Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:07, 16 May 2013

Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.
SilkTork Apart from the Tea Party case, I'm currently inactive on all ArbCom matters.
SilkTork

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

Follow-up question

Hi SilkTork, Thanks for your input to the discussion on the WikiProject Bob Dylan Talk page. I've added a follow-up question for you. Thanks very much, and have a nice day. Moisejp (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Concern over tenor of one editor at the TPM moderated discussion

I fear at least one editor seems not to properly gauge the intent of a "moderated discussion" and seems rather more inclined at making attacks on others - including misstatements about them. If such continues, I fear the moderated discussion can not possibly succeed at all, which would be rather a shame. I find such behaviour to be abhorrent, and incredibly irritating. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. What happened to "comment on the content, not the contributor"? Incessant needling with comments like "relishes its role as gadfly — something else you and Mother Jones have in common"; "You're being tendentious again."; "Mother Jones, isn't that your Mother Ship, Xenophrenic?" or claiming an editor doesn't know how to do a simple Google search, or "Xenophrenic is making the 'I saw Elvis' argument." Really? I've been ignoring the antagonism, but it is becoming very irritating. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that such comments were not made in my posts, of course. The editor was right that using Google without using the keywords to prevent "false positives" is an endemic problem, and that the famed actor is not the "Tea Party" personage at all. GoogleNews finds 255 hits for "Dale Robertson" total, and with "tea party" added it gets precisely zero hits, which I think was Malke's point about your "And my Google News search returns tens of thousands of hits" which does actually appear a tad errant in context. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to take up more of SilkTork's Talk page to argue with you, Collect. Nor am I going to instruct you on the use of Google News, with proper inclusion and exclusion modifiers, custom ranges and archive merging, so that you can get over your "precisely zero hits" hurdle. Malke's point was that I don't know how to perform a simple Google search (what possible reason would I have for including the actor or the athlete in my searches?), and I don't appreciate any of those little jabs. Individually, they are minor annoyances, but the frequency is increasing, so I wished only to note that they are becoming irritating. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

TPm Moderated discussion 2

The discussion seems to be at an impasse on the bigotry and race material, so it doesn't look like any trimming is going to happen there unless vote count overrides policy.

I've opened an RS/N thread, but am not hopeful that it will serve to stem the questionable use and abuse of sources overall.

In the meantime, from your recent comments it seems that you want to unlock the article before addressing the broad strokes issue of the agenda section and the constitution that I have raised.

Let me point you back to this thread Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_21#The_Constitution and draw your attention to the first comment.

The opening sentence of the lead of the Misplaced Pages TPm article "as it stands" (which, if you'll recall, is the wrong version) is

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution

The source cited for that statement is this, and the source does not support that statement except within the very narrow bounds of the TPm-specific interpretation of "Constitution’s constraints on federal power" covered in one Article and on Amendment of the Constitution (a limited scope belying a Federalist agenda, i.e., advocacy of a TPm agenda item as per Randy_Barnett#Bill_of_Federalism, not representative of a comprehensive summary statement describing the actual state of affairs at present).

The NYT source article is from March 2010,incidentally, and therefore was published before calls by TPm activists and groups to repeal 2-3 extant Amendments and pass at least one (September 2010 proposal) to enact a new Amendment Randy_Barnett#Repeal_Amendment as well as call a Constitutional Congress. Note, however, that the source does mention “popular constitutionalism”, a topic with respect to which dedicated journal articles have subsequently been published specifically addressing the TPm, as included in the edits I made that were repeatedly reverted.

Numerous studies by legal scholars have been published since, including the Schmidt study (encyclopedic in and of itself) that cite and expand on the distinction made by "Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas" cited in the NYT article in relation to the theme

The larger point, these scholars say, is that the Supreme Court should have no more monopoly on the meaning of the Constitution than the pope has on the meaning of the Bible.

So the reason I am here to for clarification as to whether or not you intend to address this issue in the moderated discussion.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My intention is to get the article to a reasonably stable state before unlocking it. That would mean dealing with the major issues on the article, and if those sections you mention are part of that, then yes I'd like to deal with those as well. I'm a little bit dismayed that there has been a fair bit of distraction recently on the discussion page, and a lot of discussion over one sentence. But this is part of what happens - it is quote common for discussions to wax and wane. Hopefully we can make some more progress shortly. Keeping a positive yet realistic outlook helps. And having some patience! SilkTork 08:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your input has been helpful, but the discussion seems to have become a series of disconnected monologues, so to speak.

The impasse relates to more than the single sentence, but to cherrypicking sources and refusing to adopt a more integrated approach.

I've tried to have people consider addressing part of this in conjunction with immigration, and now have found a quote from the academic source that puts Robertson at the center of a dispute related to immigration insofar as it uses the phrase "the anti-immigrant movement" (as opposed to anti illegal immigrant) in describing the TP group he founded as being "the national faction most connected to" that movement. Have a look at the passage I quoted at the RS/N thread Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarification:_Make_a_two-step_process_into_a_one-step_process.

I hadn't known anything about Robertson until doing a google search to confirm some of the claims being made, and then TFD introduced the UC Press source. The issue would seem to be more complex than the single sentence about Robertson's bigoted sign, at any rate, and the section title "Discussion on proposed removal of Robertson material" would seem to encompass more than the single sentence at issue. That could be used to argue at a later date that all questions related to Robertson have been answered, or something along those lines.

Maybe you could create a subpage for starting work on a hypothetical immigration section for the article. That might assuage the concerns by several editors that the article is being whitewashed.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, SilkTork. I just witnessed this edit. I consider this edit warring. The edit summary is nonsensical, and I see no response to the editing concerns I raised on your moderated Talk page. I am tempted to, and would would be fully justified if I did, revert that edit. Instead, I'm requesting your direct intervention and assistance in this specific matter. I feel it exemplifies countless other editing squabbles that have occurred on the article in the past, including those leading to the present ANI & ArbCom proceedings (and also your subsequent protection of the main article). Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about moderated discussions

Hi, I am uncertain and hope you could advise me. Is the Moderated Discussion about the Tea Party only for editors that were named in the ArbCom? I have been watching both but am uncertain if it is appropriate to comment on the moderated discussion. Thanks in advance for the guidance. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It is open to everyone, and the more people that get involved the better. While it arose out of the background of the ArbCom case, and it is being moderated by me - an ArbCom member who has drafted the ArbCom case, it is not being done under ArbCom. Having said that, the spectre of ArbCom does loom over the discussion, for good or for bad. Anyway, please, join in. SilkTork 22:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)