Talk:Protest Warrior: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:07, 26 August 2006

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protest Warrior article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

This article was nominated for deletion on 23:07, 14 June 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Criticism Section: Indymedia, Runningscared.org, and Anti-Racist Action.

1) Two sentences of "criticism" are not worthy of an entire "criticism" section. Per Jimbo Wales, the reason "isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." [1]

2) Indymedia is not a valid source per wikipedia policy. Go read WP:RS. Then go read read Indymedia where, among other things, it explains Indymedia allows "for any person to post news, regardless of "expertise." What more is necessary to conclude an Indymedia article is not a reliable source?

3) Running Scared is a blog, and one with an agenda at that. It is not permitted to be used as a source for information on anything other than itself per this part of WP:RS.

4) While Anti-Racist Action Network's website seems to mention admirable goals, it contained no reference that I could see to the Protest Warrior organization.

I am removing all Indymedia and Runningscared.org citations from the section as well as all information that is sourced only from them. I am also removing the citation from Antiracist.org because it doesn't contain any supporting information. Lawyer2b 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am seconding your above comments - I completely agree with the WP:RS (as well as WP:V) implications of the two sources in question and feel they should be removed. Vpoko 19:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's thoughts are not Wiki policy. Since you feel that 2 sentences are not enough content to form an entire criticism section, a secton that ALMOST ALL Wiki articles on controversial orgs have - we'll just have to find more. Once again I contend that it appears to me that PW members and their supporters are using wikilawyering to scrub the article of all valid criticisms. These same editors added pro PW content, including unverified reports and youtube videos that lacked any and all documentation, verifiability, or reliability since it suited their Pro PW agenda. I say....BRING ON THE FORMAL MEDIATION OF A DISINTERESTED POLITICALLY-NEUTRAL EDITOR!

NBGPWS 20:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Since you apparently include me as one of those editors inserting pro-PW material that is in violation of wikipolicy, please either submit your evidence I have done so or your all-to-frequently-needed apology. 2) This is not the first time, when faced with putting in material in violation of wikipolicy, that rather than make a cogent argument as to why the material is not in violation, you basically say, "well, other people have done it!". I'm not sure what stage that thinking falls into on Kohlberg's stages of moral development, but it probably does not serve the article well. I have basically said before, "How about you stop attempting to insert bad material and we work together try to make sure that all material follows wikipolicy? If you find something which you think is in violation...point it out!" Lawyer2b 20:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the "criticism" sections that you cite, i.e. for DU and FR, have been or are currently under dispute, so I don't think they necessarily bolster your case.

Secondly-and I feel this point bears repeating-the goal here is not to have a "balanced" article.

It is not to ensure that every piece of information you perceive as being complementary or neutral in tone be counterbalanced by a critical point of view, regardless of how invidious or unreliable the source might be.

The objective here is to have a reliable, reasonably accurate, reasonably current description of Protest Warrior written in an NPOV tone.

I'm sorry that this point needs to be reiterated.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L2B, I'll leave it to a mediator to judge your impartiality.

I EAGERLY AWAIT FORMAL MEDIATION FROM A DISINTERESTED, POLITICALLY-NEUTRAL WIKI MEDIATOR!

NBGPWS 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With bated breath, I'm sure. But that doesn't address your continuing apparent justification for adding bad material by claiming "I think others have violated policy so I will too". What's the opposite of wikilawyering? Wikichaos? Wikanarchy? Hey, I'm trademarking those! Lawyer2b 21:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it's 'bad material'. I contend that a report from 'Central Texas Anti Racist Action' is not excludable ONLY because it may have just been posted on indymedia and blogs. I'm looking into this.

NBGPWS 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call it whatever you want. It's excludable ONLY because it violates policy. While some might argue that it may not be notable to be on that organization's list, if you found a valid source for it now, you wouldn't find me deleting it. Look, from what I see you haven't found a piece negative to the organization you haven't thought worthy of inclusion, but I don't knee-jerk and accuse you of being biased. I try to evaluate each edit on a case-by-case basis looking at wikipedia policy and the article as a whole. The point I'm trying to make is that nobody wants to see material that violates policy added to an article and your ending up justifying it because you think material that violates policy is already there, doesn't work. Haven't you ever heard two wrongs don't make a right? Post a list of the material you think violates policy and let's have a look at it. Lawyer2b 22:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that it was posted to Indymedia, but rather that the specific account you are attempting to include was only posted to Indymedia.

Instead of attempting to include accurate reports from realiable sources-and there are numerous publications that fit that description, which chronicled the confrontation in Crawford-you decided to push your own POV-yet again, and over the instructions of other editors-and insert a link that does not meet the criteria for inclusion under Wikipedia guidelines.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to compromise on the issue of criticism to this extent,

If NBGPWS agrees to stop inserting irrelevant and/or inappropriate material into the body of this article, then I'd be willing to entertain the possibility of creating a section at the bottom of the page for critical links from groups like ARA, Indymedia, or any other notable Marxist or anarchist organization, which regularly criticizes Protest Warrior.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communists For Kerry is a separate and distinct organization from Protest Warrior.

The fact that both CFK and PW staged joint operations during Operation Liberty Rising, or that some Protest Warriors living in the Tri-State Area actively collaborate with members of The People's Cube, does not mean that it is a subsidiary organization of Protest Warrior. It is not.
They impersonate Communists for satirical purposes, which is perfectly legal and legitimate, and has no bearing on what Protest Warrior does as an organization.
As for Rudolph the Red, his status within Protest Warrior is not clear.
He might very well be the chapter leader of one branch of Protest Warrior, but you will need to demonstrate that.
He is listed as a chapter leader on the Protest Warrior HQ page listing each individual chapter.
However, there are many other people listed as chapter leaders on that page who no longer occupy that role.
There is also part of his signature where he purports to be the "pretend" leader of a PW chapter in Northern California.
If you want to know what his current relationship with Protest Warrior is then I suggest you follow my advice, and contact him directly to ask him about it.
Until then I hope that you would refrain from making bold declarations, i.e. X is the leader of PW Chapter Y, and anticipating that we accept them as gospel.
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re the re-adding of the centex etc. paragraph and my change: The most we can do with the sources indymedia et al that violate WP:RS is to use them as authorites on themselves. Thus we can report that they criticise WP, but we can't use them as authorities on WP. Regarding the centex watchlist bit, it is both not notable and a violation of both WP:RS and WP:V. Note: My version of the section removes the objectionable material, leaving little else. It is meant to be expanded. Please do not revert it for being inadequate, instead, add to it, using reliable sources. Cheers, TheKaplan 09:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ruthfulbarbarity's refusal to use edit summaries
RB, please explain these edits, and why you, unlike others, feel you do not need to inform others of WHY you are making wholesale changes to the article, and using what justifications of WP. The edit summary box is there for a REASON. I am looking into the ramifications of your refusal to use it.
(cur) (last) 23:14, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) (→Motivation)(NO SUMMARY)
(cur) (last) 23:12, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) (→Methodology)(NO SUMMARY)
(cur) (last) 23:10, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) m (→Website)(NO SUMMARY)
(cur) (last) 23:08, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) m (→Past operations)(NO SUMMARY)

"Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).[2]
NBGPWS 02:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am reverting the article to L2B's last edit, undoing RB's 4 edits, due to RB's neglect to justify his edits with edit summaries in ANY way, shape, or manner.
NBGPWS 02:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To set an example for NBGPWS, let me restate what he wrote above in a way that assumes good faith and avoids anything that would sound like a personal attack: RB, could you please remember to specify a reason for your edits? It is important to fill in the summary field. Wikipedia is not the place to be aggressive. (Note: You can also see exactly what his edits were by using the difference functionality.) Vpoko 02:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NBGPWS, please do not revert RB's changes, they were small & proper changes (mostly typographical, but also a (warranted) request for a citation. There is no reason to revert these changes unless you just want to be difficult. Vpoko 02:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too late - already done. When RB feels that he can follow the same Wiki guidelines that we all follow, using edit summaries to justify his actions, he can re-edit.
NBGPWS 02:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your revert. The changes RB made are NOW documented in MY revert, and should no longer be reverted for that (flimsy) reason. Vpoko 02:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your revert. When *RB* cares to justify his actions with edit summaries, he can revert. Sorry VP, you can not mindread RB's motivations nor can you speak for him.

NBGPWS 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NBGPWS, please accept this as a warning. I am RESTORING HIS CHANGES AGAIN. He fixed TYPOS, and I also see the same TYPOS, and I am fixing them now. These are MY edits, I alone am justifying them. Enough already, please! Vpoko 02:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to back away from "enforcing" Wikipedia rules until you've gained more experience here. Even assuming good faith, you've misinterperted too many policies, but it's getting very hard to assume good faith when you materially disrupt the editing process. Wikipedia is COLLABORATIVE, if there is a minor problem like RB not marking his edits, you should work with him. At the very least you have a responsibility to check out whether his edits ARE, in fact, an attempt to be sneaky, or just innocuous. Vpoko 02:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will do no such thing - I ask that you add this back in, and explain why YOU removed it then, since you are now justifying and taking the onus of RB's actions THIS is a typo?
Tactics
Dressing up as a stereotypical gay pride parade participant. [3] (DELETED!)
NBGPWS 03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That edit WAS justified, but on the talk page. Wikipedia is not going to accept forum postings from non-notable individuals as references. I stand by the edit. Vpoko 03:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the edits you're objecting to were minor edits, which fixed basic grammatical or spelling errors.
The only other edits I made that could be categorized as "wholesale changes" were legitimate.
The verification tag was appended to a statement that has not been demonstrated, i.e. most Protest Warriors disbelieve in man-made global warming.
This is not part of the Protest Warrior manifesto, not part of Protest Warrior's mission statement-to the best of my recollection-and until you can provide some concrete, tangible evidence that it is in any way, shape, or form true the tag will remain.
The other significant edit was the removal of a claim, i.e. Protest Warriors impersonate participants in gay rights parades, which is either demonstrably false or can be disproved.
There is no official or unofficial operation where Protest Warriors have staged demonstrations alongside gay rights parades, let alone impersonated participants in such parades.
You linked to an unsourced claim made in one thread by someone who had less than twelve posts to the Protest Warrior forums, and who never demonstrated that he was an actual member of the broader Protest Warrior organization.
He could have been one of the many people-such as yourself-who register under sock puppet accounts and present misleadingly "conservative" identities in order to spread calumnies against Protest Warrior.
Even if he were a legitimate member of Protest Warrior at one point, and he actually did impersonate someone taking part in a gay rights parade, it still doesn't mean that his actions had the endorsement of anyone else who is a Protest Warrior, much less the endorsement of the two individuals responsible for PW, i.e. Alan & Kfir.
Ruthfulbarbarity 03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere does it say that the lack of an edit summary alone is grounds for blind reversion (or even non-blind reversion). Although it is against policy, many editors regularly leave out summaries for minor and uncontroversial edits, such as the grammar edits in question, or assume that the automatically inserted text suffices. In such cases it would be appropriate to advise the user, but not automatically revert. It is, however, vandalism to knowingly introduce grammatical errors into an article. In regards to the gay pride parade removal, as Vpoko and Ruthfulbarbarity himself said above, Ruthfulbarbarity stated a reason earlier on this page when he said he would remove insufficiently sourced material. And you are not helping your case for avoiding a 3RR block. TheKaplan 03:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This from the editor who was totally wrong about the 3RR policy less than 24 hours ago? LOL!
NBGPWS 04:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the policy as well as the discussion surrounding it, you will realize that I was not wrong about the policy, rather, you were shown mercy which you are doing your best to show that you do not deserve. TheKaplan 07:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RB, Chapter Leader Rudolf's, and CommunistsforKerry's repeated tactics of impersonation (Rudolf's 'bomb vest' was taken away by the SFPD, and he was asked to leave the protest - reflects well on PW huh?) prove that these actions are OK with the (inactive) leadership of PW. Where is that section on ELAC you proposed RB? I'll be working on a section on Rudolf's MANY tactics, which, since he is a PW Chapter Leader, carry the full weight of representing PW as a whole.
When are Kfir and/or Alan going to show up here, like they were requested to over a week ago, to answer the very serious charges that they have abandoned PW, and are no longer leading the org they founded?
I EAGERLY AWAIT FORMAL MEDIATION FROM A DISINTERESTED, POLITICALLY-NEUTRAL WIKI MEDIATOR!
NBGPWS 03:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(slurp) User:NBGPWS, my bedtime tea tastes especially good as I enjoy the humorous dichotomy of watching you apologize and plead for leniency over your many faux pas, citing your abecedarian wikipedian status while clumsily accusing others of violations, somehow assuming you know enough to be a wikipedian policeman. Let me see if I get this right: "Stop, User:Vpoko! I'm reverting your revert of my reversion of User:Ruthfulbarbarity because, per the wikipedia policy in my imagination, edits are owned by their original author and neither you nor any other editor can make those same edits until their author explains them. Because it's not about the article, it's about the personal grudge I have with the editor who made them!" Did I forget something? Oh yes. "Your edits are VANDALISM. Should you persist, YOU WILL BE BANNED. FOREVER. AND EVER. I MEAN IT. DOUBLE-CROSS MY HEART. WITH WHIP CREAM ON TOP." (chuckle) (sigh) (wiping tears from eyes) Lawyer2b 04:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, while its become increasingly difficult to take User:NBGPWS seriously anymore, I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning for removing that blurb about impersonating a gay pride parade participant. I have to think about it. Lawyer2b 04:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If there are people planting calumnies (love that word, RB) in the forums on the Protest Warrior website to the point that some of the posts are not valid as a source, then I'm not sure that any post from there should be used as a source for something supposedly officially connected with Protest Warrior. I mean how are we to know if it's legitimate unless the post comes from the founders themselves? Is there some kind of objective standard we can use? Lawyer2b 05:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple. Forums, as a rule, are not acceptable sources, even if they are hosted at a site that is otherwise considered reliable. Why? Because forums are not fact-checked, and posted comments are not subject to editorial oversight. Morton devonshire 05:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mort, what you just said makes perfect sense. Thank you for simplifying something I should not have thought was any more complex. Lawyer2b 14:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Communists For Kerry is a separate and distinct organization from Protest Warrior.
The fact that both CFK and PW staged joint operations during Operation Liberty Rising, or that some Protest Warriors living in the Tri-State Area actively collaborate with members of The People's Cube, does not mean that it is a subsidiary organization of Protest Warrior. It is not.
They impersonate Communists for satirical purposes, which is perfectly legal and legitimate, and has no bearing on what Protest Warrior does as an organization.
As for Rudolph the Red, his status within Protest Warrior is not clear.
He might very well be the chapter leader of one branch of Protest Warrior, but you will need to demonstrate that.
He is listed as a chapter leader on the Protest Warrior HQ page listing each individual chapter.
However, there are many other people listed as chapter leaders on that page who no longer occupy that role.
There is also part of his signature where he purports to be the "pretend" leader of a PW chapter in Northern California.
If you want to know what his current relationship with Protest Warrior is then I suggest you follow my advice, and contact him directly to ask him about it.
Until then I hope that you would refrain from making bold declarations, i.e. X is the leader of PW Chapter Y, and anticipating that we accept them as gospel.
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
L2B, I suggest you consider taking a break from editing this page - in my humble estimation, you seem to be losing it. I am truly concerned for your psychological well-being.
NBGPWS 06:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sign your comments, NBG.
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RB, as you are admitting that as an activist org, protest warrior, whose missing-in-action leaders no longer care even enough to update their website as to its REASON FOR EXISTENCE - counterprotesting - now don't even maintain their chapter info, and whether or not a chapter has an active leader - that's even more reason to Change the Status of protest warrior to 'dead' or 'dormant' etc. If neither Kfir nor Alan publicly respond to our demands that they affirm that they are still leading PW and that it still exists as a viable counterprotest org, I will seek to have its status changed.
As rage1605, a PW member since 2004 with 4392 posts wrote JUST ONE DAY AGO:
"I think Protest warrior is dead (in its current form). Somehow it's the entertainment forum's fault....not the fact that we haven't had any action since the pres. election back in 2004. Oh well, it was a nice dream...hell, the Chicago chapter at its top only had 10-15 people showing up for rallies. Kinda sad really, but that is the thing....'
Maybe The Minutemen have a chapter in your area?
NBGPWS 06:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Protest Warrior is a decentralized organization, where individual members and chapter leaders are left to their own initiative, by and large.
As I mentioned earlier, to expect it to have the same bureaucratic, centralized structure of Marxist-Leninist organizations like ANSWER, or UFPJ-where each member marches in lockstep, and needs approval from higher-ups within the party apparatus-is an erroneous assumption.
By its very nature it will not be similar in structure to those sorts of groups.
And the Protest Warrior forums are distinct from Protest Warrior operations.
While there are many Protest Warriors who actively participate or who have posted to the PW forums in the past the same does not hold true for the vast majority of people who use the forums, many of whom do not even share the values espoused by Protest Warrior as an organization.
I don't know why I need to reiterate this point-for the umpteenth time-but the forums are merely a minor, constituent part, a tertiary-if that-component of Protest Warrior.
While you seem to exalt them as the sum-total of PW, most of the Protest Warriors who actively participate in official or unofficial operations do not hold them in the same regard, or spend nearly as much time obsessing over the activity that does or does not take place on them.
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Long gone are these heady days of Alan and Kfir being actively involved and 'directing the troops', eh?
"OPERATION LIBERTY RISING Two weeks from now, the freedom haters will descend upon New York to spit at our Statue of Liberty and burn our President in effigy for daring to suggest that liberty is a universal principle.
PW is mobilizing to the Republican National Convention for perimeter defense, to say to these people that while you can protest America, we can protest you. We will not stop or interfere with their right to protest, nor should we. But we will fire a hailstorm of truth on them that is guaranteed to blow up their moral house of cards. We expect to have hundreds of Protest Warriors this time around, and we've got a nice stack of new signs, straight out of R&D. We'd show them to you now but sorry, you're not cleared for that.
We're calling this mission Liberty Rising because we still have hope that humanity will pick truth over lies, will pick right over wrong. The crooked path the world is on may be beyond what we mortals can straighten. Perhaps the die has been cast and we're casting pearls to swine. But if our enemies think we're going to go down like sheep, they made a big miscalculation. Go to protestwarrior.com/libertyrising to access Operation Liberty Rising battle plan, and we'll see you on the front lines.
-Alan & Kfir"
When WAS the last time they issued a communique like this, RB?
NBGPWS 07:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read, or even give a cursory glance, to anything I just wrote?
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently not. I don't need Alan or Kfir to organize every little detail of every little local action I and my chapter choose to undertake. That's the way it always has been. When I joined PW, I jumped right in organizing my own operations and have never participated in one handed down from on high, because the last one handed down from on high was Liberty Rising, which was before I joined. There is not one single chapter that needs Alan or Kfir to direct them except possibly the Austin one, which they lead personally.

NBG, if you comprehend nothing else I say, understand this: Protest Warrior is not dependent upon anyone's cult of personality, least of all its founders'. We're not like the Revolutionary Communist Party, which needs Chairman Avakian to function, or ANSWER, which doesn't do a thing without instructions from the WWP. It's an organization which by nature does not depend on one person to do everything for it. Hell, if all a group consists of is a bunch of drones who only take action when told to do so by one person, I wouldn't even grace that group with the title of "organization." Rogue 9 08:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee..... hard to fathom how America-hating commies can turn out crowds 1000's of times the size of you patriotic freedom lovers ! Time for some introspection?
Keep up the good work, guys!
"The NYC and Tri-State Chapters of Protest Warrior and Free Republic suck, respectively, so I'll probably be out there (counterprotesting) by myself Monday." wrathbone
NBGPWS 08:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No cult of personality? LOL! Would you like some quotes on how Kfir's presence was celebrated last time he decided to make an appearence on the PW forum? For the first time in MONTHS? Not to discuss operations or politics - mind you - but to try and stop a revolt over bannings? It was akin to the second coming of Christ, or maybe.... Jim Jones!
NBGPWS 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kfir is an administrator of a forum that until very recently was frankly in chaos. Of course people would greet his return; it might actually herald something like a return to order. That has nothing at all to do with the administration of the actual chapters, as opposed to the administration of the forum. Rogue 9 08:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it's arguable whether this discussion is actually helpful in writing a Wikipedia article about the Protest Warrior organization I'm willing to indulge it simply because it's interesting. However, I am very concerned when I see User:NBGPWS say stuff like "if I don't see proof otherwise, we need to change the article to say Protest Warrior is an inactive organization." Perhaps he should tape something across his computer screen that says, "I will not post Original Research on wikipedia?" (First in a line of wikipedia policy stickers.) Possibly due to his inexperience and zeal, I believe he may be confusing totally free-flowing unsupported discussions on the talk page with what is allowable for inclusion in the article. Lawyer2b 14:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation
There seems to be a rather involved dispute here which is now spilling over into many of the administrator's noticeboards. I was wondering if everyone involved would be interested in some informal mediation? A few things to remember:
I'm just another Wikipedian, but a neutral one, so I hope I can help.

This process is entirely voluntary; anyone can opt out at any time

No one gets sanctioned or criticised, we just want to calm down the situation and work together to write the best article possible.
Please indicate below whether or not you're interested. Shell ^babelfish 09:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the mediation section that you just archived. The issue isn't content, it's policy violations. It's spilling over to Admin noticeboards because of a single user's personal attacks, reversions, sock puppets, etc, etc. Usually mediation is when consensus can't be reached. Such is not the case here. Consensus is overwhelming except for a single user violating policy. --Tbeatty 09:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually reviewed the entire archives; if you don't feel mediation will solve the problem it may be time to take further steps in dispute resolution. Since administrators do not arbitrate content disputes, there is little that can be done by that method. Shell ^babelfish 10:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My good sir, I believe it was you who was just told on the admin board that my conduct hasn't been nearly as egregious as what you claim, and is not close to be a reason for banning. If it wasn't you, but one of my other accusers - I do apologize. NBGPWS 10:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YES! I requested formal mediation from a disinterested politically-neutral Wiki mediator days ago. I contend that the 3 active Protest Warriors, and their conservatively biased supporters have used Wikilawyering (and violations of WP) EXTENSIVELY and inconsistantly to exclude information that they consider unfavorable, and to INCLUDE info they think favorable. They even talked about it on Protest Warrior, where they discussed their sordid, unscrupulous plans to skew this article in their effort to make what many feel is a hate-filled Islamophobic organization look good. I'm new to Wiki, but learning more about WP every day. I also publicly apologized for wrongly accusing other editors of vandalism as I didn't know WP as well as I should. I EAGERLY AWAIT FORMAL MEDIATION OF THE PROTEST WARRIOR ENTRY FROM A DISINTERESTED, POLITICALLY-NEUTRAL WIKI MEDIATOR! NBGPWS 09:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given my review of the situation, I would suggest that you find some credible, reliable sources which discuss negative aspects of the organization first. Having verifiable information is always a priority. Once you have a firm foundation of sources, you can then discuss balancing the article - not the other way around. Shell ^babelfish 10:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaning up questionable references
Clearly, we must have a standard for acceptable references. I see MANY in the article that are questionable. I would like to conduct an open straw poll where we can work on establishing some consensus on these sources and their appropriateness for an encyclopedia. In order to determine the sources in question (and whether a straw poll is even the way to go here), we should take some time to sort out WHAT our disputes are actually about (in terms of content, not finger pointing and questioning motives). The sources that *I* have questions on are (please add to this list any sources YOU find questionable - please don't debate them here, we will do that during the straw poll):
The Protest Warrior Forum Vpoko 14:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Indymedia Site Vpoko 14:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runningscared.org Lawyer2b 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Indybay Site Vpoko 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brain-terminal.com Lawyer2b 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frontpagemag.com JBKramer 19:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RockNRev's site --Neverborn 05:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-The above post is signed by Vpoko 14:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC) (Please add your references above this line)[reply]
I've got no opinion on Front Page Magazine, but if you want to exclude them as a reliable source on anything, you have a lot of work to do. I've seen multiple articles that reference frontpagemag.com in some capacity or another. Rogue 9 09:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The real question here is this: Will NBGPWS abide by the results of a poll? If so, we can establish consensus. If NOT, there is no point, as he will continue his behavior. --Neverborn 19:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The real question, if you are asking THAT question, is if we are having a poll or a vote. m:voting is evil. JBKramer 19:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems to me we already have a consensus that Indymedia/Indybay and blogs violate WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. However, NBGPWS continues to make personal attacks on those who remove them, and reverts decent changes. --Neverborn 19:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that such would be better if coupled with adherance to policy with respect to things you like in the article, like links to forum comments, first person articles about kids putting up obnoxious signs in their high school and right wing blogs. But that's just me, you know? JBKramer 19:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are going to have to go through the motions of establishing a clear consensus. I happen to believe that those sites are not appropriate references, but I don't see an outright consensus. This may help. There is no other, good way to escalate this. If this doesn't work we can try mediation or hauling him in front of the ArbCom, but I'm not willing to waste other peoples' time on this until I'm sure we can't take care of the problem ourselves. Vpoko 19:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The personal attacks are being dealt with seperately. NBGPWS has received a 24 hour block) Vpoko 19:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that a poll (or anything other than how things were handled before User:NBGPWS showed up) is necessary. The article was being edited and improved through a seemingly natural consensus and the talkpage seemed to be devoid of personal attacks, INCIVILITY (eyeing User:NBGPWS) and other assorted policy violations. Am I mistaken? Lawyer2b 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, your description of what took place is accurate, more or less.
I do recall there being a dispute between Ben Burch and some other editors-this occurred while the PW article was still semi-protected, if I'm not mistaken-but eventually the issues were resolved in an acceptable manner.
At the very least, the intense acrimony and hostile atmosphere, which has been a feature of this page since NBGPWS became actively involved in editing this article, did not exist.
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lawyer2b. We should first try to see if we can, in the temporary absence of NBGPWS, just edit the article through consensus and civil discussion as we would any other. A vote or poll seems unneccesary.

In regards to the credibility and use of sources, I posted a little blurb up above that I will restate: We can use any source as a source on itself. We can cite indymedia and centex etc. to show that leftist websites criticize PW. We can use forums for information on the forums (i.e., blah blah blah has been posted on the forums), although we may choose not to in the interests of notability. However, we cannot include information that violates WP:V such as the centex watchlist bit, anything that anyone present remembers from the forums but can't cite, undocumented statements heard at a rally, etc. We also cannot use sources such as indymedia et al that violate WP:RS as sources on anything other than themselves. Thus we cannot use them for information on PW itself. The relevant parts of WP:RS are in the "Using Online and Self-Published Sources section." Happy editing, TheKaplan 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Does someone want to take a stab at removing all the questionable references, and we'll discuss individual ones before adding them back in? Vpoko 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I left the PW Forum as it seems that it follows the rule that you can use a unverifiable source as a source about itself. Is the Google Cache an acceptable source? I removed the Indymedia source and added that leftist sites dislike PW, such as Indymedia. I removed that Indymedia calls PW white supremacists, as this violates WP:OR. --Neverborn 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Neverborn. NBGPWS, this is only the start of the process, so let's work on improving the article so that we all (including you) can be happy with the point of view. However, before re-adding those links (since there was clear consensus for removing them - meaning unanimous with the exception of you) let's discuss on the Talk Page and ONLY add them once there is agreement. Vpoko 20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JBKramer, why did you remove the link to FrontpageMag? Can you highlight how this violates WP:RS? --Neverborn 20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the forum links, as the forum is not definitvely written by the site itself. Forum posts are almost always not WP:RS. I removed the link to FrontpageMag because, and I quote "Does someone want to take a stab at removing all the questionable references," which includes both references you like and references you don't. I question the relevence and accuracy of some high-school kids first person account. JBKramer 20:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the removal of this reference - it is almost identical to a forum post. It is a personal account of an incident that has not been fact checked. Vpoko 20:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the recent removals by JBKramer have been beneficial, but the "kfir denied it" sentence is appropriately sourced and should stay. It does not violate WP:RS because it is using the forum as a source for what the forum says and not for anything else, which is ok. I assume there is no dispute over whether "kfir" on the forum is actually Kfir? That would be the only reason I can see for removing it. Happy editing, TheKaplan 21:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There actually have been isolated instances where the accounts of the primary site admins have been hacked into and appropriated for brief periods, however I don't believe that was one of them.
For the most part, when either Kfir or Alan appear on the Protest Warrior forums they are in fact who they purport to be. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The instances of hacked accounts calls into question our willingness to say that the other published site misquoted someone. Please have kfir make a statement on a not-forum to the effect that his statement on the forum is legitmate. Thanks. JBKramer 22:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My only issue is notability, but I think this whole subject lacks notability, and since we're humoring ourselves and not deleting this article, I guess the Kfir forum comment should be allowed (per Wikipedia:RS a personal website may be used as a source about itself. Vpoko 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could put it that way.
I don't think Kfir said that he was misquoted per se, only that his comments weren't put into a broader context.
Protest Warrior obviously hasn't picketed outside of abortion clinics or gay rights marches in the years since that interview took place, so I don't think stating that these issues are not central to the core mission of PW is out of line.
Whether a statement like that, or a contrary statement-implying that Protest Warrior does plan to get involved in protests related to abortion, gay rights, etc.-is appropriate for inclusion in this article is another matter altogether.
Personally, I'd rather leave the subject unaddressed entirely than insert information that might be unreliable or unsourced.
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, about the Kfir quote thing, I believe him when he says he was misquoted/put out of context/whatever else, because whatever else he might be, the man isn't exactly one to hide his opinions. After all, he puts them on great big signs and founded a protest group to broadcast them. :p As an aside, if PW does start picketing abortion clinics and so forth, I'm out. Rogue 9 23:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. User:TheKaplan, are you saying that criticism contained on leftist websites (like indymedia, runningscared.org, etc.) can be included in this article? If so, I disagree. As I mentioned in the top section of the current talk page,
Indymedia is not a valid source per wikipedia policy. Go read WP:RS. Then go read read Indymedia where, among other things, it explains Indymedia allows "for any person to post news, regardless of "expertise." What more is necessary to conclude an Indymedia article is not a reliable source?
Running Scared is a blog, and one with an agenda at that. It is not permitted to be used as a source for information on anything other than itself per this part of WP:RS.
I apologize if I am misinterpreting your viewpoint. Lawyer2b 00:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyer2b, I think we actually agree, but are just saying it a little differently. I was saying that we could make a general statement about criticism of PW appearing at leftist websites, citing indymedia et al as authorities on themselves for that one statement, but could not use them as credible sources for any information beyond that, and in particular that we couldn't use them as authorites on PW. Hope that clears it up. Happy editing, TheKaplan 20:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP - IMPORTANT
It is important to not include information that violates WP:BLP. Please review that policy before inserting any information about lawsuits, bannings or anything else related to a living person. JBKramer 20:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the hacking case, re: nameblanked, merits inclusion, since it was the subject of numerous media reports, as well as an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not insert negative information about living people without strong sourcing from SECONDARY, not primary sources - indictments and FBI reports are NOT secondary sourcing. If there are media reports in UNARGUABLY reliable sources, please mention those on this talk page, and we can consider putting the information in. JBKramer 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a copy of the search warrant,
I'm not sure if it meets the criteria for inclusion, since the copy is hosted by Protest Warrior.
The same holds true for his indictment,
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP states, Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims....Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).. I'm not sure but it sounds like it needs a source other than the Protest Warrior website. Lawyer2b 23:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I do feel that the hacking case should at least be alluded to somewhere in this article, since it constitutes one of the most important events in Protest Warrior history to take place over the course of the past few years.
Protest Warrior's database was hacked into-and the credit card information of contributors to Protest Warrior misappropriated-which I don't think anyone is really disputing, even if the facts and background of the incident are subject to dispute.
Finding a way of describing those events might be difficult, since so many reports related to this incident were confined to the online community.
I did find a few reports though that might meet the aforementioned criteria, and not violate Wikipedia guidelines,
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:xQlrVWhuz7wJ:www.chicagoreader.com/pdf/050819/050819_cover.pdf+Chicago+Reader+Can+he+Hack+prison%3F&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/07/14hackers.html
Ruthfulbarbarity 02:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This applies to the founders of PW as well as one of them redirects here and the other soon may in Wikipedia. The whole article should be treated as WP:BIO. --Tbeatty 02:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that Alan Lipton had an article on Wikipedia.
Ruthfulbarbarity 03:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just noticed that it redirects to the Protest Warrior article.
My mistake.
Ruthfulbarbarity 03:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree re the notability and importance of including Hammond's hacking incident in the article. I thought it was covered well the way it was written before. I haven't read it but it seems that everything up to the indictment can be sourced by that Chicago Reader article. Great job! I'll look for some sources for the indictment and anything afterwards. Lawyer2b 04:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following the developments on this page without speaking up, but now that NBGPWS has (hopefully) learned his lesson through the blocks he's recently incurred, I feel the responsibility to speak up. I'll be the first to say that I know little more about the Protest Warrior organization than I have learned from this page. I have looked around at their site, and what little else I know is what I have gleaned from the heated debate on this talk page. In light of the recent efforts of some users, it appears to me, at least, that an effort is being made, in the light of some controversies that have surfaced, to sweep dirt under the rug regarding actions that some people have found questionable surrounding this community. This is being done under the claims, apparently, that NPOV allows no place for criticism (unquestionably false, especially when the topic of an article is a controversial organization) and the guidelines for biographies.

The second one is far more concerning to be, particularly in that it appears that the effort appears to be one with the intention of gaming the system and bending rules to cover what they normally would not, in an effort to make the subject of the article look more or less controversial than it is. To do this in either of the directions that apparently interested editors would have is a disservice to the readership of Wikipedia. As (if I recall correctly) I have said above, I would fully support the involvement of a mediation entity such as the Mediation Cabal to help exclude interests from influencing the neutrality of this page. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly of note regarding my above concerns is how the criticism section has been taken from a sourced, full section with examples to a one-sentence section saying "Protest warrior has been the target of criticism from leftist websites." This neither explains nor correctly portrays the debate and controversy of the article's subject, and it is important that the article accurately reflect what actually is. For an example, take the criticism section of another partisan site such as Democratic Underground or Free Republic. Both of these examples accurately convey and give examples of criticism, and serve as examples of what an organization that has received criticism's "Criticism" section might appropriately look like. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The freerepublic criticism section refrences Salon.com and Seattle Weekly, among others. The DU criticism section is shite, and tagged as such already, but references USA Today. Find a similar quality reference for this section. JBKramer 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the thing. Protest Warrior appears to have received neutral coverage in large media which have mentioned its controversiality regarding divisive issues. On the other hand, the actual evidence and examples of criticism often seem to come from other small, vocal minority partisan groups. Currently in the section the one sentence says that Indymedia has criticized it without example, I think that that at least might give a starting point to expand the section to an acceptable level. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The standard of inclusion in Wikipedia is VERIFIABILITY not importance. If you can't find a reliable source that says what you want to say, you can't say it, period, regardless of how important you believe saying it is. The current sentance is a perfect section stub. JBKramer 15:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am thoroughly acquainted with Wikipedia's verifiability policies and criteria for reliable sources. That is exactly why I said that the Indymedia reference would be an appropriate place to begin expansion of the section into an acceptable section, JBKramer. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I do not appreciate your implication that I am interested in saying one thing or another regarding this article's topic. However, judging from the debate on this talk page, it is not a difficult logical step to make to understand that the organization itself is controversial in interested political circles. As I said before, I am no expert on this subject by any means- what I am, however, interested in, is maintaining a neutral point of view for the article and framing, not re-enacting, the debates and controversies surrounding the subject. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to go back to the original topic, and note that while protest warrior is a reliable source for facts about itself, it is NOT a reliable source for facts about living people who are unrelated or, even worse, opposed to them. While the two links the the news articles above are reliable secondary sources, protest warrior's self-published statements, and primary source documents are NOT ACCEPTABLE REFERENCES for claims that someone is under indictment. JBKramer 15:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, though this shouldn't be an issue - if someone is under indictment it should be easy enough to find other sources. Indictments are a matter of public record. Vpoko 15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try that again. The public records are NOT ACCEPTABLE REFERENCES for information that may be negative about living persons. There must be SECONDARY sources for information to be included. JBKramer 16:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. Primary sources are acceptable (if discouraged) for use in Wikipedia, as long as they are not used to create original research. (See the OR link for a further explanation of this.) The critical divide between acceptable and unacceptable use of a primary source is that in the case that the source is used to draw a conclusion not attributed to someone else, it is unacceptable, as original research. In the case, however, that the source is used as a statement of fact with no judgement cast and only in the case of further informing the reader, it is an acceptable use. Note that secondary sources are preferred, most definitely, to primary sources because of issues like review and accountability. Even so, though, that certainly does not exclude primary sources from use. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP reads "Non-public figures... editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable source." JBKramer 16:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with that passage. There's similarly nothing in that passage that that leads me to think that matters of public record are not verifiable sources, or that precedence should be given to that page over one of the keystone rules of Wikipedia. (Note that none of these records have been produced from any reliable sources, however. If anyone can make available any of the records in question, I would have no qualms about the appropriateness of including it.) The points that you bring up about being careful about potentially defamatory remarks- they must always be attributed to a reliable source, lest Wikipedia be held responsible for the remarks. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Court documents are "primary sources" and thus "material from court documents should generally not be used unless it has first been mention by a verifiable secondary source." JBKramer 16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the lack of a secondary source, it is not inappropriate to use a primary source to document ongoing events, as long as one does not draw conclusions or value judgements from those sources, as per WP:OR. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little foggy on the issue at question here. Is what is being argued the inclusion of a mention over litigation regarding hacking of the Protest Warrior website? I've scanned the above discussion and am still a little unclear on the point of contention. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The indictment, or lack thereof, of the individual who was served a search warrant. JBKramer 17:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like there are two issues being discussed which may or may not be related:
1) Is an "effort being made" to "sweep dirt under the rug" regarding criticism of Protest Warrior?
I welcome a mediation cabal and any other opinion on the subject but I disagree with Kuzaar that people are trying "sweep dirt under the rug". I don't think anybody is claiming a criticism section is not allowed. What I, and I think others, simply want is that any criticism included be from sources that follow wikipedia policy. I think comparing this article to others is helpful but I would echo most of what JBKramer said. The criticism section of Democratic Underground has two "citation needed" templates, in my opinion could use at least a few more more, and if I were active there, I'd feel comfortable ripping a bunch of stuff out, demanding sources. What sources that are cited follow wikipolicy and are much more reputable than those which were used in the criticism section here, with the possible exception of The Arizona Conservative. That being said, I've always been uncomfortable with the idea that "the entire article" falls under WP:BLP. This article is about an organization, mentioning people should be ancillary to it, and I think WP:BLP should apply specifically only to those mentions of persons. (see below) Lawyer2b 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel that sweeping dirt under the rug is occurring. I welcome a criticism section, and scolded a PW user who came to Wikipedia months ago who deleted sourced criticism. Criticism, even from editorials, from respectable sources is fine. I believe there is an article called "PW harmful to campus right" in the links somewhere - this is okay. However, blogs and open-post news sites such as Indymedia are not WP:RS. The Indymedia article continues to not only violate RS, but is also WP:OR. If you want well sourced criticism, I'm sure the Scott Robinson incident has some sources. I'll even try and find them for you. --Neverborn 18:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You see, now, I had no idea that Indymedia accepted submissions from any users. In that case to formulate a criticism section will indeed take more reliable sources than have been previously provided. I had originally glanced at the Indymedia frontpage to make a snap assessment of it, it turns out it looked more professional than it was. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2) What types of sources are suitable when mentioning negative material (in this case an indictment) about a living person?
I believe WP:BLP speaks to this issue when it states, Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims....Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject." Now, while I believe that the main intent of WP:BLP was to address entire articles devoted to persons, I think the spirit of it can be said to include not just entire articles, but mentions of persons in articles. I am interpreting it that way and, hence, believe the Protest Warrior website cannot be used as a source for the indictment charge. I also earlier thought that citing the actual public record of the document was prohibited by no original research, however, after reading Kuzaar's point that, in this case, the source is "simply being used as a statement of fact, with no judgement cast", I think I may have been mistaken. I need to go read the policy again. P.S. -- I enjoy a sincere discussion how to how to make the article better and whether policies are being followed fairly much more than dealing with trolling, personal attacks, and incivility. Lawyer2b 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Lawyer2b; editing and talking is easier without having to worry about trolls and incivil remarks. Both you and JBKramer have been coolheaded and rational in your comments on this talk page unlike the user NBGPWS who showed a propensity for all sorts of poor conduct above. One part of the NPOV policy that I find myself coming back to again and again, be it in the case of a person who has done good works or one who has done bad things, is that the neutral narrative voice of the article must never be compromised.

Many of the NPOV and corollary policies address specific variations on this idea. BLP is one of those. No Original Research addresses several things, and the ability of original research to make value statements or judgements is one of those. In my opinion, it does not cross policy to use primary sources, but when they are used, one must take the utmost care to use them in a factual manner detailing a situation, and never to raise a subject up or cast them down. I similarly think it is unfair, as I've said above, to give the readership an incomplete representation of any subject of a Wikipedia article. I've been involving myself in divisive issues on Wikipedia for nearly half a year, now, and one thing that I've learned is that the more Wikipedia editors that become involved in an article that has a controversial topic, the closer to NPOV it becomes over time. Thanks for your comments, Lawyer. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would the article from the Austin-American Statesmen qualify?
It's from a reputable source, and describes the details of this incident prior to the actual indictment.
The Chicago Reader article goes further, but unfortunately is not available outside of a pdf format, which makes the article itself unreadable, unless you reformat it as HTML using Google, which poses another problem.
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no issue with PDF's per-se (it's actually easier to edit HTML) Vpoko 20:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that if you have the text of an indictment, you cannot say that the indictment exists. To that effect, I believe Kuzaar is correct that the primary source in this case is acceptable for statements of fact. Of course, if we have a third-party source which says the same thing, that would be even better, and the point becomes moot.

Just as a note (I don't think it affects the permissability of the indictment reference) , when Lawyer2b said "Now, while I believe that the main intent of WP:BLP was to address entire articles devoted to persons, I think the spirit of it can be said to include not just entire articles, but mentions of persons in articles," he was entirely correct, though he perhaps didn't go far enough. The following is directly from WP:BLP: "These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles." Happy editing, TheKaplan 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. Who needs the spirit when you have it the flesh! ;-) Lawyer2b 00:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'd like to clear up re: the indictment of Jeremy Hammond. Why is the court's own indictment not good enough to say he was indicted? Are we to presume that the court is lying about it's own action until some random newspaper declares it truth? Rogue 9 01:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The no primary sources guideline exists so that editors do not have to make judgements about uninterperted data. As it applies to a nonpublic, living person, it protects the project against charges of libel. But, as long as we're using a primary source (an indictment) only to prove that that thing (the indictment) exists, I really don't see this as a problem. Does anyone actually have a link to an indictment or is this conversation theoretical? Vpoko 01:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I would still be careful about including an indictment, as it's not a conviction. Plus, it's just not that important that we know every tangental fact about PW -- makes Wikipedia seem like a collector of trivia. Morton devonshire 01:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the indictment-and the search warrant for Jeremy Hammond's premises-is posted above.
The issue is whether it's allowable, since the indictment is hosted by PW servers.
I assume that Alan and Kfir have copies of it, since they were intimately involved in the parallel FBI investigation, and were able to scan it for their website.
I don't think the Hammond incident-which received significant media coverage-is tangential to Protest Warrior. Granted, the coverage was mostly Web-based, but there were dead tree newspapers, e.g. The Austin-American Statesman, which covered the issue.
He's been accused-and at times, even admitted-that he was responsible for the PW hack, which compromised the data of hundreds of contributors to Protest Warrior, and which was directly connected to the very high-profile Republican National Convention held in New York City in 2004. An event that coincided with Protest Warrior's largest operation to date, i.e. Operation Liberty Rising.
Ruthfulbarbarity 01:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, that's a bit uglier, I had thought we were talking about getting the indictment from an official source, like the court. This, to me, is very shaky ground and I recommend against it.
Ruthfulbarbarity, I am taking the additional step of removing the links to the indictments you posted on this talk page, per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons which ask for possibly offending material to be immediately removed, including from talk pages. We can always repost them if the source turns out OK to use (though I don't think it is). Vpoko 02:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, the original source is the district court that issued the arrest warrant and the grand jury that issued the indictment.
Protest Warrior merely reposted the materials in question.
However, in light of the protocols you brought to my attention I've removed the links upthread.
What about the articles that discuss the hack attempt itself?
I still think that the hacking incident merits inclusion.
The actions of one alleged PW chapter leader, or the statements of someone one the PW forums might not be valid, but I think that external links to publications that discuss this issue should qualify as legitimate sources.
Ruthfulbarbarity 03:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Trolling Template
Do you think it could be removed?
Since the problem seems to have abated, at least temporarily.
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC) You can put it back now.--Tbeatty 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research and why it's bad
Please take a look at these two diffs. The first interpretation is taken from a sign at PW. It claims the support of racial segration. In reality, this is a form of parody. The leftist view is "say no to vouchers" and tying it to the obviously offensive "black children belong in black schools" is a way of calling the leftists view of vouchers offensive. In no way is it PW endorsing racism. Quite the opposite in fact. But this is the pitfall of original research and why it is important not to do it. --Tbeatty 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I find it morbidly hilarious that Inahet has the 1RR userbox on his userpage, but has not only reverted more than once, but has failed to put in an appearance at this talk page. Evidently some topics are more equal than others. Rogue 9 09:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you have members and supporters of Protest Warrior (including yourself and some others) editing the article to fit their agenda including consistently deleting criticism of and adding information favorable to the group as well as rejecting sources critical of the group (all according to the plan discussed on the PW forum) then there is no point for me in using the talk page, is there? Wikipedia is not a soapbox, keep your propaganda at PW.com. Thank you. --Inahet 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't post on (or even read) PW.com and could care less what goes on there. What I care about is the article's integrity and that wikipolicies are applied consistently and fairly. Saying the organization is racist appears to be original research. Your logic about not discussing things on the talk page appears to be expedient, since to apply it consistently should lead you to the additional conclusion that there is no point in your editing the article itself, should it not? Lawyer2b 18:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are members of the group here driven by an agenda to portray their group in a positive light, and if you want to apply Wiki policies then add balance to the article. Your logic appears to be expedient as well, since to apply it consistently should lead you to the additional conclusion that there is no point in your editing the article itself, should it not? You don't see me engaging in an edit war, and I only added the racism category only once (no reverts). I admit I was wrong in most (not all) of my edits of this artcile, although there is still evidence that the group is Islamophobic, and a link to a web site critical of PW I added was wrongfully removed by the others. No, I don't care to edit this article any longer, but if Protest Warrior is using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, then it is your duty as a Wikipedia member to counter their actions and seek neutrality in the article, even if you agree with the group's ideas. --Inahet 19:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might just be thinking out loud, but humor me.
One of the complaints voiced by people who insist that this article needs more criticism is that sources like Indymedia, the ARA site, etc., are excluded because they don't meet the criteria for inclusion, and that the only other independent sources, e.g. MSNBC, New York Times, and New York Sun-or articles from other significant media outlets-don't criticize Protest Warrior sufficiently.
In other words, the fact that independent, purportedly objective news outlets have not explicitly condemned Protest Warrior is itself a de facto endorsement, and therefore a violation of NPOV policy.
I have no problem excluding sources that do not meet the criteria for inclusion, but if the alternative to excluding these sources is that there is no significant criticism section-and this interminable debate continues ad nauseam-I think this might be a preferable solution,
Namely, subdivide the links section into three separate series of links.
Under "external links" you could maintain a link to the official PW website, and media reports about PW activities from the New York Times, Washington Times, MSNBC, etc...
You could then have a subsection devoted to supportive links, e.g. Michelle Malkin, Evan Coyne Maloney, among others, and one devoted to links of an oppositional nature, e.g. IMC, ARA, etc....
Ruthfulbarbarity 11:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a reasonable change, although I think some people will remain unsatisfied; the external links section is not very prominent. I say go for it and make the change, but we should keep looking for well-sourced criticism. TheKaplan 16:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 541: / Line 541: @@
 ::When you have members and supporters of Protest Warrior (including yourself and some others)  editing the article to fit their agenda including consistently deleting criticism of and adding information favorable to the group as well as rejecting sources critical of the group (all according to the plan discussed on the PW forum) then there is no point for me in using the talk page, is there? Wikipedia is not a soapbox, keep your propaganda at PW.com. Thank you. --[[User:Inahet|Inahet]] 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 :::I don't post on (or even read) PW.com and could care less what goes on there.  What I care about is the article's integrity and that wikipolicies are applied consistently and fairly.  Saying the organization is racist appears to be original research.  Your logic about not discussing things on the talk page appears to be expedient, since to apply it consistently should lead you to the additional conclusion that there is no point in your editing the article itself, should it not? [[User:Lawyer2b|Lawyer2b]] 18:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
+::::There are members of the group here driven by an agenda to portray their group in a positive light, and if you want to apply Wiki policies then add balance to the article. ''Your logic appears to be expedient as well, since to apply it consistently should lead you to the additional conclusion that there is no point in your editing the article itself, should it not?'' You don't see me engaging in an edit war, and I only added the racism category only once (no reverts). I admit I was wrong in most (not all) of my edits of this artcile, although there is still evidence that the group is Islamophobic, and a link to a web site critical of PW I added was wrongfully removed by the others. No, I don't care to edit this article any longer, but if Protest Warrior is using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, then it is your duty as a Wikipedia member to counter their actions and seek neutrality in the article, even if you agree with the group's ideas. --[[User:Inahet|Inahet]] 19:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 :I might just be thinking out loud, but humor me.