Talk:Patriot Prayer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for comment

Should the opening line state in Wikipedia's voice that Patriot Prayer are anti-government? There are sources which state they are, however there are source's which say they oppose big government. Is it neutral to have the one, but not the other? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It is well sourced, [1][2][3], also being 'anti-government' and 'anti-big government' are not mutually exclusive and can exist within the same organisation as levels of disagreement with the current governmental system. This appears to be the case for Patriot Prayer as the leader has made conflicting statements on the group's philosophy, goals and objectives.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No Anti-government is a controversial lable, if sources disagree, the article should mention both opinions, and if PP actively denys either lable this should be mentioned as well. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Both are mentioned, one at the beginning of the paragraph and one at the end of the Title section, also both also reliably source and no source mentions one to the exclusion of the other. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:NPOV " If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." This is a policy and has to be followed, PP are described in two ways, hence one cannot take precedence over the other. For anyone commenting on this RFC please take a look at User:Darkness Shines/pprewrite, I believe this a more neutral version of the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

However as you have pointed out, there is no conflict in the resourced information and both are listed in the Title Section, on at the beginning and one at the end. Also given Gibson's statements regarding 'anti-big government', to lead with it would be more controversial: Joey Gibson, '...because I want limited government," he said. "Hitler was all about big government."'[4]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on proposed lede

[Darkness Shines] your proposed lead section has far too many unsubstantiated claims that are not resourced and a few statements that are incomplete, from what I can see.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Every line is cited, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

To start with, you have no citation or support for 'American advocacy group'. The organisation has had no events outside of the Pacific Northwest and as Joey Gibson stated: “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.”[5] Things go down hill from there for incomplete and misleading statements, consider that there is not a word about Pro-Trump, yet well over a third of their rallies had Trump in the Title of the event going back to their very first one held on April 2, 2017.[6] These are just for starters, sorry but at least the current lead is well sourced.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And where exactly is the west coast? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In this case, PP had events from Seattle Washington, Portland Oregon and the Bay Area (San Fransisco) of California, so it would be those three states, but excluding the other 47 states. If sources don't say it, then it should not go in, especially into the lead section as you did. Someone on here told me that once and it is a fair measure and one that you should follow in my opinion, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Meh, it's cited now. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You also omit Patriot Prayer's beginnings as a Pro-Trump as well as 'free speech' group. This is misleading and you have no citations for anti-government.C. W. Gilmore

It is cited, citation 4. The current lede has no mention of trump either BTW Darkness Shines (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I was working on fixing that when you went off on this.... Also, you cite a source that is in direct conflict to the words of the founder of PP: Joey Gibson “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.”[7] This violates the N:POV of your proposed lead, best to leave things the way they are and not put words into Joey Gibson's mouth that he did not say, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what words am I putting in Gibson's mouth? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You cite a source that is in direct conflict to the words of the founder of PP: Joey Gibson “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.”[8] This violates the N:POV of your proposed lead, best to leave things the way they are and not put words into Joey Gibson's mouth that he did not say, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You also have no citation for 'anti-government', best to just leave things as they are, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It is cited, citation 4, I already told you that. Please tell me what words am I putting in Gibson's mouth? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And as I said, 'anti-government' is not in your citation. This is a major problem with your proposal, as you are deleting citations from the lead as well as citing sources that conflict with Joey Gibson's words, please fix these issues and others before you contine with this, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It is cited. And as you seem unable to tell me how any of the sources contradict Gibson how can I fix it? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Where is 'anti-government' stated? [9] And there are so many problems with your proposed change that I can't get to them all because you will not even fix something this simple.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You are looking at the wrong citation cite 4 Darkness Shines (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You listed the wrong citation - [It is cited, citation 4, I already told you that. Please tell me what words am I putting in Gibson's mouth? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)] which is now #5. You are making things far to complicated, trying to fix a problem that does not exist. It still does not address the problem that Joey Gibson stated the groups affected area is West Coast and not all 50 states, or that your citation does not match the facts regarding this group being limited to the area from Seattle to San Fransisco. Then there is the problem of the lack of any Pro-Trump citations or references, etc., etc., etc....C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It is cite 4. Not getting what the west coast issue is, and again, the current lede has no mention of trump. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment regarding "American". From a non-American perspective, this is a more than reasonable inclusion. As for sourcing, see WP:BLUE. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It is an inference for a Pacific Northwest organisation with a stated goal of “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.”C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@[Darkness Shine], the Pro-Trump 'thing' is still central to this group as even in their last protest in Portland on Sept. 10, 2017, members again showed up with Trump flags and hats as I pointed out to you. Over a third of their rallies had Trump's name in them and yet you insist on just give Pro-Trump a small by-line, that is not N:POV.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, Trump is not mentioned in the current lede, so why keep banging on about it? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Because it was until you took it out, Pro-trump is what they were and what they still are,[10] but you keep pushing a different agenda that the local news outlets reporting does not agree with.[11]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It was not until after Charlotteville that Joey Gibson starting singing a different tone on Trump, and you take that over his past record of Pro-Trump as you push your POV. The reporting does not fit your POV: "One rally was organized by pro-Trump group Patriot Prayer."[12] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not recall removing content relating to Trump from the lede, but if I did it does no matter, the point being the current lede has no mention of trump, and this whole conversation is about the current lede, try staying on topic. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and when I returned my post, you have me blocked. From the local Seattle news[13] to RT[14], PP is recognised as Pro-Trump by everyone by you and when I tried to include it, you called my citations 'lazy, sloppy journalism', but you are the one with the POV.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not "have you blocked", you were blocked for violating WP:3RR. And again, we are discussing the current lede, please focus on that. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because you kept taking out the well sourced Pro-Trump rally information that I put in, that is why Pro-Trump is not in the lead, you edited it out, then had me blocked for trying to put it back. Now you are going off on this rewrite to undo a lot of work by a lot of poeple without a good reason.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Get back on point, there is no need for your rewrite yet and better consensus needs to be built before you do it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec)I did not have you blocked, you got yourself blocked. Now, for the final time, we are discussing the current lede, what in the current lede is not covered in my rewrite? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pro-TrumpC. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Trump was in the lead section, it should still be there but for someone pushing a POV, over the massive evidence. It was finally put into a side note in the overview, but needs to be returned as there; just in the past few hours I have given you four more news outlets calling PP, Pro-Trump.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not care what was, we are meant to be discussing what is, either respond to the question put to you or don't bother posting again, what in the current lede is not covered in my rewrite? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

What is needs work, but not 'your' rework. You make no mention of Allen Pucket, Jake Von Ott, Jeremy Christian, Jeffery Hughes, white nationalist, Proud Boys, or any of the other provocative elements of PP, it is not an impovement over what currently exists and I don't understand your need to push your POV. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Again you dismiss the Pro-Trump connections of this group.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well no-one can say I never gave you a chance, none of that shite is in the lede, and never will be as it is UNDUE, I'm done with you as you refuse to directly respond to any question put to you, always going off topic as you quite simply have no coherent arguments against the changes needed to bring the lede into compliance with NPOV Darkness Shines (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Pr

Pro-Trump: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] It's not just the view of the Seattle Times and Washington Post, and before Charlotteville, it was central to their message, yet you reject it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Trump, more: [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] The fact that you still refuse to put it in the lead section and took it out when I did, speaks volumes.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that the existing lead section says "anti-government", and gives a list of four sources using this term. Is it possible to identify, for clarity's sake, the sources which describe the movement as "anti-big government"? Many thanks Cpaaoi (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

'Anti-big government' is at the end of the lead section with two references, including this [35] - ("I'm brown so I'm definitely not a white supremacist, definitely not a white nationalist, definitely not a Nazi because I want limited government," he said. "Hitler was all about big government.")C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarity. I note that the article is about the group "Patriot Prayer", which is described as "anti-government" in the first four sources. I also see that the two sources cited directly above by C. W. Gilmore, which mention "anti-big-government", are specifically referring to statements made by Gibson. Although Gibson may be a spokesperson for the group, I don't consider that Gibson and the Patriot Prayer group are identical. It is possible for a movement and a leader to take different views, or for one to misrepresent the other, for a variety of reasons - the leader himself may be out of touch with the movement, or fail to understand what the movement really signifies either through lack of experience or education (or indeed their very proximity to the movement), or may be a liar, or may be under pressure to misrepresent his cause (none of which I am imputing to Gibson, let me be clear - the same could be said for any leader/spokesperson/executive). If the "Patriot Prayer" group is to be described as "anti-big-government", we will need one or more reliable sources stating this, otherwise we are straying into the realms of original research and value judgment, which it is not our place to do here. In the absence of such a source, I would aver that "anti-government" suffices. Many thanks again Cpaaoi (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cpaaoi: Gibson is the founder and leader, I doubt he would misrepresent himself, we also do not know how many members are actually in the group, he organized his rallies online. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

To repeat myself, any founder or leader of a movement may have cause to purposely or accidentally misrepresent his movement as a result of ignorance, deceit, fantasy, misstatement, or misunderstanding, for the leader and his movement are not one and the same. Personal doubts are a good thing; but all guidelines and precedent on Wikipedia will require a reliable source describing the movement itself as "anti-big-government", if the page is to describe the movement itself as "anti-big-government". All the best. Cpaaoi (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I tried to suggest that both can exist without conflict, anti-government and anti-big government, especially given Gibson's radical anti-big government statement, but in vane, I tried. I gave the example of the [Three Percenters] that work security for PP events and how they are described: "the Three Percenters, a corner of the militia-style, largely anti-government movement that advocates for limited government,..."[36], if they can be both, then why can't PP also be anti-government and anti-big government.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March

This article has some information about the Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March (Vancouver, Washington), which was originally planned as the Peaceful Portland Freedom March (Portland, Oregon). In an effort to reduce detail about the event in this article, and because I think the event is independently notable, I went ahead and created Draft:Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March and invite page watchers to help by expanding the draft further. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion of the 'Proud Boys' as White Nationalists is note worthy and should be included with sources. Also you can't take Vancouver out of context of the events in Portland earlier in the day when two Pickup trucks full of Proud Boys drove through the crowded street of counter-protesters spraying then with pepper spray. It makes the events later in Vancouver more understandable.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What about just taking the current entry and putting it under a separate section? What is wrong with that, since there is not disagreement with it?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Rv, why

This edit is a clear BLP violation, nowhere in the source given does it say Gibson invited Chapman or others like him to speak. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• OK--then change the wording? Drmies (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't due to my 1RR restriction Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Why didn't you just tweak it the first time around? You know the "white nationalist" part and that he was a speaker there was verified--the only problem was the "invited", which I agree wasn't in the source. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no intention of tweaking something which will then be used to land me at ani and blocked again, Gilmore needs to read the sources and edit appropriately. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And instead of berating me, tell me if that lede is even remotely neutral Darkness Shines (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Dude, you know I'm not "berating" you. I do not understand why you would think that a tweak, to make something in agreement with the source and with policy, would land you at ANI, and a revert would not--but to each his own. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It is more neutral now, that it shows Gibson's words and actions both; yes, much more neutral this way. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: I highly doubt tweaking content will land you at ANI, as long as the changes aren't disruptive. In my eyes they aren't. All I see is a content dispute and you are no where near getting yourself blocked right now. At least I gather that much from watching this page.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I know your not, but i am getting very frustrated with this SPA who is obviously here for one reason, ignores everything I say, ignores policy, and who just makes up shit on this talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand frustration. Take it easy, and thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you attacked my contribution. A good editor would see that the entire sentence needed to be deleted as redundant, not focus on me. A good editor will see the point is made one sentence below and will even be generous to add the new sources referenced to the exist sentence to make the contributor feel appreciated for their good faith effort, IMO.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

So what's wrong with it?

Would Gilmore explain what was wrong with my edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see discussion above, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What is more important, is to ask what is so wrong with the current lead section.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Explained what's wrong with it, it violates NPOV, so what's wrong with what I added, specifically please. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It does not violate NPOV, and your proposed change is worse with misleading statements and large gaps in the factual record. We have been through this already with no compelling argument of violation and with you unwilling to change your section to match the well sourced record.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Give one example of a misleading statement Darkness Shines (talk)\

Why is it that, "...the Three Percenters, a corner of the militia-style, largely anti-government movement that advocates for limited government,..."[37] but Patriot Prayer can not be both anti-government and anti-big government; especially with the way Joey Gibson describes his anti-big government views: ("I'm brown so I'm definitely not a white supremacist, definitely not a white nationalist, definitely not a Nazi because I want limited government," he said. "Hitler was all about big government.")[38]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You are trying to say this Portland Oregon based group of a few dozen hardcore members is an "American advocacy group" as if they have chapters across the nation, just for starters.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Erm, my edit said they are described as anti government but Gibson espouses small government, how is that misleading?Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing that violates NPOV.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously there is, I quoted from NPOV previously, so please explain what was wrong with my edit, given your one about anti v pro small government was incorrect Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with the POV you are pushing and given that everything is well sourced,it seems there is no problem with the current lead outside of your opinion, from what I can see. You will not provide evidence with sources to support what you say, only your view. Please consider working on an area of this page where there is consensus until you have supporting evidence, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So there is nothing wrong with my edit then? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@[Darkness Shine] So there is everything wrong with your edit, because nothing wrong with the current lead and you refuse to provide any sourced evidence otherwise.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Erm, you say "everything wrong with your edit" but fail to point out anything actually wrong? So I'll just go ahead and restore it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I point out that you give no sourced evidence that the current lead violates anything. Why do you insist on fixing something that is not broken, is beyond understanding, unless you are pushing a POV.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Erm, I gave sources, they are described in different ways, and NPOV, a policy says we attribute differing opinions. So as there is nothing wrong with my edit, I can restore it, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

NO, as I show from my source, about the (III%), you can be anti-government AND anti-big government, so there is no conflict.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I never said there is a conflict, I said we need follow NPOV, read this again "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The optics are that you are using this non-issue as a way to purge the all the source material from the second sentence out of the lead and to add your opinion about them being an 'American' wide group.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Say what? Exactly what in the lede currently was not in my edit? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing about organising Pro-Trump rallies and provocative protests for starters.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You just reverted without even looking, it does say they held rallies in support of the presidency of Trump, and there is no consensus for provocative to be there lol, this was discused Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So you admit to changing it without consensus, why do you insist on this?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I changed it to comply with policy, you added provocative against consensus, but given your total failure to actually point out anything wrong with my edit I'm just going to restore it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It is well sources and none but you are complaining.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ain't the sources we are discussing but NPOV. Like I said, you can't say what's wrong with the edit, so it goes back in. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You can't have a NPOV without sources. You keep pushing a POV but don't provide sources that I have continually ask for, so either give sources or leave it be, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The sources are in the edit, which you can't point out anything wrong with, so I'm going to put it back, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No, there are no sources to support your claims of NPOV violations.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It don't matter how obstructionist you are, the policy is clear, the sources were given above and in the edit, so I'm restoring it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The policy is clear, but you seem to be applying it in an irregular manner without well referenced sources or consensus. Your changes will undo hours of hard collective work of many and leave out many key facts along with adding misleading and unsourced material.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Bollocks, everything is sourced, stop saying it ain't Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You have not given one well referenced source that shows that the entire section needs to be reworked by you, nor has anyone but you wanted it done. Leave it until a consensus is reached, please.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No Darkness Shines (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shine your "NO" says it all.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You refuse to listen, or follow basic policy, you misrepresent sources and persist in doing so, to the point of commiting eragarious BLP violations. I am no longer going to bother with you. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I ask for only three small changes and reasonable changes, but I refuse to listen. I post only information from reliable and local news outlets, but you don't even look at them before you undo my post and bash my sources. So please, stop for a second and consider three changes: Change the first line to: "Patriot Prayer are a conservative, Portland, Oregon based advocacy group." Then change: "The group organizes pro-Trump rallies and provocative protests in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters." You would include all the facts while staying neutral and well balanced. These points are well sourced and can be reliably defended.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent addition

Are we really going to start describing Gibson as notorious? The POV pushing on this article is fucking ridiculous Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No, we are not, but the Telegraph is [39] and you seem to hold the Telegraph in high regard as you do Fox News, except (Fox 2 News).C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This is meant to be an encyclopedia article, not a fecking newspaper, we are meant to be neutral Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps The Telegraph reporter was considering, Joey Gibson's (Patriot Prayer) known association with and draw of so many neo-Nazis and white nationalists attend his rallies including but not limited to: Allen Pucket, Jake Von Ott, Jeremy Christian, Jeffery Hughes and lots more; all in the name of “free speech”.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Telling the entire tale as reported is being neutral, but selective editing is pushing your POV from what I'm seeing. You add selective pieces from The Telegraph article but leave others out.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

From The Telegraph: "...Joey Gibson, a notorious local figure, had led his Patriot Prayer followers..." [40]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Organize the Rally section, comments

Perhaps a better way to organize these rallies (other than by date) is to group them by purpose? Pro-Trump and free speech, insertion into local politics, anti-Antifa, anti-Maxist/Communist, and now their 'Peaceful' rallies; with consideration for response to train attack and Charlotteville attack, it this way the rallies may have more useful meaning to the reader. Would anyone object?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Are so many of them noteworthy? The only one of note that I can think of didn't happen at all.--Jorm (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably better off doing in by area Darkness Shines (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines, would you lump Berkley with San Fransisco, Olympia with Seattle and Vancouver with Portland so there are three groupings? I think that would work well as 'The San Francio Area Rallies/Protests', 'The Seattle Area Rallies/Protests', and 'The Portland Area Rallies/Protests'. Would that work?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jorm, what is noteworthy are the things that have changed and the things that have stayed the same; but how those two contradict Joey Gibson's own words on the group. This constant contradiction is of note; both how Pro-Trump the participants, with their Trump flags, hats, and T-shirts; as well as inviting white nationalists speakers and participants of the likes of Kyle Chapman, The Proud Boys and Three Percenters, to the likes of Allen Pucket, Jake Von Ott, and Jeffery Hughes. It is the consistency of their presence at events that make it more than guilt by association, and bring into question Gibson's denials. We can not say this, we have to show it with the reporting on the rallies, or it would be edited out as it has in the past by lazy and sloppy editors. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:NPA Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

When the words of a person do not match they pattern of actions, both must be included to keep it neutral, or you run the risk of turning Wikipedia into their propaganda machine. This latest showing with inviting Kyle Chapman and his "There's a war on whites" speech, is just the latest contradiction for PP and the statements of Joey Gibson.[41][42]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@[Darkness Shines] but you are going off topic again; what do you think of the three region grouping for rallies, will that work? P.S. Those were personal attack you made against journalists, now that you bring it up.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason why you are demanding this change is not sourced. Patriot Prayer can be both anti-government and anti-big government as I showed with the Three Percenter example. You have picked on a very small thing and are making it a reason to blow up the entire section without good cause.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Then if no one objects we can use User:Darkness Shines idea of grouping by area. Three large areas of Portland area, Berkley and Bay area, and Puget Sound area, Seattle to Olympia.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Trump, discussion

Pro-Trump flags, hats and T-shirts are a staple feature at each of the Patriot Prayer rallies from the videos and photos showing the group and they even put Trump into the name of some rallies, this is true from their first rally of April 2, 2017 until the most recent in Berkley. It is also why so many news reports list 'pro-Trump Patriot Prayer' in their coverage of the group: [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Free speech rallies, Portland- Problem

Something happened to this section about the April 29th rally as it now has August 26th rally mixed into it. Could someone help fix this? Thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC) I hope it is fixed to everyone's satisfaction.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Where did the Bibliography section go?

All the references located in there are gone, why?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

citation needed????

Why did someone go through and start questioning all the citations in the overview, this was already been dealt with and settle?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I just provided citations in the Overview for 'anti-government', only to have the entire entry deleted???C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The citations were all listed in the Bibliography, but that was deleted by someone.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of maintenance tags

These tags were removed with somewhat spurious edit summaries given the reason I added them were not addressed, 1 source says appeared to be, not that they were there The tag was removed and the OR not fixed, 2 |Blog source, needs attribution Removed and the issue not fixed, this is disruptive editing, fis the problems then remove the tags please. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There has been an odd lack of reading the sources or research of the other available sources before questionably tagging those sources.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, fix the problem then remove the tags, your newest source is also unreliable as it is the opinion of a counter protester, so is of no use. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What you call a 'Blog' has (3%) under the caption of the photo from the newspaper photographer showing the man with the Three Percenter patch on his arm, you should look at the sources before you dismiss.[64]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about a photo, nor it's caption, it is a [[WP:NEWSBLOG] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The paper's staff photographer, Doug Brown, took the photo evidence and that should be more than enough proof, unless someone is pushing a POV.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Following our policy of WP:RS is not pushing a POV, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This is RAW footage of the event, that's why it is on the newspaper's blog page, but the photos were taken by their staffer and the captions were written by Doug Brown, as well.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Photos ain't RS Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What the reporter wrote above it is and the photo is evidence that supports Doug Browns words. This was RAW footage, but still a staff reporter.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't care, photos ain't RS Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Reporter, Doug Brown wrote, "Right wing paramilitary group the Three Percenters (often spelled III%) provided security, blocking protesters from entering the fenced area." Even without the photo to support it, the written words support the statement on the page.[65] Thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So what? It still needs attribution per newsblog Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It is the reporter, Doug Brown, reporting it with pictures to support it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

For fucks sake, read WP:NEWSBLOG, follow policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a reporter reporting with photos to support it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well if your just going to ignore policy I'll just remove that source then. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's the reporters own words backed up with photo evidence, why are you degrading this?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, just read the fucking policy and stop being obtuse. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Why does it matter the format a reporter, reports on, it is still the staff writer's words with photos that support it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Because it's fucking policy Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Really, it is policy to ignore the written fist person accounts of a reporter with photo evidence to support it, that is very sad.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• C. W. Gilmore, I'm not going to read over this entire discussion, but you should be really wary of blindly trusting eyewitness-type news. Having said that, DS, I am really unconvinced by your reasons and your tag. If we're talking about that Portland Mercury article, I really don't see the need for any more attribution than the citation. From what I can tell this Doug Brown seems to work for the paper and calling his article "the opinion of a counter protester" is silly--unless you want to propose that the photos were photoshopped. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou, I try to find local reporting, however with this being their first rally, there are only two local news reports on the April 2, 2017 rally and the Three Percenters working security.[66][67] Thanks again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• To be fair, the Portland Mercury source is a photo essay, and it appears under the banner "BLOGTOWN". Neither of these inspire confidence that the text has gone through the normal rigorous editorial processes. It would be better attributed.
  The The Reflector source (if a reliable publisher) looks better. I do note that it includes only On the Trump side, the “American Patriot 3 Percenters” served as security. (approximately 1% of the article); if this is all we are taking from the source then it's a fairly egregious WP:CHERRYPICK. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There are only three news sources on this event and two mention the 3%ers, it is of note only because there presence is so consistent throughout Patriot Prayer rallies[68], coming up again[69] and again[70] and always as security for PP.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not preferred, but it is all we have given that the reporter did not file a story of the event. The photos the journalist took with the captions, should be more than enough, but Darkness Shines wanted more so I added The Reflector citation as the only other local paper covering 3%er at the rally.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Spelling correction request

Can an admin please correct the spelling of San Francisco in the section header while this page is under full protection? Thanks. Funcrunch (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Done —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Chapman / American

I will be removing Based stick man from the lede per WP:UNDUE, America is not the world, and it is doubtful many outside of American right wing circles have heard of him. I will also be removing controversial from the lede as it was added against consensus, it is after all a subjective term. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: consensus to attribute controversial and not state it as fact in wikipedias voice. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Too late; I already did. I hope writers will look at my edit summary. While we're on the topic: a. there are way too many references in the lead, evidence that this is not yet a well-developed topic and that editors are collecting scraps (that is, every bit of media coverage); b. there are too many minor events documented in this article. We're not the news and we need not give exhaustive listings of every Patriot fart blown out by this outfit. It's a minor outfit. These are minor farts. They smell bad, but they're minor. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• I know, which was the reason for this Darkness Shines (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• That draft is not going to see publication, I'm afraid.--Jorm (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

As it is not just Chapman, but also Allen Pucket, Jake Von Ott, Jeremy Christian, Jeffery Hughes, Proud Boys and many others, remove direct reference to anyone, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Realy Jorm? Why not? Tell what is wrong with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have no intention of getting drawn into one of your tit-for-tat 3,000 response arguments, so no, I'm not going to tell you what's wrong with it. You know exactly what the problems are so pretending you don't is being intellectually dishonest.--Jorm (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem with your draft is that you refuse to make a few changes to it. Change the first line to: "Patriot Prayer are a conservative, Portland, Oregon based advocacy group.[3]" Then change: "The group organizes pro-Trump rallies and provocative protests in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters." You would include all the facts while staying neutral and well balanced. Just a thought.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• So like Gilmore you can't actually say what's wrong with it, so I see no reason at all to not add it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I just told you what's wrong with it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It already says that. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

NO, it does not, you still have the misleading "American advocacy group" from unreliable 'Entertainment.ie'. You still have NOT put in 'pro-Trump' rallies and 'provocative' protests even with many supporting sources that are far more reliable than 'Entertainment.ie'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not misleading as they are American, just because a source is Irish does not make it unreliable, it just shows America is not tho world, not everyone knows American geography. It says pro trump rallies, provocative is a subjective term, and if already says Some of the rallies have drawn controversy so it would be repition and therefore redundant Darkness Shines (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The source is "Entertainment.ie', it is not local news but 'entertainment' about the poop protest of the far-right rally. The misleading part is that some two dozen from the Portland, Oregon area, does not make them an American wide group as you are suggesting. They do not have chapters from Portland Maine, to Portland Texas, to Portland Michigan; no, just Portland Oregon with a P.O. (mail) box and a facebook page. This is why calling them a Portland Oregon based advocacy group is far more accurate and it is well documented outside of 'entertainment' sections of Irish tabloids.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It does not say the group is American wide, it says it is an American group, that is fact, not misleading Darkness Shines (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That is misleading as this Portland area group has no reach beyond San Fransisco to Seattle and using Irish Entertainment.ie site as your source is very weak sourcing. Your unwillingness to compromise stalling consensus and we have not even begun discussing 'Pro-Trump' or 'provocative'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And this is the key problem, I try and make the smallest change; but I have to have a list of references and be prepared for you to, first delete the posting, then to challenge that the information is not in the sources, then challenge every source as unreliable: but you will post information based on one Irish entertainment source. Do you see the problem?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. That photo of the dog scooping is photo-shopped.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not misleading to say an American group are fucking American, it's not just fucking American's who read Wikipedia, not everyone on the fucking world knows where Portland is, he'll theres one down the road from me. I am not the only one to say this to you btw, but as usual you refuse to fucking listen Darkness Shines (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

But there's more, even an American student paper says

Patriot Prayer, an American conservative advocacy group Darkness Shines (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

A student paper and Irish entertainment, now that is reaching. Ineresting that you consider Entertainment.ie good source but mark The Columbian as 'unreliable'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Not reaching, proving a point, I never said the Colombian was unreliable Darkness Shines (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeeze, I hadn't noticed the grammar issue there when I made my edit - must've been too tired. Sorry about that, and thanks for fixing it Drmies. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• No big deal, User:PeterTheFourth--others clean up mine all the time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines, then drop 'American' and replace with 'free speech' or 'First Amendment' where there is good sourcing. "Patriot Prayer bills itself as a peaceful First Amendment advocacy group": [71][72][73]; that's a lot better than something dug up on Irish entertainment and out of a school newspaper. Then add, "The group organizes pro-Trump rallies and provocative protests in predominantly liberal areas,..." and you can have you changed lead section.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Jesus wept, No to pro trump, it is inaccurate as they also hold free speech rallies, attend anti Marxism rallies so focusing on trump is undue, and my version says they have held pro trump rallies. No to controversial as it is opinion, and also redundant as my version already says some of the rallies have caused controversy. No to dropping American cos as I said, the world is not America, not everyone knows where these places are. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

But what about the evidence of Pro-Trump rallies complete with Trump flags, hats and T-shirts: [74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94] You can't keep denying the sources like this and move ahead with your agenda.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What I have written says they have held rallies in support of Trump. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Not prominent enough, name one rally where they did not show up with Trump shirts, hats or flags? There are none, that is the problem with demoting it to a by-line.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Moved that line up, take a look please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

But you still have "American" advocacy, not 'free speech' or 'First Amendment'; also would you please consider this change: "They have held (provocative) rallies in predominantly modern liberal areas such as Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco." ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Provocative is subjective and opinion, it is also redundant as i have already explained. The group is American, and as not everyone who reads Wikipedia is American that is staying. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, there is already a consensus to not state in Wikipedia's voice that they are a free speech group, it has to be attributed as I have done Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Then say they are a Portland Oregon based advocacy group and the fact that they provoke the far left is very well documented, just do a quick search of 'Patriot Prayer' and 'provocative' to see all the news reports besides the ones I listed.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is why my version says some of the rallies have caused controversy, like I said provocative is opinion, and redundant. Tell me where is Portland? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(BLP vio removed}) Have you done no research on this group? This is why the sources call their rallies 'provocative', it is not an opinion, but an observation.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Where is your source which says Gibson's goal is to provoke violence? If you do not have one strike that comment please, BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I will take that as a "NO".C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Strike or remove your BLP violation please. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not violate anything, just give well sourced information which is as accurate as possible, and Portland is in the State of Oregon in the Pacific Northwest of North America.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest you do a deeper look at the sources that that call PP rallies provocative as well doing your own search of 'Patriot Prayer' and 'provocative' so you will become better informed on why these reporters are saying it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Portland is in England, and there are nine Oregon's, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There is only one 'Portland, Oregon' and only one Pacific Northwest of North America. You once called me 'obtuse' among other abuses.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You miss the point, not everyone in the world knows where Portland, or Oregon are, hence American advocacy group remains. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

'American' can be anything from two countenance which is far too wide of a category for some two dozen members in the 'Portland, Oregon' area. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Listen, read, not everyone in the world is from America, do you understand that? Not everyone in the world knows American geography, do you understand that? American is staying period. The debate on this is done, and I will implement my changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"Listen, read, not everyone in the world is" use to the term American being applied only to the United States in North America. There is South America and North America and many nations in both, thus the hyper-link for Portland, Oregon, because I like many people will use that to look up geographic details of the area in question. The current page has had no problems with people understanding that Portland, Oregon is not in China, why do you?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Three people say American is fine, so consensus is there for that, two people say my version is neutral, only you disagree so consensus is against you, stop editwarring, editing against consensus and drop this. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop pushing your POV, without consensus. It is far to Anglo/English of a view to put American is the lead section as most American do not live in the USA. The United States is not both con tenants.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Irish entertainment and a student newspaper not the basis for such a change.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What the fuck are you on? "most American do not live in the USA." Consensus on this talk page is for American to stay, so drop it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

America the continent consist of uh, Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and many other countries. USA is not only one. Imagining that USA is the only one is very silly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Lol, how many people from Brazil call themselves Americans or say they are Americans? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping you would realise that "most American do not live in the USA." In fact the Americas is 5 times the size of the United States. This is a very good start for you.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

O look, another geographically challenged person, The Americas is not America. They are completely fucking different, USA is not south America,Is it ffs Darkness Shines (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There are two Americas, one north and the other south.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, given feedback at the RSN I have made the following change, diff Are you happy now? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It is more correct and less misleading to state 'U.S.A.' as there are two Americas (North and South), and most of them lay outside of the United States. This dose not even take into consideration of the cultural use of the term America, as in Latin America and so on.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Right then, fuck this shite. I compromised, you move the goalposts, There is only one nation called America, I'm done with you, I will make my changes as I see fit. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said, you are looking at this from too much of an Anglo/English point of view as the rest of the world, does not share, especially Latin America, where they consider themselves also to be American, from Mexico to Chile. Just because South Africa has Africa in it's name does not mean, that the only Africans are from South Africa, or that you can just use Africa alone to discribe South Africa.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a fairly obvious false equivalence. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The false equivalence is to say that my family in Peru or Mexico have even heard of this Portland, Oregon based group with no reach outside of the Pacific Northwest. This is a very localised group with a very focused goal of 'liberating conservatives on the West Coast'.[95]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably best to have a read of false equivalence. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably best to leave America out of this page entirely as it denotes far larger reach and greater impact than the evidence presented can sustain. This is the really issue, no one in Latin America has heard of them and few outside of the Pacific Northwest of North America care.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

... it denotes far larger reach and greater impact than .... This would be true if the adjective were "America-wide", not "American". The latter denotes only "of or relating to the United States of America". The article subject is clearly, categorically, "of the United States of America"; and it is not inappropriate to describe it as such. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

My 'American' family and friends outside of outside of US states of California, Oregon and Washington have never even heard of this group, especially in Latin America where it is not even covered in the Spain speaking news outside of the state of California, nor in French Quebec or Portuguese speaking South American. This really is just a Pacific Northwest group of a few dozen without even a branch office outside of Portland, Oregon.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

That's nice, but not really relevant. We don't make content decisions based on the awareness, or lack thereof, of editors' families. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

So you make it based on Irish entertainment sites and student newspapers, because that's about the only places that call this group 'American'. The only thing 'American' about them is that they are located in North America.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The thing that is "American" about the article subject is that it is "of or relating to the United States of America", and yes, that is because it was founded and is located in the United States of America. That thing is sufficient for it to be described as "American". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So United States of American, ie USA is therefore more accurate, thanks that works so much better than imprecise, 'America'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In English, the adjective used to describe things of or relating to the United States of America is "American"; not "United States of American". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Or use USA which is more precise and not misleading.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In English, the adjective used to describe things of or relating to the United States of America is "American"; this is not misleading to anyone with even the pith o' sense. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Re: "USA-based": I genuinely appreciate the endeavour at finding a compromise, but am not convinced of the effect. "Nation-based" is primarily used in commercial or business related contexts, and also primarily used for entities with multinational influence or activity. While "USA-based" does suggest main activity inside the United States, it also suggests influence or activity outside the United States; which is not the intended meaning, and not accurate for this article subject.
  The adjective, "American" (of or relating to USA), is good enough for article subjects as diverse as The Coca-Cola Company, McDonalds, American Airlines Los Angeles Lakers, Boston Celtics, American Nazi Party, BAMN, History of American newspapers and List of American saints and beatified people, and for categories like Category:American engineers. Articles, lists and categories using the term American (any sense) without issue number in the multiple millions. It's not confusing, misleading or misrepresentative in any of those, and it's not confusing, misleading or misrepresentative here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The compromise happened, some put in 'USA based' so no need for America or American. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a comprehension problem? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

USA is more precise and accurate, and someone already added it so problem is solved. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Addressed above; not responded to. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

An no there is no problem, as 'American' denotes something larger than a few people in the Portland area; like "Latin American" or "African American". But lets get back on topic. As Kyle Chapman has been featured heavily at Patriot Prayer events since his arrest and shows off a side of Patriot Prayer, that Joey Gibson keeps disavowing: [96]'At People’s Park, Patriot Prayer speakers, including Kyle “Stickman” Chapman, decried what he called a war on whites and said the ongoing demonstrations are a “battle for Berkeley.”' It should not be about him, but the message he brings and the platform Patriot Prayer gives him as emblematic of the draw towards PP from the alt-right and white nationalists.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

'American' denotes something larger than a few people in the Portland area; like "Latin American" or "African American". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original research, nor a platform for advocacy. Perhaps there is a blog or website somewhere that might be more suitable for this material. Here, we include content according to our policies & guidelines, we will not engage in synthesis and we will present information from a neutral point of view. For inclusion of particular theories here, one will need to find reliable sources which support them; as a whole, not as component parts. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

[97]A·mer·i·can (ə-mĕr′ĭ-kən)

adj.

1. Of or relating to the United States of America or its people, language, or culture.

2. Of or relating to North or South America, the West Indies, or the Western Hemisphere.

3. Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples.

4. Indigenous to North or South America. Used of plants and animals.

n.

1. A native or inhabitant of America.

2. A citizen of the United States.

3. American English.

Any dictionary will give you the same results, a few people in the Portland area, do not qualify as anything more than a few people from the Portland area.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in that definition supports the statement 'American' denotes something larger than a few people in the Portland area; like "Latin American" or "African American". In fact, it directly contradicts it with the definition at n.1.
We're asked to believe here that an individual citizen of the United States is "American"; two individual citizens of the United States, either alone or collectively, are "American"; three individual citizens of the United States, either alone or collectively, are "American"; and so on ... but a group of a couple of hundred citizens of the United States are not?! That's nonsensical.
We might as well hang the dictionary in the taigh beag, it's of no use for reading. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

What have they done that is 'so' American that they deserve this accolade? Nothing, it is an attribution that is not warranted.C. W. Gilmore (talk)

Patriot Prayer is not of or about the USA, nor the Americas, nor Native Americans; it is only a few in the Portland area and thus per the definition does not meet the guidelines to be used. thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Now can we get back to the fact that Patriot Prayer keeps allowing in speakers like Kyle Chapman; Tim Gionet, aka “Baked Alaska”; Allen Pucket; Jake Von Ott; and Jeffery Hughes which is why people question the words of Joey Gibson disavowing white nationalists and neo-Nazis. The words and actions stand in sharp contrast.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I refer editors to my comment above which begins Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original research, nor a platform for advocacy. If we are to include opinions about or analysis of the article subject, those opinions or analysis need to be found in reliable sources. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Then we must rely on the good reporting of local journalists that see the pattern and report it including allowing in speakers like Kyle Chapman; Tim Gionet, aka “Baked Alaska”; Allen Pucket; Jake Von Ott; and Jeffery Hughes, as well as partnering with groups like The Three Percenters and Proud Boys; all of this adds up to an extremely provocative list of actions, so it is no wonder that the reporters and journalists, report it as such. We can not make this link, but they did and it should be allow to stay as is. I only point out what the reporters observed as a pattern that informed their reporting and it is their reporting we must use in a neutral and balanced way. thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- here's the opening sentence for Identity Evropa: "... a white supremacist group in the United States, established in March 2016." It does not say "American white supremacist group". So I'm leaning towards "... in the United States" or "Portland, OR, United States", since the group is regional. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Provocative part deux

@Somedifferentstuff: I had tagged it as OR given PP have held 7 rallies, so stating as fact in Wikipedia's voice that all of them were provocative is kinda OR. And two of those sources are about the same rally Darkness Shines (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Then which of their protests has not been 'provocative as everyone of them has brought out large groups of counter protesters?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"Joey admits he’s not some perfectly pure-of-heart missionary, that he’s also a bit of a provocateur."[98]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"...by Vancouver, Wash. online provocateur Joey Gibson."[99] From Joey telling a reporter he is 'a bit of a provocateur' to the Willamette Week saying it, there is consensus on this and a lot of sources to this point. "Chapman and Gibson have both gained a degree of prominence in the alt-right, a nationalist movement designed to provoke and taunt liberal "snowflakes" they see as undermining America."[100]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Time Magazine: "Such statements give credence to the notion that these rallies are being held to provoke the left, even if Gibson has spoken often about love and peace."[101] The evidence is that this group engages in provocative actions as even Joey admitted that he is a bit of a provocateur.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: I realize you are busy on the Vegas shooting article, however if you do not respond here I have little choice but to go with the existing consensus and remove the provocative crap. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Darkness Shines, where is this consensus you are referring to? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Here Thanks for responding Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I took a look at your linked discussion, part of it had to do with attribution. Would you be okay with a separate sentence stating: "Some media outlets have described their protests as "provocative" ? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is that, THIS IS A PATTERN of provocative rallies on the part of Patriot Prayer again and again that the sources refer, thus when they held their rallies in Portland when asked not to do so after the Train Attack, they refused on both occasions; and when everyone else canceled there political activities in Seattle after Charlotteville, only PP refused and went on with their show. This is why the sources see the pattern and report it as such, so no attribution is needed given their pattern. And this does not even touch on PP interjecting themselves into other disputes from Portland's rose parade controversy to Evergreen State College faculty issue, to Berkley; they put themselves into the mix in the most provocative of ways and even Joey Gibson admits 'to being a bit of a provocateur'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Then we have there provocative list of speakers including allowing in speakers like Kyle Chapman; Tim Gionet, aka “Baked Alaska”; Allen Pucket; Jake Von Ott; and Jeffery Hughes, as well as partnering with groups like The Three Percenters and Proud Boys; all of this adds up to an extremely provocative list of actions, so it is no wonder that the reporters and journalists, report it as such. We can not make this link, but they did and it should be allow to stay as is.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:There was no consensus yet as you ignored my input.Here Look at my entry which states that the local media and journalist have reached a consensus to call PP's rallies and protests provocative, as long as this page footnotes it, it should remain.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Darkness Shines and Somedifferentstuff: Support the consensus in the previous discussion. As a WP:LABEL, if this is to be included it needs to be attributed. Not yet decided on whether a generic attribution ("media outlets") or specific attribution (naming the source) is best; the former may raise WP:WEASEL concerns. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is to use 'provocative' with footnotes as User:Somedifferentstuff suggested, the attribution is made. It is the reporters that made the link between the actions and the provoking of violence and it is wrong to not include this in a neutral and balanced way.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

• Comment -- here's some content I added a while back (diff); it was subsequently removed as written:

• The rallies organized by the Patriot Prayer has attracted white nationalists, including members of Identity Evropa, and resulted in clashes with counter-protesters. Southern Poverty Law Center refers to the group as an "antigovernment 'Patriot' group" that stages its events in the liberal urban centers of the Pacific Northwest "all with the clear intent of attempting to provoke a violent response from far-left antifascists".

References

My suggestion would be re-include it, instead of stating, in Wikipedia's voice, that the rallies are provocative. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

What's so wrong with the way it now?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If the article attributes the statement to a source, then we could hopefully stop arguing about it. :-) I also find the many inline citations distracting; sample: "...The group organizes pro-Trump[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] rallies and provocative[16][15][17] protests ...". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Anything less and Darkness Shines woulxd delete what I add. I don't like it either, but it keeps happening.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That's also why 'Pro-Trump' has five and Talk section with another 30 so it would not be deleted again by someone with an agenda.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Guys I wrote it as some of the events have caused controversy, will that suit everyone? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Not some but all were planned and done as provocative actions. Have you read what I wrote? This is why the local news calls them provocative and even Joey admits to being a bit of a "provocateur".C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As with "pro-Trump", you are attempting to water down a well documented action by PP.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Say at least 'many' and not some as 'some doesn't fit the sources.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Also SPLC piece needs attributing to Nieerrt. Just have "Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, which has lead to violent confrontations with counter-protesters,[11]" as I have written here Darkness Shines (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your rewrite leaves out everything around the Train Attack that PP did and all the white nationalist they had speaking at their rallies, and waters down so much more to making banal and pointless.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

PP have never attacked a train to the best of my knowledge Darkness Shines (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The were and are a magnet for white nationalist like Jeremy Christian and the speaker at their last rally, Kyle Chapman. But what is more relevant is their provocative rallies after the attack and their refusal to cancel which brought more unrest to Portland. This group does not operate in a vacuum.[102]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It was also not just their response to the Train Attack in April, with their April 29, 2017 rally[103], but also the rally of June 4th that coincided with Jeremy Christian's court appearance, this is the PATTERN of provocative actions that is behind the local media labeling their rallies 'provocative'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As with the local media calling them 'pro-Trump', their saying Patriot Prayer holds provocative rallies is based on the PATTERN of events over these many months of reporting on them. They have a front row seat to this group and Darkness Shines should be less dismissive of their observations or his rewrite of the PP page with be not be balanced and neutral.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait, where did my entry for the June 4, 2017 "Trump Free Speech Rally Portland"[104][105][106][107][108] go? Why are my posts being deleted? Is someone trying to alter the PP page for some reason other than facts? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)