Talk:Protest Warrior

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protest Warrior article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake.
Do not use this page as a discussion forum.
See talk page guidelines.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 23:07, 14 June 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.


Contents

[edit] The PW site being down

Okay. I'm not sure what's going on, but I know three things:

  1. The main site's content was down earlier today, and still is. But now it's giving blank pages, not a "not found" error, and the tab image loads.
  2. The mail server is not down. While Kfir hasn't answered my e-mail asking what happened yet, the e-mail did not bounce.
  3. The site's webmaster (who is not Kfir, contrary to the opinion of the initiator of the AfD on the article about him) has been testing new software for the HQ section of the site recently, something that does not indicate an intention to shut down to me.

So my theory is currently that the site was either hacked once again (there's been such a history of it that I never discount the possibility), or the site is down for a software update. I haven't been able to verify either one, but it's only been a few hours since I started checking. Alan and Kfir have things to do besides respond to floods of e-mails asking about their server status, so it doesn't surprise me that I haven't gotten a response yet. I wouldn't jump the gun on declaring it all over just yet. Rogue 9 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


It's over man. The domain is now owned by someone in Nova Scotia, Canada. Look it up on WHOIS. They sold it. Protestwarrior is now defunct. Xavier86 22:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Really? Here's Kfir's response.
[My name blanked],
Sorry about that – we’re updating our server and it took much longer than expected unfortunately. I assure you that we will be back up soon (day or two).
Thanks,
Kfir
Domains are registered in odd ways all the time; did you ever check what it showed before the site went down? Furthermore, if you'd look further into the WHOIS record, it shows that it was last updated on October 31st, well before the site went down. If the domain name had been sold to someone else, that person would doubtlessly have taken the site down immediately, not two weeks later at the very earliest. Rogue 9 02:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi R9 - considering that records show that the entire PW site was commercially hosted by this large competent company with 500+ employees - the sort of company that can insure that sites don't stay down for more than a few minutes The planet I find Kfir's statement odd - but I'm willing to wait a few days. That's great that you are in contact with Kfir! Did you ask him why he pulled the forums or what PW's plans for the future were? If not, could you? - F.A.A.F.A. 21:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in any kind of regular contact with him; he answered that e-mail, but doesn't respond to everything, not that I send him a lot of e-mails in the first place. I can ask, but can't guarantee an answer. Rogue 9 03:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
"a day or two" huh? If it's not up by Monday I'm reverting the article back to past tense. FAAFA is right... The Planet would never allow a client's site to be down for more than half an hour at most. My hunch is that Kfir is lying, just trying to get you off his back. Xavier86 21:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I find this discussion fascinating (not) but until someone produces some reliable source reporting that the Protest Warrior organization is now defunct, all this banter is nothing but speculative original research, and I believe that would include if Kfir himself upped and came down to Coconut Grove, FL to tell me in person, "Yup, that's it. Protest Warrior has closed up shop." Why? 'Cause as much as I'd like to think otherwise, I ain't a realiable source. Lawyer2b 03:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If he wanted me off his back, telling me that the site wasn't coming back would have been sufficient. I would have just moved on to one of the chapter sites instead, which I have in fact already done for the time being, and taken my chapter with me. I wasn't confrontational; I just asked what was going on. Rogue 9 10:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And it seems that I have been vindicated. Rogue 9 01:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Active Inactive?

There has to be a middle ground. Is there a reliable source that has said anything about the activity or inactivity of this group? If not, synthesizing our understanding of who owns or runs websites is origional research, and that's not acceptable. JBKramer 15:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple months ago, an Admin suggested that Kifir post to this talk page to attest that he himself posted a 'denial' on PW in response to a claim made about PW in a Christian Magazine. He never did. I also contacted PW and asked that the co-founders Allan and Kfir post here to state that PW was still operational, and that they were still 'leading' it. They never did. I presume this info is not inclusionable, since it would constitute OR though.

I spent several hours this past evening researching the current status of Protest Warrior after Lawyer2b opted to delete my previous statements. I'm amazed at just how stubbon the lot of you are who insist that the organization is somehow still relavant. PW gained a small bit of notoriety three years ago due to its confrontational counter-demonstration style. However, there been zero evidence put forth that they still conduct any type of organized counter-demonstrations, much less newsworthy ones. Three or four people holding up what they consider to be witty signs in public once every 6-months is not an organization and it does not pass WP:N muster. Neither does a flagging website that serves a place to vent political frustrations (when and if it comes back up).

As you obviously have a stake in Protest Warrior's legacy, the proper behavior would be to abstain from editing this article. However, since you all have proven that this is unlikely, at a minimum you need to cite real sources to prove that Protest Warrior is still active. Heresay and rumors just isn't going to cut it. ShortBus 10:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted the following to User:ShortBus' talkpage:

I removed the following paragarph that you had added to the Protest Warrior article:
However, discussion of future campaigns may be moot. The current status of the group has been called into speculation due its declining public presence. Regular news updates on the website ceased in late 2004, followed by the sudden closure of the discussion forums several months later. As of November 12, 2006, the entire website itself is unreachable. Additionally, according to Google News, Protest Warrior has not been mentioned in any of 4,500 news sources during the months of October and November 2006. This is despite a run-up to a very contentious mid-term election and increasing debate about the war in Iraq, with frequent public demonstrations from both sides of the political spectrum.
I noticed your that edits' summary stated, "Current status of Protest Warrior is unknown. Please cite current references if you remove this paragraph," and I wanted give you the courtesy of an explanation for its removal. Your edit doesn't have any citations of reliable sources supporting it and it contains opinions and conclusions that appear to be original research. So unfortunately, regardless of its factual accuracy, your edit is not allowable under wikipedia policy. If you can cite some reliable source that states the same thing you did, it should be fine for inclusion. Respectfully, Lawyer2b 02:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues which, while some may believe are related, as far as wikipedia policy goes I believe should be dealt with separately; to wit:

1) Is Protest Warrior notable enough for inclusion? I believe Protest Warrior satisfies the requirements under WP:N. However, as wikipedia is run by consensus, I'm fine with the matter being decided via consensus established through an RfD. I believe, however, that one (or more) RfD's have taken place on this article too recent to credibly have another one. I'll have to check the records for when that was.

2) Is Protest Warror still active? Whether or not an organization is active is not something that an article in wikipedia needs to address. As an encyclopedia, facts about an organization (including its active/inactive status) can only be addressed to the extent that reliable sources permit. In this case, there don't seem to be reliable sources that comment on Protest Warror's current status. Without them all comments regarding this issue fall into the realm of unnecessary speculative original research. Lawyer2b 22:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User:ShortBus, while I would like to acknowledge your competent research, the material of yours that I have removed has been synthesis of published material to advance a position, which is original research. Lawyer2b 22:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Likewise you guys can't continue to claim it's still active with undocumentable claims like "The group maintains a website", especially considering that Kfir promised that the site would be back online in a day or two, and SB's research shows that PW LLC isn't an ongoing org in good standing in the state where registered. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for your guys. You're starting to sound like those nutters who claim that Elvis and John Lennon are still alive! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
F.A.A.F.A., I wish you wouldn't respond to me by saying, "you guys". I am not with "with" anybody here. I simply wish to see wikipedia policy followed. Obviously, with the groups' website being down, the article shouldn't state that the organization currently maintains a website. I'm not here (nor do I think the talk page should be used) to be debate whether or not the organization is active. We're here to write an encyclopedia article according to wikipedia policy and ShortBus' research is, by definition, original. When a reliable source comments on the organization's activity status, I will be the first person to say, "include it". Lawyer2b 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
User:ShortBus, assuming for the moment that your addition is not original research, I believe that at least one of your sources may not be up to Wikipedia standards (the offsite forum post about PW forums being down), and that you are misrepresenting another (claiming that the archive shows a cease of updates in late 2005, when there is obviously an update from 2/2006 on that very page). I'd rather it be discussed here, though, than start an edit war. Jpers36 22:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for discussing it here instead of just reverting things. I did think twice about citing that chapter forum since normally forum postings are not considered authoritive. However, the reason I used it is because the topic is the disappearance PW forums, so I feel that citing a forum to be acceptable, especially when the PW site itself has disappeared. Additionally, it's unlikely that the forums closure is notable enough to be mentioned in any other, more authoritve source.
I don't know how I missed the other news item on the archived page. I will edit my changes in a moment to reflect that. I am also going to revise my wording to better conform to the synthesis of published material to advance a position concern brought up by Lawyer2b by eliminating the narrative and allowing the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. (Though I think any reasonable person can see that Protest Warrior is inactive) ShortBus 01:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
And thank you for apparently finally reading WP:OR a little more closely.  ;-) Just so we're clear, per WP:Reliable sources, Protest Warrior's website is a reliable source for events/facts regarding itself so I don't think the organization's website going down needs to be mentioned anywhere else in order to include it in its article; and it has been included since about the same day it went offline. Lawyer2b 01:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused, User:ShortBus. You changed your wording after posting above that you would but have now reverted my edits back to the way yours originally were. To say the organization's "status *is* "unknown" until you can prove otherwise", simply because in your opinion it appears so, is the height of original research. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to take a stand based on someone's opinion until they're proven wrong. In addition to it violating policy, how would we decide whose wrong opinion gets publicity until the truth outs? As I have stated above, an article doesn't need to comment on an organization's current status and, I believe, specifically shouldn't if there are no reliable sources to cite on the matter. I'll also appreciate your not violating the policy of WP:AGF and refrain from accusing me of "cherrypicking" in the future. Respectfully, Lawyer2b 06:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to L2B: I'm sorry you took offense at being alluded to as one of 'you guys' - meaning a PWer, or PW Supporter. I thought you WERE a PWer! Sorry for offending you. I do believe that PW can be used as a RS source on PW, thus info from this source 100% inclusionable. PW on PW - F.A.A.F.A. 07:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology, however, I would not describe myself as having been offended. My frustration was in your implying I have stated the organization is currently active. I believe I have done no such thing; nor have I said the organization is inactive. I believe not commenting one way or another, absent a reliable source on the matter, is the exact position the article ought to take as well. Lawyer2b 07:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shortbus, here is why your edit violates WP:OR

Shortbus wrote: However, discussion of future campaigns may be moot.

This is not written in a neutral point of view. Lawyer2b 01:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Shortbus wrote:The current status of the group has been called into speculation due its declining public presence.

This has no supporting reliable source and is your position you attempt to advance by synthesizing a number of originally researched citations. This is a "textbook" violation of WP:OR by synthesizing published material to advance a position. Shortbus, PLEASE READ THAT LINK.Lawyer2b 01:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase from that policy page, Shortbus' entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses his opinion that, given the status of the Protest Warrior, LLC, the dates of the when its last update was, the fact that the website is closed, the decline in community discussions, etc., that the "current status of the group has been called into speculation." To make the paragraph consistent with WP:OR, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the status of organization and makes the same points about the evidence Shortbus cites. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia. Lawyer2b 01:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning to Xavier

You've already violated the 3RR.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt-and assume that you're simply unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy-but I suggest that you desist immediately. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
With Xavier posting edit summaries like "Sorry but the website is completely down. That indicates that the organization has disbanded. There is no evidence to the contrary.", I completely concur. Lawyer2b 03:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

The article has been protected due to persistent edit warring. Please keep the discussion here and not in edit summaries. Remain calm and civil at all times. -- tariqabjotu 07:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You call that an edit war? It hadn't even hit three reverts yet. Rogue 9 01:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete?

I know this is going to really ruffle the feathers of the admitted "Protest Warriors" here, but I think this article might be a candidate for deletion. In it's current state it reads more like a manifesto than an encyclopedia. The only citations listed point to the PW website, except for the three or four mentions of the organization in the press. How can this article be considered WP:NP? Several paragraphs about the organization's beliefs and supposed conquests, yet only a single sentence indicating any criticism. Other controversial organizations (ACLU, PETA, AFA, MoveOn, LGF, etc) all have considerably more information regarding their detractors.

However, the lack of criticisms is not because everyone is too lazy to write one. It's because there simply aren't any creditable, third-party mentions of PW out there--either for or against (I know; I've tried). Which calls into question the WP:N criteria. If all "pro PW" citations point back to the (now non-existant) website, and there are no counter-arguments worth mentioning, how is this article really anything other than a vanity entry at this point? Being mentioned in the press a few times a couple of years ago does not constitute notability.

Those of you out there that disagree with this: I challenge you write, from a neutral POV, a section that describes a lasting impact that PW has on Iraq War debate over the past three years. Or, even a measurable impact on the American neo-conservatism movement. Of course, this section must include valid references to third-party sources. If you cannot do this, then I move that this article be deleted due to WP:N concerns. ShortBus 07:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone on the record as saying I'm all for an AfD action, so long as the last one was not too recent an event. You can go ahead and "challenge" but I concur with the admin who stated that there should be discussion on the talk page and rather than a three-paragraph essay complaining on the lack of a criticism section, I'd much rather see a response from you on my comments on the talk page regarding your edits. Lawyer2b 08:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the criteria for notability is that it have a "lasting impact" on anything. The article should contain exactly what we can verify; if nothing can be verified about the organization, only then should the article be deleted. If only basic facts can be verified, I'd prefer keeping the article but whittling it down to just those basic facts. --Delirium 11:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with the idea that only when nothing can be verified about an organization is its entry suitable for deletion, I completely agree that an organization does not need to have a lasting impact to be notable. I also highly agree that the article should contain only/exactly what we can verify. Hence, I believe comments on its current status (that is it active, inactive, or "unknown") which have no reliable sources under wikipedia policy are totally in appropriate for this (or any) article. Lawyer2b 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Do not like.[1] For record, also do not like PW's editing own article. Or conservative undergrounders running rampant as a pack in related matters. Derex 12:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, wait a second. I think taking a stand that PW's (which I was/am) shouldn't edit the article is discriminatory and goes against a sense of fairness. Whether I am a member of the organization or not, I simply want wikipedia policies to be followed; as on every other article I edit. I also expect to be judged as an individual based on my edits, not on memberships, or userboxes, or political views. If someone thinks I shouldn't be editing the article it should be for a better reason than just "Oh, he's a member," or "Oh, he's sympathetic to the organization's views." While it is obvious, after seeing Shortbus' questionable post on dailykos, that Shortbus and I disagree politically, my problem with his edits is not about his politics -- it's about his edits. Lawyer2b 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Past Tense or Present Tense?

A few days ago I edited the whole article into the past tense [2], given that the website hadn't been updated for almost a year, the forums were offline and now the entire website is offline. However someone who identifies himself as a Protestwarrior edited the article back to present tense. Should the article be in past or present tense? Xavier86 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The article should be in present tense as there is no reliable source that the organization has disbanded. If there are reliable sources (per wikipedia policy) that say the organization has disbanded, then that information should be included in the article, period. Of additional note, I'd like to add that the person who reverted your edit identifies as a member of the organization is inconsequential. I'd prefer if discussion of the article and edits to it ceased mentioning whether someone antipathsizes and sympathizes with the organization. It smacks of an ad hominem attack when the only thing that matters in discussing edits to the article are whether they follow wikipolicy and/or improve the article itself. There seem to be a lot of accusations that those sympathetic to the protest warrior organization are doing something wrong with the article but I don't see any substance to the accusations (i.e. what are the polices that are being violated and what specific examples of these violations?) Lawyer2b 20:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Xavier86- since the website itself was the primary source for the organization's continued existence, without a new reliable source to make the claim that the organization still exists in any form resembling the original, implying that it still does exist is an assertion. Saying that it was disbanded is a positive assertion, which does not appear to have been the above editor's claim, merely referring to the organization in the past tense because of a lack of any reliable source saying that it still exists. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe the subject's present state is simply unverifiable and I think the article ought to, as much as possible, not comment on it. Specifically, I think any comments need to be backed by reliable sources. I think that changing the article to past tense is tantamount to stating it has disbanded and rather than make a statement like that without a reliable source to support it, the article should simply reflect verifiable facts and let people draw their own conclusions as to whether to organization is still active/in existence or not. I think that is an editing principle which is practical, follows policy, and has been implemented successfully many times on Wikipedia. Lawyer2b 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think precedent would be a very useful gauge of how the subject should be addressed on this page. I looked around for political movements which are not officially politically active at the present time, but could find little that would be pertinent to the discussion at hand. Were you able to turn up any? --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
When I spoke of the principle of reflecting only verifiable facts and letting people draw their own conclusions, I didn't mean to imply it applied as narrowly as only in the handling of "political movements". I think that principle is applicable pretty much on any article. Please see WP:NPOV: Let the facts speak for themselves. Lawyer2b 22:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on that principle, as I said, I merely limited my search for specific examples of ways this had been handled in the past- that was what I was curious if you could turn up anything pertinent. Additionally, I am intimately familiar with NPOV policy and do a lot of work centered around it- and I agree, NPOV guidelines and neutral tone in articles is absolutely necessary in all articles and not just politically sensitive ones. The specific subsection that you quote refers primarily to the restriction of value judgements in the article's narrative voice, which does not appear to be a contentious issue in this section- exactly what did you mean? --Kuzaar-T-C- 02:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
One other thing, also. Please remember, Lawyer2b, that conflict of interest guidelines and WP:NPOV both caution editors who are intimately involved in an article's subject to be very careful about letting bias slip into their editing or actions surrounding a page- Xavier86's concern is justified and warning him about ad hominem attacks on this talk page is worrying, given the circumstances. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Pray tell, what circumstances and what is it exactly you are worried about? I stand by my assertion that when someone prefaces their description of an edit by characterizing the beliefs of the editor it seems to be an attack on the editor rather than on the merits (or lack thereof) of the edit itself. Indeed, thank you for citing WP:COI where you'll note that it explicity states that in handling a conflict of interest one should, "Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor." (q.e.d) Lawyer2b 06:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You have done nothing to address the primary concerns of my post, and have focused only on my incidental request for you to assume good faith on the part of Xavier. While editors can be biased, I am not asserting that this is the case, only that it is not wrong for other editors to take possible bias into consideration when attempting to achieve neutrality and verifiability in the article- not, as you point out, discussing any editor but the objective qualities of the article. I am not suggesting that any editor is at fault here, but trying to talk about the verifiability of the article's subject's present state. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I reply to, hopefully, one of your concerns above. Pardon me, but in what way have I not assumed good faith on the part of Xavier? I have not said bias is not a concern. However, to me it seems that "taking bias into consideration" on this article consists of not much more than stating "such-and-such an editor is/was a member/syampthizes with the organization". I believe this to be, by definition, an ad hominem attack. Lawyer2b 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I would like to point out that you have taken that quote from COI notably out of context. COI discourages editors with vested interests from making possibly-biased edits in articlespace. That it cautions editors not to let observations to that end slip over the boundary into personal attacks (you will note identical wording on that related policy page), and with that in mind, the focus of the page is on the former points and guidelines, rather than the latter. Please note that I came here to try to help two sides in disagreement reach consensus- and hopefully any efforts to this end will not be met with the hostility and incivility I noticed further up the talk page and in the archives. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. Xavier did something that a part of the guideline you cited explicitly cautions against. I pointed it out. How did I significantly take that quote out of context? I acknowledge your intention and will continue to conduct myself as I always have with regard to this page, civilly. Lawyer2b 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Time has Come for Deletion, Protest Warrior Has Apparently disbanded

Couple of friends in the College Republicans up in Rutgers University, NJ told me that they've spoken with Kfir and apparently most members have lost interest in PW, and after the election they decided they would basically continue doing what they're doing on their own, attending conservative rallies, but PW as a whole has disbanded and everyone has gone their own way. Regardless of whether or not this should be deleted, I think it's time to delete all of the "is"s and replace them with "was"s. It's past tense, now. And yes, before you bombard me with "LIBERAL LIAR!!!", no, I do not have proof of this and I don't expect anyone to particularly trust me on it, but I think most should be able to agree that we should set some sort of date, perhaps New Years Eve, and if the site isn't updated by then and PW continues to remain invisible and there's no word, that we should consider the organization dead. A timetable for withdrawal, if you will. Anyone agree on a deadline for declaring PW dead?--69.249.195.232 21:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I might be considered an unlikely source to be 'defending' PW'ers but if that accurately reflects what Kfir said, he's lying. Any loss of interest was due was due to Alan and Kfir abandoning the forums. In the period of a year, and especially after 'Crawford Incident' Kfir and Alan went from being daily posters on the various PW forums, to not posting at all, except to appear every few months out of the blue to mediate disputes, and post impersonal 'announcements'. Their wholesale banning of over a dozen most prolific posters hurt too. Even though they unbanned most of them neither A or K ever openly discussed the issue. They were no longer 'communicating' with the PWers. Even at the time they shut the forums down, they had about 2 dozen loyal PW activists - the kind who would go out an stand in subfreezing weather with dumb signs that would bring them the scorn of hundreds of lefties - all for PW. A year before that they had at least 5 dozen. A&K failed PW, not the other way around. Although I may disagree with PW'ers politically, I hope their mistreatment by A&K have not turned them off to activisim and protesting. There are other counter protest orgs. I hope to again, some day, see an ex PWer standing on the side of an anti-war protest, holding some ridiculous pro war sign and wearing a shirt from the defunct PW, (I still wear my Dean 04 shirts all the time) while yelling his 'fool head' off. I miss those days! - F.A.A.F.A. 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose that if PW continues to show no signs of activity by Inauguration Day 2007 that we delete this article. Xavier86 06:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose that, by the same time, if Abraham Lincoln shows no notable activity, we should delete his article too. After all, the guy hasn't uttered a peep in about 140 years. Crockspot 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if it can be established that Protest Warrior has disbanded, that is no argument for deletion. Deletion is based on notability, not activity, and Protest Warrior's notability has been established by the media coverage it has garnered in the past. Jpers36 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What Jpers said is true. Even if the group no longer exists in a recognizable form, they have in the past garnered mention in the media, which is one of the criteria listed under the group notability guidelines. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Then on Inauguration Day 2007 I believe this page should be converted to past tense.Xavier86 23:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Some editors of this article have been accused of being biased and editing not in a NPOV. Guidance from Wikipedia's NPOV policy, states that the facts should speak for themselves. Only by sticking to NPOV policy and presenting only the facts that are verifiable and from reliable sources, can we be assured of an NPOV article. We can say it is a fact that the organization's website is down. That it is a fact, therefore, that the organization doesn't exist is purely conjecture and has no place in an article written according to NPOV policy. Lawyer2b 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
While I think in principle that in the absence of continued coverage (and without the central coordinating site that was the focus of the organization), that the claim that the organization exists in the present as such is not verifiable, it is likely too soon to change it to past tense. However, even though I do not think that indefinite reprieve from WP:Verifiability is acceptable, the absence of a website (which was the center of the organization, both in organizing and growing) for as short a time as it has been down does not lead me to think that it is at the current time correct to move the tense from present to past. --Kuzaar-T-C- 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PW Site Back Online

The PW website (but not the forums) came back online sometime during the day of Sunday, November 26, 2006. The prayers of many have been answered. - F.A.A.F.A. 10:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

http://protestwarrior.com/
11/26/2006: PW server back online
After a lengthy shutdown of the PW web server, we have finally finished our long-overdue software upgrade. Our forum is still down for now, but will be back soon, revamped. Ruthfulbarbarity 03:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current status, Future campaigns

How on God's green earth did anyone think that this section was at all appropriate, encyclopedic, and was properly sourced? It is a mixture of primary sources, original research, external links which are not allowed by WP:EL, and irrelevant and unrelated secondary sources. This entire section should be removed. I'll break it down: Except in very narrow circumstances, primary sources should only be used to bolster the verifiability of secondary sources, not to source original research/conclusionary synthesis of the primary sources. Links to search engine results are specifically mentioned as "to be avoided" in WP:EL. Listing a passel of newspaper articles about protests that do not mention PW, is... how do I say this... STUPID. Drawing a conclusion about the fact that PW is not mentioned in those articles is Original Research. Someone here (I will mention no names) OBVIOUSLY does not understand what OR is. - Crockspot 18:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil, Crockspot. Jpers36 19:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but after being away from this article for a while, I am shocked and dumbfounded that this section was allowed to be included. Almost nothing about it meets WP standards, including the capitalization of the header. Crockspot 19:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update on forum status

See for yourselves. *Chuckle* Rogue 9 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was the forum down for two whole months without explanation? Xavier86 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. It's down with no explanation. I have no more idea than you do. Rogue 9 22:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I see a picture of a cat, and a 'claim'. Is that supposed to assuage the concerns of those who question PW's very existence as an active and viable counter-protest group? Maybe it's going to be back as a cat-lover's forum! Although tempting, I won't make any wise-cracks about 'pussies'! - F.A.A.F.A. 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh huh. It's supposed to be funny, but I suppose I should have known better than to try that outside of the Department of Fun. Rogue 9 08:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The References section

I'm not seeing how most of those are references; most of them (the news stories about protests that PW did not attend) seem almost completely irrelevant, but I can't remove them because the source for the section seems to only include the phrase <references /> What gives? If I can't find a way to edit the content, I will simply remove the section, because it seems to mostly be random news articles. Rogue 9 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The info you need is at the link.. The refs are contained in the body of the article. You have to remove them individually. Do not remove the ref section. ref tags - F.A.A.F.A. 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm fairly certain that more than that should be removed according to policy (LiveJournal used as a source?), but I'll let it be at least for awhile so other people can weigh in. Rogue 9 08:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warrior pics!

Happy New Year, ex-Warriors! When's the forum coming back? I read the promises WEEKS ago. In the meantime, enjoy some pics of the 'glory days' that I just found Pics - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Living up to your old screenname here, eh? Maybe when you post messages like this, you can do it under "NBGPWS" instead. Jinxmchue 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I try to be nice by posting a link to some cool pics to ease the pain of asking why the forum never came back as promised, and look at what I get! Insults! Lighten up Jinx! I understand you must be bitterly diasappointed about PW, (and Nov. 7) but don't take it out on me. I didn't shut the forum down and abandon you guys! - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
By all means, please continue to play innocent. Jinxmchue 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stick a fork in it!

Just got this info in an email from an ex-warrior who is disgusted the way Allen and Kifer abandoned them. It was posted on the 'HQ' board.

alarmman Posted 23 Dec 2006 1537
"Its impossible to contact Kfir OR Alan. The media information lists their phone numbers, but Alan is disconnected and Kfirs number is wrong and leads to some spanish speaking guy who yells at you for being a gringo."
"Personally, I am frustrated by the lack of leadership here, I have been struggling to get information for my chapter members and have asked several questions via inbox and email to both Alan and Kfir, only to have those mails go UNANSWERED. Never mind the fact that I am a chapter leader and need to communicate with HQ. If this were a business, it would have sunk LONG ago."
"This whole down time cost me emberassment in front of the Counter-Intelligence unit of the Arizona Department of Publc Safety and left me shrugging my shoulders in response to HALF their questions...it may have damn well cost me the permit for that day, but it doesnt really matter because the local PD didnt honor it, but I blame that more on lack of information than anything else."

Time to 'stick a fork' in Protest Warrior and refer to it in the past tense, as another ex-member suggested. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the HQ forum cannot be viewed by those who aren't logged in, you can't source this. Too bad, so sad. Although I halfway wish you could, because then people would see the rest of the thread and notice how retarded you are.
And copying stuff from a private forum is not "e-mail." Rogue 9 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - like they're going to let me or anyone else who they can't confirm is a bonifide PWer register at HQ! - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 21:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You and I both know that's bull. HQ can't be viewed by people who aren't logged in, but registration is open, for whatever reason. You have a sleeper account there, and that fact isn't really impressive at all. Rogue 9 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL! If I had a 'sleeper account' that gem would have been posted on Dec 25 - as an Xmas present for you ex-warriors! - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 08:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Past Tense or Present Tense? Part II

I changed the article back to past tense. It's quite clear that PW is inactive, thus, the information in the wiki must be presented in the past tense. Xavier86 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Quite clear" according to what or whom? Jinxmchue 05:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the PW website which hasn't been updated in over a year, PW hasn't been mentioned in any news media for good over a year, the forums are down, the founders never respond to any emails, they can't be reached by phone. Face it, it's a dead org. It should be past tense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xavier86 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
I agree with my pal X86, and will repost what Admin Kuzaar wrote some three months ago :
  • While I think in principle that in the absence of continued coverage (and without the central coordinating site that was the focus of the organization), that the claim that the organization exists in the present as such is not verifiable, it is likely too soon to change it to past tense. However, even though I do not think that indefinite reprieve from WP:Verifiability is acceptable, the absence of a website (which was the center of the organization, both in organizing and growing) for as short a time as it has been down does not lead me to think that it is at the current time correct to move the tense from present to past. --Kuzaar-T-C- 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The arguments of some around here kinda remind me of those Conspiracy Theorists who are terrified of the UN and think it's part of the NWO, are worried that AWOL bUSH might be a Reptilian Humanoid, and believe that Elvis is coming back in some kinda Second coming. Stick a fork it it! FaAfA 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The PW website "hasn't been updated in over a year". So, do I believe Xavier86 or my lying eyes, which just reported a news item headlined "12/16/2006: Hacker Sentenced" on the main page of the website ... wow, that was an easy question to answer.

Anyone who wants to change the article to past tense needs to get a consensus on this page first. Per recent policy changes at Wikipedia, will need a Reliable Source. (In this context, left-wing websites, magazines etc will probably not be treated as reliable.) Even if Xavier86's statements above were ..er.. less imaginative, they don't demonstrate consensus. A good approach is to identify major contributors, leave short messages on their talk pages like "we're thinking of changing PW to past tense, want to comment?", then wait a week or so.

Xavier86, your global-search-and-replace skills need a lot of work. Please do not revert this article to the mess you made of it, under any circumstances.

Everyone needs to study the new WP:ATT policy, and recent changes to WP:BLP which make it much more restrictive. In fact, I suspect that Xavier86's recent edits violate WP:BLP! I also suspect that WP:BLP is now too restrictive ...

[Comment about another editor redacted - CWC(talk) 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)]
Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The news bits on the main website were updated in the middle of December, 2006, so obviously someone is still alive under the hood. We're wasting time discussing this.... why? - Crockspot 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's AnotherBob doing the website - I read so on the refugee forum.

You must have missed this from the HQ forum CP. I posted it a few weeks ago:

alarmman Posted 23 Dec 2006 1537
"Its impossible to contact Kfir OR Alan. The media information lists their phone numbers, but Alan is disconnected and Kfirs number is wrong and leads to some spanish speaking guy who yells at you for being a gringo."
"Personally, I am frustrated by the lack of leadership here, I have been struggling to get information for my chapter members and have asked several questions via inbox and email to both Alan and Kfir, only to have those mails go UNANSWERED. Never mind the fact that I am a chapter leader and need to communicate with HQ. If this were a business, it would have sunk LONG ago."

Have you Googled PW lately? GHits The main page isn't even included in the results anymore. RocknRev comes back #4 though! He must be doing some SE optimization. It used to rank much lower.

I just got more info from my friend on the 'inside'. Some Christian Reconstructionist Dominionists hope to resurrect PW in Jesus' Name! The following is from the PW HQ board.

"The war in Iraq is a religious war and the war at home is too. They are both wars of conquest. Islam & The Godless VS Western Civilization. The loveless, merciless "Peaceniks" are under demonic posession rooted in their hatred of our evangelical president. Fear not, the victory was won at Calvary." xxxxxx Posted: 31 Jan 2007
"by drive them out i mean take this country back for Christ, win the war and make it such a hellhole for the loony librals that they will want to move to canada" xxxxxx Posted: 11 Feb 2007

Kifer did give that interview to the Dominionist from the Chalcedon Foundation. Maybe that's where these Xtian ______ who want to resurrect PW came from. I'll post an RfC about 'past tense' 'present tense' is a few days. By the way - I blame my parents for ending up as one of Satan's pawns! They should have never given me that demonic Quija Board when I was 8! Look at my userpage for Christ's sake! Satan made me do that.- FaAfA 03:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • What relevance does your personal damnation and bad upbringing have to this article? Oh, I forgot who I was talking to. Yammer on. - Crockspot 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The continuing existence of Protest Warrior

For those of you thinking that PW has lost "steam" don't be so disappointed (or comfortable depending on your political views). We're far from gone. PW itself may be stumbling but the drive behind it is stronger than ever. I'm just saying the best way we found to deal with the harassment through PW's site is a decentralization. Personally, most of our contacts and plans to counter protest are now rarely done online other than by IM. So don't expect us to go anywhere. Protest Warrior was only the beginning. Just like Napster was for file sharing. We'll only grow.--Zeph1 06:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Now the HQ is down too. I have a question, do you think being anti-gay is the way forward? Xavier86 05:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you even understand how PW operates? I'll guess that you probably don't. The website is really nothing more than a flyer and showing what we've accomplished. We don't care if you know what we're doing or not. The real world is where most of the organizing comes from. We're not a bunch of lefties lacking social skills. We don't send out hundreds of emails to people who may not want them. Our organizing is done face to face. Besides, people ddos'ing the website doesn't count as Protest Warrior falling apart. The HQ site being down is meaningless. And about your question. I won't even answer that. I let people who come across it judge who the idiot is. Protest Warrior doesn't discriminate in any manner. You've just been reading too much propaganda against PW.--Zeph1 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You are clueless about how PW got started, which was to counter the anti-war protests. It was popular because the majority supported the war and thought the protesters were way out of line. Things aren't the same nowadays and PW has no basis for existence anymore. The videos were OK quality at first but went downhill really fast after the Op. Liberty Rising disaster video. Republicans lost Congress. The anti-war view is mainstream. PW embarrassed themselves at Crawford. The forums are down. No one cares anymore. PW is dead. Xavier86 07:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup. Dead it is. Free Republic has a thread 500+ posts long about the 'Gathering of Beagles' to 'protect' the Vietnam war memorial from ANSWER, Cindy Sheehan, and 20,000+ other anti-war patriots on 3/17. The 2 forums where the PWer's went to (Fighting the Left, and the Refugee Board) each have under 10 posts about the counter-protest, with no one actually going! - FaAfA (yap) 09:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither of you really get it. You people keep talking about the website and the forums. I'm talking beyond that. Even beyond PW and how its organized now.--Zeph1 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
We get it. AFAIK there hasn't been a single PW 'operation' in over a year. March 17 will be 'do or die' for PW. Reports (with pictures) of PWers carrying PW signs will determine its existance. - FaAfA (yap) 04:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall you being placed in charge of determining, well, anything regarding Protest Warrior, much less whether or not it's actually operational. A single protest in Washington, D.C. is a poor litmus test for a group that has never had the resources or inclination to bus lots of people around the country. Regardless, I can't deny that participation is falling off, but it's not done yet. Rogue 9 07:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's done. Get over it Xavier86 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Talk%7EProtest_Warrior_7034.html"