Wikipedia

Talk:January 20, 2005, counter-inaugural protest

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

What I'm trying to do and what we need to do with this article

edit
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am thinking big with this article. My vision for this article, for what it's worth, is to basically have information about as many different events as possible that happened in Washington and other cities on January 20, 2005. I listed sections and sub-headers for events that I could think of. I know that there are more things than I am listing. For one, I know that Code Pink had some event on J20. I wasn't at that particular event, and so I'm not qualified to talk about it.

I also understand that there were counter-inaugural events at other cities, particularly in San Francisco and Portland. Regarding Portland, I remember seeing photos on an Indymedia site (can't remember which one) of a group staging a sit-in at a gas station, with three individuals U-locked at the neck to the gas pumps. I was in Washington DC that day, so I am also unqualified to speak regarding other cities.

Anyone else who has ideas for this article, I'd love to hear, since I think that this article can grow, flourish, and be truly grand.

Schuminweb 22:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

There was a counter-inaugural protest in Miami. Video may be found here, though the source rather dictates a very POV slant to what it shows. Rogue 9 01:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Also, shouldn't UPFJ be in the "see also" section? Or were they not involved in the counter-inaugural for some reason? Rogue 9 03:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Heh. That was embarrassing; I started editing in stuff from the September 24th protests. Rogue 9 01:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Attempting to balance out POV for Protest Warrior confrontation

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Using a DC Indymedia article by Mitch Potts [1], I have attempted to balance out the point of view to achieve NPOV. I am hoping that I got things fixed pretty well, but I'm afraid I may have tipped it too far the other way than the way it read before in my effort to achieve NPOV. Compare this revision where I edited it with this revision prior to the edit. Your opinions would be appreciated, and perhaps a third (or fourth or fifth, etc.) editor could help fix the NPOV some more. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

If the men carrying the anarchist banner were Protest Warriors in disguise, this is the first I've heard of it.
As for sourcing Indymedia, that's fine, but it should be pointed out that the statement that PW was intentionally hunting the Black Bloc is the author's opinion; from all accounts I've read (including ones from the media; it's not just the PWs in the protest who say this) the Black Bloc came to them. I wasn't there, so I can't comment with any kind of authority either way. Rogue 9 16:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Gil Kobrin claims that the "Can we riot now" banner was not carried by his people. Do you have a source for believing that they are Protest Warriors? Rogue 9 20:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
The Indymedia article I cited seems to make that connection indirectly, by including a similar photo with the article. This, however, may be inaccurate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Forget that earlier post of mine. Found something that substantiates what you said after doing a little rummaging around online. Check this out. In a post there, I found Flint from Baltimore proposing the banner in question for use a few months before in this, what appears to be an anarchist forum. So there you go. I'll remove the inaccurate reference. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
basically, any time you hear a "social justice activist" claim that a particular photo, sign, banner, statement or action ostensibly emanating from their direction is the enterprise of "cointelpro" "provacateures," know that they are lying. this isn't the first case i've seen this sort of lie repeated. its a rhetorical strategy: if the social justice movement does or says something opprobrius, they claim that it wasn't them -- it was the secular satan of reaction trying to make them look bad. 35 years ago the fbi put some undercover cops amongst progressive groups who were loudly and emphaticly working towards the overthrow of the u.s. government and the left has since been able to parlay this into a rhetorical platform in which they don't have to be responsible for anything they say or do. it'd be funny if so many weren't brainwashed.
i would also like to question the assertion in the language of the article which seems to legitimize the anarchist violence toward the pws. shouldn't it simply be reported that "anarchists violently attacked counter-demonstrators?" the language claiming that they were "provoked" by pws or that it was pw's intention to provoke them to violence is pov; it seeks to excuse the anarchist violence and displace responsibility for it on the victims. that language should be struck. "anarchists violently attacked counter-demonstrators" is the only thing that can be factually said of the incident. the idea that pws designed to provoke violence is also counter-factual; how can it be said that holding a sign while walking through a park justifies violence? how could someone expect a violent reaction to such activities? obiously the activities of pws that day could not have been designed tto provoke violence since they could not have been expected to provoke violence. the violence was solely the enterprise of the social justice activists who committed it. please strike the counter-factual and pov text imputing some "intent" on the pw's part to be attacked violently.
I indeed did read the talk page - in fact, I did so before I saw the article's changes. The discussion and the changes to the article did not appear to match what was discussed, and gave the appearance of POV-pushing.
In the article, the words were chosen carefully due to the touchy nature of the conflict. Neither the word "provoke" or any form of that word is present in the article as it presently stands. The closest we get to that is a quote from an article on Indymedia, and in the next paragraph, saying, "Reacting to the perceived attempts at instigating a conflict". The use of "perceived" was deliberate, to indicate that the perception of the Black Bloc was that the others were instigating a conflict, even if that was not others' perception of the incident.
Also, the reason I have reverted your edits regarding the confrontation twice now are because the information is unsourced, thus considered original research, and thus it falls under Wikipedia:No original research. Additionally, doing a little research online turned up no evidence of the claims you are making in the article. Yes, DAWN was the main sponsor of the big march from Malcolm X Park. Yes, there was a black bloc present at the protest (I should know - I was part of it to an extent). However, the two seemed unrelated, especially when you consider that the black bloc broke off from the main march at P Street and did its own thing from there.
Please consider what I have commented on. Thanks. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
excellent. i've taken your issues seriously and adjusted the article accordingly. 1) i've added source material from pw to ballance the assertions inserted via the source material from indymedia. i've also noted the lack of evidence for one of those assertions and added counter-claims, again, sourced with quotes from a first-person account of the incident. 2) i noticed that the conclusion you draw from the indymedia account, that the attackers "percieved" one thing or another, could be construed as "original research" and so i've eliminated it.
I've reworked it again, adding in some material from the Washington Post article. I did remove a bit of the more recent contribution for lack of sources, thus could possibly be original research. Cite your source at the end of the section by putting the URL in a single set of brackets. Thus, [http://en.wikipedia.org/] becomes [2] as a citation in the article. This way, everyone can verify your source, and can use the same text to construct the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
i've added the link.
Thank you. I wouldn't be able to trouble you for a photo from the confrontation that's available under a free license, now, would I? I have no photo of it of my own, as I was elsewhere in the park at that time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
i don't personally have any photos, sorry.

Critical Mass

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article says that there was a Critical Mass at 4pm, however, I only remember a Critical Mass happening early in the morning, like 6am. Is the time in the article wrong or were there 2 different Critical Mass rides? Kaldari 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I found two references to the early morning Critical Mass ride[3] [4], although neither says enough about it to provide a good source for a write up. Kaldari 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

There was a second critical mass ride later in the day. The bicyclists got going quickly at that time, though, and so the anarchists ultimately ruled the park for much of the time at Dupont Circle. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Black Bloc

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are several good accounts and photos of the police attack on the anarchist resistance march; and yes, it was an unprovoked police attack; I was there. I could provide my own account but that would be O.R. Check D.C. Indymedia for some of them. Jacob Haller 10:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on January 20, 2005 counter-inaugural protest. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on January 20, 2005 counter-inaugural protest. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_20,_2005,_counter-inaugural_protest&oldid=1206307213"