Jump to content

Talk:Port Militarization Resistance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sedition/Criminal Acts

[edit]

Part of the activities described in this article falls under the federal crime of sedition which is described under Title 18, United States Code, Section 2388 (a) [1]. I believe that deserves a mention here. Equinox137 10:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not mentioned in any reliable sources, it can't be mentioned in the article. --Liface 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't get any more reliable than the actual U.S. Code itself that I cited, Liface. Equinox137 04:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The US Code doesn't mention the Port Militarization Resistance. An equivalent situation would be if I saw a celebrity committing a crime and added it to their Wikipedia page, citing relevant case law, although they were never charged or convicted of said crime. --Liface 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Liface, federal law is not going to specifically mention the latest fad of the day. The US Code addresses the actions involved, specifically obstructing military shipments, which is a federal crime that can result in a person being imprisoned for up to 20 years. And your argument about celebrity crime doesn't wash either, because Jane Fonda's Wikipedia article mentions treason although she was neither charged nor convicted. Equinox137 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
her trip was perceived by many as an unpatriotic display of aid and comfort to the enemy, with some characterizing it as treason; the Nixon Administration, however, dismissed calls for legal action against her. Years later, she was labeled as Hanoi Jane by her critics and compared to war propagandists Tokyo Rose and Hanoi Hannah. The reason this is allowed in the article is that "notable sources" have written about treason and Jane Fonda in the same sentence. This is not the case with the PMR. --Liface 16:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) It is too the case with "PMR". It's just that you and your friends want to bury it. 2) You have yet to explain what is not notable about the actual statutes that I've cited. Equinox137 22:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statues are notable, but not as a news source. In this situation, you would be acting as the news source. You keep mentioning that the article is biased but other than your opinion that they were guilty of sedition, you have not cited a notable person or source that have accused the people involved of sedition. --Liface 23:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I've never once said that anyone has yet been charged with sedition. That, as we know, would be factually incorrect up to this point. Second, there is no requirement that the sourcing for the actions covered in this article by news sources only - there are plenty of articles covering illegal acts (which by the way, no one has countered my arguement that these actions aren't illegal) that findlaw.com, cornell.edu, etc have been used for the legal sourcing. Third, I haven't stated an opinion that these people are guilty of sedition, I stated their actions of interfering with military shipments during wartime falls under the federal crime of sedition meaning they could very well be charged with it. Whether or not they're guilty is up to 12 of their peers, not me, nor the officers that would theoretically arrest those individuals, nor the responsible U.S. Attorney that would charge and prosecute those individuals.
Let's face it, if you've read my homepage and my other edits, you already know where my political sentiments lie. I think that Cindy Sheehan is a moon-bat, BUT she hasn't done anything remotely seditious, even with her trips to Venezuela or Cuba - two nations we are not at war with. Her wikipedia article documents her life and protest activities up to this point. This article doesn't do that. This article starts with the port protests, then tells us what "port miltarization resistance" is all about - without outlining all the potential consequences of those actions detailed, some of which can be very devestating to a person's life. Now if the members of OMJP and Tacoma SDS aren't ever charged at the federal level - and remember, they still can be - then so be it. But there are other federal prosectuors (for instance, my area of the country) that would not take such a light view of it and would love to make an example of someone committing that act within their jurisdiction. Equinox137 05:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please list similar articles that provide criticism of similar groups that cite case law. --Liface 17:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said "there are plenty of articles covering illegal acts" - acts, not groups. In this article covers actions, not a particular group. Equinox137 04:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please list similar articles that provide criticism of similar actions that cite case law. (and stop picking at straws) --Liface 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not incorrect. (Protesters who have been arrested were not charged with sedition, however.) But I fear that you would be setting a biased standard toward this article. What other protest movements must be made to mention sedition in the article? Acumensch 14:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which part is not incorrect? In this case, sedition is involved because you have people physically interferring with military operations (in this case, the shipments from Tacoma). That didn't happen at Camp Casey or any of the other major protests around the country since 9-11/The War on Terror. And yes, I'm aware that none of the protestors involved have been charged with sedition - yet. There's no statute of limitations for sedition, either.Equinox137 04:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain, with sourcing, how these "direct action" tactics violate either state or federal criminal statutes, specifically for the State of Washington and the City of Tacoma:

  • Civil disobedience such as ignoring police-designated "free-speech zones". Disorderly conduct (RCW 9A.84.030) [2], failure to disperse (RCW 9A.84.020) [3] possibly obstructing a law enforcement officer (RCW 9A.76.020) [4], depending on what transpires intimidating a public servant (RCW 9A.76.180) [5], probably second degree criminal trespass (RCW 9A.52.080) [6] and likely resisting arrest (RCW 9A.76.40) [7].
  • Locking arms while singing protest songs or chanting. Nothing illegal as long as it doesn't interfere with the operations of the port.
  • Creating human blockades to prevent military shipment traffic at ports and harbors. Sedition (Title 18, United States Code, Section 2388 (a) [8], along with some of the other state charges I outlined above.
  • Picketing Again, nothing illegal as long as it doesn't interfere with the operations of the port.
  • Die-ins Resisting arrest (RCW 9A.76.40) [9] if already ordered to move by a law enforcement officer and probably obstructing a law enforcement officer (RCW 9A.76.020) [10].
  • Nonviolent resistance Resisting arrest (RCW 9A.76.40) [11] if already ordered to move by a law enforcement officer and probably obstructing a law enforcement officer (RCW 9A.76.020) [12].
  • Banner dropping Vandalism (Tacoma Ordinance 26395) [13]

This article, the way it's written, can lead a young impressionable kid to think that "Port Militarization Resistance" to think he/she is going to have just a grand old time exercising his/her political beliefs. While I'm all for exercising one's beliefs, the many actions outlined in this article are criminal acts, as I've outlined using just local laws specific for Tacoma, WA (a place incidentally that I've personally never been to before in my life). Most of those state charges have the potential of landing someone in prison for up to a year, and while judges in Washington State might be liberal enough to let some of that slide, there are other jurisdictions in the country where that wouldn't be the case. If the purpose of this article is to educate, then let's do that - not only by spelling out what PMR involves, but also the potential, personal consequences of these actions. Equinox137 09:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it says somewhere that Wikipedia is intended to warn children away from accidentally taking part what some would consider criminal actions, then absolutely. We should also head on over to Mr. Luther King's article and make sure to put labels everywhere warning "Don't do civil disobedience! This man advocated things that could be considered criminal trespass! Oh noes! Maybe it would be appropriate to cite that many of these actions are [Nonviolent Direct Action|Direct_action#Nonviolent_direct_action] but making claims as to the legality of these acts is ridiculous.

On another note, some of your links to Tacoma laws and Washington laws are laughable. Banner dropping is not mentioned in the vandalism link, and you clearly doesn't understand what banner dropping is. It certainly isn't throwing a banner at cars or something bizarre like that. Die-ins, picketing, etc, are like you say, not illegal unless THERE IS AN ILLEGAL ACT ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. For example, I can be picketing, and while I'm picketing I can destroy property. These are not the same actions. Finally, you are reinterpreting the word 'resistance' with your own prejudicial meaning, where any resistance is 'bad' or 'illegal.' I would say writing your congress person is resisting because you are attempting to deter an action. You have specificlly decided you do not like PMR's choices, and are agressively trying to show them in a particularly bad light. I don't understand way, though. --Andrew 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it says somewhere that Wikipedia is intended to warn children away from accidentally taking part what some would consider criminal actions, then absolutely. May I refer you to some sites that attack Wikipedia's credibility for facilitating criminal acts? Maybe this [14] article to start with....there are plenty more around the net.
  • We should also head on over to Mr. (Martin) Luther King's article and make sure to put labels everywhere warning "Don't do civil disobedience! This man advocated things that could be considered criminal trespass! Oh noes! Maybe it would be appropriate to cite that many of these actions are [Nonviolent Direct Action|Direct_action#Nonviolent_direct_action] but making claims as to the legality of these acts is ridiculous. I didn't address non-violent indirect action, only these "direct action" tactics, most of which are criminal acts. Besides, I don't remember any acts King committed that constituted trespassing. (Do you know the difference between trespass and criminal trespass?)
  • On another note, some of your links to Tacoma laws and Washington laws are laughable. Why are only "some" of the links to Tacoma and Washington laws laughable? They're all from the same source. I quoted them directly from the horse's mouth, the source - the website of the state legislature.
  • Banner dropping is not mentioned in the vandalism link, and you clearly doesn't understand what banner dropping is.. I don't know why you kids think that a specific term referring to whatever flavor-of-the-day term you use for an act such "banner dropping" or "port militarization resistance" has to be mentioned in a statute in order for it to apply to you. If the officer on scene thinks the act violates a certain statute, then the arrest and charge will be based on that statute - that's how it works. In ref: "Banner dropping" let me cite from the Wikipedia article: Performing a banner drop may constitute criminal vandalism, depending on the legal jurisdiction in which it occurred. In order to avoid prosecution under vandalism ordinances, some protest groups will simply stand with a large banner in a highly-visible location, such as on a highway overpass. As this neither interferes with traffic, nor alters the structure of the overpass (such as tying the banner in place), this generally is considered a legal form of banner dropping. The first example on that page is vandalism, the second is possibly not, depending on state law. By the way, if you were to try it in my state and you probably will be at least cited for vandalism, even for a road overpass. The argument can be made that you are interfering with traffic by adding a distraction, but ultimately, it's up to the judge on whether or not he/she agrees with the arresting officer. And as mentioned in the article, it depends on the state law in the jurisdiction it occured.
  • Die-ins, picketing, etc, are like you say, not illegal unless THERE IS AN ILLEGAL ACT ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. I already said that, what's your point?
  • For example, I can be picketing, and while I'm picketing I can destroy property. These are not the same actions In that case you'd be arrested for vandalism, not the picketing, unless you were picketing on private property and refused to leave, at which time criminal trespass chrage would also be added. I never said anything about being arrested for the act of picketing itself.
  • Finally, you are reinterpreting the word 'resistance' with your own prejudicial meaning, where any resistance is 'bad' or 'illegal.' I would say writing your congress person is resisting because you are attempting to deter an action. You have specificlly decided you do not like PMR's choices, and are agressively trying to show them in a particularly bad light. I don't understand why, though. I'll explain it then. Because this whole subject goes beyond legitimate protest and into criminal acts. Most of their actions are crimes. I don't have a problem with protestors peacefully marching in the streets to have their voice heard on whatever issue they want to be heard on. I don't have a problem with someone writing a congressman on an issue - that's not "resisting", that's good citizenship. But this subject goes beyond that. The left (in this case) is protesting but this time, nobody is listening, at least not in the numbers they want as it was with the Vietnam War. (Sure, polls are down against the Iraq War, but it's for various reasons, and not what the political pundits think they are.) So what does the left do when not as many people sympathize with their cause and when legitmate protest tactics don't work? They resort to illegimate, illegal tactics such as "port militarization resistance" - a term which I've only been able to find on radical-left websites, by the way. You have the right to speak your opinion on any issue, regardless of how shocking, alternative, weird, hateful, or unusual it might be - we all know that. You don't have the right to enter someone else's property (such as the Tacoma Port), vandalize property (banner dropping in certain areas), resist or obstruct law enforcement when given legal orders (or even illegal orders for that matter), and you defintely don't have the right to interfere with military operations in wartime - jeopardizing the lives of American soldiers overseas - just to have your opinion heard. You have the right to speak your mind - you don't have the right to force people to listen to you. Equinox137 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a problem with the title of the article, which is the name of the movement itself. It's not your position to change the name of a movement because you believe, as you said, that resistance is "bad" and "illegal". For example, PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Perhaps there is some biasing in the word "ethical" depending on the POV. But it's not up to you to decide upon a politically correct name for a movement or organization you are not even a part of. I'm afraid that it is you, Equinox, who is the highly politically-charged editor on this discussion page. The point of your criticism centers around whether or not you have a "problem with protesters peacefully marching in the streets" or not. You position yourself against "The Left" as an editor. Your position depends also on your political beliefs about whether the actions of PMR "jeopardize the lives of American soldiers overseas". If you want to argue about the issues protested by PMR, then do it on a forum. As an editor who is seeking administrative privileges I am unimpressed by your inability to maintain the neutrality that you demand of others Acumensch 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that this article does link to, say, Direct action which does have a significant clause about legality. All of the direct actions that are listed and linked to have to appropriate content regarding legality within them. Acumensch 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have two points . (1) Equinox, you sound more biased in your writing than any of the other editors here. Who are you calling "you kids"? What do you mean by "flavor-of-the-day"? Do you realize that Wikipedia editors and culture has already named it "banner dropping"? You cannot impose your own views and preferences onto that. Likewise, "Port Militarization Resistance" is the movement's own name. Just like Earth First! is its own name, for example. My other point is that (2) you have cited here the article on banner-dropping, and noted that it says this action may strongly constitute criminal vandalism. I know that, because I added "banner-dropping" to this article in the first place. To list the content of the banner-dropping entire article in this article would be redundant. If we click the link to banner-dropping we will discover that it might be an illegal activity. We don't need to list all possible content on the PMR page. If Wikipedia users want to find out about specific "direct actions" taken by PMR, they can read them and find out any possible dangers involved. And that way, we also avoid labeling everything under the "direct action" category as "possibly illegal" or "possibly seditious".

  • I have two points. (1) Equinox, you sound more biased in your writing than any of the other editors here. Let's see...the liberals/leftists here = Acumensch, Liface, Andrew/Macboygrey. The conservative/right-winger = Equiniox137. Oh, I must be the biased one. Pot, meet kettle.
  • Who are you calling "you kids"? Out of the three I've been arguing with so far as I can see, two are university students (although one is a teacher). All three appear not to understand how the criminal justice system works.
  • You cannot impose your own views and preferences onto that. And what exactly am I "imposing"?
  • Likewise, "Port Militarization Resistance" is the movement's own name. Just like Earth First! is its own name, for example. What movement? All this amounts to a bunch of people from two anti-war groups (OMJP and the Tacoma SDS) interfering with the operations of a few ports in Washington State. There's no "group" calling itself "Port Militarization Resistance" that anyone has pointed to so far. If so, where's the website? Where's the mailing material? Where's the local chapters?
  • What do you mean by "flavor-of-the-day"? Do you realize that Wikipedia editors and culture has already named it "banner dropping"? Wikipedia editors (and culture?) have already named it "banner dropping"? Then, by God, it must be so!!! You don't think that generations before you haven't done the same thing? And called it something different?
  • My other point is that (2) you have cited here the article on banner-dropping, and noted that it says this action may strongly constitute criminal vandalism. I know that, because I added "banner-dropping" to this article in the first place. And I'm the one that added the notating that "banner-dropping" may constitute criminal vandalism in the banner dropping article. There was no reference to it before that
  • We don't need to list all possible content on the PMR page. If Wikipedia users want to find out about specific "direct actions" taken by PMR, they can read them and find out any possible dangers involved. And that way, we also avoid labeling everything under the "direct action" category as "possibly illegal" or "possibly seditious". In contrast, why hide it? That's facilitating criminal conduct. Equinox137 04:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not helpful at all. You need to sign your posts also.Acumensch 04:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I wasn't throwing around accusations of being politically biased. 2) I did. You broke my post. Equinox137 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criminal justice system can be explained on the criminal justice page. Acumensch 04:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however this article involves issues of criminal justice. People are being jailed for the acts outlined in it. Equinox137 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article involves a lot of things, not just criminal justice. But that's what links are for. You link to subjects which aren't directly related to the subject. For example, instead of explain what the Port of Tacoma is in this article, you create the page and then link to it, especially if that page has considerable potential for expansion. Anything that has to do with criminal offenses for the particular acts should be discussed on the talk pages of those links. I think that is an objective policy: it avoids redundancy, and let's each article adhere to its subject matter. Acumensch 09:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot change the name of an organization or a movement without discussion and legitimate reason. You're suggesting changing the article to "Tacoma Port Protests" when the proper title of the protest movement is "Port Militarization Resistance". Acumensch 04:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change anything. The name change was only a suggestion. My other, initial suggestion was to outline the potential criminal consequences of acting with "Port Militarization Resistance. Equinox137 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not two anti-war groups. There are dozens involved. Ports in Oakland, California have adopted these tactics, and I believe protesters in other port cities are as well. The mailing materials belong ostensibly to the organizers and the users. But who said there needed to be a website for this to be a legitimate movement? Is there an organization for banner-droppers? That's illegitimate criteria. Acumensch 04:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I forgot about northern California. However, it's still a small portion of the country. There's still no group calling officially itself "port militarization resistance", but a bunch of different groups that have gotten together with the same goal in mind. How about outlining the groups inolved? Equinox137 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a point to outlining them? SDS groups from four or five locations were involved at the Tacoma Port. About four or five Olympia activist groups are involved, such as United For Peace Pierce County. Anybody who reads posts on Seattle Indymedia and dozens of other news sites could have been involved, as well as any groups who heard about this through publicity and found their way to the meetings. Acumensch 09:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps other generations have called it something different. So if you have some relevant knowledge, add it to the banner-dropping page. Don't change the title of the page, just add a clause saying "also known as hanging up a banner" or whatever your generation called it. Acumensch 04:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point what I was getting at. Regardless of what it was called in the 1940s, 1960s, 1980s, or today, it still constitutes vandalism. Whatever today's college students are calling it is irrelevant to how the criminal statute would be applied.
You need to make your points you are getting at clear. You made a lot of indirect comments about my "leftist" views. It is commonsense to expect a productive answer if you ask a productive question. I'm only trying to respond to your views in a productive way. Acumensch 09:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article already mentioned vandalism. But I haven't checked on it since I added it. If your edit was helpful then there should be no problems. Acumensch 04:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Nothing to argue about there then. Equinox137 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why hide it? You don't seem to understand. (1) It's redundant. If an article mentions "vandalism" it doesn't need to enumerate everything about vandalism. That's what the vandalism page is for. (2) It sets a new precedent for articles, meaning that all articles would have to be revised with this redundant new policy. (3) There is already a precedent, and its modeled in Wikipedia's A-class pages, which don't make the kinds of edits you're suggesting, like listing possible criminal offenses for every act taken by every organization. (4) Nobody from these protests have been charged or accused of the crimes you enumerated. So it makes no sense juridically to enumerate them. Acumensch 04:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the redundancy? Aside from adding a POV tag, I haven't touched the article. To this point, the article makes no mention of potential criminal consquences for any of those actions. I'm not saying cite a statute beside every act. But there should be something referring to the legal and potentially consequences to these actions, because as I said before, "PMR" goes beyond normal, legitimate, constitutional protest. Remember, Adam Gadiyan has not fired a shot at any American troops that we know of, but he has been indicted for treason...I've asked a few times now, but is anyone going to counter my arguement that interfering with military movements isn't sedition under federal law (i.e. the Smith Act)? Equinox137 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the redundancy? The redundancy that would result, of course, if your proposed changes were to take place. Are you really interested in being productive? Or are you going to keep ask these nonsense questions? I'm not sure what kind of response you are looking for, because it was perfectly clear what redundancy I was referring to. It was a conditional clause. Acumensch 09:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interfering with military movements may be considered sedition when at war, correct? So the question is (1) what counts as interference, (2) whether sedition laws are constitutional, since previous sedition acts were expunged based on their unconstitionality, and (3) whether this administration legally declared war or not. As you might know, the US government has not declared war on any other country since World War II. Acumensch 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

Please outline how this article is biased? Explain what criteria is the NPOV tag based on? "This is not an article defending the moral position of the protests. It simply lists the tactics PMR has adopted, and the ports it has protested. That is not non-neutral. And that is exactly what Wikipedia asks its editors to do. This article does not contain "peacock terms" either. Point to something in the Wikipedia files that this article violates and then we can discuss it. But as of now it seems the "NPOV" charge is based on a political disagreement with PMR. Acumensch 14:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on this is just beginning above, but to give a direct answer to the question, I'll give some example quotes:
  • "The movement aims at resisting the militarization of ports and harbors" (as though "militarization" of ports is a bad thing)
  • "Local Olympia activists learned about the militarization of their port in 2004 and began employing a broad spectrum of tactics to oppose this" (biased toward "local Olympia activists" and against the "evil" military)
Besides that, every source for this article is a far-left website, with the exception of the youtube link, which is titled Give Peace a Chance - Tacoma Police Riot (as though the police are rioting). Then when I suggest that other references be given, in particular to the legal side - because some of these "direct action" tactics can land a person in federal prison, I'm being accused of "setting a biased standard toward this article." That's the POV issues that I see. Equinox137 04:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the article says "militarization" is a bad thing, like you said. But the article is supposed to make clear that PMR protests militarization of ports without passing judgment on whether militarization is bad. But if you believe this is not a correct description, then what words do you suggest? Look at the articles regarding the "militarization of space". Militarization is in fact the correct term to describe a military build-up, to organize something "for the production of violence" the article on militarization says. It is used by the US Department of Defense, the US State Department, UN resolutions, the EU and dozens of NGOs. Your editorial line here is very thin, Equinox. Your case against the article rests on a very ambiguous connotation for the word "militarization". Acumensch 06:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with using the term "militarization" in context to the Tacoma Port is that the port has been used for military shipments since before our grandfathers were born to theatres such as Korea, Taiwan, Gulf War I, etc, just as with every port in the country...The military didn't take over the port, so to use the word "militarization" in this article's context is flat out inaccurate.
Honestly, I suggest retitling the article to "Tacoma Port Protests" and documenting what actually occurred with the protests themselves, for example, the Kent State shootings article. Equinox137 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, It's highly advisable not to change the article to "Tacoma Port Protests" because this is an aggregate article that tries to encompass all the movement's protest sites, not just Tacoma. The article's structure is modeled after other "movement" style articles. It's not one particular incident. Acumensch 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "local Olympia activists" is biased how? Acumensch 06:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I said again. I said the phrase "Local Olympia activists learned about the militarization of their port in 2004 and began employing a broad spectrum of tactics to oppose this." The statement itself is phrased as if the "activists" are the "good-guys" and reads like it came from a radical-left source. Equinox137 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A radical-left source? It doesn't say anything congratulatory or use peacock words about the movement. That accurately describes how PMR started. How would you express the same idea in centrist words? Why don't you offer an alternative phrase and we will discuss that. Acumensch 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "learned" is biased how? Acumensch 06:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, "learned" is a word, not a phrase. Equinox137 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to be rude or funny or something? If you want to be a competent editor, you have to be more tactful than that. You're beginning to lose all credibility in my eyes. Acumensch 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about this protest group. It's not about sedition laws. There are two problems. (1) If you want to put sedition accusations in the article, then why not put sedition accusations in every article you deem seditious? This sets a biased standard toward this article, because of all the articles which describes actions that are possibly seditious (which would be a high number) you choose to single out this article in particular. And (2) Liface is right about you labeling articles as you like as seditious without proper warrant. A legitimate editor wouldn't go to a political group of his choice and, say, tag it under the category "Vice" because there is moral disagreement about its mission statement, for example. Acumensch 06:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I haven't read about any organization or group calling itself "Port Militarization Resistance." Where's the link to this "group's" homepage? There's no reference to a "group", not even in this article. This article details the actions of various anti-war groups such as Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace and the Tacoma SDS that are mad because they're not getting things their way and decide they're going to break the law to do it. And I didn't say this article is about sedition laws, I said the actions (read it again: actions) this article covers can potentially be sedition, specifially interfering with military operations. Secondly, I haven't "labelled" any articles as seditious at all, I gave this particular article an NPOV tag. I've put an NPOV tag on this one because (1) the wording is biased in favor of the protestors/activists, (2) the article does not cover the potential criminal consequences of the acts it details, seemingly in hopes of getting others to join that cause and get them to commit those same acts and (3) all the sourcing for the article is from radical-leftist websites. Equinox137 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PMR is largely a movement that grew out of listservs and newsletter-style reports. News of the movement is disseminated not from a central source. But I don't understand the point your trying to make. There are various PMR groups, but PMR is a movement, not a centralized "group". Acumensch 23:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, add some non "radical-leftist" sources, then. --Liface 23:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here lies the problem. A google search of the term "port militarization resistance" leads to anti-war, socialist, communist, or anarchist websites (with the exception of this Wikipedia article) [15], as does a yahoo search [16], as well as netscape search [17] and altavista search [18]. This is why I ultimately recommend retitling the article to "Tacoma Port Protests" or something like that and focusing on the protests themselves. Equinox137 05:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with renaming to Tacoma Port Protests, but there were also the Olympia Port Protests which were arguably bigger. That's why "Port Militarization Resistance" fits better, as it's more of a general description of the protest group involved. --Liface 17:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Precedent

[edit]

To list something detailed in an article as "possibly seditious" please cite other articles where this has occurred. There must be a precedent with regards to this. Look at articles that involve hack techniques such as DNS cache poisoning and notice there is no mention of possible criminal offenses or violations of various international and Council of Europe conventions on cybercrime, or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the US. Or take something closer to PMR, the article on Occupation (protest), and notice that the article doesn't mention "possible criminal offenses" for any of the actions which it describes as either violent or non-violent. The actions at such a protest vary so much, and so do the "possible" criminal offenses that such a list would ostensibly be longer than the original content of the article. In fact, your own list (vide supra) is larger than some of the sections in the article itself. Can you give any evidence where articles that are political, historical and categorical in nature have a list of possible criminal offenses attached to them? Or can you give any evidence of "possible sedition" that has been cited on Wikipedia? Acumensch 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) There's no Wikipedia policy stating there has to be a precident in order to do something. 2) The examples you gave such as DNS cache poisoning are exactly why Wikipedia is not considered reliable and is banned by any reputable college, for example: the University of Puget Sound. The article on Occupation (protest) should IMHO mention the criminal consequences of those actions, but my real job is hard enough - I can't police Wikipedia too. Giving you "evidence" of articles that are political, historical and categorical in nature with attached criminal offenses would be irrelevant - this article describes acts that are mostly criminal in nature - one of the offenses being pretty serious. Either way, I think you guys are really misunderstanding what I have in mind for the article, would you like for me to make an edit to the main article to give you an example? Equinox137
(1) Consensus precedents are discussed here in the consensus policy. It is the consensus of Wikipedia articles that they do not enumerate uncharged crimes or possible crimes in an article such as this. A policy regarding your own original research as to whether PMR activities count as sedition is discussed here. Wikipedia's convention on naming, which discusses self-identifying entities is discussed here. Redundancy is discussed here in the policy section, and discussed here in the NPOV FAQ about "making necessary assumptions" without hashing out an irrelevant topic. You said that you would like to put criminal offenses on the Occupation (protest) site too. Like the Tiananmen Square protest? You're going to wade through communist law codes to figure out exactly what the Chinese students were guilty of? That sounds like a difficult task, and it would be US-centric. What other pages do you add possible criminal offenses to? Is it just what you see as "leftist" activity? Acumensch 10:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the NPV tag as this seems to have been resolved with Acumensch's previous citation, and there has been no further discussion for months. --207.207.127.231 (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different articles for different protests

[edit]

So this article is actually pretty long now, and it doesn't even go as in depth as it could. So I'm looking at creating separate articles for each of the three big actions. I have a start on one at Port of Tacoma protests, March 2007, but it still needs work. Anyone who wants to help make that happen, your work would be much appreciated. :) WallyCuddeford (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already far longer than the subject deserves. The antics of a handful of traitors is hardly in need of a multi-volume history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.181.161 (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

indymedia's not a reliable source

[edit]

don't let that stop you though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.178.217 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's intellectually derelict to condemn a source without at least seeing what that source has to say, and without at least making a counter-claim specific to a claim made by said source. But hey, I guess we have different views on journalistic integrity. WallyCuddeford (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Port Militarization Resistance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Port Militarization Resistance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Port_Militarization_Resistance&oldid=1209234566"