Small steps toward compromise, perhaps, but the text is somewhat muddled, and therefore questionable with respect to readability and the degree to which it is informative to the reader. There is no question of undue weight vis-a-vis the Constitution, as every source that discusses the TPm agenda addresses its relationship to the Constitution in a prominent manner. The only issue would seem to be providing adequate coverage for all of the views, but that could be handled in a separate section if the summary in the Agenda section were balanced.

Blockquotes are efficient and add credibility, when used appropriately. Here, when strong statements are being made in the voice of the encyclopedia, particularly in relation to controversial topics such as this, it helps to quote authoritative sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My preferred text "unmuddles" what I perceive to be unnecessary, overly-confusing insertions of detail which add little to the overall encyclopedic value. I also believe there was a plagiarized sentence if memory serves. I'm glad we both agree your sources have given the constitution undue weight to the Tea Party's political agenda. And I'm aware other editors were concerned about having Tea Party supporters identify their own agendas. My second paragraph can fix that as actual legislation they've protested is easily-sourced and actions speak louder than words. An editor mentioned at "unmoderated" TPM-talk that the USSR had a way of misrepresenting their agenda in ways which flew in the face of their actions. †TE†Talk 16:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which sentence was plagiarized?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really relevant? Just observations while copy-editing. Not criticism focused on anyone. †TE†Talk 16:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a policy violation, and though it can occur inadvertently, since you raised the issue, what is the problem in responding?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, just a few words here or there in succession. No need to sound the alarm. Retracted. †TE†Talk 16:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blah, blah, the Tea Party has protested TARP, stimulus, cap and trade, Obamacare and perceived attacks by the federal government on their first, second, fourth and tenth amendment rights. Also have promoted right-to-work legislation and immigration enforcement at a state level. More recently, protesting the IRS for discriminative actions against conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Encyclopedic green text if there's support for some or all of this.

While lacking central leadership and representation enjoyed by political parties,[14] the 'Contract from America' was created with the assistance of "hundreds of thousand of people" voting online for their "favorite principles" as a Tea Party platform.[15] Its name was a play on the 'Contract with America'[16] released by Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections.[17] Contract from America was met with some support within the Republican Party,[18] but not broadly embraced by GOP leadership.[19] They subsequently promulgated their own 'Pledge to America'.[20]
†TE†Talk 15:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like input on my solutions for all stated concerns, to whom it may concern. †TE†Talk 17:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, TE. My concern is that a section on the constitution will grow into a large mass that will require an ArbCom admin to help remove it. My suggestion has been, at least I hope I've mentioned it, is to create a subarticle on the topic with a para in the main with a link to it. I'll support any paragraph that does not use block quotes, does not point exclusively to scholarly articles which are nothing but opinion with a graduate degree attached, and seems reasonably neutral. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, I love the 'blah, blah, blah.' Please keep that. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Malke. I was conflicted about using two blahs instead of the standard three. It was a tough decision, but I'm happy with the results. In all seriousness, I was hoping for more feedback on paragraph two. Not exactly surprised by virtual silence given the uninviting environment of this page. Chilliest summer ever.

On the Constitution section -- Guess we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. I see no reason for an Agenda and the constitution section. †TE†Talk 11:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest we work out a version that has has some small problems but no big problems and put it in. Then tweak it from that, recognizing that it has some problems and that such is planned. I think that a tidied up version of #11 might be that. The overemphasis on constitutional details could be be fixed later. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the least, it would be a moral victory for all involved to see some actionable results. I'm open to any and all tweaks. The groundwork is there, IMO. †TE†Talk 12:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In short, let's put a tidied up version of #11 in, agreeing that it will still need some work after that. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version 12

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

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

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

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

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

The Tea Party movement generally aims at reform to limit the size and scope of the federal government, to reduce government spending, to reduce government deficits, and to oppose tax increases. Some call the Tea Party interpretation of the Constitution "originalist."

Some Tea Party groups have protested TARP, stimulus, cap and trade, Obamacare and other government programs. Some support right-to-work legislation and immigration reform that includes provisions for border security to prevent the problem in the future. The IRS treatment of groups using the term "tea party" in their names has been a matter of controversy.

The 'Contract from America' was created with the assistance of "hundreds of thousand of people" self-identifying with the "Tea Party" voting online for their "favorite principles" as a Tea Party platform.

Which fixes what I see as substantial issues with the proposal. Collect (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foley is not the only source that discusses Amendments. I have posted detailed quotes in a hatted section above from Schmidt and others. Schmidt discusses both the 16th and 17th in detail as well as the Repeal Amendment, and mentions the 14th in a footnote, while Somin discusses the 16th and 17th. Skocpol also mentions the TPm's pushing for amendments, etc.

This text has numerous other problems, such as being unsourced, referring to many local actions that seem to relate more to events and (re)actions than specific agenda items. Phrases like, "Some call the Tea Party interpretation of the Constitution "originalist" is somewhat uninformative and leaves the reader wondering, whereas the fact of the matter is that a new term has been coined by a constitutional scholar to describe the TPm's version of originalism.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, Somin discusses the 16th Amendment and the Repeal Amendment in the posted quotes. Note that the quotes are solely from academic sources--peer-reviewed legal journals--there are also many news media sources that discuss the specific Amendments, including more than one NTY article, etc., several of which have been discussed on this page previously.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I did not muddy the page up with yet more non-utile footnotes does not mean "unsourced". Really. And that you have posted extensive detailed quotes is not indicative of much of anything at all. The question is how we present the complex topic to Wikipedia readers. Cheers -- I would like to see the constructive comments on this proposal which I crafted as best I could to meet everyone's positions here with the goal of reaching a consensus. Collect (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Collect might be right. Maybe we shouldn't get too specific. If Jay Leno went into a crowd of tea party peeps from different groups and asked 'what is meant by constitutional originalism,' some might say it's about Adam and Eve, at least one would say Al Gore is the current VP (like the tourist at Grauman's who told Leno that on the night of the Iowa caucuses in 2008) a few would say it was a new cable series like Judge Judy but with a Supreme Court justice named Jefferson instead of Judy, most rest would likely say it had something to do with taking a daily constitutional around the mall, and one would say it had to do with limiting federal powers and states' rights. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Malke - that paragraph had me chuckling out loud. :-) Seriously though, we shouldn't be too hard on the average TPer's understanding of Constitution-related stuff; several reliable sources have noted that TPers on average are a degree more engaged with the Constitution than the average American voter. Pocket-constitution booklets are popular merchandise at rallies, and "instructional seminars" on the Constitution are conducted by more than a few local TP groups. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it. They might be buying those pocket guides but they couldn't quote them to Leno and win the gift certificate to Morton's on La Cienega. But you're right they are more aware of the constitution, but I think it's like they're aware they have a glove compartment in their vehicle but they couldn't tell you what's in it. IMHO, this is all about the fact that they can't sell their homes as planned to use the profits for their retirement. Right after the housing market comes back and the value of their homes comes back to where they were before 2008, they'll sell and move to Naples Florida. Then they'll be so happy to have that great affordable care from that nice Mr. Obama. That's what this is really all about IMHO. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version 13

13. The agenda of the Tea Party movement is generally aimed at government reform[1], including limiting the size and scope of the federal government,[2] reducing government spending[3] and lowering the national debt and deficit[4]. Placing the Constitution[5] at the center of its reform agenda, the movement advocates an originalist[6] interpretation of the Constitution coupled with educational outreach efforts focused on the founding documents.[7]

Focus on the Constitution is emphasized in election campaigns, and several Amendments, including the Fourteenth,[8] Sixteenth,[9] and Seventeenth,[10] have been targeted for partial or full repeal. Tea Partiers have also expressed widespread support for a proposed "Repeal Amendment"[11] enabling states to repeal federal laws with the stated aim of restoring the constitutionally defined balance between federal and state power.

While lacking the centralized leadership of a political party, Tea Party activists and supporters helped create the Contract from America by voting in an online campaign in which participants were asked to vote for their favorite principles, with the result being promulgated as a ten-point Tea Party platform.[12]^[6][7] The third point in the platform calls for enacting a Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget.

Its name was a play on the Contract with America[15] released by Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections. Though the Tea Partiers statement met with some support in the Republican Party, it was not broadly embraced. The Republican Party subsequently promulgated its own Pledge to America.

After President Obama's reelection in 2012, the movement shifted its focus to challenging the constitutionality of the federal health care law in the courts, while also mobilizing locally against the United Nations Agenda 21.[8][9].

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I see no convincing rationale justifying removal of the block quotes. I provided my rationale above for using them.

I have assessed the suggested texts above, and they have more shortcomings than this, in my opinion.

Thanks North8000, for recognizing that at least this is not all that biased. I would suggest that coming down a little on the side of "overemphasis" is better than omission.

I have tightened up the language to the extent I can see possible at present, and brought a couple of points into clearer focus, I think. It is quite compact, yet sufficiently informative.

With respect to Heckler, please see the section above addressing the question of his connection to the TPm. The sources simply identify him as a TPm activist in Houston. If there are more specific sources, I would be willing to modify the sentence accordingly to reflect the content.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise is the goal. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my best. This version is rather minimalist, from my perspective. And I've incorporated a number of revisions suggested by others along the way.

Most importantly, I think this version is strikes a balance between being adequately informative and not excessively detailed, which I believe is possible to do in light of: first, tacit agreement regarding a separate section--outside of the Agenda section--or a subarticle dealing with the massive amount of published text focusing on the Constitution; and second, the use use of two blockquotes that contained condensed information.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that, I am willing to admit that there is a something of a want of detail in the specific correlation of detail in the Foley quote between the specific agenda points and the corresponding Amendment points. Nevertheless, I also feel that the mention of several specific agenda points that have been raised in other versions of proposed text are mentioned for the first and only time, making the trade-off overall a plus, as it allows for a more compact text while maintaining a high level of informativeness. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding some of the points Malke raised just above: I'm on the fence with regard to "blockquotes". I have absolutely no problem with quoting a source, but quoting the source by using the "blockquote" mark-up feature does lend a slight emphasis to that text by separating and indenting it. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but care must be used. Regarding "shifting focus", it's true that they were always against the health care legislation, and they still are - the actual change in "focus" (as explained here) is in how they are now fighting Obamacare since Obama was re-elected, and repeal is no longer an option. They have shifted to nullification by the individual states, and killing the funding for it at the local level. Maybe that wording should be made more clear? Regarding Contract from America, Hecker had that idea before the Tea Party even existed (yup, 2008), and the 10-point agenda wasn't exactly created "by the Tea Party". The list of proposed agenda items (generated by just a few thousand surveys from both within and outside of the Tea Party -- not "hundreds of thousands") was first vetted by FreedomWorks and stripped down to 21 items. This info used to be at www.thecontract.org, but is now unfortunately scrubbed. Then that list of 21 pre-selected items were presented online to activists to have them prioritized (that's where the "hundreds of thousands of votes" comes in). Maybe that wording should be made more clear as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you feel there are important details that are key to informing the reader, then they should be included. Otherwise, too fine-grained a level of detail in this summary section simply serves to detract from the purpose. As for the blockquotes, how do you propose to compensate for the content?

It seems to me that the details of Hecker are of negligible import, and if they weren't, the account provided in the readily available sources would be more detailed. If you can clarify points without warping the scope, then by all means. Otherwise, prepare for more substantial revision. What knowledge does the reader gain from any of that in relation to the TPm? There is no article at present on Wikipedia about Hecker, though I suppose he is notable.

The shift in focus is in part meant to emphasize the shift of the battleground to the courts from the electorate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xenophrenic. That is exactly how the Contract from America came about. And he's right about the rest of it. On the block quotes, we've had them before and they are revert magnets. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Obamacare is the reason they are focused on the constitution and states' rights. They were also very disappointed that the Supremes went around the Commerce Clause to say it wasn't a constitutional violation. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(added subsequent to original post for clarification) Alternatively, correct any misstatements; however, bear in mind that the sentence I proposed was based on two sources from the main article on CfA, so there should probably be sources added.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are those sources, for which I have just left refs in the above suggested text, and slightly re-worded the text to make it less inaccurate. According to the information that has been provided here, these sources are somewhat incomplete, but what is the fix in a case such as this? Tea Party Activists Craft 'Contract from America'Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract from America'

Note that the first article (Feb. 2010) describes Hecker as "a Tea Party activist in Texas", while the second in the series (Apr. 2010) mentions that he came up with the idea in 2008, and only describes him as "a 29-year old lawyer from Houston". Does someone want to further edit the text to reflect this, or can it wait until there is a more comprehensive source and we can vote on this? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Noting that I, for one, do not always instantly reply to every point raised in every post here, I would like to note that "overemphasis" is specifically contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The one thing we specifically must not do is "overemphasize" what we WP:KNOW to be the WP:TRUTH - our task is to reach WP:CONSENSUS through compromise in order to provide readers with articles which do not use "overemphasis" whatsoever, ever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC) (Noting that edits have been made to the posts to which I have replied without the poster noting the changes for others to see) Collect (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to the comment under version 12 related to sourcing, I gather. At any rate, I've self-reverted and re-posted that with an expanded text. The other comment I expanded in this section is not a comment related to CfA to which you appear not to have responded, but I have made the adidition thereof more conspicuous so that all can see what you refer to above.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that it is not overemphasis as far as the sources and relevant policies of WP:RS and WP:DUE are concerned. The comment I made was made in response to a statement articulating a perception that was in favor of compromise of the text, while voicing concerns in terms of a personal view on the specificity regarding the Amendments, without making recourse to policy. It is clear that I feel that omitting a POV contained in RS would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, for starters, while potentially assigning something too much weight, which is the suggestion, would not necessarily be a policy violation, and is something that could be resolved later if not perfect. Silk Tork has made that point more than once.

Deliberating how much weight a given POV found in RS deserves to be given is quote different from excluding a POV that is clearly articulated in numerous sources.

What is the point of the mention of WP:KNOW and WP:TRUTH? There are a plurality of RS that specifically mention several Amendments by name or number, which is the basis upon which I have composed the suggested text. I have repeatedly discussed those.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I should add that the sources being discussed are only the academic sources available online--peer-reviewed legal journals--there are also many news media sources that discuss the specific Amendments, including more than one NTY article, etc., several of which have been discussed on this page previously. I would imagine that some of the recently published books also list specific Amendments by number, etc. The fact is that there are multiple sources that present a POV relating to the TPm's aims and proposals to repeal specific Amendments and add the Repeal Amendment. I didn't think that was even an issue.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I hate to say this but Amazon blurbs are not reliable sources for anything at all. Nor do they make the essay a reliable source for the claims you wish to make from a single sentence in it. Nor does anyone else at RS/N concur with such a usage. Collect (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, likely they could be filed under WP:NOTHERE at RS/N. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

iVote on Version 13

As there is limited time before the Arbcom case reconvenes, and since there have been no new suggestions in the past 24 hours other than the modifications I've made to the CfA material, while some are lobbying Xenophrenic for a version--which would be welcome--I'm going to call a vote on version 13 in its current state. If anyone has further suggestions, please post them in a new version below. Noe that I've posted information above (hatted section) in relation to objections to using the Foley blockquote, and posted an agenda point from the CfA on the proposed balanced budget amendment referred to by Foley.

• Support actioning edit of version 13 --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Iterating essentially the same proposal over and over and suggesting instant auctioning is not productive. The exact same problems are here as in the past, and the concept of seeking compromise is lacking in this iterated proposal. Cheers. BTW, the idea that 24 hours is sufficient to have your own position adopted by default is not exactly airworthy. Collect (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The unattributed blockquotes are a non-starter as demonstrated in conversations above. Version 13 represents a clear step back in the consensus process. †TE†Talk 08:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per ThinkEnemies and Collect. Well said. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Several problems. Can we get one together that genuinely takes feedback into account? North8000 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version 14? a smaller proposal

A movement is defined by it's agenda. Trying to get this all important section down to a few short paragraphs is a bad idea. So how about this:

1. Quickly prepare a slightly pared and tidied version of version 12, as being a substitute only for the intro paragraphs in the agenda section I could do this if folks want.
2. Put it in.
3. Then tackle what to do with the "contract" section. Keep as is, contract/summarize/pare, eliminate etc. (consider "expansion" to be off the table)
4. Then tackle what to do with the "foreign policy" section. Keep as is, contract/summarize/pare, eliminate etc. (consider "expansion" to be off the table)

So we could quickly go 1/2 a step forward. And SilkTork, if you consider this idea proposal to be outside of the plan, I will strike it. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not adverse to this. But let me explain what I'd like to see happen now. We've had proposals made, and there's enough material on the table for people to find one of those proposals to work on. What I don't want to see is more proposals, and get into a situation where people simply offer proposal and counter-proposal, and folks are no longer working together collaboratively, but in opposition. I'd like folks to find one version that people agree can be worked on, and then folks work together to make it acceptable (not perfect, but an acceptable starting point). So - we can take forward your suggestion. Let's find an acceptable working version (perhaps 12), and then look at the issues in that version, and make it better - if that means paring it down, and parking the contract and foreign policy sections for later, that's OK. But the first stage is to find a version that most people agree is the best one to be working on. And then we look at the issues arising from that. Does that make sense?

And while I'm here - which version of Version 12 are people talking about? Malke's original version, or Collect's amendment? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm easy....either pare down Malke's or build up Collect's.......I lean towards starting with Malke's. North8000 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version vote

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

• 1st 13; 2nd 12. User:Example. 15:13, 28 June 2013

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

• 1st 13; 2nd 6(b) (Xenophrenic's revised version)--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• IMO #12 is the best. But I'd rather see another proposal that sort of combines the feedback. North8000 (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 12, which is a continuation of 11; heavily influenced by 6(B). †TE†Talk 15:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 12, Per TE and North. This does seem premature to me. I don't see discussion among the other editors like North and TE, and Collect and Xeno and myself rushing for a vote. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 12 although I think some of my "12a" wording may suffice as being clearer and more succinct (run the choices through a readability index checker for fun) . 13 is a "non-starter" in race parlance. Collect (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 12 Quite obviously the best choice of the ones that are available. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 12 or 12c Darkstar1st (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As an aside, I would suggest that it is far easier to improve readability than the grade level of content. If you start out aiming for high readability at the expense of content, you wind up dumbing down the text, which I would imagine to run counter to the goals of the encyclopedia.

Is there some pre-established standard for prescribing the target audience for particular articles? Or is that determined in accordance with the corresponding WP:RS on the topic, which in this case includes multiple reliably published papers by legal scholars.

Working on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, I could easily improve the readability of version 13. For example, I have incorporated changes in wording in 13 from versions suggested by others that is probably too abbreviated, and also resulted in sentence lengths that are longer, which could be reduced in other cases as well.

The first suggested text I submitted started with the sentence

The agenda of the Tea Party movement is aimed at government reform.

which now reads

The agenda of the Tea Party movement is generally aimed at government reform, including limiting the size and scope of the federal government, reducing government spending and lowering the national debt and deficit.

It's not a bad sentence, but as for grade-level/readability indexes, the former is:

Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 10 / Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: 47.

While the later is:

Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 21 / Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: 4.

In this case, the attempt I made to be collaborative resulted in a text that is deemed unattractive based on other criteria.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case that improved readability would be considered important to a majority of editors, the following version of the first paragraph scores a 16/15 on the above-referenced scale, whereas the present version of the corresponding paragraph scores 21/-3. The first paragraph of version 12 scores 16/14, and that of 12(a) 16/15.

The agenda of the Tea Party movement is aimed at government reform. Among the goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, and lowering the national debt. The movement places the Constitution[5] at the center of its reform agenda, while advocating an originalist[6] interpretation coupled with educational outreach efforts.[7]

Check out the results: Grade level of 17 and R/I of 9. Not an improvement, alas. And still harder to read than the IRS Code <g>. Collect (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To what results are you referring?

The result I posted are for the above paragraph from the website linked to above in your earlier post [13]. I believe that it is you that needs to "check out the results".

The comment with <g> appended to the end is unhelpful, as it is merely your personal opinion, alas.Moreover, it has the same readability score as the opening paragraph of the suggested text posted as 12(a), but it includes much more information. The the reason that I have spent the time to undertake this exercise is because there is an impartial indexing website available. Cheers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are rewritten versions of each paragraph of the text of version 13--excluding the blockquotes, and their corresponding scores. The overall score, incidentally, is 15/20.

Paragraph 1: 16/15

The agenda of the Tea Party movement is aimed at government reform. Among the goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, and lowering the national debt. The movement places the Constitution[5] at the center of its reform agenda, while advocating an originalist[6] interpretation coupled with educational outreach efforts.[7]

Paragraph 2: 16/20 The Constitution is a focal point for the Tea party in election campaigns. Several Amendments, including the Fourteenth,[8] Sixteenth,[9] and Seventeenth,[10] have been targeted for repeal. Tea Partiers have also expressed widespread support for a proposed "Repeal Amendment"[11] that would enable states to repeal federal laws, with the stated aim of restoring the constitutionally defined balance between federal and state power.

Paragraph 3: 15/19

Lacking the centralized leadership of a political party, Tea Partiers helped create the Contract from America by voting in an online campaign. Participants were asked to vote for their favorite policy planks, and the results were promulgated as a ten-point Tea Party platform.[12] The third point in the platform calls for enacting a Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget.

Paragraph 4: 14/30

The name 'Contract from America' was a play on the name of the Contract with America[15], which was a statement released by the Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections. Though the Tea Partiers' statement met with some support in the Republican Party, it was not broadly embraced. The Republican Party subsequently promulgated its own Pledge to America.[12]

Paragraph 5: 15/24

After President Obama's reelection in 2012, the movement shifted its focus. The Tea party led efforts to challenge the constitutionality of the federal health care law in the courts, and also mobilizing locally against the United Nations Agenda 21.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(ec)IRS readability for [14]

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

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

(edit conflict)Well, apparently you misunderstood the intent. The paragraphs I posted were rewritten to improve readability without substantially altering the meaning or diminishing the content.

The blockquotes are a separate issue, but I can take that up here, since you've broached the topic.

But first, the comment needs to check out the results was a repetition of a comment made to me by mistake, apparently, in relation to the online results for the first paragraph, which would seem to be mentioned out of context here.

The rewritten paragraphs largely removed text and phrasing I had incorporated in an attempt to edit collaboratively, as mentioned above. a quick look at the evolution of the text demonstrates that.

I'm in favor of including the blockquotes I have posted, obviously, but the rewritten paragraphs could serve as a reference for anyone else seeking to improve the readability of whatever version we eventually arrive at through consensus. They could be appropriated as building blocks, as far as I'm concerned. There is one day left to this endeavor.

Incidentally, the first blockquote scores fairly well:

Blockquote 1: 14/13

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

Blockquote 2: 27/-17

I suppose I could simply paraphrase the content of that blockquote, and preface that with "According to Elizabeth Foley..., in light of the RS/N suggestion.

Maybe I'll have some time to do that later tonight and post a version for reference, as it seems others are waiting on Xenophrenic's next suggestion. He is free to draw on the above-posted material.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since a criteria related to "readability" has been introduced, although said criteria does not appear to be based on any Wikipedia policy, since an impartial online engine [15] has been introduced for evaluating text in terms of said criteria, I've rewritten the entirety of version 13. Because the online indexing engine does not appear to have an appreciation for blockquotes, I have removed all but one. I happen to think that there are other compelling reasons for using blockquotes, as described above.

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

16/18
14. The agenda of the Tea Party movement is aimed at government reform[1]. Among the goals are limiting the size of the federal government[2], reducing government spending[3], and lowering the national debt[4]. The movement places the Constitution[5] at the center of its reform agenda, advocating an originalist[6] interpretation, which is coupled with educational outreach efforts[7] on the founding documents.[7]^[8]

14/15

17/17
Several Amendments, including the Fourteenth,[11] Sixteenth,[12] and Seventeenth,[13] have been targeted for full or partial repeal. Tea Partiers have also expressed widespread support for a proposed "Repeal Amendment"[14], which would enable states to repeal federal laws. ^[10] According to Foley, the Tea Party positions on the Constitution can be seen as corresponding to concrete agenda points, such as opposition to government sponsored bailouts[15] and stimulus programs[16] as well as government mandated health care coverage.[17] ^[11]

17/18
Lacking the centralized leadership of a political party, Tea Partiers helped create the Contract from America[18] by voting in an online campaign. Participants were asked to vote for their favorite policy planks, and the results were promulgated as a ten-point Tea Party platform. ^[6][12] The third point in the platform calls on Tea Partiers to“Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification”.[19]

15/24
After President Obama's reelection in 2012, the movement shifted its focus[20]. The Tea party led efforts to challenge the constitutionality of the federal health care law in the courts[21], and also mobilized locally against the United Nations Agenda 21[22]. ^[13]
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved - now the same as proposal 12 for readability, and a little less readable than 12a. Collect (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain you wish to use the neologism "Tea Partiers" however? I am also uncertain that "originalist" does not need to be in quotation marks - I suspect many readers might assign varying interpretations to it. Lastly, looking at all the sources, the "Agenda 21" bit seems way way down on the list - are you sure the final paragraph adds anything to your new proposal? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I split usage between "Tea Party" and "Tea Partiers", as those are the two common ways that I've seen RS refer to the movement in general terms. I think the use of both provides for a little flexibility, but are not absolutely necessary.

I should have wikilinked "originalism", as there are in fact more than one version, and different versions have been ascribed to the TPm by different people, and I've seen elements of both "textualist" and "intent" in related statements from TPm groups. That is not even briniging up "popular originalism", which needs its own section on the "originalism page. At any rate, maybe wikilinking to that will cover all aspects, and details can be treated elsewhere.

As far I recal discussion of the sources (Xenophrenic read those), Agenda 21 was an issue that was raised after 2012 elections. The only thing gained by breaking that sentence in two in the last paragraph was readability.

This wasn't meant to be a completely new proposal, but I did leave out a sentence or so on the CfA per Silk Tork's reply to North. Cheers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think "Tea Partiers" is far less common in fact, looking in books for "tea Partiers" and "Obama" (to avoid the historical Boston Tea Party) is a bit over 2K, while "Tea Party" and "Obama" hits 25K (which includes all of the "Partier" cites - thus it is clear that writers on the general topic tend not to use that term. I suggest we follow suit. "Agenda 21" and "Tea Party" in books gets 500 hits -- of which most are primarily about "Agenda 21" and not primarily about the TPm - thus I think it clear that it is of exceedingly minor weight per the RS sources. Collect (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn' have any objections to changing "Tea Partiers" to (the) "Tea Party", or removing the mention of Agenda 21. Feel free to revise the text. Cheers. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should revise my last comment slightly, as perhaps I should have checked the context again before speaking. in the following sentence, for example, the use of "Tea Partiers" has value for brevity and succinctness "Tea Partiers helped create the Contract from America". How else can one describe both individuals and groups with a single term here? What does the alternative phrasing look like?

And since there are a couple of sources on Agenda 21, we should probably here more input on that before removing it. It does fit with explicating the post 2012 shift in focus, even if it is relatively limited in scope. There is also the fact that it is a point that relates to favoring property owners over government regulation vis-a-vis environmental impact, or at least that is my perception at the moment. At the same time, it would probably be possible to iron out these issues later.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On "Tea Partiers", the following google search returns 234,000 hits, with a Fox News source near the top. It's a colloquial expression, but basically a grammatical construct the same as "Democrats" or "Republicans".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version 14 is "Version 13 revised for readability." I'm not sure why so much time and effort is being invested in a new and improved V13. We had a "version vote" [16] and the result was five "votes" in favor of V12, and one "vote" in favor of V13. In my opinion, this time and effort would be far more productively invested in improving V12 and getting it into the mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to have missed a couple of points, such as a discussion on Silk Tork's Talk page and comments above in response to North, not to mention the discussion on Xenophrenic's Talk page.

Since another version from Xenophrenic is awaited, the process is in suspended animation, while there has been no directive to stop working otherwise. Xenophrenic mentioned valid criticism on ST's talk page, yet he has been unable to produce an alternative text as of yet.

Moreover, the step after the version vote was to engage wording in the version in terms of the propriety thereof for the agenda section, and there is much material in version 12 that does not directly relate to the agenda, not too mention other problems, so that version is unlikely to have survived a collective review conducted under moderation by Silk Tork.

In the interim, Collect introduced the "readability" concern, so we have been addressing that with respect to version 13.

I would venture to say that the "version vote" is moot, but it probably doesn't matter either way, as there is one day remaining in this discussion.

Take a little foresight from this and prepare for what's next, the way you see it, of course.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thou thus declares consensus on XII.

Bears witness:

†TE†Talk 20:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus, Patris, Spiritus. . .The end. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version 12c

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

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

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

While lacking central leadership and representation enjoyed by political parties,[14] the "Contract from America" was created with the assistance of "hundreds of thousand of people" voting online for their "favorite principles" to create a Tea Party platform.^[6][16] Its name was a play on the "Contract with America"[16] released by the Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections.[17] The Contract from America was met with some support within the Republican Party,[18] but not broadly embraced by GOP leadership.[19] They later wrote their own "Pledge to America."[20]

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

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

"Vote" on Version 12c

• Support. For the reasons discussed above. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (only) assuming that we are parking the subsections for later review. Otherwise the "contract" being missing would be a big problem. Also, the "12" that received support was also OK. Maybe we could consider this to be that one tweaked. Let's move forward somehow. North8000 (talk) 01:12, 30 t's June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just to be clear, this proposal means that other sections (Contract and Foreign Policy) are parked for now. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The quote from Schmidt is a good quote, but it has not been integrated into the text very well. The concerns and criticisms mentioned under 12(b)--which apply to 12(a) as well, have not been addressed at all. Note that I believe those concerns were in part responsible for prompting people to ask Xenophrenic for input. Aside from that, there is also some peacocky phrasing here and there.

More specifically, the connection of protests to the agenda is not made, and I have doubts as to whether discussion of protests fit in the agenda section, particularly with respect to the IRS incident. There is also much unsourced material, such as the statement "perceived attacks by the federal government on their First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights. ", while there is no mention at all of the more prominent issues related to the Constitution, such as efforts to repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments and support for the "Repeal Amendment". The text is uninformative with respect to WP:RS, disjointed and poorly structured, and contains peacocky phrasing in relation to some topics that probably deserve less attention overall, while other more important topics have been omitted.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. The weird "{{ex|" notation wasn't allowing the first paragraph after the blockquote to show on the page for some screwy reason, showing the entire paragraph as the two words, "Example text." I have changes the "{{ex|" notation to standard HTML, which I actually know something about. Please review. That paragraph cites the efforts to fully or partially repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments, as well as the support for the Repeal Amendment. We have sources for the allegedly unsourced material. I did say that I was going to be adding real refcites. I just haven't added all of them yet. As SilkTork said, this doesn't have to be perfect; and as I said several weeks ago, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." This version is good enough for now. Your other concerns would best be addressed in the proposed spin-off article, where I certainly would not object to blockquotes from several academics. In fact, as I mentioned, I'm already working on a first draft of that spin-off article. Let's see. For now, it should probably look like this: /Agenda of the Tea Party movement. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is an improvement, but the text is still too problematic for me to approve. Until there is some constructive input from others, I'll have nothing more to say.

Incidentally, the subarticle was to called "The Tea Party and the Constitution", not the title you mentioned above.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Contract from America was a legislative agenda created by a conservative activist with the assistance of Dick Armey of FreedomWorks, the author of the Contract with America released by Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections. A thousand submitted agenda ideas were narrowed down to twenty-one economic, non-social issues. These were posted online where "hundreds of thousand of people" voted to further narrow the list down to their top ten "favorite principles" as a Tea Party platform.^[6][24] The Contract from America was met with some support within the Republican Party, but not broadly embraced by GOP leadership. They subsequently promulgated their own 'Pledge to America'.^[24] Xenophrenic (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (with caveats) One is that subsequent tweaking has to work on the sentence "The Tea Party is a conservative movement" .....probably add "libertarian". Another is presuming that we're parking the two subsections for now. Another is we'll need to see what Malke thinks about the quote. On a different note, since a movement is defined by it's agenda, we should not be concerned that this all-important section it is longer and more detailed. It needs to be pretty well-covered here, not just in a sub article. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence beginning with "The Tea Party is a conservative movement" is not intended to be an all-inclusive description of the movement. The intent of that sentence is only to convey the fact that while the movement is "conservative", it focuses primarily on conservative fiscal issues rather than also engaging in conservative social issues -- a notable distinction between this and past movements. re: The CfA and Foreign Policy subsections, I could see the Contract from America subsection being collapsed down to a simple paragraph and presented in much the same way as this NYTimes article presents it. The Foreign Policy section, admittedly, has me a little confused. While I find it interesting and informative to read about the foreign policy views of TP activists and their favored politicians, I don't see where these views have translated into actual agenda points for the movement in a meaningful way. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, it has both conservatives and libertarians in it, and the widely-agreed agenda items are where the two overlap. I think you're right about the foreign policy sub-section, (and maybe it should get deleted) but I advocate dealing with both of those two subsections separately. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note The concern raised relating to "correlation may not be causation" is valid, so I have deleted the corresponding phrase and reworded the sentence.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where has there been discussion of the Agenda section being a summary of a spin off article? A diff or two would suffice.

There has been suggestion and discussion regarding a couple of implementations have been discussed for the Tea Party and the Constitution subarticle and corresponding summary.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Too long and manages to get readability only up to 12 - which is significantly worse than other proposals. Collect (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It actually scores better than the 12c predecessor version, and it wouldn't shock me to see that section get even longer and more informative. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note I've relocated the blockquote one paragraph earlier, where it seems more appropriately interposed, facilitating the transition from one focus (disparate groups/agendas) toward focusing on the shared goals of reform and emphasis on the Constitution.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving that quote isn't a problem. It's a matter of style preference, really. I saw the quote as a transition-point from the previous list of a bunch of "confusing/conflicting" issues to the subsequent discussion about how the Constitution informs and often directs the TP's actions on issues. You see it more as an introduction to both the issues and the constitutional influence. Useful either way, I guess. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what got my attention was that the "reform agenda" point is something that also came from Schmidt, so the quote in its original context was also leading into discussion of that, which is then tied to the Consitution, if I recall correctly.

With the addition of the material you added on the different positions espoused by some of the groups in the lead into the blockquote from Schmidt enhances the impact, and taking up the common ground between the groups after that reinforces the basics of the agenda across the TPm, in contrast to the disparities describe in the opening.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shorter version of Xen's 12d

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 immigration reform that includes border security.

They have formed SuperPacs to support candidates sympathetic to their goals and have opposed what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates. Prior to the June 2012 Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, the Tea party led efforts to challenge the constitutionality of the federal health care law in the courts. They have also mobilized locally against the United Nations Agenda 21.^[21][25] They have protested the IRS for controversial treatment of groups with "tea party" in their names.

The Tea Party is a conservative movement, yet it has avoided involvement with the more traditional conservative social, religious and family-values issues. National Tea Party organizations like Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, and FreedomWorks, are focused on economic issues, although they support immigration reform if it includes border security. Other Tea Party groups like the 9/12 Tea Parties popularized by Glenn Beck, the Iowa Tea Party and Delaware Patriot Organizations focus more on social issues such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools and illegal immigration.^[26][27][28]

In general, the movement places the Constitution at the center of its reform agenda, and advocates an originalist interpretation. This is combined with educational outreach efforts focused on the founding documents. Several constitutional amendments have been targeted by some in the movement for full or partial repeal, including the Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth. There has also been support for a proposed Repeal Amendment, enabling a two-thirds majority of the states to repeal federal laws, and a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would limit deficit spending.^[23]

The Contract from America was a legislative agenda created by Ryan Heckler, a conservative activist. He launched a website, ContractFromAmerica.com, which encouraged people to offer possible planks for the contract. The top ten included 'identify the constitutionality of every new law, reject cap and trade legislation, demand a balanced federal budget, simplify the tax code, assess constitutionality of federal agencies, limit growth in annual federal spending, repeal Obamacare, new energy policy that supports exploration, reduce earmarks, and reduce federal taxes. ^[6][24] The Contract from America was met with some support within the Republican Party, but not broadly embraced by GOP leadership. They subsequently promulgated their own 'Pledge to America'

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

Version 12e

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

• Support This version finally gets down to a reasonable grade level (13), and increases the readability up to 30 which makes it the first version to actually be readable for high school graduates. I think it covers all the bases. Collect (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Very very well written, very succinct, very focused on the core items (which is what the agenda is really about.) But is is short on specific content, and this is the most important section of the whole article. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That is why footnotes exist. See SilkTork's user talk page for my Joseph Widney example - where I took an unreadable article which had every imaginable detail in it, and pared it down to GA status - and from a readability of minus 13 to one of plus 30, and a grade level of 25 to one of 13. Readers who desire every excruciating detail can read the cites given - thee is no need to make a complete and completely unreadable article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose While there are pluses to readability, sacrificing specifics and detail, and omitting important information found in sources meeting WP:RS is problematic. This is, indeed, likely the most important section of the article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As I noted - the details can well be in the cites and footnotes. Meanwhile [19] etc. are clear that Wikipedia has an average grade level of 12 - and a grade level even higher than average makes the information unusable. Look at the original Widney article and tell me that it is better than the current, shorter, more usable one.

A common measure of basic readability is the Flesch score. Standard reading level is at a Flesch score of about 60 or higher, with lower scores equating to more difficult reading. The scientific literature is pegged in various studies to have a reading score of around 30

• means that when we talk about reading levels under 30, we are talking about articles more difficult to read that science journals! I suggest as a simple matter that making article unreadable does not fit the purpose of the encyclopedia. We need a maximum grade level of about 12, and a readability index minimum of 30. Let's keep the details where folks who really want them can find them - in cites and footnotes. Collect (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on Silk Tork's Talk page, as I've basically responded to the above concerns there.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[20] The results of this study show that the readability of the English Wikipedia is overall well below a desired standard. Although the average score of 51.18 does not seem far from the desired goal, nearly 75 percent of all articles scored below 60 in the Flesch reading ease test. Moreover, half of the articles can be classified as difficult or worse. This finding confirms our hypothesis that numerous articles on Wikipedia are too difficult to read for many people seems quite clear. Reducing readability even lower than it is seems about the worst concept for an encyclopedia ever given. Having a lead with a R/I under 30 seems a teensy bit worse than even that level they decry. Collect (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I must agree with North8000 that the "Agenda" of the movement is a very important part of the information on this topic, and as such it deserves more comprehensive coverage in our main article. This proposed version is too sparse. Second, while we should absolutely strive for "readability" when we construct our articles, we should not be slaves to a generic, easily "gamed" tool when comparing proposed versions. To use an example from Collect's most recently proposed text, changing words to numbers in a single sentence:

Some members propose that the Fourteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments be repealed or changed. (13/28)

Some members propose that the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments be repealed or changed. (10/53)

...doubles the readability score and significantly reduces the "grade level", too. Of course one isn't really more readable than the other, but the tool doesn't know that; it just compares sentence and word lengths and spits out a number. Let's focus first on writing a neutral but comprehensive Agenda section that we can agree on. After that is done, we can go back through it and shorten sentences and words without changing the meaning, so that we can fool the readability tool. Lastly, this most recent proposed wording conveys inaccurate information regarding the subjects of immigration and the CfA origins. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- perhaps you should note the NYT usage -- since 1945 their preferred usage is the numerical version. The numerical version is, indeed, easier to read -- thus improves readability. Changing it back to words does not wreck readability, by the way, and is a straw issue. Changing all numbers to words reduces reading ease all the way from 30 to 28 -- far from the claim it affects grade level or reading ease much at all. Please raise genuine issues, but this one was unworthy of this page. Collect (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "straw issue" you mention was never raised by me, Collect. We can have the discussion on which is a more readable format some other time. You apparently missed the point of my comment, which was: Let's construct the article section - achieve agreement on it - then focus on cleaning up the readability, rather than muddle the agreement process by citing F/K score comparisons. The example I gave above was only to illustrate that wide differences in readability scores can be achieved without altering the actual substance of the text one bit. So let's focus on the content substance first, so we can get past these disagreement delays ... then we can work on the readability, which should be a non-controversial and non-disruptive process. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The readability is something to consider. Collect's version is good, but too short. Xen's is good but too long. It also has a box quote that is not necessary, and the post Obama 2012 election focus is all wrong. The Tea Party movement has been against Obamacare from the beginning and that ties in with their government spending issues, TARP, etc. Version 12 had the most support but the first and third paragraphs in it need a rewrite for readability. We might as well get it all at once because if we don't, there will be arguments over the content all over again as to what is readable, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point about "Obamacare" after the elections is the explicitly stated shift toward "the courts", so there is a conflation in the above-posted comment between health-care and TARP, etc., after the 2012 elections.

Readability is not an issue that needs to be addressed immediately.

The blockquote has my support, 100%.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 25 words or less, what does the blockquote mean? Malke 2010 (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: The point about "Obamacare" after the elections is the explicitly stated shift toward "the courts. Obamacare was settled by the Supreme Court in June 2012, well BEFORE Obama's reelection in November 2012. [21]. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are other court challenges to the health care law, though I have to admit not being an expert on the matter. Here is an article from this month Court challenges could tear down major pieces of ObamaCare. That said, I would not have objected to someone removing that sentence, but it was meant to point in part at failure to have enough Tea Party candidates elected with the aim of repealing the law through Congress.

One set of lawsuits accuses the Internal Revenue Service of illegally implementing new subsidies to help people buy insurance. Separately, more than 60 lawsuits have been filed challenging the law’s mandate for health plans to cover birth control.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And make sure none of those 25 words have more than two syllables, or contain an "x," a "q" or a "z." If readability is going to decide which version gains consensus — and it looks that way, because the swing "voters" have adopted readability as their personal litmus test — then we just can't have any blockquotes at all. Blockquotes come from law review articles, which are written by law professors who are trying to impress federal judges, Supreme Court justices, and other law professors, who read on a 10-15 readability level constantly. They use words with three syllables or more every time they touch a keyboard. So it appears that blockquotes are dead. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grad 12 reading level is not "dumbed down" - the legalese quotes go neatly into footnotes instead of in the body of text where readers have problems. Simple -- did you think this eliminated sources? Collect (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Version 12f

Here we go again.

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

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

Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 14.

Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: 37.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, there had been discussion of a "Tea Party and the Constitution section in the article or a subarticle, and the inclusion of more detail would seem merited.

Version 12d would be more informative, and readability can be improved, though too much emphasis is being placed on readability, IMO. Meanwhile, I still don't think material on the IRS incident belongs in the Agenda section.

If I have time later I will attempt another version incorporating the material added by Xenophrenic, or improve the readability of 12d.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

slightly tweaked version 12f

The Tea Party movement seeks to limit the size of the government and reduce spending. Tea Party members have protested TARP, the 2009 stimulus bill, "cap and trade," the 2010 health care law, and what they see as government efforts to limit gun owners' rights, free speech rights, and privacy rights. Tea Party groups support right to work laws, and immigration reform that includes border security. They have formed SuperPacs to support candidates who share their goals, and have opposed Republican establishment candidates.

The Constitutionality of new laws is at the center of the Tea Party platform. Some Tea Party members are also seeking to repeal or modify the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments, and have supported the proposed Repeal Amendment and the Balanced Budget Amendment, which would limit deficit spending. Most Tea Party groups do not define their foreign policy goals, but many have opposed the United Nations Agenda 21.

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

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

I've further copy edited the version posted by Xenophrenic, and renumbered it, divorcing it from the "12" series.
I've consolidated a couple of passages for added brevity without sacrificing content, and raised the readability to a non-objectionable level. The overall score as well as paragraph-by-paragraph scores are shown below. Refcites and Wikilinks need work.
This version includes extended coverage of the CfA, and is intended to replace the entire Agenda section, with opportunity for discussion of the CfA and Foreign Policy sections reserved if there is interest. I Believe that the content of the Mead article could be covered in the Academic commentaries section or the like.
Overall readability scores 15/21
15/27
The Tea Party movement doesn't have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the Tea Party, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group to set its own priorities and goals. Sometimes these goals may even be in conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. Many Tea Party organizers see this as a strength rather than a weakness, as decentralization has helped to immunize the Tea Party against co-opting by outside entities and corruption from within.[17]^[29]
17/18
The Tea Party has generally sought to avoid placing too much emphasis on traditional conservative social issues. Some national Tea Party organizations, such as the Tea Party Patriots and FreedomWorks, have expressed concern that engaging in social issues would be divisive. Instead, they have sought to have activists focus their efforts away from social issues and toward issues such as constitutionally limited government, the free market, and fiscal responsibility.^[30][31] Still, many Tea Party groups like the 9/12 Tea Parties popularized by Glenn Beck, TeaParty.org, the Iowa Tea Party and Delaware Patriot Organizations do prioritize social issues such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools, and illegal immigration.^{[32]
[30][33]} 16/12

14/31
The Tea Party generally focuses on government reform. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases. To this end, Tea Party groups have protested TARP, stimulus programs, cap and trade, health care reform and perceived attacks by the federal government on their 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendment rights. Tea Party groups have also voiced support for right-to-work legislation as well as tighter border security, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. They have formed SuperPacs to support candidates sympathetic to their goals and have opposed what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates. After setbacks in the 2012 elections, the movement again shifted its focus. With repeal off the table, the Tea party now leads efforts to nullify federal health care law. It has also mobilized locally against the United Nations Agenda 21.^[21][34]
16/14
The Tea Party places the Constitution at the center of its reform agenda. It advocates an originalist interpretation of the Constitution coupled with educational outreach efforts. Several constitutional amendments have been targeted by some in the movement for full or partial repeal, including the 14th, 16th, and 17th. There has also been support for a proposed Repeal Amendment, which would enable a two-thirds majority of the states to repeal federal laws, and a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would limit deficit spending.^[23]
15/16
According to Schmidt, "...The Tea Party’s constitutional vision is designed to be mobilized. The core elements of the Tea Party Constitution are relatively easily grasped and they readily lend themselves to translation into tangible political action. Tea Party constitutionalism challenges its adherents to do more than just passively accept its basic tenets." According to Foley, the Tea Party positions on the Constitution can be seen as corresponding to concrete agenda points, such as opposition to government sponsored bailouts and stimulus programs as well as government mandated health care coverage.
15/19
The Contract from America was a legislative agenda created by conservative activist Ryan Hecker with the assistance of Dick Armey of FreedomWorks. Armey had co-written the Contract with America released by Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections. A thousand agenda ideas that had been submitted were narrowed down to twenty-one economic, non-social issues. Participants then voted in an online campaign in which they were asked to select their favorite policy planks. The results were released as a ten-point Tea Party platform.^[6][24] 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'.^[24]
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We have moved well past the "block quotes" insistence, and we have moved below the college graduate reading level, and above the reading ease level of 19, which is, frankly, horrendous. Our aim is not to create literature for one another as Wiki-Shakespeares, but to create an entire usable article per what scholars tell us. I trust WP:PIECE is on point here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC) BTW, identifying Dick Armey as "the author" of the CwA is not borne out by any source -- seal to link a single person to that effort led by Larry Norman at this point is, frankly, pointy. Collect (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Collect and WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic added that element about Armey in version 12d, so I don't see why such a fuss about its "pointiness" is only being made now. I'll defer to Xenophrenic to respond further on this point.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note you changed the wording without noting clearly that you had done so. The usual system is to use "strikeout" for what you remove and "underline" for what you add. Otherwise it may look like I am referring to something that is no longer there. I did not reply at length ot X's original version as its reading ease of 12 was so interesting and difficult to read. Collect (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the directives Silk Tork issued for this exercise included one permitting the direct editing of suggested text, which is what I did, and clearly described the edit in the edit summary. If you have a complaint about my editing conduct, I suggest you take it to Silk Tork directly.

And to clarify, are you asserting that the following sentence was too difficult in terms of the grade-level on the F/K scale to understand?

The Contract from America was a legislative agenda created by a conservative activist with the assistance of Dick Armey of FreedomWorks, the author of the Contract with America released by Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections.

I've italicized the text at issue to make it easier to find.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I simply pointed out that it was false as a matter of fact. Snark is not needed about its readability. Collect (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There is nothing "false as a matter of fact" in the sentence presented by Ubikwit. They solicited input on the Internet, then Hecker and Armey selected 50, then 21, popular agenda planks after tossing out the non-economic related items. Only then were the pre-selected 21 items presented to the public, to have the best 10 of those 21 selected and prioritized by the "hundreds of thousands" of votes. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, "They" didn't do anything. Heckler came up with the idea. He initiated it. He drove it on the Internet. He took 1000 ideas, narrowed them down to 50, and then he had Armey help him sort it. The RS says so. And to not even mention Heckler is entirely WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. Seriously, on the one hand you're saying, a guy did all this, but then you don't mention his name? Don't you think the reader would like to know his name? [22] and here: [23]

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

That may be a point worth considering in discussion, as it would be easy enough to insert his name, but this is not an article about him, but about the Tea Party. I have posted material related to Heckler above, who is now an employee of FreedomWorks. The first ABC piece describes him as a TP activist, but Xenophrenic has clarified that the CfA predates his status as such, and that Armey of Freedomworks was involved. Considering the fact that even the main article about the Contract from America on Wikipedia doesn't address the details being discussed here in relation to Heckler, I fail to see why it is a point of contention at this juncture. RS clearly point to Armey's role, and since Heckler's actual status is still somewhat unclear, while Armey was with FreedomWorks, the situation is i need of further clarification. WP:POV and WP:UNDUE do not seem immediately relevant to the material under consideration. The statement in the text is reliably sourced, and the status of Heckler is somewhat in limbo per the sources, at any rate.

If including his name in the text would assuage the concerns being raised, I'll simply add it.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per source: "From the original 1,000 ideas that were submitted, Hecker whittled it down to about 50 based on popularity. He then narrowed the list down to 21. He was aided in this process by former House Republican Leader Dick Armey, whose conservative group, FreedomWorks, is the sponsor of Thursday's event at the Washington Monument."

Three different people can read 3 different things from this same innocuous statement of fact.

• Dick Armey was secretly involved from the start.
• Dick Armey entered the process and helped whittle the 1,000 down to 21.
• Dick Armey only helped chop 50 down to the final 21.

I say instead of arguing which narrative contains the most truthiness, we just follow my example of using inarguable facts. †TE†Talk 16:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hopefully the text doesn't raise any of those problems, it basically just states that he assisted in the process, without specifying stages

...a legislative agenda created by conservative activist Ryan Heckler with the assistance of Dick Armey of FreedomWorks.

.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your preferred blockquote from my sourced addition above, "without specifying stages" of others' participation would strike me as being an alternative to reality -- Given what I had just posted above. †TE†Talk 18:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I put in came directly from the Tea Party movement article on the Contract from America section. I've mentioned that already. You ask, why is this being raised "at this juncture?" Because Xenophrenic put it in his version, he'd like people to vote on his version, and I've made suggested changes to his version. My understanding is that this is what Silk Tork wants us to do. Armey was involved in the end as RS shows. Heckler working for FreedomWorks now doesn't change what he did back then. Not mentioning him when he did all the work, but mentioning Armey who did very little comes across as WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you put in where? When? In the version that omits the crucial fist three paragraphs of 12d?

It probably isn't that important, because I've made the point several times now that the Contract for America material on Wikipedia is in poor shape--this draft is now more comprehensive in some respects. At any rate, I added Heckler's name in version 15 per your concerns.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many good but imperfect versions. How 'bout this. Let's list all of the last 10 version numbers, (I'd be happy to do that) and everybody put "support" by every one (to avoid otherwise-inevitable math problems) that you think is good enough to be the starting point for further development/work. The one with the most "supports" goes in (while parking the 2 sub-secitons for later) as a starting point, with a prior understanding that we will need to modify it. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a processes in place here to facilitate collaborative editing, but it is running into a lot of roadblocks. The latest of those lies in the attempt to exclude the new material introduced by Xenophrenic in the first two paragraphs of version 12d, which I have made into three paragraphs above in version 15. That material elucidates aspects of the agenda with respect to the decentralized organization of the TPm, etc.

Note that I don't see where any policy-based objections have been raised with that material.

Accordingly, I don't see how the additional exercise proposed above would be capable of producing any results.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion&action=edit&section=20

Take a look at V12d V12f, Ubikwit. Very clearly, in the first sentence of the third paragraph, it says:

While the movement lacks the central leaders enjoyed by political parties ...

This is all the reference to the decentralized, chaotic disorganization of TPm that is necessary at this juncture because it is covered very thoroughly elsewhere in the article. There is an entire section devoted to "Organization," right after the "Agenda" section. Any insistence on covering it once again in the "Agenda" section, in greater detail than this, would seem very pointy and opinionated. This is the "Agenda" section, not a second "Organization" section. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about agreeing on everything. It's about picking a version to go in as the starting point for such debates. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was all Ryan Heckler. --Malke

It's Hecker, and he explicitly denies that. Hecker, Armey and "a few" TP leaders (Martin & Meckler of TP Patriots had some input) vetted the ~1000 ideas gathered over several months, and they alone selected the "viable ones", rather than the "most popular ones" from all the suggestions. That is why there is a distinct lack of "social issues" among the final 21 and final 10 items. If they went with what was actually most popular, they would end up with things like "A Federal law requiring all presidential candidates to post their birth certificate in public" (yes, that would have been in the top 10). Here is an informative video where Hecker explains the process in a bit more detail: (skip to time mark 3:45 unless you want to hear weather reports and other political news). Xenophrenic (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

98% Agree. Except I don't think that Arbcom can help us. The current case was initially sent so far off target from the challenges at the article, plus so much has changed since then that resumption would lead nowhere or worse. North8000 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the day. It's July 1. The 30 days are over. North, I'm nominating you. Open a new ArbCom, call it a continuation of the old one, but steer it in the right direction by naming the right people as parties this time. That's enough about that from me because on this page we have to work on the article. Please both of you consider stating your support for V12f above. Since Ubikwit posted an "Oppose vote" the only way to make any progress is to show that we have consensus despite his objection.

Just a friendly reminder — we want the first number low and the second number high.

14/37

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

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

This currently has a 3-1 "vote." If both of you state your support, that would be 5-1 and we would have consensus. Please. Do it now. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the ABC source to which you refer? It certainly contains the above-quoted passage posted by Xenophrenic. WP:RS is that on the basis of which we compose articles here, and WP:DUE would seem to give further impetus to including a description of Armey's role in producing the Contract from America, particularly in light of the fact that Wikipedia article Dick Armey describes him as "one of the chief authors of the Contract with America".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary page break

P&W, it needs copyediting. I would support the version of yours that I tweaked above. If you make those changes, I would support it. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, please withdraw and strike through your objection to V12f. You have admitted, in two separate steps, that there have been two different sets of improvements to the first version of V12d that you saw (due to the glitch with the "{{ex|" notation). First, the paragraph about the 14th, 16th and 17th Amdts and the Repeal Amendment magically returned from limbo. Second, no less than five blockquotes from academics will be included in the footnotes. This is the only version that has any chance of making it into mainspace before the deadline. The clock is tciking. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version 15 is far superior, IMO. Cheers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, the tweaked version would send the readability level below 30. The original V12f has a readability of 37 which gets Collect on board. That is the only way we will have consensus before the deadline. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wording tweaks can occur at anytime. This is more about content. †TE†Talk 16:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "foreign policy goals" mentioned in the same sentence with Agenda 21? They are unrelated (Agenda 21 has nothing to do with foreign policy.

Why does it say the TP supports "immigration reform that improves border security"? Not exactly true as stated. The movement supports improved border security. That much is a fact. TP generally rejects reform efforts for many other reasons, however, like "unfair amnesty", and for frivolous reasons like "the reform measure is too long and complicated" and "it's being rushed through without proper deliberation", etc.

Why is lack of "central leaders" in the same sentence as the Contract for America? There is no correlation or juxtaposition between the two.

I oppose sacrificing either accuracy or neutral presentation for an arbitrary "readability" rating. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get on board then -- I have things I would change, but consensus does not imply perfection - the aim is to get consensus behind one proposal here -- we can polish the language further (and ditch the Agenda 21 stuff, remove "agenda" as being a "d'oh" word considering the section title - and use "seeks" as being pretty clear (and improve readability to a 39 score) , and remove the CwA "wordplay" trivia) then. Collect (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This "readability" factor is getting too much play here. Let's go by content and tweak everything else later.North8000 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• PLEASE STOP DISRUPTING THE EDITS BY DISPLACING EDITOR'S COMMENTS; DO NOT USE AGGRESSIVE TONES AND LANGUAGE AND PLEASE USE WP:INDENT

Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get on board? Er, was that supposed to read "abandon ship!"?

Xenophrenic submitted a far more informative version, which I have honed into an agile and readable text, and accommodated change where feasible.

Clearly version 15 is the way of the future.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The readability factor is getting too much attention, but copyediting should be done. P&W's version needs copyediting. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked, and every word is spelled correctly in V12f. The punctuation is also perfect. Let's go with what we've got, people. Minor tweaks are the sort of thing that SilkTork would allow under WP:BRD without a prior "vote" on this page. I will repeat every salient thing I've said in the past 24 hours, just as a friendly reminder.

• We have bickered far too long over minor details and now time is measured in hours, not days. We have literally run out of time. The train is about to leave the station.
• If we back off on readability, we lose Collect. He's the swing vote. He has made himself indispensible for consensus. We have to keep him on board, regardless of what you think we are giving up for the sake of readability.
• The only other route is for all of us to cave in, and "vote" as a bloc in favor of one of Xenophrenic's or Ubikwit's proposals packed chock full of negative blockquotes. This would focus the first section of the top-level article on the TPm's chaos and disorganization, followed by the most unpopular political agenda positions the TPm has ever espoused.
• ... or may I again respectfully suggest that Ubikwit withdraw and strike through his objection to V12f, or Malk and North state their support for V12f, so that we can action the edit.

Those are our only three choices. You may find them unpleasant ... but I don't see any other choices besides letting every grain of sand run through the hourglass while the bickering goes on unabated. Decide what you want to do even if it's the least objectionable of three bad options in your opinion, and do it, or do nothing. Let me remind you that ArbCom could convene at any minute, review the situation, and throw a dozen topic bans all around so that they can turn it over to a fresh batch of editors who may appear to be neutral. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not editing here until Silk Tork does something about the constant disruption to the comments. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@P&W. Anything close to Version 12(f) and Malke's tweak thereof is fine by me. Xeno took issue with how illegal-immigration/border security was worded so that can be fixed for more accurate portrayal. Mentioned opposition to talking about Tea Party's lack of central leadership in relation to Contract from America. That can go. Said Agenda 21 has nothing to do with the foreign policy goals of TPM so that can also be removed. I see only minor issues which shouldn't make or break consensus. †TE†Talk 17:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The final vote

This process is being crushed under it's own weight. Just to get something going, can we agree soon to just put in Xenophrenic's version 12d as a starting point (leaving the 2 subsection parked for now) and then start working on it from there. Including taking up Malke's condensation of it. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support North8000 (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Malke 2010 (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I believe that the objective at this stage was to arrive at a version suitable for content and then address objectionable wording with Silk Tork moderating. Clear 12d is the most informative version suggested to yet. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ----Snowded ^TALK 05:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- but proposal 15 is a significantly improved version of my 12d proposal. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose. Let's be clear about this. Xenophrenic's V12d focuses the first two paragraphs, of the very first section, of the top-level article in a series of articles about a very complex subject, on the chaotic disorganization of the TPm and the reasons why it hasn't focused on unpopular social issues like so many other conservative groups. The very next section is titled "Organization," for crying out loud, and any material about the chaotic disorganization of the TPM belongs in that section. Not this one. See relevant policy on sections and topical scope; see also WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Malke's condensed version has wisely focused on the results of that chaotic disorganization as they pertain to the TPm's AGENDA. This is, after all, the "Agenda" section. And the agenda, not the chaotic disorganization, is what this section should be devoted to. For those editors who insist on focusing this article like a laser beam on the chaotic disorganization of the TPm, rather than their agenda and what they're trying to accomplish as a chaotic, disorganized, but highly effective mob, please just say so, and we can talk about moving the "Organization" section in front of the "Agenda" section. But for now the "Agenda" section is the face of the article. It's what people read first after the lede. It's gotta gotta gotta be very, very good and very focused on its own topical scope. Here at Wikipedia, the preceding is called a "policy based argument." If you oppose Malke's condensed version, please post a policy based argument in an appropriate location below, because I have yet to see one word of such an argument. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's be clear about this. Xenophrenic focuses the first 2 paragraphs on 2 things. Paragraph 1 = "The agenda comes from the bottom up. The groups decide the agenda and priorities, not a central leadership." Paragraph 2 = "The agenda tries to avoid conservative social issues. Including them in the national agenda would be devisive to the movement, but many local groups make them part of their agenda anyway." Malke's version has omitted these very salient points about the agenda. The agenda is a very important part of the article; as such, it should seek to inform the reader, not misinform or propagandize the reader. As for what you "have yet to see" on the page above, I really can't help you further with that. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clarity is a valued commodity here. Policy-based arguments that material meeting WP:DUE would be excluded from the article, which would in turn violate WP:NPOV have been made, and one could add WP:YESPOV, and I would imagine there are other pertinent policies as well.

Second, the assertion that because the context of the agenda and social issues material is related to the decentralized organization does not mean it is not first and foremost information about the agenda. Trying to exclude it on such grounds is a logical fallacy of false equivalence. The organization of the TPm is not a "chaotic disorganization", there is a rhyme and reason to it which scholars and reliably published journalist and the like have investigated and released their results in reliable publications, and which Wikipedia is committed to conveying to the reading public.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose contains misleading material, and in not readable by a huge proportion of Wikipedia users. Collect (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? What "misleading material"? Actually, these are the types questions that should be addressed after the version is selected as a starting point. It's better to start with a text that contains information that is questioned/supported rather than a text that excludes information that is supported/questioned.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. May be redundant to vote, as I've supported the condensed version of this proposal directly below. We mustn't lose sight of the fact we're talking about just one section of this BLP, Agenda. We can save some content for placement elsewhere. It's actually preferable, if our goal is GA status. Also, should be mentioned to the new contributors that our proposals are intended to be the groundwork of this section, not some set in stone rewrite. †TE†Talk 15:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, make that Malke's condensed version of Xenophrenic's version 12d  :-)  ?

• Support North8000 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now you're talking, dude. And since Malke wrote it, Malke supports it. That's 3-0 in the support "votes." regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ah yes, I believe you're referring to the Shorter Version of Xen. A semi-collaborative literary piece by the two most prolific editors of TPM. †TE†Talk 22:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd also support the rewrite of P&W's version. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's 4-1 which is sufficient for consensus, particularly since the "oppose voter" offered absolutely no policy-based rationale for his opposition. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In respect to what is it that you are claiming to have consensus?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malke's condensed version of Xenophrenic's V12d. You should know, you "voted" to oppose it. I've got it in a text file and I've been adding refcites, footnotes (with blockquotes) and Wikilinks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P&W, maybe you should add in Dick Armey to the last para. That will make Xen happier. Xen and I had something of a conversation about that earlier. And it's Ryan Hecker, not Heckler. Xen said so. Don't know where I got Heckler from. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The submittal was to put this in as the new "starting point" with the understanding that it will need additional discussion and changes. It will replace (only) the main text in the agenda section, not the two subsections, will be dealt with separately. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply going to point out that Xenophrenic also voted in opposition to basically the same text (12f) that is being voted on here.

Moreover, it seems that there is intent to post the section with the most votes into the article, which is clearly not what this stage is about per this.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "basically the same text [as] 12f." It's basically the same text as 12d. North made a proposal, it's got four "votes" in support and one in opposition, and that looks like consensus to me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P&W, did you see my post above about Dick Armey? Malke 2010 (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see it and like everything else, you will need to establish consensus for such a substantive edit. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ----Snowded ^TALK 05:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The proposed text is little more than a list of talking points and sound bites. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I realize this is redundant; see objections to the problematic content above. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though the wordplay bit is still pretty much useless, we can work from there. Collect (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malke's condensed version of Xenophrenic's V12d has been actioned, following a 4-1 consensus "vote." As a concession to Collect, who wasn't here for the final "vote," I've simplified some of the language for the sake of the readability index ("organizations" became "groups," for example). I did change the name "Heckler" to "Hecker," which is the correct spelling, and added a few Wikilinks. Thank God we're done with that. Thanks to North8000 for seeing an opening and making the right move. And thanks to TE and Malke for supporting the move.

Now let's move on to those three minor improvements I was talking about a few weeks ago, and a couple of months ago, and three months ago .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bare majority vote after less than two days is not a consensus ----Snowded ^TALK 05:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was 4-1 when I actioned the edit. That's not a "bare majority." That's an overwhelming majority, it's consensus by any reasonable definition, and I have yet to see a single word of a policy-based argument against it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've self-reverted and posted at Silk Tork's talk page, as there was a previous procedural directive relating to non-consensus edits made by editors aware of the discretionary sanctions, the fine print of which I'd momentarily forgotten.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With new "!voters" entering, this may take quite a while, indeed. Collect (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching all the discussions every day Collect but I have been reluctant to re-engage. P&W at the time you made that call there were two proposals both of which had support. We went through this before, a majority vote is not consensus and this is a mediated discussion in which you are not the mediator.----Snowded ^TALK 17:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It had 3:1 support at the time (all people who have been actually working at this) and one active person who had yet to weigh in was a co-author of sorts. It was a good faith and much needed effort to move this forward. Lets just move on instead of working to describe people negatively. Either keep it and modify it, or put in a different one and modify that one. This process is dying under it's own weight and complexity. Let's just move forward, even a baby step. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to be the first to welcome you back, Snowded. While I don't personally doubt your assertion of observation from a safe distance, it doesn't necessarily help us to understand your rationale applied in voting on proposals without an accompanying explanation. Can you please help us to address your concerns and/or preferences? †TE†Talk 18:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North, you do realize P&W's effort didn't "move this forward", right? Either SilkTork is going to revert the problematic action, or the content now in the article will be brought into compliance with consensus (you know, the real kind per the Wikipedia policy ... not a vote) before we move forward (something that should have been done first). In either case, P&W's action hasn't advanced the situation, and now we have even more distraction and drama as a result. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that it was a good reasonable effort to move it forward. I don't know whether or not it will actually do so. However, I would consider getting some semi-OK version into article space and the modifying from there to be a step forward. Trying to design an entire section by writing entire drafts of a section will require 100 drafts. And the talk page format does not support ongoing editing of a version. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current process was to find an Agenda version that people agreed was the most workable. To work on that one, overcoming objections to any wording. And if there was consensus, to place that version in the article. I've been busy so have not looked at this page in the two days since that process was set up. It was worded such that I would assess the consensus, though I would have no objection to someone moving things forward if consensus was clear and agreed by all. I note that a version has been actioned, but then there was a revert of that, then that was self-reverted. So where are we now? Is the current state of the Agenda section in the article acceptable to all - is that the edit that people agreed should take place? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll speak up first.

After several editors asked Xenophrenic to come up with a suggested text, once he did, they have almost (not entirely) unanimously rejected two paragraphs added to the beginning of the proposed section that address social issues in relation to the decentralized organizational structure and disparate goals and priorities, which are statements that have been in the text since I arrived at the article but were unsourced until I introduced the blockquote from Schmidt. Xenophrenic has produced four solid sources in support of that material, and there is no reason to omit it, though WP:UNDUE has been invoked, despite the multiple discussion in RS, including Schmidt and Zernike in addition to the four refs produced by Xenophrenic. I have also been told I was pushing a POV and being "pointy" by supporting the inclusion of those paragraphs.

One vote after another has been called in rapid succession with the pretense of reaching a consensus to action an edited placing the non-consensus text on the article.

Xenophrenic, who hasn't been participating in votes much, did place an oppose vote yesterday, seeing the worrying trend, I suppose. With Snowed weighing in, it is very clear that there is no consensus for the text that has been placed in the article, whereas there is now a 3-1 vote count in favor of taking Xenophrenic's original text as the starting point versus a 4-2 vote count for taking the text that has been actioned without going through the process of discussing perceived problems.

I would suggest checking the respective version with respect to the well-sourced paragraphs with respect to which an attempt is being made to exclude without considered deliberation with participation of the moderator. All versions in the 12 series starting with 12d, as well as the version of that I revised in its entirety with the aim of improving readability (version 15), particularly the first three paragraphs followed by the Schmidt blockquote.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some further clarification of the voting-->actioning time frame would seem in order.

The section entitled "The final vote" was started with this edit, while a second vote call was made in quick succession after a single "oppose" vote had been register in the previous vote call.

The edit was action starting with this edit, less than 8 hours after the corresponding vote call had been made.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're looking / desperate to see some forward progress and this process has been dying under it's own weight/complexity, not significantly due to any disputes. We can't craft an entire section by just creating drafts of that whole section. I proposed/framed it as just the version to be put in with the understanding that it will need evolution/changes, and to park the two subsections for separate consideration. I supported it despite what I see as a big problem in it. (Calling it conservative, without mentioning libertarian) Of the people who have been participating/working here there is 4:1 support, and that does not yet include Xenophrenic who is a sort of co-author of the version. I'm running out of gas; others probably also are. We need some forward progress. Let's just put it in and then start discussing changes to it. North8000 (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification in a nutshell? A proposed version was actioned into the main Tea Party movement article against consensus. A !vote was called, and the first few responses were quickly mischaracterized as WP:CONSENSUS and the problematic proposal was quickly installed within hours. The several concerns raised about that content were ignored, as were other proposals with equal support. Ubikwit, noticing the improper addition of the content against consensus, reverted it -- but he apparently recalled that several of us had agreed not to make reverts during this moderated discussion, so he undid his revert. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any addition against consensus. It was 4:1 at the time before the non-participating drop-ins showed up. And it was a good (apparently wrong) guess that as the one who wrote all of the material in it that you would be a likely supporter. I supported both versions. I'm running out of gas. Trying to build the whole section via drafts of the entire section, and then having drive-bys kill whatever gets worked out will take a hundred versions. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed your objections above the final vote, Xeno. It's regrettable those subtle changes weren't performed prior to the vote as your support might have proven more productive than opposition. I'm sure we all have minor concerns, but the goal should be giving a little in the name of consensus. †TE†Talk 11:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously been canvassing here. And another pass for reverting and then "self-reverting?" Why do we even bother?Malke 2010 (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was 4:1 at the time --North8000

There had been enough discussion. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite certain I wasn't the only '1' with objections at that time, North. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant of people who had weighed in at that time, which was 4:1. I also supported/support your version as written. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite certain I wasn't the only one with objections at the time - Xenophrenic

Where are your objections then? Malke 2010 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was clearly made in good faith and a reasonable belief that a consensus existed - thus not something to be punished. I propose that we allow a minimum of 48 hurs for "new !voters" to appear - but such new entries should be asked to read the entire prior discussion at this point lest they be seen as only looking at a handful of posts while the prior discussion would likely help them assign weight to particular positions with a finer ear to the background arguments. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They should also offer versions. If we are to count their ivote, they must participate. You can't just show up out of the blue without any prior participation and derail the hard work of the editors spending their volunteer time here. They've contributed absolutely nothing to this process and they appear only well after the fact. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was made in utter disregard to my posting several hours therebefore a link to Silk Tork's relevant procedural directive, as it was becoming apparent that an attempt was underway to action an edit without first having Silk Tork assess consensus in a situation where it would seem clear that there was no consensus.

On a related more general note, with respect to the content dispute, note that in recent days we have seen opposition to using material from reliably published sources that attributes certain traits to the entirety of the movement on the basis that the traits only apply to certain "subsets". Meanwhile, in the current discussion objection has been raised to material because it applies only to subsets in a "chaotic disorganization"--a meme that is repeated about 10 times in a single paragraph above.

Both of the above-described characterizations would seem to aim at excluding points of view articulated by reliably published authors on the basis of one sort of logical fallacy or another.

In one case we are told that because the TPm is comprised of a plurality of groups espousing disparate views, any attribution of a particular view (or agenda) to the whole movement is false. On the other hand, we are told that because the movement has a "chaotic disorganization" we can't say anything about the agenda of separate groups that would seem to be in conflict with each other, because that is information that should be addressed in the organization section.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does the blockquote mean in plain English? Malke 2010 (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's html markup language jargon, not plain English.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit: What does this blockquote mean in plain English?