Talk:Protest Warrior/Archive 8

message: Fair+Balanced 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia guidelines on citation and on original research.  If you want to change the article as you've been trying to do, you need to give proper citations for your claims. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If Protest Warrior is dying by your standards, then so is ANSWER, UPFJ, and all the rest.  Nobody was claiming six-digit figures for protest attendance last weekend.  The anti-war movement is splintering, and being quite public about it.  San Francisco alone had over half a dozen rallies by various groups that didn't want to associate with each other.  (The anachists don't want to put up with the Communists, UPFJ publicly disowned ANSWER, the list goes on and on.)  PW has always been a smaller group, and no one's going to deny that.  With only so much manpower, the chapters can only cover so many rallies, and the organization has never been at it's strongest in coastal California. I'm not surprised that few if any turned up at Hollywood.  The San Francisco chapter was at the ANSWER rally there in force; see .  The organization might be spread out a bit, but it isn't dying.  Rogue 9 13:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Activities

message: flagged The "Reactions" section:  "This is due to the fact that their signs portray anti-war protestors as hypocrites. The Protest Warriors are usually greeted with verbal attacks such as name-calling, but on rare occasions, the anti-war protestors have been violent.[2] The Protest Warriors often engage in informal debate with the anti-war protestors while countering their rallies."
-it is an opinion, not a fact that the only possible reason one may have a negative reaction to protest warrior signs is a portrayal of protestors as hypocrites, or that all of their signs even fit that description.    this section also gives a false impression that anti-war protestors attack and become violent, while protest warriors simply engage in informal debate.  - either the author has never been physically near a small pocket of pw's in person and has never seen one of their videos - or is being intellectually dishonest.  --applecrumble  24:00,  29 March 2006
:While I'll agree with the first objection (that it is opinion, not fact), and know that not all the signs portray the protesters as hypocritical (though enough of them do), I have to take issue with the last as I have been physically in a small group of Protest Warriors several times, and can state that while not nearly all anti-war protesters become violent, enough do to be notable at least to us (of course, even one person attacking you is notable enough to you, but you get the point), and that I have never seen a Protest Warrior strike anyone.  My word isn't good enough for the article, but neither is yours.  If you have something to say concerning the behavior of Protest Warriors then say it and source it, don't start insinuating that anyone who doesn't know what you're talking about has never seen them.  Rogue 9 13:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoV notice 

message: ProtestWarrior's founders have never expressed that they want to protest gays or gay marriage in any instance that I have seen. I've talked with Protest Warriors, and they have said that there was no instance of protesting anything mentioned in the article (that was dated about 9 months ago). There is no substantiation or proof for this, nor do I consider the article credible (it is from a source that I'm sure that only a few or even none of us have heard of). For this reason, and for the reason that anotherbob (friend of Alan and Kfir) has expressed in the fallout from the bannings of forum spammers, that Kfir and Alan do not intend to divide ProtestWarrior on the lines of sexuality; I am now removing the category. If anyone needs links to what anotherbob said, I could find them, but it will take some time.
Jdh 24 03:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future prospects category 

message: ""We staged a counter-protest this spring in Washington, D.C., when they had that huge march for abortion. We're going to be protesting abortion more and more, and we'll probably get involved in the defense of marriage, too."
All of these issues, he said, are connected. "The antiwar groups use the Iraq War issue to attach to all the other issues they push — abortion, gay rights, socialized medicine. They're communists, anarchists, and they want to overthrow the current government of the United States."
:That is what's in the source.  That's not what you said in the article.  --Tbeatty 03:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it needs to be there as it is pretty generic account of what they do.  It's sort of like saying the 'sky is blue' and then further down saying "blue, the sky is".  If you do think it is necessary, please create an neutral, accurate and sourced account of what you are trying to say.  --Tbeatty 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another anti-PW trying to make us look bad - Kfir came to that thread and personally said that it was MISQUOTED and they did not plan to "defend" marriage or protest abortion, so don't try that here, troll. --Neverborn 08:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ok? 

message: Kfir, co-founder of ProtestWarrior, has discredited this as a misquote. He has said that these issues are not a big issue for him, they are not issues of ProtestWarrior, and PW membership extends to people on both sides of this issue. Kfir's post about this "source" on this page. --Neverborn 00:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage in question is cited;your reason for calling its addition "vandalism" is that the person quoted has since denied its accuracy.  First, even if you're right, the addition of the passage isn't vandalism, and you should stop calling it that.  Secondly, in any case, the correct approach would be to add text giving the claim that the quotations are inaccurate, not simply to delete what you don't like. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 12:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: NBGPWS, please learn to edit properly, use NPOV, and provide sources that are not biased, far-left blogs and discussion boards.  Thank you. Jinxmchue 18:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation source removal, along with material attributed to source 

message: The external link, "Right and Right" is critical of Protest Warrior, and should not be considered an "external link," but one that criticizes PW.
:Please sign all your posts on the "Talk" page when discussing edits. It makes it much easier and focused. Thanks. --Neverborn 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It fits the definition of external link:  A link that leads to a page outside the site that has the link, in this case Wikipedia.  There's no rule that says external links have to all support the subject of the article.  216.49.121.119 14:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Rev's site has long since been determined inappropriate as an encyclopedia cite.  A childish rant by someone who got banned from an Internet forum and carries a grudge over it is hardly a reliable source.  Rogue 9 15:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 69.249.195.232, please source your anti-Semitic Christian banning and it will be left alone. Thanks. --Neverborn 05:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bannings 

message: There's been a lot of deletion war-faring with the Protest Warrior article, but one topic that no one seems to have argued about -- or even brought up -- is the crucial question of exactly WHO in the GOP apparatchik community has been financing and/or advising the two wannabe-apparatchiks who founded PW. Is it the Club For Growth? ? Vin Weber? Ralph Reed? Who said what and when and to who? Any former Protest Warriors want to fill in the details?J.R. Hercules 04:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be nobody.  Protest Warrior is a grassroots movement in a way that MoveOn and the like will never be.  Rogue 9 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting aside the issue of financing -- no GOP operatives or the like outside of Protest Warrior has ever advised the organization? Never coordinated activities with Protest Warrior, or got them connected with GOP operatives, helped them with public relations, got them connected to the media? Or anything along those lines? Is that a qualified "No" on all the above?J.R. Hercules 03:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, fair enough, care to open the books, then?  BenBurch 15:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Protesting Warrior is so small and insignificant and uninteresting as to warrant deletion from wiki, then thier finances are even more insignificant and uninteresting.  I don't know how interesting or significant Protesting Warrior really is, but you, BenBurch, seem to have an significant interest in them.  Evensong 23:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope we find out who the sugardaddy is so I can write to him and request a grant.  I'm a member of the South Florida chapter and I could put the money to good use. Lawyer2b 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of leadership, Chicago chapter here. I don't know what BenBurch thinks goes on at PW rallies, but protesting on the streets is not an expensive venture. Are you implying some mysterious shadowy figure in the background is subsidizing my CTA fees to get downtown? --Neverborn 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If I had the books, I gladly would. But what reason do you have to suspect corporate backing, or is it the tired old CIA handwaving that you're referring to?  (I wish that were so; my paycheck would be way the hell overdue if it was.)  I head up a university chapter myself, and have never spent more than a few dollars for signs.  Why would we need some sort of sponsorship?  After all, we're not the ones who pay for buses to ship people across the country to protest (though I have hitched a ride with ANSWER before).  Or hire people to stand around with signs, for that matter.  Rogue 9 01:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's The GOP Sugar Daddy Behind The Protest Warrior Curtain? 

message: There have been some very questionable edits made by this user, whose only contributions have been to the Protest Warrior article and its AfD discussion. This user does not follow editting guidelines, does not use NPOV, and does not provide reasonable sources. I have rv'd his edits twice now and if he rv's it back again, I will ask that the article be locked. Jinxmchue 18:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They may be germaine, but you still need to (a) edit your additions to match standard Wiki formatting (e.g. a list of URLs is not standard formatting), (b) use wording that portrays a neutral point-of-view, and (c) use reliable sources for facts (e.g. not blogs, online forums, and things of that nature - if any of those reference a reliable source, use that source instead). As to this Scott Robinson, whatever connection he has/had to PW is/was tentative, and all the information you provided and I could find amounts to rumors. Rumors don't belong on Wiki. Jinxmchue 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the record, Jinx, NBGPWS most likely stands for "NeoconsBeGone ProtestWarriorSucks" - he has been banned repeatedly from the PW forums. The "promotion to Corporal" thing he most likely made up all on his own. It is obviously not from PW. --Neverborn 04:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a paranoid nutter! The PW atricle talks about violent antiwar protestors beating them up with NO documentation, but I provide documentation of Protest Warrior Scott Robinson whose violent attack on a woman ON THE GROUND (kicks to the head) were captured on the NETWORK NEWS, and they are deleted????
Here is a link to the DOZENS of sources documentiong Protest Warrior's violent actions, AGAINST A DEFENSELESS WOMAN  ON THE GROUND.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22scott+robinson%22+%22protest+Warrior%22&btnG=Google+Search
I demand that this be included somewhere in the article NBGPWS 05:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Scott Robinson was promptly and unceremoniously kicked out of the organization on his ass for that little stunt.  He was not "promoted," there is no "Order of the Boot," and nobody is proud of what he did.  You can include the incident in the article if you absolutely insist, but any lies about him being lauded for it will be shot on sight.  Rogue 9 14:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you admit that Scott Robinson while still an active protest warrior, kicked said woman while she was laying on the ground at the 2004 RNC! THANKS! Please document where he was expelled from PW. Link please. NBGPWS 21:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no firsthand knowledge; I only know what I heard about it.  I wasn't a member of Protest Warrior until after the RNC.  No one has ever denied that Scott Robinson was a member that I'm aware of; you hardly needed me to tell you that.  And if you want to go there, I can document multiple violent acts by as many individuals in the anti-war movement.  Your house is constructed of glass; I wouldn't be chucking rocks around, especially after making up that Order of the Boot hogwash.  Protest Warrior's protest guidelines, found here, strictly forbid even losing your temper during an op, to say nothing of assault and battery.  What's most telling is that Robinson wasn't in the company of other Protest Warriors when he attacked the woman.  He was inside the Convention; the protest, and hence the PW operation, was outside.  He was in the convention as a representative of the Penn College Republicans, not Protest Warrior, and he acted as an (idiotic) individual, not at the behest of Protest Warrior or anyone else.  All you've got is someone who happened to be a member doing something unrelated to the organization, and you know that.  Otherwise, I doubt you'd have felt the need to fabricate some sort of stupid commendation.  Rogue 9 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current edit attempts by NBGPWS 

message: The following pro PW assertions have NO doumentation:
"Anti-war protestors who have come in contact with Protest Warrior usually have a negative reaction towards their signs. Those in agreement with Protest Warrior tend to find their signs and slogans humorous.'
So I added back in this similar paragraph:
"Those in conflict with Protest Warrior generally perceive the organization as provocative or aggressive towards leftist protestors, and that the Protest Warrior signs are offensive. Some claim that Protest Warriors are deliberately confrontational and hostile, and antagonize the otherwise peaceful protestors. Some see Protest Warrior's criticism of Islam as bigoted, but typically fail to engage in dialogue with members. Others think that Protest Warrior, by choosing as targets groups likely to be agitated by its rhetoric, is causing the very problems it intends to demonstrate. Some believe that its organizers troll anti-war rallies out of animosity because the pro-war side, unlike their opponents, has been unable to generate mass numbers of people to rally for their cause."
NBGPWS 05:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can document it and get the weasel words and POV out of it, we'll talk. Check out Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Neverborn 07:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: then I am deleting the non documented 2 sentences about the signs. I'm an anti war protestor and we think your signs are jokes, and the immature bumblings of a bunch a teenage misfits The are too lame to provoke a 'negative reaction' as you boast.. NBGPWS 08:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please remember to follow WP:CIVIL at all times. They certainly do provoke a negative reaction, as I've seen personally and on video many times. Whether that belongs in Wikipedia is different. I will leave your edit for someone else to decide. Please don't mark "minor edit" on things that aren't, such as removing sentences, though. Thanks. Neverborn 16:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added paragraph

message: "Unlike many other far-right boards racism and threats of violence are permitted on PW. " I will gladly link to posts by Big Pickle, a confirmed racist who has been posting racist comments on PW for years, and to Howarta's death threats against Al if so desired.NBGPWS 19:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  BS! You banned Blue Dog Liberal because he PWNED you juvenile tards on PW all the time. Same with Rev! (who is this neconsbegones you keep speaking of?)
Just because you got banned, doesn't give you the right to defame an entire website. Hworta's issues were more personal, due to the fact he had a loss of a close friend weighing heavily on his mind, and Al was merely a convinent target. Big Pickle is either ignored or mocked by many of the posters on the forums, and on top of this it's already covered under "the group prides itself on permitting people of any ideology to join in on the discussions" and as such is a merely childish attempt at defaming the organisation --Smegpt86 21:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: added sentence re racism and threats of violence

message: When is a consensus going to be reached on the afd tag?
71.125.240.18 20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's odd about it?  I became convinced of this page's notability.  BenBurch 21:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  not funny as in "odd" but funny as in "ha". at first glance, it seemed the deletion was politically motivated.--Smegpt86 22:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope.  In the CU relist attempt that I voted relist in, 007 raised several pages that he though less notable than CU, and I checked them out.  At first glance only this page appeared to actually BE less notable than CU.  Finally, I paid for a Lexis/Nexis search and found that PW does indeed have press mentions (and CU does not.) White Rose only has one press mention I could find on there. BenBurch 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: afd nomination/debate

message: The group's primary method of activism is trolling other online forums which is a much more popular activity that their stated goal of infiltrating left-wing events, chiefly anti-war protest marches, and counter-demonstrating within their ranks. Their 'command and control' forum shows that most of counter protests planned are never attended. 
NBGPWS 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I do play D&D.  Got a problem with it?  Take your trolling somewhere else.  Rogue 9 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: added 2 sentences with documentation

message: "....but racist speech and threats of violence against others not members of the group are not bannable offences."
Unsubstantiated, unverifiable smear. 
Will someone please delete this, so I don't have to?
71.125.240.18 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will gladly link to posts by Big Pickle, a confirmed racist who has been posting racist comments on PW for years, and to Howarta's death threats against Al if so desired. SHOULD I????
NBGPWS 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm 21, first of all.  As for the link, quote the server, 404.  The entire Daily Cardinal website is down.  Feel free to put it back if and when it comes back up.  Hell, if you don't I probably will.  Rogue 9 01:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your link is working again.  I would put it back now, but the article's locked.  So let's get this over with so we can get it unlocked and resume without the silly edit war.  Rogue 9 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Racist Speech" bit