" 

 ::I'm actually not opposed to to the article saying that the TPM is ""often cited"" as being grassroots. That's completely true, and easily sourced. I'm opposed to this being said without the full context of it also being cited as not grassroots at all, and even as being astroturf. But none of this fits comfortably in the lead. I've filled scratch pads with different formulations, and each one seemed to have some way it could be misread (however unintentionally) to either come across as biased or false. The article should definitely cover all of the above, fairly and neutrally. But the lead should either have a balanced mention or none at all, and I just don't see any way to pull off the former. 
 ::I'm not hostile towards some of the other attempts at compromise, but they fall into the same trap. For example, we simply can't say it's ""largely"" grassroots because that's not what our sources say. Some say it is grassroots, some say it isn't. Averaging the two to ""largely"" is the worst sort of synthesis. I believe I compared it to saying that Ricky Martin was ""largely straight"", when in fact no source made any such claim, and all sources would disagree with it in one direction or another. Even if we found some sources that said ""largely grassroots"", this would not allow us favor it and ignore the ""is"" and ""isn't"" sides. This is advanced synthesis, beyond what we are permitted. 
 ::So, in short, no, I can't accept such a formulation. And I do believe it is worth fighting to keep such a controversial claim from being stated as factual in the lead. Maybe I'm Don Quixote, maybe I'm a Tank, or maybe I'm just a dick, but that's my conclusion.   "