Talk:Protest Warrior/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Sources?

I wonder what's the source for the paragraph below, as the article shows no references:

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.

In addition, this passage seems to grossly violate WP:AWW: "generally perceive", "some claim", "some see", "others think", and "some believe" are all textbook examples of weasel words. We cannot afford to have a piece of an article constructed in this fashion. Pecher ^Talk 10:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the paragraph is by and large true, but it's a hard thing to source. We can't reasonably link to epithets hurled across the police lines at protests. One could always refer people to the Protest Warrior videos, of course, but that's one hell of a lot of bandwidth to suck up if someone's just idly curious. Rogue 9 16:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If this information is not sourceable, then its inclusion in the article will be a violation of WP:Verifiability. On the other hand, links to videos would do just fine, as long as they support what's written here. We must not forget, though, opinions of some not notable people are not notable too, unless we are talking of an opnion poll the results of which can be sourced and verified. Pecher ^Talk 12:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I found some DU threads which verify the claims in that paragraph. Forgot to add them but I'll try to track them down again. To those who complain "but you can't cite a message board", I'll respond that these standards must be relaxed in an article about a message board. Rhobite 16:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

the answer is that anytime someone tries to remove weasle words and pov from the article, progressives swarm to revert claiming that accuracy makes the article sound too positive of pw. wiki is not a platform for justly negotiated truth.

Halliburton, etc.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Bijoux - I personally see no need to include the haliburton, cat or george bush part. But, if you feel its inherently neccessary to the artical, then you add it. I'm not going to waste time changing something which i feel contributes nothing significant to the article, especially if i can just delete it and the resulting paragraph makes more sense. --Smegpt86 23:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

lets give it up

i wouldn't mind seeing it deleted.

if you go over to the article for the revolutionary communist party, you'll see that the discussion there fits on one whole page. this is due to the collegial and deferential treatment their organization has recieved from users and mods at wikipedia.

it's almost humorous to see the contrast. the first paragraph is an rcp'r raising an uncontested objection to the association of rcp with the sendero luminoso terrorist group, though they admitedly are supporters and ideological kin of the first order on a self-proclaimed basis, and advocate the eventual use of maoist guerilla tactics in the u.s., because sl is not the exact same organization as the rcpusa. the rcp'r presumably makes the changes to taste with no objection or further discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Revolutionary_Communist_Party%2C_USA

witness for contrast the tooth and nail fight that must be slogged through with moderators whenever a pw enters wikipedia to correct the latest vandalism of this article. the conversations are hilarious:

pw: i removed the part which states that we each recieve checks from hitler posthumously..."

mod: do you have a source which positively proves that you don't recieve checks from hitler?

pw: no, but...would the absence of evidence indicating...

mod: really, we can't have biased editors running around reverting whenever they feel like it. i'm putting you on the three revert notice...

when i tried to remove unsourced pov content asserting that pw is motivated by anti-islamic bigotry, i had my changes reverted and was dismissed as being "difficult". i was told on another occasion that i had to provide sources for context i attempted to add to the critisism section, but the changes were discarded anyway while i was in the process of adding the links.

we get the message: dissent is not welcome here. fine. wikipedia is only a "source" if you are a progressive looking to have your prejudices reinforced.

delete the article and lock it as deleted. wikipedia editors do not operate in good faith, and we really are just participating in the process of slandering ourselves by cooperating as if there was some sort of platform of fairness here.

I don't know who this is, and haven't time to start trawling through histories to see if it's the same person who changed "infiltrated" to "counter-demonstrated", but I've reverted that change again. Not only does the change turn good into bad grammar, but "infiltrated" matches the description in the text. As no justification – not even an explanatory edit summary – has been offered for the change, I can see no grounds for keeping it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

yes it is. noting in passing that mel itis is providing me an example of what i was talking about above, i'll quote the whole paragraph and explain the change.

"The group's primary method of activism is infiltrating left-wing events, chiefly anti-war protest marches, counter-demonstrating within their ranks and showing support for people, businesses, and organizations it supports, for instance Halliburton, Caterpillar Inc. and George W. Bush. When doing so, the Protest Warriors carry large signs often designed to appear supportive of left-wing causes (and thus similar to those held by the participants of the event they are crashing), enabling them to mingle until observers are close enough to read their signs' sarcastic fine-print."

this paragraph introduces POV; it attributes deception to what is really just counter-demonstration. 3-inch letters are not "fine print." the text on their visually distinct, extensively branded and apparently oppositional signage do not enable them to "mingle". in those noted but few instances in which they ventured to mingle, they were immediately punnished for it. the signs are not "designed to appear supportive of leftwing causes." they are designed to appear to be mocking leftwing causes. in case the joke whiffs past, the group identifies itsself with a four-inch black banner with white text accross the bottom of each sign. the signs themselves look nothing like anything to be found at a typical answer rally. they do not emerge from manholes in skimasks and lurk around the crowd wispering subversive things to the protesters. they do not "pretend to be leftists" at all. so they do not "infiltrate" at all. what they do is straight and simple counter-demonstration. all the lurid language implying deception is POV and should be struck.

in any case, i hadn't seen the use of the term in the original wording. i did make it ungrammatical. sorry. i'm going to leave it as is because i'm apparently not fully comitted to repairing this article. and, frankly, in the case of something like a wikipedia article, i'm willing to attribute the greater zeal to the progressives involved.

barring bijoux from editing the pw article

can we get bijoux banned from vandalizing the pw article? so much discussion is wasted on his unhinged and out-of-proportion crusade against pw. i really feel we can move foreward without his purposfull, persistant stonewalling of any version which doesn't include his libels and vandalisms.

Bijoux claims to be an admin using a sockpuppet to avoid being "wiki-stalked" by us eeeeeeeeevil PWers. I'm not sure if I believe it, but there it is. Whether it's true or not, this isn't going to happen, and I for one wouldn't want it to. He can be aggravating to deal with, but banning someone from editing an article isn't an appropriate response to that. Rogue 9 11:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be careful throwing around the terms "libel" and "vandalism". They are terms with specific meanings here. I don't think Bijoux's conduct has been perfect, but to my knowledge he's never committed libel or vandalized the article. The fact that he is anti-PW is not enough to justify banning him from the article. I do think his poll a few months ago was a useless stunt, though. Rhobite 16:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, his first edit did add the article on the American Nazi Party to the See Also section, although the edit summary said he removed it... Rogue 9 13:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Blatant lie, once more. Removal of American Nazi Party link by bijoux. Rogue 9 is, like some other Protest Warriors here, trying to discredit people who are not accepting the attempts of the Protest Warriors to use this article as a propaganda platform. And don't even try explain your behaviour with "I didn't know, it wasn't clear, I overlooked...", it was myself who explained in detail the ANP link removal to you months ago, on Protest Warrior. Rogue9, you are simply a liar. Period. --Bijoux 13:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh huh. [1] Why is the Stormfront link not there in the first version, yet there in the second, by you? Just to remove any doubt, this is the version immediately prior to your edit. There is no Stormfront or ANP link to be seen in it. You might want to check your own history more closely before you start calling other people liars; and you might also have provided the edit I specified, that is to say, your first one to the article, not some other one.

As for using the article as a propaganda platform, I challenge you to provide any instance of me attempting to turn it into a propaganda piece. I deal with this article in good faith; if I wanted a propaganda piece, you wouldn't be the only one to see it. At no point have I ever tried to turn this article into an endorsement of Protest Warrior. Rogue 9 13:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

More lies. This IS the first edit I made and not some other one like you claim, also I REMOVED the ANP link from the version the article was reverted to and did not add it like you claim. The clear proof: Removal of American Nazi Party link by bijoux.

I just checked, you have made the very same false accusations last year after I reverted the article and removed the ANP link from it. I quickly exposed your lies and you never dared to respond, but now, 4 months later, you're again trying to discredit me with the very same lies. So much for your "I'm dealing in good faith". --Bijoux 17:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's your first article edit, what the hell did I link to? That's pulled directly from your "user contributions" page, and is your second edit, the first one in article space. The fact remains: The link to Stormfront was not there before you edited, and was there afterwards. Hence, you put it in there. This isn't that hard to comprehend. Rogue 9 17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked through the article's history. Bijoux did revert to a version which linked to Stormfront, and said PW was an "intolerant hateful organisation". However that version was not written by Bijoux, it was written by User:66.119.33.167. I think it's pointless to argue over something that happened over a year ago, though. Let's not dwell on it, I'm sure that Bijoux has learned a lot about editing Wikipedia since October 2004.. Rhobite 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, Bijoux's "clear proof" diff covers multiple edits, so it is not useful. I think it's a little deceptive for you to link to a multiple edit diff without mentioning it.

The truth is, you did accuse PW of being linked to Stormfront, even if you were just reverting to someone else's version. You are always responsible for the content of your edits. Rhobite 19:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have already explained it TWICE AND IN DETAIL to Rogue9 that my diff covers multiple edits!! This is the THIRD TIME it was explained to him, nonetheless he's accusing me of ADDING the ANP link although it's clear that I REMOVED IT!--Bijoux 22:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

removed two of the rocknrev links. this guy has a bee in his bonnet about the protest warriors. surely one link is enough?

--Smegpt86 20:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

PW forums hacked... again

The Protest Warrior forums have been hacked; from what I can piece together, the hacker managed to gain access to Alan's administrator account. He wreaked havoc with it, banning one of the most prominent members and deleting his account, as well as locking dozens of threads and deleting any thread referencing what was going on. I'm still not entirely sure what happened, but blame seems to have been placed on the new user known as DUSpy. Rogue 9 05:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, PW is definitely the terrorist group *rolls eyes*

How is that an act of terrorism? The Ungovernable Force 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

---

NPOV

Come on guys, lets keep this NPOV --Smegpt86 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

way to be snide, rhobite. Do us all a favour and keep your opinions to yourself, MMk? a simple NPOV would've sufficed.(re Talk page " remove sneaky implication that protesters oppose America and American troops") Such comments only poison the atmosphere on this website. Chill! --Smegpt86 22:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

adding anti Islam documentation

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)

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)

how about this: can any of the people slandering pw here source a single incident in which pw protested or counterprotested a moque, an islamic group or anything like that? pw opposes the left, not religion.

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)

Lock the article?

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)

I think we need to have Rock and Rev's link at the bottom, but just one of the pages. If the trolls continue to attempt to add all three, i'm all for locking the article without any of the three--Smegpt86 00:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

The indymedia essay was removed yesterday.. would you object if someone replaced it? Rhobite 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

add questionable tactics?

I would like to add 'a section on questionable tactic. This is from PW's MOST ACTIVE Chapter leader: "Those A.N.S.W.E.R. donation cans at their marches....It would be so easy to stencil A.N.S.W.E.R. on the back of a green safety vest, slap one of their flyers to a five gallon bucket and circulate at one of their marches for cash. Pay for BART fare, gas, beer, signboards, whatever! How much coin do ya'll think one could get in an hour? $10? $20? more? What if we circulated 10 people?"

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=119791

Is everybody ok with this? Fair+Balanced 07:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Questionable by whom? Alister Namarra 09:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

By most of Protest Warrior, if the reaction in the thread is any indication.

Until you have evidence that this has actually been done (which I'd be ready to guarantee it hasn't), it has no place in the article. One suggestion by one guy on the forum isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion. Rogue 9 13:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

agreed, if your only source is one nut on a forum, you're standing on wobbly ground, ideas wise--Smegpt86 22:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The word "questionable" would be your own opinion. And I don't think it's appropriate to dig around for threads that show off the worst of PW. Rhobite 15:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

i actually wouldn't mind it if it means i'm free to then go to the articles for various antiwar and social justce groups to add similar stuff -- stuff not just spoken of but carried out -- but we all know that that's a one way street here. progressives are free to use the wiki system to slander and defame groups they disagree with and rewrite history to their liking.

Stance on Islam?

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)

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)

Unless someone has a good reason for thinking it to be completely POV (in which case, you can revert it or ask me about it on this page), I'm just going to change said references to "anti-Islam", or "opposition to Islam". There's pretty obvious evidence right on the front page of the Protest Warrior site, and I think it's a bit silly to water down things and pussyfoot around these issues. If anyone has any objections, let me know.

EDIT: Well, it seems that someone (Bijoux)? Has already done so. Good job on that one.

Mister Mister 23:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Halliburton Support

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)

You don't support the right to free speech/protest? Dissent is patriotic, after all. GreatGatsby 01:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well, it depends on what criteria are used. I'm not sure why Protest Warrior would want to hold a counter-demonstration to protestors at Halliburton HQ if supporting Halliburton isn't one of their views, unless of course Protest Warrior holds counter-demonstrations at all left-wing protests regardless of context. Of course we could mention that by extension of being against protests of these corporations Protest Warrior does support Halliburton, however that this is not one of their main goals. As such, at this point I'm not sure whether or not to delete the reference. Perhaps we could keep it and edit the section to make it sound a bit better? I'm not sure about this.

Mister Mister 14:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

is my version an acceptable middle ground?--Smegpt86 23:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Critical links?"

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)

Critical Links

Yes, My pages regarding the protest warriors are in fact critical in EVERY way shape and form. You would NOT do the same for any other article. This is personal to you. You are deleting good critical links, you're only doing what's right for YOU and PW, not for truth or Wikipedia.

You say you replaced my story regarding your embarrassment in Crawford with "an alternative" and you say that site has a better depiction of your group. When we compare your link to mine we can see that your link is short and mixed in with other info that had nothing to do with the incident itself but was more about Cindy Sheehan. It also has no images or video of the actual incident.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/08/1763194.php

My site, on the other hand...

http://www.rocknrev.com/pw/pwned.html

...Is ONLY about PWs embarrassing incident. It focuses ONLY on what happened to PW and it comes complete with numerous photos that perfectly depict what happened that day. My site also comes complete with a video showing exactly what went on. It is FAR more accurate and depicts the events of that day 1000 times better than the "alternative article" that you have decided to replace my links with and claim is a better depiction of Protest Warrior.

Anyone who sees the two can clearly see what PW is doing and why.

There is no wonder why some people have been trying so hard to remove my links. I've exposed PW for lies, hate, discrimination, copyright infringement, violence, hacking and much more. I've shown PW in a dark, or embarrassing light and it certainly is critical of the group. I do not blame PW for not wanting the world to see these things. I do not blame PW for wanting to sculpt their own wiki article until it is perfectly as they would have everyone believe. I see how long it is taking PW, even with members of the group itself, to define what PW stand for, or what PW "really means" when they do or say things. PW denies support for Haliburton and wrestles to find the right words to explain why they were at a pro-Haliburton rally, cheering for Haliburton and carrying pro-Haliburton signs. It's comical really.

Now I know that this is not a forum, so I won't go carrying on forum-like discussions here about this, but I want you to know that I think PW is not able to handle truths (with photos and video) of some of the sillier things the group has said or done and are creating a poor article that is not accurate because of it. I'm sure PW would like the world to think it is as flawless and perfect as they are trying to craft this article to depict, but I doubt the public is that ignorant.

Have at it. Feel free to continue crafting your own description of yourselves and deleting all derogatory edits from others regarding the group. The History of this article says it all. I won't come back and wreck the fine work anymore.

Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please. As I said before it's not appropriate for you to add links to your own site. Rhobite 16:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't even discuss it here?

(

I was told to come discuss it here... To work out why these links shouldn't be included. Be honest... Which of those two links, for example, do you believe better depicts the events of that day? Which one left you with more of a feeling of being there?

You're free to discuss this article but you're not free to call other Wikipedia users names. Thanks for editing your message. Rhobite 16:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from what i've seen, the only person who claims your sites are critical links is, in fact, you. The replacement of your internal link was done partly because it's a crappy source (being poorely presented and rather childish) but mainly because the site reffered to WAS THE INDYMEDIA SITE , and not yours.

To be honest, your sites are not critical in the slightest. --Smegpt86 00:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Clue for the clueless: I was referring to "critical" in the sense of the fourth definition, "important to," not the first, which is something that criticizes. Your site does criticize, but it does so in such a childish fashion that it makes itself basically irrelevant.

And Rhobite, I appreciate the sentiment, but I really don't care if he spends an entire hour of his time composing the most florid insults he can think of to pitch at me. I'm used to firepits in my forums. In any case, if he thinks I can't handle the truth, and that I'm weak, he needs a reality check. The link I replaced his page with was not intended to be solely about the Crawford incident; neither was the page on his website that I replaced. The idea of the external links section is to have general information on the subject of the article. When I originally replaced his link with the Indymedia essay, the links to his subpages on Crawford were not part of the external links section, therefore replacing coverage of Crawford was not what I had in mind. If Rev wants to insult me, he should at least make sure his claims are accurate; as they are not, I believe I have the last laugh. Also, I note with amusement that Rev ascribes motive to me without evidence. I would indeed remove spam from other articles; if he thinks having multiple links to his site is anything but that, he needs to pay better attention to WP:SPAM. Rogue 9 14:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm largely ignorant as to the specifics of this subject, but couldn't we just list the content of the video under criticisms? I mean, one could comb Protest Warrior's main page/forums and find plenty of evidence for criticism, if they wanted to. I'm not really sure about this, though.

Mister Mister 04:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am adding back the links to RocknRev's site which keep getting deleted by vandals. Each and every one of these pages is important to those wishing more info on PW, their owners, leadership, and general tone, as these pages document the anti Veteran actions against Gulf War I vet Rev.'

Fair+Balanced 06:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I resent the implication that I am a vandal. Rev's site is a juvenile rant, nothing more. As for his treatment on the boards, I wasn't a member until after he was banned, but according to all accounts I've seen, including his own, his behavior would warrant banning from almost any forum on the Internet. Rogue 9 12:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

rocknrev's site is nothing more than an immature rant against someone he has a problem with. Fair+Balanced (or should i say RocknRev?), the only person vandalising anything here is you. unlike rogue9, i was a member of the boards before he was banned, and i personally fully agree with the banning. I just find it funny that after said banning he took it upon himself to act like a five year old and create a website "exposing" PW. --Smegpt86 22:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)