Talk:Protest Warrior/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problems with current version

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed text for this point