Before the elections, when more editors were participating, there had been an extended discussion regarding what terms to use in the lead, and a clear consensus formed in favor of "conservative", "populist" and (slightly less so) "libertarian", but against "right wing", "grassroots" and other terms. This version of the lead stood up to multiple attempts to add or subtract terms, showing the strength of the consensus.
Now that activity has died down, a number of more-interested editors are pushing very hard for "grassroots". However, there have been sources put forth which are intended to show that the grassroots nature of the movement is actively denied by elements both inside and outside, including activists, politicians and journalists. Generally, those who deny that the movement is currently and wholly grassroots use the characterization of "astroturf", and point to funding by the GOP, the Koch brothers and others. (Note that there is no interest in adding "astroturf" to the lead.) The editors in favor of "grassroots" argue that the sources pro are reliable while those con are not. (unsigned by Dylan Flaherty)
Dylan, the tone of the title "correction of Malke's error" seems not-nice for the opening statements section.
North8000 (
talk)
11:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
IMHO that's certainly not a COI. But nice to know. North8000 ( talk) 19:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Hamtechperson. First and foremost, thank you so much for doing this! !
Second, what's next? The note in the box said: "Statements received, waiting for response" Should we be responding (somewhere) at this point?
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 03:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Moved from Main page for size. Ham tech person 00:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Disclosure: I'm in two other cabal cases right now, one with Dylan Flaherty, and am a Ron Paul donor and WorldNetDaily editor and thus count myself as conflicted per my user page. While I watch these pages, and have edited heavily in this topic, I haven't looked at this article yet, and don't know to what degree I can be of assistance, but bold is bold. It's disappointing to see several editors disagree over use of a single word in the lead graf, even when the POVs that need balancing are so opposed. The fact is that the phrase "tea-party movement" is capable of multiple meanings, as is "Tea Party movement", unlike some other phrases ("Tea Party Express" and "Florida Tea Party" have been snapped up by legal entities and thus are defined by those entities). Accordingly, the scope of a WP article on "Tea Party movement" would be all the "organized activities [and] effort" ( Merriam-Webster) that is inspired by the Boston Tea Party. That photo of me in feathered headdress preparing to dump tea in the Intracoastal is dated 16 December 2007, and I'm going to guess the article doesn't have much 2007 material. The word "grassroots" is very straightforward (and "astroturf" almost as much so, but pejorative and thus a caution), describing (MW) "the basic level of society ... esp. as viewed from higher or more centralized positions of power". We all know the difference between honest comments and meatpuppetry.
Accordingly, it's clear from the sources mentioned above, assuming no reliability problems, that the basic, unprompted local tea parties are grassroots, and the large legal entities are not, and both of them, along with the spectrum between, are definable as the "Tea Party movement". Some tea parties (events) are conservative and some not, some are libertarian and some not, many more of them consider themselves Constitutionalist than not (there's an adjective that could use trying), since by their very name they echo an event that led to the Constitution. It would be a mistake to say the movement is definitely grassroots when sources and logic both disagree with that, just as it would be for most other adjectives. There are very many wordings that can work, if this is a true mediation and not a disruption, and they work by admitting there is controversy in the lead and stating what is indisputable per all sources. It's indisputable that the movement is inspired by, and reflects, a successful revolutionary, antitax, pro-representation, antistatist movement; while those other adjectives are less helpful and need not appear in the first sentence (as if pushing the last fellow off the highest point on the hill makes you king). The second sentence could, e.g., say, "It has been widely described as conservative, libertarian, grassroots, and/or ...." That properly weights both the fact that these are widely held positions (unlike the astroturf position) and the fact that they are not universally held. If this is the only real reason for this 6-way mediation, it should wrap up soon after opening, and if it doesn't (such as by the unanswerable argument "there're too many adjectives"), parties should take a fair look at what other reasons there are. JJB 04:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
As a person not formerly involved in this discussion, it seems clear to me that "grassroots" is an inherently evaluative, not purely descriptive, term. There can no more be general agreement regarding the TPM being "grassroots" than there can regarding it being "constructive" or "reflective of the principles of the Founders". This war of tallying up RS citations to "prove" that the movement is or isn't grassroots seems beside the point.
As a thought experiment, try to rephrase the statement "The Tea Party movement is not a grassroots movement" in an equivalent but neutral and non-POV fashion. It will always sound at least vaguely condemnatory. And just as the concept of "not grassroots" is inherently pejorative, "grassroots" is always somewhat laudatory, even though it does have factual implications as well (e.g., "not secretly controlled by a cabal of financiers").
Words with this degree of value loading don't belong in the lede. That paragraph should be unimpeachably neutral and agreeable to a broad majority of readers. NillaGoon ( talk) 09:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
My round-one summary:
The question is then how to properly reflect in the lead the conflict among source characterizations, as a binary grassroots-or-nothing framework has been challenged. On this page I see four editors dealing patiently with one editor and one proxy (so far, anyway, BigK, pending your further comment), and I see the four of them graciously accepting Dylan's first point, which I take as the faultiness of the unvarnished, unweighted "grassroots" adjective. I also don't see Dylan forbidding the word from the lead utterly, although there is a hint of it. I would think that sources for a specific claim of "not grassroots" would be hard to find, although I would also grant the claim "astroturf" to be synonymous and easier to find, and I would also be very careful to parse whether the sources refer this characterization to a movement-phenomenon or a trademark-entity. Thus, since I believe in starting with a hypothesis before investigating the data, I hypothesize that the "pro" sources could support a point of either "is essentially grassroots but", or "is widely considered grassroots", and the "anti" sources could support a point of "certain Tea-Party-branded entities [who?] are not". This would be more fluidly stated by finding a "perfect source" that compares and contrasts the segments within the movement. My next comment, if any, will come after I have reviewed a number of the sources. Repeat disclosure: My experience, similar to Arthur's, is that Dylan is not the best interpreter of what sources actually say. Oh, in keeping with my COI, I merely mention this source, easy at hand because I am affiliated with it, for consideration by others; it characterizes the Florida Tea Party as being "unlike" 90 grass-roots tea-party groups: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=190445]. JJB 18:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
For Wikipedia to include this word, unembellished, in summarizing the article subject is for Wikipedia to take one side in an extremely real-world-contentious matter, and so inherently to violate NPOV. Including it on the basis that "real" Tea Party groups are grassroots implies the performance of original research regarding which Tea Party groups are "real". I agree with NillaGoon that the term is intrinsically evaluative and its application amounts to an endorsement, so Wikipedia must employ extreme caution with how it is used. Since this exact controversy is one of the major points of encyclopedic interest in the topic, though, I would support lede language along the lines of "often controversially characterized as grassroots", provided appropriate sourcing can be found for that statement so as to avoid performing synthesis (which availability seems very likely on the face of it). — chaos5023 ( talk) 19:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
In response to chaos5023 (and I hope I'm not violating protocol here; are outsiders allowed to kibitz at will?), I agree that it would be appropriate to discuss the "grassroots" issue in the article, although it does seem a bit complex for inclusion in the lede paragraph.
I also think it's fine to include information in the lede that has substantially the same import as "grassroots" as long as the wording is neutral. For example, one could say that the TPM "consists of a loose coalition of independent Tea Party chapters" or that "local chapters vary somewhat in their goals, focus, and political beliefs". Or for short and sweet, one could simply say the TPM is "decentralized". (All of these are just examples -- I don't claim to know the actual inner workings of the TPM.) These statements are specific claims of fact whose accuracy can be straightforwardly evaluated through reference to RSs. NillaGoon ( talk) 23:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The dispute description at the head of this page says the issue is whether or not to include the word "grassroots" in the lede. The answer is a simple and direct: yes and no. It is not an uncontested and uncontroversial (and in narrow instances, even unrefuted) adjective, so it should not appear in the lede as an unqualified factual description. The suggestion to leave it out of the lede completely has merit for those reasons, but will not satisfy editors that feel the adjective, at least in its broadest interpretation, applies to this movement -- and a good segment of the media has taken to using the adjective as well. If the editors can't agree to leave the word out completely, and can not agree to use wording carrying "substantially the same inport as 'grassroots'" — per NillaGoon's suggestion — then qualifying verbiage will need to be developed to accompany the "grassroots" adjective in the lede.
Just a note to the 6 "involved" editors in this mediation: a solution will be implemented based on the merits of that solution, and not on how many " Me too" backers a proposed solution has. I was provoked to check out this mediation after reading gang-mentality statements like:
Speaking on behalf of the silent majority of editors not "involved" in this mediation, you are reminded that you are here because you six can't come to an agreement, and you are seeking help with that. You'll find that any conclusion achieved here as a result of steamrolling and drowning-out won't stand a day. The concerns expressed in the above opening statements are shared by far more than just the 6 editors listed. Xenophrenic ( talk) 01:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Digiphi, I'm not sure I understand your most recent response. Would it be accurate to say that you are rephrasing the arguments of the "no on grassroots"ers as straw men, in the first person? That is, what you as "I" say is in fact your putative summary of others' arguments? This doesn't seem entirely within the spirit of the mediation process. NillaGoon ( talk) 07:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I regret that I have decided not to undertake the source review necessary to remain an active participant in this discussion. While I do not fully trust the cabal to fully resolve the lead phrasing to all NPOV standards, I will return to lurk status and comment when and if I can contribute usefully and freshly, probably after a consensus determination is made. JJB 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I proposed an alternate version of the entire Introduction on the main page. Here, I will explain why I changed things as I did. But first, the current Introduction:
And my proposed revision, sans refs and xrefs:
Some specifics:
Fire away! NillaGoon ( talk) 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
[Comments have been relocated here from the main page, and the "where should comments go" discussion has been trimmed.] NillaGoon ( talk) 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Nilla, overall, I like yours the best (and better than mine.) Gracefully gets a lot more done than the one word, with the other "changes" being re-wording rather than actual changes. And creates compromise wording on"grass roots" Except, would you consider adding "populist" back in somewhere? :-) North8000 ( talk) 19:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Dylan's text, replicated from the main page:
My comments:
This is an awful lot of hair-splitting, but it's these subtle shadings that trigger readers' emotions and POV-meters. I really do believe there's some way of phrasing things that everyone will like, if only we can tease it out of its shell.
Gettin' awfully quiet in here... :-) NillaGoon ( talk) 00:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
That may be a reliable source; I can't tell if the article more resembles reporting, commentary, an op-ed, or an actually editorial. I lean toward "commentary". But it doesn't say that the TPm is or is not "grassroots". It says that the other sources (which we do not consider reliable) suggest that AFP (although not directly under Koch's control) has co-opted the TP (not the TPm) into supporting their (AFP's, and Koch's) political agenda. (And, as for details, Defending the Dream was not a TP event, so the author is quoting Oldham's dissembling. Koch may very well not have met any "official" TPm people or been at a TPm event.) The author appears not to be familiar with the concept of a decentralized
"organization", so his interpretations may be incorrect, even if nominally reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to comment. Thanks. BigK HeX ( talk) 21:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Good, but the funding will need reliable sources to show they actually get funding. Right now all I've found is that they show them how to get out the vote, how to lobby Congress, etc. That's why I think Nillagoon and North8000 have good solutions. Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Good. With the same concern as Malke except for a variant of his/her reason. The synergy of weak sourcing about the TPM itself receiving finding combined with the "from large political organizations" sounds unsourcable/not correct/ and slightly POV in the characterization of the organizations. North8000 ( talk) 01:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I think starting with Nilla's proposal is a good idea, but I do have reservations about the version you propose. First, the minor ones.
I think we should say outright that the movement is conservative and populist, as these are the defining points and there is no controversy about them. We should also mention that it leans towards American-style right-libertarianism, using appropriate terms. However, while this seems to be a very fair generalization, it's less broadly applicable. Then again, it seems that the Libertarian views shared by other conservatives form the common core that unites the group, so it's important enough to be given a prominent place. The next issue is that we mention it's not a political party, but we need to also say that it's "endorsed a number of conservative Republican candidates in 2010". These endorsements are the most significant thing the movement has publicly done, even more so than the protests.
I believe that these two items are an evolution of Nilla's ideas, which they would endorse, so let's not lose them in the shuffle. Ok, on to the hard one. Let me start by quoting the g-word paragraph in full:
The first clause is generally good, except that it claims that all Tea Party groups are local, whereas groups such as the Tea Party Patriots are national. This is easily fixed by saying "local and national". The second clause is more problematic. On the one hand, there's no difficulty sourcing the fact that there's been guidance and funding from large political organizations. In fact, we should probably mention the GOP itself, as well as the Kochtopus tentacles. But, as you probably guessed, my concern is with "reportedly". Well, yes, it was reported by reliable sources, and the organizations named have admitted to supporting the movement, so there's no need for weasel words here. It sounds like "reportedly, Martin is straight".
The last sentence is also problematic. Even though any claim of grassroots is in tension, if not conflict, with the notion of being independent, there are no connecting words that hint at this. Instead, it starts with a filler clause about local chapters emerging, which seems confused regarding tense. Have they emerged? Are they still emerging? How do we know this? I understand it was an attempt at a neutral segue, but it's harder than it looks. Once "grassroots" enters the lead, balance seems impossible to maintain. Dylan Flaherty 01:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I too think this is a good step in that it alludes more directly to the g-word controversy but sticks to facts and neutral language. (I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that "funding" can be demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction.) However, the emergence of local groups can occur without grassrootsness (e.g., Amway); could we perhaps rearrange as follows?
OK, that's more than just rearrangement - I tried out a few more tweaks. Does the "unknown" part make it sound fair and accurate, or does it just sound like a conspiracy theory? NillaGoon ( talk) 07:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This is more a matter of trying to stay organized, move forward, and not lose editors due to this too difficult to follow. As I understand it, we are sort of gathering around Nilla's proposal/work as a workspace, with BigK's merged into that, but are holding he main discussion under a BigK proposal heading. Not a problem, just trying to recap for others what just took me some time to figure out.
On another note, the mediation started about the word "Grassroots" It expanded into non-controversial rewording of the lead, which I think is cool. But if we start tackling other, controversial changes in the lead I think we'd get bogged down. To me removal of "populist" and significant downgrading or rewording of the libertrian related wording would be such.
That said, may I suggest Nilla writing the latest version of theirs, to use as a workspace for the discussions? North8000 ( talk) 11:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I don't feel moving all outside participation to the talk page is at all appropriate. It has the implication that all such material is not greatly relevant to the mediation itself, and that all that really matters is the viewpoints of the six "involved" editors. However, this mediation is specifically seeking to determine consensus for an inclusion/exclusion content dispute, and it is almost certain that whatever its outcome, this mediation will be pointed to as documenting a high-bar consensus toward that outcome. Given that, locking the broader community out of the process and into the peanut gallery is extremely wrong. Perhaps I'm mistaken about the role a talk page plays in a mediation, but at first blush it seems like it has a strongly subordinate role. — chaos5023 ( talk) 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Users. I moved teh stuff from teh outside editors here to prevent future size problems. Also, these are no less important to me, possibly even more so, but I am doing this to prevent discussion mixing. I want editors to focus on the statements of the other editors in the mediation, and not those of the currently outside parties. If consensus is reached to add one of them to the mediation, any relevant statements can be placed back on the main page for the mediation. Ham tech person 01:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of movement here, it appears that the discussion has migrated to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tea_Party_movement. Dylan Flaherty 10:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It is, of course, hard to say anything definitive about the Tea Party movement, a loose confederation of groups with no central leadership, But if there is a central theme to its understanding of the Constitution, it is that the nation's founders knew what they were doing and that their work must be protected.
Before the elections, when more editors were participating, there had been an extended discussion regarding what terms to use in the lead, and a clear consensus formed in favor of "conservative", "populist" and (slightly less so) "libertarian", but against "right wing", "grassroots" and other terms. This version of the lead stood up to multiple attempts to add or subtract terms, showing the strength of the consensus.
Now that activity has died down, a number of more-interested editors are pushing very hard for "grassroots". However, there have been sources put forth which are intended to show that the grassroots nature of the movement is actively denied by elements both inside and outside, including activists, politicians and journalists. Generally, those who deny that the movement is currently and wholly grassroots use the characterization of "astroturf", and point to funding by the GOP, the Koch brothers and others. (Note that there is no interest in adding "astroturf" to the lead.) The editors in favor of "grassroots" argue that the sources pro are reliable while those con are not. (unsigned by Dylan Flaherty)
Dylan, the tone of the title "correction of Malke's error" seems not-nice for the opening statements section.
North8000 (
talk)
11:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
IMHO that's certainly not a COI. But nice to know. North8000 ( talk) 19:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Hamtechperson. First and foremost, thank you so much for doing this! !
Second, what's next? The note in the box said: "Statements received, waiting for response" Should we be responding (somewhere) at this point?
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 03:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Moved from Main page for size. Ham tech person 00:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Disclosure: I'm in two other cabal cases right now, one with Dylan Flaherty, and am a Ron Paul donor and WorldNetDaily editor and thus count myself as conflicted per my user page. While I watch these pages, and have edited heavily in this topic, I haven't looked at this article yet, and don't know to what degree I can be of assistance, but bold is bold. It's disappointing to see several editors disagree over use of a single word in the lead graf, even when the POVs that need balancing are so opposed. The fact is that the phrase "tea-party movement" is capable of multiple meanings, as is "Tea Party movement", unlike some other phrases ("Tea Party Express" and "Florida Tea Party" have been snapped up by legal entities and thus are defined by those entities). Accordingly, the scope of a WP article on "Tea Party movement" would be all the "organized activities [and] effort" ( Merriam-Webster) that is inspired by the Boston Tea Party. That photo of me in feathered headdress preparing to dump tea in the Intracoastal is dated 16 December 2007, and I'm going to guess the article doesn't have much 2007 material. The word "grassroots" is very straightforward (and "astroturf" almost as much so, but pejorative and thus a caution), describing (MW) "the basic level of society ... esp. as viewed from higher or more centralized positions of power". We all know the difference between honest comments and meatpuppetry.
Accordingly, it's clear from the sources mentioned above, assuming no reliability problems, that the basic, unprompted local tea parties are grassroots, and the large legal entities are not, and both of them, along with the spectrum between, are definable as the "Tea Party movement". Some tea parties (events) are conservative and some not, some are libertarian and some not, many more of them consider themselves Constitutionalist than not (there's an adjective that could use trying), since by their very name they echo an event that led to the Constitution. It would be a mistake to say the movement is definitely grassroots when sources and logic both disagree with that, just as it would be for most other adjectives. There are very many wordings that can work, if this is a true mediation and not a disruption, and they work by admitting there is controversy in the lead and stating what is indisputable per all sources. It's indisputable that the movement is inspired by, and reflects, a successful revolutionary, antitax, pro-representation, antistatist movement; while those other adjectives are less helpful and need not appear in the first sentence (as if pushing the last fellow off the highest point on the hill makes you king). The second sentence could, e.g., say, "It has been widely described as conservative, libertarian, grassroots, and/or ...." That properly weights both the fact that these are widely held positions (unlike the astroturf position) and the fact that they are not universally held. If this is the only real reason for this 6-way mediation, it should wrap up soon after opening, and if it doesn't (such as by the unanswerable argument "there're too many adjectives"), parties should take a fair look at what other reasons there are. JJB 04:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
As a person not formerly involved in this discussion, it seems clear to me that "grassroots" is an inherently evaluative, not purely descriptive, term. There can no more be general agreement regarding the TPM being "grassroots" than there can regarding it being "constructive" or "reflective of the principles of the Founders". This war of tallying up RS citations to "prove" that the movement is or isn't grassroots seems beside the point.
As a thought experiment, try to rephrase the statement "The Tea Party movement is not a grassroots movement" in an equivalent but neutral and non-POV fashion. It will always sound at least vaguely condemnatory. And just as the concept of "not grassroots" is inherently pejorative, "grassroots" is always somewhat laudatory, even though it does have factual implications as well (e.g., "not secretly controlled by a cabal of financiers").
Words with this degree of value loading don't belong in the lede. That paragraph should be unimpeachably neutral and agreeable to a broad majority of readers. NillaGoon ( talk) 09:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
My round-one summary:
The question is then how to properly reflect in the lead the conflict among source characterizations, as a binary grassroots-or-nothing framework has been challenged. On this page I see four editors dealing patiently with one editor and one proxy (so far, anyway, BigK, pending your further comment), and I see the four of them graciously accepting Dylan's first point, which I take as the faultiness of the unvarnished, unweighted "grassroots" adjective. I also don't see Dylan forbidding the word from the lead utterly, although there is a hint of it. I would think that sources for a specific claim of "not grassroots" would be hard to find, although I would also grant the claim "astroturf" to be synonymous and easier to find, and I would also be very careful to parse whether the sources refer this characterization to a movement-phenomenon or a trademark-entity. Thus, since I believe in starting with a hypothesis before investigating the data, I hypothesize that the "pro" sources could support a point of either "is essentially grassroots but", or "is widely considered grassroots", and the "anti" sources could support a point of "certain Tea-Party-branded entities [who?] are not". This would be more fluidly stated by finding a "perfect source" that compares and contrasts the segments within the movement. My next comment, if any, will come after I have reviewed a number of the sources. Repeat disclosure: My experience, similar to Arthur's, is that Dylan is not the best interpreter of what sources actually say. Oh, in keeping with my COI, I merely mention this source, easy at hand because I am affiliated with it, for consideration by others; it characterizes the Florida Tea Party as being "unlike" 90 grass-roots tea-party groups: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=190445]. JJB 18:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
For Wikipedia to include this word, unembellished, in summarizing the article subject is for Wikipedia to take one side in an extremely real-world-contentious matter, and so inherently to violate NPOV. Including it on the basis that "real" Tea Party groups are grassroots implies the performance of original research regarding which Tea Party groups are "real". I agree with NillaGoon that the term is intrinsically evaluative and its application amounts to an endorsement, so Wikipedia must employ extreme caution with how it is used. Since this exact controversy is one of the major points of encyclopedic interest in the topic, though, I would support lede language along the lines of "often controversially characterized as grassroots", provided appropriate sourcing can be found for that statement so as to avoid performing synthesis (which availability seems very likely on the face of it). — chaos5023 ( talk) 19:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
In response to chaos5023 (and I hope I'm not violating protocol here; are outsiders allowed to kibitz at will?), I agree that it would be appropriate to discuss the "grassroots" issue in the article, although it does seem a bit complex for inclusion in the lede paragraph.
I also think it's fine to include information in the lede that has substantially the same import as "grassroots" as long as the wording is neutral. For example, one could say that the TPM "consists of a loose coalition of independent Tea Party chapters" or that "local chapters vary somewhat in their goals, focus, and political beliefs". Or for short and sweet, one could simply say the TPM is "decentralized". (All of these are just examples -- I don't claim to know the actual inner workings of the TPM.) These statements are specific claims of fact whose accuracy can be straightforwardly evaluated through reference to RSs. NillaGoon ( talk) 23:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The dispute description at the head of this page says the issue is whether or not to include the word "grassroots" in the lede. The answer is a simple and direct: yes and no. It is not an uncontested and uncontroversial (and in narrow instances, even unrefuted) adjective, so it should not appear in the lede as an unqualified factual description. The suggestion to leave it out of the lede completely has merit for those reasons, but will not satisfy editors that feel the adjective, at least in its broadest interpretation, applies to this movement -- and a good segment of the media has taken to using the adjective as well. If the editors can't agree to leave the word out completely, and can not agree to use wording carrying "substantially the same inport as 'grassroots'" — per NillaGoon's suggestion — then qualifying verbiage will need to be developed to accompany the "grassroots" adjective in the lede.
Just a note to the 6 "involved" editors in this mediation: a solution will be implemented based on the merits of that solution, and not on how many " Me too" backers a proposed solution has. I was provoked to check out this mediation after reading gang-mentality statements like:
Speaking on behalf of the silent majority of editors not "involved" in this mediation, you are reminded that you are here because you six can't come to an agreement, and you are seeking help with that. You'll find that any conclusion achieved here as a result of steamrolling and drowning-out won't stand a day. The concerns expressed in the above opening statements are shared by far more than just the 6 editors listed. Xenophrenic ( talk) 01:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Digiphi, I'm not sure I understand your most recent response. Would it be accurate to say that you are rephrasing the arguments of the "no on grassroots"ers as straw men, in the first person? That is, what you as "I" say is in fact your putative summary of others' arguments? This doesn't seem entirely within the spirit of the mediation process. NillaGoon ( talk) 07:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I regret that I have decided not to undertake the source review necessary to remain an active participant in this discussion. While I do not fully trust the cabal to fully resolve the lead phrasing to all NPOV standards, I will return to lurk status and comment when and if I can contribute usefully and freshly, probably after a consensus determination is made. JJB 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I proposed an alternate version of the entire Introduction on the main page. Here, I will explain why I changed things as I did. But first, the current Introduction:
And my proposed revision, sans refs and xrefs:
Some specifics:
Fire away! NillaGoon ( talk) 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
[Comments have been relocated here from the main page, and the "where should comments go" discussion has been trimmed.] NillaGoon ( talk) 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Nilla, overall, I like yours the best (and better than mine.) Gracefully gets a lot more done than the one word, with the other "changes" being re-wording rather than actual changes. And creates compromise wording on"grass roots" Except, would you consider adding "populist" back in somewhere? :-) North8000 ( talk) 19:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Dylan's text, replicated from the main page:
My comments:
This is an awful lot of hair-splitting, but it's these subtle shadings that trigger readers' emotions and POV-meters. I really do believe there's some way of phrasing things that everyone will like, if only we can tease it out of its shell.
Gettin' awfully quiet in here... :-) NillaGoon ( talk) 00:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
That may be a reliable source; I can't tell if the article more resembles reporting, commentary, an op-ed, or an actually editorial. I lean toward "commentary". But it doesn't say that the TPm is or is not "grassroots". It says that the other sources (which we do not consider reliable) suggest that AFP (although not directly under Koch's control) has co-opted the TP (not the TPm) into supporting their (AFP's, and Koch's) political agenda. (And, as for details, Defending the Dream was not a TP event, so the author is quoting Oldham's dissembling. Koch may very well not have met any "official" TPm people or been at a TPm event.) The author appears not to be familiar with the concept of a decentralized
"organization", so his interpretations may be incorrect, even if nominally reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to comment. Thanks. BigK HeX ( talk) 21:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Good, but the funding will need reliable sources to show they actually get funding. Right now all I've found is that they show them how to get out the vote, how to lobby Congress, etc. That's why I think Nillagoon and North8000 have good solutions. Malke 2010 ( talk) 21:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Good. With the same concern as Malke except for a variant of his/her reason. The synergy of weak sourcing about the TPM itself receiving finding combined with the "from large political organizations" sounds unsourcable/not correct/ and slightly POV in the characterization of the organizations. North8000 ( talk) 01:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I think starting with Nilla's proposal is a good idea, but I do have reservations about the version you propose. First, the minor ones.
I think we should say outright that the movement is conservative and populist, as these are the defining points and there is no controversy about them. We should also mention that it leans towards American-style right-libertarianism, using appropriate terms. However, while this seems to be a very fair generalization, it's less broadly applicable. Then again, it seems that the Libertarian views shared by other conservatives form the common core that unites the group, so it's important enough to be given a prominent place. The next issue is that we mention it's not a political party, but we need to also say that it's "endorsed a number of conservative Republican candidates in 2010". These endorsements are the most significant thing the movement has publicly done, even more so than the protests.
I believe that these two items are an evolution of Nilla's ideas, which they would endorse, so let's not lose them in the shuffle. Ok, on to the hard one. Let me start by quoting the g-word paragraph in full:
The first clause is generally good, except that it claims that all Tea Party groups are local, whereas groups such as the Tea Party Patriots are national. This is easily fixed by saying "local and national". The second clause is more problematic. On the one hand, there's no difficulty sourcing the fact that there's been guidance and funding from large political organizations. In fact, we should probably mention the GOP itself, as well as the Kochtopus tentacles. But, as you probably guessed, my concern is with "reportedly". Well, yes, it was reported by reliable sources, and the organizations named have admitted to supporting the movement, so there's no need for weasel words here. It sounds like "reportedly, Martin is straight".
The last sentence is also problematic. Even though any claim of grassroots is in tension, if not conflict, with the notion of being independent, there are no connecting words that hint at this. Instead, it starts with a filler clause about local chapters emerging, which seems confused regarding tense. Have they emerged? Are they still emerging? How do we know this? I understand it was an attempt at a neutral segue, but it's harder than it looks. Once "grassroots" enters the lead, balance seems impossible to maintain. Dylan Flaherty 01:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I too think this is a good step in that it alludes more directly to the g-word controversy but sticks to facts and neutral language. (I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that "funding" can be demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction.) However, the emergence of local groups can occur without grassrootsness (e.g., Amway); could we perhaps rearrange as follows?
OK, that's more than just rearrangement - I tried out a few more tweaks. Does the "unknown" part make it sound fair and accurate, or does it just sound like a conspiracy theory? NillaGoon ( talk) 07:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This is more a matter of trying to stay organized, move forward, and not lose editors due to this too difficult to follow. As I understand it, we are sort of gathering around Nilla's proposal/work as a workspace, with BigK's merged into that, but are holding he main discussion under a BigK proposal heading. Not a problem, just trying to recap for others what just took me some time to figure out.
On another note, the mediation started about the word "Grassroots" It expanded into non-controversial rewording of the lead, which I think is cool. But if we start tackling other, controversial changes in the lead I think we'd get bogged down. To me removal of "populist" and significant downgrading or rewording of the libertrian related wording would be such.
That said, may I suggest Nilla writing the latest version of theirs, to use as a workspace for the discussions? North8000 ( talk) 11:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I don't feel moving all outside participation to the talk page is at all appropriate. It has the implication that all such material is not greatly relevant to the mediation itself, and that all that really matters is the viewpoints of the six "involved" editors. However, this mediation is specifically seeking to determine consensus for an inclusion/exclusion content dispute, and it is almost certain that whatever its outcome, this mediation will be pointed to as documenting a high-bar consensus toward that outcome. Given that, locking the broader community out of the process and into the peanut gallery is extremely wrong. Perhaps I'm mistaken about the role a talk page plays in a mediation, but at first blush it seems like it has a strongly subordinate role. — chaos5023 ( talk) 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Users. I moved teh stuff from teh outside editors here to prevent future size problems. Also, these are no less important to me, possibly even more so, but I am doing this to prevent discussion mixing. I want editors to focus on the statements of the other editors in the mediation, and not those of the currently outside parties. If consensus is reached to add one of them to the mediation, any relevant statements can be placed back on the main page for the mediation. Ham tech person 01:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of movement here, it appears that the discussion has migrated to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tea_Party_movement. Dylan Flaherty 10:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It is, of course, hard to say anything definitive about the Tea Party movement, a loose confederation of groups with no central leadership, But if there is a central theme to its understanding of the Constitution, it is that the nation's founders knew what they were doing and that their work must be protected.