Talk:2004 Republican National Convention protest activity

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidential elections / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Change Explanations

I (68.77.161.150) changed Bilionaires for Bush to United for Peace and Justice because B4B was just a feeder and AFAIK UPJ coordinated the main march. (http://www.nynewsday.com, others)

Locked?

Is this page locked to the public? Edits aren't showing up.

Ar57's edits

I understand that Ar57 has a different point of view than most users who edit this page, and I look forward to the perspective he can give.

However, replacing what can be seen as leaning on the left-wing sensibility with a virulant hard-line and fact-denying diatribe [1] is not an improvement. There more are neutral ways of saying things, and the article will not be improved by conjonctures and inexactitudes ("trespassing" ??) meant to "balance" it. Much better to neutralise the original part.

Also, the point about the "Protest Warriors", which is a very valid piece of information, should be a mere mention in a broader "right-wing demonstrations" part. On this respect, I would also like to stress the point that photographs which bear no source not licence can be more of a burden than of an asset, so please try and find some which are free, or which can clearly be claimed as Fair Use.

Thank you. Rama 5 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

Thank you for your post, I hope that we can work out a compromise on this page. Yeah, I understand my POV is a little bit different. I'm actually a student living right in San Francisco, so I have a little bit of familiarity with protests and anti-Bush demonstrations. Since the war in Iraq began, I've attended all of the major ANSWER protests and Israel/Palestine ones, though I like to think of myself more as a neutral observer, because it seems that all the dominating groups (whether right or left) tend to hinge more on the extreme side. I find the rise of right-wing protest groups and the interactions of left vs right wing groups to be fascinating (since both sides aren't exactly familiar with each other). I do think many of these articles have an anti-police tilt, and bias against the target of the protests, but it's probably beyond my little scope to cover everything. Your point about the photograph is will taken and I’ll see if I can get statement from the photographer (the photos were posted on a forum).

First, I want to discuss the Protest Warrior/Communists For Kerry/RightMarch right wing protest groups and any other right wing groups. I think the fairest thing to do is proportionally represent them. Obviously, their groups were a lot a smaller, so I don't think 90% of the photos should feature them, but I do think at least a mention is important. Protest Warrior also had mentions in at least a few major sources leading up to and during the protest. [2] [3] [4] How much mention in this article should they get? I guess that's up to discussion.

I also thought the statement that "the march proceeded peacefully and without violence" was way too broad. I can recall at least few news video reports where protesters scuffled with police, and that video shows that there was a minor scuffle with Protest Warrior, and I think that's enough to change it to "For the most part, the march was...". Whether the blurb about ProtestWarrior and the video link should be added, I guess that can be discussed. It seemed to me that the blurb wasn't much less article worthy than some of the other information in the article.

Now, I want to take a look at the RNC Kicker section.

The original version says "infiltrated", and the new version says "trespassed". I concede that this replacement might not have been accurate on my part, as I think "infiltrated" is a more complete explanation as to what happened.
Next, we have two versions having a slightly different analysis in what happens on the video. I'm sure this part has a bit of subjectivity, so allow me to explain exactly what I see.
1. First, the young man in the teal shirt grabs a sign from a female protestor, and pulls it in towards himself.
2. Next, he grabs her arm, tries to pull it back, and lets go. From what I can tell, he's not the one that actually pulls her down (The previous version claims that he pulled her down and kicked her as security arrived, but security was already there when the pulling was happening). He lets go momentarily before the security guards begin to pull her to the ground. As she is pulled onto the ground, the man in teal makes one kicking motion towards the protester. When she appears to be completely on the floor, he makes two more kicking motions.
3. The camera is always kept at shoulder level during the kicks, so we can't actually see if there is contact made or not. Hence, in my edit, I stressed that it was an alleged attack, because I don't think there is 100% proof that contact was made which would constitute an attack taking place.
Next, I described that this circulated around the "left-wing blogosphere". The "eyebeam" website mentioned itself that the info spread through "left wing blogs", which it said it were the only websites pursuing this story, although I'm welcome to hear you out if that term isn't valid. I also replaced the "eyebeam.org" website with "reason.com" website, since Eybeam just referenced Reason, and I wanted to go to the original source.
The original version said "So far no public action has been taken against Robinson". As mentioned in the Daily Pennsylvania article I added (which I think is essential to the article because it has the most details about the event and because it is a fairly impartial source), it seems to me that "no public action" was taken against the alleged attacker because the the alleged victim never decided to press charges as far as I can tell (I searched her name and I could not find any followup articles). I don't believe that the whole paragraph makes it clear that this is an alleged crime committed by an alleged attacker. The paragraph, as written before, focused on the alleged attacker as if he was the man that committed the crime, and I think that is POV.
I added what happened to the ACT UP protestors because I thought it would be unfair to dedicated space to the post-convention situation about the kicker, but not discuss what happened to the ACT UP protestors post-convention. I think that's only fair.
I hope the above explains why I believe that my version presents a more fair and accurate version of the events that took place.

Thank you for reading. --Ar57 5 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)

The pro-Bush activity was minuscule by comparison. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that ardent defenders of the status quo can be considered "protest activity" in the broadest sense. There's still a question of proportionality. The pro-Bush demonstrators scarcely rate even a mention in the lead section, let alone a paragraph to themselves there. I'm leaving in the mention, but moving the paragraph discussing the right-wingers down into the body of the article. JamesMLane 6 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)

Photos of RNC Protests

Here is a wikimedia commons link to 100 photos that (I think) are far better than the ones currently on this page...i don't have time to add them myself but perhaps someone here could take on the task.[5]

The category on Commons that these photos are in is already listed at the bottom of the page in the "See also" section. Whether you think photos should be swapped out or not is up to you, but if you think you can improve it, be bold, and may the Schwartz be with you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police Provocateurs and Illegal Videotaping at Protests removed by Schuminweb

Why has Schumin removed my addition about police infiltration and provocation of protestors, and illegal videotaping of protests? I was there. I saw it first hand. More importantly this has all been documented by "reliable sources" such as the New York Times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.223.252.171 (talk • contribs) .

If it's been documented by "reliable sources" such as the NYT, then you need to specifically cite them in the article so that one of us can pull the exact individual article(s) without difficulty.

Also, it's unrelated, but it's not illegal to photograph or film on a public street. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Officer Schumin, here is your citation. New York Times article dated December 22, 2005, titled "New York Police Covertly Join In at Protest Rallies" by JIM DWYER. So, I'm putting it back up. It totally changes people's perception of the events at the RNC Protests when they learn just how sneaky the police and secret police actions were there. It totally changes things to learn that the police intended to and indeed did change the course of history by interfering with the protestors covertly. Not as police but acting as protestors. Who knows what else they did that protestors are blamed for. Its a standing practice of the police to do uncercover provocateur actions that serve to justify the repression that the uniformed police then unleash on protestors.24.223.252.171 20:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this must be kept up. It was documented by the NYT (I two read that article he cited). 63.214.252.234 09:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - this must be taken down. jkjkjk
Actually, I read the ref and it's not even the full article. All it says is that there were undercover agents in the protests, not that they promoted violent acts or the likes. So edited. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jumping Cheese but I disagree with your edit. No one said they committed acts of violence. It was a little context that explains examples of what provacateurs could potentially do and have historically done. It is worth having a small explanation of how the provocateurs could change the character of the event by their participation. It can indeed totally change someone's perception of what happened at an event if they know that police were undercover and trying to be seen as protestors. As such, some one who knows nothing first hand of the events at the RNC who reads this article will come away with a very different point of view if they don't know about the police undercover and infiltration etc.

Its a huge difference such as that between organic food and genetically modified food. Covert police actors are definitely the latter, and thus its not an organic protest.

Also the whole article is available, but you may have to pay to view it. NYT doesn't keep everything available for free unfortunately, but you still have the burden of actually reading the whole thing before you change stuff. Go to the library if you want, its free there.

I'm putting that back in.

And I have another more recent article citation to prove it further that is also from the NYT. Work a little harder to research stuff before you pull something down JC. Cuz this is very interesting stuff when you don't hear much about such tactics from the mainstream media, and the police go out of their way to lie about it.

Actually, I can't seem to make the citation work properly. You can see the new reference tags when you look at the edit code, but it doesn't appear or function on the actual page. Can some one help?

I looked up citations and didn't see how what I did was incorrect or how to fix the code. I like wikipedia, but there's still some things to work out to make it easier for non-tech oriented people to be able to participate. ~Misterman8

Merge?

Where on earth did that come from? I saw NO discussion about a potential merge on either article involved. I encourage boldness, but really, folks...

And in any case, I would oppose it. Too big, and the protests got as much if not more coverage than the convention... SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"”DN6”" :
- [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/01/1433223 Democracy Now! | New York Protesters Hold "Fox News Shut-Up-A-Thon"]
- [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/01/1424252 Democracy Now! | Medea Benjamin Dragged off RNC Floor for Unfurling "Pro-Life: Stop the Killing of Iraq" Banner]

DumZiBoT (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]