proposed sentence for the lede that addresses your request to mention "grassroots" in the lead, while also sticking to what reliable sources say:
 * We can add Formisano, Skocpol and Zellner cites at the end of the sentence, along with any of the dozen cites you've linked above. I've looked at each of those sources and not a single one refutes the astroturf aspect of the movement. In fact, your two NPR sources confirm the heterogeneous nature of the movement. (On one end, it very much is a grassroots movement ... But then on the other hand, you have sort of an establishment that is somewhat preexisting. And these are the folks who have come to the game with a great deal of money, if not a great deal of energy ... So you have two things going on at once here, is what you're saying ... there is also this political structure and corporate structure that's driving them a little bit.) Your NYT source also confirms the heterogeneous nature of the movement. (This anti-government, grass-roots Republican offshoot has rattled the party establishment ... Some of the money behind the Tea Party movement or its offshoots has little in common with grass-roots populism.) Harvard's Skocpol confirms the heterogeneous nature of the movement. (Many supporters also proclaim the Tea Party to be purely a grassroots rebellion ... overlooks the fact that the Tea Party, understood in its entirety, includes media hosts and wealthy political action committees, plus national advocacy groups and self-proclaimed spokespersons – elites that wield many millions of dollars in political contributions and appear all over the media claiming to speak for grassroots activists ... Considered in its entirety, the Tea Party is neither a top-down creation nor a bottom-up explosion. Each force is important in its own right, and their interaction is what gives the Tea Party its dynamism, drama, and wallop. ... Grassroots activists, roving billionaire advocates, and right-wing media purveyors—these three forces, together, create the Tea Party...)
 * We can add Formisano, Skocpol and Zellner cites at the end of the sentence, along with any of the dozen cites you've linked above. I've looked at each of those sources and not a single one refutes the astroturf aspect of the movement. In fact, your two NPR sources confirm the heterogeneous nature of the movement. (On one end, it very much is a grassroots movement ... But then on the other hand, you have sort of an establishment that is somewhat preexisting. And these are the folks who have come to the game with a great deal of money, if not a great deal of energy ... So you have two things going on at once here, is what you're saying ... there is also this political structure and corporate structure that's driving them a little bit.) Your NYT source also confirms the heterogeneous nature of the movement. (This anti-government, grass-roots Republican offshoot has rattled the party establishment ... Some of the money behind the Tea Party movement or its offshoots has little in common with grass-roots populism.) Harvard's Skocpol confirms the heterogeneous nature of the movement. (Many supporters also proclaim the Tea Party to be purely a grassroots rebellion ... overlooks the fact that the Tea Party, understood in its entirety, includes media hosts and wealthy political action committees, plus national advocacy groups and self-proclaimed spokespersons – elites that wield many millions of dollars in political contributions and appear all over the media claiming to speak for grassroots activists ... Considered in its entirety, the Tea Party is neither a top-down creation nor a bottom-up explosion. Each force is important in its own right, and their interaction is what gives the Tea Party its dynamism, drama, and wallop. ... Grassroots activists, roving billionaire advocates, and right-wing media purveyors—these three forces, together, create the Tea Party...)


 * None of your sources refute the astroturf component of the movement; they only confirm the grassroots component.
 * Your personal opinions about what constitutes "astroturf" (i.e.; Only if the money is being used to pretend that there is genuine grass-roots support for a particular position where no grass-roots support actually exists can it legitimately be called Astroturfing) are trumped by what reliable sources say constitutes astroturf.
 * Your personal opinions about the reliability of academic sources ("he likes Obama"; "he uses sources we wouldn't use"; etc.) aren't convincing. Try WP:RSN?
 * Your personal opinion that it's not "Astroturf" if it is instead called "fake grassroots", "top-down manipulation", "artifical grassroots lobbying", etc., isn't really applicable in this discussion.
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is within our remit as editors to consider the context and determine how much weight to give to a particular source once it has satisfied basic WP:RS requirements. Let's walk through the rules on that. Rule 1 is we're supposed to give greater weight to both peer-reviewed academic sources and fact-checked news organizations. However, Rule 2 says Formisano's track record as a fawning op-ed writer for Team Obama weakens his status as a reliable, neutral source, and the weight we should give that source. From WP:RS — context matters very, very much: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." Rule 3 specifically addresses biased or opinionated sources and advises caution: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." In this case, Formisano's expressed political beliefs reduce the weight that should be given to his opinion.
 * That brings us to Zellner, the law student. Sorry, he's not an academic like the other authors described here, such as Elizabeth Price Foley. He's graduated from law school now, and he's practicing law in Connecticut. His weakened status as a source is confirmed by the weak, heavily biased sources that he chose to rely upon. Remember, context matters. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.
 * Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content.
 * Either we are in agreement, P&W, or the policies you cite don't say what you think they do. (I'm guessing the latter.) Since you, me, and Policy, all appear to agree, any further concerns you have with the above named sources should be raised at WP:RSN. I'll be happy to meet you there, and I'll allow you the benefit of phrasing and framing the initial argument. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with "grassroots" being in the lead, as long as the astroturfed aspect of the movement is also added according to reliable sources It's too bad that the sources supporting "TPm is partially Astroturfed" are such a tiny minority according to WP:WEIGHT. For that policy based reason, the word "Astroturf" belongs down in the body of the article where it currently resides, but the word "grass-roots" belongs in the lede sentence. We can modify it the way Skocpol did, "supported by deep pocket donors and amplified by conservative media," but the word "Astroturfing" does not belong in the lede because it's a minority viewpoint.


 * Your personal opinion that it's not "Astroturf" if it is instead called "fake grassroots", "top-down manipulation", "artifical grassroots lobbying", etc., isn't really applicable in this discussion. It isn't a personal opinion. It's Wikipedia policy: WP:SYNTH. Also, I haven't seen a source describing it as "fake grassroots," or "artificial grassroots lobbying." The sources that allegedly support "TPm is partially Astroturfed," for the most part, do not say what's being claimed.


 * I've looked at each of those sources and not a single one refutes the astroturf aspect of the movement. Refutation of that alleged aspect is implicit in the statement, "TPm is a grass-roots movement," just as refutation of "Substantial portions of the elephant are plant-like material" is implicit in the statement, "The elephant is an animal." The mere addition of deep pockets money does not compromise the grass-roots nature of the movement. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources supporting TPm is partially Astroturfed are such a tiny minority? Incorrect; you have produced zero sources refuting that fact, which makes it not only a majority, but an overwhelming unanimous majority.
 * It isn't a personal opinion, it's Wikipedia policy: WP:SYNTH? Incorrect, not when reliable sources are doing the sysnthesis. WP:SYNTH applies to Wikipedia editors, not expert sources researching the matter.
 * Refutation of astroturf aspects is implicit in the grassroots statement? Incorrect; reliable sources explain that genuinely grassroots activists can be manipulated and co-opted by astroturfing groups. (And it's a good thing, too, else a bunch of citizens upset at bailouts never would have been organized and channeled into a 'movement', according to sources.) The fact that a hybrid vehicle can run on gasoline does not refute the fact that it also runs on electricity. Why argue to mention gas in the lead, without mentioning electricity? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I consider these vague terms to be a waste of time. But "astroturf" as an overall characterization of the movement is beyond fringe. And so trying to maneuver that in is a complete wp:snow waste of time. And the TPM is about as grassroots as any large movement has been or can be. As far as overall characterizations by sources, I think "grassroots" has about a 30:1 advantage over "astroturf"  with the "1" going to zero if you limit it to impartial sources. I even consider spending much time arguing for "grass roots" to be a waste of time even thought it is appropriate. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've seen reliable sources showing astroturf as an "overall characteristic", but rather just one component of the whole. Attempting to describe the movement as overall astroturfed would indeed be fringe, but no one is doing that. Reliable sources have explained the astroturf aspect in detail, and there has been zero refutation of it, so the only "maneuvering" appears to be avoid acknowledging it. Your apples to oranges numeric comparison doesn't apply here, unless you would equally argue that "since 30:1 overall sources characterize the movement as 'conservative' over 'grassroots', we shouldn't mention grassroots". Make that 100:1 sources that avoid mentioning 'grassroots' at all when describing the movement.


 * The uncontested fact is that the movement comprises both astroturf and grassroots aspects. Our article should convey what reliable sources convey; it's policy. The "astroturf" part of the description does indeed carry with it negative connotations, so I can understand the impetus to avoid mentioning it. I'm not oblivious to the shotgun-arguments attempt to that end:
 * — try to deny the reliability of the sources ("not impartial"; "likes Obama!"; "that award-winning source is a student, not a professor!")
 * — try to set up a false equivalency ("more sources say grassroots than astroturf!")
 * — try to deny standard definitions and applications of the word "astroturfing" ("that reliable source is redefining astroturf!")
 * — try to misapply WP:WEIGHT and WP:V ("you are only citing 3 reliable sources that say astroturf is part of the movement!")
 * I agree with you that it's a time sink, but I think that's because circular argumentation is being used to try to convey something other than what reliable sources convey. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess the only reason for coupling the two terms in discussions is that they are sort of opposites of each other. One additional note: Between the two terms,  we must recognize that astroturf is a more extreme one (being an outright direct pejorative) than "grass roots" and inherently an argument for an extreme term is much more likely to fall short than an argument for a more moderate term.   My main point is that I consider both words to be vague and a waste of time, but (regarding overall characterization) the case for "grass roots"  is about 30 times stronger than "astroturf" and the grass roots aspects are immensely more prevalent the astroturf aspects. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Technically, they aren't really opposites; in the most common usage, they are quite similar with the defining difference being that one is inauthentic (fake, manufactured, not genuine, contrived, bogus, etc.). The words can be used as both nouns and adjectives, which adds to the confusion. As for being pejorative, even that is changing, as the lines between astroturfing and legitimate advocacy mobilization are being blurred.  If you can get a copy of New Technology, Organizational Change and Governance by Emmanuelle Avril & Christine Zumello, you can find an excellent explanation of astroturf organizations which "turn upside down the definition and spontaneity of grassroots mobilization since they help materialize an inverted movement. They, in essence, groom the potential roots of a movement; they try to locate the potential defenders of a cause in order to aggregate them through a digital network and mobilization that appears to be spontaneous, but is not." Sound familiar? The "case for" grassroots and astroturf are identical (as in, both factual ... there is no such thing as a "stronger" fact, something either is or isn't factual). The fact that you see "grassroots" more often in news reports about TP activists or TP protest groups are because that's what those news reporters are focusing on in their report: the activists, the protesters and their message ... not the movement or the astroturfed part of it.  You keep tossing around the number "30" as if you think WP:WEIGHT refers to prominence/prevalence OF sources, rather than IN sources.  In every reliable source that looks at the grassroots and astroturf aspects of the movement, you'll find both aspects to be equally prominent. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We're talking about two different things here.  I've have been talking about characterizations of the (overall) movement, and, with respect to astroturfing (which would certainly leave out astroturfed, and almost certainly include grassroots) and you are basically talking about existence (to some extent) of elements of each.  The former is more appropriate to a lead sentence, the latter is more appropriate for elements (major or minor) in the body of the article. And I consider both terms to be vague = uninformative = a waste of time.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We are all talking about the characterizations of the movement as a whole, as are the reliable sources I've cited. (Those sources include Skocpol, Formisano, Zellner and the two NPR and a NYT source from P&W's list.) Xenophrenic (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well,at least we have that clarity going forward.  But that somewhat refutes some of your previous points, which essentially implied that the mere existence of a astroturf component (however small) is relevant to the conversation.  Second, by "reliable" to you mean actually reliable or meeting the "floor" of wp:rs?   Highly biased unreliable writers often meet the meet the "floor" of wp:rs and should be used in that context (attributed etc.) Finally there is the question of which used which words as an overall characterization of the movement.  North8000 (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my point at all. My point, explicitly stated, is that reliable sources very clearly convey that the "movement" consists of both grassroots components and astroturf components. It is not wholly one or the other, but a combination of both. By "reliable sources", I mean Reliable Sources as defined by Wikipedia policy, nothing more, nothing less. If you feel a cited reliable source is not suitable for supporting the assertion of fact (that means stated in Wikipedia's voice without the need for attribution), then let's bring that source and the relevant supported text to WP:RSN for a thorough airing. To your final point, what does Skocpol's " Considered in its entirety, the Tea Party is neither a top-down creation, nor a bottom-up explosion", mean to you? That's "overall". Xenophrenic (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal
Ok. In the last week or so, I went through this enormous discussion. I reread some sections at times to get a better idea of this discussion. Forgive me if I missed anything as I am working through a lot of comments in my head as I write this. It would seem that editors in this discussion page are divided about how to describe this movement. I have a proposed statement, that may be reworded accordingly to fit the article structure, that may appease both sides of the discussion without misleading or POVing the article. or Something along those lines. Any thoughts?— cyberpower Chat Online 17:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Tea Party movement is generally viewed as a grass-roots movement, with occasional views of it being astroturfed.
 * The Tea Party movement is mostly viewed as a grass-roots movement with some viewing it as an astroturf.


 * Thank you for taking a look at the discussion(s). It is indeed rather lengthy, and has been a point of contention since the Tea Party first appeared. Since you asked, here are my initial thoughts on the wording you have proposed:
 * 1) The division between editors falls into two sides: those who want to mention "grassroots" in the lead without mentioning "astroturf", and those who want to mention both grassroots and astroturf in the lead.
 * 2) I don't think I've seen any reliable sources that declare the "movement" (the subject of our article) is wholly astroturfed, so both of the above proposed sentences might be hard to support with reliable sources. Reliable sources are always careful to note that the movement is only partially astroturfed while also having a large grassroots component.
 * 3) Wording such as "some viewing it as" or "occassional views of it being" give the impression to the reader that the "astroturf" aspect of the movement is just an opinion. Just to clarify, is that what you were intending to convey to the reader?
 * 4) It would probably be beneficial if we noted which sources we are to cite for this (or any other) proposed wording, as there also seems to be some disagreement among editors as to which sources are suitable.
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Try:
 * The Tea Party movement is generally viewed as a grass-roots movement, with some pointing out partial funding from corporations and wealthy donors

Avoiding the quite problematic neologism "astroturf". And quite neutral in tone, as well as being easily sourced. Collect (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a compromise version I've previously mentioned, slightly modified below, easily sourced in the works of Skocpol et al.:




 * The word "amplified" is used by Theda Skocpol, a political science professor at Harvard, and the most reliable source provided by the tiny "partially Astroturfed" crowd, so this may work. But Wikipedia articles do not elevate small minority viewpoints to appear in the lede like that, as I've repeatedly demonstrated with reference to the lede of the Waterboarding article. There are many, many other Wikipedia articles I could link that discuss small minority viewpoints down in the body of the article but do not mention them in the lede. The lede is for unchallenged facts and, where viewpoints on the evidence differ, the lede is also for majority viewpoints. Not minority viewpoints. So this is a dead end, and has always been a dead end. An overwhelming majority of reliable sources — including peer-reviewed academics, fact-checked news organizations, and the Tea Party groups themselves, whose self-published websites we're required to treat as reliable sources, see WP:SELFSOURCE — describe the TPm unequivocally, without reservation, as a "grass-roots movement" or its members as "grass-roots activists." Period. Full stop.


 * Essentially, you are asking us to concede and let Xenophrenic have his way, when the overwhelming majority of sources, comparable Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia policy say that it is Xenophrenic who should be conceding. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "with some pointing out" is problematic in that it still insinuates opinion as a vague attribution, and begs the question: who says so? (And that would result in the citing of a great many sources, not just the three mentioned above.) Neutral in tone would be to use "some view" to go with "some point out", but I prefer to leave the word "some" out completely. I think the most straight-forward way to convey what reliable sources say is "The movement comprises both this and that" or "consists of" or "is made up of".  Working with your (Collect's) wording as a base, how would you feel about:
 * The Tea Party movement is generally viewed as partially grassroots and partially funded and directed by corporations and wealthy individuals ...
 * (I should note that the last part, if we really follow reliable sources, should also say advocacy groups and political elites, but in the interest of brevity and compromise that can be relegated to the body of the article.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @P&W: The fact that the movement has an astroturfed component, along with the more visible (and therefore more mentioned) grassroots component, is not a "small minority viewpoint". I would discuss further your misunderstanding of that applicable policy, but I am pressed for time at the moment, so I'll settle for saying there you go again. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I proposed a compromise - I suggest your ultimata are not going to get others to move past my suggestion by even a millimeter -- in fact I think I am pushing as far towards your POV as is possible with any prospect of reaching consensus. Cheers - but trying to get me to move further towards your wording is not gonna happen. Collect (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your attempt to push toward the POV of the reliable sources is noted, but I contend that merely moving closer to what sources say is insufficient; we should be saying what the reliable sources say. But this appears moot, as suggestions from both you and me have been shot down by others. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Then here is what I suggest. Everyone here will propose what to add to the article.  "Nothing" is an acceptable option.  If it's already proposed, then don't propose it again.  Then we will remove the least favored ones until we have a result.  I think this might be the only way to get this to have a fixed outcome.— cyberpower  Chat Online 13:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a list of proposed additions, already, or should we start over? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We should start over.— cyberpower Chat Online 19:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 1
Then let's start over. My proposal is to simply add the word "grass-roots" to the lede sentence as follows: "The Tea Party movement is an American grass-roots political movement that advocates ..." The policy-based arguments supporting this have already been posted at length. To make a long story short, there are 20+ reliable sources stating that it's a "grass-roots movement," period, full stop. And there are three sources that say something else: one of which is most likely biased, one of which was written by a law student rather than a professor (and relies on sources Wikipedia doesn't consider reliable), and no two of which say the same thing on this subject. WP:WEIGHT is clear about this. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is one proposal. Others may now support or oppose this proposal and throw in their own proposal to be handled the same way.— cyberpower  Chat Online 15:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons already exhaustively discussed. Inserting just "grassroots", when countless reliable sources indicate that the movement is not completely grassroots, would be a gross violation of Wikipedia policy -- WP:NPOV in particular. The false argument that there are only 3 reliable sources refuting your personal opinion has been disproven; there are many, not just 3. The false argument that those sources are unsuitable due to bias or sourcing issues has been disproven; they are highly reliable. The false argument that those particular 3 sources don't all, in unison, say that the TP movement is not 100% grassroots has been disproven; they all state that. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as going in the right direction. It's a grass-roots political movement.  Period.  That some corporate or "right-wing news media" support the movement does not make it other than grass-roots.  I would not object to a neutral expression of that fact in the lead, but using the term "astroturf" is WP:OR or, to be more precise, an original definition of "astroturf".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a grass-roots political movement. Period.
 * Really? So when Zeitlow, whom we have no problem quoting elsewhere, says, "The degree to which the Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement is debatable. Tea Party organizers have received extensive financial support from prominent conservative think-tanks and financiers", we can simply cite you to end that debate? Or do you have a source that Wikipedia would actually consider reliable instead? When several professors are published by Oxford University Press and say, "The defining feature of astroturf groups is that they are generated by an industry, think tank, or front group, but designed to appear as a spontaneous, popular 'grassroots' effort. [...] Especially important are the roles played by the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks front groups in generating a significant portion of the 'Tea Party'...", should I inform them that they are conducting original research? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The defining feature of astroturf groups is that they are generated by an industry, think tank, or front group, but designed to appear as a spontaneous, popular 'grassroots' effort. OK, but Especially important are the roles played by the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks front groups in generating a significant portion of the 'Tea Party'  is the only mention of Tea Party in that book, and seems to be a fringe position, even among the sources that you  have been claim ed to support the "astroturf" position; not even their sources agree.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect; there are at least a few mentions of the Tea Party, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity. And the cited sources agree, and I think you know that, because you would have quickly cited the actual discrepency if there really was one. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all of the highly reliable sources that say the movement is not 100% grassroots are espousing a "fringe theory", correct? If so, I plan to raise your concern and your specific argument at WP:FTN (and I'll be sure to credit you). Xenophrenic (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, since you haven't objected, I'll raise your "fringe position" concern at WP:FTN this evening. Hopefully, we can get it resolved. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Xenophrenic's reasons. — wing  gundam  21:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Add to the lede: "The movement comprises both grassroots and astroturf components, including concerned citizen activists, wealthy political action committees and national advocacy groups, establishment elites and conservative media outlets.  The policy-based arguments supporting this have already been exhaustively discussed. There are 20+ reliable sources stating that the TPm is not completely grassroots. There are zero reliable sources that refute the astroturfed components of the movement. Some editors are promoting their personal opinion that the "TPm is 100% grass-roots", in violation of WP:WEIGHT. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose as not even going the right direction. There is one reliable source which uses the term "astroturf" to apply to the TPm, and he redefines it.  The list of supporting organization types might belong in the lead.  I might support the edit if it were rewritten as "the movement as a grass-roots movement, supported by [the same list].  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please cite this "one reliable source" that redefines "astroturf", and cite that redefinition, please, so we can all review it. Is this the redefinition of which you speak? "The Astroturf Metaphor asserts that conservative leadership organizations provided resources, direction, and standardized messages that were crucial in instigating Tea Party protests." Please direct me to the source you are using that says that is a "redfinition", please. Just so we're all on the same page. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Component" is a very low bar and certainly is not enough to qualify for being a characterization. North8000 (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Component" is my word. What word do you think would more accurately convey what the reliable sources convey? Actually, we can remove that word completely without disrupting the meaning. Would that suffice? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (Actually, that's not the source I had in mind which redefined "astroturf". It's still a different definition, though.)  Well, I can't prove it's a redefinition, only that it's different than any other definition proposed, including the one in our article astroturfing.  If it weren't a redefinition, it could appear in this article, but with "grass-roots" linked (because it does match our definition) and astroturfing not linked.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a different definition. And linking to "grassroots" means it would have to comply with "the creation of the movement and the group supporting it are natural and spontaneous, highlighting the differences between this and a movement that is orchestrated by traditional power structures", which isn't wholly true. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the reasons I've already stated. The majority viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT, supported by at least one peer-reviewed academic source, 18 fact-checked news organization sources, and five WP:SELFPUB sources, is "The Tea Party movement is a grass-roots movement," period, full stop. WP:WEIGHT will not allow us to elevate a minority viewpoint to be stated as a fact in the lede.
 * Inserting just "grassroots", when countless reliable sources indicate that the movement is not completely grassroots ... "Countless"? Try "three," and no two of them say the same thing.
 * The false argument that there are only 3 reliable sources refuting your personal opinion has been disproven; there are many, not just 3. This is a false statement. There are three, and no two of them say the same thing.
 * The false argument that those sources are unsuitable due to bias or sourcing issues has been disproven; they are highly reliable. This is also a false statement. It has not been disproven. You suggested taking this to WP:RSN but you didn't do it. WP:RS allows us, as editors, to consider both context and potential bias in determining how much weight should be given to a particular source. Clearly, the consensus of editors here is that these sources don't merit enough weight to outweigh 24+ reliable sources that say, "The Tea Party is a grass-roots movement," period, full stop.
 * The false argument that those particular 3 sources don't all, in unison, say that the TP movement is not 100% grassroots has been disproven; they all state that. This is a statement based on a false premise. The false premise is that they represent one unified viewpoint. They don't. While all three say that the Tea Party movement is not 100% grassroots, there the resemblance ends. Two of them are in very, very roughly the same "part grassroots, part astroturf" time zone (not the same ballpark, not even the same zip code, but the same time zone). The third says that the Tea Party is neither grassroots nor astroturf, but something else that's in between.
 * So when Zeitlow, whom we have no problem quoting elsewhere, says, "The degree to which the Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement is debatable. Tea Party organizers have received extensive financial support from prominent conservative think-tanks and financiers" ... Nowhere in that quotation, or even in the entire article, can I find the word "astroturf." Zietlow supports neither your proposal nor mine. She says it's "debatable." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The majority viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT... --P&W
 * ...doesn't say anything like that. Please quit misquoting and misapplying the policy.
 * Try "three," and no two of them say the same thing. --P&W
 * Please learn to count. Which "three" are you speaking of this time? And so far, at least 7 of them say the very same thing. Have you even read them?
 * You suggested taking this to WP:RSN but you didn't do it.
 * Correct. I suggested that you should take your challenge to RSN, and you haven't done it. If you'd like me to take your challenge there for you, I will. Which specific reliable source shall we start with, and what is your specific challenge to its suitability as a reliable source?  We can work our way through each of them in turn.
 * WP:RS allows us, as editors, to consider both context and potential bias in determining how much weight should be given to a particular source.
 * You are making stuff up about policy again; please stop. "how much weight should be given to a particular source", thanks for the levity.
 * the consensus of editors here is that these sources don't merit enough weight to outweigh 24+ reliable sources
 * Please don't libel the other editors here. I'm fairly certain that most of them have been around long enough to know that number of sources saying something has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT. I note that your proposal has zero reference citations; would you mind choosing 2 or 3 from your ever-changing number of sources and append them to your proposed text?
 * While all three say that the Tea Party movement is not 100% grassroots, there the resemblance ends.
 * Again, which three sources, exactly, are you speaking of? And you are correct that reliable sources agree that the Tea Party movement is not 100% grassroots, so why should we mislead our readers to believe otherwise?
 * The degree to which the Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement is debatable ... She says it's "debatable."
 * Yet you say there is no debate, according to what you have written above. Why should we mislead readers to believe that? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Do nothing and leave it alone for 6 months. (This is not what I think should be a course of action. I'm just throwing this out there for consideration.)— cyberpower  Chat Offline 05:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We've already done nothing for three years. Count the number of reliable sources supporting one proposal. Count the number of reliable sources supporting the other proposal. And then please make a decision per WP:WEIGHT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please count the number of reliable sources (many) refuting the "100% grassroots" proposal. Now count the number of reliable sources (zero) refuting the "grassroots+astroturf" proposal. Then make a decision based on actual applicable Wikipedia policy, not a misunderstanding of one. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 4
Take the existing reliable sources and develop encyclopedic content about the matter in the body of the article first. Then summarize that content in the WP:LEDE, which is how most content in the lede is created. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

End of the process — or a fresh start
We can not, as I see it, continue when any editor decides that the posited rules that six editors accepted should now be discussed at length - the idea that such a devotion to process, which would surely take weeks at the least, needs to be done when a single editor dislikes the ground rules is clearly going to make any solutions here totally impossible. My goal in proposing such rules was to prevent the absurd wikilawyering found in all too many discussions, and that any editor would desire to promote such behavior I find distressing. My hands are in the bowl of water, and unless everyone actually decides to work on the article instead of on arguing about process, there is no way in (insert expletive) that this can ever be resolved. Will some admin please lock this puppy down? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your extensive concern about process is noted, but most of us here would just like to be productive with regard to the Tea Party movement and related articles. P&W has reiterated a few content concerns he'd like to see addressed, and I have some as well. By "please lock this puppy down", are you suggesting that we no longer try to improve the article, or is this just a "venue" concern? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As some of you are aware, I have volunteered to be the moderator of this page per a request at AN. No one has yet opposed me being moderator so I have accepted the offer.  As I settle in as moderator, and getting to know my role, a helping hand at knowing my limits as moderator is appreciated.  If anybody objects to me being a moderator, please speak, or write that is, now.— cyberpower  Chat Online 02:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to party, Pal! ;-)
 * But on a serious note, we do appreciate anyone who's willing to help. Hopefully this proves to be a fruitful endeavor for you. †TE†   Talk  02:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for joining us, Cyberpower. Would you please review the discussion above, and tell us whether we have consensus for the three proposed edits? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. If it's the multisection thread "Getting back to work" give me a few hours to read it through. :-)— cyberpower  Chat Offline 11:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to let everyone know that I'm still here and that I am sifting through the above discussions and links. It might take me another day or two to reach the end and form a close statement.— cyberpower  <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 00:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawing my participation @moderated discussion
Falling by the wayside. No parting shots, just regrets. Perhaps the future will bring about an environment more conducive to progress. Godspeed. †TE†  Talk  13:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Amok
The recent sequence of edits on the TPm appear to be essentially ignoring the concept of WP:Consensus here, and verge on disruption at that article. Collect (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Reminder
It has been brought to my attention that major anti-consensus were being made and reverted, twice. The page has now been fully protected by SilkTork, the previous moderator. As I don't have any admin powers to reverse this, nor do I now see a reason for it to be reversed right now, I am respectfully asking Xenophrenic to be careful in the future, and restrain from editing that article, unless there's a clear consensus claimed for such edits.— cyberpower <sup style="color:red;font-family:arnprior">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline 11:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've made no anti-consensus edits. The recent good faith edits by me, ThinkEnemies, Collect and others, were not first subjected to consensus discussion. I've no problem refraining from editing the main article unless concensus is achieved first. That should apply to all involved editors, of course. The last consensus version is this one, implemented by our former Moderator, SilkTork. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As we're not allowed to comment on editors here. All I can say is that comment should not be part of any reasoned discussion, because it has little to do with reality.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Still at it? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The page has been fully protected and there will evidently be no block for starting an editwar. I propose that we immediately revert the page back to the version that existed before the editwar began. That version may be found here.


 * Strongly support. As so often happens, the page protection took effect with the "wrong" version because people who aren't inclined to editwar didn't want to revert to the "right" version. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support  Without commenting on the changes, the reversion is best way to go from a process standpoint. Contested edits require a group decision. I say "group decision" rather than "consensus" because IMHO the existing text should be just another option in the process. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support revert to status quo ante. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose an attempt to swap one "Wrong Version" with another "Wrong Version" via !voting. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Status Quo Ante" version. Or alternatively, rather than swap one "Wrong Version" for another "Wrong Version", why not resolve the last remaining concerns about what that content should convey, then implement an actual consensus version? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - With stipulation the immigration reform position is corrected. †TE†   Talk  15:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Consensus is in favor of reverting to this revision.— cyberpower <sup style="color:red;font-family:arnprior">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline 05:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The consensus discussion notwithstanding, admin Arthur Rubin just edited through full protection as an involved editor in this dispute. Having the tools does not grant the right to do what other involved editors cannot do in a content context.  N o f o rmation  Talk 09:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't consider there to be a dispute.   Just editors with differing opinions trying to work this out.  And trying to make some rules/processes for ourselves so that this can move forward. North8000 (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You can call it a dispute or an orange if you feel so inclined but that focuses on a completely non relevant aspect of my sentence. The point is that administrators are not supposed to edit through full protection when they are involved.  We have an edit request template for a reason.  N o f o rmation  Talk 10:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked him to do it as a moderator request.— cyberpower <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 12:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize that. I also realize you did so in good faith and that Arthur complied in good faith, which is why I mentioned it here and not at AN.  Nevertheless it should not have been done and for the sake of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety I implore you to make liberal (no pun intended) use of the edit request template.   N o f o rmation  Talk 00:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO the moderator is the best one to assess/read the situation. The mop does not make a drop-in person a better one to  do so. North8000 (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am making a singular point: an involved admin should not edit through full protection. Nothing you're responding with actually addresses this point in the least.  Is the moderator the best one to assess/read the situation?  Maybe, maybe not.  Does the mop make a drop-in-person a better one to do so?  Maybe, maybe not.  Whether either of those answers falls within the verge of yes/no/maybe/maybe not is completely irrelevant to the very specific point that I've made: an involved admin is not permitted to edit through full protection.   N o f o rmation  Talk 09:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Making liberal use of the edit request template.
 * Noformation is correct. It was wrong of me to ask Arthur to make the edit for me.  He was clearly involved, and I have apologized to him for that.— cyberpower  <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 09:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork has reverted Arthur's reversion, indicating that even though the edit was requested by our moderator, it must be executed by an uninvolved admin. The "vote" is 4-1 (everyone except Xenophrenic) in favor of reverting to this revision, with the lone opposing "vote" coming from Xenophrenic. The policy based argument is that Xenophrenic edited against consensus. Visiting admins, please make this edit. Thank you. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I am making no comment on the content of the edit, nor on if appropriate consensus has been reached (I've simply glanced at the voting, not read any of the comments), but it is inappropriate for an admin to be making an edit to a fully protected article while they are involved. Arthur Rubin should not have made the edit, and cyberpower should not have asked him to make the edit. What P&W has just done, is the appropriate procedure: ask an independent admin to look into the matter and assess consensus. It's worth reminding everyone that consensus is not always a simple majority vote - especially if a legitimate objection has been raised, and/or if those in majority are in the same camp. The procedure I adopted when moderating is if there was a legitimate objection raised, that the objection would be discussed before taking any further action. Objections should be discussed not ignored.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  08:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks SilkTork. I did mention that I would make a lot of mistakes in the beginning.  But as I make a mistake, I learn from it and get better.— cyberpower  <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 08:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Hi all. Could some kind soul link to any other discussions where this edit has come up? The voting above doesn't tell me anything about whether people have tried to find a consensus on this issue or how successful any attempts were. However, there is a lot of discussion on this page, and (lazy admin that I am) I don't really feel like reading through all of it to find the relevant bits. I'd appreciate help from those who have followed the proceedings here more closely than I. Best regards — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, problematic editing was going which led to the article being protected a few days back. This above is the only thread to at least link back to the "correct" version of the article while it's protected.— cyberpower  <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 09:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Strad. A half-dozen editors had worked to develop an acceptable 'Agenda' section for the Tea Party movement article, with several competing versions being proposed. An editor prematurely claimed consensus for his preferred version and implemented this after some editors expressed support. Other editors contacted the Moderator (SilkTork) and expressed objections to that content being implemented, prompting our Moderator to open this discussion; note where he reiterates that the Moderator was responsible for declaring consensus unless the edit action was "agreed by all". Unfortunately, SilkTork withdrew as moderator shortly thereafter, leaving the disputed non-consensus version changes in the article and the problem unresolved. Rather than revert or delete the problematic content from the article, I instead proposed a significant rewrite based on proposed content from several versions, and asked for others to review it and raise objections. After several days of discussion, editor ThinkEnemies moved some uncontested parts of my proposed text to the main article, and I moved the remainder of the uncontested parts to the main article. Any content to which objections were raised was either deleted (or commented out of view, if discussions were still ongoing). Two and a half days later, Phoenix and Winslow reverted most of the previous edits with this strange edit summary: (Since there weren't four "votes" in favor of this massive edit, consensus could not be claimed under the new rules that a strong consensus agreed to on the Moderated Discussion page). That was the beginning of an edit war that resulted in the article being fully locked.
 * The above Edit Request appears to me to be an attempt to impose a preferred non-consensus, problematic version on a fully protected article. The most recent "status quo" version would be the one imposed by our Moderator (here) before any contested edits were made. Since all of the recent versions appear to be the "wrong" version (a fact not disputed by most of the "voters" above), I don't understand this push to have a preferred wrong version implemented unless the intent is to try to keep it implemented. Why not direct this energy toward fixing the content instead? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Because (A) consensus does not require unanimity, and (B) we will never have unanimity unless everybody else caves in and agrees to allow the "Agenda" section to become, in effect, a second "Organization" section. This version would focus much of the first two paragraphs on the chaotic disorganization of the Tea Party, under the rationale that this chaotic disorganization is the cause of certain agenda inconsistencies between Tea Party groups. The content that was agreed upon, and implemented by me, was supported by a 4-1 "vote" for several hours before I implemented it; and as I explained earlier, there was every reason to expect the final "vote" to to be 6-1. So I made the edit. We had been working on it for weeks non-stop, we'd been through at least 22 different versions of the section, and everybody (with the obvious exception of Xenophrenic, a tower of iron will) was completely exhausted and burned out.
 * As expected, Collect brought the total of "support votes" to five because we had effectively addressed his concerns about readability. But Xenophrenic inexplicably recorded an "oppose vote" even though he was that version's co-author. Snowded came back to the article after an absence of several weeks for an "oppose vote," and ArtifexMayhem appeared out of nowhere, never having edited the article before, for an "oppose vote."
 * However, the CURRENT consensus clearly recognizes that reverting that edit was out of line, and that it should be restored immediately despite Xenophrenic's objection. Our moderator has recognized this consensus and asked that the version Xenophrenic reverted be restored. Furthermore, in case it wasn't already clear, for those of us who "voted" weeks ago in favor of the version we are now seeking to restore, this is the "right" version. Mr. Stradivarius, please make the edit. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I correctly understand what you've just written. Between the two proposals, both with five "Supports", you declared "consensus" for your preferred version because some editors voiced their opinions after your "several hour" window between calling for votes and implementing your edit? Well, at least we can agree that the version you tried to implement is not a consensus version, even if you didn't realize that at the time. (A good cautionary tale against rushing things after just a few hours.) My "!vote" in opposition to the problematic version wasn't inexplicable; as I noted in my comment: see objections to the problematic content above. Your interpretation of CURRENT consensus fails to recognize the input of the commenting editors. Every editor has a "right" version; what's your aversion to producing a version that is right for Wikipedia, instead? By the way, this is the first time you've raised a concern with the first 2 paragraphs of proposed text.  Reliable sources make it a point to explain that the desparate TP groups are autonomous and set their own agendas, and reliable sources make it a point to explain the generally "economic" focus of many TP agendas -- therefore, our 'Agenda' section should do the same. Your concern about redundancy with the 'Organization' section is easily remedied by removal of a single sentence from the 'Organization' section. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I'm marking this as not done, as from the above comments it doesn't look like there has been any attempt to address Xenophrenic's concerns. I think SilkTork put it very well when he said "objections should be discussed not ignored", and I don't think the required discussion has happened in this case. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There have been continual illicit edits (and reverts) made since the article was first unlocked, and the state of discussion on this page, particularly the dismissal of RS on dubious grounds, makes it a waste of time.
 * For the record, the version being pushed by P&W and the same block of editors never came close to achieving consensus even under the premises of the original guidelines (24 hours with at least two votes in support and NO objections).
 * I don't blame Silk Tork for not being able to handle the tremendous burden of moderating this so-called discussion, but it is high time that the Arbcom case brought some resolution and relief to the deplorable state of affairs here.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 10:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not supposed to be bashing other editors on this page. If you feel that it is important to do so, you should move your comments to where responses to such can occur. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of us have gone out of our way to address all stated objections, but progress can't be continually held up due to minor concerns. Now if Ubikwit wants to talk about never coming close to "achieving consensus" -- Well, they should probably be referred to their own proposals. †TE†   Talk  13:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition of Karl Denninger
I propose adding the following (slightly modified) paragraph from the Wikibio of Karl Denninger to the article mainspace, replacing the "Commentaries on origins" subsection in the History section, which should be moved to the "Perceptions" spin-off article:

Thoughts and comments, please. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This material looks good and useful.  The "commentaries on origin" section is really distorted, but I'm not so sure about totally eliminating / replacing it.   Perhaps shrink the existing section to a single sentence on each of the listed items  and keep the revised one in addition to putting this one in. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The whole paragraph should be moved to "Perceptions of the Tea Party movement" spin-off article. WP:SUMMARY tells us that this article should summarize what the spin-off articles say. Perhaps a few words to summarize this paragraph, such as "Critics have raised questions about the origins of the movement," should be added to the summary in the "Perceptions of the Tea Party" section. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to complicate / snarl things with my suggestion.   The Ron Paul and Koch item as written look appropriate.   The tobacco thing is way overblown but a brief sentence worded like the Koch item could be appropriate  as a compromise.  Overall, we should just keep moving.  Perfection is the enemy of improvement.  The original proposal is also OK with me.  North8000 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me; throw it in.--Froglich (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the party, pal. Yeah, it ought to look good to you, because you wrote it. I picked it up, refcites and all, from the Karl Denninger bio you've been writing. The first four words, and a few other minor changes, were necessary to introduce Mr. Denninger into this environment.


 * The subsection "Commentaries on origin" should be removed, and replaced with the above paragraph in green about Karl Denninger. I think the new subsection header should be "Fed Up USA," the name of his blog where he first started talking about mailing tea bags to congressmen. Also, "Critics have raised questions about the origins of the movement," should be added to the summary in the "Perceptions of the Tea Party" section. — Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose removing "Commentaries on origin" content. I agree with North8000 that there is usable information presently in that section, although it could use some improvement. I don't have a problem with Denninger and FedUpUSA being mentioned in relation to the origins of the movement, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse to remove other material under discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would never argue to exclude the conspiratorial commentary on the Tea Party movement. But we should try building an origin section first. We can add new details on the emergence of social media behind the movement, the catalyst, as they say. †TE†   Talk  19:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Building an 'Origins' section is an excellent idea. The Santelli rant is commonly cited as marking the "start" of the movement, but that is just because it had the benefit of being a cable news incident followed by a viral YouTube presence.  There was certainly popular angst in the weeks before that, as evidenced by Trevor Leach, Keli Carender, Karl Denninger, and some stuff on Smart Girl Politics blogs, the TCOT Twitter gang, etc. We could replace the "Commentaries on origins" header with "Origins", and clean it up a bit. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want any trouble. We get that certain perspectives are dangerous. I'll pass this along anyways: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/mediaWorkingPapers/MScDissertationSeries/2012/81.pdf †TE†   Talk  22:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting read. Is that in support of proposed or existing article content? (I assume we are still discussing Origins, and social media's part in TP movement development.) Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I figured you wanted to push a crazy-man tobacco conspiracy. This is good news. The nutter is gone from your butter. †TE†   Talk  06:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not catching your references here. Could you speak plainly please? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I got a notification that you've reverted me. How cool is that? Moving on, I'm not about to edit war over your selective de-archiving. Enjoy! †TE†   Talk  15:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm liking the new notification tweaks the developers installed. Thanks for not edit warring; the archiving of ongoing discussions that are less than 72 hours old gave me pause, but I'm not going to waste time speculating as to intentions. Want to help build an Origins section? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've marked the edit request as answered for now. Although the suggestion has mostly been favourably received, I think there should be a bit more discussion about ways that it could be adjusted to satisfy Xenophrenic's objections. If this was a case of choosing a straight yes or no, I would go for "yes", but I think that there is probably a middle way that we can take here. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The above edit request can be split into two parts. If editors are itching to add something to the article, some of the above proposed Denninger text can be added now, probably immediately before or after (chronologically) the Trevor Leach material. I'd leave off the last proposed sentence, as it is not supported by the cited source. I'm working on content for an 'Origins' section that covers the Jan-Feb 2009 infancy of the movement that may eventually incorporate part of that Denninger material. The second part of the edit request (removal/relocation of the 'Commentaries on origins' content) should instead be refocused on rewriting it as a brief and factual (less the commentary and opinion) 'Origins' section. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

direction of this project
I've been away on holiday and have not been able to comment, but today I discovered the TPm page has been locked. This is very disconcerting considering all the work editors have put into this discussion here. After looking over the edits on the article, it's apparent that things are not heading in a productive direction at all. I'm not placing blame on anyone, but it's time to stop and reassess this and sort some goals. I'm also disheartened that nobody seems cognizant of the ArbCom case that is pending. The whole point of this moderated discussion was to sort the problems with the editors and the article goals, not make things worse. I'd really like to hear from editors on what they believe really matters here. And Cyberpower, it's enormously kind of you to take on the role of moderator, but since you've don't have admin powers, it might be best if you reconsider things. You'll be called upon to discipline editors for breaching the rules and without admin powers, that won't be possible. It's an enormous burden to begin with, and it absolutely requires an admin. It's obvious to me that the page needed to be locked which SilkTork rightly did. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right. I have been seriously considering withdrawing as moderator.  The mere fact that I'm not an admin, is challenge on its own level.— cyberpower  <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 18:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It does make things harder for you. You are very brave to take this on, and your comments are measured and patient which is a huge bonus here. Having the tools, and the threat of them, would make things so much easier for you. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't threaten. I'm actually quite patient.— cyberpower  <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 18:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mean you would actually need to threaten. I meant the idea that the tools can be used at any time is often enough to stay an editor from going down the wrong path. I did notice that you are very patient. That's an asset, to be sure. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cyber's head and heart are both in the right place. Unfortunately he needs to be able to ask an admin to perform admin tasks, and the admin needs to be able to accept his judgment and take action immediately, since we've accepted him as our moderator. We have a crowd of people here, all but one of whom are in agreement at this point, but one tendentious editor is still able to stop all our work in its tracks. Changes need to be made. I don't think we need a new moderator. I think we need to give the moderator the on-call admin support that he needs. This is what we need to help our moderator be effective. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * @Cyberpower: Please don't do anything rash - I think your lack of Admin tools is a minor technicality that can be easily remedied by enlisting the aid of a willing Administrator who would perform the Admin actions only at your direction and request. You would still be responsible for all of the dispute resolution, final decision making and moderating. It's something to consider, at least. I say this for a reason. Do you realize that you are the only editor to respond to the request for a moderator after many days on the noticeboard? Do you realize the previous moderator visited the Talk pages of a half-dozen established content editors and requested their help, and they all declined (except one, who stuck his toes in the water, made a handful of minor copy-edits, and hasn't been seen since)? Malke is correct that having Admin tools would be more convenient, but I'm not sure she realizes just how difficult (if not impossible at this point) it would be to find another moderator.
 * @Malke: I hope you had a great time on holiday! You asked to hear from editors what matters here? I really think that differs from editor to editor. Of course everyone will say they want to see article improvement; the generic answer. It has become evident, however, that "improvement" means different things to different editors. The disagreements between editors seem to boil down to whether article content is flattering or non-flattering to the article subject.  For me, since I have no personal experience with the subject matter, I must go with what the reliable sources say.  Other editors, however, seem to have insider knowledge that I lack - I'm learning, for instance, that seemingly reliable sources, from journalists to academics, are actually not reliable at all. They are secretly "opponents" of the movement, and have an agenda to undermine the movement by claiming unflattering things about them. Or so I've been told. Another thing that matters very much to some editors here, and this is becoming increasingly evident, is what can be done to editors rather than articles. You will find them calling for all manner of bans, blocks and other sanctions against those with whom they have content disagreements. They are easy to spot, lodging carefully worded complaints at Admin noticeboards, ArbComs, RfCs, Talk pages of admins, etc.  Xenophrenic (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @P&W: Interesting; you and I agree 100% in our advice to Cyberpower. We also agree on your other observation: there is indeed a crowd of people here that are always in agreement with each other, regardless. Then there's me, who chooses instead to agree with reliable sources, and I do so solo lately since most other editors who do the same have been driven off. Your "tendentious editor" attack has been noted. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I've supported 90% of the last 15 proposals (all with the caveat the we understand that they aren't perfect and can and will get changes.) and none of them have been implemented. We need to get some that are 90% good put in with the caveat/understanding that they will need to be further evolved after we put them in. Also, let's agree that the status quo is to be treated as just another option. That way people have less to fear that an imperfect change will get entrenched if it's put in. Let's get this baby moving! Sincerely,, North8000 (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice to Everyone
I would like to remind everyone that discussions outside of this page will not be moderated or controlled and the civility cannot be enforced. Also, more input on the proposals would be appreciated.— cyberpower <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 18:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Stepping Down
I appreciate that many of you would like to keep as moderator. It was a strong incentive to remain one. However, numerous reasons came up as to why I should step down. First and foremost, when I accepted moderator-ship of this page, it never occurred to me how overwhelming moderating this page for me. I'm afraid I'll burn myself out too quickly and make major mistakes. The current ArbCom case seems to be in favor of topic banning everyone involved for 6 months. There won't be anything to moderate when it passes. On the topic of ArbCom, since I can technically be seen as an involved party, it may come to pass to topic ban me too. In any event resignation would be a preferable option than to face a topic ban. I really feel this should be left to a much more experienced editor to moderate. I thought I could give it a try at least. It was a pleasure to be the moderator of this page, no matter what went on. I hope ArbCom settles this dispute in a fashion that most can agree on.— cyberpower <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 09:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said. It's a travesty what's currently happening at ArbCom and your concerns are completely valid. Possibly under less-chilling circumstances we all could've collaborated and actually improved TPM (which is really in sad shape). I'm desperately attempting to re-gain faith in this project. Regrettably, it seems the powers that be are still running interference for truly bad, albeit active elements around here who dissuade and burnout our more well-intentioned contributors. Sad to see this vicious cycle repeating itself. SMH. †TE†   Talk  12:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by, and we appreciate your contribution. The motion proposed at ArbCom is perplexing to say the least. It's far from impossible to spot the worst offenders on this page — the ones who, either single-handedly or as a very small group, are being allowed and even enabled to obstruct any further progress on the article at all. This is being allowed to happen no matter how bad their track records have been proven to be, and no matter how well-stated and numerous the policy-based arguments might be against them. It's very frustrating. But the willingness of a moderator to step in here at a difficult time, and at least attempt to keep things moving in the right direction, was one of the bright spots. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cyberpower, thanks for what you did and we wish you would stay. More fallout from the fact that Arbcom case was sent off on a tangent from the start and has never recovered. North8000 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Agenda of the Tea Party movement
The suddenly fashionable drive-by shooting approach to Wikipedia editing has taken me by surprise and I'm not sure it's appropriate. Binksternet and Ubikwit are encouraged to discuss their concerns here regarding alleged NPOV problems, any proposed changes to the lede sentence, the allegation that the article is a WP:POVFORK, etc. Please stop flinging around templates hoping that one of them will stick. For example, the NPOV template that was posted there claims that "relevant discussion can be found on the Talk page." There is no discussion at all on that Talk page concerning your NPOV allegation, so don't post the template until you've expressed your concern in the proper venue. After your concerns have been properly expressed, rather than just driving up and spraying your rhetorical bullets around, a proper response can be posted, and we'll see whether you can gather consensus for your proposed changes. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame that the entire other side in the content dispute has chosen not to participate in the moderated discussion. I'm sure that a new moderator can be found, and would like to proceed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The term "teabagger"
I've commented at the main article talk page, but will now repeat here. I can't recall having been involved in this article until right now, and would like to point out an error. The following sentence in the article is unsourced, it has two separate Wikipedia tags on it, and it is erroneous: "The term teabagger was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites."

According to the article by Alex Koppelman that's already in the footnotes:

"[W]hen used as a verb, the words “tea bag” and “teabagging” have nothing to do with a hot, soothing drink....I’ve traced the meme’s birth back to February 27th, when blogs like Instaputz and Wonkette started using it independently of one another. They were inspired by a photo that the Washington Independent’s David Weigel shot of one protester carrying a sign that was, if you knew that second meaning, pretty funny: “Tea bag the liberal Dems before they tea bag you !!” (sic)."

Those first uses on websites were not by conservatives at all, so the unsourced sentence in the Wikipedia article is false. And the origin seems to have been a single protest sign, not a plurality of them. Surely we can make this article a fine upstanding place to visit, instead of, um, a fleabag. Any objection if I take a crack at it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a specific proposal: "In February 2009, a conservative protester was photographed with a sign using the words 'tea bag' as a verb, which swiftly led to left-leaning websites like Wonkette introducing 'teabagger' as a term for Tea Partiers." Cite: Koppelman.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And your wording would be backed up by what citations? Koppelman doesn't back this up and conflicts with other sources.TMCk (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to rephrase the proposed sentence, or to say specifically what you think is unsupported by Koppelman. I already quoted the pertinent part of Koppelman above. Koppelman seems to have investigated the matter in greatest depth, and so treatments that are obviously more cursory should probably not necessarily be given equal weight with Koppelman.  What I mainly tried to do is take the Koppelman info and present it chronologically.  Are you saying that you think the current text in the article is fine?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, you took one of many sources and added your own interpretation/twist to it. Further, re. "cursory treatments" [I'm quoting from your edit history here], "TheWeek.com" source as an example dosn't seem to fit your label at all. Is the present text accurate? Yes it is or very, very close. At least closer to sources presented than what you're proposing. You don't get to decide how much weight each RS receives, you sure understand that. Can the text in question be improved? Sure, there is always space to improve content, just not by twisting it in a different direction contrary to sources. Give it another try and I might go for it.TMCk (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) For the time being, I will continue to assume that you're editing in good faith, TMKC, and that (like me) you are not trying to twist anything. You cite one source to assert that the current text in the Wikipedua article is much better than what I have proposed. Let's look at what that source (TheWeek.com) says about February 2009: "Feb. 27, 2009. At the first anti-stimulus 'New American Tea Party' rally in Washington D.C., a protestor carries a sign reading 'Tea Bag the Liberal Dems before they Tea Bag You!!' The Washington Independent's David Weigel calls it 'the best sign I saw.'" This excerpt is much more cursory than the discussion in the Koppelman article, which identifies further uses on Feb. 27, 2009 by blogs Instaputz and Wonkette. TheWeek.com does not contradict Koppelman, and instead simply skips along to March 2009. I don't see any ambiguity about the fact that the piece in TheWeek is much more cursory about the events of February 2009 than Koppelman. I would also like to request that you please tone down your accusations, and try to assume good faith. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have started a survey at the main article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)