505:; where as, half of that article is dedicated to talking about "teabagging" methods and/or claims of "astroturfing." Heck, even the MEDIA got three paragraphs smashed into one large section, a whole section dedicated to media created stories around the actual event but have nothing to do with the protests. Even then, the event the media is creating its story around are the APRIL 15 TAX DAY tea parties. The February 27 events DO NOT belong in a main article where it is primarily composed of accusations that are simply not being accused of to the February 27 events. Not a single editor has shown or given me a single specific argument that suggests the deletion tag should remain. I Will Remove The Tag If No Valid Argument Is Brought Up. I'm going to repeat: Local news coverage,
999:
worked themselves very hard to obtain what can only be described as a near-miracle. In less than six days, a handful of people on the national level (fewer than ten) and forty - sixty people on the ground were able to organize and manage events that resulted in 15,000 - 25,000 people across the country coming together to let their voices be heard. In
Lansing, Michigan, co-organizer Joan Fabiano decided on Monday, Feb. 23 to organize an event at her State Capitol for that Friday. In less than four days, she and two other women from the area managed to gather together 300 - 400 of their fellow Michigan citizens. In St. Louis, Bill Hennessey, with the help of radio show host Dana Loesch, found themselves on that Friday standing under the Arch with 1,500 other Missourians.
184:- the previous article you reference, New American Tea Party, the article could not be completed as necessary because the original name "New American Tea Party" suggests it is a group or organization. I hadn't known this until after doing more research, so the article turned out to be what I mistakenly thought was the American Tea Party (ie. Nationwide Chicago Tea Party). But since that was not the case, I created the article for Nationwide Chicago Tea Party so it had the correct title and theme. Comparing an article about an organization to an article covering an event seems a bit far-fetched to qualify the event-article for deletion. There are no other articles in Knowledge covering the February 27 Nationwide Chicago Tea Party events, which is why I created it.
501:
events; show me one article, one piece of evidence, or a single reference that suggests the
February 27 Tea Parties were not grassroots and were in fact astroturfing. Don't give me a reference or source to "teabagging" jokes on the April 15 Tea party, or the claims of "Astroturfing" on the April 15 Tea Parties. PROVIDE TO ME a single reliable, relevant source to suggest the article is anything but what is currently written in Nationwide Chicago Tea Party. Show me local news, any reliable source for that matter, that suggests the February 27 grassroots protests article belongs in another, separate article covering the
1114:" clearly defines what the Knowledge article on the Chicago Tea Parties reads as a grassroots formed protest. The Chicago Tea party is a different event sponsored and promoted by different organizations to the April 15 tea parties. The reason I keep posting "updates" is because I have a sense many of you either don't believe me (thus, the sources I keep adding), or may not have enough background knowledge on the events to offer a helpful response. So I'm trying to be as helpful and clear as I possibly can.
1152:
most recent tactic, that of requesting a page split on that article after the fact, to justify this article, is fairly disruptive and seems to serve only to drag this process out a little further. I look forward to this discussion being closed so we can get back to editing the article. (note also: Please DO NOT move or refactor the comments of other editors. I would like my responses to remain after the paragraph I was responding to, thank you.) --
874:). The arguments made in that discussion should be taken into account here as well. This is particularly tiresome, given that the sole defender of this article was also the sole defender of that article and just happens to have created this article when it appeared that the other article would be deleted. It would be nice not to have to have the same discussion twice. There is no question that this article is simply a content fork of
1087:"People came out and the idea of protesting the stimulus caught on around the country. But it wasn’t until Rick Santelli gave his spontaneous “rant” on television, calling for a new tea party, that the idea of holding Tea Parties came into focus. Brendan spoke to some of his key people in various states and found that all of them were eager to make Santelli’s idea a reality. It was that spontaneous."
689:
Tax Day April 15 Tea Party; however, that's because they were grassroots. They were guided by three grassroots organizations (as mentioned in the
Nationwide Chicago Tea party article), and covered by a much smaller number of media -- primarily existing of local news or others that I've mentioned previously.
943:(an argument that the distinction is important and would be blurred by covering them both in one article). If I'm not mistaken, it's the first argument that I am running into issues with for reasons against keeping the articles separated. The second argument, which is the issue that I'm trying point out,
320:. It's wholly non-notable, blog-level political advocacy with a position paper woven in. This essentially makes WP a primary source for an attempt to get better exposure for its organizers and/or participants, rather than writing about already existing notable topics. Instead, the topic is really about
1393:
remained despite TharsHammars belief that "This article is basically junk and needs to be merged into the main Teabag Party article, where the information can be contained nicely." For very good reasons, the article was not deleted or merged. Point being, if an article that is clearly just an outline
952:
to become very cluttered, with some information covering some organizations who protested in the
Nationwide Chicago Tea Party; all the while, at the same time, other sections will be cross-discussing other organizations that guided and promoted the April 15 Tax Day Tea Party. This is the problem that
620:
the astroturfing charges in the same article as the
February 27 Chicago Tea Party, it's that there aren't any charges leveled against those protests from a reliable source. Surely, if the charges are there and the February 27 protests are the same thing as the Tax Day protests, then anyone can easily
601:
with the
Chicago Tea Party, and Santelli, Freedom Works, chicagoteaparty.com, etc., long before April rolled around. If this article is allowed to remain, the astroturfing charges will surely appear here, too. Also, if this is to be an article about events seperate from the April 15 events, why use
1151:
article, and that article isn't nearly large or complex enough to require a daughter article (particularly for sections that are just a few paragraphs). At most, you're making the case that the section should be expanded in that article, but that's an argument you should have there, not here. Your
700:. Not a single referenced source in the Tea Party protests article is covering the February 27 Tea Parties. Not a single source leveling charges of "astroturfing" discuss the February 27 events. Nor does it cover the previously organized events prior to February 27 that were also grassroots. So what
679:
Before anyone makes any comment following this, please read the above referenced article. In the first sentence it clearly states, "Yesterday, Think
Progress reported on Republican lawmakers planning to speak at anti-Obama “tea party” protests taking place nationwide on April 15." Then it goes on to
853:
Tycoon, kindly do not submit multiple bold-formatted statements of your preference for "keep", "delete", "redirect", etc.. It makes unnecessary work for the closing administrator. The convention is to preface new comments with the word "comment" in bold type, or less conventionally, to use a bullet
807:
There is a vital "bridge" of information to the Tea Party protests that must be made clear on how they were formed and what led to the Tax Day Tea
Parties. The Nationwide Chicago Tea party puts a needed gap in this bridge to make the connection as to what events led to the more widely known Tax Day
721:
The other problem I have is the continued lack of reason TharsHammar has brought up -- yet he's the one who calls for the article to be deleted. Just take a look at his previous comment after I asked him kindly to show me a particular source to argue his point. He doesn't care to make his point, he
688:
Freedom Works apparently moved in to "take over" the local events in
Florida? Before the organizations picked up the local protests to help guide them, what were those protests called? Obviously they weren't guided by any organization. They were grassroots. They were not as large of protests as the
500:
If you refuse to answer any rebuked comment or question I have brought up, and instead if all you have to offer are witty remarks that claim you are right without proof, I'm simply going to remove the tag. Tell me, TharsHammar, since you added the tag, and since you seem to know so much about these
1511:
can cover the subject. If that article gets too long, then consideration could be given to spinning off some of the detail into daughter articles, leaving behind a summary. I doubt that will become necessary, but even if it does, the structure should be one main article with one or more daughter
556:
In fact, TharsHammar, if you're unable to offer me a sound argument without all of this trivial nonsense, but with factual, related referenced article proof that the
Chicago Tea Party is the same thing as the Tax Day Tea party (and that they belong in the same accused "astroturfing" article)... if
998:
Present on the March 2 call were the majority of the coordinators of the Feb. 27th events, most of whom had been calling in daily the prior week. Some on the line had independently organized their own Feb. 27th event and subsequently learned of the online group. All of the people on that call had
926:
article discussion on the February 27 events should be expanded. If anything, it should be cleaned up and stick to only the most relevant information from the February 27 Tea Party that relates to the April 15 Tea Party. Otherwise, let the main article for the Chicago Tea Party further detail the
799:
The Nationwide Chicago Tea Party is essentially created to provide a background to the various protests and events that occurred and ultimately caused increase support from various organizations to jump-on-board to promote future events. Without this sub-article, those researching the February 27
1260:
Over 30,000 people made it to this event, nationwide. Considering the event was organized in less than a week by three grassroots organizations ( Smart Girl Politics, DontGo, and Top Conservatives on Twitter), and considering how these "minor, local" tea parties led to the Tax Day event, this is
470:
are just a few of the reliable sources referencing the information. It's irrevocably impossible to deny the fact that the February 27 events called the "Chicago Tea Party" happened. Most of 90% of the article is covering unique details to the February 27 protests that cannot and are not covered
1414:
Yes, we understand that you really, really want to keep this article. That's pretty clear. But try not to get personal with it. To quote you, directly above, "The internal link is fine, but your out-of-context opinion-comment about it here are not OK. Please keep this discussion on topic."
947:
Unless any of such allegations against the February 27 Chicago Tea Party protests have been written or are found, if from a reliable source, then allegations against the April 15 event organizers should not be merged or blended in with non-existent allegations against the February 27 protest
485:
I'm surprised too, it should have been deleted awhile ago. Actually I'm surprised that this article was created while a similar article was up for deletion. That similar article had even been called this while undergoing AFD, and the material was in that article. I would like to call
726:
going. This is a violation against Knowledge, and I will tell him right now, if he continues this I will report him. Today. I'll give him a few hours to respond with factual-conviction before I report him; but otherwise, he is simply using his opinion to hide others factual research.
541:
are just a few of the reliable sources referencing the information in the Chicago Tea Party article. TharsHammar has refused to offer a single source to counter what is mentioned in the references already in the article. His opinion seems more drawn as reasoning against the article.
1331:
presents February 27 as "Round 1" of the Tea Party protests, with the April 15 protests labeled as "Round 2". Both involve the same ad-hoc coalition, same type of events, hyped similarly via standard web networking methods, also including the use of an array of self-referential web
602:
sources and content about the April 15 events and disguise them to make them appear to be about the February events (the Rush Limbaugh April 15 quotes, for example, with the word "today" omitted)? I haven't !voted here yet, but I'm not seeing any reason not to vote delete/merge.
892:
Response to Note: Loonymonkey, please do not take information out of context to use as a claim. The information about the New American Tea party and why the article was confused for an event over some organization called "The New American Tea Party" was already discussed in the
347:
May I chime in too? I think the nationwide chicago tea party page looks good. After reading others comments im not sure what the fuss is all about to delete it. Does everyone here know this is different than the april 15 tea party's right? That's two events not oneevent.
1394:
of the Tea Party protests is allowable on its own, then why can't an article that covers in more detail the first Chicago Tea Party (that was organized by different groups than the April 15 tea party) be allowed an independent article from the Tax Day protests?
780:
The "future rallies," the April 15 Tax Day tea parties were guided by Freedom Works, The Heartland Institute, The Coalition for a Conservative Majority, The Institute For Liberty, the alleged Fox News promoters, and others. Different organizers equal different
621:
do the research to find such charges. If they exist, then they will be added to the article. However, as far as I know, they don't exist. The most recent non-libel claim of astroturfing (source taken directly from the Tax Day protests article), states this:
1319:
recently announced without a whole lot of advertising that he was going to do a tour, and the first performance sold out over 16,000 seats in just a few days-- two performances, there's thirty-thousand people. About thirty-thousand people also die of
1469:. To separate out the individual protests duplicates much of the background and history, and is an example of recentism: in the long run, nobody will remember the subtleties of what the organisers called their protests or who exactly organised them.
761:
A group called the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition was formed February 20, 2009 by three grassroots organizations: Smart Girl Politics (SGP), DontGo Movement, and Top Conservatives on Twitter (TCOT). These organization led the Nationwide Chicago Tea
1146:
Again, you're merely continuing your content dispute from the main article, which isn't the purpose of this discussion at all. You're avoiding the central issue of this discussion, which is that this article is a content fork of the larger
471:
anywhere else in Knowledge. The article is clean, it covers the events in a neutral tone, and it sticks to the necessary details about the February 27 event. How much longer is this nonsensical discussion going to last? It's really absurd.
1348:, not a position paper presenting itself as a somehow a separate "thing". The history, stated issues, and goals of the "Chicago Nationwide" protests are the same as those of the "Tea Party protests" in general. Also, please see
1181:
as this is mainly a content fork. Reading the article and sources, there was nothing more notable then the other tea parties. Plus, this event is covered in the main article and time line along with other major city events.
1109:
Notice, however, that even a few days prior to Rick Santelli's rant, at least two or three local anti-spending protests had already taken place (with no alleged astroturfing organizations). Even the Knowledge article on
1614:
to something. This could easily be construed as to refer to the events leading up to the Revolutionary War (the one in the 18th century, not some proposed war against Obama). 76.66.202.139 (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2009
240:
back into the main article. The Tea Partiers need to work out their differences and come up with an informative article. If a section then becomes worthy of an article so be it, but these POV forks are unhelpful.
784:
There are future rallies already scheduled. July 4, 2009 is the next date for tea party protests. The addition of these events, with addition of more and more sponsors and organizers, the currently titled article
1324:
in an average month worldwide. These kinds of numbers of people don't, of themselves, merit WP articles. Nor is there anything particularly unique about the way it was organized, which was via web networking.
680:
explain how the April 15 Tax Day movement is supposedly "astroturfing," but you have to read carefully to pick up the information correctly. Think Progress states, "Freedom Works staffers apparently moved to '
945:
if the two articles are merged it must be made clear that the February 27 events were different in that they were organized by three grassroots organizations, and not the alleged "astroturfing" organizations.
826:
None of that addresses why this article should exist when the subject is already covered in a much more extensive article. If anything, you're making the case that the section on the February 27 protests in
1623:
Sure, it was from an anonymous editor, but the argument cannot be refuted. If "Tea Party protests" are not a current event, is it encyclopedic for the title of an article to violate or cause conflict to the
789:
will assuredly become too large to easily depict information on all of these events. This calls for sub-articles, which is an acceptable and desired method for resolving such events and articles about them.
808:
Tea Party. The Tax Day tea party article (or Tea Party protests) does not place this gap in the necessary bridge to provide full information on the historical events which led to more current events.
287:
would be created when that article is currently under deletion discussion (as the creator of this article well knows, since he is the only one fighting for it's retention). I would actually argue for
1344:
also cites many other "Tea Party" demonstrations on dates other than February 27 and April 15. In other words, the February 27 protests properly merit a brief mention such as is presently given in
372:
Yes, you may chime in :), please consider registering an account. Yes we do know they are different events from the April 15 events. However they are both encompassed under the broader subject of
147:
which is currently in an AFD discussion. I think it was inappropriate to create another fork while discussion on deleting the original fork is ongoing, and leaning heavily towards delete.
56:
there. There is some disagreement about whether deletion or merging is appropriate, so I'll restore and userfy the content on request if somebody does want to merge anything from this fork.
704:
doesn't matter in this discussion, it's what the articles, references, sources, or whatever, it's what has already been said about these events (and what hasn't been said in Knowledge).
1442:. This is one component of the broader national movement. It does not warrant a stand-alone article, which creates confusion. But parts of it should be incorporated as part of the
894:
871:
1389:, too. The proposed deletion was not approved, and as one editor said, "merging its content into Tea Party protests will leave that article 'overburdened' and cluttered." Thus,
1568:, deleting a reference and factual context of it in the Knowledge article, replacing it with exactly the commented "reason" he gave for his arguably blatant violation of
99:
94:
1021:
And this doesn't even have information on the February 16 protest. But it still clarifies the point of differences in events (hopefully) a little better than I have.
132:
103:
948:
organizers. If there were allegations, then it can be edited into a merged "main" article. So, from here, I argue that it'll cause the currently titled article
86:
1603:
and name change of "Tea Party protests" to "Tax Day Tea Party", I'd also like to point out something mentioned on its talk page that I had not yet realized:
593:
Tycoon, I think I'm misunderstanding your argument here. You don't want the February protest(s) tainted by the astroturfing charges detailed in the main
897:
article. The internal link is fine, but your out-of-context opinion-comment about it here are not OK. Please keep this discussion on topic. Thanks.
657:
protests. Instead, Think Progress contended, the protests were nationally coordinated and organized by Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.
394:
1308:
355:
219:
Why did you create a new article about the same subject when the other one you're fighting for is still under deletion discussion? --
1336:, with various public demonstrations in various places on various dates along a timeline beginning in February, as indicated in the
870:
Note: This article is nearly the same as the article New American Tea Party which was just deleted after extensive discussion (see
279:
There is no reason for this article to exist and there doesn't appear to be anything worth merging that isn't already covered in
1520:
1386:
17:
1656:
1637:
1524:
1499:
1478:
1455:
1424:
1403:
1373:
1340:
article and the timeline article. They all have the same theme and all trace their heritage back to the Boston Tea Party. The
1284:
1270:
1253:
1232:
1191:
1161:
1123:
1030:
962:
906:
887:
863:
844:
817:
736:
611:
584:
574:
551:
495:
480:
423:
402:
381:
363:
341:
300:
271:
250:
228:
214:
193:
176:
154:
68:
1543:..." And I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that suggests any other alternative is a more appropriate option. From the
854:
point or just make the statement so it doesn't duplicate your already bolded preference for the outcome of the process. ...
1474:
1212:
168:
82:
74:
90:
1531:
note: I have clearly stated my reasons for keeping the articles separated. I've refined those reasons and posted them
148:
1390:
1341:
1299:, it might be worth noting that about sixty-five-thousand-plus people, on average, go in person to a regular-season
793:
317:
771:
In response to the growing protests, various organizations began collaborating and helped to guide future rallies.
1671:
36:
1670:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1300:
514:
443:
398:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
684:
the planning of local events in Florida." So... this begs the question, what type of events were taking place
796:
was created. The main article got too cluttered and required additional sub-categories to explain the events.
1495:
1470:
359:
284:
164:
144:
1420:
1157:
883:
840:
723:
607:
562:
558:
296:
224:
1369:
859:
337:
1692:
Spontaneous Uprising? Corporate Lobbyists Helping To Orchestrate Radical Anti-Obama Tea Party Protests
1592:
do Knowledge a favor and research a topic before making such awfully inaccurate statements and edits.
1691:
1517:
1512:
articles, not parallel articles (one concerning February 27 events and one concerning April events).
1361:
561:. If you cannot, with utmost civility, provide valid arguments (and not just "buzzwords" to keep the
351:
246:
210:
434:, that tells me user Edison in all likely did not bother to check the sources. Local news coverage,
430:
I'm surprised the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party is still up for deletion. The article is not failing
1652:
1544:
1451:
526:
455:
291:
this one. Why should we waste the time going through the exact same deletion discussion again? --
1365:
855:
333:
1633:
1599:
I cannot fathom how "cluttered" the article will get if the merge took place. In reference to my
1553:
1508:
1487:
1466:
1443:
1439:
1399:
1345:
1337:
1266:
1228:
1216:
1208:
1187:
1148:
1119:
1026:
958:
949:
923:
902:
875:
828:
813:
801:
786:
732:
693:
594:
570:
547:
487:
476:
373:
313:
288:
280:
259:
202:
189:
171:, its name was changed back and forth with that by the same editor who started this new article.
140:
49:
1584:
a tag with the comment, "when? it says right there Feb 10." For TharsHammar's sake, I'll assume
1540:
1357:
1353:
1220:
1204:
932:
931:
for further Talk on the current proposed name-change from "Tea Party protests" being moved to
697:
502:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1312:
1569:
1536:
1416:
1200:
1153:
879:
836:
603:
580:
491:
419:
377:
292:
220:
172:
150:
974:
that much better explains what I have been trying to argue this whole time. Here's a quote:
1625:
1513:
1241:
242:
206:
1648:
1447:
1280:
1249:
645:
267:
59:
1629:
1395:
1349:
1316:
1262:
1224:
1183:
1115:
1022:
954:
898:
809:
728:
566:
543:
522:
518:
472:
451:
447:
329:
185:
1490:. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with disagreements over content.
1585:
1573:
1333:
1296:
120:
1491:
431:
415:
411:
1111:
654:
1600:
1532:
1321:
1276:
1275:
Astroturf campaigns promoted by fringe sources are not notable, I'm afraid.
1245:
928:
510:
439:
321:
263:
1328:
1304:
1057:-- most notable are "when" the first allegations occurred and against whom.
650:
530:
459:
1385:
I would also like to point out TharsHammars previous attempt to delete
534:
463:
971:
953:
I believe will be instantly created if these two articles are merged.
696:
is deceiving most people people. It used to be (and still should be)
1062:
1054:
167:
article (the one under deletion discussion) was at one time called
1244:. Minor, local tea parties are not worthy of their own articles.
325:
283:. Also, it's a bit troubling that a nearly identical article to
1664:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
804:
and leave with the wrong impression of the February 27 protests.
538:
506:
467:
435:
565:
going), I will remove the unnecessary and wrongful delete tag.
1576:
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). So I responded to it
1307:). So, half a pro football game gets thirty thousand people.
831:
should be expanded. But that is an argument you should make
48:. We have consensus that this is an unneeded content fork of
1547:
policy, it's important to remember what a consensus is not.
1055:
Talk on when/who/why first "astroturf" allegations occurred
835:
not by starting a parallel article more to your liking. --
258:
I agree with Drawn Some's points. This appears to violate
1535:, beginning with "In accordance to the 'Levels of desired
1313:
http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=785
616:
Xenophrenic, you brought up a good point. It's not that I
649:
claimed that most of the 2009 protests were conservative
557:
you cannot do this, I will argue that you are violating
1593:
1581:
1577:
1565:
127:
116:
112:
108:
922:
No... no, I'm definitely not making the case that the
895:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/New_American_Tea_Party
872:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/New_American_Tea_Party
332:. I apologize for being quite so blunt about it. ...
262:, and it really should be back in the main article.
1564:the April 15 events--Tarc decided to make a random
1199:(As per but not limited to the "Levels of desired
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1674:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1261:absolutely worthy of its own Knowledge article.
1219:article has been requested for a name change to
1207:-- It has been suggested that some content from
927:events on its sub-article. In fact, please see
792:The first instance of this is when the article
579:And I will report you for doing so. Good day.
8:
1560:a mess--even though the article is covering
939:(an argument for merging the two articles),
312:. It's already mentioned in the articles on
941:but they were organized by different people
1211:be split into a separate article entitled
1063:On the allegations against "astroturfing"
653:"astroturf" projects and not spontaneous
414:,or merge to the main tea party article.
1329:http://www.nationwidechicagoteaparty.com
1311:gets an average of 30,000 visits a day (
1305:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance
1680:
800:"Chicago Tea Party" may finish reading
393:Fits the definition of a content fork.
205:would seem to preclude an article then.
937:The two events had similar motivations
139:Article is a clear fork from the main
7:
1552:In just one example showing why the
1580:, only to run into TharsHammar who
1309:Great Smoky Mountains National Park
24:
143:article and from the sub-article
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1391:Timeline of Tea Party protests
1387:Timeline of Tea Party protests
1342:timeline of Tea Party protests
935:. Here's the issues at hand:
794:Timeline of Tea Party protests
318:Timeline of Tea Party protests
1:
1213:Nationwide Chicago Tea Party
169:Nationwide Chicago Tea Party
83:Nationwide Chicago Tea Party
75:Nationwide Chicago Tea Party
1327:.....Note that the website
692:It's possible the title of
643:On April 9, 2009, the blog
1710:
1315:) . Songwriter/performer
1667:Please do not modify it.
1657:04:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
1638:03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
1525:18:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
1500:12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
1479:23:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
1456:16:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
1425:02:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1404:02:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1374:00:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
1285:03:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1271:02:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1254:00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
1233:23:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
1192:18:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
1162:17:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
1124:05:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
1031:04:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
963:03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
907:03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
888:02:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
864:02:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
845:02:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
818:01:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
737:21:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
612:20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
597:article? Those charges
585:12:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
575:10:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
552:09:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
515:Investors Business Daily
496:01:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
481:01:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
444:Investors Business Daily
424:22:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
403:20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
382:01:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
364:01:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
342:00:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
301:00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
272:23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
251:17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
229:00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
215:17:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
194:17:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
177:17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
155:16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
69:06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1507:. The main article on
1052:Second Updated Response
722:just wants to keep his
1620:
1100:
1012:
670:
285:New American Tea Party
165:New American Tea Party
145:New American Tea Party
1606:
1596:was my response edit.
1074:
985:
630:
1582:immediately removed
527:Wall Street Journal
456:Wall Street Journal
1554:Tea Party protests
1509:Tea Party protests
1488:Tea Party protests
1471:Fences and windows
1467:Tea Party protests
1444:Tea Party protests
1440:Tea Party protests
1346:Tea Party protests
1338:Tea Party protests
1217:Tea Party protests
1209:Tea Party protests
1149:Tea Party protests
950:Tea Party protests
924:Tea Party protests
876:Tea Party protests
829:Tea Party protests
802:Tea Party protests
787:Tea Party protests
694:Tea Party protests
595:Tea Party protests
374:Tea Party protests
314:Tea Party protests
281:Tea Party protests
141:Tea Party protests
50:Tea Party protests
44:The result was
1690:, 09 April 2009,
1523:
1295:.....Speaking of
1221:Tax Day Tea Party
933:Tax Day Tea Party
698:Tax Day Tea Party
503:Tax Day Tea Party
354:comment added by
67:
1701:
1694:
1685:
1669:
1516:
968:Updated Response
651:lobbyist-created
366:
130:
124:
106:
66:
64:
57:
34:
1709:
1708:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1672:deletion review
1665:
1179:Delete or Merge
972:great reference
929:this discussion
349:
126:
97:
81:
78:
60:
58:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1707:
1705:
1696:
1695:
1688:Think Progress
1679:
1677:
1676:
1660:
1659:
1641:
1640:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1605:
1604:
1601:Requested move
1597:
1549:
1548:
1528:
1527:
1502:
1481:
1459:
1458:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1407:
1406:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1326:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1257:
1256:
1235:
1194:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
912:
910:
909:
890:
867:
866:
850:
849:
848:
847:
821:
820:
805:
797:
790:
782:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
764:
763:
758:
757:
748:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
724:WP:FILIBUSTERS
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
690:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
646:Think Progress
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
563:WP:FILIBUSTERS
559:WP:FILIBUSTERS
427:
426:
405:
395:69.251.135.219
387:
386:
385:
384:
345:
344:
303:
274:
253:
234:
233:
232:
231:
217:
197:
196:
179:
137:
136:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1706:
1693:
1689:
1684:
1681:
1675:
1673:
1668:
1662:
1661:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1643:
1642:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1622:
1621:
1613:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1602:
1598:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1566:drive-by edit
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1515:
1510:
1506:
1503:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1482:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1461:
1460:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1434:
1433:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1380:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1362:WP:NOTWEBHOST
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1330:
1323:
1318:
1317:Leonard Cohen
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1259:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1195:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1150:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1064:
1061:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
973:
969:
966:
965:
964:
960:
956:
951:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
925:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
908:
904:
900:
896:
891:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
868:
865:
861:
857:
852:
851:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
825:
824:
823:
822:
819:
815:
811:
806:
803:
798:
795:
791:
788:
783:
779:
778:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
760:
759:
755:
751:
750:
749:
738:
734:
730:
725:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
656:
652:
648:
647:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
619:
615:
614:
613:
609:
605:
600:
596:
592:
586:
582:
578:
577:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
555:
554:
553:
549:
545:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
523:Seattle Times
520:
519:TheStreet.com
516:
512:
508:
504:
499:
498:
497:
493:
489:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
452:Seattle Times
449:
448:TheStreet.com
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
428:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:
404:
400:
396:
392:
389:
388:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
365:
361:
357:
356:206.53.153.81
353:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
304:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
275:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
254:
252:
248:
244:
239:
236:
235:
230:
226:
222:
218:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
200:
199:
198:
195:
191:
187:
183:
180:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
158:
157:
156:
152:
149:
146:
142:
134:
129:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
65:
63:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1687:
1683:
1666:
1663:
1644:
1611:
1589:
1561:
1557:
1545:WP:PRACTICAL
1504:
1483:
1462:
1435:
1382:
1352:, including
1334:domain names
1301:NFL football
1237:
1196:
1178:
1051:
967:
944:
940:
936:
911:
832:
753:
747:
701:
685:
681:
644:
617:
598:
407:
390:
346:
322:this website
309:
305:
276:
255:
237:
181:
160:
138:
61:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1438:Merge into
1417:Loonymonkey
1364:, etc. ...
1154:Loonymonkey
1065:-- a quote:
880:Loonymonkey
837:Loonymonkey
752:Reason for
604:Xenophrenic
581:TharsHammar
492:TharsHammar
488:WP:snowball
410:as failing
378:TharsHammar
350:—Preceding
328:. See also
293:Loonymonkey
289:snowballing
260:WP:ONEEVENT
221:Loonymonkey
203:WP:ONEEVENT
173:TharsHammar
151:TharsHammar
1647:POV fork.
1586:good faith
1574:good faith
1541:WP:SUMMARY
1514:JamesMLane
1465:back into
1446:article.
1358:WP:SOAPBOX
1354:WP:NOTBLOG
1205:WP:SUMMARY
1112:grassroots
970:I found a
682:take over'
655:grassroots
618:don't want
243:Drawn Some
207:Drawn Some
62:Sandstein
52:, so also
1649:Hipocrite
1570:WP:VANDAL
1539:,' under
1537:WP:DETAIL
1448:TeaParty1
1322:influenza
1297:astroturf
1203:," under
1201:WP:DETAIL
511:About.com
440:About.com
1630:Tycoon24
1628:policy?
1626:WP:DATED
1572:(but in
1556:page is
1396:Tycoon24
1263:Tycoon24
1242:WP:CFORK
1225:Tycoon24
1184:Brothejr
1116:Tycoon24
1023:Tycoon24
955:Tycoon24
899:Tycoon24
810:Tycoon24
762:Parties.
729:Tycoon24
567:Tycoon24
544:Tycoon24
531:Fox News
473:Tycoon24
460:Fox News
352:unsigned
326:this one
310:redirect
186:Tycoon24
133:View log
54:redirect
1558:already
1366:Kenosis
1215:.) The
856:Kenosis
781:events.
599:started
535:reuters
464:reuters
334:Kenosis
100:protect
95:history
1645:smerge
1612:Rename
1590:please
1505:Delete
1492:Stifle
1350:WP:NOT
1303:game (
1238:Delete
833:there,
702:I want
686:before
537:, and
490:here.
466:, and
416:Edison
408:delete
391:Delete
330:WP:NOT
306:Delete
277:Delete
128:delete
104:delete
46:delete
1615:(UTC)
1484:Merge
1463:Merge
1436:Merge
878:. --
256:Merge
238:Merge
131:) – (
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
1653:talk
1634:talk
1594:Here
1588:but
1578:Here
1562:only
1533:Here
1496:talk
1475:talk
1452:talk
1421:talk
1400:talk
1383:Note
1370:talk
1281:talk
1277:Tarc
1267:talk
1250:talk
1246:Tarc
1240:per
1229:talk
1197:Note
1188:talk
1158:talk
1120:talk
1027:talk
959:talk
903:talk
884:talk
860:talk
841:talk
814:talk
754:Keep
733:talk
608:talk
583:and
571:talk
548:talk
539:CNBC
507:CNET
494:and
477:talk
468:CNBC
436:CNET
432:WP:N
420:talk
412:WP:N
399:talk
380:and
360:talk
338:talk
324:and
316:and
297:talk
268:talk
264:AyaK
247:talk
225:talk
211:talk
190:talk
182:Keep
175:and
163:The
161:Note
153:and
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
1486:to
308:or
1655:)
1636:)
1498:)
1477:)
1454:)
1423:)
1415:--
1402:)
1372:)
1360:,
1356:,
1283:)
1269:)
1252:)
1231:)
1223:.
1190:)
1160:)
1122:)
1029:)
961:)
905:)
886:)
862:)
843:)
816:)
735:)
610:)
573:)
550:)
533:,
529:,
525:,
521:,
517:,
513:,
509:,
479:)
462:,
458:,
454:,
450:,
446:,
442:,
438:,
422:)
401:)
376:.
362:)
340:)
299:)
270:)
249:)
227:)
213:)
192:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
1651:(
1632:(
1521:c
1518:t
1494:(
1473:(
1450:(
1419:(
1398:(
1368:(
1279:(
1265:(
1248:(
1227:(
1186:(
1156:(
1118:(
1110:"
1025:(
957:(
901:(
882:(
858:(
839:(
812:(
756::
731:(
606:(
569:(
546:(
475:(
418:(
397:(
358:(
336:(
295:(
266:(
245:(
223:(
209:(
188:(
135:)
125:(
123:)
85:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.