Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 4

Tea Party movement

Current talk page

1, 2, 3, 4

This is the last talk page of an article titled "Tea Party" that was later merged with "Tea Party movement", it was started after the move was performed. Archive 1 is that article, archive 2 its talk page.

As a Politics Editor who was actively working with the Author, I removed the Speedydelete by a Citizen who is not an editor in the relevant workgroup. While I do believe this article has no justification separate from the preexisting Tea Party Movement article, let the Editor(s) resolve it.

Howard, I did not ask for a speedydelete of the page or any content. I moved the page to a talk page archive of Tea Party Movement from where the merging of content can be done and only asked for deletion of those pages (redirects and empty pages) that therefore are no longer needed. --Peter Schmitt 18:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a Politics Editor who was actively working with the primary Author, I believe your moves, without consensus and/or Politics Editor, were inappropriate. Yes, the articles may indeed be merged -- but that decision had not been reached. Other Politics Editors and the Constabulary have been notified.

It is no more appropriate to make massive moves than massive deletes, unless they are being done under CZ controls. While it's entirely possible I will rule that the articles must merge, even then, I'd subject the procedure to the checks and balances of the Constabulary. In this case, my discussion with the author is temporarily disrupted until I find all the text, and I really don't want to play forensic detective at the moment.

While I have had many disagreements with the author, this wasn't fair to her. Even if this article was in a Workgroup where you are an Editor, I still recommend working with the Constables before making such significant changes. Peter, I speak from experience, where other Citizens were incensed by unilateral moves, renaming articles (not the case here), etc. Let the process work.

I have put Peter's redirect into nowikis, so I can be sure the discussion above is seen. #REDIRECT [[Talk:Tea Party Movement/Archive 2]] Howard C. Berkowitz 18:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all sure what the fuss is about

My only problem with this is that I no longer know which discussion lives where, and so I'm not sure of the best page on which to leave my comments.

Clearly a merge was needed. Does anyone disagree with that?

Peter took steps to actually move towards a merge, and moved the duplicate article to a subpage of the existing article, is that right? Peter then requested deletion of the old article cluster, is that right?

This doesn't seem to me to be terribly disastrous or improper.

Surely an established principle of a wiki environment is that no one 'owns' any article, and anyone can edit with impunity?

Now, if Howard, Jim or Joe, as Politics Editors feel that a better course of action should be taken, I think Peter, as a mathematician, should yield to them with respect to the subject. This does NOT mean that Peter is not entitled to have an opinion with respect to the wiki, and this is something our experts all need to get clear, and something the new EC needs to address, as it's causing too much time-wasting, sapping too much energy, and causing my-jurisdiction-overrides-yours-and-if-you-don't-agree-it-means-you-don't-respect-my-expertise type arguments.

Aleta Curry 22:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that I had not yet been able to urge Mary, the original author, toward the conclusion a merge was necessary. If one takes the role that an Editor first guides before acting firmly, I believe that was the right thing to do.

One of my questions was whether she could demonstrate that the Tea Party, on any significant basis, had acted to become a political party. I don't think she can, but if she can do so, then that would be justification not to merge. As a longtime teacher, I'd rather try to get someone to see why their logic is in error. In this case, political party, interest group, and nonpartisan all have accepted definitions in political science.

Once the experts/Editors are involved, major changes to an article can be discussed on the Talk page, but the matter, as a matter of at least my EC platform, is not a situation where every opinion must be respected and everyone can take on Editorial duties. If you don't like that, don't vote for me. I won't take it personally, but I have to disagree with your complaint of my-jurisdiction-overrides-yours-and-if-you-don't-agree-it-means-you-don't-respect-my-expertise. Had I accepted that, I would have deleted homeopathy years ago.

I'm going grocery shopping and then making dinner. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Somehow it was missed but I did write support merge but I did not support deletion. Granted I used to write at wikiHow where there was great efforts to keep and incorporate articles whenever possible, and I thought the same would be done here. I do support a merge always have. There is new and unique information in the article I wrote that could be merged into the existing one. I do believe Howard should have been consulted, as a matter of courtesy and respect, but it is not necessary. Howard was the editor working with me not Peter. Mary Ash 23:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not an editorial matter and does not need any editors laying claim to it - in fact, it was already resolved before this newest discussion started. No speedy delete tags were used. No content was lost in the moving of this article. Now, let's everyone calm down and let the original author go about the business of merging the content, which was what we all agreed to in the first place. David Finn 23:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am the original author and I agreed to the merge which was ignored. Howard was working with me to edit the article when the article was changed by Peter. Mary Ash 00:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What is it that you think we mean when we say "merge" in this context? David Finn 01:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That is for the editor to decide, which was Howard, who was working with me to complete the task. If it were me to decide what would have been merged, I would have selected newer information such as:

• The Tea Party Patriots received a $1 million donation from an anonymous source. The donation was reported in the news media in September 2010. The donation would be dived up among other Tea Party groups by Oct. 4, 2010, at the donors request.

• Demographics

According to Gallup Polls (Spring 2010)[16] among Tea Party supporters there are

• 78% are Republicans or independents who lean Republican
• 77% are non-Hispanic whites
• 69% are conservatives
• 62% are married
• 56% are men
• 47% are 55 or older
• 23% are under 35

and they share the following beliefs:

• Concern about the US federal debt. 92% believe the federal government debt is a very serious/extremely serious threat to the nation's future well-being.
• Safety. 90% believe terrorism is a very/extremely serious threat to the nation's future well-being.
• General unhappiness over how things are going in the US. 90% are dissatisfied with the way things are going in this country.
• Disapproval of congressional Democrats. 87% disapprove of the job congressional Democrats are doing.
• Growth of the US federal government. 85% believe the size and power of the federal government are a very/extremely serious threat to the nation's future well-being.
• Congress' ability to take care of business. 83% say most members of Congress don't deserve re-election.
• President Barack Obama should not be re-elected. 83% say President Obama doesn't deserve re-election.

All the above provide updated information which would have made the older article more relevant and less dated. This is not a criticism of the original authors of the first Tea Party article as current news is fluid and changing. Of course I am not editor, just a mere author, so I have no say in the matter. Mary Ash 01:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary, please justify the above asterisks left. My monitor isn't wide enough. Or am I the only person having this trouble? Ro Thorpe 01:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC

I'm sorry Ro but wiki syntax needs the * to keep the sentences from running together. I also copied and pasted directly from the article as it's easier than trying to re-type all the information.Mary Ash 01:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ro Thorpe 02:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary, the concept of merging is that you take the useful content from one article (your's) and insert it into another article (the original one on the Tea Party Movement). The point of merging two similar articles is to have one comprehensive article.

All the work you did hasn't been lost - instead of being a live article, it is now an archive specially set up by Peter for the purpose of the merger. That means the merger is still going ahead, and your content hasn't been deleted. The only difference now is that the Citizendium reader only has to contend with one article. You have the same opportunity to expand the original content, and you are free to work with Howard or anyone else to do so - for you nothing has changed. I realise that the moving of the article may have been confusing, but if you check the archive specifically set up by Peter for the purpose of the merger you will find that your work is intact. David Finn 02:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Content issues

If I understand correctly, I have to go to Archive 2 to find the specific, content-related questions I asked the author. The archiving has essentially removed the article-related discussion from easy view, especially by someone first coming onto the article, and replaced it with metadiscussion about privileges.

I'm not going to attempt to re-create the specific discussion. I am a little confused, because Mary had said that the Tea Party was separate from the Tea Party Movement. Am I correct in assuming that agreement to merge does away with that concern?

Some of my points were that in the U.S. political system, a "party" describes a political party, which has specific legal aspects, usually defined at the state level. The comments about it being nonpartisan also were questionable, and I simply don't know how one believes in Federalist Papers— they are commentary rather than an actionable document such as the United States Constitution.

It would not be unreasonable to see, either here or on the talk page of Tea Party Movement, which material from here should go there, and where it should go. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Howard this morning I posted that I agreed with you. As I put it the Tea Party has not created an official party platform nor have they provided an official slate of candidates. They have endorsed candidates though and we were splitting hairs. Somehow that part of the discussion was lost I guess. Mary Ash 01:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Howard, that is correct. Peter has moved Mary's article content to Archive 1, and the talkpage from Mary's article to Archive 2. Mary's final reply on the matter was "support merge as there is supporting (new and different too) information for the original Tea Party article. We are splitting hairs here: truth be told the Tea Party has endorsed candidates but the "party" has not formed as an "official" political party with an official party slate or platform.", so the merge was supported by all participants.

The only glitch is, as you have pointed out, that we have two talkpages covering the same thing now, which makes things a little confusing just now, but as the discussion about specific content grows I think there will be less confusion as only one of the talkpages will be active, and by then will have trancended the original discussion. David Finn 01:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI David a correctly done merge incorporates select information from one article into another. It is not a redirect off the main site. I've done a few merges and I tried to fairly and objectively incorporate the articles so all the authors were happy. In this case a merge was not done. It was a redirect. Mary Ash 02:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

See above section for explanation of merge. David Finn 02:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, Dave, I don't understand why Peter, who was not actively editing the article or adding content, chose to move the material and make it harder to find by Mary and I, who were editing. While there is no rule explicitly prohibiting it, I see no reason why someone who is not directly involved in the content discussion would choose to start moving things.

In my experience at Citizendium, once Editor(s) have taken that position with respect to articles, they essentially moderate the discussion on the talk page. Editors do have some authority to remove content, but, in my experience, they usually coordinate that with the Constabulary. How can an Editor moderate something that he can't find?

It might be very relevant to have some non-Americans present content on foreign views of the Tea Party. That might be more useful on the talk page than metadiscussions. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's not splitting hairs to say the Tea Party is not a political party. Endorsing candidates does not a party make, or the Service Employees International Union and Concerned Women for America would be political parties.

May I suggest, then, we consider moving a section at a time to Tea Party Movement, discussing them first on the talk page of that article? I will start that. --Howard C. Berkowitz 02:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

David I'm so glad you liked my explanation of a merge. Ro before I forget, I'm not having any problems with my laptop monitor. It's a 15 inch monitor I think. Mary Ash 02:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

{unindent}Howard I posted a very clear explanation which some how has been lost...sigh...I don't feel like re-writing it again. Suffice it to say you were right about the political party but the Tea Party has endorsed candidates but is PAC or something like that, if I remember right. I do believe it's time to move along. I don't agree with Peter redirecting the page and I don't know why he did it. He's always prsented himself as a fair, objective and reasonable editor. Only Peter can explain his actions. As for the rest, it seems there is a lot of campaigning going on. As this is a family friendly site I'll leave it at that. Tme to move along and with approval of the Constables let THEM resolve this situation. This is not helping CZ harmony or anything else. Mary Ash 02:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is very clear that the other article -- Tea Party Movement -- has an illegitimate name. I tried to move it, but it is not possible without deleting the page history of Tea Party movement. I do not understand why there are two articles on the same topic, either. Obviously they have to be merged. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You are an expert as a Politics Author, so please explain why it is "very clear",under customary U.S. law and political practice, why the name is illegimate. Obviously the articles need to move. Mary did not note that one already existed when she started another. We agreed to merge, so I don't understand what you are trying to establish at this time. I need not assume I have to educate an Editor who says how it is all very clear, so I assume you are quite familiar with the differences among PACs, 527s, 501(c)(4)s, registered political parties, the Federal Election Commission, common elements in party registration at the state level, and informal groups in the United States. The only problem is that since Tea Party organizations have taken all these forms except, to the best of my knowledge, political party, I fail to see what is "very clear". Howard C. Berkowitz 11:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably you misunderstand: the title of the article should be movement with a lower case, since there is no legal entity called Tea Party Movement. I do not disagree on other points. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Sorry, I thought you were a politics editor. I will note that there had been an agreement to make new comments on Talk: Tea Party Movement to have them in one place. Please do so.

I am asking the Constabulary to lock this talk page so comments can be in one place. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to lock this page -- just move it to Tea Party Movement/Archive 3 Archive 3. (It was you who without any need reopened discussion on this page :-). --Peter Schmitt 12:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

NO! Do not move it anywhere. Get it stabilized so the people actively trying to do the merge can do so. Peter, let the people actively working on the article have the material in one stable place, and then we'll delete/redirect the title page. Why are you so insistent on moving things around when you are not actively working on the text?

I reopened discussion OF THE MOVES on this page so if someone went here anyway, they would know where to go. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)