Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 4

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)

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)