Talk:Protest Warrior/Archive 6

a suggested edit
(btw sorry if my format is wrong, I'm a wiki noob)

as an addition to the website portion of the article

"The only official reasons for banning on Protest Warrior, are posting pornographic content, the creation of multiple accounts, or the stalking of a forum member. Those who contend otherwise, by claiming that opposing viewpoints are banned, as are such posts deleted, have failed to provide any evidence.  However the inverse is also true, as no list of banned users, accompanied by the actions which resulted in their banning, has been made public."

I suggest thsi because the current version seems to imply that idealogy bannings are a fact, where-as from personal experience, they are not. furthermore, I think I kept it neutral with the last sentence there, and whether or not such is added, at the least when you try to accuse of us idealogy bans, list our official rules for banning. thats just basic to such an article.

also on a side not, I removed the anti islam sentence, once again Wiki noob, so don't get pissed, just put it back if you find it necessary, but as a forum member, I would contend that that sentence was a misrepresentation of the feelings on PW. polls show a majority do not take the stance indicated. If possible, whoever keeps posting that, can you please reply here, so we can work out a compromise, indicating that it is a minority view.

Once again, Wiki noob here, no need to flame, just explain. you'll probably find I'm willing to go a long way to find an acceptable middle ground.


 * Islam has been talked to death already, read the Talk before deleting. The sentence is no misinterpretation but was confirmed by a Islam-poll on the Protestwarrior forums. Bijoux

I have seen polls where-in which PWs vote in the neighborhood of 70% not having any problme with the religion. and of note these polls are corrupted by people who would seek to lower that percent, with multiple accounts, such as the famous sputnik. therefore it is a misinterpretation, and to prove it, I'll be creating a poll on the site. any future efforts to include that sentence will be met with the link added. If you remove that, well then, whos taking sides? The poll is about to be placed in the Liberty forum. I trust, that in the interest of objectivity, you cannot possibly object? --fieldinj (preceding unsigned comment by )


 * If you're referring to the poll linked above, PWs were asked whether Islam should be banned, not whether they "have any problem with the religion". I hope you realize that the two statements are not comparable. I don't think it's productive for editors to run over to PW and run polls to prove things in the Wikipedia article. See No original research. Rhobite 00:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

it is productive, if the opinion of those asked is what is to be determined. if for example, I asked them what the mood on the site was, then you would be correct, but I asked for their personal opinions, and when we look at that result, it will indicate the mood on the site. In other words I asked for pieces to the puzzle, the the final product, and therefore, it does not fall under you're objection. furthermore, see verifiability because the sentence you want to use lacks it. (preceding unsigned comment by )


 * I'm interested in the results of your poll (link?) but it's still original research. I do recommend that you read No original research, it outlines why it's not a good idea for Wikipedians to run around proving things and gathering data. Also, I am remaining neutral on this topic - there is no "sentence I want to use". I think you're confusing me with someone else. Rhobite 00:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you would only read the "Protestwarrior and Islam" section instead of starting the same over again. Check the discussion and the poll that is mentioned there, e.g.Protestwarriors ideas about Islam Bijoux


 * No offence Bijoux, but I think your poll isn't very useful, because you included three choices which are basically the same ("a threat", "oppressive", "dangerous"). And what is the difference between "a religion like any other" and "a religion, nothing else"? Poll design counts. This is the reason original research doesn't work. Rhobite 15:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Rhobite, poll design mattered a lot, the poll like I created it made it hard to vote for "oppressive", "threat" or "dangerous" with options like "a religion like any other" or "a religion, nothing else". The three options you think to be the same were chosen because they are in the article. A poll with only 2 options, like "A- good religion" and "B- bad religion" would have had a result of almost 100% for option B on Protestwarrior. That is why I created a highly unbiased poll. Notice the result of the poll despite of Rogue9's attempt to spoil it. Check my reply to Fieldinj,


 * Fieldinj, your highly manipulative "Is the religion Islam in and of itself evil?"-poll, commented with "the only people who vote yes, should be people who think that anyone, no matter how good or bad a person they are, who is Muslim, is evil" and "On the wiki, severl left leaning indiviguals, claiming objectivity, continue to ann a sentence indicating that the majority of PWs think Islam is in and of itself, wrong." has nothing to do with Protestwarriors stance on Islam like it gets presented it the article. Even when the result of the poll will be "Islam is evil", it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Notice that until now 40% of Protestwarriors voted for "Islam is evil". Bijoux


 * So you're admitting you stacked the poll on PW based on the language you'd like to insert into this article? Rhobite 19:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The poll was started after Rogue9 claimed that Protestwarrior is not negative about Islam, also it was started after it was mentioned in the article. Bijoux

firt of all 40% represents a minority, like I said. Second of all, my poll is no more origional research than is yours. and due to the fact that you are not neutral, and will not compromise on a sentence. (btw I'm not suggesting we remove it completely, just edit it)I would suggest a sentence indicating that there are a large number who hold that view, as well as a significant number who do not. do you deny that as you would have it, the sentence indicates that all or nearly all protest warriors fell a way, that clearly a large minority only feels? Please, you seem at the very least logical, so I have two points to make. One, a revised form of the sentence is acceptable, but as it is, it is an untruth based on you're origional research. Two, I will remove it every time I'm online, and as a college student, thats alot. Therefore, it seems the most logical solution, to have you write a sentence here, as a suggestion for a compromise. I pledge, that as long as it is unbiased, and represents that a large number, which is most likely the majority, do not find Islam to be negative. And one last point, we've so far totally ignored the bigger issue I tried to raise, about banning. I would also like to see an idea from you, as to what should be added to that section, because as it is, it is at the least biased, and at the most not well researched.

On a second note, The sentence should not be added again, until it is made netral. thats just common sense. grow up, act like an adult, and figure out a solution. seriously, I'm asking you for the first suggestion, go ahead and continue to point out that the sentiment I object to is present on PW, just do not make it seem that it is the condition of all the users. Fieldinj

A second poll, with no bias or and refrence to wikipedia has been created. I predict that the results will indicate that a significant number of PWs, if not the majrity of PWs, are neutral on the subject. If the result is that more feel negative, though I would feel many left leaning trolls might vote such, to make PW as a whole look bad, I will relent, I'll also resign from PW, hell, if the say negative, you can go ahead and objectively, and neutrally call them racist on the wiki. Fieldinj


 * This convo is kinda silly, something like 40% of the worlds population thinks Islam is bad, see . Sam Spade 17:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To make it short; fieldinj's first, manipulative, poll shows that 52% of PW is seeing Islam and every Muslim on the planet as evil. His second, admittedly unbiased poll shows that 72% of PW sees Islam negative, 7% positive. His predictions for the first as well as for the second poll were completely wrong, a vast majority of PW has a negative stance on Islam, more than 50% are even saying that Islam and every Muslim is plain evil. Whether he is leaving PW now or not, he can not deny anymore that the article is more than correct about Protestwarrior and Islam. This has not necessarily to be fieldinj's point of view, but it is without any doubt PW's.Bijoux


 * First, my first poll was no more of than yours. Second, apparently I was wrong. i do appreciate how you 'maniputavely' did not include the neutral results in you're recount of the poll in you're post above.  However the fact stand that you are correct, I relent.  I honestly though the modd was different.  It was last year.

Silly photos
Does anyone think we should include the silly photos of the site founders with guns? To me it seems like the person adding them clearly wants to make fun of PW as a bunch of gun nuts or immature people. No reason to include these photos. Rhobite 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even if they are of the founders, the founders are not the subject of this article. -Will Beback 01:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Though I may disagree in strong terms with the principles of the article's subjects, I can't tolerate the use of the lowbrow "look how stupid they are" tactics of posting ironic images of what they've done in the past to discredit them. - Kuzaar 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's simply immature. Applecrumble and the anons didn't even try to put them in any sort of reasonable context; the images were simply stuck willy nilly into the article.  This was obviously no attempt to improve the article.  Rogue 9 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

the photos were originally inserted with text, in which neither willy, nor nilly were mentioned - but i do agree, photos of the founders add nothing to the article (the founders are not the subject of this article), including the silly photo of the two goofing with peace signs. that the smiley photo is thought to be a better pr image by those who feel 'protest warrior' is worthy of an entry in wikipedia makes it no more "encyclopedic". whether the posing with the gun photos look stupid or not - they were taken by and posted on the 'pw' website by the ceo's to impress the membership and are hardly ancient history. i simply can't abide the lowbrow tactics of organizations that post and maintain an alleged "encyclopedic" article. you kids have at it.Applecrumble 07:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll have to respect the consensus here that the gun pictures should stay out of the article. Please don't retaliate by removing the normal picture of the founders. Rhobite 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's get a couple things straight. I'm the only Protest Warrior who bothers with this article on anything resembling a regular basis, and I have had little to no impact on most of the content beyond reverting vandalism.  While I'm here and editing the article namespace no matter what the article is, I am a Wikipedian first and foremost.  You can whine about PW writing it's own article all you want, but it simply isn't true.  What's happening here is Wikipedians preventing you from using the encyclopedia as a means of attack; the first reversions had nothing to do with me or any other Protest Warriors.  Rogue 9 23:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The V sign used by Alan in the picture could just as easily mean Victory as Peace. Jpers36 14:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Neo Nazi activism?
I'm not sure why a link to this was added at the end of the article, seeing as how Protest Warrior has engaged in no anti-neo nazi organizing whatsoever and whose members support anti-immigration groups that have ties to white supremacist organizations. I've removed it. Robison85 10 January 2006
 * You're wrong; I've organized an anti-ANP protest as a Protest Warrior myself. And let's have specifics.  Name these "anti-immigration" (not just anti-illegal immigration, which is a crime?) groups and the white supremacist groups supposedly connected to them.  And then show that such thirdhand connections mean anything in light of the fact that PW protested the American Nazi Party's national rally in Yorktown last summer.  Rogue 9 06:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mention it in the article or I am taking off the category. I don't think anyone thinks of PW when they think of anti-nazi activism, and some might (such as myself) think of them as pro-crypto-nazi activism. And I'm not trying to insult any PW's, that's just how I, and many others from my political pov feel. And I'm guessing the group alluded to above were the minutemen. The Ungovernable Force 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I recall, attempts to list individual operations have met with consensus that the article is needlessly cluttered with them in there. (For some reason, the Crawford incident is considered an exception.)  If you really insist, remove the cat; better that than yet another argument over which actions qualify for the entry and which do not.  As for crypto-fascism, that's hardly a charge that can be reasonably leveled against an organization as libertarian as PW; the suggestion that we're Nazis is frankly hilarious.  (How many times must it be pointed out that the founders are Jews and absolutely detest anything even remotely resembling Nazism?)  Nevertheless, I can hardly be offended; after all, ANSWER and company is scared enough to say just about anything to discredit PW and they have a lot of sheep followers.  It could be an interesting conversation, presuming that you're willing to have it; you'll have to forgive me for being a bit jaded on the chances of that after the fiftieth or so shout of "You're a fascist!" followed by a lot of walking away and refusal to offer justification.  Rogue 9 06:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. That'll teach me to not read the userpage before commenting.  Well, from an anarchist's point of view, I suppose even a minarchist is fascist to some extent.  Ah well, what can you do?  Rogue 9 07:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't ever confuse me with a member of ANSWER, who frankly are fascists (though not nazis) as far as I'm concerned. Not trying to sound harsh towards you, I just can't stand those authoritarian commies. And not all PW's are necessarily nazis or even real fascists, but in my opinion, some of the things supported by that group have fascist and jingoistic overtones. My own opinion though. This observation is mainly from a limited pool of knowledge about the group though, but even still. If you want to have a serious and polite discussion on the matter, feel free to start it here or on my userpage. It'll give me a chance to see how your guy's minds work. I do honestly respect other people's opinions, even if I don't agree (with the exception of full-blown nazis, racists, fascists, and other bigots/authoritarians). And calling someone a fascist in a protest setting is a lot different than in a rational debate. In protests emotions run high and group mentality kicks in, so if one person calls someone a fascist, everyone does. I would probably shout that at you during a protest, but in a real debate things become a lot different, because you can actually reason with people. The Ungovernable Force 01:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Bijoux, as I said, I'm willing to see this removed on the grounds listed above, since the documentation of the protest against the NSM rally in Yorktown last summer is on the PWHQ site, and thus cannot be linked to. But don't lie. Even if you insist that Nazism is on the right (which it isn't; being against Marxism-Leninism does not a rightist make, even if the one-dimensional line model of politics wasn't horribly flawed), it is, in fact, PW's own perception that makes it protest what it does, so it does matter for this article. The basic PW bumper sticker reads "Protest Tyrants. Protest Lies.  Protest Evil," on it above the name of the group [1], and neo-Nazism, and especially this rally, qualifies for all three. (To be specific, the NSM was rallying at Surrender Field in Yorktown in part to assert their claim that George Washington was anti-Jewish, which is based on falsified quotes, and to attempt to claim his victory there as a victory for the "Aryan race," notions considered repugnant by patriotic Americans... such as most Protest Warriors. It was a challenge we couldn't refuse.)  So, if you want to remove it because it's unsourced, fine. I recognize that my word isn't good enough for encyclopedic content. But I will stand on principle as long as you remove it on the grounds of your false blanket statement. Rogue 9 17:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Protestwarrior protests the Left and opposes Islam, categorizing the group as anti-Nazi activists is a claim you are making in order to oppose the well and widely known accusations against Protestwarrior that the group is sort of (neo-)fascist itself. A single (claimed, unproven and unsourced) protest against one Nazi event doesn't make Protestwarrior an anti-Nazi activist group at all, actually such a claim is disgracing the real anti-Nazi activist groups and organisations.
 * And it's not me who's insisting that Nazism is on the right, it is the world that does - Wikipedia included. Most organisations that are trying to paint Nazism as being on the left are on the far right themselves, very much like Protestwarrior. You can discuss "Nazis are on the left" in the many discussions that exist on Wikipedia about that issue but not here. You are trying to bring Protestwarrior ideology into Wikipedia, clear POV.
 * "Protest Tyrants. Protest Lies.  Protest Evil" qualifies for all tyrannies and dictatorships, you're picking Nazism because you apparently dislike the majority of far rightwingers on Protestwarrior and want to make it look like the group would oppose Nazism as their main goal, what it is very clearly not.
 * On a personal note I must say that linking Protestwarrior to anti-Nazi activism is the most ridiculous and also most offensive and disgracing edit that you Protestwarriors have ever done to this article. You are crossing a line here. --Bijoux 18:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * bijoux, defining everything that departs from one's pov as fascist and then lashing out in all directions is not anti-fascism; it's a narcisistic psychopathological disorder. going to an all ages show with your buddies and picking a fight with a skinhead is not anti-fascism either; its really just juvenile delinquency.


 * the fact remains: pw professes anti-fascism and has organized anti-fascist counter-demonstrations.


 * beyond that, pw regularly opposes anti-semetic nationalists of the palestinian cause in both word and deed and pw's main target, answer, is fascist, if not national socialist in the model of the third reich.


 * in general, there is a paucity of swastica-emblazoned, cartoon nazis to demonstrate against, and they seldomly hold public demonstrations. while pw has indeed counter-demonstrated at least one of these rare occurrences, i'd offer that sloganeering and pledging undying opposition to "fascism," as understood narrowly to refer to the scattered handfull of partisans of a stateless and utterly marginal doctrine such as what the nsm represents, is an utterly meaningless gesture; moreso when the same person loyaly marches under and defends stalinists and maoists while braying for the impeachment and removal of a duley-elected president.


 * To start with, the left/right political spectrum is outmoded in the first place; Political compass has it closer. Secondly, I don't give a damn about accusations of neofascism; they're ludicrous on the face of it.  Fascism is all about increased government power (incidentally, so is socialism), which most Protest Warriors are virulently against.  I'll cover the rest later; I have to go to work right now, but I thought I'd get that out of the way.  Rogue 9 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Only some forms of socialism are for increased state power (see libertarian socialism). I must agree with Bijoux, one protest against neo-nazis does not qualify PW as being an anti-neo-nazi activist group, especially when it is not mentioned in the article at all. If PW's were to start going out and protesting lots of nazi rallies, then we could talk, but as of right now, I don't think it should be in. Also, most academic sources consider nazism and fascism to be on the right, although, as you say, the right/left model is flawed. IMO, fascists tend to have left-wing rhetoric while out of power to gain populist support, then shift to the right when they take control. Some Nazis took the "socialist" part of "National Socialism" seriously, and they all ended up dead when Hitler actually took power. That trend was more historical though, since most modern nazis and fascists are clearly right-wing. The Ungovernable Force 07:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, I haven't finished with Bijoux yet. I will not continue to add the category, but some things need to be said.
 * To continue with the two-dimensional political axis idea, I would place fascists as center-authoritarian (with Marxists being left-authoritarian and free-market, restricted society dictators such as Augusto Pinochet right-authoritarian), though as you say, that's not a discussion for here. I simply wish to finish what I was saying above.
 * Yes, the slogan I cited does qualify all dictatorships. That is precisely the intent, and the point wasn't designed to be subtle. Dictatorships of all stripes are a base violation of the rights of man and should be opposed without exception.
 * As for the personal note, it's your right to feel that way. However, I would like you to consider how offended you might be if you were regularly accused of being that which you most despise by people who's only reason for thinking so is their own hyperbole towards those who disagree with them.  Just some food for thought.  You're not the only one with reason to take offense here.  Rogue 9 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone who is under the impression that PW is even obliquely pro-nazi or fascist (whether overtly or "crypto" obviously has received ALL of their information second-hand, because PW's are especially proud of their very first sign, which has, as far as I am aware, made an appearance at every protest they've ever crashed, and whose text has been read-aloud in every media media interview.--Mike18xx 10:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: banning
During the release of the Protest Warrior video Liberty Rising, many users were banned in an emotional outburst for displaying negative feelings about the video. -

a single poster was banned, and that was over his behaviour at the event, rather than as a result of negative feedback.--Smegpt86 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent attempts to change article
Mike18xx wants, among other changes, to call Protest Warrior "conservative" instead of "right wing", on the grounds, originally (according to his edit summary), that "If Moveon (which is about as far left as you can get without wearing the Che shirt in front of the cameras) is merely 'liberal', then Protestwarrer is merely 'conservative'." This is a clearly politically-based reason, expressing a PoV; changing the way that one group is described merely because another group is described in a way with which one disagrees is unacceptable. More recently he reversed my reversion with the edit summary: "Mel Etitis' re-inclusion of POV comments excised earlier". In what sense is calling a group "conservative" less PoV than calling it "right wing"? Moreover, the notion that Protest Warrior is merely conservative is a gross misuse of that term. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mel; your reasons for wanting "right-wing" there are just as "clearly politically-based" and POV as whatever level of those factors you imagine are within me. As far as "conservative" or "right-wing" goes, I think they're both pretty horseshitty, though, as a PW member who's a solid old-Greek-school anarchist (i.e., scores 100% both ways on the "Nolan quiz"), I'm less insulted by "conservative" -- and, given this is Wikipedia where all the poison is laced with sugar -- I feel it's a fair meeting-half-way between your preference of "right-wing" and my preference to replace every stupid "right" and "left" pejorative in the whole article with clearer political designations (e.g., socialist, statist, libertarian, whatever) -- I mean, I could get on that right yesterday.
 * Meanwhile, it doesn't pain me in the least to revert your revert if you're not at least going to retain my grammatical edits and warranted redactions for lack of citation.--Mike18xx 10:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

To head any wrangling off at the pass, I've changed "conservative" to "anti-left" -- If anyone has an argument as to why that's not the (1) most accurate and (2) least POVd term, please forward it.--Mike18xx 11:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) You seem to attach a pejorative meaning to "right wing" and not to "conservative"; I think that that's personal, and shouldn't affect how the article is written. "Anti-left" is just n obscure way of saying "right", and involves right-left labelling just as much.
 * 2) Your change of dashes to commas made the text slightly harder to follow.
 * 3) Your description of the PW sign (to a photo of which there's a link above) was inaccurate, as the second part is not "much smaller" &mdash; indeed, it's not much smaller. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I like a lot of these changes (particularly the expanded description of tactics), but some are simply unnecessary (the quibbling between right-wing and conservative). I am neither strictly conservative nor really right-wing and yet I'm a Protest Warrior, but that doesn't mean that I get to be the model for the organization as a whole for this article any more than Mike's Greek anarchism. Yes, there are a lot of libertarians in the ranks, Alan and Kfir among them to some extent, but libertarian economic policies are not the focus of the organization, so that's not especially relevant. The Iraq war has largely been the initiative of what's known as the political "right" (my dissatisfaction with the left/right model aside, that's how it's known) and PW supports the Iraq war (to varying degrees between members, but I feel it's safe to say that all of us support at least continuing troop presence at minimum), so the most obvious thing is to put two and two together and label the group right-wing, though honestly I'd prefer conservative as "right-wing" tends to carry slightly more negative connotations, but it's not a matter of great importance, I don't think.

That's as far as I have time to get right now; I need to sleep before work. I'll try to weigh in on the rest of the changes when I get time tonight. Rogue 9 13:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (I had this all typed in as a reponse to Mel....and Rogue undercut my "send" by about three seconds; I'm gonna just cut-n-paste it after him cuz I'm too damn tired right now to tweak it any.)
 * 1. Besides being perjorative and POV, I regard it as inaccurate.
 * 2. "Anti-left" is not "just an obscure way of saying "right" because this isn't a false-dichotomy logical-fallacy. I, for instance, think George Bush is flat-headed moron whose only distinguishing characteristic from Kerry is that he's not far gone enough to think selling uranian to Iran was a good idea. (Shows whatcha know, eh? Wanna see my nice pic of Bill O'Reilly with a star & sickle planted on his forehead where it belongs? He's a dumbass too.) The fact that I regard, say, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the MoveOn crowd as a bunch of lying freaks does not mean Bush and Buchanan...or David Duke, for matter, are a bunch of swells fit for dating the family females. To be called "conservative" is annoying and inaccurate; to be called "right-wing" is to endure a slur.
 * 3. Pursuant to the above, PW has no "ideology"; "Motivation" is the best term since, as the very name of the group implies, they are united in protest against a particular aspect of a broad political spectrum (which, as I just stated in :2, and I note has been discussed at length previous, is not linear). (We could, of course, label PW "reactionary" in the 1stP, but that would merely be redundant rather than expository.)
 * 4. Regards the sign: If I mixed the order of the words, the proper thing to do is correct their order, and remove the "much" if you think it does not belong -- not just hose the thing. But I'm not really concerned with that so much as correcting the grammatical mess of the first paragraph and redacting misguided attempts to pidgeonhole the ideology of an amorphous group -- and am willing to concede mention of particular signs (seeing as that could be interpreted as POV appraisal of the lads' sparkling wit, or some such) in order to secure them.--Mike18xx 13:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Nothing that you've said indicates that "right wing" is any more inaccurate than "conservative" or "anti-left"; your preference is personal, and an article about a group isn't written to suit the personal prefernces of one of its members.
 * 2) I don't know what you mean by: "this isn't a false-dichotomy logical-fallacy." Still, if you object to the left–right distinction, then being anti-left wing is as silly as being right wing.
 * 3) You seem to be using "ideology" rather narrowly.
 * 4) The sign, as shown in the link, has two sets of words, one slightly smaller than the other. That doesn't illustrate or back up the claim that you made in the paragraph, but instead of removing that claim I removed the comment about the sign.  Which would you prefer? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. The signs are no big deal to me; they essentially showed up because I was in a rambling, expository mood when I wrote the section regarding them. Let's leave it the way it is, without specific references to specific signs.
 * 2. I'm going to bed now, but when I pop upright again, I intend to rip the guts out of every arbitrary cliche I find in the entire article. Last edit before this signing-off note involved changing "conservative economics" to "laissez-faire economics", and when I get back on it, all the "left" tags will be converted to socialist or marxist or Islamist or suchwise, depending upon the particular reference. -- The one in the first line I'm probably just toss as completely unnecessary (since what PW is opposed to is instantly apparent once the browser pans to the Motivations just below)....matter of fact, I'm doing it right now before punching the pillow.--14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to say that they are right-wing or conservative in the first paragraph. The term "right-wing" isn't as ambiguous than conservative; it's usually preferable on Wikipedia. I'm also not sure that PW is very international - have there been many notable international protests? Re: "Protest Warrior believes that socialism, statism and Islamism constitute a threat", this sentence should definitely mention that PW is opposed to liberalism/left-wing politics. Mike appears to be equating liberalism with socialism, which is inaccurate. PW's primary goal is to protest against anti-war types, who are mostly liberals (not socialists or islamists). As for cites for the "Those in conflict with Protest Warrior generally perceive the organization as provocative" sentence... a quick visit to Democratic Underground or DailyKos will verify that many people believe PW are racist, jingoist, etc. Rhobite 22:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Left Wing Politics <> Socialism; Islam has been discussed over and over, why are you bringing that up again; Haliburton had its own "Pro Haliburton rallye". --Bijoux 13:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Socialism is a type of left-wing politics, and one particularly reviled in the organization. Specific = good.  I'm not going into Islam again.  As for Halliburton, Caterpiller had rallies in support of it when it was protested in the wake of Rachel Corrie's bid for the Darwin Awards, and that's hardly the only other one; picking Halliburton as the example is an obvious attempt to stigmatize Protest Warrior by associating it with a company that every clueless protester who doesn't understand the economics of the defense industry hates because Cheney was an executive there.  As I said back in October:


 * The Dallas chapter counter-protests the picketers outside Halliburton's HQ. This is because the protesters are there.  The same thing happened when people protested Caterpillar in the wake of Rachel Corrie's death; are you going to rewrite the article to talk about how we're all shills for CAT now?  If a bunch of protesters were to go picket AT&T or something and blame them for the war for some reason, PW would likely show up there as well.


 * Still true. Rogue 9 12:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Socialism being one type (and one of the most extreme types) of left-wing politics does not at all make all left-wing politics socialist. The umbrella 'left-wing politics' does include Socialism as well as the umbrella 'right-wing politics' does include Nazism. (Or pick any other extreme right wing ideology if you don't want to associate Nazism with right-wing). But linking from 'right-wing politics' to Nazism and equating both is as NPOV as equating 'left-wing politics' and Socialism.
 * Protest Warrior had its 'pro Haliburton' because it wanted to show its support for that company, the protest signs said so, and the forums said so too. Very similar to the 'Hail to the Chief' op where Protest Warrior showed its support for GWB. --Bijoux 20:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Socialism shouldn't be considered a type of liberalism. Equating American liberals with socialists is very inaccurate. Most liberals don't favor state ownership of industry. They do not believe in the distinctions made in Marx's class struggle. PW may oppose socialism, but most of the people they spend their time fighting with are not socialists. PW is primarily a single-issue organization, and for the issue of the Iraq war, PW happens to be the group taking the statist position. PW is the one arguing for high defense spending, nation-building, and intervention. It's very curious that people want our article to imply that PW's opponents (anti-war protesters) must be socialists. Rhobite 22:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't that they "must be," but the fact is that many of their organizers are, and self-admittedly so; International ANSWER is a venture of the Workers' World Party, The World Can't Wait is run by the Revolutionary Communist Party, and CPUSA is a charter member of UFPJ. The vast majority of the people out on the street with signs probably aren't diehard socialists, but a fair number of them are (I will post pictures at length if I must on that), and the large protest groups are organized by socialists.  Rogue 9 03:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Protest Warrior activity
I can't find anything about any Protest Warrior activism in the last months. The website doesn't mention anything either. It looks very much like Protest Warrior would only be a discussion forum and no activist group at all. At least not anymore. Should there exist no evidence for any active counter-protests or any activity at all, aside from their forums, then the according sections and references should be removed. --Bijoux 14:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * i bet you're there at least four hours of each day phishing for "gotcha" quotes with your sock-puppet accounts anyway.


 * Let us have a major protest rally to have at and you'll see activity. Come the anniversary of the Iraq invasion, you'll hear from us again.  You have to remember that PW is reactive to the major protest groups; when they do nothing major, we do nothing major.  Rogue 9 12:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, most chapters don't get their actions featured on the main site; that's for nationwide major ops. Other pages maintained by chapter leaders tend to have local operations, like this one.  Rogue 9 13:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That link is showing 1 or 2 guys with Protest Warrior signs. Barely a sign for activism. And the page 'maintained by chapter leaders' like you said, is actually a forum with 8 members and 14 posts. What we have is that Protest Warrior does not run any major ops, and that the local ops as well as the local chapters (at least the one you mentioned for evidence) do not at all qualify Protest Warrior as an activist group. Much less as an international one like the article is suggesting it. There exists not much evidence for Protest Warrior being anything more than an online community. --Bijoux 21:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That link was the first thing to come to hand; I'm not about to go digging very deep to satisfy your nagging. And you're totally ignoring the fact that Protest Warrior is by definition reactive.  ANSWER hasn't done anything national since September either; are you going to go and try to get their article deleted now?  Rogue 9 03:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As it happens, though, the article on the September 24th anti-war rally in DC has pictures of the counter-protest . Is this enough of a turnout for you?  Rogue 9 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

protest warrior is a for profit company.

how exacty is protest warrior anti islam?????
shouldn't be on there. i'm very closely affiliated to protest warrior and we are absolutely not in any way shape or form anti islam. we do not like islamic extremists (islamo fascists). please note.
 * Clarified in latest edit of mine (distinguished Islam from Islamic fundamentalism / Islamofascism).--Mike18xx 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You vandalized the entire article, again. Besides of that, Protest Warrior does not distinguish between Islamic fundamentalism and Islam. Read the archive.
 * Mike18xx is apparerently on a rightwing crusade on Wiki, trying to delete all negative references to rightwingers in several articles here. A discussion forum would be a better place for him to participate than an encyclopedia. --Bijoux 09:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If we didn't, I'm quite certain we wouldn't have had Iraqi expatriates in our ranks in DC on September 24 last year. But you'll never be convinced.  Rogue 9 13:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * bijoux, what's the source of your obcession? get over it.