Talk:Protest Warrior

message: Shortbus wrote: However, discussion of future campaigns may be moot.
:This is not written in a neutral point of view.   Lawyer2b 01:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has no supporting reliable source and is your position you attempt to advance by synthesizing a number of originally researched citations.  This is a "textbook" violation of WP:OR by synthesizing published material to advance a position. Shortbus, PLEASE READ THAT LINK.Lawyer2b 01:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortbus, here is why your edit violates [[WP:OR]]

message: :You've already violated the 3RR. 
:I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt-and assume that you're simply unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy-but I suggest that you desist immediately. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With Xavier posting edit summaries like "Sorry but the website is completely down. That indicates that the organization has disbanded. There is no evidence to the contrary.", I completely concur. Lawyer2b 03:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning to Xavier

message: The article has been protected due to persistent edit warring. Please keep the discussion here and not in edit summaries. Remain calm and civil at all times. -- tariqabjotu 07:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You call that an edit war?  It hadn't even hit three reverts yet.  Rogue 9 01:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I know this is going to really ruffle the feathers of the admitted "Protest Warriors" here, but I think this article might be a candidate for deletion. In it's current state it reads more like a manifesto than an encyclopedia. The only citations listed point to the PW website, except for the three or four mentions of the organization in the press. How can this article be considered WP:NP? Several paragraphs about the organization's beliefs and supposed conquests, yet only a single sentence indicating any criticism. Other controversial organizations (ACLU, PETA, AFA, MoveOn, LGF, etc) all have considerably more information regarding their detractors. 
However, the lack of criticisms is not because everyone is too lazy to write one. It's because there simply aren't any creditable, third-party mentions of PW out there--either for or against (I know; I've tried). Which calls into question the WP:N criteria. If all "pro PW" citations point back to the (now non-existant) website, and there are no counter-arguments worth mentioning, how is this article really anything other than a vanity entry at this point? Being mentioned in the press a few times a couple of years ago does not constitute notability.
Those of you out there that disagree with this: I challenge you write, from a neutral POV, a section that describes a lasting impact that PW has on Iraq War debate over the past three years. Or, even a measurable impact on the American  neo-conservatism movement. Of course, this section must include valid references to third-party sources. If you cannot do this, then I move that this article be deleted due to WP:N concerns. ShortBus 07:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone on the record as saying I'm all for an AfD action, so long as the last one was not too recent an event.  You can go ahead and "challenge" but I concur with the admin who stated that there should be discussion on the talk page and rather than a three-paragraph essay complaining on the lack of a criticism section, I'd much rather see a response from you on my comments on the talk page regarding your edits.  Lawyer2b 08:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: While I disagree with the idea that only when nothing can be verified about an organization is its entry suitable for deletion, I completely agree that an organization does not need to have a lasting impact to be notable.  I also highly agree that the article should contain only/exactly what we can verify. Hence, I believe comments on its current status (that is it active, inactive, or "unknown") which have no reliable sources under wikipedia policy are totally in appropriate for this (or any) article. Lawyer2b 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not like. For record, also do not like PW's editing own article. Or conservative undergrounders running rampant as a pack in related matters. Derex 12:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, wait a second.  I think taking a stand that PW's (which I was/am) shouldn't edit the article is discriminatory and goes against a sense of fairness.  Whether I am a member of the organization or not, I simply want wikipedia policies to be followed; as on every other article I edit. I also expect to be judged as an individual based on my edits, not on memberships, or userboxes, or political views.  If someone thinks I shouldn't be editing the article it should be for a better reason than just "Oh, he's a member," or "Oh, he's sympathetic to the organization's views." While it is obvious, after seeing Shortbus' questionable post on dailykos, that Shortbus and I disagree politically, my problem with his edits is not about his politics -- it's about his edits. Lawyer2b 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete? 

message: A few days ago I edited the whole article into the past tense , given that the website hadn't been updated for almost a year, the forums were offline and now the entire website is offline. However someone who identifies himself as a Protestwarrior edited the article back to present tense. Should the article be in past or present tense? Xavier86 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should be in present tense as there is no reliable source that the organization has disbanded.  If there are reliable sources (per wikipedia policy) that say the organization has disbanded, then that information should be included in the article, period.  Of additional note, I'd like to add that the person who reverted your edit identifies as a member of the organization is inconsequential.  I'd prefer if discussion of the article and edits to it ceased mentioning whether someone antipathsizes and sympathizes with the organization.  It smacks of an ad hominem attack when the only thing that matters in discussing edits to the article are whether they follow wikipolicy and/or improve the article itself. There seem to be a lot of accusations that those sympathetic to the protest warrior organization are doing something wrong with the article but I don't see any substance to the accusations (i.e. what are the polices that are being violated and what specific examples of these violations?) Lawyer2b 20:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to agree with Xavier86- since the website itself was the primary source for the organization's continued existence, without a new reliable source to make the claim that the organization still exists in any form resembling the original, implying that it still does exist is an assertion. Saying that it was disbanded is a positive assertion, which does not appear to have been the above editor's claim, merely referring to the organization in the past tense because of a lack of any reliable source saying that it still exists. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the subject's present state is simply unverifiable and I think the article ought to, as much as possible, not comment on it.  Specifically, I think any comments need to be backed by reliable sources.  I think that changing the article to past tense is tantamount to stating it has disbanded and rather than make a statement like that without a reliable source to support it, the article should simply reflect verifiable facts and let people draw their own conclusions as to whether to organization is still active/in existence or not.  I think that is an editing principle which is practical, follows policy, and has been implemented successfully many times on Wikipedia. Lawyer2b 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think precedent would be a very useful gauge of how the subject should be addressed on this page. I looked around for political movements which are not officially politically active at the present time, but could find little that would be pertinent to the discussion at hand. Were you able to turn up any? --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I spoke of the principle of reflecting only verifiable facts and letting people draw their own conclusions, I didn't mean to imply it applied as narrowly as only in the handling of "political movements".  I think that principle is applicable pretty much on any article.  Please see WP:NPOV: Let the facts speak for themselves. Lawyer2b 22:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on that principle, as I said, I merely limited my search for specific examples of ways this had been handled in the past- that was what I was curious if you could turn up anything pertinent. Additionally, I am intimately familiar with NPOV policy and do a lot of work centered around it- and I agree, NPOV guidelines and neutral tone in articles is absolutely necessary in all articles and not just politically sensitive ones. The specific subsection that you quote refers primarily to the restriction of value judgements in the article's narrative voice, which does not appear to be a contentious issue in this section- exactly what did you mean? --Kuzaar-T-C- 02:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: One other thing, also. Please remember, Lawyer2b, that conflict of interest guidelines and WP:NPOV both caution editors who are intimately involved in an article's subject to be very careful about letting bias slip into their editing or actions surrounding a page- Xavier86's concern is justified and warning him about ad hominem attacks on this talk page is worrying, given the circumstances. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pray tell, what circumstances and what is it exactly you are worried about?  I stand by my assertion that when someone prefaces their description of an edit by characterizing the beliefs of the editor it seems to be an attack on the editor rather than on the merits (or lack thereof) of the edit itself.  Indeed, thank you for citing WP:COI where you'll note that it explicity states that in handling a conflict of interest one should, "Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor." (q.e.d) Lawyer2b 06:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have done nothing to address the primary concerns of my post, and have focused only on my incidental request for you to assume good faith on the part of Xavier. While editors can be biased, I am not asserting that this is the case, only that it is not wrong for other editors to take possible bias into consideration when attempting to achieve neutrality and verifiability in the article- not, as you point out, discussing any editor but the objective qualities of the article. I am not suggesting that any editor is at fault here, but trying to talk about the verifiability of the article's subject's present state. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reply to, hopefully, one of your concerns above.  Pardon me, but in what way have I not assumed good faith on the part of Xavier?  I have not said bias is not a concern.  However, to me it seems that "taking bias into consideration" on this article consists of not much more than stating "such-and-such an editor is/was a member/syampthizes with the organization".  I believe this to be, by definition, an ad hominem attack. Lawyer2b 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Additionally, I would like to point out that you have taken that quote from COI notably out of context. COI discourages editors with vested interests from making possibly-biased edits in articlespace. That it cautions editors not to let observations to that end slip over the boundary into personal attacks (you will note identical wording on that related policy page), and with that in mind, the focus of the page is on the former points and guidelines, rather than the latter. Please note that I came here to try to help two sides in disagreement reach consensus- and hopefully any efforts to this end will not be met with the hostility and incivility I noticed further up the talk page and in the archives. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused.  Xavier did something that a part of the guideline you cited explicitly cautions against.  I pointed it out.  How did I significantly take that quote out of context?  I acknowledge your intention and will continue to conduct myself as I always have with regard to this page, civilly. Lawyer2b 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I might be considered an unlikely source to be 'defending' PW'ers but if that accurately reflects what Kfir said, he's lying.  Any loss of interest was due was due to Alan and Kfir abandoning the forums. In the period of a year, and especially after 'Crawford Incident' Kfir and Alan went from being daily posters on the various PW forums, to not posting at all, except to appear every few months out of the blue to mediate  disputes, and post impersonal 'announcements'. Their wholesale banning of over a dozen most prolific posters hurt too. Even though they unbanned most of them neither A or K ever openly discussed the issue. They were no longer 'communicating' with the PWers. Even at the time they shut the forums down, they had about 2 dozen loyal PW activists - the kind who would go out an stand in subfreezing weather with  dumb signs that would bring them the scorn of hundreds of lefties - all for PW. A year before that they had at least 5 dozen. A&K failed PW, not the other way around. Although I may disagree with PW'ers politically, I hope their mistreatment by A&K have not turned them off to activisim and protesting.  There are other counter protest orgs. I hope to again, some day, see an ex PWer standing on the side of an anti-war protest, holding some ridiculous pro war sign and wearing a shirt from the defunct PW, (I still wear my Dean 04 shirts all the time) while yelling his 'fool head' off. I miss those days! - F.A.A.F.A. 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that if PW continues to show no signs of activity by Inauguration Day 2007 that we delete this article. Xavier86 06:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I propose that, by the same time, if Abraham Lincoln shows no notable activity, we should delete his article too. After all, the guy hasn't uttered a peep in about 140 years. Crockspot 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if it can be established that Protest Warrior has disbanded, that is no argument for deletion.  Deletion is based on notability, not activity, and Protest Warrior's notability has been established by the media coverage it has garnered in the past. Jpers36 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Jpers said is true. Even if the group no longer exists in a recognizable form, they have in the past garnered mention in the media, which is one of the criteria listed under the group notability guidelines. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then on Inauguration Day 2007 I believe this page should be converted to past tense.Xavier86 23:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some editors of this article have been accused of being biased and editing not in a NPOV.  Guidance from Wikipedia's NPOV policy, states that the facts should speak for themselves.  Only by sticking to NPOV policy and presenting only the facts that are verifiable and from reliable sources, can we be assured of an NPOV article.  We can say it is a fact that the organization's website is down.  That it is a fact, therefore, that the organization doesn't exist is purely conjecture and has no place in an article written according to NPOV policy. Lawyer2b 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think in principle that in the absence of continued coverage (and without the central coordinating site that was the focus of the organization), that the claim that the organization exists in the present as such is not verifiable, it is likely too soon to change it to past tense. However, even though I do not think that indefinite reprieve from WP:Verifiability is acceptable, the absence of a website (which was the center of the organization, both in organizing and growing) for as short a time as it has been down does not lead me to think that it is at the current time correct to move the tense from present to past. --Kuzaar-T-C- 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Past Tense or Present Tense?

message: Couple of friends in the College Republicans up in Rutgers University, NJ told me that they've spoken with Kfir and apparently most members have lost interest in PW, and after the election they decided they would basically continue doing what they're doing on their own, attending conservative rallies, but PW as a whole has disbanded and everyone has gone their own way.  Regardless of whether or not this should be deleted, I think it's time to delete all of the "is"s and replace them with "was"s.  It's past tense, now.  And yes, before you bombard me with "LIBERAL LIAR!!!", no, I do not have proof of this and I don't expect anyone to particularly trust me on it, but I think most should be able to agree that we should set some sort of date, perhaps New Years Eve, and if the site isn't updated by then and PW continues to remain invisible and there's no word, that we should consider the organization dead.  A timetable for withdrawal, if you will.   Anyone agree on a deadline for declaring PW dead?--69.249.195.232 21:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be considered an unlikely source to be 'defending' PW'ers but if that accurately reflects what Kfir said, he's lying.  Any loss of interest was due was due to Alan and Kfir abandoning the forums. In the period of a year, and especially after 'Crawford Incident' Kfir and Alan went from being daily posters on the various PW forums, to not posting at all, except to appear every few months out of the blue to mediate  disputes, and post impersonal 'announcements'. Their wholesale banning of over a dozen most prolific posters hurt too. Even though they unbanned most of them neither A or K ever openly discussed the issue. They were no longer 'communicating' with the PWers. Even at the time they shut the forums down, they had about 2 dozen loyal PW activists - the kind who would go out an stand in subfreezing weather with  dumb signs that would bring them the scorn of hundreds of lefties - all for PW. A year before that they had at least 5 dozen. A&K failed PW, not the other way around. Although I may disagree with PW'ers politically, I hope their mistreatment by A&K have not turned them off to activisim and protesting.  There are other counter protest orgs. I hope to again, some day, see an ex PWer standing on the side of an anti-war protest, holding some ridiculous pro war sign and wearing a shirt from the defunct PW, (I still wear my Dean 04 shirts all the time) while yelling his 'fool head' off. I miss those days! - F.A.A.F.A. 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that if PW continues to show no signs of activity by Inauguration Day 2007 that we delete this article. Xavier86 06:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I propose that, by the same time, if Abraham Lincoln shows no notable activity, we should delete his article too. After all, the guy hasn't uttered a peep in about 140 years. Crockspot 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if it can be established that Protest Warrior has disbanded, that is no argument for deletion.  Deletion is based on notability, not activity, and Protest Warrior's notability has been established by the media coverage it has garnered in the past. Jpers36 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Jpers said is true. Even if the group no longer exists in a recognizable form, they have in the past garnered mention in the media, which is one of the criteria listed under the group notability guidelines. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then on Inauguration Day 2007 I believe this page should be converted to past tense.Xavier86 23:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some editors of this article have been accused of being biased and editing not in a NPOV.  Guidance from Wikipedia's NPOV policy, states that the facts should speak for themselves.  Only by sticking to NPOV policy and presenting only the facts that are verifiable and from reliable sources, can we be assured of an NPOV article.  We can say it is a fact that the organization's website is down.  That it is a fact, therefore, that the organization doesn't exist is purely conjecture and has no place in an article written according to NPOV policy. Lawyer2b 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think in principle that in the absence of continued coverage (and without the central coordinating site that was the focus of the organization), that the claim that the organization exists in the present as such is not verifiable, it is likely too soon to change it to past tense. However, even though I do not think that indefinite reprieve from WP:Verifiability is acceptable, the absence of a website (which was the center of the organization, both in organizing and growing) for as short a time as it has been down does not lead me to think that it is at the current time correct to move the tense from present to past. --Kuzaar-T-C- 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Time has Come for Deletion, Protest Warrior Has Apparently disbanded 

message: How on God's green earth did anyone think that this section was at all appropriate, encyclopedic, and was properly sourced? It is a mixture of primary sources, original research, external links which are not allowed by WP:EL, and irrelevant and unrelated secondary sources. This entire section should be removed. I'll break it down: Except in very narrow circumstances, primary sources should only be used to bolster the verifiability of secondary sources, not to source original research/conclusionary synthesis of the primary sources. Links to search engine results are specifically mentioned as "to be avoided" in WP:EL. Listing a passel of newspaper articles about protests that do not mention PW, is... how do I say this... STUPID. Drawing a conclusion about the fact that PW is not mentioned in those articles is Original Research. Someone here (I will mention no names) OBVIOUSLY does not understand what OR is. - Crockspot 18:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be civil, Crockspot. Jpers36 19:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, but after being away from this article for a while, I am shocked and dumbfounded that this section was allowed to be included. Almost nothing about it meets WP standards, including the capitalization of the header. Crockspot 19:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status, Future campaigns

message: See for yourselves.  *Chuckle*  Rogue 9 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was the forum down for two whole months without explanation? Xavier86 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  It's down with no explanation.  I have no more idea than you do.  Rogue 9 22:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a picture of a cat, and a 'claim'. Is that supposed to assuage the concerns of those who question PW's very existence as an active and viable counter-protest group? Maybe it's going to be back as a cat-lover's forum! Although tempting, I won't make any wise-cracks about 'pussies'! - F.A.A.F.A. 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh huh.  It's supposed to be funny, but I suppose I should have known better than to try that outside of the Department of Fun.  Rogue 9 08:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on forum status

message: I'm not seeing how most of those are references; most of them (the news stories about protests that PW did not attend) seem almost completely irrelevant, but I can't remove them because the source for the section seems to only include the phrase   What gives?  If I can't find a way to edit the content, I will simply remove the section, because it seems to mostly be random news articles.  Rogue 9 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The info you need is at the link.. The refs are contained in the body of the article. You have to remove them individually. Do not remove the ref section. ref tags - F.A.A.F.A. 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I'm fairly certain that more than that should be removed according to policy (LiveJournal used as a source?), but I'll let it be at least for awhile so other people can weigh in.  Rogue 9 08:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The References section

message: Happy New Year, ex-Warriors! When's the forum coming back? I read the promises WEEKS ago. In the meantime, enjoy some pics of the 'glory days' that I just found Pics - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Living up to your old screenname here, eh?  Maybe when you post messages like this, you can do it under "NBGPWS" instead. Jinxmchue 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to be nice by posting a link to some cool pics to ease the pain of asking why the forum never came back as promised, and look at what I get! Insults! Lighten up Jinx! I understand you must be bitterly diasappointed about PW, (and Nov. 7) but don't take it out on me. I didn't shut the forum down and abandon you guys! - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, please continue to play innocent. Jinxmchue 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warrior pics! 

message: For those of you thinking that PW has lost "steam" don't be so disappointed (or comfortable depending on your political views). We're far from gone. PW itself may be stumbling but the drive behind it is stronger than ever. I'm just saying the best way we found to deal with the harassment through PW's site is a decentralization. Personally, most of our contacts and plans to counter protest are now rarely done online other than by IM. So don't expect us to go anywhere. Protest Warrior was only the beginning. Just like Napster was for file sharing. We'll only grow.--Zeph1 06:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the HQ is down too. I have a question, do you think being anti-gay is the way forward? Xavier86 05:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you even understand how PW operates? I'll guess that you probably don't. The website is really nothing more than a flyer and showing what we've accomplished. We don't care if you know what we're doing or not. The real world is where most of the organizing comes from. We're not a bunch of lefties lacking social skills. We don't send out hundreds of emails to people who may not want them. Our organizing is done face to face. Besides, people ddos'ing the website doesn't count as Protest Warrior falling apart. The HQ site being down is meaningless. And about your question. I won't even answer that. I let people who come across it judge who the idiot is. Protest Warrior doesn't discriminate in any manner. You've just been reading too much propaganda against PW.--Zeph1 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are clueless about how PW got started, which was to counter the anti-war protests. It was popular because the majority supported the war and thought the protesters were way out of line. Things aren't the same nowadays and PW has no basis for existence anymore. The videos were OK quality at first but went downhill really fast after the Op. Liberty Rising disaster video. Republicans lost Congress. The anti-war view is mainstream. PW embarrassed themselves at Crawford. The forums are down. No one cares anymore. PW is dead. Xavier86 07:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Dead it is. Free Republic has a thread 500+ posts long about the 'Gathering of Beagles' to 'protect' the Vietnam war memorial from ANSWER, Cindy Sheehan, and 20,000+ other anti-war patriots on 3/17. The 2 forums where the PWer's went to (Fighting the Left, and the Refugee Board) each have under 10 posts about the counter-protest, with no one actually going! - FaAfA (yap) 09:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of you really get it. You people keep talking about the website and the forums. I'm talking beyond that. Even beyond PW and how its organized now.--Zeph1 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We get it. AFAIK there hasn't been a single PW 'operation' in over a year. March 17 will be 'do or die' for PW. Reports (with pictures) of PWers carrying PW signs will determine its existance. - FaAfA (yap) 04:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall you being placed in charge of determining, well, anything regarding Protest Warrior, much less whether or not it's actually operational.  A single protest in Washington, D.C. is a poor litmus test for a group that has never had the resources or inclination to bus lots of people around the country.  Regardless, I can't deny that participation is falling off, but it's not done yet.  Rogue 9 07:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's done. Get over it Xavier86 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, its not. I will be starting a guerrilla campaign on different UW campuses near to mine. More info "when the cell goes active" Izzy1985 23:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done. It's over. Xavier86 06:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The continuing existence of Protest Warrior

message: Just parking the Cracked article here for safekeeping. It was just removed from EL, but I think this article goes toward showing notability of PW, so it should probably be mentioned and worked into the article. Funny as hell too. - Crockspot 12:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cracked 

message: Kfir used the Protest Warrior mailing list to send out an update on the organization's status this morning.  Among other things, he says that he took his recent hiatus to start a new business and write a book.  He says he plans to restart the national organization again in mid-June when he's back from his honeymoon.  
He also says that Alan has quit the organization over philosophical differences on how to run it.  Alan apparently wanted to take the organization in a more "spiritual" direction, something that Kfir disagreed with.  I don't want to start editing this into the article yet, since the source is an e-mail, but I thought I should give a heads-up.  Rogue 9 04:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protest Warrior update

message: Some of what's on this page is at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Protest_Warrior . -- 76.99.238.2 01:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crockspot's right. Lots of sites gather content from Wikipedia, and since the Wikipedia project is licensed under the fairly openhanded GNU license, if you do (for example) a quick google search for the text of nearly any article, you'll see that very thing. :) --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation?

message: I noted last week that the criticism had been replaced by a largely unsubstantial section quoting only one specific writer, and not a particularly good one at that. This could easily be taken as an attempt to poison the well or create a strawman argument in an effort to bias the article in favor of the subject. I have reverted the modification until the (very poor) choice of criticism to be quoted is justified. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification of criticism section by editor 

message: OK moving past the debates here... can we get some edits that will improve the article? The prose is weak and the article itself disorganized. At least initially we should knock out the two tags that can clearly be fixed: the lack of sources in the last paragraph of "motivation" and the "criticisms" section. 
I'll try to hit them tomorrow but it sounds like everyone here has been researching the group feverishly. 
Wellspring 06:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the article 

message: *Protest Warrior believes that liberal politics are flawed, and these ideas could lead to totalitarian police states. 
*Generally accepted ideas  in the Protest Warrior community include support for the War on Terrorism and  the War In Iraq, the state of Israel and opposition to Islamic fundamentalism as they believe it to be dangerous and oppressive.
*Most members also express outspoken opposition to illegal immigration  and current immigration proposals of the Bush administration,  support for free enterprise, general support  for U.S. military institutions, and support for Israel.
*Kfir claimed, on the Protest Warrior forum, almost two years after the article was published, that he had been misquoted. 
Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 15:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  contested statements removed 

message: I keep hearing it's back (on the Afcore forum anyways...) but I can't seem to get it on my computer, and it's not listed on Google anymore.  Kinda miss being on the forum (lately anyways...)Pertho711ljp (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is PW down again? 

message: Does the fact that the website is down mean that the group is defunct? I see someone went through the article to put it into the past tense. Do we have any explicit source that says they've disbanded or what their status is?   Will Beback  talk   17:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of a single active organization that had a non-functioning web site.Xavier86 (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty. Some organizations never even had websites to begin with. So, is that our only indication that this group is defunct? No comments from the principals or anything like that?   Will Beback  talk   19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it has been almost two months since your comment and nobody has complained about the article being in past tense. The website is completely down and doesn't exist anymore (when at one time it was very active) and nobody has heard anything from the original founders. Protest Warrior is official a defunct organization and barely a footnote in the history of activism.Xavier86 (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Disregarding Xavier's nonsense, I have heard nothing, and I am (or I suppose was) a chapter leader.  Considering the absolute furor we put the left-wing activist community in by our very existence, I dispute his editorializing about being barely a footnote, but I believe it is fair to say the national organization is defunct.  I am in contact with some still-active chapters, but the national leadership has disappeared and left no forwarding address, so to speak.  Rogue 9 (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the replies. If there's ever a source that provides an explanation for the closing, or other details to wrap this up, that'd help.   Will Beback  talk   00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I get anything substantive, I'll be sure to come here, but it seems that Kfir has no interest in contacting his old compatriots, so I doubt there will ever be a full explanation from him.  Rogue 9 (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Aaaaand the website's back.  I'd stopped checking.  I'll try to find out what happened.  Rogue 9 (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The forum page, as well as several others, now contain the message "coming soon..." This wasn't there a couple of weeks ago, I believe. Perhaps the forum is coming back up? --62.16.242.189 (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It still says "coming soon" so obviously it's not coming. The group is defunct, period. Xavier86 (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say "coming soon"; it's been completely removed (404'ed).  I did a bit more research on the current status of PW and updated the appropriate section.  The online community is dead, the founder has abandoned the organization, and the separate legal entity (ProtestWarrior LLC) is defunct. It would be appropriate reference PW in the past tense in this article as I don't see how anyone could rationally argue that the organization is still active. ShortBus (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Defunct?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Protest Warrior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070610004632/http://www.mtv.com:80/chooseorlose/headlines/news.jhtml?id=1490667 to http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/headlines/news.jhtml?id=1490667
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Protest Warrior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070106142519/http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/news/local/chicago/chi-0612080286dec08,1,689768.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0612080286dec08,1,689768.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718112208/http://ecpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/servlet/cpa.app.coa.CoaGetTp?Pg=tpid&Search_Nm=ProtestWarrior%20&Button=search&Search_ID=13836848054 to http://ecpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/servlet/cpa.app.coa.CoaGetTp?Pg=tpid&Search_Nm=ProtestWarrior%20&Button=search&Search_ID=13836848054
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718192707/http://www.cpa.state.tx.us/taxinfo/audit/audproc/1gp_r2.htm to http://www.cpa.state.tx.us/taxinfo/audit/audproc/1gp_r2.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927230210/http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/politicsnational_story_240102651.html to http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/politicsnational_story_240102651.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Protest Warrior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090909150934/http://www.protestwarrior.com:80/ to http://www.protestwarrior.com
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090909150934/http://www.protestwarrior.com:80/ to http://www.protestwarrior.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified