Talk:Protest Warrior/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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 by cooperating as if there was some sort of platform of fairness here.

Look, I know you don't like having what our opposition thinks about us in the article. I don't either. But we have to maintain the article's neutrality; if we make this into an edit war, some admin might just get fed up and delete it. Leave it alone, please. Rogue 9 01:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Not going to work, bud. We can fix the article all day. Rogue 9 21:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, this is funny. A vandal threatening those fixing his vandalism with banning for... vandalizing his vandalism? Rogue 9 21:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ooooooooooo, new vandal! Elite Blonde Society, you already tried this once. It's not going to work any better this time. Especially since you keep telling us about your vandalism yourself. Rogue 9 20:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

86.136.16.138, NPOV is the rule here, as well as sourcing your claims. You will either back up your assertions concerning Protest Warrior, or you will not put them in the article. If you do back them up, then you will word them in a viewpoint-neutral manner. You will do this, or your changes will not stay. Rogue 9 03:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

As a member of the forums and a regular of the Entertainment Forum on the site, I ask that the following section be kept:

But when legitimate political discussion drys up in the more serious Liberty Forum, the vast majority of members will retire to the Entertainment forum. Oddly enough this forum was made to ridicule the alleged elite liberal Hollywood, but now serves mainly as a spam forum where discussion ranged from emo jokes, "buttsechs" neeners ass, and attempts to swoon several other female members.

It is funny because it is true, although "spam" doesn't seem to fit. Not like sending e-mail spam...

-- PW forum Member Stonent

The paragraph certainly needs to be copy-edited. Is there a source for it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm afraid it might technically count as original research, as it's from his personal experiences on the forum. Though one could certainly link to a multitude of threads demonstrating this, it would make one heck of a mess out of the external links section. Rogue 9 07:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

While article is protected, edit @ Talk:Protest Warrior/temp.

• Talk:Protest Warrior/Archive 1
• Talk:Protest Warrior/Archive 2
• Talk:Protest Warrior/Archive 3
• Talk:Protest Warrior/Archive 4

I am concerned these words are being misused in the article. Protest Warrior is not conservative, by any stretch. Neo-Conservative, sure, but that means liberal to me. Conservative is isolationist, anti-globalist, protectionist, in favor of a balanced budget, opposes foriegn aid, doesn't want to risk american lives defending Israel, etc.. Sam [Spade] 13:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would point out that libertarians are disproportionately present in the PW forums, and that some have revised their position on foreign intervention, adopting positions on foreign policy uncompromisingly opposed to non-democratic government and socialist economics. Thus it is difficult to paint any remotely accurate picture of the group as a whole's political and economic views in any one sentence. The closest I can think of is a melting pot of ideas ranging from neo-conservative to classical liberal/libertarian. - Megami, PW and ILM forum member 2:15 1 Sep. 2005 (MDT)

Protest Warrior is a coalition organization more than anything, as Megami pointed out. I'm a political centrist leaning towards classical liberal, and also a member. What's important to me isn't the stance on the war; it's the fact that PW and Communists for Kerry are the only groups out there that get out and counter the socialist elements of the antiwar movement, and CFK is in New York. I dislike the idea of letting the Workers' World Party run the show when it comes time to hit the streets with the signs. Rogue 9 03:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Please review NPOV. Some of the things you have placed in the article are beyond the pale of what is acceptable on an encyclopedia. Sam [Spade] 20:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I would have reverted even more of the anon changes, such as the removal of the "notable moments" section and the assertion that the term "islamo-fascist" started on PW. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe Little Green Footballs actually coined that term. Maybe you're not done. I'll take a crack at fixing the article later if you want. Rhobite 20:38, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I did some searching and it appears the term "islamofascist" was first used by Stephen Schwartz in a column entitled "Ground Zero and the Saudi Connection," in the Spectator, shortly after September 11, 2001. So the anon contributors are wrong about that little tidbit. Rhobite 20:43, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I reverted back to the November 3rd version, the one before the onset of troll changes that started on the 10th. Please continue to revert to this version if changes are made to the article without a consensus on the talk page.

--65.161.65.104 23:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, let's work on that consensus. First, the anons are absolutely wrong about PW coining the term "islamofascist." Second, I request that people not put quotes around the term "manifesto," this implies sarcasm and POV. Third, I dispute the accuracy of the paragraph about connections to Kach. Anons, please provide evidence of this connection. Fourth, there was no reason to remove the "notable moments" section. Fifth, please find evidence of PW deleting threads based solely on the opinion of the poster. I've heard from numerous places that PW firmly stands by its policy of allowing competing viewpoints on the forums. Last, calling PW's stance "extremist" is POV. Anons, you are welcome here but please use this talk page. Rhobite 00:05, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm the ANON that has been hanging around here for a while. I'm not going to start an edit war with you, but I seriously suggest reverting back to the November 3rd verison instead of reverting to one of the November 10th edits and then trying to NPOV it. Do a Google search of "Kach", and limit it to the Protest Warrior domain. There are only two forum results that do not endorse it. I also don't see how one can come to the conclusion that the website is Zionist. It's clearly right-wing by looking through all of the signs. I'd just revert it back to the November 3rd edit and then work from there.

Thanks for the note. I see what I'm doing as preventing an edit war, I'm trying to give the anti-PW contributors the benefit of the doubt. However most of their edits are problematic, and I'm going to remove the Kach thing if they can't back it up soon. I also did that Google search and found nothing. If I had to guess right now, I'd say the anti-PW people have some history on the PW forums, and are taking their grudge over here. Rhobite 00:34, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I also tried to give the benefit of the doubt, leaving anything that wasn't overtly POV or obviously incorrect. I left alot of things which seemed to me unlikely (most of which Rhobite has gone over), but I was assuming somebody had some references? If not, he or I will be removing them shortly. I strongly disaprove of reverting to far back in time tho, lets take out unverifiable or POV parts and keep on going! Sam [Spade] 01:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would be a great time now to revert it back to the Nov 3 edit. There's been too much modifiying of the article now. Since Nov 10, it's just been a revert war pretty much. Now I really suggest moving it back to that date, since that was the version that was agreed upon and stayed up for a long time without being vandalized or modified. I propose reverting it back to Nov 3, archiving all the discussion on the talk page above this section, and then starting to debate what editing needs to be done to the Nov 3 version.

--65.161.65.104 02:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I split up my edits so I could explain them with comments. About half of this article reads like a book report on the Protest Warrior website. How much purpose is it really serving? Can't we assume that people who care will follow the link to the website, and isn't only one external link there necessary? -Fleacircus 01:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most encyclopedia articles should read like book reports. That's kind of what we're going for here. Wikipedia isn't a link repository, nor is it a forum for opinion articles. Rhobite 02:01, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

The key is in having it look like a good book report, not something a 5th grader got a D on ;) Sam [Spade] 14:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article on, say, IBM, wouldn't include a sort of detailed room-by-room description of the IBM HQ building. First, it's not really relevent. Second, it becomes inaccurate once IBM repaints a room, turns an office into a meeting room, etc. If people want to know something about the PW website, they can go to the website. As written this article details the PW website almost down to the color scheme. -Fleacircus 16:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the website, and especially the forums, get too much attention here. Sam [Spade] 17:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

nor is it a forum for opinion articles ... nor is it an advertisement for PW. -Fleacircus 17:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A link to their forum main page and their press kit is not what I'd call excessive. It's not valid to say "if someone wants to read it, they can find it on their own." Well why not put in a link? Do you feel the article is too long? What is your objection to multiple links to different parts of the site? Someone who watched your edits objectively might guess that you're trying to make it harder to visit their site, Fleacircus. Rhobite 17:40, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

It's main page, forums, mission statement, and press kit; I think that's excessive. The PW site is not so vast and labyrinthine that we're really helping the user out. Links to the forums for example should go through the site so that the site can have disclaimer pages. The mission statement is hopefully redudant to the "Ideology" section section of the article and hardly counts as a Reference. The press kit isn't mentioned in the article. All of this stuff is one click away from the main page of the PW site. Why not reproduce the whole nav bar in the Wiki article?

If anything the objective observer looking at my edits might conclude that I am helping the PWs. Maybe your objective observer and my objective observer can have lunch sometime. -Fleacircus 18:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stop removing links, especially the references section. That should be considered a footnote to the article, and having a reference section is a good thing. If you edited another article on Wikipedia, you'd notice that we like references. Rhobite 18:51, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

A mission statement by the group under discussion is not a Reference source; all the Reference sources I see in wiki articles are bibilographical style References. Look at Wikipedia:External_links/temp. It says "Don't arbitrarily throw up any link related to the article when creating an external links section ... OK to add: ... On articles about companies/websites, a link to their official site ... Links which provide actual 'Further reading' or 'References' from reliable neutral sources." Do you really think that describes the links in question?

The ACLU page has a tiny external link page and no references. The Free Republic page only links to the site and has no Reference section. The Democratic Underground page does have some redundant links that should go, but no Reference section.

My edits improve the article, follow examples of other wiki articles, and agree with putative wiki guidelines on external links. Stop reverting my edits. -Fleacircus 19:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course you can use non-neutral sites as references. Please read Wikipedia:Cite your sources. And that temp thing isn't policy, and it isn't likely to become policy due to its restrictiveness. That reference was added in an effort to settle a previous edit war - the exact same type of edit war you're now instigating. I reverted this article three times already, so I won't revert your changes again, but I strongly disagree with them. Rhobite 19:57, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Why didn't you say that in the first place instead of assuming neutral wiki policy favors you, implying that somehow all wiki articles have Reference sections, inventing objective readers to make sly accusations about my motives, etc.? You haven't defended the press kit link or the forum link much yet you did wholesale reverts. I recognize that you are the more experienced wikifier. Revert the references section if you honestly think it was serving some purpose in this article.

My objection to the links was that, combined with the tone of the rest of the article, reading it gave the overall impression of talking to a stranger who seems slyly interested in some subject and then hands you a pamphlet at the end of the conversation and you discover they've been "referring" to themselves as an objective expert. -Fleacircus 21:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

my contribution just now i think was reasonably Neutral. i just have problems with people just repeatedly calling the organisation "racist" towards Muslims. PROTEST WARRIOR as an ORGANISATION is not racist, nor has it ever been. Racist posters DO exist on the forums, however, the forums DO NOT, HAVE NOT, and NEVER WILL always represent the veiwpoints. Katch probably has loads of pro results because of "moderate centrist" - who is neither, and "David-Ben arial" - who repeatedly tells us that europe is about to become the next Reich. you would be a fool to take what these two posters see as perfectly ok as widespread. JesseH is also one of the resident nutballs - he beleives that Muslims all need to be killed... and is regularly shouted down by the majority of the posters online. if you were to go onto PW and post a Poll as to who thought that "All Muslims needed to be shot" you would have about five pro posts, and the rest against.

i would say that anyone who would say that the group is racist to do just this.--Smegpt86 16:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) - a protestwarrior

I added the names of the founders. This seems to be consistent with other articles on organizations such as Drudge Report and Daily Kos.

I've removed this. It surely has no place in an encyclopædia article, reads more like an encomium than a NPoV description or explanation, and is in any case too feeble to be notable (even if it's the least feeble moment they've had; is it?). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You know, if we're not listing moments in the organization's history, why do we have an account of the Crawford incident? Rogue 9 03:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

can we leave the article as it is please? can we stop coming in and adding leftwing pov portraying pw as "anti-islam", biggotted or otherwise an established hategroup? can we also stop adding language that portrays the leftwingers who have assaulted pw's through electronic larceny, physical assault and private harrassment as "victims" of "provocation"?

honestly, the article has been picked at and bandaged so often it's hardly worth salvaging at this point, but i'm sure you can understand that it's not nice to have one's organization represented by a libelous wiki article.

nothing in my latest revision is untrue. if there are legitimate concerns, i'll argue them fairly, but in the meantime i'll revert to this version as often as nessesary.

We don't worry about what is "True", we worry about what is sourced, verifiable, and NPOV. The material you add is full of wide-ranging assertions with no evidence.

• Some claim that..
• Others claim that...
• A third technique is to...
• ...has been cited by several far-left groups...
• Often the left-leaning trolls collaborate with white separatist trolls...

All of these need to have sources and be described from a neutral point of view. Please read over the core policies, wikipedia:five pillars, so you can the types of contributiosn that we need. Thanks, -Willmcw 18:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Willmcw. You need to cite your recent additions, and stop using fallacious reasoning. For example, it is not true that people claim that "social justice activists are exempt from critisism". That is a straw man attack. You wrote "fair speech" in quotes - which critic of PW used this term to justify anti-PW protesting? If PW believes it is acceptable to crash protests, why are you claiming that they oppose "counter-crashing"? In general, please provide citations for your additions, and keep in mind WP:NPOV and WP:3RR. Rhobite 18:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

if i provide a source for each of these items, which i can once i get to my home machine, will they then remain on the page the way you allowed the unsourced assertions regarding how pws motives are percieved by "otherwise peacefull" protesters to remain?

regardless, if the version i replaced comports with the wiki npov policy, then my fix hardly violates it either.

I don't see the text you are referring to. Everything in this and every Wikipedia article should be verifiable and NPOV. -Willmcw 18:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The Protest Warrior Exposed web site expresses the sentiment that PW crashes "otherwise peaceful" protests. As do many other critics of PW. If you have any other statements which you feel are not verifiable, please list them. Thanks. Rhobite 18:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

as i indicated previously, i'll provide linked sources for each of my assertions which you and i both know are accurate. i am utterly in the dark as to what you're talking about regarding "counter-crashing". please ellaborate.

hold the phone! i just realized that i can save myself the trouble by simply following rhobite's lead. all i have to do is "source" my "assertions" with a link to the pw forums and suddenly they're permissable npov compliant content.

nah, i'll take the high road. one link is up already.

So how many "social justice activists" frequent the PW forums? How many of them claim they "are exempt from critisism"? Your words, not mine. You need to cite this and other accusations. Rhobite 19:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

don't be officious. the material is in the entry you reverted to:

"Those who conflict with the Protest Warriors generally see them as acting in a provoking or aggressive manner towards protestors, and that the Protest Warrior signs are offensive. Many feel that the Protest Warriors are deliberately confrontational and hostile to antagonize the otherwise peaceful protestors. Some see the Protest Warriors' criticism of Islam as bigoted."

provide sources for this content or leave the article alone.

I did provide a source, read the PW exposed page. It's linked at the bottom of the article. Rhobite 18:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

explain to me how the inclusion of "rev"'s perceptions is an npov addition to the article. it would seem to me that rev's claims themselves need to be sourced or otherwise demonstrated as factual in order for this language to be npov. as it is, they are nothing more than the insertion of editorial opinion.

Editorial opinion is fine in articles as long as it's attributed to a source. You still haven't read WP:NPOV have you? Get on it. BTW I reported you for your 3 revert rule violation - you may be blocked from editing soon. Rhobite 19:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

that is fine. i'm not so foolish as to have expected integrity or fairness here. i will not allow this article to remain libelous of protest warrior, however.

The rule is in place to prevent opinionated people like you from coming along and declaring "i'll revert to this version as often as nessesary". People like you destroy the ability for us to compromise and come to a consensus on articles. Wikipedia:No legal threats too. Rhobite 19:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

this is the anon from the earlier conflict. i hold steadfast to my objections to the current article. however, going back through the history page, i noticed that rhobite was intending to remove some of the more slanderous leftwing pov and that i just got to it first. i still percieve a bias, but it seems to be an honest bias, a natural bias that all people are guilty of and one that i'm confident that we can work through to write an article that is informaive and genuinely npov. i apologise for my earlier combativeness, but anyone familiar with this particular entry might understand why that was my initial stance.

my first proposal is to strip it down to a sentence or paragraph. something like, "protest warrior is a center-right activist group that holds street demonstrations."

what do you think?

I'm glad to see this, and I'm happy to work with you on a compromise. Why do you think the current lead section should be changed to a single sentence? It seems fine to me, it's been there since late 2004 and nobody has complained about it. I should note that Sam Spade, a conservative Wikipedian, has heavily edited this article. If he's OK with the lead section then it gives me confidence that it is sufficiently neutral. Rhobite 01:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

at this point the article is just misshapen from abuse and repair. checking against the earliest vandalisms, it's apparent that, though descriptors and such have been swapped or softened, useless connective tissue remains. there;s no reason to have it broken into the headings it's broken into. in it's present state it fails to provide a clear description of the organization and i think the only way to fix that is to start over.

Oh, I didn't realize that's what you meant. If you'd like to draft a replacement article I'll look it over and give my honest opinion, but I don't think that's the best approach. There is a whole article already written - and you're free to look through its history to see how it developed over the course of a year. Coincidentally, Kizor started this article one year ago tomorrow. Maybe you want to write your own draft and we can merge it in with this article - but no guarantees that we'll erase the parts of this article which you find objectionable.

This article may not be perfect but it's much better than any single sentence. Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages says to be bold, "but don't be reckless". Erasing all of our work over the past year isn't something I'd go for. If you have specific problems with the article to point out, or suggestions for reorganizing the sections, that would be a much better approach. Right now you haven't convinced me that the entire article needs to be erased. Rhobite 03:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

i'll come up with something more robust and post it here to see what people think. in the meantime i'd like to see the paragraph referencing the unqualified perceptions of anti-pw groups of pw being "anti-islam" and deliberately provocative nixed. it's pure pov that sheds smoke rather than critical light on the subject. readers can find these opinions through the link(s) at the bottom of the article.

here's a for instance of the "connective tissue" thing i was talking about:

"Although though the Protest Warriors have been influenced by the right-wing website Free Republic, slogans such as "Saddam only killed his own people.. it was none of our business" and "Communism has only killed 100 million people... let's give it another chance" clearly set them apart in both style and attitude."

the clause that begins with "slogans..." was written by a pro contributor to adjust a sentence originated by an anti contributor which instead went on like this: "...they clearly take more from stormfront and their well known views." that anything of that sentence remains is the product of a very contentious back and forth that has long since subsided. both pw's relation to other activist groups of the right and the nature of their slogans can be addressed mor cogently, if at all nessesary, laid out in a more logical manner in a fresh article.

changed "Although though the Protest Warriors have been influenced by the right-wing website Free Republic, slogans such as "Saddam only killed his own people.. it was none of our business" and "Communism has only killed 100 million people... let's give it another chance" clearly set them apart in both style and attitude."

and "a motto from the website"

to:"It also acts as a source for the many slogans and signs presented by the Protest Warriors at protests. A shop is also run from the website, to help cover the costs of keeping the website and organisation running."

also added "provided that they do not threaten the forum, spam " to the section on the forums

I agree with the first change and also the removal of "The website is often zealous and confrontational." But why remove the motto? (don't forget to sign and date your talk page contributions, thanks) -Willmcw 23:43, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

i didn't think that the group's motto was relavant to the article, but particularly irrelavent to the "website" area. if you think it is relavent, fair enough, but i suggest it goes at the top of the article, with who set it up. Sorry for not sigining, forgot to sign in at the time.--Smegpt86 10:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The "product[s] of a very contentious back and forth" are generally called compromises, not "connective tissue". Let's not erase them just because you disagree with the method in which they were written. Rhobite 03:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I removed them because they don't seem to be relavent to the "website" area. surely the "website" area should discuss what the website is and does, not be a wider commentary on the group--Smegpt86 10:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

on 8/18/2005 Some ProtestWarriors celibrated Cindy Sheehan's mother's having had a stroke.

[1]

Correction: one poster to the PW forum was apparently pleased at this event, and was roundly criticized and admonished in the posts that followed, with the majority of the posts' authors being known long-time PWs, although some of the usual trolls joined in as well.

I've just moved this text from the article (which an anon editor has insisted on adding):

"When Pat Robertson, host of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club and founder of the Christian Coalition of America, called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for oil on on August 22 2005 there was a landslide of support for Robertson on Protestwarriors."

Aside from the copy-editing and formatting issues, there's no source given; can anyone supply one? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

what is it that you want sourced?

signed the annnoying anon.

How about some confirmation that there was indeed a "landslide of support", and confirmation that PW's reaction to Robertson's statement has been covered or reported elsewhere? Rhobite 20:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

put in "It has been alledged by some that comments are deleted and users are banned based upon the opinions expressed. However, this seems not to be usuall practice, as many who vehemently oppose the protest warriors' stated goals post regularly on the forums." as this is more NPOV than the previous sentence--Smegpt86 23:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

also, tidied up the general page (removed the "although the protestwarriors have been influenced by Free Republic... as this is not the place to be advertising FR. surely they have their own page!) and removed vandalism --Smegpt86 23:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Which category should this go under? I just realised it isn't in one currently. Derktar 01:44, August 30, 2005 (UTC).

I think that the article should mention something about the PW's being harassed out of the Crawford rally. However it's not right for the anonymous user to repeatedly add text mocking Protest Warrior. I wrote a short blurb about what happened in Crawford, hopefully it's more neutral than the text the anon has been adding. If anyone can improve it from an NPOV standpoint, please do. I would appreciate if people would discuss here before removing it entirely. This event really did happen, you can watch the video and see for yourself. I think it's very illustrative of the nature of protests and groupthink - both on the left and the right. Rhobite 01:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt. I simply object to NeoconsBeGone (as he is known on the Protest Warrior forums; he gave himself away through his distinctive habit of putting a space between exclamation marks and the sentences they end) being allowed to use Wikipedia to slander the organization.

However, I was under the impression that this was simply an article about the organization, and not a chronicle of events. I have no objection to including the Crawford incident in a viewpoint-neutral manner, but that opens the door to simply rattling off the organization's history if someone cares to do so. If that's acceptable then I have no problem; it's just that before yesterday, it didn't seem to be where the article was headed. Rogue 9 18:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Wait, my apologies to Grazon for identifying him as NeoconsBeGone. The user that made the changes I was thinking of (Protest Warrior are EVIL BUSH WHORES ! LOL !) was in fact 24.182.146.201, not him. My mistake. Rogue 9 19:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, on a hunch, I just checked the article on Kfir Alfia. Sure enough, he's vandalizing it too, with comments such as "Kfir does his best not to cry." I have class in five minutes, and can't do anything to fix it at the moment. However, I see this vandalism as a disturbing trend. Might want to keep an eye on the Free Republic article too; I'd bet $10 he'll go after it at some point. NBG has a history of sabotage and slander, even going to the point where he admitted in a thread on the PW boards that he does not wish for rational discussion; only the slander of the organization. Rogue 9 18:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)