This is an archive of past discussions about Protest Warrior. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
User: NBGPWS, you added some some sentences to this section that begin with what I believe are called, "weasel words", to wit, "many people believe..." and "others believe". These are discouraged. Additionally those claims have no supporting citations. You did, however, delete the text, "Many believe Protest Warrior simply serves well to illuminate the true aspects of their leftist opposition. The most common complaint of Protest Warrior detractors is of their use of infiltration; that they "crash" the events of other activists, rather than organize their own events." Doesn't it have as much supporting citations as what you have written and therefore is as equally valid? Lawyer2b17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
User Artmonkey, who has no history here, vandalized the article by making wholesale changes to the reactions section, and included his own weasel words. The paragraph he vandalized was agreed to by consensus from both sides, after much discussion here, which you weren't around for either. I am changing it back NBGPWS20:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to remind you to WP:AGF, especially since Artmonkey's changes do not appear to be like any kind of vandalism I've ever seen. Are you saying that no change is permitted to that paragraph and/or section? Lawyer2b21:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That paragraph was agreed to by consensus. Artmonkey isn't even particpating in the discussion here. I am changing it back. NBGPWS21:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
First, just because that paragraph was agreed to by consensus doesn't mean that it can't be changed nor that changes to it are vandalism. Secondly, I am participating in the discussion and I thought User:Artmonkey's edits were quite balanced. Lawyer2b22:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed it back. Document these 'weasel words' written by Artmonkey: "A great many believe they are merely demonstrating the actual hypocrisy of these groups, and see Protest Warrior as a watchdog against extreme rhetoric from those they target."
1) I agree. Both his and your edits contain weasel words with no support to back up your statements. I felt his edits balanced out the majority or your edits which only present the supposed negative reactions to the organization's activities. I would prefer that ALL unsupported statements be removed. 2) Please see No binding decisions for why even though you allege the paragraph was decided by previous consensus, the paragraph can be changed. 3) Your claims the edits User:Artmonkey and I made are vandalism are spurious. 4) By reverting our edits as you did, you are in violation of WP:3RR. I have posted a warning on your talk page. 5) I invite you to engage in a meaningful civil discussion to arrive at consensus on what should be done regarding the paragraph. Lawyer2b03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
User artmoneky refuses to participate in any discussion of this article and made wholesale changes to a long established paragraph without consensus or any discussion. I need not assume good faith in this situation. It is vandalism, pure and sinple.NBGPWS05:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1) I see no attempt on your part to engage Artmonkey in a discussion regarding his edits before you reverted them. Hence, your claim that you need not assume good faith is as illegitimate as your claim his edits are vandalism. Your not assuming good faith is the second policy of which your conduct is in violation. 2)Your edit claiming to revert vandalism was, in fact, of my edit which not only contained an explanatory summary but followed my comment in this discussion which, it may be noted, I started in the first place.
Going by your criteria we will need to change or delete the follwing two sentences as they are not verifiable, nor documented - correct? "Anti-war protestors who have come in contact with Protest Warrior usually have a negative reaction towards their signs. Those in agreement with Protest Warrior tend to find their signs and slogans humorous."NBGPWS05:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
If your standpoint is, "this section should contain many unsupported statements that are negative towards Protest Warrior but not a similar amount that are positive to balance them," then yes, by all means delete them...as you delete all unsupported statements. I think that if you want to include unsupported statements in this section that are negative, you ought to balance them by allowing inclusion of a similar amount that are positive. What say you? Lawyer2b17:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You're the one who's the stickler for following wiki's guidelines to a 't' - and now you want to include unsubstantiated claims and weasel words - as long as they are roughly equal in amount both pro and con? Is that what you're arguing for?NBGPWS19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No. I said earlier, "I would prefer that ALL unsupported statements be removed." If that's okay with you, let's go ahead and do that. Is that okay with you? Lawyer2b20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
So the following would be the only text left in the reactions section?
" Rush Limbaugh, a conservative talk-show host, once featured their signs on his Web site. As documented by Indymedia's San Francisco affiliate, a group of Protest Warriors led by founder Kfir Alfia were the target of animosity at a conservative counter-Cindy Sheehan rally in Crawford, Texas. Despite the Protest Warriors' assurances that they were on the same side, the other protesters repeatedly shouted "Go home!", destroyed the Protest Warrior signs and forced the Protest Warriors to leave the rally, mistaking them for anti-war protestors.[2]" NBGPWS22:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the first sentence (regarding Rush Limbaugh) needs some support as well which I believe I can provide. I think that's a good starting text for the section which all editors should freely be able to build/expand upon with verifiable statements. I appreciate your willing to change to follow wikipolicies and to discuss the matter to build consensus. Lawyer2b01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I can source some of negative reactions noted, but go ahead and make your changes and we can edit again later. Are you active on PW, L2B? I need to address some concerns about PW for the article with somone who is in the loop there NBGPWS04:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Great. I'm happy we've come to an agreement that I think both makes sense and follows wikipolicy. I will make the changes with edit summaries mentioning this discussion. Should anybody disagree, hopefully they will participate and explain why. As with all articles, I think all material conforming to wikipolicy should be encouraged and welcome. Regarding the PW website, no I am not active there at this time. Lawyer2b05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Charges of hypocrisy
I would like to add a section on this PW incident, illuminating the hypocrisy of PW, who insist that they have a right to counterprotest within the ranks of groups they oppose, but deny that same right to others.
"Another counter-demonstrator tried to be clever, by holding up a sign that read “NUKE IRAN.” We politely asked him to take it somewhere else. When he declined, we followed him around, blocking his sign with our American flags, until he eventually gave up and crossed over to the opposite corner " Are we all OK with that? 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Actions admitted to by PW and documented by same do not fall under 'original research' when sourced. This is the after action report by a PW 'chapter leader' and speaks volumes about their hypocrisy. Your use of a 'smiley' demonstrates that you are not taking this issue seriously and are probably just playing 'games'. Keep it up and I will ask to have you banned from this article NBGPWS21:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my use of :-) offended you. It was a sincere smiley and I assure you I'm taking edits to this article, as with all articles, very seriously. I will again ask that you WP:AGF. Please read about WP:No original research as simply adding information that is verifiable does not ensure the edits are not an example of "original research". Lawyer2b22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Kuzaar|Kuzaar]'s sentence was removed, because while he tried to make it more neutral, the meaning was completely removed. I tried to rewrite the sentence to have some meaning - but using "the group" and "these groups" and never defining either meant that the sentence had no point and I couldn't fathom what it meant. Feel free to re-add it if it can be not only WP:NPOV but coherent as well. --Neverborn21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Added pic of Alan and Kfir
I suggested to rhubarbaby that he replace the missing pic of Alan and Kfir, but he never did. So I did. I'm looking out for you guys! NBGPWS00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I did it for you rhubarbaby. Please make sure I did it right and feel free to make any corrections.Thanks bud! How 'bout that Ned Lamont??!! Adios 'Sore Loserman'! Another Neocon bites the dust! Ole Joe ran out of Joementum! NBGPWS07:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
User:NBGPWS, I believe your comments are in violation of WP:Civility which defines incivil behavior roughly as, "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress..." This is the third policy (see above for WP:AGF,WP:3RR) I believe you to have violated in the last day or two regarding edits to this article. Please stop. Lawyer2b17:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong.Nothing more than friendly jocularity btween advesaries - no more sinister than your use of smileys in an attempt to taunt me. YOU WANT ME TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT TO THE MODS???!!!! JEEEEEZ! NBGPWS19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
How 'bout the picture that was originally in the article? You know, the one that actually showed their faces instead of a view from below with their arms in the way? I have no idea why it was removed, but it was probably somebody getting uptight about copyright issues that don't actually exist again. Rogue 918:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Stop the infantile insults NBGPWS, and if you must address me do so by the user name I have chosen. Not by any other user name I might have on another forum or website, nor a juvenile gloss on my handle.
You have already been admonished on repeated occasions by numerous editors-including an admin-to cease and desist from this behavior, yet you have chosen to flagrantly ignore these warnings.
If you can't comport yourself with basic standards of civility and etiquette, then I suggest that you find another website, because this is not a political forum, or a place for partisan axe-grinding.
Comprende?
DO NOT DELETE THIS SECTION.
If you do so you are inviting an admin to block you.
You have obviously forgotten that you signed one of your own posts here with your PW moniker 'wrath' and called me by names other than NBGPWS on numerous occasions. Confused much? NBGPWS06:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"By the way, the correct spelling is "germane," you hyperactive, dim chimpanzee.Ruthfulbarbarity 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, your misuse of this page by starting several new sections consisting of nothing more than your personal attacks and juvenile complaints with the additional goal of moving critical discussion of PW's very existence out of view is one of the most egregiously irresponsible acts I've ever witnessed on Wiki
You are in flagrant violation of Wiki guideline "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article.NBGPWS20:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Questions about PW
rhurbarbabythewrathbore refused to address my concerns - I trust you (neverborn) will have more intestinal fortitude.
1) When is the last time Alan or Kfir particpiated in a PW counterprotest? Will they be counterprotesting Cindy Sheehan in Crawford? They're only 100 miles away. If not, why would the leaders of such an 'important' counterprotest organization fail to capitalize on such a significant opportunity?
2) Why is the gallery section of the PW site no longer being updated with official galleries? Why are PW videos posted to youtube, but not to the PW 'video page'? Why is it no longer being updated?
3) It definately appears that Alan and Kifer are no longer actively involved in any manner of political discussion on the various PW fora. Please point me to any recent threads where either of them discussed politics. Please point me to any posts discussing politics by either them in the last YEAR.
3b) It also appears that they are no longer actively counterprotesting either. I see no couterprotest activity from Kifer since he was attacked by the Freepers in Crawford a YEAR ago, and even longer for Alan. Please provide documentation otherwise.
4) What happened to 'Operation Butterfly'? What was 'Operation Butterfly'?
5) Please address the obvious discrepancies in these statements and estimate the current number of PW's who actively counterprotest in real life in the streets:
"He (Kfir) heads up an organization of over 12,000 people worldwide. (most in the United States)" a PW member 2006
"Protest Warrior is a national network of some 7,200 right-of-center activists." article 2004
"I'm expecting about 100 PWs nationwide to take part in it." (a nationwide PW counterprotest) "(25 in SF, 30 in NYC, 30 in DC, and 15 in LA)" a PW chapter leader 2005
If I had wanted your advice, I would have asked for it. Kifer won't even bother to respond to a long-time PW'er who wants to join a chapter, but for some reason (most likely as the chapter exists in name only), never gets a response when he tries to join - he isn't going to respond to me. I would think the PW sycophants would be interested in finding out why Kifer and Alan have abandoned PW, and if they ever plan on returning, but finding out the truth would certainly shatter the adolescent-like hero worship and slavish devotion that PW's have for their missing-in-action 'leaders'. NBGPWS04:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
User:NBGPWS, I find your words insulting and demeaning. Wikipedia is not a place for axe-grinding and derision. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not ridicule members of an organization with whom we disagree. Lawyer2b14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)\
Actions speak louder than words, and both the INaction of Alan and Kifer is respect to their involvement with the organization they founded but have now abandoned, and the distortions and lies of the PW's themselves with outrageous claims like "12,000 members" when then the real number is a few dozen at most must be addressed. That is what I am doing. I will be changing the article to reflect Alan and Kifer's abandonment of PW, and the ACTUAL number of active PW's in the coming days NBGPWS19:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have any non-original research that conforms to wikipoliciy, I enthusiastically encourage you to add it to the article. You will find me at your service in support. Your edits on the talk page, however, belie that is the case and appear to be simply filled with your incivil venting of frustration with the organization which approaches near personal attacks. In other words, please stop using the talk page for gratuitously insulting Protest Warriors and just focus on writing the article itself. Lawyer2b21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article." NBGPWS23:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The topic, for the time being, and primarily because of your actions, is your inability to act with civility-and attempt to reach consensus-on this talk page.
If you have decided to finally begin to observe some basic standards of conduct, then I would be more than happy to return to discussing the subject at hand.
Then address my concerns one by one. You have 18,000+ posts (?) on PW and are as knowledgeable as anybody about the current state of affairs there.
Please comment on the obvious discrepancies in these statements and estimate the current number of PW's who actively counterprotest in person, in real life.:
"He (Kfir) heads up an organization of over 12,000 people worldwide. (most in the United States)" a PW member 2006
"Protest Warrior is a national network of some 7,200 right-of-center activists." article 2004
"I'm expecting about 100 PWs nationwide to take part in it." (a nationwide PW counterprotest) "(25 in SF, 30 in NYC, 30 in DC, and 15 in LA)" a PW chapter leader 2005
(by the way only 13 PW's showed (less than 50% estimated) up in DC, as documented by the Washington Post)
NBGPWS02:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to interpolate myself into the decision-making process of the people who administer and run the Protest Warrior forum and organize PW operations.
I am a user of the PW forums and particpant in PW operations, but that does not mean I have any input into how Protest Warrior is run.
How many comments I might have posted to the PW forums has absolutely no bearing on the influence I wield over the decisions made by the people who run Protest Warrior.
Again, if you have questions about Protest Warrior, then I suggest you utilize the link I provided upthread.
And yes, Kfir does reply to people who communicate with him via e-mail.
Get real!. You know a hell of a lot more about what's going on with PW than Kifer or Alan. NEITHER of them is actively posting about day-to-day events on PW and haven't in MONTHS, and NEITHER of them has couterprotested in over a YEAR. You post every day, and attend PW protests regularly!!! Right? Face the facts! Kiefer and Alan have abandoned PW! Step up the the plate WB! NBGPWS06:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll reiterate my earlier advice.
If you have questions about Protest Warrior, or complaints about how they are running Protest Warrior, then take it up with them.
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Face the facts. Kifer and Alan have abandonded PW, and the once-mightly S.S. Protest Warrior is floundering like a rudderless, captainless 'ghost ship' which is about to sink! Take the helm and save it WB!
NBGPWS23:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to let this become a bulletin board for you to repost things you cribbed from external websites, and which you have no permission to post.
Furthermore, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, which-need I remind you-is IMPROVING the Protest Warrior article.
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will maybe be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Final Warning
DO NOT DELETE
FINAL WARNING to Ruthfulbarbarity
Don't you EVER delete what I write again!
I WILL be lodging an official Wiki Complaint against you and I am reposting what you, Ruthfulbarbarity, in blatant disregard for Wiki rules, policies and standards, and in a despicable act of criminal vandalism, deleted!
You were much less reticent about admitting to PW's astonishing impotance and shocking lack of support on PW itself. I wonder why?
"The NYC and Tri-State Chapters of Protest Warrior and Free Republic suck, respectively, so I'll probably be out there (counterprotesting) by myself Monday." wrathbone NBGPWS 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Kifer is going to answer me? Riiiiiight! He won't even answer this guy:
"I was a member of the Phila chap before the hack and protested in Phila when the anti-war nuts were here. But for some reason Mr. Kfir has some sort of bug up his ass and will not let me rejoin or even give me an answer. My activation or pleas for it go unanswered. Never done anything to him or had words with anyone???? I love what PW does and am going to be apart of it anyway."USA_FIRST
But he's going to answer ME! LOL! NBGPWS 23:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
WARNING: you are acting in an uncivil manner. Remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. I will be reporting your continuing insults and personal attacks.
WARNING: you are acting in an uncivil manner. Remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. I will be reporting your continuing vandalism, insults and personal attacks. You have been admonished for your personal attacks by Wiki admins on multiple occasions. Expect another warning. Stop now.
I have no idea why you deleted a VERBATIM PW quote and the link I added. Are you arguing that because the Protest Warrior's writing style is bad, that he shouldn't be quoted??? It's not Wiki's problem that the PW is "unintelligible' as you claim, nor should it be paraphrased or corrected. It's a QUOTE, and described a critical PW tactic, and I added it back in.
In the future, please use this discussion page BEFORE you delete or change something.
Thanks for the discussion. In the future when I remove something you have added I will make a special effort to additionally note it on the talk page. I really don't know how to respond to your essentially saying, "it's not wiki's problem if a source is unintelligble," but let me try. Quite clearly, "No. You are totally and utterly mistaken. It is wiki's problem." Wikipedia is not a quote repository, it is an encyclopedia. I can't think of anything more contrary to everything wikipedia stands for, is, and has as its highest aim than to add to it things which are unintelligible, unclear, or confusing. If simply putting in a raw source (be it a quote, document, etc.) makes it difficult for the reader to understand, then you, if you want to call yourself an editor, have a responsibility to paraphrase, summarize, or otherwise clarify your edit. I don't know if you really think that one may simply add a quote and, by virtue of it being "VERBATIM", make a better article and/or follow wikipedia's policies; but that's how you are coming across. To see why I'm saying what I am, why don't you take a look at wikipedia's policy summary page and familiarize yourself with some of the editing policies? I might suggest starting with The Five Pillars, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles as a start. Additionally, since you feel that quote contains some meaning, why don't you explain what it is here and perhaps we can work together to make it worthy of inclusion? Lawyer2b22:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
If the only meaning it contains is the description of the tactic, then I think it should be paraphrased for clarity. The incorrect capitalization and slang is very confusing. It took me awhile to realize it didn't begin in mid-sentence. Lawyer2b22:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of paraphrasing both quotes into what I think is an eminently more encyclopedic style. Lawyer2b23:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm somewhat in agreement with your edits, but would like to change the wording to:
Protest warriors have engaged in multiple tactics when infiltrating protests. These have included:
Dressing up as a fake suicide bomber while holding a sign reading, "Honk for Hamas". [2]
Dressing up as a stereotypical gay pride parade participant. [3}
(These tactics were intended to turn public sentiment against the surrounding demonstrators)
Or something similar
They ADMIT that this is their intent. Your use of 'presumably' shows pro PW bias.
I'm fine with your changes. I disagree that my use of "presumably" shows any favorable bias; I'm simply not as sure as you what the intention was behind the PW wearing the disguise. I didn't read the story in depth and I'll take your word that for that particular case it was intended as you describe. Lawyer2b23:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Done! Maybe you could summarize the signs too, instead of having a list of just about every PW sign ever thought of (some which have never been used in a counterprotest) and add a link to the PW sign gallery. Do we need that LONG list?
I think two or three as examples are appropriate as they are a major part of their methodology but I agree, there is certainly no need for a long list of signs. A link to their sign gallery as a source is a good idea. Lawyer2b12:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Islamophobia link
I agree with user Damburger on adding a link under 'islamophobia'. The following quote comes directly from Kifer and Alan:
"What's becoming clear is how the religion of Islam is addicted to war and mayhem. Not a radical minority, not a rogue sect, but its very essence is about submission and sacrifice and proving your worth by worshipping death in this life to gain a paradise of orgies and drunkenness. Their entire history is of warfare, and any accomplishments of their so-called Golden Age has been proven to be merely parasitic off the cultures they've conquered and reduced to dhimmi servitude. That every country under sharia is corrupt, belligerent, desolate and barbaric obviously gives them no pause, except to constantly drive them into further psychotic rage as they refuse to ever accept any responsibility for their conditions. They are akin to the powers in Orwell's 1984; there must always be an enemy. It's no surprise that women are treated like property in these countries as that's the only way Muslim men can feed their egos, to dominate others rather than ever actually produce something. "Islam
The Quote itself. It is self-evident. They are against all of Islam not just radical Islam. They define their own position against Islam, and that is the definition of Islamophobia contained with that article which is why the link belongs.Damburger08:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I also added Hate Groups. Their opposition to, and statements against Islam make them fall under that Wiki classification as well.
"A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, or other sector of society.'
I don't recall "self-evident" as being a reliable source. It sounds a lot like ORiginal Research too. Find a reputable source that lists PW as a hate group or that lists that quote as islamophobic. Otherwise, it's unsourced POV. --Tbeatty02:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
READ the quote again, tbeatty. These are the WORDS of the founders of PW. They display contempt and scorn for ALL of Islam, which makes them an Islamophobic Hate Group. There is no WAY to deny their meaning. Let's be rational! I am adding the 2 links back in, and will request Wiki arbitration if you delete them again.
"What's becoming clear is how the religion of Islam is addicted to war and mayhem. Not a radical minority, not a rogue sect, but its very essence is about submission and sacrifice and proving your worth by worshipping death in this life to gain a paradise of orgies and drunkenness. Their entire history is of warfare, and any accomplishments of their so-called Golden Age has been proven to be merely parasitic off the cultures they've conquered and reduced to dhimmi servitude. That every country under sharia is corrupt, belligerent, desolate and barbaric obviously gives them no pause, except to constantly drive them into further psychotic rage as they refuse to ever accept any responsibility for their conditions. They are akin to the powers in Orwell's 1984; there must always be an enemy. It's no surprise that women are treated like property in these countries as that'sthe only way Muslim men can feed their egos, to dominate others rather than ever actually produce something."
Your comments would make a great blog entry or your own research paper and some people may even find them to be true. Wikipedia, however, requires a number of things before you can publish it here. The first is that it has been previously published in a reliable source. Find an article in the New York Times that they are Islamophobic. Second, Wikipedia requirese WP:verifiability. A year from now, you may not be around to use your logic to prove they are Islamophobes. Therefore, the claim must be verifiable and cited. Third, Wikipedia is not the place for Original Research. Your synthesis of "islamophobe" from the Wikipeida defintion of islamaphobe and a statement by PW is expressly forbidden. This is directly from the WP:OR page of no-nos. "A is true, B is true, therefore C is true" can only be included if C has been published previously. "Self-evident" doesn't count. It must come from a Reliable Source. None of these are negotiable points. I encourage you to request arbitration. I am firmly rooted in the facts and policy of Wikipedia and by your own admission your inclusion of these items is based on data that is simply not allowed to be published here.--Tbeatty04:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I need only reference the founder's own words and this official PW sign to prove Islamophobia and 'hate group'. Please request arbitration. If you contend content from PW can't be used, the paragraph from Kifer responding to the article about PW anti-abortion protests MUST be removed, along with ALL other quotes directly from PW, yes? I am deleting that paragraph now.
You may include any quotes from the PW site. Your inclusion of the "religion of peace" sign is perfectly acceptable. Your quote above is perfectly acceptable provided it is relevant. Your conclusion, however, are not supported by an external source. Start a section called "NOtable quotes" and include them and let the reader decide if they are "islamophobic". But Wikipedia is not in the position to make that claim in the article unless some notable, reliable source has made it. --Tbeatty06:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This article calls them Islamophobic, Racist Lunatics:
"This must include the latest cases of harassment haughtily claimed by the racist lunatics of protestwarrior.com (One of their signs reads “Black Children Belong in Black Schools” and countless others heap Islamophobia upon ignorance in a feat of stupefying idiocy)"[1]
I think we should add Islamophobia and Hate Groups back in!
Saying that "the religion of Islam is addicted to war and mayhem. Not a radical minority, not a rogue sect, but its very essence" is a statement of Islamophobia is not Original Research. It is a factual description of the statement, based on the dictionary definition of Islamophobia. However, as the above user has found a source to back up this blindly obvious fact, the debate is over and Islamophobia stays in Damburger09:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've got a problems with both pieces of evidence being used to argue for the inclusion of these terms:
First, in dealing with the quote from Kfir. Yes, he said it and it obviously reflects his belief; you have a better argument for wanting to put that term on an article about him solely. Unfortunatley, the statement doesn't say anything about the purpose and/or activities of the Protest Warriors group, and that's what this article is about. Where is the evidence that the group (activities, policies, members etc.) is Islamophobic?
Second, is the editorial. Interestingly, I'm having an argument over at Talk:bell hooks where it was pointed out to me that wikipedia's NPOV policy states, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." So we've got a single college newspaper editorial that labels Protest Warriors as Islamophobic. Should that be the standard for inclusion in a wikipedia article? I bet I can find a college editorial that says anything, given enough time. This same article labels them as racist lunatics. Are we to include racist and lunatic as links as well? Lawyer2b19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No, because those terms are POV. Islamophobia is simply a description of someone who hates Islam (as their statement indicates they do, and admit they do). Nobody seriously asks for a citation when Hitler is described as totalitarian in his bio, although he almost certainly never described himself as that. The consensus seems to think its justified describing the september the 11th attackers as terrorists despite the fact they didn't consider themselves terrorists. If these are no OR, why is stating the obvious fact that these guys are Islamophobic? Damburger08:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by POV but I disagree that putting a link to Islamophobia is any less POV than adding racist or lunatic. Your Hitler example is a good analogy but it doesn't support your case. First, there is consensus, which I'm sure you'll agree is lacking here. Most importantly, though, is that the view of Hitler as totalitarian is not held by a "tiny minority" or even a "minority" at all. It is, in fact, the majority opinion. With a single college editorial the only source cited for labeling them Islamophobic, how can argument be made the view is held by anything more than a "tiny minority"? Interestingly, through my logic, which I believe to be correct, I've just hung myself over at Bell Hooks. Pardon me while I go agree to remove at least some of the criticism I added over there. Lawyer2b15:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact is, this is not an incredibly well known group, so any opinion of them is only going to be held by a tiny minority. The question is, is it a tiny minority of the people who actually give a crap? Everyones got an opinion on Hitler, only a few have an opinion on Protest Warriors. Damburger15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the group is not well known but it is notable enough to be included in wikipedia. Surely you are not saying that due to the organization's lack of renown no opinion of the group can be considered to be held by only a "tiny minority". Look, I'm not making the disingenuous argument that anything short of a "population group the size you find holding opinions about Hitler" is required; but wouldn't you agree that when alleging the group is considered to be Islamophobic by more than a "tiny minority" of those familiar with it, more than one verifiable source needs to be presented to support that fact? Lawyer2b17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty - quit vandalizing the article. The massive decline in traffic on the PW website is significant. This has already been discussed. Next time you plan to vandalize the article, discuss your proposed vandalism here first.
Lipton redirects here. Kfir is under discussion. The article is substantially about these guys. Therefore this qualifies as WP:BIO rules.--Tbeatty06:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Replaced the tediously long quote where Kfir claimed he was 'misquoted' about Anti-abortion activities, two years after the fact, with a concise sentence to that effect.
Like L2B said, "Wikipedia is not a quote repository, it is an encyclopedia"
This is about the organization more than the founders. I strongly disagree with putting this in the WP:BIO project.--Neverborn06:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
My concern isn't about the WP:BIO project but about the rules governing WP:BIO and specifically Living Persons rules. There have have been attempts to include terms like "islamophobia" and other unsourced negative claims that relate to the founders (i.e. quoting the people and putting the label on the quote). There are content protections for Living Person biographies that extend to this article because it is so closely tied to the founders. Using the cover of a separate article to defame people simply because it is not specifically a biography should not be tolerated. The claim for the Bio tag is for the rules regarding unsourced negative items about the people (namely, they can be reverted without 3RR worries and they should be reverted immediately). The two founders, particularly, have a lot of information about them in the article and will probably have more once they both redirect here.--Tbeatty07:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Traffic
tbeatty - quit vandalizing the article. The massive decline in traffic on the PW website is significant. This has already been discussed. Next time you plan to vandalize the article, discuss your proposed vandalism here first.
Thanks
NBGPWS 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not vandalism. Please WP:AGF The Alexa website makes none of the claims that were cited. What you are doing is Original Research and synthesis of positions. Sorry. It just doesn't belong here.--Tbeatty04:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL! can't you READ CHARTS??? I took out consistantly and steadily even though the CHARTS prove that, and added in the new stats.
Stop deleting this important stat in a blatant attempt to make PW look more popular.
1) it's importance is debatable. 2) your claims are not supported. "Current period" means what exactly? These stats are invalidated immediately upon publishing. The 1 week average is up. The 3 month average is down. No notable, reliable (i.e. reviewed) source has made any claims about it going up or down. I don't mind linking to the page and showing the reader where to look for the current data. But making claims like "up" or "down" is ridiculous and unsourced by WP:RS. It's like the article on the Moon having a statement that "The current moon is 1/4 waning" referencing a constantly updating source. --Tbeatty05:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I added it back Now you vandalized the article even MORE by even taking out the link. QUIT VANDALIZING THE ARTICLE! Alexa IS the accepted arbitror when it comes to traffic. Your excuses for your repeated vanadalism are continuosely changing. First it was that Alexa didn't support my conclusions, which you deemed Original Reseach.. When I changed that, you came up with a new excuse, now another bogus objection. You are VANDALIZING the article.
Please AGF. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. It is considered a personal attack to accuse editors of vandalism when edits are made in good faith.--Tbeatty05:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
tbeatty added
In the last week, however, Alexa toolbar users have found new vigor and the reach has doubled to 8.15 million users and the traffic rank climbed to 180,927 from it's 3-month average of 260,395.
'new vigor' is not supported is not NPOV and OR. 260K to 180K is CLIMBING? LOL!
Traffic rank was 260k to 180k as was clearly stated. That is climbing. Rank of number 1 is the most accessed site. But I will fix it all to NPOV, not just leave your OR POV.
From Alexa: "Since we feel that consistent traffic is a better indication of a site's value, we've chosen to use the three-month traffic rank to represent the site's overall popularity." They use THREE month, not weekly or daily, AND they state 'POPULARITY' . Why should the heading NOT be changed back to 'popularity'? NBGPWS07:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Statism/Individualism
The use of these words here seems odd to me in light of the fact these people are protest in support of the state. Perhaps saying they oppose statism should be included in a quote from the organisations own statements? Damburger09:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would characterize their protests as support of the state. The are opposing a philosophy (i.e. leftists). It happens to align with the current adminstration in certain foreign policy areas but the two are not causal.--Tbeatty10:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've heard allegations (denied by the group) that they have received financial support from the Republican party. I'll try and track down where I saw that. But in any case, I think its questionable for the article to use its own voice to describe them as against statism then go on to outline the policies of the state it supports. I don't object to it being in the article per se (they do describe themselves as such) but it seems to be dying for quote marks. Damburger10:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Damb. There's lots of speculation that PW was or is funded by the CIA. here are those links.
Maybe their funding was cut off? What else could explain why PW, and Alan and Kfir, who came out 'guns blazing' in 2004 is now, as an organization, moribund and nearly dead? Kfir has not counterprotested in OVER a year (since the Crawford incident where FReepers attacked him) and Alan in even longer. Neither of them post about politics on the forum anymore either.
Statism is a philosophy that espouses a belief in a strong government, particularly with respect to economic matters.
It has nothing to do with support or opposition to a particular nation-state, or that state's policies.
I think you're misconstruing, or misinterpreting, the term.
By "opposing statism" they mean that Protest Warrior opposes an oppressively large and intrusive federal government, and unnecessary layers of government bureaucracy.
By the way, there's no substantive report-at least, one that would meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia-which purports to show Republican Party funding of any aspect of Protest Warrior.
Perhaps you're confusing its membership, much of which belongs to the GOP, and many of whom are Republican Party activists, with the Republican Party as an entity.
The people who support Protest Warrior-through contributions, or by purchasing merchandise-are doing so as individuals, not as representatives of the Republican Party.
Protest Warrior is a limited liability corporation.
If you feel the need to be disabused of some of your apparent misconceptions Damburger, then I suggest you contact them directly.
The links accusing them of CIA funding should go in the criticism section (although be sure that its clear that this isn't proven). As for 'statism' - the fact that we disagree about it would suggest that the definition is hardly clear, and there isn't a consensus. Thus the sensible thing is to allow the Protest Warriors to explain their position in their own words and have a quote. Damburger15:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
To say they aren't "proven" is a laughable understatement.
There is absolutely no documentation demonstrating any alleged "link" to the CIA.
If there were then you would be able to easily access it online.
The only person purporting to know about these supposed links is a non-journalist, openly partisan, and possibly delusional blogger on IMC, which is a repository for many stories that are eventually discredited.
You'll note that Wiki articles on political forums often link to controversial and significant threads themselves, or note their content, ergo DU with 'tsunami theories', and the following section on Free Republic. I will use this content on FR as inspiration. I'm compiling a 'best of PW threads' section now!
"Allegations Of extremism and bigotry
Many posts on Free Republic are devoted to the ridicule of persons or groups perceived as anathema to conservatives. The site's officially stated policy is to remove blatantly racist or bigoted postings, yet epithets such as "faggot" or "raghead" are fairly common, and are not grounds for a post to be removed.
Free Republic is often accused of being extremist and far-right (even popular conservative talk show host Sean Hannity has described the site as "fringe" [14]), and has been criticized for harboring "hate speech" regarding certain groups of people, such as homosexuals, Arabs, Muslims, Han Chinese[citation needed] and illegal immigrants. An example the site's alleged extremism and bigotry can be found in 2005, when a forum poster circulated a petition asking the Iranian government not to execute two homosexual teenagers, but was rebuked by forum users for his position (some of the users supported the execution, for various reasons, including allegations that the teenagers were being executed for sexual assault on a minor, as opposed to simply being homosexual).[15] Some members have also expressed support for Apartheid South Africa [16]. Many members also strongly supported Tom Tancredo's statement that the United States should "nuke" Mecca in retalation for a further terrorist attack on American soil.[17]
Many Free Republic users attribute these accusations to political correctness and deny that they have any basis in fact."
Now hold on there a second, User:NBGPWS. I've never even had a gander at the Free Republic article before, but having taken a look at the section of the Free Republic criticism section you site, I have to say that parts of that section appear to be completely unsupported and you should expect a big stink from me if the same kind of edits are done here. In that section on the Free Republic article, even the part that is sourced is used as evidence to support what appears to be an original researched conclusion and needs to be modified. 1)There is no cite for Free Republic being accused of bigotry. 2) The example of the supposed bigotry is simply a post from the website. This is "textbook" original research. An external source that says "Here is an example of the bigotry on Free Republic" needs to be found and then that example can be put in. Whatever you put in this article, please make sure you include citable sources and it is not original research. Lawyer2b14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The two you mentioned were sourced. Tsunami threads were mentioned in NY Times and 'fringe' was from Sean Hannity. But simply picking out your favorite threads on PW is Not Notable and Original Research. Find a notable source that mentions these threads and then maybe it might be included in the article.--Tbeatty08:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
These examples aren't sourced. They are direct links to significant and/or controversial threads on FR.
"An example the site's alleged extremism and bigotry can be found in 2005, when a forum poster circulated a petition asking the Iranian government not to execute two homosexual teenagers, but was rebuked by forum users for his position (some of the users supported the execution, for various reasons, including allegations that the teenagers were being executed for sexual assault on a minor, as opposed to simply being homosexual).[15] Some members have also expressed support for Apartheid South Africa [16]. Many members also strongly supported Tom Tancredo's statement that the United States should "nuke" Mecca in retalation for a further terrorist attack on American soil.[17]"
Let's pick 10 threads and reference them. 5 that show PW in a positive light, and 5 as the Islamophobic, BATF agent assassination-condoning, Randy Weaver and David Koresh loving, hate-filled extremists that I can prove that they are. OK? NBGPWS08:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed some wording slightly to reflect that the PW video page hasn't featured any new protest videos since 2004, and PW forces their members to use third party sites to host the videos. Galleries too. Odd that Kfir and Alan can't even find the time to COMMENT on the hard work of their members efforts to carry on the work of the organization they have so obviously abandonded. They have, undeniably, moved on. NBGPWS20:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the statements you reference on Free Republic (and if I did, they would be deleted as POV and OR). --Tbeatty20:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Since I think there might be some debate on this issue I thought it deserved its own section.
If it is easily verifiable, just stating a fact like, "There have been no videos posted to the Protest Warrior website since 2004" does not strike me as original research because there really seems to be no conclusion; it's just a statement of fact. I think the sentence can be included in the article. Opinions? Lawyer2b21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do object.
Not least because the statement would be false, because there have been videos posted to the main PW website since 2004.
I don't have any objection to including a chronology of each PW video that has been posted to the official PW website, but I don't quite see the utility of the exercise either.
I mean, we can include every bit of minutiae about the Protest Warrior website if Neocons is insistent upon doing so, but I don't see what purpose it serves.
Also, the reason that there have not been "protest" videos posted to the main website recently is because there have not been any national, officially sanctioned operations since Operation Defend The White House, IIRC.
That does not mean that Protest Warrior is inactive.
All you need do is go to Youtube or Google Video and you'll discover dozens of videos that chronicle operations initiated by Protest Warrior, from Carson City, Nevada to Illinois, to New York City.
Just because individual chapters take the initiative in these matters does not mean that the organization is inactive or defunct.
In fact, it flatly contradicts NBG's demonstrably false assertions, i.e. Protest Warrior is "finished," or is dormant.
Verfiable. Notable. Sourced reliably. Those are the minimum requirements. I don't think it meets the WP:RS. Video's may have been posted and deleted. Videos may not be in the location that was looked. etc, etc. Using the website as a primary source to derive facts is the definition of Original Research. The website as a list of videos and that can be sourced. Reading that list and making a claim about it is original research. It's a slippery slope. It may seem that this Original Research is harmless but it won't end there. If that minutiae of detail was so notable, a reputable source would have published it. --Tbeatty21:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad I at least said, "if" it is easily verifiable. (chuckle) Obviously if the statement is false it shouldn't be included. Your points that there is no way to be sure the statement is accurate just looking at the list and that it is possibly not-notable are excellent ones, of which I hadn't thought. The statement is out.Lawyer2b21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Your conclusions are fascinating, User:NBGPWS, but until you have some external sources that state them besides yourself, they are nothing more than your conclusions, originally researched, and not able to be included in any wikipedia article. Lawyer2b22:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, what you are saying is simply not true.
There have been protest videos posted to the main Protest Warrior website since 2004, regardless of your assertions.
Here is one from a PW chapter in The Netherlands, posted in the Summer of 2005,
And there are many others that have been recorded and distributed through large video and file-sharing networks, which are easily accessible over the Internet.
The fact that they were not posted to the main Protest Warrior website is immaterial.
'After large operations, videos are posted to the website documenting the events. " This statement is UNTRUE and needs correction. No counterprotest videos have been posted on PW in over a year. Take a look at the official galleries - no updates in approx TWO YEARS. Individual members whose videos and galleries USED to be posted on PW, are now posting the videos and photos on third party sites like youtube and flicker because Alan and Kfer have ABANDONDED PW. PW is, In essence, leaderless, and acting as nothing more than a discussion forum, with some actvity from autonomous individual chapters whose leaders have a LOT more interest in PW than the founders who have given up on the organization and moved on. Take the helm of the sinking ship SSPW, rhubarbaby! NBGPWS22:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I should remove all the links to all 'Protest Warrior' videos and pics not hosted on PW itself. Who is to say that these are 'real' PW videos? I could take a video of my cat, and post it to youtube claiming it is a 'Protest Warrior' video. If videos and pics aren't coming directlly from PW, no one can document that they are, in fact, genuine PW videos and pics. Not verifiable! I'll get to work tonight! NBGPWS22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think repeating a litany of false statements somehow lends them credence?
I really am curious.
I've already explained to you that there have been numerous Protest Warrior operations throughout the country-and overseas-over the course of the past two years, and that there is audio-visual documentation of this, which is readily accessible over the Internet.
The fact that they choose not to highlight each and every PW operation on the main page is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the general state of Protest Warrior itself.
The fact that the gallery is not updated is even less noteworthy.
I don't think you seem to grasp this point, so I'll make it explicit.
Protest Warrior is not a top-down, bureaucratic, Marxist organization, such as ANSWER, or UFPJ, where the leaders of it-in this case, Alan and Kfir-give thorough orders to a team of underlings, which dutifully follow each and every one of their commands.
It is a libertarian-conservative, rightist organization that focuses on promoting individual liberty.
So the fact that members take it upon themselves to create operations on their own is not surprising.
"No counterprotest videos have been posted ON PW in over a year. " "Kfir has not publicly counterprotested since he was attacked by the Freepers over a year ago, and even longer for Alan." Neither have actively discussed politics on the PW fora in over a year either. All evidence shows that they have abandonded PW" Prove me wrong NBGPWS23:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
And whether or not Kfir and Alan have posted comments to the PW forums pertaining to specific political issues is utterly irrelevant.
They are the co-founders of Protest Warrior.
Their job isn't to kibbitz on a Web forum, which is a subsidiary part of the broader PW organization, a concept that seems to have eluded your comprehension for some inexplicable reason.
They've spent the past two and a half years producing "Entering Zion," pursuing charges against Jeremy Hammond, and doing other things that take precedence over meaningless online arguments.
Simply because you invest a lot of energy in these discussions-which are of minimal importance to Protest Warrior as an organization-does not mean that they are obligated to do the same.
LOL! Entering Zion was released almost a YEAR ago, and by all accounts, shouldn't have been, as it was widely judged to be 'harah'. Maybe THAT disaster is why they've dropped from sight!
"The worst case of elevating political sympathies over competent filmmaking—indeed, the worst movie of the festival—was Entering Zion, a travelogue by the Dallas-based filmmakers Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton."
In any case, your critique-such as it is-has been addressed, and refuted ad nauseam.
That's not MY critique, that's the critique of a reviewer who actually enjoyed the well made films at the 'Liberty Film Festival'. Too bad Entering Zion wasn't one of them.
Some more from the skewering:
"The video itself consists of home movies from a trip around the country, coupled with an Israeli pop soundtrack; this is periodically interrupted by interviews intended to illuminate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Most of the shots are pretty hackneyed—the last thing independent film needs is yet more footage from a moving car's window—and when the images are unusual that's often because they just don't work. (Among other things, Lipton and Alfia attempt to shoot a close-up of a rainbow.)
OUCH!
This isn't a debate over the competency of the cinematography of their documentaries.
The truth is no one KNOWS exactly why Alan and Kfir have abandoned Protest Warrior and have dropped from sight. CIA Funding run day? Couldn't turn their 15 minutes of fame into a paying gig? Embarrassment over getting an ass kicking in Crawford? The rejection of their pis-poor 'film' 'Entering Zion'? Failure of 'Operation Butterfly'? Cancellation of 'Storming the Ivory Towers'? Failure of their business venture 'Ask GOD'?
They don't even bother to communicate with their adoring PW sycophants, so how would us normal people know?
I also have no idea why you think including outlandish, demonstrably false, conspiratorial theories and poorly-written college newspaper op-eds is going to discredit Protest Warrior's reputation, but I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.
However, you are not entitled to insert misleading, inaccurate, or patently false information into the text of this article.
You're also not allowed to include unverifiable sources, or sources that don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, or to turn this talk page into a platform for venting your frustration at being banned from the Protest Warrior forums.
Regardless, you've still flouted multiple rules on repeated occasions.
If your goal in this discussion is to turn the Protest Warrior article into a forum for airing the most outlandish accusations against Protest Warrior by its most vociferous critics, or to hijack the process in order to transform the article into your personal soapbox, then you will be sorely disappointed.
On the other hand, you still have the opportunity to make some positive contributions to this article-and the discussion surrounding it-if you so chose.
User:NBGPWS I have to say, your above "incivility warning" to Ruthfulbarbarity seems quite disingenuous in light of the tone of your previous edits and especially the one immediately above. Ruthfulbarbarity has certainly not adhered to ettiquette and civility policies in his responses but your edits to the talk page come across not as helpful material in the course of writing the article but rather incessant trolling in an effort to bait those who like the Protest Warrior organization into responding. This has been my (and I'm sure others') experience of your behavior since I started participating in the editing of this article on a regular basis. This is frustrating to those of us who want to see this talk page used as it was intended, as a way to discuss ways to improve the article, including all material that confroms to wikipedia policy. I don't presume it means anything to you but when administrators do get involved, I will make my opinion known, and should you continue further I will make a strong effort to see you are banned from editing this article for some time. Lawyer2b18:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. I am only interested that the article is factual and accurately reflects the realities of Protest Warrior
One of User:NBGPWS' first edits on Wikipedia was to put "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer!" in the "PW signs" category. Since then, after being warned by me and Kuzaar for blatant vandalism, he realized he'd get blocked and reverted, so he's trying to troll and vandalize in a much more subtle fashion. "NeoconsBeGone Protest Warrior Sucks" has no interest whatsoever in civility or reality. I have tried to assume good faith even after that, but his continued posting of POV information, original research, and marking major edits as minor and doing about 6 in a row to bury them - I can't anymore. I'm with you here, Lawyer2b. --Neverborn20:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I just archived a little over a week ago. Usually you wait longer than that, though this talk page has been insanely active lately. Rogue 909:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Bring on the arbitration!
I am only interested in insuring that a reader who might not be familiar with Protest Warrior gets an accurate picture of it - an 'activist' organization that is home to under 100 'activists' - with founders who are no longer active in the organization they founded but have now abandoned - with a documented history of violence, bigotry, racism, homophobia, and Islamophobia. The repeated efforts of the PW defenders to delete anything that gives an accurate portrayal of PW is unconscionable. For instance, Wiki articles on Free Republic, and Democratic Underground, 2 organizations that are infinitely more important then PW, and much more closely scrutinized on Wiki have sections for critical dissenting views, links to notable, controversial threads, and openly talk about those sites' popularity on the web. Whenever I include similar info, it is removed by Protest Warriors and their defenders. I WELCOME arbitration or whatever they call it. BRING IT ON!
HAH! The ArbCom isn't going to get involved in this, not until and unless you try at least some other means of dispute resolution. And frankly, I think any of us have more grounds to file an RfC against you than you against anybody. Rogue 904:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Bigotry, racism, homophobia? Remember, the forum isn't the organization. I'm willing to let criticism of PW in, but not some juvenile website that tried to Google bomb itself as "PROTEST WARRIOR" that I could have made on Geocities in five minutes. I don't think anything using "PWNED" in all caps for part of the article title is acceptable as a source. You started trolling, then appeared to stop and legitimately wanted to be a part of Wikipedia and to contribute constructive criticism of PW to make a better article - I was wrong. You're still trolling. I've tried to meet you halfway, and you continue to trot out the same old crap - RockNRev, Scott Robinson, trolls on the forum - if someone was looking for racist content on the forum, they could just look at your avatar - you certainly were fond of putting big swastikas in your avatar before you got banned, weren't you? --Neverborn05:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Warning to Neverborn: You are acting in an uncivil manner. I encourage you to remain civil and not resort to making personal attacks. Thank you for your cooperation NBGPWS07:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
RockNRev and the "Scott and Jerry" indymedia article
First off, they both violate WP:V (see sources of dubious reliability - they may only be used in articles about themselves) and WP:NOR. WP:RS also states that for web-sites, self-published sites are not acceptable - this means RockNRev's "PWNED!" site is not acceptable. In addition, the entire "Scott and Jerry" article is just that - Scott and Jerry's [[WP:NOR|original research], which is not acceptable. Do not put the RockNRev site or the Scott and Jerry ARA site back without posting here as to why you feel violating 3 Wikipedia policies is okay. --Neverborn06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The report was from 'Central Texas Racist Action' a part of the well established Anti Racist Action Network.
They likely have many more active members than Protest Warrior, and are undeniably much more active than Protest Warrior when it comes to counterprotesting.
It's going back in.
I am seeking guidance to see if PW can be classified as 'dead', 'dormant' or 'no longer active' as the founders have not counterprotested in over a year nor communicated with their members regarding their status.
NBGPWS, 1) That an organization has more or less members than Protest Warriors has nothing to do with whether it is allowable as a verifiable source under wikipedia policy. 2) Organizations, by their nature, are designed to operate without their founders. In fact, a hallmark of a successful organization is often its ability to survive not just the departure of its founders but successive managers. While it would be interesting to note what, if any, role PW's founders play in the management and administration of the organization, don't you think determining the organization's status should revolve simply around what its members and chapters are doing? Lawyer2b19:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It violates WP:V (see sources of dubious reliability - they may only be used in articles about themselves) and WP:NOR. WP:RS also states that for web-sites, self-published sites are not acceptable - this means the blog in your ARA edit is not acceptable. In addition, the entire "Scott and Jerry" article is just that - Scott and Jerry's [[WP:NOR|original research], which is not acceptable. Do not put the RockNRev site, the Scott and Jerry ARA site, or the blog back without posting here as to why you feel violating 3 Wikipedia policies is okay. --Neverborn03:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Why no info on ELAC / clorox / Brett Chance?
"it started with clorox's (ELAC) (real name Brett Chance) politics. He comes from a Roman Catholic, Republican family, and while he considers himself technically an independent, during the 2004 election he was strongly pro- Bush. He joined an organization called ProtestWarrior.com, an organization that poked fun at and disrupted liberal protestors during the campaign. Then someone hacked the ProtestWarrior.com website and posted personal information about its members?including clorox?on Indymedia websites. Clorox says it took the Indymedia sites weeks to remove the hacked information, despite multiple requests. On the other hand, says clorox, Indymedia sites would eliminate any pro-Bush articles he posted on their sites almost immediately.
"They claim to be a free speech outlet, but they're not," says clorox. "So that's the time when my skills in hacking and political ideology merged, and I was ready to take it to the next level."
Clorox gathered similar-minded hackers around him and created rightwingextremist.org, dedicated to combating left-wing hackers over the Internet. It was a combination of politics and hacking, one so-called "hacktivist" group against another. Eventually clorox discovered a weakness in Indymedia's website programming that allowed him to install a hack that redirected Indymedia visitors to websites of his choosing, like rightwingextremist.org and other pro-Bush sites."
Documentation of User:NBGPWS behavior on this talk page
Since the above mediation is currently officially limited to edits in the actual article, I have created this separate section. At some future time, if the mediation case is amended to include User:NBGPWS' behavior on the talk page, we can merge the two. Lawyer2b15:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
User:NBGPWS, I'm glad you asked for mediation. I and others have asked you numerous times to stop trolling, making personal attacks, act civil, and stop using the talk page to vent and insult Protest Warriors and their organization. Perhaps the mediation cabal can kill two birds with one stone and render an opinion on your edits and whether or not you should be banned, temporarily at least, from editing the article. I submit the following examples of User:NBGPWS' deliberate talkpage trolling, incivility, policy violations, and personal attacks:
[2]User:NBGPWS created a section title labeling Protest Warriors, "Pretend Warriors."
[3]User:NBGPWS' edit states, "Once again PW shows their true colors - agitating rather than supporting the causes they supposedly believe in."
[8] The first of at least three edits by User:NBGPWS laughing and highlighting what he perceives, incorrectly I might add, as misuse by User:Ruthfulbarbarity of the word "pore."
[9]User:NBGPWS Calls Ruthfulbarbarity ignorant for misusing "pore" (As an aside, he is mistaken. User:Ruthfulbarbarity used it exactly as intended).
[10] A yet third edit by User:NBGPWS sarcastically referencing the supposed word misuse.
[18]User:NBGPWS claims Protest Warriors have made "distortions and lies."
[19]User:NBGPWS inserts trolling comment likening Protest Warrior organization to a "floundering", "rudderless, captainless 'ghost ship' that is about to sink!" Sarcastically pleads with User:Ruthfulbarbarity to "save" it.
The mediator need only peruse the archives to read similar comments and worse from Protest Warriors (esp Ruthfulbarbarity) and their supporters. In an effort to rise above the atmosphere of contention, I will refrain from compiling a similar list of offences from Protest Warriors and their supporters. This mediation is about the article, not personality conflicts. I encourage you to focus on improving the article rather than personal greviences. AGF
If the mediators feel a separate mediation is needed to address your behavior, I will completely understand. Although the incidents I detail are not personal greivances but rather quite clear violations of wikipedia policy, I thank you for the encouragement. Since you obviously are capable of doing so, I might also suggest your most effective "encouragement" would be simply acting civilly on the talk page and refraining from making the kinds of edits you have in the past. Unfortunately, I don't think you see the benefit and/or correctness in doing so, and therefore I think it best to get mediators involved in this issue as well. Lawyer2b19:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, I have to ask, almost out of idle curiosity: As the one who requested this mediation, are you prepared to abide by the decisions of the mediators, whatever they may be? Rogue 919:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
My input is that there continues to be an attempt to add almost exlusively negative information that is 1) not reliably sourced or verfiable 2) not neutrally presented and 3) not relevant. Wikipeida is not a blog. I would like to see NBGPWS(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) expand his contributions beyond this article so that he can learn more about what Wikipedia is and is not. --Tbeatty04:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
L2B, why did you delete this info after you yourself, modified it to 'claims to monitor'? Please document your claim that either Scott or Jerry were arrested for assault and plead guilty to disorderly conduct. This is a very serious, and potentially slanderous or libelous charge you're making.
"Protest Warrior is on a 'watch list' of Centex Anti Racist Action, a watchdog group which claims to monitor racist and hate groups in the Southwest. [26][27] who liken the organization to Brown shirts (a label which, as the article mentions, the Protest Warriors have applied to leftists) [28]. The same article also accused the forum on the website of hosting White supremacist views. The author of these criticisms was recently arrested for various assaults related to his protesting. He plead guilty to a 'disorderly conduct' ."
I deleted it because after I modified it to "claims to monitor", I read User:Neverborn's point that the sources don't qualify under WP:V and, after reading WP:V, I agreed with him. I don't believe I made any edit that claimed anybody was arrested. Please provide a link to the edit diff you're talking about and I'll be happy to take a look at it. I believe, though, someone affiliated with www.antiracistaction.us was indeed arrested. This link was provided in the article by someone else which provides some details. Lawyer2b21:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It would probably be helpful to, y'know, link to the watchlist that PW is supposed to be on, rather than just tossing a link to the main site and hoping nobody actually checks. Rogue 921:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Lets's get this allegation of Scott or Jerry being arrested and pleading guilty - a VERY serious charge -addressed first, and I'll gladly help you out R9.
I'm pretty new to Wiki, so please bear with me. WHO added in... "The author of these criticisms was recently arrested for various assaults related to his protesting. He plead guilty to a 'disorderly conduct' .
User:Tbeatty might be mistaken thinking that it was one of the authors of the other articles mentioned in the former criticism section but I don't see any evidence it was intentional. At this point, what with all the sources inappropriate for inclusion, I think the matter is moot. Lawyer2b21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You are correct. I confused "Jason" with "Jerry". I don't think either of them meet the notability criteria. --Tbeatty22:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It is an article by a well established legit organization founded in 1988. It's going back in.
They're established and arguably legitimate. They're also crazy. I was a member of ARA for a short while, until I found I didn't care for going to protests with people who try to start riots when they're bored. Now then: What makes them an authority on Protest Warrior? Rogue 923:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
YOUR fellings about ARA are unimportant and your accounts are unverifiable. I might want to say that from my numerous interactions with PW's at protests that they're all kool aid-drinking, bush-worshipping, randy weaver-loving, cowardly chickenhawks, but I can't add that to the article!
Not to be insulting, but If you can't tell 'jason' from 'jerry' then you don't have the intellectual capacity to be participating on Wiki. The fact that you added SUCH slanderous libelous derogatory info- accusing the author of being arrested and pleading guilty to a crime - without double checking your info is VERY troubling too. No offense, but I am going to ask that you be banned from editing this article (and the DU article which you keep vandalizing too). Sorry
Making gratuitous insults and levelling unfounded charges at people who are actually attempting to bring some sense of discipline and continuity to this article does nothing to substantiate your accusations, or to bring credibility to sources that have already been deemed not worthy of inclusion in this article.
I second Ruthfulbarbarity's extremely wise comments. User:NBGPWS, I wonder if you can imagine how it must seem to others to see someone brush off their own leveling of false accusations by asking that their self-admitted newness to wikipedia pardon their actions then turn around and behave so ungraciously towards someone who readily admits making an honest error. Lawyer2b03:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"extremely wise" ? LOL ! "honest error" ? LOL ! I took a look at his 'contributions' like deleting whole sections of Democratic Underground with fallacious and specious reasoning. I'm getting the hang of this Wiki thing! I will care about what the mediators have to say. EVERYBODY else here has an agenda.
The only difference being that you have not abided by any of the explicitly stated content guidelines-repeatedly cited by other editors in the hope that you would moderate your behavior-or attempted to make positive, consensus-driven emendations to and expansions of this article.
I included the number of active Protest Warriors - those expected to take part in a nationwide PW counterprotest - PW's reason for existance. The info came from a PW Chapter leader. Someone deleted it. Why? I am concerned that people get a realistic idea of PW's size:
Note the discrepansies
"Protest Warrior is a national network of some 7,200 right-of-center activists." (frontpagemag.com 2004)
"I'm expecting about 100 PWs nationwide to take part in it" (national PW couterprotest) "(25 in SF, 30 in NYC, 30 in DC, and 15 in LA) ethanmx2 (PW Chapter leader) Aug 5, 2005 (13 actually showed up in DC - less than half expected)
Isn't the SIZE of PW important? How can this be addressed?
User:NBGPWS, I applaud your concern that people get a realistic idea of the organization's size but I don't think the information you've provided is sufficient to conclude what it is. More importantly, I also concur with Ruthfulbarbarity that it is indeed, original research. You don't seem to have a good handle on what constitutes original research. Have you read the policy on it? Lawyer2b20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity - please act in a civil manner. I have a very good handle on what constitutes OR and most Wiki policies. Many here are openly using WP as 'Wiki Weapons' applying them inconsistently to include or exclude desired info. That I understand VERY well. One more reason that I will WELCOME full mediation of this article
Much of the 'motivation' section is original research, relying on statements FROM PW and links TO PW. Specifically : "Protest Warrior believes that left-wing politics and statism constitute a threat to the future of freedom and individualism, and would inevitably result in totalitarian police states. Seeing "liberals" (in the U.S. usage of the term) as "morally and politically bankrupt" and having a monopoly of media attention, Protest Warrior believes that the voices of the left "are heard disproportionately, demoralizing our troops, and emboldening dictators around the world." (link TO PW) Why does OR not apply there?
Otherwise, you would have already recognized that what you are attempting to insert into the text of this article comprises original research, and would have desisted from your repeated attempts at inserting that unreliable information into the main body of the entry.
Recapitulating part of Protest Warrior's mission statement-and enclosing it in quotation marks-is not the same as posting an unverified, first-hand account of a PW mission.
Back to PW's numbers. Where should I insert the reliable Washington Post documented, verified info that 13 PW's showed up for a NATIONAL PW counterprotest? "It wasn't much of a contest. ProtestWarrior's contingent numbered 13, the other side in the hundreds".[29]
After reading the source cited, which I hadn't before, I can partially see User:NBGPWS' point. While the last clause of what he quotes from the article is a direct quote from the source, the material before it really can't be found in it; at least I couldn't. So, while I give kudos to User:NBGPWS for pointing out some material that in my opinion appears to be original research, I am forced to ask of him, "Why do you think that the proper solution to finding originally researched material in the article is to add more originally researched material rather than point out the material and remove it?" Lawyer2b22:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Washington Post article, I would tend to agree with Ruthfulbarbarity as to where to put it but if User:NBGPWS feels there is something particularly significant about the article, I'm sure he (like I) is open to hear other ideas on where to include it. Is there something significant about the article? Lawyer2b22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The TOPIC AT HAND is the 'size of protest warrior' like the HEADING says. There is a section on future campaigns. I will add a section on past campaigns with the VERIFIED RELIABLE DOCUMENTED number of PW's who particpated. I will start it with a short description of 'Operation Hail to the Chief' and the 13 Protest Warriors it attracted. OK?
The Washington Post article-aside from an estimate of the number of Protest Warriors in attendance at that specific operation, which took all of one sentence-had absolutely nothing to do with the cumulative size of Protest Warrior as an organization. It was about an assault by anarchists on Protest Warriors who were peacefully demonstrating, and an exploration of what Protest Warrior members hoped to accomplish by traveling to Washington D.C. that day.
LMAO!! '13' is not an 'estimate'. '13' is an exact count, a specfic number. 'about a dozen' would be an 'estimate'. The lengths you go to......LOL! NBGPWS22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity:
By the way - I looked through the archives and I couldn't find where the hacking by Protest Warrior Brett Chance (ELAC) was discussed and issue settled. Could you please point me to it? Thanks
NBGPWS22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No.
I'm not here to rehash timeworn arguments that have already consumed far too much time as it is.
Also, I suggest that you start addressing me by my actual screen name-the online pseudonym I've chosen for this site-since it would save me the trouble of correcting that mistake in the future.
If you are unable to do that, then I suggest you refer to me by my screen name's initials, at the very least.
But you're SURE, as you have asserted several times, that the hacking by Protest Warrior Brett Chance (ELAC) was discussed at length, and the issue settled??? If so, I'll scour the archives again then, RB
I agree with Ruthful, that the article doesn't say anything about the size of the organization. It sounds like you want to make a case, by including a documented list of Protest Warrior activities, that the size of the organization is less than advertised. You may or may not be right, but this is, again, original research. If you want the article to include statements about the size of the Protest Warrior organization, I think you need to find verifiable sources that actually address that topic. Am I misundertanding what you want to do? Lawyer2b22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
After reading the article in the Boulder Weekly, I think a brief mention of the hacker Clorox could be in the article. Who is Brett Chance, though? Lawyer2b22:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The ELAC question, the article posted to Indymedia, Rockn'Rev, whether or not weblogs opposed to Protest Warrior constitute proper sourcing, etc...
These questions have all been addressed-to a greater or lesser degree-in this talk page, as well as previous, archived talk pages.
Like I said, if you want to post a link to the Washington Post article documenting Operation Hail To The Chief, then feel free to post it under "external links."
Do not attempt to distort or manipulate the content of said article in order to make an innacurate, or immaterial point about the number of existing Protest Warrior members, or participants in Protest Warrior operations.
I think the incident is notable only because the Boulder Weekly article indicates that the hacking of the Protest Warrior site served as some catalyst for his actions, writing, "He joined an organization called ProtestWarrior.com, an organization that poked fun at and disrupted liberal protestors during the campaign. Then someone hacked the ProtestWarrior.com website and posted personal information about its members—including clorox—on Indymedia websites. Clorox says it took the Indymedia sites weeks to remove the hacked information, despite multiple requests. On the other hand, says clorox, Indymedia sites would eliminate any pro-Bush articles he posted on their sites almost immediately." Lawyer2b23:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
L2B wrote:
" It sounds like you want to make a case, by including a documented list of Protest Warrior activities, that the size of the organization is less than advertised. "
HUH??? What size is PW 'advertised' to be? What size do you estimate PW to be?
Don't you think it's important that a reader has an idea of the size of any activist organization? Is an organization with tens of thousands of active members different than one with a few dozen?
NBGPWS00:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You wrote above, quoting from Frontpage.com, that it had over 7000 members. I meant that you think it has less than that. I have no idea how many members there are. Yes, I think its important but, I feel it necessary to caution that it is not more important than following wikipedia policy. Yes, I would think an organization with tens of thousands of active members is different than one with a few dozen. Now that I've answered your questions, would you mind responding to mine above? "Why do you think that the proper solution to finding originally researched material in the article is to add more originally researched material rather than point out the material and remove it?"Lawyer2b02:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
To point out, Hail to the Chief wasn't just in DC. South Florida actually had a stronger showing than the DC chapter; I have their video on my computer. Unfortunately, their web site seems to be down at the moment. Rogue 923:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Added section 'past campaigns'
I added a section on past campaigns, Please add your documented verifiable and reliable info on 'official' PW campaigns to this new section. I'll add a few tonight. RB, NB or R9, what was the official PW name of the operation referred to as the 'crawford incident'? Thanks ( can someone make an archive? I don't know how. Thanks)
Archiving done. I don't know about the name of the "Crawford incident," though I could see if it's on HQ anywhere. While we're at it, why don't we try putting in Wolverines or Liberty Rising? Rogue 900:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks bud! By all means add them in. (with proper sourcing, of course)
Hey R9, Does the 'operation' of that guy in high school who posted posted fliers in the halls and then had to go to the principal's office count as an 'official PW operation'? I think it has an official 'campaign name' and is listed on the official PW 'operations' page. What was it called again? Thanks
Note to Lawyer2B.... I see you addressed Ruthfulbarbarity as 'ruthful'. Some friendly advice... He's VERY touchy about people not using his full handle, or 'RB', which he said was OK! I urge caution lest he smite you!
I kindly request-once again-that you comport yourself with the minimal demands of civil behavior and basic etiquette while on this website before proceeding.
You have already been admonished by numerous editors-including several administrators-and blocked from editing once.
Please try to demonstrate some good faith efforts at reaching consensus, refrain from denigrating other users-or implying that they are attempting to frustrate your efforts at contributing to Wikipedia-and if that fails, take a breather to collect your thoughts and cool down.
I am being perfectly civil and don't need your advice, thank you. You have way more admonitions from Wiki gurus like Kuzaar for YOUR behavior than I do for mine, so I respectfully suggest that you 'put a cork in it', RB
No, you are not, as illustrated by the numerous admonitions for incivility-both on this talk page and on yours-as well as your previous comment.
Your last few comments, to be quite honest.
If you have a problem maintaining your composure, then a good course of action might be to step back from this article-which you have obviously invested a lost of time in-for some introspection.
I am pefectly composed. I respectfully suggest that your time might be better spent adding to the article rather than foisting your unsolicited and unneeded advice upon me, my good sir. Might you write a section on Protest Warrior Brett Chance's hacking of Indymedia for our consideration?
NBGPWS05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Your actions demonstrate otherwise.
This discussion is not designed to "add" or "subtract" large quantities of unverified, speculative, or unsourced information to the Protest Warrior article.
I think this is a misimpression that you are laboring under, which needs to be corrected.
So, for the purposes of clarification,
We're here to arrive at a rough consensus at what useful, verifiable, documentable information should be included in this article, and what material-including links-do not meet the criteria for inclusion.
In other words, we are attempting to improve the article in question.
I don't know what your goal is, but if it isn't to improve the article, then this discussion is-in large part-futile.
It should be noted that we would be spending a lot more time improving this article-rather than admonishing you-if you spent much less time violating the rules, serving as an obstruction to constructive resolution, and attempting to tinker with the article in question without consulting other participants in this rather acrimonious discussion.
So your behavior is-ironically enough-preventing others from implementing the improvements that you purportedly desire.
I seek only to improve the quality of the article, and considering the large amount of content which was written or edited by me, content that has stood up to the challenges of at least 3 active Protest Warriors (who many feel shouldn't be editing an article on an organization in which they are members of anyway) my contributions have been of critical importance, if I do say so myself! I hope, despite your animosity towards me, that you will agree, my good sir.
NBGPWS07:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that it would be futile as well as unwise to attempt to list all of the past protest warrior operations (as the section should probably be renamed). A mention of especially notable operations along with a representative sample of the "average mission" should suffice, along with the links below on the page. The section as it is now is hardly representative of the average activities by the group. I will attempt to remedy that, and welcome any help. TheKaplan07:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
There are proabaly less than 10 official PW operations listed on PW. I'm not sure how many of those can be verified and documented by reliable sources. There have been several since then, that aren't listed, as PW doesn't update that page regularly anymore, but forces their members to host their own accounts. There won't be too many to list.
I can't find any appropriate Wiki-approved sources that documented 'Operation Miltary Shield". Where did you get your info?
Thanks
NBGPWS07:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately that would be what is considered original research and unacceptable! I'm just learning about these policies myself, maybe an expert like Lawyer2b can explain it better, but for you to even LIST that event, it would have to be mentioned by an independent, verifiable, reputable third-party source. A blog or discussion board like Free Republic wouldn't even count! (aint that the shitz?) Maybe a local paper in the area covered it? Using PW as the source on a PW event is not allowed! I'll let it stay until tomorrow, but if you can't source it better, it's gonna have to go. Wiki's really strict about this stuff! Who knew? ;-) ::NBGPWS08:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not OR and it is a RS. Web sites are considered reliable when they make claims about themselves. Websites that document their actions is not Original Research. They meet all WP requiremeents. For example, citing the CNN website for information about CNN's editors is perfectly fine. It can be included. Removing the operation might be considered vandalism, however. Are there any other concerns or can you remove the OR tag?--Tbeatty09:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we De-Weasel this article. "generally characterized as pro bush" is totally unacceptable without documentation.
For the record, whether or not some people here are members of Protest Warrior is immaterial to the discussion at hand.
The problem I have with NBG's editing has nothing to do with the fact that he is inveterately hostile to the goals of Protest Warrior, or even the fact that he was banned from the Protest Warrior forums.
My objection stems from his inability to divorce himself from these ingrained feelings while on this website.
Thus far I haven't seen any editor, outside of NeoConsbeGone, allege that the Protest Warriors who are contributing to this discussion and its related article have done so in a biased or misleading manner.
1) YOU were also banned from Protest Warrior, before you came crawling back.
2) NBG was NOT banned from PW. 'Jeff Gannon' was, obstensibly for posting 'pornography' a montage of Jeff Gannon pics that showed no genetalia or even his ass. This photo was so innacuous that it could be shown on network TV during prime time.
I don't want to drive this discussion into yet another digressive tangent, but I'll simply state that you were in fact banned from Protest Warrior, either under your trademark pseudonym or a sockpuppet account.
That is an inexorable fact, not a baseless assertion on my part.
This would not be relevant if you were contributing to this article, and its concomitant discussion, in a positive manner.
Unfortunately, you are not.
Also, I would suggest, yet again, that you conduct yourself in a slightly more mature manner, especially if you hope to be taken seriously on this subject.
I removed the "centex watchlist" bit of the criticism re WP:V as pointed out above, and replaced it with a more general criticism section that is supported by the existing sources. The section, obviously, needs to be expanded; this was just a start. Happy editing, TheKaplan18:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, your version was lacking. Much of it, like the completely off topic part about acronyms was pure conjecture on your part with NO documentation.
Unfortunately, the centex watchlist mention has already been deemed in violation of WP:V and is not notable enough to boot. However, the backronyms sentence was information taken from the sources you yourself provided. I am not too attatched to it, but since we can't have the centex mention, we need somthing else to flesh out the critcisms, if we are even going to have that section. TheKaplan19:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It hasn't been deemed in violation of WP:V
Who keeps removing 'admitted dug addict' Rush Limbuagh? It's proven fact. Warning - The next time it's deleted the offending party will be charged with vandalism.
The only individual who's been vandalizing this article-repeatedly-is you.
I suggest, once again, that if you can't comport yourself with the minimal demands of civil, mature behavior that you at least consider voluntarily removing yourself from this discussion.
I haven't removed the drug addict reference (yet), but I would like to point out that Rush Limbaugh is not the subject of this article. If someone wants to learn more about him, including the fact that he's been treated for drug addiction, they may click the wiki-link to the article about him. We don't need details about him in this article. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a whole, not the sum of it's parts; there's no need to be redundant. Rogue 922:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The drug-addict comment is entirely inappropriate here. The article is neither about Rush Limbaugh nor about drugs. Otherwise every time any person's name is mentioned on Wikipedia critics will add a few choice adjectives. Regarding Centrex, it certainly seems to be a violation of WP:RS, though I don't have any issues with its notability if it's the most notable criticism we can find. Vpoko 22:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC) - Note: I have removed the offending remark. Vpoko23:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Its as enytirely appropriate as the description 'talk show host' - PLUS, it's not an adjective! An adjective would be 'slimy' dug addict Rush Limabuagh. You have vandalized the article. I warned you not to.
After reviewing the website, I don't think that Centex is notable enough to include in this article. Also violates WP:RS. Is there some other source for this information other than a blog? Morton devonshire22:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. WP:RS was what I meant to cite as well as WP:V. And I third the comments on the addict reference. In this context it would more likely be considered vandalism to repeatedly keep reinserting it. Cheers, TheKaplan23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless you can DISprove the accepted fact that Rush Limbaugh is an 'admitted drig addict' removing it is vandalism. You have been warned too.
NBGPWS, something is not vandalism because you say it is. Nobody would even entertain the notion of a difference of opinion being Wikipedia:Vandalism, which is the deliberate attempt to compromise an article. Please remember that Wikipedia works on consensus. As far as the drug addict remark, my issue is not with its accuracy but with its appropriateness in this article. A link to Rush Limbaugh is enough. Vpoko00:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Rush has admitted that he was using drugs (2000 pills a month I believe) during the time-frame when he gave PW the plug. I think it important to note his active drug addiction in reference to his admiration for PW during this period.
I don't understand the connection. Is it your intention to say that Rush was too doped-up to realize who was on his show? I don't get it. Seems POV to me. Morton devonshire05:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The new version that says "during the time" could be cited as the definition of weasel words. I believe we already went over why the addiction reference is not suitable for this article. Morton's currently reverted rewrite seems to be quite acceptable. TheKaplan06:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies!
I offer my sincere apologies to those editors I wrongly accused of vandalism. I am pretty new, and was repeatedly accused of vandalism by some of the editors who have been working on this article over what were merely content disputes, so I had an incorrect idea of what vandalism was. I will strive to be more circumspect in my accusations. I ask that user Jossi take an active role in editing this article to ensure balance.
I mean balance in the editing process. There are 3 active Protest Warriors and 4 supporters who I contend use WP in an inconsistant manner to exclude much valid criticism and other info which they consider unfavorable to Protest Warrior. That is exactly WHY - *I* asked for FORMAL MEDIATION. Do I need to reference the thread on Protest Warrior asking members to skew this article to make sure PW is viewed in a positive light? I don't want to waste any more discussing this, my good sir. I also kindly ask that you refrain from accusing ME of vandalism which I gather is verboten per WP. "The only individual who's been vandalizing this article-repeatedly-is you." Ruthfulbarbarity 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC) As civil-rights icon Rodney King once pleaded "can't we just all get along?"
No one here is attempting to exclude valid material from this article.
All of us agreed that the Washington Post article describing the confrontation that occurred during Operation Defend The White House should be linked to.
The problem was that you wanted to insert one selective passage into an inappropriate portion of the article, and manipulate the wording in order to illustrate a tendentious point that the author of that profile piece had not intended to make.
The same holds true for the Elac conversation.
The material about the Elac hacking incident should be included, but only if you can locate a reliable source documenting the event, not including an IMC website.
And the thread you referenced was related to the afd discussion, not the article itself, or this talk page, IIRC.
There is no way that someone can permanently "skew" an article that is continuously being revised and edited.
It was Protest Warriors who attempted to get the article protected in the first place, which-considering the amount of vandalism that had taken place prior to the imposition of a semi-protection template-was a wise decision.
Wiki articles on Free Republic, and Democratic Underground, 2 organizations that are infinitely more important and popular than PW (according to Alexa rankings), and much more closely scrutinized by their supporters here on Wiki have sections with links to notable, even controversial threads - threads that are not mentioned on third party sites.
Info like this needs to be in the PW article, so I added it. Why are the PW forum members and supporters so reluctant to have their own words published?
NBGPWS, you are trolling. There's no way around it. Where is your objective standard for "notability?" There's no "Notable Threads" section on Free Republic or Democratic Underground - the only thread I see mentioned is DU's tsunami thread, which was published in the New York Times. Your idea of "notable threads" is negative stuff about PW, relatively unpopular threads written by known trolls like Glidescube. Really, you should just stop. A 5 page thread about "beat up a liberal day" where most posters just thought the original poster was an idiot .... is notable? In that case, someone can go to DU and post "We Democrats sure do love Hitler" and it'll get linked as a "notable thread" if any anti-DU idiot wants it to be? Why not make "notable avatars" and put "NBGPWS enjoyed using the swastika as his avatar." Where does it end? Tell me that, NBGPWS, where does your ridiculous obsession with making this article reflect as badly on PW as it can end? It's just tiring at this point. --Neverborn07:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
From the Wiki Free Republic entry
The Free Republic’s members have been known to have been involved in vandalism against websites they perceive to be liberal, with administrators often calling for a coordinated [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1549132/posts][www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535547/posts] vandalism against information websites they perceived to have a liberal bias, primarily related to major racial and political topics. Several administrators have actively endorsed plan’s for these attacks and have gone as far as providing tips on how to evade detection.
Allegations of extremism ===
Many posts on Free Republic are devoted to the ridicule of persons or groups perceived as anathema to conservatives.
-cyberstalking-
One case involved the owner of a restaurant who notified authorities when an underage Jenna Bush attempted to illegally purchase liquor at the establishment. The owner's name, residential address, date of birth, drivers license and registration information, physical description, and information about her infant child was posted on the Free Republic forums by users. Forum users then advocated violence toward the restaurant's patrons, as well as destroying it physically. [30][www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b1c06357d1e.htm].
Another example is when the members of Free Republic, along with other conservative web sites participated in the cyberstalking and physical stalking of Andy Stephenson while he was dying of cancer. Freepers claimed that Andy Stephenson did not have cancer,......
How many of those links link directly to theads on FR? (DU sourcing coming)
(DU)officially disavowed what they called "kooky tsunami conspiracy theories". They added, "One wonders why the author [of the Times article] did not spend five minutes over at Free Republic and instead write an article about how conservatives think the tsunami was some sort of retribution from God, or how Muslims deserved it." [31] Another example is the conspiracy theories revolving around the August 2006 terror plot to blow up airliners between the UK and the US, which received mention in USA Today.[32] Some posters felt that the American government's push to step-up the announcement of the plot[33] was a conspiracy to bump Joe Lieberman's primary loss out of the news cycle. Others felt that the plot was itself a conspiracy [34] to bolster flagging Republican poll numbers, a sentiment echoed by DNC chairman Howard Dean.
Once again I ask...Why are Protest Warrior members and defenders so reluctant that people might actually READ (or read a description of) what they post on their forums?
User:NBGPWS, am I correct in understanding you are accusing me of using wikipedia policies in an inconsistant manner to exclude much valid criticism and other info which I consider unfavorable to Protest Warrior? If so, please substantiate your charge by presenting any evidence (edit diffs, etc.) you have. I consider that charge to be a very serious one, and hope you do as well. Lawyer2b15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition, User:Caelestissurf has popped up out of nowhere and reverted Morton's edit re the Rush section back to the version preferred by NBGPWS. This editor has no edit history, in fact, no other edits at all. Coming when NBGPWS is at 3RR, this is a little suspicious, to say the least.
I'm not sure how to file the relevant reports on the admin pages; the official formatting is pretty confusing. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of wiki code could take that up. Otherwise I will just have to see if I can make sense of them. TheKaplan07:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Your assertions are incorrect and I will be looking into the ramifications of implying that I am using a 'sock puppet. I know for sure that it doesn't AGF.
"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. WP:3RR
I think your use of the warning on my discussion page can possibly be considered a violation as well.. Someone complained when I did it. I'll have to check.
How come the Protest Warrior members and defenders are so concerned that people may actually READ what they post on their forums? Threads on DU and FR are linked to from their main Wiki articles. BRING ON THE MEDIATION!
Here is your own 24 hour edit history on the PW main page, TheKaplan
19:28, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (removed pov pushing)
18:51, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Motivation - removed
18:46, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (re: criticism, see talk)
18:33, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (pov and grammar)
14:35, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Methodology)
07:41, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Past operations - added cite)
07:40, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
07:39, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
07:39, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
07:31, 22 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Protest Warrior (→Past operations)
NBGPWS 09:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
In response to TheKaplan above: in my opinion, both sides in this dispute are liable for edit warring and inserting POV into the article. I think mediation by a neutral party would be the best way to resolve this. Additionally, using sockpuppets to circumvent the 3RR is behavior that must be discouraged. If you think that's the case, opening a case at RFCU would be the proper way to go. --Kuzaar-T-C-13:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS, May I suggest that you are too concerned with the letter of rules (something called Wikilawyering). Assuming good faith doesn't mean we have to ignore things that appear to be made in bad faith, and it doesn't help that you continue to make tenuous connections to other Wiki policies. The Caelestissurf account seems quite a bit like sockpuppetry - now maybe it isn't you, but nobody is talking about taking any action against you, but we should have the issue investigated by an admin and I intend to enter the request. You are new to Wikipedia and I would suggest you lurk around some articles and talk pages to see how well this process can work. Again, I just want to stress that I have no personal interest in this article (I'd never heard of PW until I saw your request on the mediation page). Vpoko13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, User:NBGPWS is guilty of many things, but as far as I can tell, the edit diffs TheKaplan presented at the beginning of this section do not show a violation of WP:3RR. The edits need to be of (substantially) the same material edited four times within a 24 hour period. I could be mistaken, but I don't see it. Lawyer2b15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It is my understanding that they do not need to be of the same material. This is from the WP:3RR page: Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count. [emphasis theirs]. If you're looking for this phrase on the policy page, it's at the bottom of the "detail" section. All the edit diffs I listed were the reversion of another recently made edit. Even though there might be several edits between the time the edit was made and NBGPWS reverted it, that doesn't make it any less of a revert. Should I have listed the diffs with the original edit contrasted to the revert? I thought that would be too confusing because of edits in between. The diffs show the revert in contrast to the previous edit.TheKaplan16:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: While the reasoning above has not changed, it is possible that NBGPWS has saved himself from a block by reverting his own revert [40], although this still leaves 4 reverts. TheKaplan17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I am embarassed and ashamed. That the reverts do not have to be of the same material is an aspect of WP:3RR of which I was not previously aware. (mumble something about needing to reading more than just the warning template of a policy to have an understanding of it) That being said, I still don't think User:NBGPWS' actions here constitute a violation (but I'm not sure) because those particular edits don't seem to be involved in an edit war and preventing an edit war was the intent of the policy. Lawyer2b17:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You may be embarassed and ashamed, but I don't see an apology like *I* offered to all those I falsly accused! Like my request formal mediation, I WELCOME the investigation into whose 'sock puppet' that is. I wouldn't bother using one.
Vpkoko, please peruse this page, and the archives. My MAIN charge is that the 3 active Protest Warriors, and their defenders have used Wikilawyering EXTENSIVELY and inconsistantly to exclude information that they consider unfavorable, and to INCLUDE info they think favorable.They even talked about it on PW, where they discussed their plans to skew this article to make the organization look good. Would you like me to find that thread and post their discussion here? (by the way, the 'return thing' doesn't make new paragraphs for me, thus the use of >P<. Does it not work on Macs running Safari?)
Agreed, Lawyer2b. The 3RR policy is intended to keep a user from repeatedly making the same change (whether through reverts, edits, or putting the same unwanted information elsewhere in the article). It seems like NBGPWS was careful not to cross the 3RR line (though he may have crossed the line in other ways, such as when he asked User:Damburger to alternate reverts with him so neither would hit 3RR). There is also the alleged sockpuppet account, but we'll have to wait and see on that. Vpoko18:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there exists a more clearly cut case of 3RR as edit warring, although of course I'm sure others disagree. I reccomend that the issue be referred to the admins who specialize in this sort of thing through a listing on the 3RR report page, where they can decide. Even if this is not pursued, I would like to put on record that i do not invoke blocking policies frivolously and still consider it to be a valid citation of a 3RR violation in letter, despite disagreements over whether it is in spirit. Now we just have to wait for the sockpuppet inquiry to be resolved. Cheers, TheKaplan19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
