The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. We have consensus that this is an unneeded content fork of Tea Party protests, so also redirect 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.  Sandstein  06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationwide Chicago Tea Party[edit]

Nationwide Chicago Tea Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article is a clear fork from the main Tea Party protests article and from the sub-article New American Tea Party 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. [1] TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The New American Tea Party article (the one under deletion discussion) was at one time called Nationwide Chicago Tea Party, its name was changed back and forth with that by the same editor who started this new article. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 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 Wikipedia covering the February 27 Nationwide Chicago Tea Party events, which is why I created it. Tycoon24 (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT would seem to preclude an article then.Drawn Some (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you create a new article about the same subject when the other one you're fighting for is still under deletion discussion? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge 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. Drawn Some (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I agree with Drawn Some's points. This appears to violate WP:ONEEVENT, and it really should be back in the main article. AyaK (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 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 Tea Party protests. Also, it's a bit troubling that a nearly identical article to New American Tea Party 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 snowballing this one. Why should we waste the time going through the exact same deletion discussion again? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. It's already mentioned in the articles on Tea Party protests and Timeline of Tea Party protests. 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 this website and this one. See also WP:NOT. I apologize for being quite so blunt about it. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.153.81 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Tea Party protests. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fits the definition of a content fork. 69.251.135.219 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as failing WP:N,or merge to the main tea party article. Edison (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party is still up for deletion. The article is not failing WP:N, that tells me user Edison in all likely did not bother to check the sources. Local news coverage, CNET, About.com, Investors Business Daily, TheStreet.com, Seattle Times, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, reuters, and CNBC 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 anywhere else in Wikipedia. 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. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:snowball here. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Tax Day Tea Party; 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, CNET, About.com, Investors Business Daily, TheStreet.com, Seattle Times, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, reuters, and CNBC 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. Tycoon24 (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 you cannot do this, I will argue that you are violating WP:FILIBUSTERS. If you cannot, with utmost civility, provide valid arguments (and not just "buzzwords" to keep the WP:FILIBUSTERS going), I will remove the unnecessary and wrongful delete tag. Tycoon24 (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I will report you for doing so. Good day. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 12:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Tea Party protests article? Those charges started 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 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. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, you brought up a good point. It's not that I don't want 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 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:

On April 9, 2009, the blog Think Progress claimed that most of the 2009 protests were conservative lobbyist-created "astroturf" projects and not spontaneous grassroots protests. Instead, Think Progress contended, the protests were nationally coordinated and organized by Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks^[1].

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 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 'take over' the planning of local events in Florida." So... this begs the question, what type of events were taking place before 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 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.

It's possible the title of Tea Party protests is deceiving most people people. It used to be (and still should be) Tax Day Tea Party. 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 I want 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 Wikipedia).

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 just wants to keep his WP:FILIBUSTERS going. This is a violation against Wikipedia, 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. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reason for Keep:

1. 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 Parties.

In response to the growing protests, various organizations began collaborating and helped to guide future rallies.

1. 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 events.
2. 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 Tea Party protests 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.
3. The first instance of this is when the article Timeline of Tea Party protests was created. The main article got too cluttered and required additional sub-categories to explain the events.
4. 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 "Chicago Tea Party" may finish reading Tea Party protests and leave with the wrong impression of the February 27 protests.
5. 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 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. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Tea Party protests should be expanded. But that is an argument you should make there, not by starting a parallel article more to your liking. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 point or just make the statement so it doesn't duplicate your already bolded preference for the outcome of the process. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article is nearly the same as the article New American Tea Party which was just deleted after extensive discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_American_Tea_Party). 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 Tea Party protests. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_American_Tea_Party 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. Tycoon24 (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No... no, I'm definitely not making the case that the Tea Party protests 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 events on its sub-article. In fact, please see this discussion for further Talk on the current proposed name-change from "Tea Party protests" being moved to Tax Day Tea Party. Here's the issues at hand: The two events had similar motivations (an argument for merging the two articles), but they were organized by different people (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, 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. 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 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 Tea Party protests 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 I believe will be instantly created if these two articles are merged. Tycoon24 (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated Response I found a great reference that much better explains what I have been trying to argue this whole time. Here's a quote:

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 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.

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. Tycoon24 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Second Updated Response Talk on when/who/why first "astroturf" allegations occurred -- most notable are "when" the first allegations occurred and against whom.

On the allegations against "astroturfing" -- a quote:

"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."

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 Wikipedia article on "grassroots" clearly defines what the Wikipedia 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. Tycoon24 (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Tea Party protests 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 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.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge 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. Brothejr (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note (As per but not limited to the "Levels of desired WP:DETAIL," under WP:SUMMARY -- It has been suggested that some content from Tea Party protests be split into a separate article entitled Nationwide Chicago Tea Party.) The Tea Party protests article has been requested for a name change to Tax Day Tea Party. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CFORK. Minor, local tea parties are not worthy of their own articles. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 absolutely worthy of its own Wikipedia article. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astroturf campaigns promoted by fringe sources are not notable, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.....Speaking of astroturf, it might be worth noting that about sixty-five-thousand-plus people, on average, go in person to a regular-season NFL football game (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance). So, half a pro football game gets thirty thousand people. Great Smoky Mountains National Park gets an average of 30,000 visits a day (http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=785) . Songwriter/performer Leonard Cohen 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.^{[citation needed]} About thirty-thousand people also die of influenza in an average month worldwide.^{[citation needed]} 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.
.....Note that the website http://www.nationwidechicagoteaparty.com 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 domain names, with various public demonstrations in various places on various dates along a timeline beginning in February, as indicated in the Tea Party protests article and the timeline article. They all have the same theme and all trace their heritage back to the Boston Tea Party. The timeline of Tea Party protests 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 Tea Party protests, 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 WP:NOT, including WP:NOTBLOG, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTWEBHOST, etc. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I would also like to point out TharsHammars previous attempt to delete Timeline of Tea Party protests, 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, Timeline of Tea Party protests 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 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? Tycoon24 (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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." --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge into Tea Party protests. 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 Tea Party protests article. TeaParty1 (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back into Tea Party protests. 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. Fences and windows (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Tea Party protests. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with disagreements over content. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The main article on Tea Party protests 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 articles, not parallel articles (one concerning February 27 events and one concerning April events). JamesMLane t c 18:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• note: I have clearly stated my reasons for keeping the articles separated. I've refined those reasons and posted them Here, beginning with "In accordance to the 'Levels of desired WP:DETAIL,' under WP:SUMMARY..." And I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that suggests any other alternative is a more appropriate option. From the WP:PRACTICAL policy, it's important to remember what a consensus is not.

In just one example showing why the Tea Party protests page is already a mess--even though the article is covering only the April 15 events--Tarc decided to make a random drive-by edit, deleting a reference and factual context of it in the Wikipedia article, replacing it with exactly the commented "reason" he gave for his arguably blatant violation of WP:VANDAL (but in good faith I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). So I responded to it Here, only to run into TharsHammar who immediately removed a tag with the comment, "when? it says right there Feb 10." For TharsHammar's sake, I'll assume good faith but please do Wikipedia a favor and research a topic before making such awfully inaccurate statements and edits. Here was my response edit.

I cannot fathom how "cluttered" the article will get if the merge took place. In reference to my Requested move 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:

Rename 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 (UTC)

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 WP:DATED policy? Tycoon24 (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• smerge POV fork. Hipocrite (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.