Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Archive 4

The agenda of the Tea Party movement is generally aimed at reform,[1] limiting the size and scope of the federal government,[2] reduction of government spending[3] and lowering of deficits/debt.[4] Placing the Constitution at the forefront of its reform agenda,[5] the movement advocates an originalist[6] interpretation coupled with educational outreach efforts focused on the founding documents.[7] Several constitutional amendments have been targeted by some in the movement for full or partial repeal, including the Fourteenth,[8] Sixteenth,[9] and Seventeenth.[10] There has also been support for a proposed "Repeal Amendment," enabling states to repeal federal laws,[11] and "Balanced-budget Amendment," which would constrain federal deficit spending.[12] Lacking a clearly defined foreign policy, Tea Party groups have stated public opposition to U.N. 'Agenda 21'.[13]

The Tea Party has protested TARP, stimulus, cap and trade, Obamacare and perceived attacks by the federal government on their first, second, fourth and tenth amendment rights. They support right-to-work legislation and immigration reform that includes provisions for border security to prevent the problem in the future. They have formed SuperPacs to support candidates sympathetic to their goals and have opposed what they call the “Republican establishment” candidates. They protested the IRS for discrimination against conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

While lacking central leadership and representation enjoyed by political parties,[14] the 'Contract from America' was created with the assistance of "hundreds of thousand of people" voting online for their "favorite principles" as a Tea Party platform.[15] Its name was a play on the 'Contract with America'[16] released by Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections.[17] Contract from America was met with some support within the Republican Party,[18] but not broadly embraced by GOP leadership.[19] They subsequently promulgated their own 'Pledge to America'.[20]

Malke 2010 (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Per whatever comes out of WP:RS/N on the Foley essay, I would remove the specifics about amendments, and specify that most of the "agenda items" are those of subgroups of the TPm and do not necessarily represent the agenda of the entire group, and that material sourced to an essay should be removed. I still also suggest the forced use of "agenda" is not necessary and is, in fact, verging on redundancy. The "word play" comment is also of little use to readers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Which fixes what I see as substantial issues with the proposal. Collect (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Foley is not the only source that discusses Amendments. I have posted detailed quotes in a hatted section above from Schmidt and others. Schmidt discusses both the 16th and 17th in detail as well as the Repeal Amendment, and mentions the 14th in a footnote, while Somin discusses the 16th and 17th. Skocpol also mentions the TPm's pushing for amendments, etc.
 * This text has numerous other problems, such as being unsourced, referring to many local actions that seem to relate more to events and (re)actions than specific agenda items. Phrases like, "Some call the Tea Party interpretation of the Constitution "originalist" is somewhat uninformative and leaves the reader wondering, whereas the fact of the matter is that a new term has been coined by a constitutional scholar to describe the TPm's version of originalism.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction, Somin discusses the 16th Amendment and the Repeal Amendment in the posted quotes. Note that the quotes are solely from academic sources--peer-reviewed legal journals--there are also many news media sources that discuss the specific Amendments, including more than one NTY article, etc., several of which have been discussed on this page previously.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that I did not muddy the page up with yet more non-utile footnotes does not mean "unsourced".  Really.  And that you have posted extensive detailed quotes is not indicative of much of anything at all.  The question is how we present the complex topic to Wikipedia readers.   Cheers -- I would like to see the constructive comments on this proposal which I crafted as best I could to meet everyone's positions here with the goal of reaching a consensus.   Collect (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The specific amendment number should go regardless of RSN, but we could do that later. Either of these is good enough, with the understanding that additional tweaks are needed. North8000 (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Collect might be right. Maybe we shouldn't get too specific. If Jay Leno went into a crowd of tea party peeps from different groups and asked 'what is meant by constitutional originalism,' some might say it's about Adam and Eve, at least one would say Al Gore is the current VP (like the tourist at Grauman's who told Leno that on the night of the Iowa caucuses in 2008) a few would say it was a new cable series like Judge Judy but with a Supreme Court justice named Jefferson instead of Judy, most rest would likely say it had something to do with taking a daily constitutional around the mall, and one would say it had to do with limiting federal powers and states' rights. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, Malke - that paragraph had me chuckling out loud. :-) Seriously though, we shouldn't be too hard on the average TPer's understanding of Constitution-related stuff; several reliable sources have noted that TPers on average are a degree more engaged with the Constitution than the average American voter. Pocket-constitution booklets are popular merchandise at rallies, and "instructional seminars" on the Constitution are conducted by more than a few local TP groups. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it. They might be buying those pocket guides but they couldn't quote them to Leno and win the gift certificate to Morton's on La Cienega. But you're right they are more aware of the constitution, but I think it's like they're aware they have a glove compartment in their vehicle but they couldn't tell you what's in it. IMHO, this is all about the fact that they can't sell their homes as planned to use the profits for their retirement. Right after the housing market comes back and the value of their homes comes back to where they were before 2008, they'll sell and move to Naples Florida. Then they'll be so happy to have that great affordable care from that nice Mr. Obama. That's what this is really all about IMHO. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

13.

. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Either way, I could still see this going in even with the tangent of over analyzing constitutional details. That said, I think that the centrality of the constitution in the TPM agenda, dialog etc. more general......that strict adherence to it will tend to limit expansion of government.  I see the detailed stuff about adding and subtracting particular amendments to be overemphasis.   But I think we should move forward and put it in even with that issue.   North8000 (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Some substantive changes to the proposal to differentiate it from prior proposals would help a lot. Collect (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (e/c)No block quotes. Too much emphasis from one author's opinion. They didn't 'shift focus after President Obama's election.' That's not accurate and it makes it seem ad hominem. They were always against Obamacare from the beginning. The 2012 election did not change that. They weren't focused on the constitution and then suddenly changed tactics because Obama got reelected. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, they did not come together as a cohesive force and create contract from America. That was Ryan Heckler and the Tea Party Patriots supported. It's not a good idea to generalize these things to the entire movement. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no convincing rationale justifying removal of the block quotes. I provided my rationale above for using them.
 * I have assessed the suggested texts above, and they have more shortcomings than this, in my opinion.
 * Thanks North8000, for recognizing that at least this is not all that biased. I would suggest that coming down a little on the side of "overemphasis" is better than omission.
 * I have tightened up the language to the extent I can see possible at present, and brought a couple of points into clearer focus, I think. It is quite compact, yet sufficiently informative.
 * With respect to Heckler, please see the section above addressing the question of his connection to the TPm. The sources simply identify him as a TPm activist in Houston. If there are more specific sources, I would be willing to modify the sentence accordingly to reflect the content.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Compromise is the goal. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm doing my best. This version is rather minimalist, from my perspective. And I've incorporated a number of revisions suggested by others along the way.
 * Most importantly, I think this version is strikes a balance between being adequately informative and not excessively detailed, which I believe is possible to do in light of: first, tacit agreement regarding a separate section--outside of the Agenda section--or a subarticle dealing with the massive amount of published text focusing on the Constitution; and second, the use use of two blockquotes that contained condensed information.--  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me add that, I am willing to admit that there is a something of a want of detail in the specific correlation of detail in the Foley quote between the specific agenda points and the corresponding Amendment points. Nevertheless, I also feel that the mention of several specific agenda points that have been raised in other versions of proposed text are mentioned for the first and only time, making the trade-off overall a plus, as it allows for a more compact text while maintaining a high level of informativeness. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding some of the points Malke raised just above: I'm on the fence with regard to "blockquotes". I have absolutely no problem with quoting a source, but quoting the source by using the "blockquote" mark-up feature does lend a slight emphasis to that text by separating and indenting it. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but care must be used. Regarding "shifting focus", it's true that they were always against the health care legislation, and they still are - the actual change in "focus" (as explained here) is in how they are now fighting Obamacare since Obama was re-elected, and repeal is no longer an option. They have shifted to nullification by the individual states, and killing the funding for it at the local level. Maybe that wording should be made more clear? Regarding Contract from America, Hecker had that idea before the Tea Party even existed (yup, 2008), and the 10-point agenda wasn't exactly created "by the Tea Party". The list of proposed agenda items (generated by just a few thousand surveys from both within and outside of the Tea Party -- not "hundreds of thousands") was first vetted by FreedomWorks and stripped down to 21 items. This info used to be at www.thecontract.org, but is now unfortunately scrubbed. Then that list of 21 pre-selected items were presented online to activists to have them prioritized (that's where the "hundreds of thousands of votes" comes in). Maybe that wording should be made more clear as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you feel there are important details that are key to informing the reader, then they should be included. Otherwise, too fine-grained a level of detail in this summary section simply serves to detract from the purpose. As for the blockquotes, how do you propose to compensate for the content?
 * It seems to me that the details of Hecker are of negligible import, and if they weren't, the account provided in the readily available sources would be more detailed. If you can clarify points without warping the scope, then by all means. Otherwise, prepare for more substantial revision. What knowledge does the reader gain from any of that in relation to the TPm? There is no article at present on Wikipedia about Hecker, though I suppose he is notable.
 * The shift in focus is in part meant to emphasize the shift of the battleground to the courts from the electorate.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 19:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Xenophrenic. That is exactly how the Contract from America came about. And he's right about the rest of it. On the block quotes, we've had them before and they are revert magnets. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And Obamacare is the reason they are focused on the constitution and states' rights. They were also very disappointed that the Supremes went around the Commerce Clause to say it wasn't a constitutional violation. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as the CfA material is concerned, I raised the question almost a week ago above, and no one replied. If the details matter to an extent warranting insertion in this context, then somebody please revise that text. Note that the information being discussed here isn't even included in the main article on the CfA. Maybe that should be revised first, meaning revising this sentence or two could wait until that has been done.
 * (added subsequent to original post for clarification) Alternatively, correct any misstatements; however, bear in mind that the sentence I proposed was based on two sources from the main article on CfA, so there should probably be sources added.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are those sources, for which I have just left refs in the above suggested text, and slightly re-worded the text to make it less inaccurate. According to the information that has been provided here, these sources are somewhat incomplete, but what is the fix in a case such as this? Tea Party Activists Craft 'Contract from America'Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract from America'
 * Note that the first article (Feb. 2010) describes Hecker as "a Tea Party activist in Texas", while the second in the series (Apr. 2010) mentions that he came up with the idea in 2008, and only describes him as "a 29-year old lawyer from Houston". Does someone want to further edit the text to reflect this, or can it wait until there is a more comprehensive source and we can vote on this? -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

With regard to states rights, I believe that the TPm was associated with Federalism before the health care bill was passed. The issue of the powers of congress and the 16th Amendment also relate to the balance between state and federal power. The way I see it is that the health care law just gave the TPm a target to go after in the courts.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 02:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Noting that I, for one, do not always instantly reply to every point raised in every post here, I would like to note that "overemphasis" is specifically contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The one thing we specifically must not do is "overemphasize" what we WP:KNOW to be the WP:TRUTH - our task is to reach WP:CONSENSUS through compromise in order to provide readers with articles which do not use "overemphasis" whatsoever, ever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC) (Noting that edits have been made to the posts to which I have replied without the poster noting the changes for others to see) Collect (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are referring to the comment under version 12 related to sourcing, I gather. At any rate, I've self-reverted and re-posted that with an expanded text. The other comment I expanded in this section is not a comment related to CfA to which you appear not to have responded, but I have made the adidition thereof more conspicuous so that all can see what you refer to above.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is clear that it is not overemphasis as far as the sources and relevant policies of WP:RS and WP:DUE are concerned. The comment I made was made in response to a statement articulating a perception that was in favor of compromise of the text, while voicing concerns in terms of a personal view on the specificity regarding the Amendments, without making recourse to policy. It is clear that I feel that omitting a POV contained in RS would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, for starters, while potentially assigning something too much weight, which is the suggestion, would not necessarily be a policy violation, and is something that could be resolved later if not perfect. Silk Tork has made that point more than once.
 * Deliberating how much weight a given POV found in RS deserves to be given is quote different from excluding a POV that is clearly articulated in numerous sources.
 * What is the point of the mention of WP:KNOW and WP:TRUTH? There are a plurality of RS that specifically mention several Amendments by name or number, which is the basis upon which I have composed the suggested text. I have repeatedly discussed those.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that I should add that the sources being discussed are only the academic sources available online--peer-reviewed legal journals--there are also many news media sources that discuss the specific Amendments, including more than one NTY article, etc., several of which have been discussed on this page previously. I would imagine that some of the recently published books also list specific Amendments by number, etc. The fact is that there are multiple sources that present a POV relating to the TPm's aims and proposals to repeal specific Amendments and add the Repeal Amendment. I didn't think that was even an issue.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In light of an utter lack of progress, I've added a short primary source blockquote of the CfA plank related to the balanced budget amendment proposal, and am calling a vote. Please continue the commenting there.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Albert, pp. 4-5 ''Richard Albert. "The Constitutional Politics of the Tea Party Movement." Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy 105, (2011): 267-270.'' Then Somin, a leading theorist on the study of popular political participation and its implications for constitutional democracy, evaluated the Tea Party movement as an example of “popular constitutionalism.” Somin’s presentation assessed the Tea Party movement against the larger backdrop of the trend toward reviving constitutional limits on federal power.

Next to the stage was Barnett, perhaps the leading conservative constitutional theorist in the nation. Barnett situated the Tea Party movement within the national debate on health care and federalism, and also discussed his work with Tea Party leaders on a constitutional “Repeal Amendment” that would give a supermajority of state legislatures the power to repeal any federal law or regulation.

Finally, the audience heard from Levinson, perhaps America’s foremost progressive constitutional theorist. Levinson took the view that we should applaud the Tea Party movement’s attention to the deep interconnections among basic constitutional structures and political outcomes—a theme that has been the focus of much of Levinson’s own scholarship. Levinson was clear, though, to express his disagreement with the Tea Party movement’s broader constitutional vision and, more specifically, with the “Repeal Amendment” championed by Barnett.

NYT article, “Radical Constitutionalism”  Of the newly elected Tea Party senators, Mike Lee, a 39-year-old Republican from Utah, has the most impeccable establishment legal credentials... Lee proposed to dismantle, on constitutional grounds, the federal Departments of Education, and Housing and Urban Development. He insisted that “the Constitution doesn’t give Congress the power to redistribute our wealth” and vowed to phase out Social Security. He proposed repealing the 16th Amendment, which authorizes the progressive federal income tax, and called the 17th Amendment, which allows senators to be elected by popular vote rather than by state legislatures, a “mistake.” Many of the positions Lee outlined on the campaign trail appear to be inspired by the constitutional guru of the Tea Party movement, W. Cleon Skousen… …Skousen also calls for the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments, which he views as an affront to states’ rights…

NYT article, “Tea Party Rooted in Religious Fervor for Constitution”  The creation of the amendment process is a fairly evident acknowledgment of the Constitution’s capacity for imperfection and anachronism. (Many of the Tea Party’s defenders of the Constitution advocate repeal of the 14th and 17th Amendments, which makes it confusing whether all or only some of the amendments fall short of inerrancy.) -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Foley is also the author of a book on the Tea Party movement The Tea Party: Three Principles. There would seem to be a substantial body of evidence to support citation of the above passage, which would seem to be an uncontroversial reiteration of facts. The only opposition being made to using the citation is that the quote is used simply as a statement of fact, whereas the quote was made by a legal scholar that is largely supportive of aspects of the constitutionalism of the Tea Party.

Here are some blurbs from the Amazon page, including reviews Book Description In The Tea Party: Three Principles, Elizabeth Price Foley asserts that the mainstream media's characterization of the American Tea Party movement is distorted. Foley sees the decentralized, wide-ranging group as a movement bound by allegiance to three "core principles" of American constitutional law: limited government, unapologetic U.S. sovereignty, and constitutional originalism. She explains how these principles predict the Tea Party's impact on the American political landscape, connecting them to current issues, such as health care reform, illegal immigration, the war on terror, and internationalism. "'Elizabeth Price Foley has produced an interesting and important work on the constitutional basis for the agenda of the Tea Party movement.... I do believe anyone interested in understanding how the growth of the welfare-regulatory state violates the constitution and threatens liberty can benefit from reading this book.' - Ron Paul, United States Congressman (R-TX)""'Elizabeth Price Foley's The Tea Party is a clear and straightforward explication of what the Tea Party Movement is all about, and is required reading for anyone who wants to understand the current political climate. With this slim, provocative volume, Foley once again demonstrates why she is one of constitutional law's rising stars.' - Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law"

"“By elevating principle above party, the Tea Party has already changed the face of American politics. In this marvelous book, Elizabeth Price Foley clearly identifies and defends the three basic principles that unite the Tea Party movement, all stemming from its commitment to our written Constitution. Politicos beware; the party has just begun.”– Randy E. Barnett, Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown Law Center, and author of Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2005)" -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I hate to say this but Amazon blurbs are not reliable sources for anything at all. Nor do they make the essay a reliable source for the claims you wish to make from a single sentence in it. Nor does anyone else at RS/N concur with such a usage. Collect (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, likely they could be filed under WP:NOTHERE at RS/N. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

iVote on
As there is limited time before the Arbcom case reconvenes, and since there have been no new suggestions in the past 24 hours other than the modifications I've made to the CfA material, while some are lobbying Xenophrenic for a version--which would be welcome--I'm going to call a vote on version 13 in its current state. If anyone has further suggestions, please post them in a new version below. Noe that I've posted information above (hatted section) in relation to objections to using the Foley blockquote, and posted an agenda point from the CfA on the proposed balanced budget amendment referred to by Foley.
 * Support actioning edit of version 13 -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Iterating essentially the same proposal over and over and suggesting instant auctioning is not productive. The exact same problems are here as in the past, and the concept of seeking compromise is lacking in this iterated proposal.  Cheers.  BTW, the idea that 24 hours is sufficient to have your own position adopted by default is not exactly airworthy. Collect (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The unattributed blockquotes are a non-starter as demonstrated in conversations above. Version 13 represents a clear step back in the consensus process. †TE†   Talk  08:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per ThinkEnemies and Collect. Well said. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Several problems. Can we get one together that genuinely takes feedback into account?  North8000 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A movement is defined by it's agenda. Trying to get this all important section down to a few short paragraphs is a bad idea. So how about this: So we could quickly go 1/2 a step forward. And SilkTork, if you consider this idea proposal to be outside of the plan, I will strike it. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Quickly prepare a slightly pared and tidied version of version 12, as being a substitute only for the intro paragraphs in the agenda section I could do this if folks want.
 * 2) Put it in.
 * 3) Then tackle what to do with the "contract" section. Keep as is, contract/summarize/pare, eliminate etc. (consider "expansion" to be off the table)
 * 4) Then tackle what to do with the "foreign policy" section.  Keep as is, contract/summarize/pare, eliminate etc. (consider "expansion" to be off the table)


 * I'm not adverse to this. But let me explain what I'd like to see happen now. We've had proposals made, and there's enough material on the table for people to find one of those proposals to work on. What I don't want to see is more proposals, and get into a situation where people simply offer proposal and counter-proposal, and folks are no longer working together collaboratively, but in opposition. I'd like folks to find one version that people agree can be worked on, and then folks work together to make it acceptable (not perfect, but an acceptable starting point). So - we can take forward your suggestion. Let's find an acceptable working version (perhaps 12), and then look at the issues in that version, and make it better - if that means paring it down, and parking the contract and foreign policy sections for later, that's OK. But the first stage is to find a version that most people agree is the best one to be working on. And then we look at the issues arising from that. Does that make sense?
 * And while I'm here - which version of Version 12 are people talking about? Malke's original version, or Collect's amendment?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm easy....either pare down Malke's or build up Collect's.......I lean towards starting with Malke's. North8000 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Version vote
I'd like an indication now which two of the versions (I think the viable versions run from 7 through to 13) people feel they can live with, and is better than what is currently in the article. The process will be to indicate first and second preference. No need for additional comments at this stage. I'll assess which version is favourite, and then ask what specific objections people have to that version. Depending on the result of that discussion the outcome will be to either insert the chosen version, work on amending it, or continue to search for another version. I'm cool about the format of the vote, though an example might be:
 * 1st ; 2nd . User:Example. 15:13, 28 June 2013

Though this is called a vote - it's just the first stage in establishing consensus. It's about finding a version that most people feel is workable, and then discussing objections.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1st ; 2nd (Xenophrenic's revised version)--  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * IMO #12 is the best. But I'd rather see another proposal that sort of combines the feedback. North8000 (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * , which is a continuation of ; heavily influenced by . †TE†   Talk  15:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * , Per TE and North. This does seem premature to me. I don't see discussion among the other editors like North and TE, and Collect and Xeno and myself rushing for a vote. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * although I think some of my "12a" wording may suffice as being clearer and more succinct (run the choices through a readability index checker for fun) . 13 is a "non-starter" in race parlance. Collect (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite obviously the best choice of the ones that are available. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * or 12c Darkstar1st (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Readability Index
12 and 12a each have a grade level of 16, and 12 has a readability index of 16, and 12a one of 20. 10 is the level some legalese hits on the F/K index. Anything less is pretty much unreadable. 13 has a grade level of 17 and an index of 9, which 6b has a grade level of 20 and a readability of 5. . Ideally articles should aim for a grade level of 12 or so, and a readability of at least 20 as a dead minimum. Feel free to check your favourite articles on this. Collect (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: a grade level of 16 is "college graduate", 20 is "doctoral level" for grade level. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I would suggest that it is far easier to improve readability than the grade level of content. If you start out aiming for high readability at the expense of content, you wind up dumbing down the text, which I would imagine to run counter to the goals of the encyclopedia.
 * Is there some pre-established standard for prescribing the target audience for particular articles? Or is that determined in accordance with the corresponding WP:RS on the topic, which in this case includes multiple reliably published papers by legal scholars.
 * Working on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, I could easily improve the readability of version 13. For example, I have incorporated changes in wording in 13 from versions suggested by others that is probably too abbreviated, and also resulted in sentence lengths that are longer, which could be reduced in other cases as well.
 * The first suggested text I submitted started with the sentence"The agenda of the Tea Party movement is aimed at government reform."which now reads"The agenda of the Tea Party movement is generally aimed at government reform, including limiting the size and scope of the federal government, reducing government spending and lowering the national debt and deficit."
 * It's not a bad sentence, but as for grade-level/readability indexes, the former is:


 * "Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 10 / Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: 47."
 * While the later is:
 * "Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 21 / Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: 4."
 * In this case, the attempt I made to be collaborative resulted in a text that is deemed unattractive based on other criteria.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 06:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

In the case that improved readability would be considered important to a majority of editors, the following version of the first paragraph scores a 16/15 on the above-referenced scale, whereas the present version of the corresponding paragraph scores 21/-3. The first paragraph of version 12 scores 16/14, and that of 12(a) 16/15. 13 first paragraph, revised for readbaility.""-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 06:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Check out the results: Grade level of 17 and R/I of 9.  Not an improvement, alas.  And still harder to read than the IRS Code . Collect (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To what results are you referring?
 * The result I posted are for the above paragraph from the website linked to above in your earlier post . I believe that it is you that needs to "check out the results".
 * The comment with  appended to the end is unhelpful, as it is merely your personal opinion, alas.Moreover, it has the same readability score as the opening paragraph of the suggested text posted as 12(a), but it includes much more information. The the reason that I have spent the time to undertake this exercise is because there is an impartial indexing website available. Cheers.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 08:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are rewritten versions of each paragraph of the text of --excluding the blockquotes, and their corresponding scores. The overall score, incidentally, is 15/20.

Paragraph 1: 16/15

Paragraph 2: 16/20

Paragraph 3: 15/19

Paragraph 4: 14/30

Paragraph 5: 15/24

-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

IOW you excluded a large part of your proposal in order to show a "better" score (heck -- if I remove all the hard parts from any article, it will look easier - the question is why someone inserted those hard parts in the first place) -- whilst even then you fail to be as readable as 12a. Are you now proposing to omit all the block quotes? Otherwise the comment "it is you that(sic) needs to check out the results "  looks a teensy bit more like snark than anything else. Do you really expect all Wiki-users to be post-graduates? I sure the hell don't. Cheers. Now get rid of the block quotes to have a chance at all in this. Collect (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems a bit of overemphasis on this aspect. Also 12 has more support as a starting point, plus several of us have a request in to Xenophrenic to try a version which they said they'd do. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)IRS readability for
 * Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by employees under section 6053(a).

is a grade level of 22! and a readability of 17. The grade level is horrid, but the readability is well over the 9 of your proposal and the 5 of Xenophrenic's proposal (I find it hard to imagine getting under 5).. So far we have only one proposal which is actually at 20, and one at 16, and the other contenders are clearly and significantly less readable than the tax code. End of opinion that this is only my opinion. Collect (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, apparently you misunderstood the intent. The paragraphs I posted were rewritten to improve readability without substantially altering the meaning or diminishing the content.
 * The blockquotes are a separate issue, but I can take that up here, since you've broached the topic.
 * But first, the comment needs to check out the results was a repetition of a comment made to me by mistake, apparently, in relation to the online results for the first paragraph, which would seem to be mentioned out of context here.
 * The rewritten paragraphs largely removed text and phrasing I had incorporated in an attempt to edit collaboratively, as mentioned above. a quick look at the evolution of the text demonstrates that.
 * I'm in favor of including the blockquotes I have posted, obviously, but the rewritten paragraphs could serve as a reference for anyone else seeking to improve the readability of whatever version we eventually arrive at through consensus. They could be appropriated as building blocks, as far as I'm concerned. There is one day left to this endeavor.
 * Incidentally, the first blockquote scores fairly well:

Blockquote 1: 14/13


 * The second blockquote not so well in terms of "readability", but not does reflect the "grade-level" one might expect from an article in a legal journal.

Blockquote 2: 27/-17


 * I suppose I could simply paraphrase the content of that blockquote, and preface that with "According to Elizabeth Foley..., in light of the RS/N suggestion.
 * Maybe I'll have some time to do that later tonight and post a version for reference, as it seems others are waiting on Xenophrenic's next suggestion. He is free to draw on the above-posted material.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"One day left" to this endeavour? As far as I can tell we are in medias res and I sincerely doubt SilkTork, having started this part of the procedure. will call "Time, Gentlemen, Time." As for your seeming iteration about the "check out the results" I suggest that the "results" are only usable if applied to an entire proposal. Else, parsing sentence by sentence, one could end up with wondrous readability scores for individual sentences. It only counts when you look at the entire proposed material. Collect (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Since a criteria related to "readability" has been introduced, although said criteria does not appear to be based on any Wikipedia policy, since an impartial online engine has been introduced for evaluating text in terms of said criteria, I've rewritten the entirety of version 13. Because the online indexing engine does not appear to have an appreciation for blockquotes, I have removed all but one. I happen to think that there are other compelling reasons for using blockquotes, as described above.

The overall score for this version of suggested text is 16/16, according to the above-described measure. The score of each paragraph is posted above the paragraph.

16/18 14.

14/15

17/17

17/18

15/24 --  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Much improved - now the same as proposal 12 for readability, and a little less readable than 12a. Collect (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you certain you wish to use the neologism "Tea Partiers" however?  I am also uncertain that "originalist" does not need to be in quotation marks - I suspect many readers might assign varying interpretations to it.  Lastly, looking at all the sources, the "Agenda 21" bit seems way way down on the list - are you sure the final paragraph adds anything to your new proposal? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I split usage between "Tea Party" and "Tea Partiers", as those are the two common ways that I've seen RS refer to the movement in general terms. I think the use of both provides for a little flexibility, but are not absolutely necessary.
 * I should have wikilinked "originalism", as there are in fact more than one version, and different versions have been ascribed to the TPm by different people, and I've seen elements of both "textualist" and "intent" in related statements from TPm groups. That is not even briniging up "popular originalism", which needs its own section on the "originalism page. At any rate, maybe wikilinking to that will cover all aspects, and details can be treated elsewhere.
 * As far I recal discussion of the sources (Xenophrenic read those), Agenda 21 was an issue that was raised after 2012 elections. The only thing gained by breaking that sentence in two in the last paragraph was readability.
 * This wasn't meant to be a completely new proposal, but I did leave out a sentence or so on the CfA per Silk Tork's reply to North. Cheers.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I think "Tea Partiers" is far less common in fact, looking in books for "tea Partiers" and "Obama" (to avoid the historical Boston Tea Party) is a bit over 2K, while "Tea Party" and "Obama" hits 25K (which includes all of the "Partier" cites - thus it is clear that writers on the general topic tend not to use that term. I suggest we follow suit. "Agenda 21" and "Tea Party" in books gets  500 hits -- of which most are primarily about "Agenda 21" and not primarily about the TPm - thus I think it clear that it is of exceedingly minor weight per the RS sources. Collect (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn' have any objections to changing "Tea Partiers" to (the) "Tea Party", or removing the mention of Agenda 21. Feel free to revise the text. Cheers. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I should revise my last comment slightly, as perhaps I should have checked the context again before speaking. in the following sentence, for example, the use of "Tea Partiers" has value for brevity and succinctness "Tea Partiers helped create the Contract from America". How else can one describe both individuals and groups with a single term here? What does the alternative phrasing look like?
 * And since there are a couple of sources on Agenda 21, we should probably here more input on that before removing it. It does fit with explicating the post 2012 shift in focus, even if it is relatively limited in scope. There is also the fact that it is a point that relates to favoring property owners over government regulation vis-a-vis environmental impact, or at least that is my perception at the moment. At the same time, it would probably be possible to iron out these issues later.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On "Tea Partiers", the following google search returns 234,000 hits, with a Fox News source near the top. It's a colloquial expression, but basically a grammatical construct the same as "Democrats" or "Republicans".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Version 14 is "Version 13 revised for readability." I'm not sure why so much time and effort is being invested in a new and improved V13. We had a "version vote" and the result was five "votes" in favor of V12, and one "vote" in favor of V13. In my opinion, this time and effort would be far more productively invested in improving V12 and getting it into the mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem to have missed a couple of points, such as a discussion on Silk Tork's Talk page and comments above in response to North, not to mention the discussion on Xenophrenic's Talk page.
 * Since another version from Xenophrenic is awaited, the process is in suspended animation, while there has been no directive to stop working otherwise. Xenophrenic mentioned valid criticism on ST's talk page, yet he has been unable to produce an alternative text as of yet.
 * Moreover, the step after the version vote was to engage wording in the version in terms of the propriety thereof for the agenda section, and there is much material in version 12 that does not directly relate to the agenda, not too mention other problems, so that version is unlikely to have survived a collective review conducted under moderation by Silk Tork.
 * In the interim, Collect introduced the "readability" concern, so we have been addressing that with respect to version 13.
 * I would venture to say that the "version vote" is moot, but it probably doesn't matter either way, as there is one day remaining in this discussion.
 * Take a little foresight from this and prepare for what's next, the way you see it, of course.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

One thing I've learned from all this is that editors rarely change their minds. No matter what version we put into the mainspace, it will get there as the result of a "vote." At least three of the five editors who "voted" for V12 would have to change their minds to "vote" for some reiteration of V13, or for whatever Xenophrenic produces. I've reviewed the discussion on SilkTork's Talk page, and the remarks made to North8000. They do not appear to make such a radical change of opinions any more likely. In my opinion, V12 is the appropriate starting point if we are to get anything accomplished any time soon. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thou thus declares consensus on XII.
 * Bears witness:

†TE†  Talk  20:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dominus, Patris, Spiritus. . .The end. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I do hope that I have the nomenclature correct. I found a V12a and a V12b, but no V12c. So here it is.

This version starts with Malke's V12 which received 5-1 support in the "version vote." I've simplified and cleaned up the language a little bit to improve readability. Collect is absolutely correct about that concern. Associated Press guidelines for newspapers aim for a sixth grade reading level (yes, I'm serious) and I feel we should be aiming for a 12. I encourage a copy-and-paste into Collect's "readability meter." (Don't use the version that appears on the edit page — the underlying article titles in these Wikilinks would skew the result.) I've added Wikilinks to the corresponding WP articles about the relevant amendments and legislation. I have added one blockquote from Christopher Schmidt, very generally descriptive of the agenda, as a compromise offer to the editor with the single dissenting vote.


 * 12c. The Tea Party movement has a reform agenda[1] to limit the size and scope of the federal government,[2] reduce government spending,[3] and reduce deficits and the national debt.[4]


 * "The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting Agendas... Yet within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party. This core is particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters."


 * Placing the Constitution at the forefront of its agenda,[5] the movement advocates originalism[6] coupled with educational outreach efforts focused on the founding documents.[7] Several constitutional amendments have been targeted by some in the movement for full or partial repeal, including the Fourteenth,[8] Sixteenth,[9] and Seventeenth.[10] There has also been support for a proposed Repeal Amendment, enabling a two-thirds majority of the states to repeal federal laws,[11] and a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would limit deficit spending. Lacking a clearly defined foreign policy, Tea Party groups have opposed the United Nations Agenda 21.


 * Tea Party members have protested TARP, Obama's 2009 economic stimulus bill, "cap and trade" emissions trading, Obamacare, and perceived attacks by the federal government on their First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights. Tea Party groups support right-to-work legislation, and immigration reform that includes provisions for border security to prevent future unlawful immigration. They have formed SuperPacs to support candidates who share their goals, and have opposed what they call "Republican establishment" candidates. They protested the IRS for discrimination against conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.


 * While lacking central leadership and representation enjoyed by political parties,[14] the "Contract from America" was created with the assistance of "hundreds of thousand of people" voting online for their "favorite principles" to create a Tea Party platform. Its name was a play on the "Contract with America"[16] released by the Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections.[17] The Contract from America was met with some support within the Republican Party,[18] but not broadly embraced by GOP leadership.[19] They later wrote their own "Pledge to America."[20]

A week ago, we were discussing a spin-off article called Agenda of the Tea Party. "Splendid idea, mate." Remember that? All of the effort invested in most of these versions could have been devoted to making that spin-off article totally awesome. We could still rock that spin-off article and I've been working on a first draft.

As this discussion proceeds, I'll be replacing "fake" refcites in the above version with real refcites, so that it can simply be cut and pasted into the mainspace if and when we get consensus for it. I'd appreciate some help putting in the real refcites if any of you has any spare time. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Vote" on Version 12c

 * Support. For the reasons discussed above. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (only) assuming that we are parking the subsections for later review.  Otherwise the "contract" being missing would be a big problem. Also, the "12" that received support was also OK. Maybe we could consider this to be that one tweaked.     Let's move forward somehow.   North8000 (talk) 01:12, 30 t's June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, just to be clear, this proposal means that other sections (Contract and Foreign Policy) are parked for now. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The quote from Schmidt is a good quote, but it has not been integrated into the text very well. The concerns and criticisms mentioned under 12(b)--which apply to 12(a) as well, have not been addressed at all. Note that I believe those concerns were in part responsible for prompting people to ask Xenophrenic for input. Aside from that, there is also some peacocky phrasing here and there.
 * More specifically, the connection of protests to the agenda is not made, and I have doubts as to whether discussion of protests fit in the agenda section, particularly with respect to the IRS incident. There is also much unsourced material, such as the statement "perceived attacks by the federal government on their First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights. ", while there is no mention at all of the more prominent issues related to the Constitution, such as efforts to repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments and support for the "Repeal Amendment". The text is uninformative with respect to WP:RS, disjointed and poorly structured, and contains peacocky phrasing in relation to some topics that probably deserve less attention overall, while other more important topics have been omitted.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies. The weird "{{ex|" notation wasn't allowing the first paragraph after the blockquote to show on the page for some screwy reason, showing the entire paragraph as the two words, "Example text." I have changes the "{{ex|" notation to standard HTML, which I actually know something about. Please review. That paragraph cites the efforts to fully or partially repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments, as well as the support for the Repeal Amendment. We have sources for the allegedly unsourced material. I did say that I was going to be adding real refcites. I just haven't added all of them yet. As SilkTork said, this doesn't have to be perfect; and as I said several weeks ago, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." This version is good enough for now. Your other concerns would best be addressed in the proposed spin-off article, where I certainly would not object to blockquotes from several academics. In fact, as I mentioned, I'm already working on a first draft of that spin-off article. Let's see. For now, it should probably look like this: /Agenda of the Tea Party movement. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that is an improvement, but the text is still too problematic for me to approve. Until there is some constructive input from others, I'll have nothing more to say.
 * Incidentally, the subarticle was to called "The Tea Party and the Constitution", not the title you mentioned above.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 07:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose A step backward from the readability of 12 or 12a, and retains some pretty useless "stuff" like the wordplay aside, and implies that specific protests are generally backed by the entire movement, which is inapt per sources. O shall suggest a version also based on 12 with as high a readability as I can. Collect (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Agenda - Version 12d
The Tea Party movement doesn't have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the movement, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group in the movement to set its own priorities and goals. Sometimes these goals may even be in conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. Many Tea Party organizers see this as a strength rather than a weakness, as decentralization has helped to immunize the movement against co-opting by outside entities and corruption from within. Despite the disparate nature of the many individual groups, a few defining principles and core ideologies have been embraced by a large majority of the movement. Most political observers agree the Tea Party is largely motivated by the conservative principles of constitutionally limited government, free market economy and fiscal responsibility.

The Tea Party is a conservative movement, yet it has mostly avoided involvement with the more traditional conservative social, religious and family-values issues. Some national Tea Party organizations like Tea Party Patriots and FreedomWorks, concerned that engaging in social issues would be divisive on the movement, have directed activist efforts away from social issues and toward economic issues. Still, many Tea Party groups like the 9/12 Tea Parties popularized by Glenn Beck, TeaParty.org, the Iowa Tea Party and Delaware Patriot Organizations do prioritize issues concerning abortion, gun control, prayer in schools and illegal immigration.

"The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting Agendas... Yet within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party. This core is particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters.[14]"

The Tea Party movement generally focuses on government reform. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases. To this end, Tea Party groups have protested TARP, stimulus programs, cap and trade emissions trading, health care reform and perceived attacks by the federal government on their First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights. Tea Party groups have also supported right-to-work legislation and tighter border security, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. They have formed SuperPacs to support candidates sympathetic to their goals and have opposed what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates. After President Obama's reelection in 2012, the movement again shifted its focus. The Tea party led efforts to challenge the constitutionality of the federal health care law in the courts, and also mobilized locally against the United Nations Agenda 21. They have protested the IRS for controversial treatment of groups with "tea party" in their names. The movement places the Constitution at the center of its reform agenda, and advocates an originalist interpretation coupled with educational outreach efforts focused on the founding documents. Several constitutional amendments have been targeted by some in the movement for full or partial repeal, including the Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth. There has also been support for a proposed Repeal Amendment, enabling a two-thirds majority of the states to repeal federal laws, and a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would limit deficit spending. According to Schmidt, "...The Tea Party’s constitutional vision is designed to be mobilized. The core elements of the Tea Party Constitution are relatively easily grasped and they readily lend themselves to translation into tangible political action. Tea Party constitutionalism challenges its adherents to do more than just passively accept its basic tenets." According to Foley, the Tea Party positions on the Constitution can be seen as corresponding to concrete agenda points, such as opposition to government sponsored bailouts and stimulus programs as well as government mandated health care coverage.

The Contract from America was a legislative agenda created by a conservative activist with the assistance of Dick Armey of FreedomWorks, the author of the Contract with America released by Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections. A thousand submitted agenda ideas were narrowed down to twenty-one economic, non-social issues. These were posted online where "hundreds of thousand of people" voted to further narrow the list down to their top ten "favorite principles" as a Tea Party platform. The Contract from America was met with some support within the Republican Party, but not broadly embraced by GOP leadership. They subsequently promulgated their own 'Pledge to America'. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support (with caveats) One is that subsequent tweaking has to work on the sentence "The Tea Party is a conservative movement" .....probably add "libertarian".  Another is presuming that we're parking the two subsections for now.  Another is we'll need to see what Malke thinks about the quote.   On a different note, since a movement is defined by it's agenda, we should not be concerned that this all-important section it is longer and more detailed.  It needs to be pretty well-covered here, not just in a sub article. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence beginning with "The Tea Party is a conservative movement" is not intended to be an all-inclusive description of the movement. The intent of that sentence is only to convey the fact that while the movement is "conservative", it focuses primarily on conservative fiscal issues rather than also engaging in conservative social issues -- a notable distinction between this and past movements. re: The CfA and Foreign Policy subsections, I could see the Contract from America subsection being collapsed down to a simple paragraph and presented in much the same way as this NYTimes article presents it. The Foreign Policy section, admittedly, has me a little confused. While I find it interesting and informative to read about the foreign policy views of TP activists and their favored politicians, I don't see where these views have translated into actual agenda points for the movement in a meaningful way. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In reality, it has both conservatives and libertarians in it, and the widely-agreed agenda items are where the two overlap. I think you're right about the foreign policy sub-section, (and maybe it should get deleted) but I advocate dealing with both of those two subsections separately. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support This version adds a lot of pertinent content, and though I see aspect that need work, I'm just going to support it now because I won't have sufficient time to put into it until tomorrow at the earliest.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The first two paragraphs consist almost entirely of unsourced statements and may be examples of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or both. As just one example, the statement "priorities will often differ between groups due to this absence of central organization." In this case correlation may not be causation. I can think of many national organizations, such as the Republican Party and the Democratic Party — both consist of a large number of local groups which may not share the same goals (Republicans in the Northeast and California, for example, are a little more tolerant of gun control and a great deal more tolerant of abortion rights than Republicans in Utah or Tennessee). And this occurs despite strong, formal national leadership and carefully crafted organization. Even if there's sourcing that may be found for these two paragraphs, the way it's worded here may contain some negative spin. Putting this possible WP:OR and WP:SYNTH at the front end of the first section of the top-level article in a series gives it a huge amount of weight, and the whole thing is a bit too long, considering that it's currently being envisioned as a summary of a potential spin-off article. After the colossal amount of time and effort that has been devoted to this section, starting out from such a shaky foundation is very troubling. This is a lot weaker than V12c. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note The concern raised relating to "correlation may not be causation" is valid, so I have deleted the corresponding phrase and reworded the sentence.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Where has there been discussion of the Agenda section being a summary of a spin off article? A diff or two would suffice.
 * There has been suggestion and discussion regarding a couple of implementations have been discussed for the Tea Party and the Constitution subarticle and corresponding summary.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too long and manages to get readability only up to 12 - which is significantly worse than other proposals. Collect (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It actually scores better than the 12c predecessor version, and it wouldn't shock me to see that section get even longer and more informative. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note I've relocated the blockquote one paragraph earlier, where it seems more appropriately interposed, facilitating the transition from one focus (disparate groups/agendas) toward focusing on the shared goals of reform and emphasis on the Constitution.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Moving that quote isn't a problem. It's a matter of style preference, really. I saw the quote as a transition-point from the previous list of a bunch of "confusing/conflicting" issues to the subsequent discussion about how the Constitution informs and often directs the TP's actions on issues. You see it more as an introduction to both the issues and the constitutional influence. Useful either way, I guess. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that what got my attention was that the "reform agenda" point is something that also came from Schmidt, so the quote in its original context was also leading into discussion of that, which is then tied to the Consitution, if I recall correctly.
 * With the addition of the material you added on the different positions espoused by some of the groups in the lead into the blockquote from Schmidt enhances the impact, and taking up the common ground between the groups after that reinforces the basics of the agenda across the TPm, in contrast to the disparities describe in the opening.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - For the reasons listed above. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Xenophrenic has made some very good points with this. I like the mention of the Glenn Beck, etc. Don't care for block quotes. The Obamacare issue was decided by the Supreme Court in June 2012, before Obama got reelected so they didn't shift their focus to the courts on that after the election. And maybe shorter. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Malke 2010 (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Version 12e
The Tea Party movement generally seeks reform. It wants to limit government size and scope and to limit government spending. The movement stresses the Constitution as its basis, and uses an "originalist" interpretation" of it. Some members propose that the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments be repealed or changed.  Others propose a "Repeal Amendment" under which 2/3 of the states could repeal federal laws, and a "Balanced Budget" amendment barring deficit spending.

Some groups protest TARP, stimulus, cap and trade, Obamacare and perceived attacks by the federal government on their civil rights. The IRS delay of Tea Party related tax-exempt applications has also been protested. They support right-to-work legislation and immigration reform with border security to prevent the problem in the future. SuperPacs support candidates sympathetic to their goals and have opposed what they call the “Republican establishment” candidates.

Its lack of central organization did not prevent the writing of a 'Contract from America'  by supporters voting online for their "favorite principles."


 * Support This version finally gets down to a reasonable grade level (13), and increases the readability up to 30 which makes it the first version to actually be readable for high school graduates. I think it covers all the bases. Collect (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral Very very well written, very succinct, very focused on the core items (which is what the agenda is really about.)  But is is short on specific content, and this is the most important section of the whole article. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is why footnotes exist. See SilkTork's user talk page for my Joseph Widney example - where I took an unreadable article which had every imaginable detail in it, and pared it down to GA status - and from a readability of minus 13 to one of plus 30, and a grade level of 25 to one of 13.  Readers who desire every excruciating detail can read the cites given - thee is no need to make a complete and completely unreadable article.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose While there are pluses to readability, sacrificing specifics and detail, and omitting important information found in sources meeting WP:RS is problematic. This is, indeed, likely the most important section of the article.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I noted - the details can well be in the cites and footnotes. Meanwhile  etc. are clear that Wikipedia has an average grade level of 12 - and a grade level even higher than average makes the information unusable.  Look at the original Widney article and tell me that it is better than the current, shorter, more usable one.
 * A common measure of basic readability is the Flesch score. Standard reading level is at a Flesch score of about 60 or higher, with lower scores equating to more difficult reading. The scientific literature is pegged in various studies to have a reading score of around 30
 * means that when we talk about reading levels under 30, we are talking about articles more difficult to read that science journals! I suggest as a simple matter that making article unreadable does not fit the purpose of the encyclopedia.  We need a maximum grade level of about 12, and a readability index minimum of 30.   Let's keep the details where folks who really want them can find them - in cites and footnotes. Collect (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See my comment on Silk Tork's Talk page, as I've basically responded to the above concerns there.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The results of this study show that the readability of the English Wikipedia is overall well below a desired standard. Although the average score of 51.18 does not seem far from the desired goal, nearly 75 percent of all articles scored below 60 in the Flesch reading ease test. Moreover, half of the articles can be classified as difficult or worse. This finding confirms our hypothesis that numerous articles on Wikipedia are too difficult to read for many people seems quite clear.  Reducing readability even lower than it is seems about the worst concept for an encyclopedia ever given.   Having a lead with a R/I under 30 seems a teensy bit worse than even that level they decry.  Collect (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I must agree with North8000 that the "Agenda" of the movement is a very important part of the information on this topic, and as such it deserves more comprehensive coverage in our main article. This proposed version is too sparse. Second, while we should absolutely strive for "readability" when we construct our articles, we should not be slaves to a generic, easily "gamed" tool when comparing proposed versions. To use an example from Collect's most recently proposed text, changing words to numbers in a single sentence:
 * Some members propose that the Fourteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments be repealed or changed. (13/28)
 * Some members propose that the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments be repealed or changed. (10/53)
 * ...doubles the readability score and significantly reduces the "grade level", too. Of course one isn't really more readable than the other, but the tool doesn't know that; it just compares sentence and word lengths and spits out a number. Let's focus first on writing a neutral but comprehensive Agenda section that we can agree on. After that is done, we can go back through it and shorten sentences and words without changing the meaning, so that we can fool the readability tool. Lastly, this most recent proposed wording conveys inaccurate information regarding the subjects of immigration and the CfA origins. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Um -- perhaps you should note the NYT usage -- since 1945 their preferred usage is the numerical version. The numerical version is, indeed, easier to read -- thus improves readability.  Changing it back to words does not wreck readability, by the way, and is a straw issue.  Changing all numbers to words reduces reading ease all the way from 30 to 28 -- far from the claim it affects grade level or reading ease much at all.  Please raise genuine issues, but this one was unworthy of this page. Collect (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The "straw issue" you mention was never raised by me, Collect. We can have the discussion on which is a more readable format some other time. You apparently missed the point of my comment, which was: Let's construct the article section - achieve agreement on it - then focus on cleaning up the readability, rather than muddle the agreement process by citing F/K score comparisons. The example I gave above was only to illustrate that wide differences in readability scores can be achieved without altering the actual substance of the text one bit.  So let's focus on the content substance first, so we can get past these disagreement delays ... then we can work on the readability, which should be a non-controversial and non-disruptive process. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The readability is something to consider. Collect's version is good, but too short. Xen's is good but too long. It also has a box quote that is not necessary, and the post Obama 2012 election focus is all wrong. The Tea Party movement has been against Obamacare from the beginning and that ties in with their government spending issues, TARP, etc. Version 12 had the most support but the first and third paragraphs in it need a rewrite for readability. We might as well get it all at once because if we don't, there will be arguments over the content all over again as to what is readable, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The point about "Obamacare" after the elections is the explicitly stated shift toward "the courts", so there is a conflation in the above-posted comment between health-care and TARP, etc., after the 2012 elections.
 * Readability is not an issue that needs to be addressed immediately.
 * The blockquote has my support, 100%.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 19:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In 25 words or less, what does the blockquote mean? Malke 2010 (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quote: The point about "Obamacare" after the elections is the explicitly stated shift toward "the courts. Obamacare was settled by the Supreme Court in June 2012, well BEFORE Obama's reelection in November 2012. . Malke 2010 (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are other court challenges to the health care law, though I have to admit not being an expert on the matter. Here is an article from this month Court challenges could tear down major pieces of ObamaCare. That said, I would not have objected to someone removing that sentence, but it was meant to point in part at failure to have enough Tea Party candidates elected with the aim of repealing the law through Congress."One set of lawsuits accuses the Internal Revenue Service of illegally implementing new subsidies to help people buy insurance. Separately, more than 60 lawsuits have been filed challenging the law’s mandate for health plans to cover birth control."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And make sure none of those 25 words have more than two syllables, or contain an "x," a "q" or a "z." If readability is going to decide which version gains consensus — and it looks that way, because the swing "voters" have adopted readability as their personal litmus test — then we just can't have any blockquotes at all. Blockquotes come from law review articles, which are written by law professors who are trying to impress federal judges, Supreme Court justices, and other law professors, who read on a 10-15 readability level constantly. They use words with three syllables or more every time they touch a keyboard. So it appears that blockquotes are dead. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Grad 12 reading level is not "dumbed down" - the legalese quotes go neatly into footnotes instead of in the body of text where readers have problems. Simple -- did you think this eliminated sources? Collect (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, that's what I mean. See below. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, by the way. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons stated in no uncertain or conflated terms. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again.
 * 12f. The Tea Party movement has a reform agenda to limit the size of the government and reduce spending. The Constitution is at the center of the Tea Party platform. Some Tea Party members are seeking to repeal or modify the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments, and have supported the proposed Repeal Amendment and the Balanced Budget Amendment, which would limit deficit spending. Most Tea Party groups do not define their foreign policy goals, but many have opposed the United Nations Agenda 21.


 * Tea Party members have protested TARP, the 2009 stimulus bill, "cap and trade," the 2010 health care law, and what they see as government efforts to limit gun owners' rights, free speech rights, and privacy rights. Tea Party groups support right to work laws, and immigration reform that improves border security. They have formed SuperPacs to support candidates who share their goals, and have opposed many mainstream Republican candidates. They protested the IRS for delaying applications for tax-exempt status by many Tea Party groups.


 * While the movement lacks the central leaders enjoyed by political parties, the "Contract from America" was created with the help of "hundreds of thousand of people" voting online to create a Tea Party platform. Its name was a play on the Republican leaders' 1994 "Contract with America". The Contract from America was met with some support within the Republican Party, but not broadly embraced by GOP leaders, who later wrote their own "Pledge to America."

Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 14.

Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: 37.

I would like to limit the use of blockquotes to the following FOOTNOTES. Just to be perfectly clear these are going in the footnotes. I also have plenty of enormous words to put into refcites and hide behind Wikilinks. As you can see from previous versions, that can easily be done later.

Here are the blockquotes I want to use in the footnotes:

Foley: "Tea Party opposition to bailouts, stimulus packages and health-care reform is reflected in various proposals to amend the Constitution, including proposals to require a balanced budget, repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, and give states a veto power over federal laws (the so-called Repeal Amendment)."

Schmidt: two blockquotes, the one I used above in V12c plus this one: "The central tenets of Tea Party constitutionalism can be distilled down to four basic assumptions. One, the solutions to the problems facing the United States today can be found in the words of the Constitution and the insights of its framers. Two, the meaning of the Constitution and the lessons of history are not obscure; in fact, they are readily accessible to American citizens who take the time to educate themselves. Three, all Americans, not just lawyers and judges, have a responsibility to understand the Constitution and to act faithfully toward it. And four, the overarching purpose of the Constitution is to ensure that the role of government, and particularly the federal government, is a limited one; only by following constitutionally defined constraints on government can individual liberties be preserved."

Zernike: "It could be hard to define a Tea Party agenda; to some extent it depended on where you were. In the Northeast, groups mobilized against high taxes; in the Southwest, illegal immigration. Some Tea Partiers were clearer about what they didn't want than what they did. But the shared ideology — whether for young libertarians who came to the movement through Ron Paul or older 9/12ers who came to it through Glenn Beck — was the belief that a strict interpretation of the Constitution was the solution to government grown wild. [...] By getting back to what the founders intended, they believed they could right what was wrong with the country. Where in the Constitution, they asked, does it say that the federal government was supposed to run banks? Or car companies? Where does it say that people have to purchase health insurance? Was it so much to ask that officials honor the document they swear an oath to uphold?"

Skocpol: "Just like other political actors, past and present, Tea Partiers stretch the limits of the Constitution, use it selectively, and push for amendments. ... Some parts of the Constitution are lauded over others."

Zietlow: "Tea Party activists have invoked the Constitution as the foundation of their conservative political philosophy. These activists are engaged in 'popular originalism,' using popular constitutionalism — constitutional interpretation outside of the courts — to invoke originalism as interpretive method."

I repeat, all these blockquotes are going in the FOOTNOTES. The green text is all that's going directly into the article.


 * Strongly support. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Other than the "Agenda 21" business which does not seem to be of enough weight to be given prominence, and the "word play" trivia which, AFAICT, adds nothing to the gist of the section. I also see a couple of spots which could reduce the grade level excess. Removing the two moves the R/I to 37. The Tea Party seeks to limit the size of the government and reduce spending. The Constitution is the focus of the Tea Party platform. Some Tea Party members seek to repeal or modify the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments, and support a Repeal Amendment and a Balanced Budget Amendment to limit deficit spending. Tea Party members have protested TARP, the 2009 stimulus bill, "cap and trade," the 2010 health care law, and what they see as government efforts to limit gun owners' rights, free speech, and privacy rights. Tea Party groups support right to work laws, and immigration reform that improves border security. SuperPacs support candidates who share their goals, and have opposed many mainstream Republican candidates. They protested the IRS for delaying applications for tax-exempt status by many Tea Party groups.While the movement lacks the central leaders enjoyed by political parties, the "Contract from America" was created with the help of "hundreds of thousand of people" voting online to create a Tea Party platform. reduces grade level to 13 and increases the R/I to 40. Collect (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Vigorously approve as a framework aimed at consensus. There are things I would alter or tweak, but will remain silent to avoid the possibility of 12(g). †TE†   Talk  21:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose While granting that the above suggested text includes more information, it omits the important internal contrasts among agendas of different groups eluucidated by the material introduced by Xenophrenic, and I still maintain that the use of blockquotes and inline quotes is permissible in the text as well as capable of being implemented without making the text unreadable. Meanwhile, the Zernike text basically says the same thing as the more succinct quote available from Schmidt, though I would think that the Zernike quote could be included in a footnote.
 * Finally, there had been discussion of a "Tea Party and the Constitution section in the article or a subarticle, and the inclusion of more detail would seem merited.
 * Version would be more informative, and readability can be improved, though too much emphasis is being placed on readability, IMO. Meanwhile, I still don't think material on the IRS incident belongs in the Agenda section.
 * If I have time later I will attempt another version incorporating the material added by Xenophrenic, or improve the readability of .-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Introduces too many inaccuracies (I.e.; equates Agenda 21 with "Foreign Policy", implies support for Immigration Reform, juxtaposes Contract with America with "lack of central leaders"), and omits salient information about the agenda (I.e.; it intentionally tries to avoid social issues; it intentionally develops agendas from the bottom up, resulting in both problems and benefits; etc.). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)





Malke 2010 (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've further copy edited the version posted by Xenophrenic, and renumbered it, divorcing it from the "12" series. I've consolidated a couple of passages for added brevity without sacrificing content, and raised the readability to a non-objectionable level. The overall score as well as paragraph-by-paragraph scores are shown below. Refcites and Wikilinks need work. This version includes extended coverage of the CfA, and is intended to replace the entire Agenda section, with opportunity for discussion of the CfA and Foreign Policy sections reserved if there is interest. I Believe that the content of the Mead article could be covered in the Academic commentaries section or the like.  Overall readability scores  15/21 15/27 The Tea Party movement 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. Sometimes these goals may even be in conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. Many Tea Party organizers see this as a strength rather than a weakness, as decentralization has helped to immunize the Tea Party against co-opting by outside entities and corruption from within.[17] 17/18 The Tea Party has generally sought to avoid placing too much emphasis on traditional conservative social issues. Some 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 toward issues such as constitutionally limited government, the free market, and fiscal responsibility. Still, many Tea Party groups like the 9/12 Tea Parties popularized by Glenn Beck, TeaParty.org, the Iowa Tea Party and Delaware Patriot Organizations do prioritize social issues such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools, and illegal immigration. 16/12 Schmidt writes, "“…The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting Agendas... Yet within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party. This core is particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters.”[14]" 14/31 The Tea Party generally focuses on government reform. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases. To this end, Tea Party groups have protested TARP, stimulus programs, cap and trade, health care reform and perceived attacks by the federal government on their 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendment rights. Tea Party groups have also voiced support for right-to-work legislation as well as tighter border security, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. They have formed SuperPacs to support candidates sympathetic to their goals and have opposed what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates. After setbacks in the 2012 elections, the movement again shifted its focus. With repeal off the table, the Tea party now leads efforts to nullify federal health care law. It has also mobilized locally against the United Nations Agenda 21. 16/14 The Tea Party places the Constitution at the center of its reform agenda. It advocates an originalist interpretation of the Constitution coupled with educational outreach efforts. 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. 15/16 According to Schmidt, "...The Tea Party’s constitutional vision is designed to be mobilized. The core elements of the Tea Party Constitution are relatively easily grasped and they readily lend themselves to translation into tangible political action. Tea Party constitutionalism challenges its adherents to do more than just passively accept its basic tenets." According to Foley, the Tea Party positions on the Constitution can be seen as corresponding to concrete agenda points, such as opposition to government sponsored bailouts and stimulus programs as well as government mandated health care coverage. 15/19 The Contract from America was a legislative agenda created by conservative activist Ryan Hecker with the assistance of Dick Armey of FreedomWorks. Armey had co-written the Contract with America released by Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections. A thousand agenda ideas that had been submitted were narrowed down to twenty-one economic, 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'. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 06:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose We have moved well past the "block quotes" insistence, and we have moved below the college graduate reading level, and above the reading ease level of 19, which is, frankly, horrendous. Our aim is not to create literature for one another as Wiki-Shakespeares, but to create an entire usable article per what scholars tell us.  I trust WP:PIECE is on point here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC) BTW, identifying Dick Armey as "the author" of the CwA is not borne out by any source -- seal to link a single person to that effort led by Larry Norman at this point is, frankly, pointy. Collect (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Collect and WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Xenophrenic added that element about Armey in version 12d, so I don't see why such a fuss about its "pointiness" is only being made now. I'll defer to Xenophrenic to respond further on this point.--  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I note you changed the wording without noting clearly that you had done so. The usual system is to use "strikeout" for what you remove and "underline" for what you add.  Otherwise it may look like I am referring to something that is no longer there.  I did not reply at length ot X's original version as its reading ease of 12 was so interesting and difficult to read. Collect (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that the directives Silk Tork issued for this exercise included one permitting the direct editing of suggested text, which is what I did, and clearly described the edit in the edit summary. If you have a complaint about my editing conduct, I suggest you take it to Silk Tork directly.
 * And to clarify, are you asserting that the following sentence was too difficult in terms of the grade-level on the F/K scale to understand?""
 * I've italicized the text at issue to make it easier to find.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I simply pointed out that it was false as a matter of fact.  Snark is not needed about its readability. Collect (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, I politely request that when you have a complaint about my editing conduct, please take it directly to Silk Tork.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To get his idea off the ground, he launched a website, "ContractFromAmerica.com," which encourages activists to offer possible planks for the contract. From the original 1,000 ideas which were submitted, Hecker whittled it down to about 50 based on popularity. He is currently in the process of narrowing it to 20 ideas. He is being aided in this process by former House Republican Leader Dick Armey, whose conservative group, FreedomWorks, has established close ties with many Tea Party activists around the country. --ABC News

There is nothing "false as a matter of fact" in the sentence presented by Ubikwit. They solicited input on the Internet, then Hecker and Armey selected 50, then 21, popular agenda planks after tossing out the non-economic related items. Only then were the pre-selected 21 items presented to the public, to have the best 10 of those 21 selected and prioritized by the "hundreds of thousands" of votes. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, "They" didn't do anything. Heckler came up with the idea. He initiated it. He drove it on the Internet. He took 1000 ideas, narrowed them down to 50, and then he had Armey help him sort it. The RS says so. And to not even mention Heckler is entirely WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. Seriously, on the one hand you're saying, a guy did all this, but then you don't mention his name? Don't you think the reader would like to know his name? and here:

Malke 2010 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That may be a point worth considering in discussion, as it would be easy enough to insert his name, but this is not an article about him, but about the Tea Party. I have posted material related to Heckler above, who is now an employee of FreedomWorks. The first ABC piece describes him as a TP activist, but Xenophrenic has clarified that the CfA predates his status as such, and that Armey of Freedomworks was involved. Considering the fact that even the main article about the Contract from America on Wikipedia doesn't address the details being discussed here in relation to Heckler, I fail to see why it is a point of contention at this juncture. RS clearly point to Armey's role, and since Heckler's actual status is still somewhat unclear, while Armey was with FreedomWorks, the situation is i need of further clarification. WP:POV and WP:UNDUE do not seem immediately relevant to the material under consideration. The statement in the text is reliably sourced, and the status of Heckler is somewhat in limbo per the sources, at any rate.
 * If including his name in the text would assuage the concerns being raised, I'll simply add it.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Per source: "From the original 1,000 ideas that were submitted, Hecker whittled it down to about 50 based on popularity. He then narrowed the list down to 21. He was aided in this process by former House Republican Leader Dick Armey, whose conservative group, FreedomWorks, is the sponsor of Thursday's event at the Washington Monument."
 * Three different people can read 3 different things from this same innocuous statement of fact.
 * Dick Armey was secretly involved from the start.
 * Dick Armey entered the process and helped whittle the 1,000 down to 21.
 * Dick Armey only helped chop 50 down to the final 21.
 * I say instead of arguing which narrative contains the most truthiness, we just follow my example of using inarguable facts. †TE†   Talk  16:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, hopefully the text doesn't raise any of those problems, it basically just states that he assisted in the process, without specifying stages "...a legislative agenda created by conservative activist Ryan Heckler with the assistance of Dick Armey of FreedomWorks.".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your preferred blockquote from my sourced addition above, "without specifying stages" of others' participation would strike me as being an alternative to reality -- Given what I had just posted above. †TE†   Talk  18:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit I put in came directly from the Tea Party movement article on the Contract from America section. I've mentioned that already. You ask, why is this being raised "at this juncture?" Because Xenophrenic put it in his version, he'd like people to vote on his version, and I've made suggested changes to his version. My understanding is that this is what Silk Tork wants us to do. Armey was involved in the end as RS shows. Heckler working for FreedomWorks now doesn't change what he did back then. Not mentioning him when he did all the work, but mentioning Armey who did very little comes across as WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit you put in where? When? In the version that omits the crucial fist three paragraphs of 12d?
 * It probably isn't that important, because I've made the point several times now that the Contract for America material on Wikipedia is in poor shape--this draft is now more comprehensive in some respects. At any rate, I added Heckler's name in version 15 per your concerns.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)