Talk:Protest Warrior/Archive 7

message: Support for halliburton is politically significant, and therefore encyclopædic; support for Caterpillar is neither.  To replace mention of the form with mention of the latter is clearly a PoV attempt to cover up an unpleasant fact about the group. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider the fact unpleasant; Halliburton is only politically significant because a segment of the protesting community hounds on about it constantly.  (If this makes something politically significant, then CAT was also such, at least in the months after Rachel Corrie's death.)  It's this that's annoying; going out of the way to associate PW with Halliburton when the only reason the Dallas chapter carried out Operation Flagpole Hill was because there were protesters to be protested is clearly simply an attempt to associate PW with all the charges made against Halliburton.  Rogue 9 12:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  agreed. the language used is often highly suggestive that PW regularly aligns themselves with haliburton, Even if the rally is not concerning that particular company. this is not true--Smegpt86 23:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great. Two Protest Warriors agree to cover up unwelcome facts about Protest Warrior.  And when you, Protest Warrior Smegpt86, disagree with the language used then this is no reason to delete everything. Change it, but don't delete it--Bijoux 23:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ITS A CONSPIRACY BIJOUX! Seriously, though, whats the big deal? if you want to refer to haliburton, put it somewhere else. my problems with it are that the current language makes it seem as if the protest-warriors constantly harp on about those three things, whereas in actual fact the whole freaking point of counter-protesting is to confront the views of others, rather than bringing your own.--Smegpt86 23:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halliburton, etc. 

message: Come on guys, lets keep this NPOV --Smegpt86 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was explaining my reasons for removing that phrase. The phrase implied, in a sneaky way, that anti-war protesters are anti-American and they hate the troops. If you ask most protesters they will tell you that they have nothing against the troops, only the administration. It's always better to explain your edit in the edit summary. I hope my edit didn't offend you. Rhobite 23:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  apologies, it appeared that you were accusing me of something. seeing as i had improved the language (compare mine with the previous one, i thought it best to npov it a bit) i bit back. Point taken, and agreed, although i prefer to explain on the talk page.--Smegpt86 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Made it NPOV and I removed the entire section on "Motivation," because that was ridiculous non-NPOV. It wasn't really relevant to what Protest Warrior is, but just several paragraphs denouncing the left. And I renamed "Methodology" to "Activism," because the word, "Methodology," just didn't seem appropriate. 72.66.11.77 02:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  right, so removing an entire section which stated the beleifs of the group is NPOV. stating the motivation of a group is vital in any article like this. Besides which, your vandalisation of the links  to anti-war protestors and the various indymedia sites, plus the inclusion of the RocknRev site is not very NPOV behaviour. --Smegpt86 12:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: DO NOT REMOVE
From the PW's founders:
"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."
http://www.protestwarrior.com/newsletters/08_14_05.php
Fair+Balanced
:I think there is definitely room to cover this statement in the article, however we cannot use words like "rabidly anti-Islam". The word "rabidly" is an unnecessary statement of POV. It's also better to cite someone who opposes PW, rather than proving that they are anti-Islam ourselves, as you are attempting to do. Please see the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Rhobite 23:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed, although, like i said before, Protestwarrior is primarily an organisation set up to counterprotest with their own point of view. Using words like "rabidly" makes it sound like they rove around and lob petrol bombs through mosque windows. --Smegpt86 00:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-islamic fundamentalism is more accurate.  The quote you cited goes on to mention countries under Sharia law.  I think it's fair to say they oppose Islam when it is used to run the state.  That is more akin to Islamic Fundamentalism.  From the description here, it appears that PW would be in front of Mosque's in the U.S. trying to convert Muslim's to Christianity.  This is simply not the case.  The are against the Sharia government aspects of Islam, not Islam itself.--Tbeatty 06:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding anti Islam documentation

message: I've reverted vandalism to this page three times within the last day, and from the history page it seems as if there's been 20+ other vandalisms, mostly adding links to Rocknrev's page. Would locking the article until the trolls get bored be an option? Alister Namarra 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it's true that this page has been vandalized today, adding a link to Rocknrev doesn't consitute vandalism. Although you may think that site is run by a troll, other people may have valid reasons for wanting to add it. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for a definition of vandalism. Rhobite 03:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, though he's a low-quality source at best.  This is why I replaced his link with the far more coherent Indymedia essay some time ago.  It gets the same viewpoint on Protest Warrior across better without degenerating into rants and namecalling.  Rogue 9 13:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The indymedia essay was removed yesterday.. would you object if someone replaced it? Rhobite 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a good idea to me. Replace it, but remove the RocknRev sources - very poor quality, and someone Cough*ROCKnRev*Cough is obviously not taking the hint. is there any way to lock just part of an article?--Smegpt86 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock the article? 

message: Sorry for such a short topic, but shouldn't we just add, instead of "opposition to radical Islam", "opposition to Islam" instead? I may be wrong, but a lot of the statements I've seen connected to Protest Warrior and its administrators seems to be against the religion as a whole. 
Mister Mister 13:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was opposition to Islam before. Radical, fundamental or extremism gets frequently added by Protest Warriors, without any further explanation. Protest Warrior is completely anti-Islam, andbody having doubts about this should just read on their forums. Protest Warrior doesn't even make a difference between Islam and radical Islam. They are an outspoken enemy of Islam as a whole.--Bijoux 22:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stance on Islam? 

message: Sorry to make another topic, but I was just wondering. Do we have any conclusive evidence that Protest Warrior shows support for Halliburton or Caterpillar, Inc.?
Not that I approve of what Protest Warrior does (far from it), but it's not good to insert POV stuff into any article and that particular statement does concern me. So please tell me your thoughts on this. Links to statements of support on the Protest Warrior site would be a good thing.
Mister Mister 13:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't support the right to free speech/protest?  Dissent is patriotic, after all. GreatGatsby 01:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The grounds for that is that the Dallas chapter counter-protested some protesters outside of Halliburton headquarters.  Once.  And this was considered enough to say that Protest Warrior as a whole supports Halliburton as an organizational goal, instead of the more obvious conclusion that they opposed the protesters and were doing what they do.  As multiple chapters rolled out to protest protesters outside various Caterpillar plants after Rachel Corrie got herself run over, it also fit the bill if consistent criteria were used.  Rogue 9 14:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: To be perfectly honest, I feel that the criteria used was "people associate Halliburton with shadowy corruption and so forth, so let's associate Protest Warrior with that as well by saying that they support Halliburton in the article, although this is otherwise insignificant."  As for counter-demonstrating regardless of event, that's almost the case, in a sense.  What any given chapter will go demonstrate against is largely up to the members; there's almost no central nationwide coordination except during major operations like Liberty Rising and Wolverines.  Almost any protest concerning foreign policy or economic policy is considered fair game.  All that's required is that any member of the organization submit the operation to Alan and Kfir for approval; once that's given or refused, it's up to the chapter to take it from there.  (Social conservative causes aren't approved as PW operations, to my knowledge; I've never heard of Protest Warriors outside an abortion clinic, for instance.)  It may be that the Dallas chapter supports Halliburton, and given that it's a large local employer, they may have every reason to.  It may also be that they decided to go counter-protest because the main focus of the protesters was on Halliburton's involvement in Iraq, and the Iraq war and rebuilding effort is a cause that PW does support.  You'd have to ask them.  Rogue 9 16:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  is my version an acceptable middle ground?--Smegpt86 23:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halliburton Support 

message: Rev, your site isn't "critical" to this article in any way, shape, or form.  I would do the same for any other article if I saw such an incoherent mess of a site used as a source and I had an alternative.  You aren't the be-all, end-all of criticism of Protest Warrior, and in fact you're rather low on the totem pole when it comes to that, mainly because you simply can't discuss the issue in a mature fashion.  This is your own fault, not mine.  Rogue 9 18:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Critical links?"