Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement

Where is the dispute?
Tea Party movement

Who is involved?

 * Arthur Rubin
 * Malke 2010
 * Digiphi
 * North8000
 * Dylan Flaherty
 * BigK HeX

What is the dispute?
The dispute is over whether or not to include the word 'grassroots' in the lede/lead of the article.

What would you like to change about this?
Settle the issue so the editors can move on to other editing needs within the article.

How do you think we can help?
It would be helpful for an outside party to look at the sources being used on both sides of the argument and help determine what the best course of action would be.

Mediator notes
A few things to note: If you follow these few rules, and stay somewhat active in this discussion, we should be able to resolve this quickly and (relatively) painlessly. Ham tech  person  01:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Please give links to illustrate your points (kudos to Malke 2010 for doing so {and Arthur Rubin, to an extent})
 * 2) Please keep outside comments in the new section Outside Discussion. If you become involved and added, I can move your comments later.
 * 3) Please do not add such responses as to say "I Agree with User:Example"

2 more things: First, please do not edit posts unless there is a formatting error or you omitted links. Otherwise, please make a new post. Second, Please keep posts somewhat short. I don't like sorting through WP:TLDR posts. I also have somewhat limited time. Being concise will help me help you. Ham tech  person  02:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ham tech  person  01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes
and are placed under a strict interaction ban. They may comment on the substance of a content-based argument for the purpose of this mediation, but are prohibited from commenting ad hominem about each other or otherwise personalizing the argument in any way, shape or form at the penalty of a (long) block for harassment.

They are further advised to ignore each other, which includes not stalking each other's edits, not commenting even with mere typographical signs about the other. is further banned, specifically, from Malke's mentorship pages. MLauba (Talk) 01:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening Statement by Dylan Flaherty
The lead already calls the Tea Party Movement "conservative", "libertarian" and "populist", so we seem to have a good number of adjectives. Before we consider adding yet another, we need to make sure that we're not violating NPOV.

According to some of our reliable sources, it does seem likely that the movement at least began as grassroots. According to many of them, the movement still has significant parts that remain grassroots. We cannot ignore this information. In fact, on this basis, I believe there is sufficient reason for the article to cover the issue in some depth, in a section on funding and organization. However, such coverage must be even-handed, showing all significant points of view without endorsing one as factual.

This is particularly important because we also have many reliable sources which state contradict the accuracy of "grassroots". We have some sources that say the movement was supported and coopted by the GOP, Fox News and corporate interests (notably Koch Industries), either from the very start or very shortly thereafter. We have many sources reporting that these external organizations are now in the forefront of training, organizing, and funding the movement. A number of sources, both inside and outside the movement, bluntly characterize it as as "astroturf", a claim that we should not lead with but must cover to some extent. I have not been able to find any reliable sources supporting the idea that the movement remains wholly grassroots after all this time.

I would be quite willing to discuss key sources and justify their validity, and I may yet. However, that is not the entire issue. Unfortunately, this is not a simple clerical matter; the article is about a highly controversial topic and attracts more than its share of naysayers, true believers and outright vandals. According to one notable opinion, it is very important to activists in the movement to insist that they are grassroots, and it seems that this may account for the small but impassioned group that is pushing hard for inclusion of the term. However, I feel that adding a controversial and much-disputed characterization to the lead would be a step backwards. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening Statement by Malke2010
The edit for 'grassroots' is well sourced and has consensus. It's been in and out of the article since last winter when there was a consensus to keep it. The lede/lead has been changed dozens of times since then. Another consensus has now been reached again to retain it, but Dylan Flaherty has been removing it against this consensus claiming the use of 'grassroots' is not accurate because he says that the Tea Party movement is astroturf, and that sources he's listed show that. However, after examining these sources, it was clear they do not refute the grassroots nature of the movement.

All of the sources he has presented focus on the Tea Party Express and Tea Party Nation, both of which are not tea party groups. The sources he's listed also acknowledge that the real tea party groups are grassroots. That the Republicans have attempted to usurp the attention and co-opt the message is well documented everywhere but even so, all the sources show that the Tea Party movement is grassroots. It has been a challenge to edit the article as this has taken up all the time for nearly two weeks now.

Also, the consensus prior to the November 2nd election was really focused on whether to include terms such as 'conservative, libertarian,' etc. Grassroots was mentioned but only Dylan objected to it. Talk page links: Malke 2010 (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening Statement by BigK HeX
I think there's notable conflict among sources on the term "grassroots", so that stating it as fact in the lede could be a POV problem. Above, Dylan Flaherty already describes the situation as I see it, so I'd simply endorse his view. BigK HeX (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening Statement by North8000
Every proponent of the TPM will call it grassroots, and every opponent will say it's not. In this article, anybody who has anything negative to say about the TPM has been considered to be an "RS." The relevant point being that this can't be settled by just counting sources, and that most "RS's" aren't RS's. Ideally, we could find a source that is objective and did a lot of research and analysis regarding this question. I'm afraid we may not find that. So I think we need to figure out/ agree whether or not the term is appropriate, and then source the answer. I know that doesn't sound 100% Wikipedian, but the 100% Wikipedian way is that every contentious point/article is an unstable battleground in perpetuity. So to start with, must a movement be 100% grassroots to be called grassroots? Since no organization of any size meets this criteria, 100% can't be the standard. The standard has to be: is it LARGELY grassroots? I submit that by any measure, the TPM is as grassroots as any large movement is or can can be. It's spontaneous birth, it's disorganization and decentralization, the fact that it continuously collides with and scares the organization that people consider it to be the closest to (the GOP). And so I think that it meets the standards for being largely grassroots and thus for use of the term. Since the lead sentence is getting adjective loaded, plus the "conservative/libertarian" text needing a bit of explanation/expansion, I think that the first sentence needs to be split into two. Expand the C/L wording to something like "composed of both conservatives and libertarians" and then on the question at hand, a compromise to say "largely grassroots". I'd rather not get into "astroturf" here, as that term is the insult-term used by the TPM's opponents, inappropriate to the article except to describe what it's opponents are saying. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Under the "keeping up with the Jones's " category after Arthur Rubin's disclosure, I consider myself to be a long time Libertarian, although not a Libertarian party member.North8000 (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening Statement by Arthur Rubin
My position on what can be sourced about grass roots/astroturf is simple. There is clear agreement (at least among credible sources (by "credible", I mean something less than what we call "reliable" here, but still excluding uninformed opinion)) that the Tea Party movement started as a grassroots movement. There is general agreement that many of the organizations involved in the movement are still grassroots, whether or not funded by big money. There are some groups (TPE and TPC come to mind) which are clearly part of major Republican movements, and some of the individual groups may be funded by large foundations. I don't consider that makes them "not" grassroots, but reasonable people can differ.

Most of the "sources" in regard funding are either totally unreliable, or don't say what Dylan thinks they say. I think "widely considered grassroots" would cover what needs to be in the lede. No reliable source as opined as to how many of the groups have received funding from conservative foundations, or (stronger) have been co-opted by those foundations. (The latter would be required for a credible claim of being "astroturfed", but we are not allowed to determine whether a group has been "astroturfed" unless some reliable source actually says that. Receiving funding from AFP doesn't make the group "astroturfed", although it might fit in section on funding.)

This last doesn't effect the lede, but it would be wrong to say that it is widely considered "astroturfed" except among political opponents trying to discredit the movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Disclosure. I am a registered Libertarian, and ran for office in 1984.  Some may think this produces a COI on TP articles, at least in regard claims that the movement is libertarian.  I haven't been active in politics since at least 1990, with the exception of publicly supporting or opposing some local (city and county level) politicians and propositions (county and state).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening Statement by Digiphi
Two points.: Firstly, whether there is consensus about the state of the lead before the changing edits started—and I'm in the camp that there is, or was—is really moot because we're going to develop consensus here and now anyway. So I'm ready to drop it from discussion during the mediation and it'd be better if everyone did this. It should be as is if we're discussing it from an unmarked slate. Secondly, this mediation is exclusively about the lead, and specifically the issue of "grassroots". Let's keep it to that, and not discussions about other sections, or astroturf, funding or anything not directly pertinent to this topic. We don't want to be here for two weeks.

As for the content I feel that the article is better with "grassroots" in the lead than without it. As is it stands there are more adjectives than are helpful in the opening sentence, and less is certainly better in the first sentence. The measure of a good lead is by what is presumably the most helpful to readers, should anticipate the most likely and pertinent question(s) of an introduction, and with the presumption that the majority of readers are non-specialists and are not the editors of the article. And after being arranged to that standard it should then be tested against WP policies to make it kosher.

To do that I'm going to bring several sources that pass the RS test including op-eds, journalistic reports on the makeup of the movement, and profiles of individual groups published in news pieces. Additionally there are a few of the earliest known news articles chronicling groups of people organizing under the tea party theme, some reported anecdotes of notable participants (in RS), and a lengthy investigative report from a well-known news media researching hundreds of groups and their composition. Let's get this party started - Digiphi (  Talk  ) 16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Response by North8000
I think that what folks from both sides of this issue said is valid, and so I am not out to rebut things said. My main comment regarding those is that I feel that they did not address or answer what I feel (per my opening statement) are the core questions:

If not premature, possibly folks should put out ideas on some "middle of the road" wording on this? North8000 (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the (realistic) standard for an organization to merit the adjective "grassroots"
 * 2) Does the TPM meet that standard?
 * 3) We can find many supposedly "RS's" saying or repeating opinions on both sides of this issue, determined only by whether they are a proponent or opponent of the TPM, rather than any real objective review / analysis. And so just finding quotes from such sources  doesn't say much.

This might be the objective & analysis type source that we are looking for:   An article by The Economist:  http://www.economist.com/node/17361396?story_id=17361396. In my book, they are the most respectable / intelligent weekly out there. Published in Europe, maybe very slightly left bias. It substantially discusses that it it grass roots, the most direct wording regardign the owrd is sayth that claims that it is astroturfed and not grass-roots are misplaced. Per my previous comments, this isn't just a "hey I found a source that said it"; this is a respected, objective source that directly looked into and addressed the topic. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Response by Dylan Flaherty
Reviewing the opening comments and what was said before them, I can't help but to notice the clear undercurrent of editors trying to prove whether the Tea Party movement is really grassroots. I've been guilty of this, too, but I'm starting to understand that this is a dead end. The solution to our conflict will only come from understanding Wikipedia rules first, and only then looking at sources. Otherwise, this discussion will be about as productive as a debate over whether dogs have Buddha essence or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The bottom line is that it's not our job to determine what's true. We're not qualified to do it and we'd never agree on a conclusion. The question is just too complex, ill-defined and contentuous. Instead, we need to focus on the fact that the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and work to ensure that "all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered". If we were to lead off by saying the movement has a populist message with a strongly conservative outlook informed by Libertarian views, we would be in complete compliance with these rules. But if we added either "and is grassroots" or "and is not grassroots", we would clearly be in violation.

Before we delve into demands for citations followed by shakey exegeses of these sources, does anyone doubt that we have significant views -- from early proponents, from opponents, from journalists -- explicitly denying that the movement is grassroots? The real question is what, if anything, we can say about the grassroots matter while being both brief and neutral. I think we can say that the movement generally sees itself as grassroots and takes pride in this. But we can't stop there. At the very least, we have to indicate that this view is questioned by a number of significant groups, who see the movement as heavily influenced (if not controlled) by the GOP, Koch Industries and others, through funding, training and organization. And so as not to ignore a significant minority, we would mention that there are also allegations of certain "Tea Party" groups actually being Democratic false flag operations.

That's a lot to cover and we are obligated to cover it. Regardless of the lead, this matter deserves a good-sized section to report on it in some depth, ensuring a balanced view and supporting it with a wealth of citations. So what does this leave for the lead? Here are the viable options that come to mind:
 * 1) Nothing. Not a word. If we can't say anything both brief and neutral, we must remain silent.
 * 2) Something vague and longish. "Those within the movement generally take pride in the notion that they are fully grassroots, but this notion has been heavily disputed".
 * 3) Talking around it. Avoid the word but speak of the movement being decentralized, with overlapping but distinct beliefs held by its members.

The second one is, narrowly, within the bounds of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. However, I find it awkward and very difficult to balance for neutrality. As I've written it, it sounds a bit hostile to the movement, but with a small change, it can sound hostile towards those who do not see it as grassroots. Talking around it fine, but doesn't really solve the problem. Ultimately, I think there's just too much to fit into the lead, which is why I support giving it adequate space below.

That's my opinion. I believe that it is largely compatible with the views in the opening statements of BigK HeX, John J. Bulten, NillaGoon, chaos5023 and Xenophrenic, and even to some extent with Arthur Rubin and North8000. Note that I am not mentioning these editors to assert force of numbers -- this is not a democracy, much less mob rule -- but to point out that there is at least some commonality that might form the basis for consensus. I would like to work towards a consensus, so I welcome your ideas for how we can creatively and fairly handle the matter within the bounds of the applicable rules.

Response by Arthur Rubin
The question of whether the organization is really grassroots is irrelevant. However, we have a number of reliable sources which call it grassroots, and a number of reliable sources which quote somebody calling it astroturfed. Those are not parallel construction. We have very few, if any reliable sources which call the TPM "astroturfed" or even co-opted by major funding bodies. We have a few which note individual organizations in the TPM are funded by the Kochs or organizations funded by the Kochs or organizations funded by organizations funded by the Kochs; some organizations which claim to be in the TPM (such as the Tea Party Express) are controlled by Republican Party organizations, and a few politicians who assert the TPM is astroturfed.

We don't really have any reliable sources which disagree with the statement that the TPM, as whole, is grassroots. At least, I don't think so. I haven't checked all of the sources Dylan supplied, but a random selection of 3 (and I selected those which didn't appear to be quoting a politician, so as to be as favorable to Dylan's point of view as possible) only had sources which fell into the three categories I noted above, and those cannot be considered to oppose the statement that the TPm is grassroots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(I was referring to Dylan's sources on the TPm talk page, not in regard any sources he may have referred to in his first response.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Response by Malke2010
There are two questions to be answered in deciding whether or not to include the word 'grassroots' in the lede of the Tea Party movement article.


 * 1) What is the definition of grassroots?According to Merriam-Webster Online it is defined as, 1: the very foundation or source 2: the basic level of society or of an organization especially as viewed in relation to higher or more centralized positions of power.
 * 2) Does having the word 'grassroots' in the lede/lead of the Tea Party movement satisfy Wikipedia policies WP:RS, WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BURDEN. To answer this question, we need to look at the policies vis-a-vis the sources.

Are there reliable sources?
 * Yes. Sources include:

Is this notable? i.e., are reliable third party sources reporting this?
 * Yes. Even opposing viewpoints acknowledge that the Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement and that there are groups like Tea Party Express that are trying to co-opt their message and their thunder to advance their own agendas:

Can we verify the sources?
 * Yes. Readers can easily access the sources and verify that they are published by reliable sources, and the edit is not the result of whether or not the editors think it is true.

Does inclusion meet neutrality?
 * Yes. Reliable, third party sources are being used. They report on the social networking and Rick Santelli’s call for a tea party as being the inceptions of the grassroots response to the bailouts and foreclosures. People started blogs, wrote emails, put up Facebook and MySpace pages..

Was WP:BURDEN met when the word was removed?
 * No. The sources listed on the article talk page included blogs, opinion pieces, and websites, and the reliable sources that were included all discussed the fact that the tea party movement was grassroots and that the actual tea party members were upset and angry with the efforts of outside groups like the Tea Party Express and the Republican Party to co-opt their media attention and strength in numbers as well as their message.  In fact, sources can be found to show the Republican Party was often at cross-purposes with the Tea Party groups who supported primary candidates to run against the Republican Party's candidate of choice.

The criteria for inclusion has been met and to keep 'grassroots' out of the article violates WP:NPOV as well as WP:CONSENSUS.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Response by Digiphi
From the motioning parties' statements there are inventoried five(5) essential arguments arranged by chronology. The other parties will familiarize ourselves with these arguments:

1.) There are three or four descriptive terms in the opening sentence not including "grassroots". That number is more than sufficient and therefore "grassroots" should be removed.
 * I disagree. If your complaint is the excessive number of descriptive terms, will you entertain the removal of words other than "grassroots" to reduce the number? Otherwise it seems that you think an opening sentence without too many terms, so long as it lacks "grassroots", would be perfect. And you're talking exclusively about the first sentence. What about other sentences in the lead?

2.) I have many reliable sources that either include the term "astroturf", meaning the opposite of "grassroots". There are at least as many sources including "astroturf" as there are that specifically include the term "grassroots".
 * You should understand that in this case the term's usefulness to the article isn't measured by how many sources specifically include "grassroots" in the headlines, or the statement that "the Tea Party Movement is grassroots" in the texts. Please understand that "grassroots" has been used to characterize the movement for the benefit of readers, with the presumption that most readers are familiar with the implications of the term.

3.) It is reported in some reliable sources that as many as several groups operating under a "Tea Party" title have benefited from the support of legal entities not operating under a "Tea Party" title including non-profit organizations. Furthermore several groups operating under a "Tea Party" title have benefited from monetary donations from private citizens. Therefore it is inappropriate to describe the overall movement as "grassroots".
 * According to the sources, some private citizens gave money to some groups. So what? I'm not convinced that people contributing either their time or their money to their activist group is something that doesn't jive with "grassroots". That money is involved does not preclude the description. Remember, "grassroots" means something organized from the ground up, with a great collective significance being achieved by many barely affiliated and individually insignificant pieces.

4.) I have at least two opinion essays in which it is stated that the non-profit entity Americans for Prosperity provided direct financial support to one or more groups operating under a "Tea Party" title.
 * No Sir. In neither essay's text do the authors present documentary evidence of this claim. So it is silly to discuss their conclusions as ironclad reasons for removing the term from the lead. Any content supported by those sources should be in an "Opinions" or "Allegations of" or "Claims" section, which has been suggested.

5.) I have yet another source that reports that David Koch co-founded and contributed heavily from his personal monies to Americans for Prosperity. I believe that Americans for Prosperity funds the the Tea Party Movement.
 * If there were sources documenting that the Tea Party Movement was funded by AFP, it wouldn't be appropriate for "grassroots" to remain in the lead, and probably not in the article at all. But there aren't any such sources. There are however many sources examining the composition of the movement, being made of hundreds of documented small groups unaffiliated with a national organization and with membership unique their local geographies. There are sources--which do include the citation of documentary evidence--which report clearly that the Koch brothers are heavily invested in the non-profit organization Americans for Prosperity. However, this is not good reasoning for the removal of "grassroots" from the topic's introduction.

6.*) ''(Pssst! this one's important)'' The measure of a good lead is by what is presumably the most helpful to readers, should anticipate the most likely and pertinent question(s) of an introduction, and with the presumption that the majority of readers are non-specialists and are not the editors of the article. And after being arranged to that standard it should then be tested against WP policies to make it kosher.


 * We will consider the proposed removal of "grassroots" equivalent to the inclusion of "not grassroots" in the lead, because that would have to be the feeling of this discussion in order make that decision. Consensus would develop that the movement is indisputably "not grassroots". On that point a good model for this page is likely the Scouting (as in boy scouts) article. This isn't because it (the scouting movement) is ideologically similar to the TPM--and anyone who tries to derail the discussion towards that debate will be held in contempt by the other parties--but because their article topics are categorically identical, and the Scouting page is very clean and well done. To that end, even though many reliable sources report claims that the organization Boy Scouts of America is host to pedophiles and perverts within its ranks, or that it is discriminatory toward homosexuals, we wouldn't dispute characterizing it as a "youth movement" in the lead, and instead insist upon "pedophile movement" or "bigoted movement". We recognize that the latter are generally pejorative, generally unfounded, and proven to be true in such few instances that the exceptions now define the rule. However, some editors have certainly argued for and attempted the inclusion of pejoratives in the article. — Digiphi (  Talk  ) 06:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Response by BigK HeX
I didn't see much that was objectionable in the opening statements, so I have little to add as Response/Rebuttal aimed at those statements. (Though, I have quite a bit to say in reply to the comments in this section, which I presume will be appropriate in a future "Session 2" section.) BigK HeX (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Second response by Dylan Flaherty
Malke points out that we do have sources calling the movement "grassroots". That's true. However, this is only half the picture, as we also have sources actively denying it, with some going so far as to call it "astroturf".

Rubin addresses this directly by claiming that the contrary sources essentially don't count because they only quote opinions. Were that true, it would be easily explained as the willingness of journalists to use the labels an organization claims for itself while cautiously attributing contrary characterizations. However, there's no need to go down this path because disproof of such claims only requires a single counter-example. As Rubin concedes that he hasn't actually read all of the sources, let me help him out by delving into one of them.

Let me just note that I often find foreign English-language newspapers to be helpful, because they have to deal with an audience that needs to have the basics of American life spelled out for them. By taking so much less for granted, these articles make for great Wikipedia sources. Case in point is an article entitled "Oil billionaire undermines Obama", whose author, New Zealander Peter Huck, actually feels it necessary to define what Libertarianism means in the American sense.

The article is largely about David Koch, of course, as he's founded and funded a number of Libertarian organizations that have supported and shaped the movement, but it also contains both attributed and non-attributed statements countering the claim that the movement is grassroots. To be fair, Huck grants that the movement started as grassroots, citing Rick Santelli. But then he quotes partisan |political documentarian Taki Oldham as saying, "The AFP, founded in 2004, began to inject libertarianism into the Tea Party. Climate change denial, advanced by the AFP, is a key tenet. The movement actively acts against its own self interest". (AFP is Koch's group, Americans for Prosperity.) Huck endorses this analysis with the unattributed statement that, "The Tea Party's tragedy is that it seems unaware it has been colonised by the very elite virus it rails against."

He goes on to quote George Monbiot's article from the Guardian as saying that the movement is "one of the biggest exercises in false consciousness the world has ever seen" and "the biggest astroturf operation in history". He also references "Covert Operations" from the New Yorker, with the quote "By giving money to “educate,” fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement."

This is WP:RS gold: a newspaper referencing and endorsing two other periodicals and a documentary. Of course, what Huck attributes to these sources can be found directly inside them without the attribution. Even better, Huck constitutes a tertiary source that allows us to avoid undue synthesis.

Lest this sound like Huck is saying that Koch is the only one paving over the grass to install a lifeless green rug, he speaks more generally of "the Tea Party, and their paymasters", and adds that "While Koch Industries is a major player, BP and other European companies are funding Republican candidates favoured by the Tea Party". A useful point, as American sources tend to be relatively quiet about European contributions. Koch comes up again of course, in the (unattributed) statement that "AFP keeps the movement on message". To nail down the fact that anything Koch funds does his bidding, he quotes Koch himself as bluntly asserting, "We'll make darn sure they spend it in a way that goes along with our intent."

What I really like about the last quote is that it is an act of synthesis that we could never get away with, but is entirely acceptable for Huck. In doing this, Huck's article now counts as FIVE reliable sources against the notion that the movement can be considered grassroots, with Koch himself as one of them. I could go on, but I think this more than adequately refutes Rubin's claim.

As for what this means to us, let me offer an analogy: Back when Ricky Martin was closeted, we could not have lead his biographical article off with either "Martin is straight" or "Martin is gay". We could certainly have mentioned that Martin claims to be straight, and probably should have, though only in the context of addressing attributed claims to the contrary, not in the lead. But we were in no position to rule on the fact of the matter, regardless of our personal suspicions. In fact, we could only raise the issue at all if there were reliable sources bringing it up; anything else would be original research.

Finally, I somehow feel that I should address Digiphi's response, but I find that there is nothing to say. They consist of little more than straw-man arguments, so refuting them would only lend them credence. Instead, I will simply ask Digiphi to put away his powdered wig and join us in an honest discussion. If he ever decides to argue against what I actually said, not a distortion of it, I will be glad to answer.

Second response by North8000
One can rack up huge counts of "RS"'s with opposing statements (including quotes from TPM proponents and opponents) on whether or not "grass roots" is a suitable adjective. I think we need to look to reliable "RS's", where there is objectivity and knowledge on the topic, and which actually address the topic vs. just "drive by" quotes. I think that the Economist reference I provided is a rarity of being all of these and supports the grassroots adjective. And, since no organization is ever (or can ever be proven to be) 100% grassroots, the standard needs to be whether or not it is LARGELY grassroots. I think that by any measure, it certainly is that. This is one of the few generalizations that one can make about this multi-million person disorganized, decentralized movement. I also made a proposal here which was moved to a proposal section. North8000 (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC) I made a proposal just to try help move the process along. Open to suggestions to change it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Second response by Arthur Rubin
I find nothing in the First Response section which changes my views, or requires my comment, except to note that my agreement to changing my preferred "grassroots" to "generally considered grassroots" or "largely grassroots" was intended as a compromise. I don't see any reliable sources presented that say it is not grassroots, until possibly the second response by Dylan. As we're not supposed to respond to responses until the next run, I will not comment further. Malke2010's first response best expresses my views, at this point. Even if it were proved stated in a reliable source that a TP organization was astroturfed, it wouldn't mean that the TPm is not grassroots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Second response by Digiphi
Like Arthur Rubin I am unchanged in my viewpoint. The facts have not changed. As for the origins of the Tea Party movement and thoughts of Rick Santelli, we've discussed before and all agreed that groups operating under a "tea party" title existed as early as 2006, independently designed and locally organized. Does everyone recall the news? Here's some. (2006) (2007)

And there is the lengthy investigative report by small start-up news outlet produced from months of research, verifying and chronicling the activity of hundreds of independent groups operating under a "tea party" title. Washington Post Let me know what else I can do to help. — Digiphi (  Talk  ) 02:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

 * Version as of about a week ago: The Tea Party movement is a populist,conservative/libertarian, political grassroots movement in the United States that grew throughout 2009 into a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests.

Dated from 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

First Proposal by North 8000
What do y'all think of this idea?:


 * Propose:  The Tea Party movement is a  populist, largely grassroots, political movement in the United States that grew throughout 2009 into a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests.  This decentralized movement has been characterized as having both conservative and libertarian leanings. North8000 (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What makes it 'largely' grassroots?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought about answering this precisely and it made my head spin. But I guess the end result is that it's actually grass roots, the the "largely" qualifier is an offered compromise. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

!votes
Vote Aye — Digiphi (  Talk  ) 16:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll vote yes, but let's take it slow...for input, refining etc North8000 (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reject. I can't get on board with this. To reuse Ricky, it would be like averaging "Martin is straight" with "Martin is gay" to synthesize "Martin is bisexual". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Accept. Closer to what I would consider ideal than any of the other proposals, and simpler. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Accept. This could work because we can easily justify the 'largely' with citations that show the Tea Party Express and the Republicans have been glomming on to the movement.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. While it is an improvement, the text's almost nonexistent effort to convey some of the viewpoints that oppose the grassroots view seem like an afterthought. (And, given that "the 'largely' qualifier is an offered compromise", perhaps it is mostly an afterthought.) BigK HeX (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Accept although Nilla's is overall better than mine (this one) North8000 (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediator's first proposal
The tea party movement is a populist political movement in the United States that grew throughout 2009 into a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests. It is often controversially considered grassroots, and is considered to have conservative and libertarian leanings. Ham tech  person  20:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But you will need to show the citations that call it 'controversially considered grassroots.'Malke 2010 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The controversy in within the large difference of opinion. And this page. :p Ham  tech  person  02:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where exactly are the reliable sources that show using the term 'grassroots' is controversial? Controversial with whom?  Also, aren't you supposed to be keeping this within Wikipedia policies and guidelines?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Perhaps phrasing such as "grassroots (but claims to the contrary are made by notable people)".  "controversially considered grassroots" is even worse grammatically, and unsourced.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely wanting in the grammar department.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

!votes
Reject. At risk of overusing Ricky (if that's possible), this is a bit like saying "Martin is controversially straight". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

First proposal by NillaGoon
I'm mindful of the fact that this mediation relates only to the word "grassroots"; however, I wonder if it wouldn't be productive to address the entire Introduction, as there seem to be some complicating issues going on there as well. After all, the ultimate goal is not to twist arms until the word "grassroots" either is or isn't included, but to arrive at a concise description of the Tea Party that everyone agrees is accurate and unbiased. That agreement might be easier to achieve if the battle isn't so narrowly focused on one particular trench. In that spirit, I propose the following:


 * The Tea Party is a populist political movement in the United States that sponsored a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests in 2009 and 2010. It is generally characterized as a conservative- or libertarian-leaning movement with an emphasis on reducing government spending, lowering taxes, and promoting adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.


 * The name "Tea Party" derives from the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident in which colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered an unjust tax. As of 2010, the Tea Party is not a national political party and does not officially propose candidates for Congressional office. Its name has not appeared on any ballots.


 * The Tea Party movement has no central leadership but is rather composed of a loose affiliation of local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. For this reason, the Tea Party movement is often cited as an example of "grassroots" political activity.

I will describe some of the specific issues I was attempting to address in the talk page ghetto. NillaGoon (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

!votes
November 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept as a compromise. I would not consider any weaker statement about "grassroots" as being an acceptable compromise, except adding that there are claims to the contrary.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. This has some good elements. I've tried to include them in my own proposal. Dylan   Flaherty  04:39, 21
 * Accept. I think you've really hit it out of the ball park with this one, Nilla.  Well done.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

''[Comments on this proposal have been moved to this section of the talk page, and discussion of where the comments ought to go has been removed for clarity. Please put future comments there and reserve this section for votes.]'' NillaGoon (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Is almost perfect; however, the issue here at mediation is the handling of the grassroots assertions, and, this proposal is a bit unbalanced in that regard.  The proposal addresses grassroots assertions, while noting nothing of the opposing viewpoints. BigK HeX (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Accept But could you put "populist" back in? Either way it's good. North8000 (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

First proposal by Dylan Flaherty
This is stolen largely from Nilla's, but modified in a few ways:


 * The Tea Party is a populist conservative political movement in the United States, whose name derives from the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 protest in which colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered an unjust tax. While it lacks an official platform, it is considered to lean towards libertarianism due to an emphasis on reducing government spending, lowering taxes, and promoting adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.


 * As of 2011, the Tea Party is not a national political party and does not run candidates for office under its own banner. It has endorsed a number of conservative Republican candidates in 2010, and has prominently sponsored a series of locally- and nationally-coordinated protests in 2009 and 2010.


 * The Tea Party movement has no central leadership, and is instead composed of a loose affiliation of local and national groups that determine their own agendas. On this basis, it has been cited as an example of "grassroots" political activity, although this label has been disputed due to financial and organizational support from Republican- and corporate-funded organizations.

I hope this encourages people to respond with proposals of their own. To be clear, what I'm proposing is intended to be a reasonable starting point, not a final draft. I'd be glad to talk about the advantages and disadvantages of the various word choices on the Talk page. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

!votes

 * Reject as written. There is no source for relating the claims of it being "astroturfed" to the facts that some organizations which claim to be in the TPm have funding from the Kochs or the Republicans.  It could probably be salvaged, but it still would seem biased to me.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reject same reasons, plus you know it's not hitting the mark when it requires 180 words to explain one word.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

First Proposal by Malke2010
I suggest we go with Nillagoon's proposal. I also liked North8000's suggestion, but I like how Nillagoon incorporated everything in a coherent, tight lede. I do think Conservative/Libertarian needs to be there for sure, and unequivocally, etc., but otherwise I'm impressed with it. It's a good compromise and a good edit. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here it is again:


 * The Tea Party is a populist political movement in the United States that sponsored a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests in 2009 and 2010. It is generally characterized as a conservative- or libertarian-leaning movement with an emphasis on reducing government spending, lowering taxes, and promoting adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.


 * The name "Tea Party" derives from the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident in which colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered an unjust tax. As of 2010, the Tea Party is not a national political party and does not officially propose candidates for Congressional office. Its name has not appeared on any ballots.


 * The Tea Party movement has no central leadership but is rather composed of a loose affiliation of local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. For this reason, the Tea Party movement is often cited as an example of "grassroots" political activity.

!votes
Accept North8000 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User:BigK HeX Proposal #1
A fairly minor modification of NillaGoon's proposal.


 * The Tea Party is a populist political movement in the United States that sponsored a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests in 2009 and 2010. It is generally characterized as a conservative- or libertarian-leaning movement with an emphasis on reducing government spending, lowering taxes, and promoting adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.


 * The name "Tea Party" derives from the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident in which colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered an unjust tax. As of 2010, the Tea Party is not a national political party and does not officially propose candidates for Congressional office. Its name has not appeared on any ballots.


 * The Tea Party movement is composed of a loose affiliation of local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas, reportedly with some groups benefiting from the guidance and funding received from large political organizations(FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, etc). With numerous local chapters emerging, the Tea Party movement is often described as an example of "grassroots" political activity.

''[ I consolidated discussion of this proposal here on the talk page. NillaGoon (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)]''

Outside Discussion
Moved to talk page. Ham tech  person  00:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Referendum on continuing mediation
Is this mediation still necessary? Do we need to keep discussing this in a structured manner? Or should I step aside and let the more informal talk page discussion continue unhampered? What do you think? Ham tech  person  03:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Referendum !votes

 * Continue - We got further along in mediation than in unstructured debate. This forum better protects against steamrolling by those insisting on mob rule. Dylan   Flaherty  03:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Continue We got further along in mediation because Dylan finally agreed not to revert (certain sections) to his preferred form. If mediation were to terminate, we would need some agreement from Dylan.    — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Close: Agree with Arthur Rubin's concerns, but continuing this is moot now. Editors over on TPm talk page have already come to a consensus and are agreeing now about other points in the lede/lead.  And Hamtechperson, you seem much too busy in RL for this mediation.  Opening this section while it's clear editors are working together on the article talk page seems disruptive.  Let the editors on the TPm do the work now.  It's going to be up to them anyway.  As Xenophrenic pointed out earlier, this still needs wider consensus which is being worked out right now.  And now that more of the editors are engaged and are coming to an agreement, the original problems seem well in hand.  Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a bit We might be as close as we're gonna get at the talk page.  I just want this thing to move forward.  If we can get 2/3 or 3/4 consensus from involved persons on the current proposal, I think we should roll with it.   Otherwise come back here. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a Bit Let's wait a 1/2 day more on what's cooking at the TPm talk page. If there is then still an even division among the participants in this mediation then we should head back here. Otherwise we can work it out with editors uninvolved in the mediation over there. I'll finalize my vote one way or the other then. - Digiphi (  Talk  ) 17:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Complaint - Rubin, you ought to know better than to try to frame this in terms of threats of reversion and lone hold-outs. This view is so inaccurate as to be uncivil. Dylan   Flaherty  14:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true. Your reversions to your preferred wording stopped only when the mediation started.  If you want to provide some other reason for that, go ahead.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - A 2/3 consensus is like being only a little bit pregnant: impossible. It's not a vote and no amount of ditto's can overcome even a single argument that has WP:NPOV on its side. Dylan   Flaherty  13:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true, and irrelevant. The argument in question does not have WP:NPOV on its side.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, keep in mind that consensus is not exclusively and only a unanimous celebratory agreement.- Digiphi (  Talk  ) 17:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rubin, you're an administrator, so you know full well that consensus is not a vote, and that the raw numbers are not what matter in the end. No consensus that violates WP:NPOV can stand, even if it is a dozen to one by head count. Dylan   Flaherty  01:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dylan, IMHO your argument is somewhat circular.   Typically everybody says that WP:NPOV dictates their preferred outcome, and that the opposing viewpoint violates wp:npov.  WP:NPOV is significantly applied / interpreted via consensus, which is what we are attempting to do here. North8000 (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * North, I'm trying to refocus us on the issue of NPOV, as an antidote to the attempt to silence objections by claiming superior numbers. In this matter, only superior arguments count. Dylan   Flaherty  02:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An implied claim that your argument is superior really doesn't help. North8000 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * North8000, it appears we're back to dealing with the same problem anew, which is why I say it's best to keep this on the article talk page. Hamtechperson isn't even commenting.  We have consensus.  I suggest we use it.  What do you say?Malke 2010 (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I recently posted a lot on the article talk page....hesitate to split the discussion. But long story short, my thought try process at the article talk page a bit longer  and then see   North8000 (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. That's the test I was looking for. Now let's give it some hours. If war doesn't break on the talk page between mediation folks, then I'll change to CLOSE. - Digiphi (  Talk  ) 16:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My main discussion is at the article talk page.  But briefly, I put in the version that was the subject of the main discussion by everybody on the talk page. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Finalization
It looks like it has been resolved. Thank you HamTechPerson for your help!

For the record, here is the worked-on portion of the lead (the first three paragraphs) that came out of it: North8000 20:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Tea Party is a political movement in the United States that has sponsored locally- and nationally-coordinated protests since 2009. Its platform is explicitly populist  and is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian. It endorses reduced government spending, lower taxes, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

The name "Tea Party" refers to the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident when colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered a tax that violated their right to "No Taxation without Representation."

As of 2010, the Tea Party Movement is not a national political party, does not officially run Congressional candidates, and its name has not appeared on any ballots, but it has so far endorsed Republican candidates. The Tea Party movement has no central leadership but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. For this reason, the Tea Party movement is often cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing.