“…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]

Malke 2010 (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means: "I haven't got the foggiest idea what, if anything, unites the Tea Party except, perhaps, the stated belief in the importance of the Constitution." Can anyone restate it more clearly? Collect (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the quote is fairly straight forward and self-explanatory. That is to say, it is not "unreadable". With respect to our shared endeavor here as editors of Wikipedia, explicating it with respect to the decentralized structure of the TPm is illustrative. That is to say, this quote from Schmidt can be effectively used to convey to the reader that there are many viewpoints in the TPm, some of which are at odds with each other, but at the same time, there is a common recourse to the Constitution.

Conversely, with respect to the material newly introduced by Xenophrenic, another side of the movement with respect to the existence of a multiplicity of agendas, some disparate, can be illustrated in a concrete manner with respect to social issues.

Both the quote from Schmidt and the sources and text by Xenophrenic are therefore mutually reinforcing with respect to enhancing readers' intelligibility with respect to the decentralized amalgamation of disorganized chaos otherwise known as the Tea Party movement. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you don't know. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded hadn't participated in weeks. No idea where he came from. He didn't register his "oppose vote" until after I'd actioned the edit. ArtifexMayhem???? WTF ???? Never saw him or even heard of him before in my life. I will be speaking about it at great length on SilkTork's User Talk page, when I have the time and I've had some rest and some quality time with my family. Probably late tonight. Now consider the context. Context is important.

• Many editors besides me were suffering from serious exhaustion and burnout issues. Something really needed to happen.

• Because I took the additional steps (for readability) of simplifying a little bit of the language and keeping the blockquotes in footnotes, I had every reason to expect Collect to support the proposal as well, whenever he showed up. That would have made it 6-1.

• SilkTork had repeatedly stressed that July 1 was the deadline and we had to take action, that ArbCom was going to reactivate its investigation, and that one possible result was topic bans for a whole lot of people, hoping that a fresh group of editors would come in and get something done effectively. The deadline was repeatedly stressed.

• SilkTork also repeatedly stated that he wanted to see us work this out by ourselves. This contradicted the admonition Ubikwit posted as a diff, about SilkTork wanting to review all consensus discussions and determining consensus for himself.

• I've also been communicating with SilkTork off-Wiki. The content of those communications further underscored the need to take action immediately — not for any personal agenda of mine or his, but for the good of the project.

• The one and only "oppose vote" came from Ubikwit. No explanation. Just the word "Oppose." Here at Wikipedia we don't normally count votes. We determine consensus by the strength of policy based arguments, see WP:CONSENSUS and see also WP:CLOSE. The policy based arguments were all on our side. In fact, in some venues the closing admins are instructed specifically to ignore any and all "votes" that are not supported by policy based arguments.

Considering all these factors cumulatively, the totality of circumstances told me to action the edit. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons I had not edited before is the difficulty of dealing with you manner of participation. I have however been monitoring the issue every day. When you took what I considered premature action I felt that I needed to engage again. Communication "off-wiki" concerns me as does your tendency to treat a vote as meaning consensus. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the reasons I had not edited before is the difficulty of dealing with you manner of participation. Duly noted, Snowded.
• ... as does your tendency to treat a vote as meaning consensus. Very good point, thanks for putting an exclamation point on my previous musings on the topic. "Votes" do not determine consensus in most circumstances. Policy based arguments determine consensus ... see WP:CONSENSUS and see also WP:CLOSE.
• I have yet to see the first word of a policy based argument against Malke's condensed Version 12d by Xenophrenic. ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is sort of a personal appeal to "new !voters" to please read all of the prior discussions here - where we are is a function of past discussions, and if we simply argue about material which was already discussed at great length in the past, we are in the position of an editorial Sisyphus at best. If new editors here will please read the "old stuff" we, I hope, can move on to get the job done. If we have to rehash all that was already discussed for months, it will definitely take more months to re-discuss it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will keep you from thinking that the ivote was made after only two days. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wasn't a !voter (new or otherwise), but I'll read the discussions. Is there a brief summary about the key sticking points(s)? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alas not - but it is shorter then War and Peace by quite a bit. Collect (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It could just as easily be said that where we are is a result of the dysfunctional state of past discussions, but I digress, and to say as much may be an insult to the intelligence of many an editor wading (or re-wading) into this discussion.

By the way, what does "In Medias Res" mean, in plain English?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See In Medias Res. It refers to people starting off in the middle of the story, instead of reading the background. In the case at hand, there is a great deal to be gained by reading the past discussions, but if we rehash all that was said in the past, then I will absolutely be out of here. There is a term called mental masturbation which appears to be all too relevant to that sort of exercise. Collect (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC

It's Latin. It means "in the middle of the subject." Or "in the middle of the process." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I previously wanted to use that same Wiktionary example in reference to the various lawyers' 'academic' law review opinion pieces of the tea party. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Version 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.^[1]

The Tea Party is a conservative movement, but it has avoided involvement with conservative social, religious and family-values issues. National Tea Party organizations like the Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, and FreedomWorks are focused on economic issues, but they support immigration reform if it includes securing the borders first. Other Tea Party groups like Glenn Beck's 9/12 Tea Parties, the Iowa Tea Party and Delaware Patriot groups focus more on social issues such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools and unlawful immigration.^[2][3][4]

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.^[5][6] 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 supports an originalist view. Several amendments have been targeted by some groups for full or partial repeal, including the 14th, 16th, and 17th. 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.^[7]

The Contract from America was a legislative agenda created by Ryan Hecker, a conservative activist. He launched a website which encouraged people to offer possible planks for the Tea Party platform. Hecker worked with Dick Armey of FreedomWorks in crafting the suggestions into ten agenda items which include: "identify the constitutionality of every new law, reject cap and trade legislation, demand a balanced federal budget, simplify the tax code, assess constitutionality of federal agencies, limit growth in annual federal spending, repeal Obamacare, new energy policy that supports exploration, reduce earmarks, and reduce federal taxes."^[8][9]

Please offer support or oppose for this version but please also include your rationale for your vote.

• Support - it combines elements from several recent versions. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Grade level of 17 (post college) and readability of 18 make this, IMO, a very difficult proposal to remedy. The extensive detail seems to increase the problem here. Collect (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive detail about the subject ("Agenda") is a good thing. Extensive detail about just one aspect of the subject (i.e.; Is the constitutionalism "originalist", "popular", neither, a unique blend of both, etc., etc., etc.,) is not so good. I've found that I can increase the readability score of the whole section simply by adding more information. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, we can fix that during the next phase. North8000 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good. Agenda section should be thorough. Perfection is the enemy of progress. Let's put it in and evolve it from there. One big problem to fix in the next phase would be calling it simply a conservative movement. (if we're using labels, it should include libertarian). We could also tighten up the wording in the next phase. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am 100% certain that with the arrival of new editors and the return of others, this has absolutely zero chance of making it into the mainspace. Readability suffers so we have lost Collect, and there are others who have always been here and will never go for it anyway. I anticipate five "Oppose" votes. Nevertheless, my opinion is that it is an improvement over the version that's already in the mainspace, because it contains more details and it's presented in a fair and accurate way. And I recognize that Malke has done some excellent work here. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think this is ok. I didn't like the quote that had been in previous versions. This is better. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While this includes the first two paragraphs of Xenophrenic's 12d, that material has been worked on continually, resulting in Version 15, to which Xenophrenic has recently made further revisions and expressed approval. Considering that a formal vote has never been called on version 15, that version deserves consideration.

This version, 12g, would seem to have the primary objective of eliminating the Schmidt quote, but if that is the case, then an argument as to whether that is desirable or not could be more effectively examined under the moderation of Silk Tork after selecting a version for the starting point that includes the quote. I see no convincing rationale for excluding the quote beforehand while several editors have expressed support for including it.

The descriptions of perceived divisiveness of social issues in the original text of Xenophrenic is not only much more informative but a more accurate refection of what the sources explicitly state. That should be restored.

The other material from Schmidt and Foley should be restored.

Meanwhile, I do not agree that the IRS material is an agenda item. Furthermore, the material on the Contract for America seems unbalanced, listing every point in the CfA but not discussing the fact that it flopped with the Republican Party, nor its relation to the Contract with America and the subsequent Pledge to America. In other words, the paragraph seems more promotional than informative of the overall circumstances and present status of the Contract from America. The sentence regarding the role of Dick Armey may represent an improvement in describing that specific point, but I'll defer to Xenophrenic and TE on that. Moreover, the question of why he is not mentioned as a co-author of the Contract with America, from which the Contract for America takes its name (which is stated in RS), would also seem to be an omission in the light of the weight accorded to other aspects.

In sum, I see a potential improvement in one sentence and the addition of a related sentence that may be accurate (sourcing); otherwise, version 15 is far superior.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:20, 3 July 2013 and 14:18, 3 July 2013(UTC)

• Present While I don't have a preferred version which I've authored and lack the audacity to use such a thing as rationale for opposition to this consensus-driven proposal -- I see no reason to vote on any proposal until SilkTork reasserts his goals and desired methods to achieve 'em on this moderated talkpage. †TE†Talk 04:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, I must admit that I, too, was a bit taken aback to find yet another version proposed, and a vote immediately called as well. On the other hand, if there is "audacity", it would seem to lie in that act, not in meeting the call for responses including the corresponding rationale.

Furthermore, the above comment includes a reference to a "consensus driven proposal", but it is unclear whether that is meant to assert that 12g is the only such proposal. Accordingly, it bears pointing out that Version 15 has evolved through several previous versions including input from multiple authors.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have reason to believe this thread has been corrupted by out-of-place additions lacking a proper timestamp and placement of chronological order. I would rather not spend time looking back hours into this page's history to make sure I'm not being deceived. I have nothing else to say as time could've been better spent not addressing this fundamental no-no for wikipedians. †TE†Talk 05:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in light of the comment you left on my Talk page, I've added to the time stamp in my above-posted "oppose" vote with respect to material expanding on my rationale therefor.

Since no one has responded directly to the content of my rationale, it would seem that the material added could be considered as part of the same edit. There certainly was no intent to deceive on my part.

Maybe you'd care to point me to the policy regarding the "fundamental no-no for wikipedians"?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the original proposal by North8000. The one you opposed, and TE supported. The proposal was to get Malke's condensed verion of Xeno's V12d into the article mainspace, to replace the execrable crap that was there, but only as a starting point for further improvement. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scatological descriptions are not helpful.

There are two issues with the presumptions embedded in your reply, both of which are problematic.

First, the "starting point for improvement" was to be a text subjected to discussion of objectionable wording and the like here on the moderated discussion page before being finalized for placement on the article in mainspace.

Second, the problem with all the versions that attempted to omit the first two paragraphs of 12d is that you can't discuss something that is not there in a "starting point for improvement" text, because you already agreed to a text without it as the starting point. Therefore, I could not support any such version. In the meantime, Xenophrenic and I improved his original 12d and arrived at version 15 as it stands today.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are the two of you now in the position of "15 or nothing"? Collect (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Scatological descriptions are not helpful. In this specific case, it was accurate. In the case of the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section, it was also accurate. But now the sanitation department has had its way with them. It the future, I think references to "garbage" would suffice for these other sections that need work.

• ... you can't discuss something that is not there in a "starting point for improvement" text ... I think we can. Just start talking about it if you'd like. If you want something that is not there, you simply start a discussion about putting it in there; and if you get consensus for it, we could put it in there.

• In the meantime, Xenophrenic and I improved his original 12d and arrived at version 15 as it stands today. Good for you. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. On the other hand, you could just work it into that /Agenda of the Tea Party movement spin-off article I was working on, because that would be brilliant.

• We've just demonstrated that we can act quickly and effectively as a team when we choose to do so, Ubikwit. So do it, or do nothing. If there isn't any progress on that by the end of the day, I'd like to go back to those three minor improvements I've had tabled for three months, and start discussing those. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we all intend that "going in as a starting point" means open to changes in all respects, and that it will need some changes. In fact, we should specifically say that. IMO About 3/4 of the recent versions are good enough for that. Let's get this baby moving! North8000 (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Malke's latest V12g proposal has a 4-2 "vote." That's a weak majority and weak consensus by Wikipedia standards. Ubikwit has offered some argument in opposition but I fail to see how it's supported by policy. I am not sure whether we can proceed at this point. Ubikwit has gone on a Wikibreak (see User:Ubikwit), so it's very unlikely he'll proceed any time soon with his V15 proposal. The "agenda" section has been through at least 22 different versions (V1-V15, plus V12b-V12g), and I feel we've done enough to improve it for the time being. There are other areas of the article that need attention and have been waiting a long time for it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to rush to meet the WP:DEADLINE. The goal is to reach consensus - and that does not appear to be reached here. I have an proposal-in-progress on my UT page which I invited Malke to view - I suppose others should as well. It puts some elements which seem placed at random into what I consider a more rational order vis-à-vis the "conservative libertarian dichotomy" clearly present in the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, IMHO you the person who is the most skilled here at writing things succinctly and well. But you keep coming up with versions that are lacking content / too short for this all-important section. But since the selection will be a starting point for making changes, I also support yours. Any of the recent versions by you, Xenophrenic or Malke IMHO would be a good starting point, each with flaws that should get fixed in the following phase. Let's get this baby moving! North8000 (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit I've edited the existing V12d in the mainspace, adding a few Wikilinks and changing "conservative movement" to "part conservative and part libertarian" per concerns raised by North8000. These are the minor tweaks that are, or should be, allowed without discussion here. Please let me know if you approve. Regarding Malke's V12g above, one or two more "Support votes" would mean consensus strong enough to action the edit, and one or two more "Oppose votes" would kill it. Right now, I see it hovering in a weak consensus limbo until some more people weigh in. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's really not my edit. I took Ubikwit's version, and Xenophrenic's version and put them into a word file. I put Ubikwit's first paragraph first, then the rest is Xenophrenic's version. I eliminated the blockquote because it didn't make sense to keep it. First, who is Schmidt? Why would the reader care about what he has to say? He's not notable. And the quote doesn't support any of the content. Plus it's obscure. So far, no editor has been able to paraphrase it. For the last paragraph, I included the details about the Contract for America because editors had earlier expressed a desire to eliminate the Contract for America section all together. That's really the only contribution I made. I thought this version was the best of all worlds and would be supported unanimously, allowing the process to move forward. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt is a law professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, and he's one of the few academics I've seen cross this page who has written in an informative and truly unbiased way about the TPm. He's not notable yet but in my opinion, perhaps he should be. My personal opinion is that Ronald Formisano wrote a hit piece disguised as peer-reviewed academic research; his fawning op-eds for Obama and the Democrats betray him. Skocpol and Perrin (who is discussed on the main article Talk page) are substantially less biased, but I still detect a little bit of bias there. Elizabeth Price Foley is that most rare of creatures: an academic who's actually a little biased in favor of the Tea Party. Schmidt, Zietlow and Zernike write with no detectable bias. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know all about Schmidt. I'm the one who came up with his article when I attempted to rewrite the edit Ubikwit placed in the main article without any discussion and/or consensus. (I'm referring to the first time Ubikwit made the edit without consensus/discussion, and not this most recent time where he did the same thing again without consensus and discussion.) Whether or not he's notable is not my only point. The quoteblock does not fit in any of the versions. It's awkward in a section that is talking about the agenda in general. As I said, it's not like someone famous is being quoted and that quote speaks directly to the content, highlights it. Instead, the Schmidt quote makes no sense. If what Schmidt has to say is so vital, then simply paraphrase it with a cite. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

’’Version 15’’, (version 12d revised for readability)

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 15/25
13/34
The Tea Party doesn't have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the Tea Party, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group to set its own priorities and goals. Goals may conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. Many Tea Party organizers see this as a strength rather than a weakness, as decentralization has helped to immunize the Tea Party against co-opting by outside entities and corruption from within.^[10]
14/27
The Tea Party has generally sought to avoid placing too much emphasis on traditional conservative social issues. National Tea Party organizations, such as the Tea Party Patriots and FreedomWorks, have expressed concern that engaging in social issues would be divisive.^[10] Instead, they have sought to have activists focus their efforts away from social issues and focus on economic and limited government issues.^[11][12] Still, many groups like Glenn Beck's 9/12 Tea Parties, TeaParty.org, the Iowa Tea Party and Delaware Patriot Organizations do act on social issues such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools, and illegal immigration.^[13][11][14]
13/33
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.^[15][16] 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.^[5][17] It has also mobilized locally against the United Nations Agenda 21.^[5][18] They have protested the IRS for controversial treatment of groups with "tea party" in their names.^[19]
13/31
Even though the groups have a wide range of different goals, the Tea Party places the Constitution at the center of its reform agenda.^[20][21][22] It urges the return of government as intended by the Founding Fathers. It also seeks to teach its view of the Constitution and other founding documents.^[10] Scholars have described its interpretation variously as originalist, popular, or a unique combination of the two. Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter.^[23][24] 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.^[7]
14/29
One attempt at forming a list of what Tea Partiers wanted Congress to do resulted in the Contract from America. It was a legislative agenda created by conservative activist Ryan Hecker with the assistance of Dick Armey of FreedomWorks. Armey had co-written the previous Contract with America released by the Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections. One thousand agenda ideas that had been submitted were narrowed down to twenty-one non-social issues. Participants then voted in an online campaign in which they were asked to select their favorite policy planks. The results were released as a ten-point Tea Party platform.^[8][9] 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'.^[9]
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. --Phoenix and Winslow

Good plan. I'd like to introduce this to the Agenda section if there are no significant objections. It addresses several problems with the text that was boldly introduced to the main article (and also rates better on the Grade/Readability meter as well). I've removed the blockquote from the above version (without prejudice - it can be reconsidered later). Xenophrenic (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we await an admin here per Snowded's request -- did you sign on to the continuation below? Meanwhile, no edits at this point appear to have "uncontested consensus" behind them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom case has re-opened. The moderated discussion has not achieved what I hoped it would, and I apologise to everyone for my part in that failure - but would also like to thank everyone who took part and made some positive improvements to the article: there have been steps forward, and the article is in a better shape now than what it was when we started. As the case has reopened and the discussion has not been fully successful, and as I will be away from home all next week with uncertain internet access, I am withdrawing from the discussion as of now. It is highly likely that some people are going to be topic banned, and that a number of those involved in the discussion are going to be among those who are topic banned. As such it is uncertain what the best course of action would be in regards to the discussion: if it continues without a moderator, or a new moderator should be sought, or if it should be closed down completely, and discussion returned to the main talkpage. It may be best to await the outcome of the case before making any firm decisions, though I leave that in your hands. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I regret your decision on this. I would ask you contact one of the neutral parties you might know to see who would be willing to act as shepherd at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, thank you for the excellent job that you have done. The challenge is due to the policy weaknesses that leave all contentious articles articles in this state. The article was chugging along in such a sad routine state when someone asked someone to light a bonfire, and they listened. So there are 2 people to blame for the bonfire (who have evaded scrutiny) and nobody to really blame for the article state. We'll see if Arbcom figures that out. North8000 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SilkTork, for your service here. Please don't describe this effort as a "failure." As you said, there have been "some positive improvements to the article," despite the enormous obstacles, and that's been due to the diligent work and patience of a significant number of people, particularly you. I couldn't agree more with North's assessment that the contents of the policy toolbox need to be supplemented, and sharpened. When facing a thicket of negative trivia, placed in an article by people who loathe the subject of the article, the best tool is a chainsaw; and any policy restraining the immediate use of that chainsaw very badly needs to be actively reviewed with an eye toward revision. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Silk Tork. You were very generous with your time. The article has progessed and is much improved, thanks to your efforts. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sort of vote -- who wishes to muddle on as best we can? (Option 1) Or to invoke Lis alibi pendens and suspend this effort (Option 2)? Collect (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since SilkTork provided the rules, and disagreed with some of the editors about interpretations, I don't think I could vote to continue option 1 without specifying the rules. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose we we posit that Option 1 has: 1. Absolutely no mention of another editor by name in any critical context, period, including the implicit use of "you" to make critical comments about an editor in any post. (basically a "civility rule). 2. No "consensus" shall be claimed without a plurality of four !votes for any proposal. 3. "Drive-by" !votes are to be discouraged. (ones with no constructive discussion to be weighed minimally - but not discouraging constructive suggestions from added editors) 4. Any non-involved admin shall interpret these rules and be allowed to enforce them as though they had been posited in arbitration through AE. 5. If and only if this option is selected, we shall then decide on procedural matters including the questions of whether we deal with existing sections or deal with a general overview of the topic, etc. (such as the "plan A" suggestions) Collect (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there is a clear consensus to proceed, I have asked at WP:AN for a moderator to abide by the posited rules and to proceed to get this job done. Collect (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes:

• Yes The article will go on regardless of what we decide. And anyone who is willing and able with work on it will. So I guess that you are asking whether or not to continue with this semi-organized effort. That is how I interpreted the question. Not sure yet on those details. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes We should proceed immediately. Same rules, with the clarification above by Collect regarding the occasional drive-by editor. We just need a new moderator. And for heaven's sake people, the discussion of my three little improvements has been put on hold for three months so can we start there first please? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes The 'civility rule' above is a particularly fine idea. The intense personalization of discussion can be highly discouraging. Capitalismojo (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes I'd be fine with continuing on. We need to find another moderator. I don't know how best to find one. Perhaps a general notice at ANI, if such a thing is allowed?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think AN might be more appropriate than ANI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes but It will beed to be moderated but its not going to work if we get lengthy posts, multiple propositions and an attitude based on vote stacking rather than consensus. So I'd suggest that we need moderation even to formulate the votes and all of that needs to wait for the ArbCom case to be resolved. We all know its going to change then anyway----Snowded ^TALK 12:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ArbCom only deals with behavior, and makes absolutely no content decisions. Thus I am taking your !vote to be part of a clear consensus to ask for a moderator. Collect (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do know that Collect, but their judgement on behaviour is likely to change the nature of participation and thus the context of moderation. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long as the behaviour is under control for the duration of a moderated discussion, do you think that a later ArbCom decision would reverse a reasonable consensus? I would trust that is not your position, of course. If we wait ofr a behavior decision first, we will lose a full month or more, IMO. Collect (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - ...on some of your (Option 1) rules, it appears we've already disregarded Rule #5. Rule #1 is standard Civility/NPA policy. Don't comment on editors, period. It's a shame that such a basic rule needs reiteration. Rule #2 - Instead, let's stick with Wikipedia policy, and not introduce numbers in any way, shape or form to the determination of WP:CONSENSUS. Quite simply: when a proposal is made and objections are raised, the objections need to be addressed. Gathering 4 like-minded editors to say "Me too" is not how consensus is achieved. Same applies to Rule #3. Of course not all objections can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties when achieving consensus, but any proposal that is actioned while ignoring legitimate concerns is not an act of consensus. To the more general question of whether or not we can continue to be productive, I don't see any reason why not. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If one reads this page one realizes that things have gotten much better. Instead of there being a battle, we now have just a truck that is stuck in the mud and collectively we can't figure out how to get it moving. Let's create a framework that will do that and get somebody who will oversee it. I think that the following would help:

• BRD with teeth on the "D" would be a good plan.
• Decide smaller pieces at a time, not entire sections
• Decide that each questioned section/item must get decided on. The status quo does not rule (absent a supermajority), it becomes merely one of the choices of what will go in.
• Fix the math problem that occurs when there are three or more choices. Encourage editors to weigh in on every choice, not just pick a favorite
• Other than the above, use the normal methods in other areas
• Agree that outlandish behavior needs to get smacked. Also agree that the process of ginning up / spinning up minor issues to try to get people smacked should stop.
• I could handle the gnome organizing work if folks want on a trial basis. 1 week trial then 1 month trial. But we need an admin to oversee / enforce the above.

North8000 (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting plan - but we need to decide on whether we go on at all first. Collect (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article will go on regardless of what we decide. So I guess that you are asking whether or not to continue with this semi-organized effort? North8000 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get back to work

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

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

Let's get on the stick.

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

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

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

• Comment The addition of grass roots was opposed P&W and you continue to confuse voting with consensus. Otherwise I really don't see the point until the Arbcom position is settled. It ha gone back there because this approach did not work. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no confusion on my part, Snowded. The TPm is a grass-roots movement; this is the majority position per WP:WEIGHT. The example that I used in previous incarnations of this thread was the Waterboarding article. Even though a minority of reliable sources, including (at that time) the Vice President of the United States, the Attorney General, and two Deputy Attorneys General were of the opinion that in some cases waterboarding was not torture, a majority of sources stated that it was torture. Accordingly, the first six words of the Waterboarding article are, "Waterboarding is a form of torture[.]" In previous incarnations of this discussion thread over the past six months, I've linked at least 18 reliable sources stating that the TPm is a grass-roots movement. These included both peer-reviewed academic and fact-checked news organization sources. Those editors who opposed the edit cited two sources: one by Ron Formisano, who claims that a few groups associated with TPm are engaged in Astroturfing, and one by Theda Skocpol, who observes that the TPm is neither grass-roots nor Astroturf, but something in between. Even if we count both of these sources as sharing the same minority opinion, it's eighteen to two — clearly a majority opinion and a minority opinion per WP:WEIGHT.

But it isn't even that good for those who oppose the edit, Snowded. It's eighteen for the majority opinion, one for a minority opinion, and one for a different minority opinion, because Formisano and Skocpol don't share the same opinion. Clearly, the authors of the Waterboarding article have shown us how to handle this situation. Review the archives of that article's Talk page. Those who opposed that edit were very determined, but they lost the content dispute. Here, we also see support for treating obvious minority opinions as something other than the minority. This is a policy based argument, Snowded. Policy based arguments, not votes, determine consensus per WP:CLOSE and WP:CONSENSUS. You see, there's no confusion on my part about what constitutes consensus at Wikipedia. Do you have a policy based argument?

Next, let's examine your desire to wait until the ArbCom decision. Are you waiting for ArbCom to issue topic bans for one side in the content dispute, and then the other side can have its way? ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes. Policy decides content disputes and here, the policy is WP:WEIGHT. Also, you claim that "this approach did not work." It wasn't allowed to work. The first time, we had consensus and SilkTork shut down the discussion to steer us into "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception." The second time, SilkTork shut down the discussion to steer us into the "Agenda" section. Let's get an admin from WP:AN to close this, and provide him with links to the previous two discussions. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That response illustrates why the Arbcom resolution is needed before progress can be made ----Snowded ^TALK 09:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are back here - your !vote is solicited above in Lis alibi pendens. Collect (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A month block for a problematic editor on various Philosophy articles has given me some time Collect but I'm not 100% on my continued participation. I'm waiting to see what comes out of the Arbcom ruling. However I have responded to your request and personal hat tip to you by the way. We've had our disagreements over the years but you do seem to be trying to make some progress here. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That response illustrates why the Arbcom resolution is needed before progress can be made Perhaps you'd care to explain, Snowded. I politely provided a fairly thorough policy based argument. Do you have a policy based argument that explains why the edit shouldn't be actioned? If not, why shouldn't the edit be actioned? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I and other editors have explained the issue elsewhere P&W, this is just another manifestation, counting votes, repeating your arguments as if they were uncontroversial conclusions and at length. Sorry been here too many times to go through it all again ----Snowded ^TALK 02:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

TPm = G

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

TPm = (1⁄2 G) + (1⁄2 A)

and one WP:SCHOLARSHIP source (Skocpol) saying

TPm = D

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

1 + 1 > 18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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