Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Archive 5

Let's gel something out of this

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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.

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

• Support North8000 (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Malke 2010 (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support ----Snowded ^TALK 05:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- but proposal 15 is a significantly improved version of my 12d proposal. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• Support — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• 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)

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

• Support North8000 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'd also support the rewrite of P&W's version. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

An edit for Agenda section has been actioned

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Clarification please

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It was 4:1 at the time --North8000

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Ubikwit: What does this blockquote mean in plain English?

Schmidt writes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, at the time I actioned the edit, we had literally discussed it to death. We've been working on it in good faith for weeks. Believe it or not, all of the editors I have spoken with have real jobs, real families and real lives, and we don't have the time or energy to devote 16 hours a day to Wikipedia editing. Even 20-24 hours a week is a bit much, when you have to do it week after week and you keep running into the same problem you can't solve. Everyone was burned out and exhausted. It was very late at night. I saw four "votes" in favor and one opposed. That's consensus by any reasonable definition. Xeno hadn't officially weighed in, but since he was the original author of a version that had then been condensed by Malke, and since he hadn't opposed it when she first posted it, I very reasonably assumed that he would support it whenever he showed up. That would have made it 5-1. Even better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Medias Res

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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