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)

Not quite. There's also a dispute as to which version is the "stable" version; there was a previous "stable" version with "grassroots", but without "populist". (unsigned by Arthur Rubin)

There is no doubt that the version that was stable and had explicit consensus recently -- in the days before the election -- had "populist" but not "grassroots". I have no idea what versions from further in the past had, but it doesn't actually matter. Ultimately, the dispute is forward-facing, so your interjection here adds little of value. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a stable version before that "extensive discussion", which had "grassroots" and had some other differences. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's why we're looking to mediation. There was consensus about the grassroots in the lead, which developed on the discussion page, and now that has become outdated. It's because you and others disagree that we create new consensus. We don't just maintain the the long-standing consensus in perpetuity and tell you "tough luck". Since the issue is now heavily controverted again, which is obvious by your (Dylan) and other editors' comments on the talk page, it's time to develop consensus one way or the other again. -Digiphi (Talk) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC

True beleviers? Gasp! -Digiphi (Talk) 02:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that Malke has made some demonstrably false claims.

If you look at the "consensus for words to use in lead" section, you will find a discussion from last week where we considered "grassroots", "conservative", "populist", "libertarian" and even "right wing". At the bottom of that first section, you can find my summary, which is endorsed by Rjensen and North8000 but repeatedly rejected by Malke.

Elsewhere in the same snapshot, we have a section entitled "Breaking the lead, still", in which we discuss a number of recent changes against consensus. Here, some IP editors, 75.88.83.74 and 9.39.184.178 added their support, as did North (again) and TFD (The Four Deuces), while Digiphi objected.

There is plenty more on that page regarding grassroots, funding and astroturf, but it should be very clear that Malke's claim that I was the only one who objected to "grassroots" has been demonstrated to be false.

I could go on, but I think we need to refocus on the neutrality issue, not just a count of hands. We have too many sources opposed to "grassroots" to just pretend they don't exist. That, ultimately, is the real issue. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any diffs to support your comments.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, at least with regard to the first three words. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

Cool! North8000 (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO that's certainly not a COI. But nice to know. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, cool Arthur. Totally agree with your assessment.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Moved from Main page for size. Hamtechperson 00:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside statement by John J. Bulten

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)

Outside Statement by NillaGoon

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)[reply]

Response 1 by John J. Bulten

My round-one summary:

• Dylan anti: many RSs contradict the accuracy of "grassroots"
• Malke pro: real tea party groups are grassroots
• BigK anti: conflict among sources, endorse Dylan
• North pro: is it LARGELY grassroots?
• Arthur pro: funding "sources" unreliable or don't say
• Digi pro: better in lead than without it

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)

Outside statement by chaos5023

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)[reply]

Response 1 by NillaGoon

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)[reply]

Outside statement by Xenophrenic

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:

• "...I believe that warring per se will not continue among the established editors due to the single party's knowledge of the excessive force against him, and the ongoing mediation." And I found similar sentiments expressed here:
• "On this page I see four editors dealing patiently with one editor and one proxy (so far, anyway, BigK, pending your further comment)..."

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)[reply]

Hi Xeno. I want to share how much I love stories about silent majorities. I love them very much. —Digiphi (Talk) 06:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Digi. Me too! Have any stories you could share? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response 2 by NillaGoon

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)[reply]

I agree the comments might not be coming across in the best way. I've left a message on Digiphi's talk page.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been busy with personal matters, or I'd have done that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nilla. The answer is Yes and No. No: it's not putative or an instance of straw man-ing. Straw man means misstating an argument, and then picking it apart to appear logically triumphant over the opponent. I've interpreted the arguments, and without refutation, which isn't a fallacy.
Yes: Straw man would be inappropriate in a debate. And what I did wasn't great either. My understanding of the mediation was that Hamtech is a moderator along for the ride to keep things kosher, and that ultimately we the disputants will develop consensus based on how well we convince each other. After bouncing it off Hamtech my understanding has changed, and I know that the aforementioned scenario is not the case. So, I've modified my presentation on the project page. —Digiphi (Talk) 06:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nilla had it right: you were straw-manning in an offensive manner. It was wildly inappropriate, regardless of whether Hamtech is moderating or adjudicating. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be nice. Maybe / maybe not the correct way to do it, (and, I think, a little confusing for the casual reader) but to me it looks like a sincere attempt at listing the salient opposing viewpoints in a neutral fashion in order to address them. Lets be nice.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, neutrality would require accuracy. There is nothing accurate about his straw men. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North, Digiphi went back over the original to clarify after this discussion; the current version is more neutral. The main thrust of my original query was actually the "I'm not sure I understand" part, which Digiphi has since addressed, thanks. NillaGoon (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response 2 by John J. Bulten

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)

About first proposal by NillaGoon

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:

The Tea Party movement is a populist,^[1][2][3] conservative/libertarian,^[4][5] political movement in the United States that grew throughout 2009 into a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests.^[6][7][8] The protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,^[9] the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,^[10][11] and a series of healthcare reform bills.^[12]

The name "Tea Party" echoes the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident when colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered a tax that violated their right to "No Taxation without Representation."^[13] As of 2010, it is not a national political party, does not officially run Congressional candidates, and its name has not appeared on any ballots.^[14]

According to pollster Scott Rasmussen, the bailouts of banks by the Bush and Obama administrations triggered the Tea Party’s rise. The interviewer adds that the movement's anger centers on two issues, quoting Rasmussen as saying, "They think federal spending, deficits and taxes are too high, and they think no one in Washington is listening to them, and that latter point is really, really important."^[15] The movement has no central leadership but is a loose affiliation of smaller local groups.^[16] The movement's primary concerns include, but are not limited to, cutting back the size of government,^[17] lowering taxes,^[18] reducing wasteful spending,^[18] reducing the national debt and federal budget deficit,^[17] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.^[19]

And my proposed revision, sans refs and xrefs:

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

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

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

Some specifics:

• First, the locution that the TPM "grew...into a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests" just seems weird, unless you actually want to enforce the idea that TPM == protest. In fact, the TPM does more than just protest (for example, they must certainly at least meet and reach consensus on what to protest), so the protests should be described as their claim to fame rather than their identity.

• The list of legislation in the original lead paragraph is not inaccurate as a catalog of targets that have drawn the TPM's ire, but it seems too specific for the introduction, especially since the TPM is still in the process of defining itself. I think we can all agree that the TPM is more than just an organization convened to protest those specific pieces of legislation.

• Instead, the lead paragraph should state, in English, the main points of the TPM philosophy. This is done at the very end of the original introduction, but it belongs in the first paragraph.

• The second paragraph is largely unchanged in its intent and meaning, but I tried to tighten it up and focus it more clearly on the idea that the "party" in "tea party" is not necessarily the "party" in "political party", as that is likely to be a common source of confusion. Also, when that distinction is made clearly, the "movement" can often be dropped from "Tea Party movement" without sacrificing clarity.

• The last paragraph of the current Introduction seems out of place for the introduction because of its reliance on quotations and named sources. To the extent that Rasmussen's statements are widely acccepted, they should simply be summarized as fact (and cited, of course). And to the extent that they are controversial, they do not belong in the introduction. (There is also a strange phantom "interviewer" who is mentioned but never identified.)

• Finally, despite my earlier comments (summary: "grassroots" too value-laden to be used), I don't have a problem with the word grassroots appearing in the introduction; I just don't think it should be used by the omniscient voice of Wikipedia's invisible narrator. It's fine to say that the TPM is often described as being "grassroots", for that is surely true.

• The prefatory sentence in the third paragraph serves to focus the reader's attention on the factual implications of "grassroots" (decentralized, locally controlled, direct involvement of individuals) as opposed to the laudatory connotations (authentic, reflecting the true will of the people, free of "politicking"). With the context set this way, it does not seem necessary to immediately balance the mention of "grassroots" with a discussion of "astroturf" allegations (though they most certainly have been made). At least not to me...

Fire away! NillaGoon (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[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)[reply]

Nilla, given your track record, it's not surprising that this is a very good effort. Given my track record, it shouldn't be surprising that I would recommend a few changes. :-)

1. I think it's ok to call it conservative outright, as it doesn't just lean in that direction. It does lean towards libertarianism.
2. It's good to mention that it doesn't field any candidates under its own banner, but we should probably mention that it does endorse (exclusively Republican) candidates.
3. I don't dispute the sentence about grassroots. However, I would balance it with a tactful statement about the genuine controversy surrounding this term. Off the top of my head (and I'm sure this can be improved upon), something along the lines of: "Due to the financial and organizational support that the movement has received from Republican and corporate organizations, the "grassroots" label is disputed."

What do you think? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of making all of this work handlthe whole lead instead of just one word. But it might make this process complicated? I think that this is a middle of the road proposal as you wrote it, with no changes. North8000 (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends in large degree on how the mediation parties react to my specific wording. If it's generally thought to be equally (or more) controversial, then it's probably not a helpful suggestion to expand the focus. But let's see what people actually think. NillaGoon (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan, I'm completely agnostic on #1 and in support of #2 (although I would say the TPM had only endorsed Republicans so far, not that "they only endorse Republicans"). Regarding #3, I'm explicitly trying to defuse the powder keg of "grassroots" with this formulation, as explained in the ghetto. (Which wasn't up when you originally responded. Gosh you guys are fast... :-) It reads as balanced to me right now for the reasons stated there, but let me reread it tomorrow and see if it still seems that way. NillaGoon (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nilla, I stand corrected regarding #2; we are in no position to speak of what the movement will do in the future. For all we know, they might embrace Obama tomorrow! (Well, ok, not likely, but you get the point.)

My concern about #3 is that, to pick on Ricky, it's a bit like "Martin claims to be straight and some people actually believe that." Damning with faint praises?

Thanks again for your cool head and ability to find the middle. Please do sleep on it and we'll pick this up in the morning. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's in there, North - first line. NillaGoon (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to first proposal by Dylan Flaherty

Dylan's text, replicated from the main page:

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

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

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

My comments:

• The lead sentence ends up being mostly about the Boston Tea Party, which is a bit disorienting.

• On rereading, "The Tea Party movement has no central leadership" feels kind of disparaging to me (i.e., reads like "it's a rudderless ship"). And yes, I know these are my own words. Maybe something like "The leadership of the Tea Party movement is not centralized"?

• We could probably drop the scare quotes around "grassroots" in all of these proposals.

• It still seems to me that the introductory sentence in the last paragraph sets up "grassroots" in its factual sense pretty well. So the "label has been disputed" part feels a bit jarring to me. In a purely mechanical sense, the TPM is grassroots. When others criticize the TPM as being an astroturf movement, they are claiming not that Tea Party chapters are not independent and citizen-controlled but that the agenda of the movement as a whole has been co-opted by Svengali-like forces for their own ends. In other words, "astroturf" and analogous statements (e.g., "label has been disputed...") attack the connotations of "grassroots" (authentic, reflective of the will of the people, uncontaminated by political maneuvering) rather than the demonstrable fact that Tea Party chapters are locally controlled. In Dylan's draft, the first part of the paragraph is working hard to direct attention away from those connotations, while the second part is attacking them. So the two halves clash.

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)[reply]

Thank you for your analysis. I'd like to address your points and offer changes that might earn consensus support.

I think the best way to fix the emphasis of the first sentence is to get rid of the comma splice, and maybe cut some irrelevant details. Just say:

The Tea Party is a populist conservative political movement in the United States. Its name is inspired by the Boston Tea Party, a historical event in which colonists protested what they considered an unjust tax by stealing and destroying tea.

This sets up the next line, which speak of their strongly anti-tax emphasis.

Now, in the third paragraph, I don't particularly notice any "rudderless ship" connotation, but we can avoid the possibility by rephrasing in more positive terms. In other words, it's not a "lack" of central leadership, but a conscious choice to decentralize the organization to maximize the virtue of freedom. It could read something like:

The Tea Party movement is decentralized, existing as a loose affiliation of local and national groups that determine their own agendas.

I'm also thinking we might want to address the matter of Palin being the public face of the movement yet not exactly its leader, but I'm not sure how to go about this.

As for the quotes, I'm of two minds. On the one hand, quotes can be seen as scare-quotes: I'd buy a Coke but wonder about a "Coke". This is an unwanted consequence. On the other, quotes show indirection, hence distance; they allow us to speak of things without saying them ourselves. For example, if I were to mention an offensive term such as "papist", I would keep the quotes so that it's clear that I'm reporting, not endorsing. In the same way, due to the controversy, we are simply not allowed to endorse the claim of grassroots; we can only report it. We can say it's been called "grassroots", but not that it is grassroots.

Even then, as soon as we report it, we must balance the claim by also reporting that it is controversial. As you've clearly noticed, there is a risk that this will be interpreted as the movement claiming to be grassroots but lying, which would make it astroturfed. As you said, the term has positive connotations, so even the most neutral rejection of it once it has been mentioned will have negative connotations in contrast.

While the lead is not the best place for it, we do need to report that the movement has been characterized as astroturf. However, this is a large, complex topic that resists fair summarizaton. Unfortunately, the moment we bring up the matter of grassrootsness (is that a word?), that topic gets sucked up into the lead. The only solution I see to this is omitting it from the lead and giving it adequate space below, which is precisely where we started off.

No discussion would be complete without a Ricky Martin analogy. Imagine if his article said "Martin claims to be straight but this is widely doubted". Whereas either "Martin is straight" or "Martin is gay" would be relatively neutral, this mixed claim simply calls him a liar. (As it happens, he did lie, but we did not know that for a fact at the time, whatever our suspicions.) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we have reliable sources that it is "grassroots", and reliable sources that someone claims it is astroturfed, that some organizations which claim to be in the TPm are controlled by outside money or by the Republican Party, and that some attempts have been made to take over the TPm by outside money. That's not enough to counter the fact that it's grassroots. (I refuse to make this convoluted statement of what Dylan's references show fit the Ricky Martin analogy.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have reliable sources stating that the movement is to a large extent funded and controlled by sources other than the "local community groups" that a grassroots status requires. There is no synthesis involved because we have multiple sources -- not just opposition -- that raise the issue for us and does all of the heavy lifting.

The very fact that you just used the phrase "fact that it's grassroots" suggests that you are entirely missing the point here. I don't care if you think it's a fact or I think it's a fact, or even if it is a fact. I care what our sources tell us, and you should, too. Put aside your personal beliefs for a moment and try to edit as a neutral party. This isn't just my friendly advice, it's what Wikipedia requires of us as the price of participation. If I can do it on abortion articles, you can do it here.

As for the obligatory Martin analogy, maybe I can help. If you look at the actual article, both before and after he outed himself, his sexuality was not in the lead. There was too much controversy to fit it in there, just as there is too much controversy here about "grassroots". The solution in both cases is to give the topic adequate space for a balanced discussion in a full section. Dylan Flaherty 16:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not have "have reliable sources stating that the movement is to a large extent funded and controlled by sources other than the 'local community groups'". At least, you hadn't provided any, as of a week ago. And, even if it were funded by outside sources, it wouldn't mean it was controlled by outside sources. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we certainly do, even if you do not. Come join us. Start by reading my second response, which lists five sources, one of whom is named Koch. Dylan Flaherty 19:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dylan. I think that what we're looking for relaible RS's, ones that really review/address the topic with some apparent objectivity. I didn't see any there, but if I missed one could you point me to it? North8000 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. We're calling out the reliable sources for not including the text as you've represented them. To be fair, such that nobody's wasting time for the heck of it, I have in fact examine the items presented. Can you show us specifically what you're referring to, like a cite so we can resolve this? — Digiphi (Talk) 03:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, start by reading my second response. Dylan Flaherty 04:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion of BigK HeX Proposal #1

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

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

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

Feel free to comment. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

A thorough and insightful comment. Thanks. I'll see how I might be able to apply. BigK HeX (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hex, I think the Nilla's initial proposal was a big step in the right direction, and there's a lot of good in all three Nilla-based leads. My feeling is that our best bet is to combine them to rough out the edges and create something we can all agree with. I'd like to wait a big longer, to give others a chance to weigh in, but I'd be willing to make an attempt at a draft, in the hope that Nilla and you will improve upon it. Dylan Flaherty 02:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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?

The Tea Party movement is composed of a loose affiliation of groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. For this reason, the Tea Party is often described as a grassroots or citizen-led political movement. Some Tea Party groups have also received guidance and financial support from outside political organizations; however, the extent of those organizations' influence within the Tea Party remains unclear.

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)[reply]

On the whole, it's certainly an improvement, and is probably as close to a balanced lead as I've seen among those with the g-word. Good work.

But, yes, "unknown" sounds a bit mysterious and it's not strictly accurate. The extent is known but also disputed, and that's too much to explain in the lead. Perhaps we could change that last sentence to:

However, some Tea Party groups have also received guidance and financial support from established Republican and Libertarian political organizations.

This is shorter and has no aura of mystery. It also fairly identifies the nature of these organizations and points out that they are themselves established, not grassroots.

With this change, it's the first version which contains the g-word that I could still endorse. Dylan Flaherty 13:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use Nilla / BigK's draft as a workspace? / avoid other controversial changes

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. Cabal is supposed to be informal, and there need be no backout of significant views just because of formalist "size" arguments when we're not topping a real size problem for a long time. I suppose I (anyone) could add my (anyone's) name as an "involved" party, because I don't know how else I would be added except for someone doing it and it having consensus. JJB 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the outside views moving back to the article page. This would leave the talk page for talk about the article page. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hamtechperson 01:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that talkpageification doesn't represent marginalization of outside views, and since you're the mediator I imagine I can take your word for it that it doesn't. :) So I, for my part, withdraw my protest given the above. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unless it descends into stalled chaos in which case we'd need the structure provided here. North8000 (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we clearly have no consensus on the article talk page, so I fully support continuing our mediation here. I dropped the note so that people who were watching the mediation but not the article would be informed. Dylan Flaherty 03:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]