Talk:Protest Warrior

Problems with current version

The protected version is much better than the version used by 24.103 and other editors. However it has these serious POV problems:

Defining liberalism as collectivism, nazism, theocracy, etc.
Implying that liberals are morally bankrupt (this needs to be attributed to PW better, the current statement is ambiguous)
Rephrase "The website introduction pretty much says it all"
In "whether they be Communist, Nazi, theocrat, neo-Conservative, or Libertarian," this list is unnecessary and the Nazi mention especially serves no good.
The external links to criticism must stay in the article. External links do not have to present the subject in a positive light.

Rhobite 01:31, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

The external links should be allowed, so long as they are at the bottom of the page, and separated into "pro" and "con". The liberalism thing is refering to the american usage of the word liberal, which is innaccurate. In reality the word "liberal" means "libertarian" essentially. The mention of Nazi is a good one I think, because it makes clear just how bad these guys think lefties are. It is very common concept that left-wingers are ignorantly pushing towards dictatorship and totalitarianism, fascism, communism, etc... Anyways, I'd like the article unprotected, so I'd be happy to discuss whatever needs discussing so that we can begin editing w a concensus. Sam [Spade] 16:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also:

Subjective and suspicious comparisons between PW's forums and "many other left-wing political forums" -- PW is not the authority on how other forums operate and it certainly isn't verified encyclopedic information that PW even runs its forums in the way it claims.

-- Antaeus Feldspar 16:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can agree with that, the article does seem to have a slight "PW's have a really super website" slant, which could do w some toning down. That said the fact that they encourage people of various politics, and apparently don't ban people based on ideology seems noteworthy. Sam [Spade] 16:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not really. I'm sure there are forums that actually do ban posters based on ideology, but it is certainly not the rule for left-wing forums, and that is exactly what the write-up as it stands would have us believe is the case. They may also preach that they "encourage people of various politics", but we do not have any evidence whatever that they practice what they preach; there are very few groups where we could take their word for a claim like that, and this group is certainly not one of them. I mean, just look at the sentence that ends that paragraph: "Protest Warriors believe they are right and therefore hold to the view that engaging in open and honest debate is far more effective than simply silencing the opposition." If you took this as an authentic statement of their beliefs, and took it on faith that they practice what they preach, you would never guess that in fact the group's primary tactic -- practically the reason for their existence -- is to falsely attribute discrediting straw man statements to their opposition; that's certainly not part of "open and honest debate". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Straw man?

It should be noted that Protest Warrior's main form of activism is the wide-scale practice of the straw man technique, claiming that by displaying easily-refuted slogans such as "Communism has only killed 100 million people... let's give it another chance" they have thereby "exposed" the bankruptcy of leftism.

With that being their modus operandi and the easily-refuted lies of a persistent, anonymous vandal being what forced the page to be protected in a form that reads like a Protest Warrior press release, it's no wonder the suspicion is that the vandal is only another PWer, serving the PW's ends. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That strikes me as an extremely POV, unhelpful viewpoint. Is there something specific you'd like to discuss about the article, rather than other editors and their theoretical politics, or insults towards the organization in question? There is absolutely no way that calling the protest warriors claims "straw man" arguments is going to be allowed in the article. Unless you have a quote from an expert source stating such, it would be an outlandish violation of the NPOV policy to state that. Sam [Spade] 16:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, please re-read my statement. And then re-read the article. Do you feel that these two slogans:

"Saddam only killed his own people.. it was none of our business"

and

"Communism has only killed 100 million people... let's give it another chance"

are actually accurate statements of what the left-wing believes? If not, then what Protest Warrior is doing by holding those signs up in the middle of protests, pretending that those beliefs are indeed what the left espouses, is holding them up as straw men. It's inherent in the definition of straw man; the only way it can be denied is if you truly assert that the modern American left in general does indeed still support Communism. I marvel at this idea of yours that it would be a violation of NPOV to point out that what the Protest Warriors do on a regular basis, their primary tactic, is in fact the straw man rhetorical technique. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You appear to be unable or unwilling to understand the humorous nature of these signs, as well as their obvious intent, which is to shock, amuse, embaress and make distinct the nature of their oppositions position. And yes, the extreme left (and who else goes to these protests?) does advocate communism, have you talked to any of them lately? There are plenty here on the wiki itself, most of the "anarcho-communist" persuasion, and if thats not enough, try reading up on the anti-globalism movement. Think about how democrats feel about cuba, for example. Frankly, I find it outlandish that you would ignore how many people say (usually as an exageration, but sometimes sincerely) that the Democratic party is communist. Noam Chomsky, anyone? I think you might do well to read a bit of him, and compare it w say.. Ann Coulter ;) Sam [Spade] 21:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Plenty of people go to protests for plenty of different reasons Sam, so please don't assume that you know what they believe. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with Chomsky and Coulter. Rhobite 22:28, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that all war protestors are communists. I was making it clear that some are. I think the fact that essentially all of them are far left-wing goes without saying. If you don't understand what I was saying about Noam and Ann, try following my advice and reading up a bit on the two of them, and where they differ ;) Sam [Spade] 22:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It does not go without saying that essentially all war protestors are far left-wing. That characterization is false. I'm familiar with Chomsky and Coulter's views, but I still don't know what your point was re: their mention. What profound revelation am I supposed to have after comparing their views? What does it have to do with Protest Warrior? Rhobite 00:10, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

We don't agree re: war protestor demographics, so lets either cite it or drop it. Prob just drop it, since I don't intend to say that within the article, but I suppose if we had a cite it would be an interesting factoid. Similar w Coulter and Chomsky, its not terribly important to the article, and we should prob just drop it, but my point was to make it clear how different POV's re: politics can be, theoretically helping those unable to comprehend the POV of their opposition to become more aware of the diversity of thought. Also Chomsky is a commie, and coulter an anti-commie, anti-democrat, who thinks democrats are traitors, etc... She is a bit of a protest warrior herself, as Chomsky is clearly an anti-war protester (altho I doubt either of them walks around w placards very often ;) Sorry for having been esoteric or whatnot, Sam [Spade] 00:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So, basically, you're saying that they are not offering straw man distortions of their opponents' positions because it's an accurate representation of their positions? That's crap. One doesn't have to be a member of the "extreme left" to support Kerry; one doesn't have to be a member of the "extreme left" even to go to a pro-Kerry rally. Therefore there is no justification for Protest Warrior to send out a Che Guevara-lookalike to talk about why all good Communists support Kerry. By your logic, since Protest Warrior is on the right, and among those on the right are "white power" advocates, then our persistent vandal would actually be completely justified in inserting "white power" language into PW's manifesto in order to "shock, amuse, embaress and make distinct the nature of their oppositions position." -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If this was a debate forum, and not an encyclopedia, than the vandal wouldn't be a vandal, and he would be at least vaguely justified in expressing his opinion. On the other hand, referring to my position as "crap" would not be acceptable in any debate forum that I have been a part of. It seems very clear to me that you have a strong POV on this subject, and are not interested in seeing the article present this organization in a NPOV manner. My first thought is that perhaps this is not the best article for you to be editing. My second thought is that if you insist on saying bad things about Protest Warriors, I recommend you start looking for some citable sources, because you aren?t going to be allowed to simply pour your POV into the article, but you can cite expert sources, assuming its verifiable, and relevant. As far as if white power advocates are on the Right, I don't agree that they are, since I see Fascism, Nazism, Totalitarianism, etc.. to be left-wing ideologies. See [1]. Clearly we don't agree about very many things, but I hope we do agree with the M:Foundation issues, and thus will seek to make this article as neutral as possible. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 23:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Funny, I could very well say the same of you. (In response to the accusation "It seems very clear to me that you have a strong POV on this subject, and are not interested in seeing the article present this organization in a NPOV manner."): As applied to myself, the first part of that statement is true, but the second is an unwarranted personal attack upon me. Which cannot be defended against, BTW, with the tu quoque defense "Well you called my position crap and that's a personal attack", because it isn't; I criticized your position, and did so sharply, but I did not attack you personally, even though it would have been easy for me to say "Wait, now he's actually claiming that Protest Warrior's slogans are accurate representations of the left's stance? Because he must know what atrocious and indefensible nonsense that is, it follows that he is a dishonest editor." I did not; I simply pointed out that claiming that Protest Warrior is correct in attributing to the average protestor on the left an indifference to the murder of 100,000,000 people is crap.

Of course, now that you are claiming that I must not be interested in NPOV because my phrasing was "crap" rather than "atrocious and indefensible nonsense", it's getting harder for me to assume good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How many sources does one need to cite in order to state that water is wet? Protest Warrior makes no secret of its methods, and anyone who realizes the vast yawning gap between the actual beliefs of the left and PW's grotesque misrepresentation of those beliefs can see that PW is in the business of straw men. If you want to argue in the article that the average Kerry rally attendee can safely be assumed to be ideologically synonymous with Noam Chomsky, you are the one who's going to have to cite the sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please don't chop up my text; it makes communicating intelligibly more difficult. I am not personally attacking you; I am noticing that you think it is an obvious fact that Protest Warriors are a fallacious organization, and that the article should describe their tactics as "Straw man". That is POV. I didn't say that the average Kerry rally attendee is ideologically synonymous w Noam Chomsky, and of course I don't want the article to say that, nor any of the POV statements I did make. That is a straw man BTW, attempting to portray me as having said something I didn't, something very different from the sarcasm and obviously provocative humor which Protest warriors utilize. They aren’t attempting to confuse the debate by summing up their opponents position falsely, rather they are humorously exaggerating and presenting their own version of what they think of the lefts position. Of course no Lefty would put things that way, and nobody is suggesting they would. Rather it is a highly effective method of antagonizing protestors... protestors who incidentally are trying to antagonize others w their chants; disturbing, exaggerated signs, and other obnoxious antics. Isn't that the whole idea of protesting, to make a big annoying fuss? Sam [Spade] 11:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As noted previously, claiming that I must be unwilling or unable to work towards NPOV because I don't consider the current state of the article (which contains no criticism whatsoever of this controversial group) to already be NPOV, is indeed a personal attack upon me. As for the rest of your reply, once again you are juggling with facts, hoping that if they stay in the air long enough, they will be pointing to a different conclusion when they come down. But here is where the facts lie: Either the Protest Warriors are accurately capturing the essence of their targets' positions, and putting their own sardonic spin on them (oh, yes, I recognize the humorous intent, I just don't view it as an open pass to disrupt others' free speech) or they are presenting their own spin on some other position that they are falsely presenting as that of their targets. That's it.

No, I think that definitely, if there is one of us who is worthy of your charge of "doesn't want to see NPOV applied to this article", it is you. Your misunderstanding is almost willful: claiming in one breath that the Protest Warriors are correct and justified because Democrats are Communists and just look at Noam Chomsky to see that it's true; then feigning hurt and pretending it was someone else who tried to lump John Kerry and Noam Chomsky and Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini into one big bin labelled "The Left".

"Protestors [...] are trying to antagonize others w their chants; disturbing, exaggerated signs, and other obnoxious antics. Isn't that the whole idea of protesting, to make a big annoying fuss?" As Rhobite already pointed out to you (and as you ignored, in a most unbecoming manner) plenty of people go to protests for plenty of different reasons. Hmmmm, let's see, since you demand citations for any fact which goes against your prejudices, how about this? "Protesters may organize a protest as a way of publicly and forcefully making their opinions heard in an attempt to influence public opinion or government policy[.]" Do you need any more citations before you can accept that some protesters protest to get a message across? And when protesters are trying to get a message across, what is the accurate description of a second party who comes up and tries to attribute a different message to them, tries to say "No, no, no, don't listen to them to find out what they believe, listen to our 'humorous' description of what we claim they believe"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposed text for this point

I suggest that the following sentence would restore some balance to the article:

While Protest Warrior describes itself as 'exposing' the dangers of leftism, critics charge that by defining "leftism" with uncommon broadness and attributing extremist beliefs to the left in general, Protest Warrior is really engaging in straw man smearing of its opposition.

It should be noted that this language has already been opposed by Sam, who feels that that this text would be original research until it can be made in the form of some appeal to authority. I, myself, fail to see why the moderate leftist position cannot be represented at all (violating the NPOV principle of representing all sides of a dispute fairly) until some "authority" among moderate leftists can be quoted to say "Why, no, in fact, these extremist positions are not what we believe." Until this imbalance is addressed, we have the peculiar situation where Protest Warrior can smear their targets through this article just as they do through their "Operations" but their targets are disallowed from replying, and Sam thinks that's fair. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

propaganda outlet, no encyclopaedic content

It's a worldwide organization: No it's not. A website that has some members from outside of the US is not a worldwide organization

leftism, that is statist collectivism (Communism, Nazism, theocracy): Nonsense. Leftism is not statist collectivism. And neither Nazism nor a theocracy are leftism.

to provide an alternative ideological viewpoint: And that is simply rightwing extremism (Read the forums!), no alternative viewpoint at all.

has gained fame and notoriety by "crashing" left-wing events: Showing up with funny signs is not crashing anything. Ten Protest Warriors in a protest march of 50.000 is nothing like a an incident, barely noticed by anyone.

protests of their own, often against what it considers to be pro-terrorist organizations: Again implying that is is leftism.

One of the more notable segments of Protest Warrior footage can be seen in their Crashing the Protests video which shows a leftist: A leftist? A home video showing one single individual for sure is reason enough to refer to it on Wikipedia. The opinion of that individual is that of all leftists (Nazis, pro-terroists, theocrats). Complete nonsense.

The website is often zealous and confrontational and, much like the Protest Warrior signs, often uses humor and sarcasm: No sarcasm and no humor to be found on that site. This is a cheap attempt to hide the Protest Warriors main message: Muslims are a threat to the world and to the US in particular. Flatten, nuke and kill them (To be read thousands of times on Protest Warrior!)

The active forums of Protest Warrior have a large selection of political discussion and are split up into nine different sections: Incorrect. There exist 2 forum with political discussions (liberty, enemy) all others are not related to politics. The 2 forums mostly contain "postwhoring", "Are libbies gay"-polls, "Death to Muslims"-topics and similar. The entire forum section as well as the Protest Warrior main page is banned by most Internet Watch Organizations for obvious reasons: Hate speech, racism, intolerance and criminal activities.

welcomes people of all political backgrounds to their forums: Absolutely not. People other than rightwing extremists get harassed, banned; their posts, signatures and aavatars get faked; their personal messages get published in the open, their IP addresses and personal data are posted on the forums by the admins and more. Additionally the Protest Warriors as well as the admins are openly calling for and approving the hacking and defacing of other ('leftist') websites.

Protest Warrior claims that no poster has ever been banned for stating any opinion.: the absolute untruth. Read last paragraph.

Protest Warriors believe they are right: A worthy contribution to Wikipedia!

hold to the view that engaging in open and honest debate: Read above.

External links: Three links to pages on Protest Warrior is nothing but advertising.

Summary: The entire article is a propaganda outlet, missing any relevant informations about the group, containing lots of Protest Warrior claims this and that, misguiding informations about the goups goals and activities as well as that the article does not come down to the roots of Protest Warrior: Deeply rooted hate for Muslims and the wish to exterminate them. User:Bijoux (Sig added after by Sam [Spade] 11:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Great, more POV! Just what the article doesn't need. Is anybody else interested in editing this article from aNPOV? Sam [Spade] 11:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV?? Instead of posting personal opinions and defending the deceiptive content of the article (eg You appear to be unable or unwilling to understand the humorous nature of these signs, as well as their obvious intent, which is to shock, amuse, embaress and make distinct the nature of their oppositions position.), what is a completely wrong as these signs are not intended to be humorous but rather than that the program of Protest Warrior, I did post simple facts about the recent article and the flaws in it. If you intend to criticize my critics then read on Protest Warrior itself before doing so instead of relying on the edits and discussion entries of Protest Warrior members (who called for support on their website in order to get a completely whitewashed entry in the Wikipedia). Then we can talk again.

When you think that Protest Warrior claims belong into a Wikipedia entry then put ALL these claims into it: Muslims must die. Or Allah, a pedophile child-molester and The Muslim world must be turned into glass. Shocked? Embarassed? Amused? I suppose you are, as you said this about Protest Warrior. And this is not POV but only quoted from the thousands of articles with similar content on Protest Warrior.

This is an encyclopedia here, right? Then put encyclopaedic facts into that article and not propaganda material of that group. Bijoux 13:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bijoux, if that's true then it should be added to the article. But don't place too much importance on what people say in the forums. Free Republic, although it's not a perfect article, should be our model here. People have said some awful stuff on Freep, but it's not presented as the site's official stance. There's a difference between posting racist stuff and having ProtestWarrior signs saying racist stuff. PW has never made a sign saying "muslims must die" or similar rhetoric. It's true that people say some pretty terrible stuff on all forums, but don't blow it out of proportion. And certainly don't use that as a reason to remove other, unrelated parts of this article. I've seen a lot of people around here lately who think "Group X does this thing I disagree with, therefore I should delete unrelated parts of their article to punish them." Rhobite 14:20, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

No it's not. A website that has some members from outside of the US is not a worldwide organization - Yes it is. When membership is open to everyone in the world, it is a worldwide organization. And I've seen links to counter-protests outside of the USA. That's going to stay.

howing up with funny signs is not crashing anything. Ten Protest Warriors in a protest march of 50.000 is nothing like a an incident, barely noticed by anyone. The Associated Press covered the Protest Warrior organization during the RNC convention, and there was more coverage during the convention.

Again implying that is is leftism. - Nope, I'm betting this refers to pro-Palestinian intifada organizations.

A leftist? A home video showing one single individual for sure is reason enough to refer to it on Wikipedia. The opinion of that individual is that of all leftists (Nazis, pro-terroists, theocrats). Complete nonsense. This could be removed and replaced with just the video page, and the videos can be described.

Flatten, nuke and kill them (To be read thousands of times on Protest Warrior!) Can you please provide proof of "thousands of time"? I did a "Search for all terms" search on the forum using the words "nuke" and "flatten". I only found 1 relevant result, and in that topic, someone was quoting the phrase itself and not using it.

Incorrect. There exist 2 forum with political discussions (liberty, enemy) all others are not related to politics. The 2 forums mostly contain "postwhoring", "Are libbies gay"-polls, "Death to Muslims"-topics and similar. The entire forum section as well as the Protest Warrior main page is banned by most Internet Watch Organizations for obvious reasons: Hate speech, racism, intolerance and criminal activities. Fair enough on your first point. On your second point, once again, you're just POV ranting without any information.

Absolutely not. People other than rightwing extremists get harassed, banned; their posts, signatures and aavatars get faked; their personal messages get published in the open, their IP addresses and personal data are posted on the forums by the admins and more. Additionally the Protest Warriors as well as the admins are openly calling for and approving the hacking and defacing of other ('leftist') websites. You're going to have to provide proof, once again.

as well as that the article does not come down to the roots of Protest Warrior: Deeply rooted hate for Muslims and the wish to exterminate them - This is just simply unsubstantiated POV again.

I agree with Rhobite on this one, lets try to use Free Republic as a model, since the two organizations are somewhat similar, --65.161.65.104 16:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wow, glad to have you, anon! Good comments. Would you like to form a user account? Sam [Spade] 16:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that two Protest Warrior members are working together here in order to get a nice, clean and deceiptive PW entry into Wikipedia? Bijoux 11:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection

I want to make it very clear, we are aprox. 1 lightyear away from the concensus needed for unprotection. Sam [Spade] 15:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ignoring the "Straw man" discussion, which veered away from article content, are you sure about this? Granted some anons will probably take potshots at the article, but now that it's on a few more watchlists it should be OK. I'd like to implement the changes I listed, taking your suggestions into account. Rhobite 15:27, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy to build a concensus with you about what changes might be needed, but some others seem to be stating that they intend to remove goodly amounts of the article, replacing it w inflamatory or POV statements. How about this: You and I maintain dialogue, and edit Talk:Protest Warrior/temp for awhile. If that goes modestly well, and nobody is insisting that they will immediately overhaul the main article into an anti-protest warrior propoganda peice, I will personally request/favor/agree to unprotection. Sam [Spade] 15:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but I may not have much time available. Rhobite 15:42, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Revised the first paragraph. "Liberalism" is less pejorative than "leftism," a term that is rarely used outside right-wing critical circles. Removed the POV definitions of leftism. Added a bit from the mission statement, why not get it straight from the horse's mouth? Rhobite 15:54, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

as far as liberalism, your right, but the way the term "liberal" is used in the USA is innaccurate and misleading. Maybe if we can word it in such a way to make clear we are not talking about clasical liberalism, which is essentially libertarianism, the very same ideology possesed by many protest warriors themselves! As far as the external link & quotes, feel free to put them back if you feel they are needed, I took them out because I thought they were generally frowned upon on the wiki, but its not a big deal to me. How do you like my change of format? Sam [Spade] 16:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe "liberalism" is the correct word in context. The word "leftism" is very, very loaded. "left-wing activism" is better than "leftism," but I think "liberalism" is the best choice. I also don't know where this definition came from - it certainly isn't on their site. I couldn't find any "official" position of PW defining liberalism as collectivism, communism or Nazism. It's far better to refer to their mission statement than to make stuff up and attribute it to them. We shouldn't say they have an official definition of collectivism, unless they actually do have one. Quoting their mission statement is acceptable. It should be either a reference or an embedded footnote link. Rhobite 16:54, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Actually I think you might do well to review their site. They use "leftism", and avoid liberalism as much as possible, apparently aware of its correct usage. Please have a look at [2] and [3]. Sam [Spade] 17:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I said, "leftism" is a pejorative term used almost exclusively by conservatives. While they may use it, it certainly doesn't mean we have to use it objectively. We can mention that PW uses the term. Rhobite 17:43, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Perjorative? I don't agree at all. I also don't understand your usage of "objective" here. We must be objective in writing the article. Usage of "left" to describe the Protest warriors opposition is entirely accurate. Yes, they think Left = amazing stupid and completely unable to make good descisions, but that doesn't mean they are wron g about who they are calling left, just perhaps wrong in their summary of what "left" is. Sam [Spade] 18:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I must say I disagree against using the word "liberalism" because it is way too ambiguous and does not it any way provide a clear definition for this context. Both leftist and liberal are wrong terms to use here. I can hardly see how anyone would call a nazi, a liberal, and I belive that both nazis and liberals would be offended by this. Maybe the best solution is to remove leftist and let Statist collectivism remain, or maybe just statist, as the political ideologies they refer to generally is pro big, powerful government. I can't really think of any other term at the moment, but politcal definitions such as this are ambiguous and it isn't easy to find an accurate NPOV definition. Passw0rd

Primary sources

When I read the protest warriors website (which should be our primary source, eh?) they use the term "Leftist" by far the most often, and when they do happen to use 'liberal', they place it in paranthesis, like so. Re that, See

[4]

[5]

I am especially unimpressed w the argument that they are using the term perjoratively. They clearly think Nazi's, communists, and other groups offensive to them are leftist. See

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

I understand that alot of you don't agree with their views, but this is an article about Protest Warriors and their views, not wiki-editors and their views ;) Review their website, and / or other expert sources, please. Sam [Spade] 00:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again I'm confused by your reasoning. The fact that PW uses the term "leftist" does not make it neutral. We don't have to frame our article in terms that they choose. Like most people who use the term "leftist," they use the term as a label to belittle their opponents, hence it is pejorative. It's a loaded word, just like neocon or Islamofascist or statist or the several hundred other political words with negative connotations. And nobody is forcing us to use it.

For your second point, I agree. It seems they equate the left with dictatorship and communism, or at least its logical conclusion. I don't have a problem with including this, as long as it's attributed to them. What we had before was, this article literally defined "leftists" as "Nazis." Rhobite 05:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

While I personally think Nazi's were economically left of say.. George Bush or John Kerry, I happen to think they were essentially economic Centrists. Thats my POV tho, and I don't want this article taking a stand as to the politics of Nazi's. I do however want it taking a stand as to the politics of Protest warriors, who call all of their opposition "leftists". You may think thats an innacurate or perjorative lable. If so, I suggest you edit Leftist to make it more in accordance w your views, because it makes it pretty clear alot of people are happy to be called leftists, and that many political parties are leftists. Anywho, this doesn't much matter, because Protest warriors use the term alot, and we would be completely remiss to leave it out. Sam [Spade] 17:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I think the criticism section needs a little revision. The criticism links were originally added by trolls, and thus I think a few changes need to be made:

I don't think it's appropriate to call the links "Surveillance" and "Exposure". They should be named according to the titles of the pages.

The second link seems to be a personal homepage, and it sounds more like a personal rant of a user over disputes that occured on the Protest Warrior forum. I think something more substantial can be used, and something that focuses away from forum activities and more on the main page of Protest Warrior and the official operations. The first article seems fine at my glance. There were some critical articles of Protest Warrior during the Republican National Convention counter-protests by Protest Warrior (I'll see if I can dig them up), and I think they will be more relavant to the article and organization.

This might be completely trivially, but in the interest of fairness (and so this doesn't become an issue later on), I think the criticism section should not be a subcatergory, but the criticism links should instead follow the Protest Warrior links within the same section. I've noticed that this is the format with similar organizations like ANSWER and Free Republic.

--65.161.65.104 02:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The second link your are talking about is very relevant as this link is providing the very proofs for some of my claims you questioned in one of the upper sections. As you are the very Protest Warrior member who asked for support on the PW website in order to get a whitewashed Wikipedia entry there is no doubt that you as well as your fellow Protest Warriors who are trying to clean the article from unwanted entries are finding that link very disturbing. The link provides very good examples for the manners the PW administration deals with 'leftists'. And it is one of the websites the PW adminstration and their members hacked and defaced. PW's own goal of protesting and crashing the protests is perfectioned on that linked site as it is protesting and crashing Protest Warrior itself.

Second, since you are criticizing Democratic Underground for their banning policies it should be the Democratic Underground article format that should be used as a reference here: A subcategory with criticism from both sides.Bijoux 12:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While I strongly rebuke him for his ad hominem personal attacks and rude attempts to shift the discussion from article content to the personal politics and qualities of the users discussing here, I do agree w Bijoux's second point, the standard on the wiki is to separate pro / con external links, mostly out of fairness both to the reader, and to the group / concept in question. Some readers don't want to go to pro-protest warrior ext. sites, some don't want to go to critical ones, etc... Also we can't very well have a complete imbalance (90% critical links, etc...). Please tone down to the ad hominems, Bijoux, were all equals here, regardless of POV. Sam [Spade] 17:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand your concern. It is my belief that you can find more relavant articles on Protest Warrior written by left-wing analysis websites and newspaper commentaries that deal with counter-protests and analysis of the signs, and that kind of stuff, rather than message board arguments. I think the focus should be taken off the forums (including editing the article and making the section about the forum more NPOV), and concentrating on the organization and what it does instead. I think I'll withdraw my third point, and instead, we could have the official website links, followed by pro & con links on the organization. --65.161.65.104 17:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policy Library

If 65.161.65.104 is indeed a Protest Warrior and did not disclose that to us, Sam, that is far more serious than Bijoux's "rudeness", and you should know it. Why don't you? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I don't see anywhere on Wikipedia where it says that anyone that iss very familiar with an organization must disclose his or her relationship with the organization if he is to create or make additions to a Wikipedia page. Second of all, your automatic assumption that anyone who tries to edit this article in a manner different from your own must be from the organization is insulting. Thirdly, you don't seem to even know what Bijoux did. Please go to the history page, and read the edit at

10:41, 8 Oct 2004

As you can see, Bijoux did the following: 1) He reverted the article to an older version. 2) He added the sentence "The main target of the Protest Warriors is the entire Muslim world with which they seek to "nuke", to "flatten" and to turn "into a parking lot" for white Christians." Notice that he quoted the words "nuke", "flatten", and "into a parking lot". He did not cite these quotes in any kind of manner. He also added the line "based on white power", as you can see in the edit summary. However, to cover his tracks, his edit summary read "(wikipedia is NOT a propaganda platform but a neutral encyclopedia! / A.N.P. link removed.)". He purposely wrote "A.N.P. link removed" (that's the American Nazi Power for your information) to make it look like he removed the link. However, he did not do that. The Nazi party link did not exist in his revision, nor the previous edit that he reverted. He claimed to make the article neutral, when all he did was add uncited quoted words, and completely false claims about the organization.

This isn't "rudeness", this is a gross abuse of the Wikipedia system, and is a severe violation of the NPOV rules. With all due respect, I have to call into question your attitude in trying to work on this article. This isn't going to be unlocked until we all reach an agreement, so please try to be more helpful. Lets please also try to stay on topic with what we are discussing.

--65.161.65.104 18:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I second all of that, 65.161.65.104. On another note, Would you like to form a user account? That helps me remember who you are, and have a name to call you and stuff. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 20:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your first point is mistaken. Please read Wikipedia:Auto-biography, particularly the sentence "Editing an article about yourself or your organization is also generally considered improper and best avoided, on the same principle." In practice, this restriction is looser than it seems; people will generally not object to someone from the represented organization participating in the editing so long as they openly disclose their connection. Not doing so is considered dishonest.

Your second point is also mistaken; you have leapt to the conclusion that I make an "automatic assumption that anyone who tries to edit this article in a manner different from your own must be from the organization." This is absolutely false. If you were to attempt to back up this contention, you would find yourself empty-handed, because in no version of this page or any other on Wikipedia will you find me accusing or assuming that anyone is a Protest Warrior. What I did say, which you seem to have misread, was that if Bijoux's accusation that you were a Protest Warrior were correct (an accusation that I did not say I believed or disbelieved) it would be a rather serious breach of Wikipedia ettiquette to not disclose it.

I also said that there was a suspicion (which, in retrospect, I should have phrased as "I have a suspicion") that the freezing of the page in a condition where it contains no criticism of Protest Warrior might actually have been the goal of the vandal(s). If the vandal had truly wanted to smear the reputation of PW, why do it with easily-detected lies, lies that I myself, for example, could determine were false by following one link? Anyone familiar with Wikipedia could predict that a) the lies would be detected quickly, b) the page would be protected because of the edit war in the form that the worst-behaving party appeared to be opposing. Asking Qui bono? leads to the observation: it's Protest Warrior that has benefitted from the vandalizing.

Isn't that suspicion a little paranoid? You may well ask that question, since I asked it myself before making any comment at all on the article. My answer: it would be a paranoid suspicion if applied to most organizations. Protest Warrior, however, is a group whose primary activity is advancing the cause of the Right by going out and pretending to be members of the Left. It's similar to the story of the boy who cried wolf; when everybody knows you go around pretending to be someone you're not, you can hardly blame them when they suspect you of doing so again.

Your third point is well-taken; the edit you indicate (and I hope you will not mind that I turned your description of where the edit could be found into a direct pointer) does seem to indicate that Bijoux's one logged-in edit to the article has been deceptive and unfair (the only reason I use "does seem to indicate" instead of "makes clear" is because -- I think I can get agreement on this -- no part of this whole mess has been exactly "clear".) I find the edit that inserts "and black scum" into Protest Warrior's mission statement particularly unforgivable, because it's yet another instance of the dirty and dishonest tactic of putting words in your opponent's mouth, trying to get your turn to speak and theirs. That's deceptive and wrong whether it's done by Protest Warrior or to them.

However, you say "You don't seem to know what Bijoux did" and that seems to be your basis for "question[ing] [my] attitude for trying to work on this article." Why is the same not true of Sam, who described it as "rude[ness]" in the first place? He, too, did not seem to know what Bijoux did, or else I'm sure he would have chastised Bijoux for much more than shifting the topic from the issues to the persons. You are right that your failure to disclose whatever connection you have with Protest Warrior is not more serious than editing Protest Warrior's manifesto to make them appear openly racist. But you are entirely incorrect in implying that I ever said it was.

Let's get back to the issues, shall we? Such as that Protest Warrior is a controversial organization and yet the current state of the article still contains absolutely no criticism of them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Your first point is mistaken." - When the article says "your organization", that seems to signify ownership but not membership. In addition, the article doesn't state that your relationship with any organization must be revealed, nor is it suggested. And what about about "rival" organizations? Democratic Underground is a "rival" organization with Protest Warrior, and many members there constantly post their displeasure with Protest Warrior. Let's just say hypothetically that Bijoux is from that website. Should he reveal that? I think the Wikipedia page is written in too vague of a manner to really be considering, except in cases of obvious misuse.

I apoligize about the second point. I guess I just don't think anything an obvious troll says should even be considered.

"If the vandal had truly wanted to smear the reputation of PW, why do it with easily-detected lies" I can't answer that question. But the vandal truly believed that Protest Warrior is a Nazi organization. See here

Sorry about the "rudeness" thing. I guess I took Sam's comment as referring to Bijoux's activities on the talk page, and in your case of the word, I used it when consider all of Bijoux's editing of the page.

Anyway, I really don't know if this article is ever going to work out. I predict it'll just undergo more vandlism (according to the website, they're releasing a new video on Sunday) and there are still unresolved conflicts that I don't see being resolved.

whats going on w the talk page?

I suspect this section was created and filled with duplicated material by accident. Fixing would help all of us. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I hope I fixed it, if not check the history log and try yourself ;) Sam [Spade] 22:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

on "strawman"

i agree that the protest warrior entry is problematic and incomplete. that notwithstanding, there are a few things to discuss:

1) the notion that protest warrior's techniques can be neutrally described as "strawman".

the impetus for the locking of the entry was the repeated vandalization of the page, featuring the conflation of protest warrior with stormfront. anyone who participated in this or failed to register like objections to these vandalisms, make their complaints from a position of much diminished credibility.

the protest movement of the left is rife with the sort of affront attributed here to protest warrior. a recent and widespread example would be the proffessionally printed "no draft, no way" placards provided at no inconsiderable expense to rnc-protestors by united for peace and justice with the purpose of implying, falsely, that the bush administration seeks to reinstate a draft. an equally eggregious example would be directly stated assertions that supporters of the administration's policy in iraq procede themselves from a disregard for the lives of iraqis. indeed, from racist and even genocidal motivations. such accusations emanate not from isolated and unnacountable members of the crowd, but from key organizers and ideologues such as katrina vaden heuvel.

many of the more troubling messages of the protest movement of the left are so clearly hyperbolic, that they can be identified as humor. it is suggested that leftists calm their tempers and recieve protest warrior's message in kind. i propose that the signs in question would be most neutrally described as "satire", while noting that these signs are merely what protest warrior is best known for and not the sum total of it's activism.

remaining is the question of whether this satire is predicated on strawman. it is clearly not. the main reoccurring target of protest warrior's counter-protests has been international answer. while varrying leftist sects organize underneath their umbrella, international answer is a communist organization. to address a demonstration sponsored by intl. answer as communist is not strawman, but revealing of an unambiguous truth. in chicago, nearly all large-scale activist initiatives are organized by the bob avakian cultists of the revolutionary workers party. indeed, they organized the busses that transported chicagoans to the rnc protests in new york. similarly addressing these demonstrations as communist is also fair.

that "libertarian socialists", non-communist marxists, non-marxist socialists, and liberals, ranging from ignorant to this fact to expediently dismissive of it, march on a platform provided by communists is a small point and not at all a refutation. particularly in light of two points: A)that the conflation of republicans with nazis, the kkk and the like and other specious associations between moderates of the right and radical nationalists are staple components of even the moderate left's message. and, B) that conservatives, libertarians, republicans, et al, given the opportunity to march at a nazi sponsored and organized event under a broadly aggreeable message such as national pride, would refuse to do so. indeed, in protest warrior's case, radical nationalists are also an object of counter-protest.

this seems to be a distinction non-communist leftists, often extremists in their own right, seem unwilling to make within their own movement. as illustrated in this discussion, they simultaneously recognize it as damaging to their credibility and seek to silence those who point it out. it is only reasonable to derive from this that they own their association with communists and communism. it is therefor not innappropriate to poke fun at least by addressing them as such.

2) counter-protesting highly funded and organized demonstrations of the left's power is not divergent in form or character from the left's counter-protesting of international aid conferences and the like. in each scenario, an activist group utilizes their opponent's time and place to make their position known.

it is sometimes asserted that free speech applies only to private/public intercourse and that private/private conflict is somehow "illegal". this is a comical stance.

3) an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. it would be an unfortunate development if all entries on controversial organizations and ideas had to be locked because of vandalism. if the left maintains this program of poisoning the well of information, the reaction from freedom-minded netizens would be impossible to controll. civility and reasonability is advised.

anyone who participated in this or failed to register like objections to these vandalisms -- anyone who participated in the vandalism, certainly. But the notion that no one has credibility if they did not "register" their "objections" to the vandalisms is specious. There are too many reasons why someone might see the vandalism and yet not register an objection, such as they see the very objections they would make already being made cogently by others, or they did not even discover the article until the page protection brought it to their attention. There are too many reasons besides the 'too liberally biased to be fair' reason that you might be assuming. It's very difficult to conclude anything significant from what someone did not do when you know nothing about them save through the Internet.

the protest movement of the left is rife with the sort of affront attributed here to protest warrior. That may be so; even if it is so, it is a tu quoque defense, which most of us learn doesn't fly by the time we leave the playground. Should the entry on Michael Moore not say a word about his despicable half-truths because we can find a conservative documentarian who does it too?

key organizers and ideologues such as katrina vaden heuvel -- such a key figure that a Google search on her name turns up just two hits? I've voted delete on articles whose subjects got two orders of magnitude more hits.

in chicago, nearly all large-scale activist initiatives are organized by the bob avakian cultists of the revolutionary workers party. "Cultists". Well, let me tell you, this is the point where I really start taking you seriously, yaknow? I mean, clearly you're making an effort to look at this objectively.

many of the more troubling messages of the protest movement of the left are so clearly hyperbolic, that they can be identified as humor. it is suggested that leftists calm their tempers and recieve protest warrior's message in kind. It's all fine and dandy to say this should henceforth be done but that's a little irrelevant to the fact that now, a great many leftists feel that Protest Warrior is not putting a humorous, critical spin on their own positions, but on positions held by extremists that they are unfairly attributing to the left in general. To suggest that the article should contain a Protest Warrior-friendly interpretation of their activities but exclude the interpretation taken by their targets is, as I have stated before, ludicrous.

if the left maintains this program of poisoning the well of information, the reaction from freedom-minded netizens would be impossible to controll. civility and reasonability is advised. If this is your attempt to show that you are not coming at this with a bias too big to be corrected for, it's a failure. We do not know the vandals; we do not know their true motives; to falsely suggest that we not only know the motives but know it to be part of a large program of the left is simply abombinable nonsense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:39, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Prime example for Protest Warrior's tactics

I am quoting 65.161.65.104 here:

First of all, I don't see anywhere on Wikipedia where it says that anyone that iss very familiar with an organization must disclose his or her relationship with the organization if he is to create or make additions to a Wikipedia page. Second of all, your automatic assumption that anyone who tries to edit this article in a manner different from your own must be from the organization is insulting. Thirdly, you don't seem to even know what Bijoux did. Please go to the history page, and read the edit at

10:41, 8 Oct 2004

As you can see, Bijoux did the following: 1) He reverted the article to an older version. 2) He added the sentence "The main target of the Protest Warriors is the entire Muslim world with which they seek to "nuke", to "flatten" and to turn "into a parking lot" for white Christians." Notice that he quoted the words "nuke", "flatten", and "into a parking lot". He did not cite these quotes in any kind of manner. He also added the line "based on white power", as you can see in the edit summary. However, to cover his tracks, his edit summary read "(wikipedia is NOT a propaganda platform but a neutral encyclopedia! / A.N.P. link removed.)". He purposely wrote "A.N.P. link removed" (that's the American Nazi Power for your information) to make it look like he removed the link. However, he did not do that. The Nazi party link did not exist in his revision, nor the previous edit that he reverted. He claimed to make the article neutral, when all he did was add uncited quoted words, and completely false claims about the organization.

This isn't "rudeness", this is a gross abuse of the Wikipedia system, and is a severe violation of the NPOV rules. With all due respect, I have to call into question your attitude in trying to work on this article. This isn't going to be unlocked until we all reach an agreement, so please try to be more helpful. Lets please also try to stay on topic with what we are discussing. --65.161.65.104 18:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All of these accusations and every single claim that user made is a deliberate lie.

The truth about "I added white power, nuke,flatten, parking lot, uncited quoted words, completely false claims, ....", about "I did not remove A.N.P", about "this did not exist", about "I covered my tracks" and about me "abusing the Wikipedia system" can easily be checked when clicking on this link. It compares my version to the one I edited: Bijoux' edit

Read the accusations that were made and compare them to that link. It's obvious. And it's a prime example for Protest Warrior's attempt to to discredit others here in order to get their version into Wikipedia.

All I did was removing the A.N.P link from the article and adding the Criticism subcategory after reverting it to a version that was not re-edited by the two Protest Warrior members.

Hopefully that will open some eyes here and make clear how the game is played here: The Protest Warrior style.

I do expect a pretty good explanation from Sam [Spade] as he's seconding 65.161.65.104's accusations and claims all the time here. But sure - I am the rude one here and violating the rules!! --Bijoux 10:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you 2 were doing before I came, and I'm no wiki-cop to bother investigating it. I have seen you, Bijoux, be rude however. If you especially worked up about things, try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I'm not even an admin, I'm just a lay-user, so other than making my own comments / complaints etc.., theres not much I can do enforcement-wise. My primary advice is to cease the focus on personalities, original research and POV's, and focus on NPOV and factual accuracy in the article. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 15:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to have an idea what was going on before since I quoted 65.161.65.104's entry from yesterday where you applauded to with I second all of that, like your are cheering all of that users entries.

But after I proved that entry to be nothing but lies and personal attacks (Bijoux' edit) you are not somehow backing off your behaviour of always seconding the Protest Warrior 65.161.65.104, but instead you are again accusing me of being rude.

So what we have here is that you are seconding and backing up the Protest Warrior member although it has been proven beyond any doubt that he is trying to discredit me with lies and personal attacks. On the other hand you are calling me rude. Am I the only one to find that strange?

Think about your own neutral position on the issue.--Bijoux 16:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just looked over the summary, and if you did revert it from the October 5th version, then it wasn't you who wrote in the trolling comments. I don't know how to compare what edit you used to create your version, I just clicked the (last) button and compared what had changed from the version previously behind yours. So I had no malicious intent in making the accusations that I did. However, it still begs the question as to why you used a vandalized version to write your comments and not the current revision? You skipped over the revisions from Oct 7-8, one which was pretty extensive, and went back to a version that contained incorrect and even offensive quotations (black scum, etc) when you could have edited the current version? That's why I got confused by your edit summary. You claimed to remove the ANP link, but it had been removed 3 edits prior to your edit. And the edit that you restored certainly wasn't neutral.--65.161.65.104 17:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Archive