User talk:Zionvier

November 2016
Hello, I'm Parsley Man. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Protests against Donald Trump, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Parsley Man (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Trump Protests
Sorry, but I'm afraid you're overreacting about these protests. They're not an example of terrorism, otherwise you'd be having police and elected officials, as well as terrorism experts, outright declaring it as such. As violent as some of them are, these protests still meet the legal definition of protests and nothing more. Parsley Man (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man, sorry, with all due respect, the title of the article Protests against Donald Trump says it all. The protests may be peaceful or violent protests as they seem to be. Look up the Protest article and see the definition. Terrorism is also not relevant to the protests. -Kevinmuniz115 (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wha? I know that; that's what I'm telling him. Parsley Man (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man, I'm actually neutral in all of this, more so than someone who votes D or R, as a Libertarian I am actually used to having the candidate I vote for not win, so I look at this from a non-reactive and from a fact based approach. I believe you are overlooking the definition of what a coup is. Your statement of "and nothing more" indicates you may believe a protest and coup are disjoint from one another. That the activities can not be both at the same time or that a protest can not have the intent (or goal) of a coup occuring. Protests that initiate force (violence) in order to change the outcome of an election would, by definition be attempting a coup. Regardless of how unsuccessful or half heartedly it may be done, it is still an attempt to use force to overturn the outcome of an election. At the point the protests turned violent and even included the direct advocation of a coup as their goal, I think listing a coup as the goal would be extremely appropriate. ("Many of the protesters were holding signs for the cause, one even advocating a coup" ) Zionvier (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

As for terrorism: I am a bit amazed you and Kevinmuniz115 would both dismiss the use of the word terrorism when there is violence being used to achieve a political purpose. It is literally the textbook definition of the term terrorism: "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."  If I were to take something that was not mine, but no one arrested me for it, I would still be a thief. There is no requirement for others to declare it publicly or for law enforcement to arrest me in order for the terms theft and thief to be used to describe me and my actions. It is simply a statement of truth by virtue of the definitions of the words. Zionvier (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it's not happening. Parsley Man (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)