Talk:Patriot Prayer/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Misrepresent source

• Comment: @Darkness Shines, You still have that little issue of the white nationalists not being visible at the Seattle, August 13th rally as the source state. This is different from 'not present' as you stated. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide some suggested wording? It would be easier if we all started from the same place. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

He's on about content not even in the article, I had expanded on the SPLC para yesterday but it was reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed it to: "...rally held in Seattle on 13 August and that there had been no visible white nationalists at that venue." as this matches what the source said.[1] The Proud Boys let their uniforms at home, no black polo shirts were seen. This contrasts with this Sat (10/8/17) rally where they were visible at the protest.(see my post on it above)C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Washington Times

In this edit diff, Darknesss notes "consensus". I don't see a consensus on this page, can someone point me to it? On a general note, I would not consider WT to be RS for this topic. WT has been discussed a number of times at RSN, for example: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_204#bulk_removal_of_WashTimes. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely not reliable for contentious statements of fact, as is established in the link you provided. DS started a discussion at RSN today, where the TL;DR was essentially that the source (with plenty of in-text attribution) is okay as a reference for Gibson's own words. There is still a debate that could be had over weight, but right now it sits at the end of the overview section as a kind of "response" to the mainstream coverage of Patriot Prayer which seems about right to me. DS seems determined to edit the page at a lightning pace, so I think there is definitely still room for discussion before we claim true "consensus". 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Extensive commentary from Gibson would raise WP:DUE issues for me and would turn this into a WP:ADVOCACY page. Sourcing this to WT is problematic, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you look at the last paragraph in the overview and give us an idea of what commentary would likely be undue? The WT isn't the only one that wrote a piece with some of the claims there: the SPLC Hatewatch piece also has a similar feel (IE: bad people are drawn to Patriot Prayer, but it doesn't seem like they actively advocate for it rather than sounding an unwitting dog whistle). 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how it is undue to have Gibson defend himself against allegations made, it is neutral to have that, otherwise this becomes an attack page Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean covering both sides equally, it means covering the arguments with the same proportion that they're covered in reliable sources. I think there's probably enough weight given to Gibson's claims to warrant covering them, but I can see room there for debate should alternative wording and additional sources be provided. In the absence of that, I think what we have is fine. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your basically right, but note that NPOV also does not mean having whatever bias RS have, RS can be baised but still RS, but this is not an excuse to write the article is a biased way, not saying anyone has, just pointing out a tricky area of policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

With the Washington Times being known for their conservative bias, always question the neutrality of their coverage of political issues, for they have oft times colored their reporting to match their views. They don't make stuff up, but they do leave things out, just look at their coverage of man made climate change as an example.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

What the fucking fuck is wrong with this?

Valerie Richardson writing in the Washington Times has said that critics of Gibson have argued that his rallies, even though they are not sponsored by white nationalists do attract those with racist outlooks. The SPLC have noted that the organizers of the 7 August 2017 rally had “promised the critics who talked with them that racist elements had been denounced and uninvited from the rally.” but that the Proud Boys, and members of Identity Evropa (IE) as well as local IE leader, Jake Van Ott were seen at the event. Gibson says that people who are affiliated with IE have appeared at his events, but has made it clear they were unwelcome and has ejected them when possible. Gibson also says “It’s a constant problem because we get these random people that are trying to provoke and they’re trying to agitate,”

Other than Gilmore trolling me? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

We can start with the abusive language and then move on to your first paragraph is not well sourced taking it all from just one place without other confirming sources. It give too much weight to just this one source.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You'll be getting abusive language soon enough if you pissing me off Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please strike through this comment. You are beginning to make abusive remarks and should consider cooling off for a while. Please heed Gilmore's advice about refraining from this gratuitous use of this type of language. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This paragraph is problematic for many of the same reasons we described above. The overview section should not launch into a description of what Patriot Prayer supposedly "isn't". Gilmore is also correct that the sourcing is weak. You are essentially quoting Gibson's own defense about the group, which must be evaluated and weighed against what secondary sources have said about the group. The current wording of the section does that, using Gibson's responses where necessary. What about the current overview do you take issue with? I hope you take the "cooling off" seriously. There really is no rush... we'll be around to help figure it out once you can answer with a slightly calmer mind. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Per the consensus at the RSN board that the source is RS I will be restoring this later today, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:You have no consensus and I would recommend against it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @C. W. Gilmore: here is a link to the RSN discussion. Please review it, and if you have any counterarguments post them there to get input from some uninvolved editors. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And IP/207 note this revision, I had moved the para to the end Darkness Shines (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, given the proper placement I have no objections. We may want to consider cleaning up the references to various rallies in the overview section once the general content issues are ironed out. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:, if your change is limited to the 'overview' as you have stated, I will not object or interfere, though I may fix that issue with no white nationalist visible.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not without consensus you won't, the para is accurate to the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

References

You want to stick to the issues of recording accurately from the sources, stop making this personal.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Gibson"?

What's his/her first name? Every time this articles speaks of "Gibson", it's as thouh "Gibson" has already been introduced. Is it a mononymic? Ideally, the lead should stand independent of the body, and both should introduce significant characters separately, but at present neither of them does. This is almost as bad as Talk:Donald Keene#Lee? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

His first name is Joey, it was in the lede but seems to have been removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it, the first mention is know 'Joey Gibson'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I noticed all mention's of Joey Gibson have been shortened to just the last name, very odd.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to introduce him again in overview. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Lede

Right we are doing this one fucking line at a time.

Opening line currently says,

"Patriot Prayer is a USA-based right-wing, anti-government group based in Portland, Oregon, United States. Patriot Prayer describes itself as advocating free speech, and opposing big government."

I wrote

"Patriot Prayer are a conservative advocacy group based in Portland, Oregon, United States.They have been described as being anti-government, but state they oppose big government."

How is this against consensus? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

There is already Anti gov consensus to attribute anti-government There is also consensus to say Portland, OR, United States Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You are not going to get your version of the lede. It is that simple. You've been told this for weeks now and all you do is edit war about it. You should step back.--Jorm (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No I am not, as it is not my version, and either respond to the question or why bother responding at all? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If there are no response to this I shall assume no objections and move onto the next issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness: with this edit, you changed "right-wing" to "conservative": diff. There has been no consensus for this. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did change that, this is due to there being disagreement between the sources, some call them right wing, others call them conservative, given Gibson self identifies as conservative libretarian I figured that was the more neutral way to describe them, the next line I had put they have been described as right wing, which is also how it is written in the body. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness: Consensus was reached on using 'right-wing' in August and you were a part of that discussion. If Fox News calls them, "Members of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer..." then it fits.[2] Also, as the group's actions have shown, you can't give undue weight to the words of Joey Gibson as they do not always match the actions of the group.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed for that consensus please, per NPOV we cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that they are right wing as we have sources calling them conservative Darkness Shines (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And we have sources like I quoted saying they are 'right-wing', but all of that was worked through and you were a part of that discussion (I watched).C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm no longer going to respond to you, given you simply ignore everything i say. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Just pinging you so you know I responded to your previous comment Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Take a look here. Specifically:

I've replaced "alt-right" with "right-wing" in the lede per the AP, while leaving the BBC reference to the alt-right in place. Hopefully that's clearer.
— User:Sangdeboeuf 16:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

yup, that's grand.
— User:Darkness Shines 16:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Gilmore was right. You WERE part of the discussion. I also take issue with the decree you made above. 12 hours of lag time on a talk page is not long enough to claim consensus. Please slow down, as we're not on a deadline here. Is there a reason this wording is no longer acceptable? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And since then sources have been calling them conservative, so per policy it is no longer acceptable Darkness Shines (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Since then they are also calling them "right-wing" as in this Fox News report from yesterday: "Members of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer were met with counter-protesters near the Portland Marathon Sunday."[3] "An organized rally by right-wing group Patriot Prayer started at 2 p.m. in Terry Schrunk Plaza. Counter protesters were also present to protest the rally by Patriot Prayer."[4] "Federal police arrested one man at a sparsely attended right-wing rally today, after finding a rifle stowed in his scooter."[5] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: You can't keep making changes just because you feel like it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I would not agree to changing "right-wing" to "conservative" in the lead, as this was the consensus reached at "Cleaning up the lead" discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, keep right wing, is the rest alright with you? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not really as every time you change things, the Pro-Trump aspects gets reduced and reduced again. Look at the just the latest rally (10/08/17) that was again filled with Trump flags, t-shirts, and red Trump hats; your changes keep minimising these constant aspects of their rallies.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Patriot Prayer are a right wing advocacy group based in Portland, Oregon, United States.They have been described as conservative and anti-government, but state they oppose big government. They have held rallies in support of free speech[5] as well as the presidency of Donald Trump,[6] in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters.[7 Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, which has lead to violent confrontations with counter-protesters,[8] however Joey Gibson, a Japanese-American,[9] has repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism.[10][11] The group describes itself as free speech advocates,[12] who are exercising their first amendment rights.[13] Patriot Prayer has been connected to the alt-right,[14] a charge Gibson denies.[15]"

Everyone happy with this? It is essentially K.e.coffman lede with the proposed tweaks given in that discussion, Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

-The current sentence says 'many' not 'some', as the list of rallies that did not have a presence of is few. [Many of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists,[23] although Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has said he denounces racism and extremism.] In fact the Proud Boys were out again in the crowd, just this Saturday (Oct. 8) in their black polo shirts with yellow pin strips and Trump hats.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

-Also, Joey Gibson's ethnicity is no more relevant than the fact that he is an ex-con as he admits to that in the interview along with having parents of Irish and Japanese ancestry. It needs to go.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

-The 'but' between 'anti-government' and 'opposing big government' should be an 'and' as there is no contradiction between them, you can be both.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

October 8, 2017 rally and march

-Just getting the first reports of the protests and counter protests coming in[6] with these unpermitted events starting at Terry Schrunk Plaza at 2 p.m., appears planned to coincide with the Portland Marathon's start/finish just two blocks away.[7]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

-"Federal police arrested one man at a sparsely attended right-wing rally today, after finding a rifle stowed in his scooter." "The man's affiliation wasn't immediately clear this afternoon, though he appeared to have shown up in support of Patriot Prayer."[8][9]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

-It also appears white nationalist, Proud Boys, were present in their signature 'black Fred Perry polo shirt with yellow pin strips' as seen in the background @1:52 in the reporting.[10] And at 8:00[11] of KATU 2 News live feed of the rally.[12]@ 0:32 into the video.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Summary: The protest rally and march held on Saturday, October 8, 2017 in downtown Portland, Oregon, was held just blocks away from the Portland Marathon start and finish. It was notable for being much more peaceful, and drawing smaller crowds of protester and counter-protesters than past Portland rallies, also for the arrest of a Jeremy Christian supporter for fire-arms at a federal park. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Want to know if this could be posted to the 'Portland Area Rally' section with citations or does someone have changes they wish to make? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it normal for wikipedia to detail every rally a group does? wouldn't this lead to excessively long wikipedia articles? But it's fine with me if you add this rally to the article, just make sure to source stuff well, it would be OR to draw conclusions about wether there were Proud Boys from the video. Tornado chaser (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Proud Boys was an observation from watching the live television feed from the reporting, so it did not go into the summary that I wish to post, only the information from the links above are included. I think with time some of the less notable ones like their anti-sharia law rallies can go away, but this one is notable for that armed Jeremy Christian support that showed up walking around the park with his banana clip and not for much else. I hope next weekend's rally in Salem, Or will be even quieter.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• This rally is not remotely notable, I oppose adding a para dedicated to it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine I will rework it down to two sentences and combine it with an existing paragraph, is that OK with you?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Rose parade

Can anyone tell me why this was removed?

• Following the cancellation of the rose parade due to threats of violence against the Multnomah County Republican Party who were to take part in the rally, allegedly from anti-fascist groups,[68] Gibson organized a 'March for Free Speech' to occur on the 29th of April 2017.[69] Gibson told the Guardian, "We are going to continue with our rally. There is no way that we will stop. It is even more important that we come out with a strong message of love.”[70] There were an estimated 60 counter protesters and police said there had been three arrests.[71]

Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I can only guess that someone this was a better version: 'On April 29, 2017, Gibson organized a "March for Free Speech" in Portland, Oregon after organizers cancelled a planned parade due to fears of violence between opposing political groups.' -but that is only a guess as I had no part in it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well there was no consensus for that, btw you are being discussed on WP:ANI Darkness Shines (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There was no consensus for most of your changes and you did not bring them to this page first to even be considered, until know. As for this latest attempt to ban me, I would expect nothing less.

Back on Topic: As the currently stands, what is wrong with it?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm putting it back. I never started that ANI thread, so please dont accuse me of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

And I never said you did DS. Now stay on topic, what is wrong with the current condensed line that warrants change?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ya you did, and as there wss no consensus for the para to be changed I'm putting it back till consensus is reached for the change. Darkness Shines (talk)○

You might just want to ping the person that made the change first so you don't get into another edit war.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Overview II

As the issue with the times sorted we go on to my next edit which was reverted, opening of the section. I condensed it to

Described by the Associated Press and CNN as a right-wing group. [16][12] They have also been described as anti-government.[17] Patriot Prayer has held rallies from the San Francisco Bay Area[18] to Seattle,[19] in areas known as centers of liberal politics.[14]

• From

Described by the Associated Press as a right-wing group,[27] Patriot Prayer has held rallies from the San Francisco Bay Area[28] to Seattle,[29] in areas known as centers of liberal politics.[30]

The CNN bit is mixed in the next para with SPLC stuff.

What are the objections to this please? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused; your condensed sentence is actually longer than the existing sentence? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It is longer as i had move CNN has also described them as right wing from the paragraph below, I was unclear sorry. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, my bad, the Anti gov bit shouldn't be there yet. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for in-text attribution for "right-wing". We could trot out dozens of sources that use that language. How about "Patriot Prayer is a right-wing group that has held rallies from the San Francisco Bay area to Seattle, in areas known as centers of liberal politics." 207.222.59.50 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Ya that's fine by me, OK to go ahead and change that then? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Done that, do you object to my adding "They have also been described as anti-government"? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't object, and I agree with avoiding wiki-voice to make that statement. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, do you also think it ought not be in Wikipedia's voice in the lede? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to TC's thoughts regarding the "anti-government" part. It seems like this is a vestige of Joey Gibson's personal politics, and was picked up on in the earlier reporting. It seems like the group identifies more as "anti-big-government" which has much different connotations. I'd like to hear a few more opinions before we make a change to the lede. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Next up, I had added this content sourced to the SPLC

• The Southern Poverty Law Centre(SPLC) does not list Patriot Prayer as a hate group, nor list Gibson as an extremist. David Neiwert, writing for the SPLC's blog Hatewatch has accused Patriot Prayer of 'trolling' the northwest with the intention of provoking a response from far-left antifacists. Neiwert also commented on Gibson's denunciation of neo-Nazis and white supremacists at a rally held in Seattle on 13 August and that there had been no white nationalist members seen at that venue. Neiwert has also noted that Patriot Prayer’s rally in Seattle of August 13, 2017 the day after the Unite the Right Rally in Charlotteville, saw the group’s leader, Gibson, denounce white supremacists and neo-Nazis. However, Gibson had attended a march which also which also saw members of Identity Evropa in attendance one week previously in Portland, Oregon.

It was placed second para from the bottom, objections to this please? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph and the next to last paragraph have a lot of the same content. Would it be best to try to combine them? Here is a clumsy attempt.

According to the BBC, the group is "considered to be connected with the alt-right" and has been associated with extremist groups despite efforts to distance themselves. The group's leader, Joey Gibson, maintains that the group's message is unity and freedom of speech. Gibson has also said he aims to "liberate the conservatives on the West Coast" . According to David Neiwert, writing in the Southern Poverty Law Center blog, Hatewatch, Patriot Prayer rallies have been held with "the clear intent of attempting to provoke a violent response from far-left antifascists". Neiwart noted that Gibson denounced white supremacists and neo-Nazis during the 13 August rally in Seattle the day after the Unite The Right Rally in Charlottesville, and that Gibson also contends he has taken steps to exclude white supremacist groups. During the 13 August rally in Seattle such groups had no obvious presence; however, a week earlier another rally in Portland, Oregon led by Gibson included white-supremacist groups, some of which were prolific and active in the Portland area. The Southern Poverty Law Centre(SPLC) does not list Patriot Prayer as a hate group, nor list Gibson as an extremist.

This might have cut up some sources or thoughts. Just trying to trim some of the repetition. Also, regardless, the second BBC ref needs fixed in the current version. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops, this para is still there, TC must not have reverted back as far as I had thought, but there is repition as you say, let's deal with the BBC stuff below the concentrate on this. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I had written the BBC bit as

• According to the BBC Patriot Prayer have been connected to the alt-right as well as other far-right groups,[14] Gibson denies this saying the group is neither white nationalist or alt-right, saying they support “freedom, love and peace".[20] The group's stated aim is support of First Amendment, free speech and to “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.”[21]

And had combined the SPLC stuff into the one para. Thoughts? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The last line in that is from Mr Gilmore btw Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me fixing the indent on your comments to help me keep track of the discussion. I'm okay with changing the first sentence to that one with a copy edit. Also, would you then prefer to change the remaining to text to the combined paragraph I suggested or do you have an alternate in mind? Placement for this would be the second paragraph in the overview, right? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the indents, I've been sick for a week and my heads a bit fuzzy. Placement is second para yes, give me a few hours to look at what you have proposed and I'll try combining both versions Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

How's this?

David Neiwert, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Centre(SPLC) blog Hatewatch has accused Patriot Prayer of 'trolling' the northwest with the intention of provoking a response from far-left antifacists Neiwart noted that Gibson denounced white supremacists and neo-Nazis during the 13 August rally in Seattle the day after the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, and that Gibson also contends he has taken steps to exclude white supremacist groups. During the 13 August rally in Seattle such groups had no obvious presence; however, a week earlier another rally in Portland, Oregon led by Gibson saw members of Identity Evropa in attendance. The SPLC does not list Patriot Prayer as a hate group, nor list Gibson as an extremist.

Thoughts, Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Had to drop "prolific and active" as not in the source, will see if I can find one for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• David Neiwert said the white nationalist were not 'visible' at the August 13th rally, not that they were not there.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutral, but poor wording, a rally attended a march? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks that gave me a laugh, please copy edit it, Darkness Shines (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this better: "rally held in Seattle on 13 August and that white nationalists had not been visible at that venue." I wanted to leave as much of DS' version as possible, but I think this is better.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this paragraph, but should not be the one to copy edit it as I would probably be clumsier. DS, this would then go in place of the second to last paragraph in the overview section? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, second to last para. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Seattle rallies

Are pretty much non notable, anyone mind if I wrap them up into one para! ? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I remember there being tons of coverage about the August 13th rally, so as long as that one still gets its proper due I don't think there's anything wrong with combining them. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Joey Gibson (political activist)

Draft:Joey Gibson (political activist) may be of interest to contributors here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You'll be lucky to find enough RS to create a decent article, the source you have is about the only one which gives any detail on him. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it WP:TOOSOON for an individual article; anything worth including can be covered in this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Does this article need an infobox? I find it hard to determine things such as when it was formed, who its current leaders are, and how many members it has from looking at the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is against one, there was one but only two fields could be filled, so it was a bit useless Darkness Shines (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Was there a discussion somewhere? I can't find one in the talk archives. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You have started it. The group is not even a year old with Joey Gibson as the leader and his wife as manager, all run out of their Vancouver Washington home, with a mailing address in Portland, Oregon. -There really is not much to put into the info box, but I don't object.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, was thinking of another article, but I did remove the one here for the reasons I gave. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer

Formation	2017
Founder	Joey Gibson
Website	www.facebook.com/pg/PatriotPrayerUSA/about/

If this is all there is, it's probably not worth it, especially if there's no image/logo that can be used. Apparently they don't even have a website, just a FB page? power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ya, that's the one I removed, and ya, only an FB page Darkness Shines (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Do they also have a YouTube page? I see their stuff all over it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Joey Gibson does: [13]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Too soon for an infobox, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Given the accusations of PP being neo-nazi/white supremacists I see nothing wrong with having Gibson's ethnicity mentioned, I am not the first to add this BTW, it was in the lede for quite some time. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Being in the lead for a long time means nothing, vandalism has been in the some articles for a long time, it should still be removed on sight, I see where ethnicity is relevant but we don't normally list the race of anybody we write about do we? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Do we not? African Americans, article says Obama is african American, and we have Lists of African Americans, and we have List of Japanese Americans, so it appears we do mention ethnicity. And if as you say you see that it is relevant then why remove it? And do you have any reason for it not to be mentioned? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The way in which it was mentioned sounded odd, I am not against the article mentioning his ethnicity however. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead changes

I restored prior version that was agreed to at the archived discussion at Talk:Patriot_Prayer/Archive_3#Cleaning up the lede. Sorry about undoing the ref formatting changes, but the lead is just too different from what was discussed: diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes there are, consensus is to attribute anti government There is also consensus to say Portland, OR, United States that was essentially the consensus lede with those changes as well as the proposed tweaks suggested in the discussion, what exactly is wrong with it please. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comparing Lede Revisions
Old	New
Patriot Prayer is a right-wing, anti-government[5] group based in Portland, Oregon, United States. Patriot Prayer describes itself as advocating free speech,[6][7] and opposing big government.[8][9] The group organizes pro-Trump[16] rallies and controversial protests in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters.[7][17] Many of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists,[23] although Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has said he denounces racism and extremism.[24] Patriot Prayer has been connected to the alt-right, a charge Gibson denies.[25]	Patriot Prayer is a right-wing advocacy group based in Portland, Oregon, United States. They have been described as conservative[1][2] and anti-government,[3] but state they oppose big government.[4] They have held rallies in support of free speech[5] as well as the presidency of Donald Trump,[6] in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters.[7] Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, which has lead to violent confrontations with counter-protesters,[8] however Joey Gibson, a Japanese-American,[9] has repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism.[10][11] The group describes itself as free speech advocates,[12] who are exercising their first amendment rights.[13] Patriot Prayer has been connected to the alt-right,[14] a charge Gibson denies.[15]

I bolded the problematic portions (for me). We can't really call them an advocacy group. Omitting "anti-government" doesn't mean we need another adjective here. We can simply say group. As far as conservative: it was discussed above. It makes no sense to describe them as "right-wing" and then in the next sentence say conservative. That's like saying something which has already been called a "tulip" has also been described as a "flower"... well, of course! As far as the "free-speech" rally before the pro-Trump or controversial rallies: this is simply undue. Even the source you highlighted uses "free speech" in quotes, to make it rather clear that this is simply the group's description of the rally, not what the rally actually was primarily about. And finally, including another sentence about what the group describes themselves as seems undue. Overall, the current version is just more neutral and better worded. It could be improved, but I don't think your edit is an improvement. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There is consensus to not use the label anti-government and also a consensus for "group based in Portland, Oregon, United States" also USA is against MOS, another editor brought the issue up. So we can swap free speech and trump around, either drop that free speech bit and leave The group describes itself as free speech advocates,[12] who are exercising their first amendment rights.[13] Given they hold free speech rallies means it is not UNDUE to have that it the lede, which is meant to be a summary of the article. I am also not worried about dropping conservative Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As for advocacy group, that's what they are, Patriot Prayer advocacy group LA Times Patriot Prayer is a self-described "peaceful First Amendment advocacy group The group Patriot Prayer, which condemns violence and advocates for free speech Darkness Shines (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of the LA Times sources, these aren't that high quality. The problem I see with calling them an advocacy group is that the next logical question is what do they advocate for? The group's claim that they advocate for free speech is not what is primarily notable about them in RS (even if some RS quote the group citing itself as a "free speech advocacy group" it's not what those RS describe the group as). Most call them just a "right-wing" group that organizes Pro-Trump rallies and highlight their unfortunate white supremacy problem.207.222.59.50 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Recommend you look at the overview section were it says Trump stuff has been scrubbed from their rhetoric. And why has my anti gov change been reverted when that has consensus? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverted again II

This edit has consensus so why was it reverted? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I moved "anti-government" from the lead into the overview as contentious: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Mind if I put they are in favour of small government? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead already includes: "Patriot Prayer describes itself as advocating free speech,[1][2] and opposing big government.[3][4]" -- I believe that this is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The lede is meant to be a summary of the body. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Not far right?

Regarding this revert diff, removing "far-right rallies", here's the PP profile by Spenser Sunshine of Political Research Associates:

• "Joey Gibson is a Far Right activist who, since March 2017, has made a name for himself by organizing confrontational rallies in liberal enclaves on the West Coast that have frequently descended into violence. Based in Vancouver, Washington (located across the Columbia River from Portland, Oregon) Gibson organizes events under the name Patriot Prayer. He draws support from the Patriot movement, the Alt Right and fascists, homophobic Christian nationalists, and right-wing bikers. link

The source that was removed, SPLC, specifically called the rallies far-right:

• "Joey Gibson and his Patriot Prayer organization may have a problem: He keeps trying to depict the anarchists and antifascists who show up to oppose his far-right rallies as the sources of the violence that surround them." link.

These two sources are RS on the topic of right-wing groups. Also, here's LA Times: "Scuffles break out during far-right march in Berkeley".

I don't believe that the revert was justified, since the content that I added matches what the source says, supported by other sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The revert is fully justified as they are not a far right group, and given they organize free speech rallies, not far right ones also justifies it. And that PRA source is junk, it is opinion Darkness Shines (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't be so quick to dismiss sources. Here's a brief bio of Sunshine from the bottom of the page ("Gibson and Patriot Prayer"):

• Spencer Sunshine, Ph.D. (associate fellow) researches the Patriot movement, unorthodox fascist currents, left/right crossover movements, and left-wing antisemitism. He is the lead author of the 2016 report Up In Arms: A Guide to Oregon’s Patriot Movement, which is a collaboration between PRA and Oregon’s Rural Organizing Project.

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

From the actual bottom of the page, "This entry was posted in Eyes Right Blog by Spencer Sunshine" Note the bolded part. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The Eyes Right Blog is part of the PRA web site: http://www.politicalresearch.org/category/blog/. It's not a "blog" as in self-publishing, which generally refers to a single person's blog, website or self-published book. The PRA is not a self-published source, but rather an editorial entity with an identifiable editorial structure. The piece is bylined to Sunshine.

If you have concerns about this source, the better venue may be WP:RSN. In any case, PRA is not the only source that describes PP's events as "far-right". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

How do we determine if a rally is far-right? We already describe PP as a right-wing group, is also saying far-right necessary? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this describes a "far-right" event:

• Gibson had received a permit for a June 4 rally in downtown Portland before Christian’s alleged double murder, and despite widespread condemnation, refused to cancel the rally. Thousands of people showed up to protest. Gibson was joined by a variety of Far Right actors, including the Oath Keepers (including leader Stewart Rhodes) and 3%ers; fascists from Traditionalist Worker Party, Identity Evropa, and Cascade Legion; and Alt Right activists, including the Proud Boys and Kyle “Based Stickman” Chapman. At the rally, Rhodes swore in Gibson’s associate Toese as an Oath Keeper.

I believe it's important in the lead to describe the nature of the events as not just pro-Trump. And that's how the sources describe them. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a blog in that it needs attribution per NEWSBLOG. What you posted describes a lot of far right people turning up at a rally which was billed as a free speech event. Gibson holds those, I've not seen one billed as being far right, opinions cannot be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice, it is against policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Just a gut check: they should absolutely be labeled as far-right as that is the most accurate term. It is more descriptive than "right-wing". There were discussions about this already in the archives, DS. Coverage of PP in the mainstream media has not significantly changed since then. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The majority of sources say PP are right wing, we can't label people far right without solid sources Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Right wing seems like a good descriptor, does anyone disagree? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it simply isn't strong enough. They are primarily known because they tend to attract extremist elements to their rallies. Some say that is because they themselves are far-right, some will leave it at the fact that those groups (far-right or alt-right) are just drawn to their messaging. Either way, waiting until the last sentence of the lede to mention that they are called far-right or alt-right just doesn't strike the right balance.

• http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/08/28/joey-gibson-vancouver-based-far-right-leader-rescued-by-police-from-anarchists-in-berkeley/
• https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/2017/08/24/bay-area-preps-to-protest-alt-right-rallies-with-clowning-dance-song/
• http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/08/27/joey-gibson-berkeley-rally/
• http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/08/31/preacher-aligned-with-portland-area-far-right-group-promises-bloodshed-at-future-rallies/
• http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/08/25/far-right-group-cancels-bay-area-patriot-prayer-event/
• https://www.timesofisrael.com/ironic-adopt-a-nazi-fundraiser-surpasses-150k-goal/
• http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/26/berkeley-far-right-group-set-for-2-p-m-rally-at-sproul-plaza/
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/02/alt-right-celebrities-rally-portland-train-stabbing

We actually already reference many of these in the article. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Like i said, the majority of sources describe PP as right wing, given PP is primarily one person BLP applies here, we go with what majority of sources say. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Far-right is a subset of right-wing, it's just more descriptive. Since most sources talking about patriot prayer talk about them in reference to the extremists they've drawn in, or call them far-right out right, my point is that this deserves more prominence in the lede. I'm open to wording that connects them more strongly to far-right ideologies than just the last little tidbit in the lede. I'll ponder it over night and see if I can make any suggestions. I added a few more. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I can find endless sources that say the Republican party is right wing. That doesn't mean they believe it's actually far right but they're choosing to use the less specific term, and if I can find a few sources that call the party "far right" that all sources implicitly support it. That's a garbage argument and original research to boot. When the description sources use most often is also the least contentious and most neutral, that's the one we use. 173.244.36.34 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I presented sources above for "far-right":

• Far Right activist ... Political Reseach Associates
• many far-right rallies ... SPLC
• far-right march ... LA Times

I believe that the compromise that I offered: "...pro-Trump and far-right events..." is a good one. It does not describe the group overall as far-right, but their events. For example, last month's PP speakers included Kyle "Base Stickman" of Proud Boys. His address to the crowd included a mention of the "war on whites" which I assume is the code phrase for the alt-right's White genocide conspiracy theory.

If one has such speakers, it's no surprise that the events are described as "far-right". What are the community's thoughts on adding "far-right events" in the lead? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No, first two sources you present are blogs and need attribution, and just because those on the far right turn up at a free speech rally does not make said rally a far right one. You are quite simply implying Gibson holds far right events, which is a BLP violation without solid sources for such a statement, and I am pretty sure i already said I can find sources for those rallies which say right wing or free speech, we go with the more neutral term used rather than slapping labels on people. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Example, LA Times source you give is about The right-wing Freedom Rally, also LA Times. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

1.) your comment about blogs is misguided, Ke Coffman explained why to you above. This includes your curious comment about the LA times being... the LA times. What does that mean? 2.) There are 8 more sources above which also use far-right. And 3.) how many sources are there about Patriot Prayer that don't primarily cite them because of their controversial audience? Ke Coffman's proposal is sound, and exactly the kind of balance I would like to see. It doesn't go so far as to call the group far-right, but notes that the rally's and audience tends to be. I would like to see us switch to that wording. 97.66.48.34 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The point regarding the L.A. Times is obvious, the same rally is described by the same paper in two ways, I can use that source to write PP hold freedom rallies. Like I said, we need solid sourcing for a label about what is primarily a BLP, opinion pieces are no use for this edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Further to the Political Reseach Associates blog, their own site says blog posts have no editorial oversight, nor are those blogs factchecked, that source is polemical rubbish. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see the point you were making now about the LA Times, but you're still mistaken: the source you provided was a specific rally, of which PP was just one of a few organizers. Right wing was probably a good way to describe the group as a whole, because once again, it is the more inclusive and less specific label. Here's another one that refers to Patriot Prayer as the "far-right" group that helped organize the rally we're discussing. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/08/25/patriot-prayer-canceled-san-francisco-crissy-field/.

You also haven't addressed the other sources prevented above that also use "far-right". 97.66.48.34 (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no need to address the other sources, I have already addressed three of them, and given I have already stated we have a majority of sources which call the rallies wing we go with the more neutral wording per BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Crissy field Party poopers: rightwing rally cancelled in San Francisco amid dog poo protest Getting the picture yet? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You do though, especially since the suggested wording refers to far-right rallies, maintaining the description of the group as right wing. It would also help if you quit acting like the ultimate authority on what is in or out. We're here to build consensus. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No, i don't. I have already explained, twice now I believe, if the rallies are also described as right wing then we go with that more neutral term, BLP policy says we do, as does NPOV. We cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that PP hold far right rallies given we do no have a source which explicitly states so, what with other sources saying the same rallies are right wing, it's kinda OR Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. There are 8 sources above that call PP or their rallies far-right. Almost every source we include in this article focuses at least partially on the extreme elements drawn to their rallies. It deserves more than just a sentence in passing toward the end of the lede, especially since our article devotes so much space to the controversy at their rallies (as it rightly should). Regardless, you and I have already made our judgments regarding the sources. Time to let a few others chime in. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed lead revisions

As a follow-up to the above discussion, I'm proposing the following changes to the lead:

• Current: The group organizes pro-Trump[11] rallies and far-right protests in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters.[2][12] Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists,[18]although Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, said he denounced racism.[19] Patriot Prayer has been connected to the alt-right, a charge Gibson denies.[20]

• Proposed (changes in bold): The group organizes pro-Trump[11] rallies and protests in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters.[2][12] Many of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the presence of white nationalists and other far-right groups, such as Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters.[18] Patriot Prayer has been connected to the alt-right, a charge that Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, denies.[20] In the aftermath of the August of 2017 Unite the Right rally, Gibson said he denounced racism and extremism.[19]

Rationale:

1. Move “far-right” next to the newly added groups, to address concerns expressed above. Add said groups – their presence, including as speakers, is what’s generating some of the controversy and leading the commentators to describe the events as “far-right”, including the most recent Berkeley march.
2. Change “attendance” to “presence” as more general, since some of these controversial figures were there as speakers, such as Kyle “Based Stickman” Chapman.
3. Add that Gibson denounced racism (with the added extremism) in the wake of the Unite the Right rally. The timeframe is important, IMO, as this was the new rhetoric at that time, such as Gibson’s statements “f*** white supremacists, F*** the KKK, f*** Antifa”, etc.
4. Change “Some” back to “many” – “some” was inadvertently (I assume) inserted by Tornado chaser, after Darkness removed “many” with this edit: [14].

Please let me know of any feedback or comments. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Got a source saying many of the rallies caused controversy? Gilmore added three refs for that, two were for the same rally, and of course it is OR. Does ref 19 support what you have written? I think mentioning every group who turns up at a rally held in a public space is a bit undue, it appears to be guilt by association Darkness Shines (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I would remove the part about the "other far-right groups, such as Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters" it is the white supremacists/nationalists/racists that cause most of the controversy, not just all right-wingers. As for whether to say "many" or "some", "many" would require quite strong sourcing, there had been debate about "some" vs "many", darkness removed "many", leaving the article ungrammatical, so I put "some, assuming this is was DS meant. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Citekill

Does anyone object if I remove the Kron 4 News ref? We don't need four refs in the lede for a single sentence. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Also the KTLA source in overview, again four sources are a bit much for a single sentence Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Remove it from the lede? No objection. Remove it entirely? It appears to be the only source for the "stickman" text. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Had not noticed it was used there as well, the problem inherent with so many reference formats being used, I'll move it down to there then, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously?

All formatting, and a totally unjustified revert. There are no need of citekill, what the hell was wrong with formating the refs? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Format" is not "Remove". Be honest or don't make a comment. I rolled you all the way back because you are being sloppy in your zeal.--Jorm (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Format can also be remove, you know like duplications, like I mentioned in my edit summaries. I'll be restoring my changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Technically, you can call pretty much any edit 'formatting'- it's incredibly unhelpful, just like an edit summary of 'editing' would be unhelpful. Try to make your edit summary reflect the content of the edit, not mask it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't look at all the changes, but it did look like many of these were just formatting changes. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Well yes, but my point of contention is that 'formatting' is a very broad and ambiguous verb. Specificity is the aim. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So does anyone actually object to my formatting and removal of duplicate refs? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Placing full references inline can make editing more difficult and diffs less legible to scan. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It makes it near impossible to edit or read. So you are alright with the formatting then? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Objection

Yes, I object. This edit, unless I'm not reading it right, removes SPLC as a source. Edit summary was: "Format, drop Niewert as unneeded". SPLC was replaced with {{sfn|Weise|2017}} which appears to be USA Today. I would appreciate a clarification on the purpose of this edit.

The lead was also modified; these edits did not reflect prior consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Niewert is used in the article, for his opinons. That is all that source can be used for, we have had this discussion before. The only change was an internal to presidency of Trump, cos they have held rallies in support of his presidency, it is more appropriate than linking to the Trump BLP, hardly a major change. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

SPLC is RS for the topics of extremist groups; please see for example: RSN:SPLC as Source for Labeling Someone a White Supremacist. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Are we seriously going to have to go through this again? Hatewatch is a blog, it needs attribution per NEWSBLOG. PP is not an extremist group either, I have no idea why you even wrote that. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

And having now looked at the RSN link, the consensus there is SPLC needs attribution, let alone Hatewatch, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you should read it again. I remember watching that discussion, and the consensus was NOT that the SPLC always requires attribution, but a more nuanced version of our general policy: that is to say, if they're the only source making an extraordinary claim, there should be attribution, but when there is more than one, it isn't necessarily needed. Also, this doesn't address why you removed the SPLC as a source. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The obvious consensus at that discusson is the SPLC needs attribution, and as explained before on this page Hatewatch is a blog, it needs attribution per NEWSBLOG. Dropping an opinion source for one which can be used for statements of fact is hardly a problem is it? Apart from folk just complaining for the hell of it. Niewert is cited in the article for his own opinions, and I'm pretty sure that same source is still used in the article, I have cited Niewert myself here for christs sake, I really do not get the fuss over something so obvious Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It's far from obvious. Hatewatch might be a blog, but you might want to actually read the policy you're referencing. I don't understand why you want to make the sourcing weaker, but of course, the biggest problem with letting this stand is that it tacitly approves the faulty reasoning and misrepresentation in your edit summary: of course the SPLC can be used to support this claim, WITHOUT attribution of opinion where no opinion is being expressed. Hatewatch is considered reliable, like it or not... especially when we can find other sources that also say the same thing. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Right I'm sick of this bollocks, I did not misrepresent anything I my edit summary, I already posted about this crap below, retract your falsehood or this conversation is over. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep pushing it as I've made my opinion, based on my own understanding of the relevant policies known, but DS, it would probably help you here if you didn't personalize so much... Several people have expressed that there is a problem with the edit summary, and object to the removal of this source. Speaking for myself: this is in no way meant to be an affront to you personally. Sometimes its hard to judge your own actions, and when you find yourself in the minority and deeply upset, it might be time for some self-evaluation. This makes the third time you've either blown up at me or come close to it on this page over relatively minor disagreements. It might be time to ask why. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Because you, and two others are accusing me of being a liar and using misleading edit summaries over the Niewert citation, I did not. Format, drop Niewert as unneeded Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this puts paid to the idea that Darkness was just making stylistic changes, and was lying when earlier stating that they were such. Unfortunate. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Who the hell are you calling a liar? Internal to Trump presidency format ref, lose citekill as unnecessary I have not lied, feel free to retract that please. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

And on replacing an opinion with a better ref, Format, drop Niewert as unneeded So no fecking lies at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel that it is pretty clear that Darkness Shines is editing only with the agenda of whitewashing Patriot Prayer. Removing references and calling the edits "formatting" is misleading as fuck(Personal attack removed) My big revert was reverted (ill-advisedly) by someone who didn't understand that there was no way to undo the one change I was focused on, so the (valid) reference that DS wanted removed is now gone. I suspect we'll soon remove that bit of the article as being "unreferenced"; that's how I see DS operating.--Jorm (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Retract your personal attack, how the fuck can it be "unreferenced" when I added a fucking reference to it? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jorm:Can you provide a diff of DS lying? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

He is on about this edit, and look at what's before that ref? Another one I had already added. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you did remove a ref using an (inaccurate) edit summary of "Format", this does NOT justify anyone calling you a lier, per WP:AGF this should be assumed to be a one-off error. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

But I am not sure why you are defending this error. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Because I had already formatted a ref for it. I'm not going to be called a liar when I have not lied. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The comment at the start of the section ('all formatting') is a lie without using a uselessly broad definition of formatting, as you were clearly also removing references based on your personal opinion of their reliability. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead and body changes

@Darkness: you statement at the top of this thread was: “All formatting” (emphasis mine). Not all of these edits were formatting, as being discussed above. You have removed the NPR citation from the lead and also SPLC. As you note above you do not consider SPLC to be an appropriate reference. Please don’t call your series of edits “all formatting”; this is in part a content / sourcing discussion.

The body changes were mostly converting refs to sfn style, which I did not change. There were some minor additions that I disagree with such as “…citing safety concerns”. PP claimed that: “Berkeley is a better situation because we don’t feel like we’re walking into a trap.” link. In fact, NPS placed ‘’extra’’ security precautions on the permit: various items were banned (backpacks, sticks, any potential weapons). So, I don’t think anyone took PP’s claims very seriously. We should not be stating “safety concerns” in Wikipedia’s voice; it’s cleaner to state that he cancelled the rally, without qualifications, as it gives undue weight to PP’s opinions.

I reverted the lead to the prior consensus version – changes should be discussed on talk. For example, you have a good point that “pro-Trump” should not link to Trump’s BLP, but I think a more useful link would be Political positions of Donald Trump, vs Presidency of Donald Trump, as that’s what PP and related #MAGA groups support. Such changes should be discussed here, since the lead was arrived at by consensus. Other changes were also made to the lead, hence the revert. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not giving half a reason, Gibson says he cancelled due to safety concerns, it is attributed to him, there is nothing undue about it. I am not explaining again why I replaced an opinion source with one which can be used to state fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why you referred to your series of edits as “All formatting” (emphasis mine). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please look at my edit summaries, I reverted you BTW, that is hours of formating work you casually destroyed over a few words, change the text not the refs ffs Darkness Shines (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

NPR source restored, why everyone wants to citekill every sentence in the lede is ridiculous Darkness Shines (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to remove SPLC source from the lead, as has been explained to you. Please restore it. Please also remove "...repeatedly disavowed them..." -- this is a new addition that was not present in the lead before; compare with this version. So, it wasn't all formatting? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

My edit summaries speak for themselves. I will not restore an opinion piece were it is not needed, the sentence has a cite and sure as he'll does not need another, I already told you if you want the text changed do it yourself. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC should not be used when better sources are available. See WP:BIASED. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Immediate thoughts: Disputes over references should probably go to WP:RSN, since it's unlikely to be resolved here. I don't see the advantage to going from "...pro-Trump rallies and other protests in predominantly liberal areas..." to "...organized rallies in support of the presidency of Donald Trump. and other protests in..."; it's taking an already somewhat wordy sentence and making it nearly unreadable. I agree with the people above who say the "safety concerns" bit seems a bit odd, since the paragraph isn't about the cancellation and since it's quoting the source selectively (the source has several paragraphs on the cancellation, leading with "However, the deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia on 12 August during a rally of white supremacists led San Francisco police and civil leaders to rethink their response to protests" and ending with Amber Cummings saying that "the meaning was being lost as rhetoric around the rally escalated." I would particularly oppose going into any more detail about the cancellation without going into the context of the Charlottesville attack, since the framing in the source makes that central. Beyond that, that paragraph already quotes Gibson extensively (with the only other person cited mentioned in just three words to introduce multiple replies from him.) If anything, it needs to be rewritten to paraphrase his views more briefly and include other people's positions - not to include his position yet again, while ignoring multiple other perspectives included in the cited source. --Aquillion (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight?

This passage strikes me as giving undue weight to PP's POV, in the Oveview section:

• A rally which was to be held at Crissy Field in San Francisco on 26 August 2017, was cancelled by Gibson, citing "safety concerns". In response to allegations by Nancy Pelosi that the event was a "white supremacist rally", Gibson said "For those of you who believe we are seriously going to throw a white nationalist supremacist rally in San Francisco, it’s time for logic,” In a video posted to his Facebook page Gibson said, “We have a black speaker, two Hispanic speakers, we’ve got an Asian, a brown speaker right here (referring to himself) — we got a transsexual, and we aren’t talking about race.”

References

Gibson's quotes here are excessive. Also note "allegations by Nancy Pelosi" -- this is non neutral. I propose that this para be removed. The rally is covered in its own section that follows: Patriot_Prayer#San_Francisco_Bay_area_rallies.

Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

How is it not neutral to write that Pelosi alleged they were white supremacists? It is not undue as Pelosi's allegations were widely reported. So no to removing it. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Pelosi's comments, if included, should be rendered as "stated"; the language you used is non neutral; see WP:SAID and WP:ALLEGED. Also, let others comment. You don't own this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Well excuse me ever so much, you asked for feedback to a suggestion, don't complain when you get some. And for Christ's sake, read what you link to as it never supports your argument "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate" Well gee, Pelosi was inaccurate so alleged is the word to use Darkness Shines (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This is weird, why did you remove "please" from my comment? diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If I did it was unintentional and I apologize Darkness Shines (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Alleged is appropriate in this case. The paragraph is sourced to multiple RS. I see no reason to exclude it. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll echo Aquillon above: the he said/ she said is undue. It should be paraphrased... Especially the "minority bingo" game Gibson appears to be playing. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted again

This is getting really fucking annoying, hours of work reverted for no reason other than 'I can'. I have explained every fucking edit in the sections above, and I will be reverting again, this petty bulkshite has to stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that, until you understand why you are being reverted, that it's going to continue. --Jorm (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you are on course for a block, personal attacks and reverting for no reason is disruptive. There is no fucking need to undo hours of work. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to spend hours of work editing against consensus instead of establishing a consensus. We are not responsible for your wasted time, and competence is required. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

First you call me a liar and now incompetent, (Personal attack removed). Darkness Shines (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted DS's 2nd revert - disruptive and of course breaking 1RR. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing content i added is a self revert, but i did break 1RR. Hell Jorm got to do it twice in two days, why not me? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If you add content and then revert in within 24 hours that's a self-revert. If you revert content you added some time ago, it's not. In any case you stated with your 2nd revert you'd broken 1RR, then reverted again. If you object to someone's breaking 1RR, report them. The page is now protected I see. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit request - seeming synthesis in lead

Change "Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, although Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced racism." to "Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists. Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced racism." The 'although' appears to be an instance of WP:SYNTH - we should not seek to minimise the first statement with the second statement. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose this is being discussed above and there is no consensus for this change. Also it is not SYNTH, Joey Gibson has also repeatedly disavowed racism.Gibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy per the sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Sorry! I genuinely thought this was an uncontroversial suggestion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. After thinking about it, it is synth to include the "although". Most sources don't connect the two thoughts, so neither should we. I really don't think we lose anything by being more concise. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

*Oppose I see the argument for removing 'although', but without this word the grammar is poor and confusing. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support I think it is worth poor grammar to remove synth from such a controversial article. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support New around here, but I fall on the side of the IP user above. If the thoughts aren't connected in the sources, we shouldn't have them in such apposition, so to speak. I am also somewhat sympathetic to Tornado chaser in that without the 'although' the sentences suffer stylistically, but I think that roughness is worth a more exact replication of the sources. But reasonable minds may differ! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SYNTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unless it is also changed to active voice which is preferred style. "White nationalist have brought controversy to the rallies. Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced white nationalism and racism." --DHeyward (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Active voice suggestion

White nationalists have attended some of the rallies organised by Patriot Prayer, drawing controversy. Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced racism. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Need to remove "organised by Patriot Prayer" from the sentence about white nationalists attending rallies as it synthesizes a connection between the organizers and the unwanted racists. --DHeyward (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Were the rallies not organised by Patriot Prayer? Is this not directly noted in the sources which mention the white nationalist attendance? Then it's not synthesis! Maybe you meant a different word? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: could you clarify on Need to remove "organised by Patriot Prayer" -- the events discussed in the articles have been organized by PP; that's why they are in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Attendance by white nationalist/white supremacists were not part of organising the rally. Including the hate groups in a statement about organising the event is creating an association that doesn't exist. Antifa, white supremacists and other ne'er-do-wells attended but they were not invited or part of the planning. It's a form of Parade of horribles or Poisoning the well logical fallacy. Covering the appearance of white nationalist/white supremacists as a result of planning by Patriot Prayer is a logical fallacy. --21:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The controversy is not merely over attendance, but also due to close associations between PP and right-wing and other groups, such as 3 percenters. Kyle "Based Stickman" Chapman of Proud Boys continues to be a speaker. He spoke at the Sept PP's event in Berkeley, discussing the "war on whites" (see white genocide conspiracy theory), which I assume prompted L.A. Times to describe the event as a "far-right march": "Scuffles break out during far-right march in Berkeley; at least 3 arrested":

• "Trump supporters cheered at the arrests and continued to People’s Park, where Gibson climbed onto a wooden stage and spoke to the crowd without interruption. He declared that he and his group, Patriot Prayer, would keep returning to Berkeley until they “respect free speech.”

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

And no doubt you have a citation to support these 'close ties'? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems like, with arguments above, that you realize they should be separate and then want to say "but not really" through a variety of implied connections. It's my understanding that antifa/white supremacist violence happen at a number of locales under a number of banners. The violence last year in Folsom is a good example with only extremists attending. Whether the violence occurs at an immigrant rights rally or a Trump MAGA rally, the resultant attendees, violence and controversies are the same. --DHeyward (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose It should also say Gibson has "repeatedly disavowed white supremacists and denounced racism" per the sources. This is already being discussed above. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Support -- active voice and to the point. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment Can you draw controversy'? You can certainly draw 'criticism' and 'spark/cause etc' controversy, but 'controversy' is by nature 'heated debate'. The use seems odd, in UK Eng at least (which I realise doesn't apply here). Pincrete (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point! I was trying to make as few changes from the original version, which I believe contained synthesis, when I wrote this. 'Sparked controversy' is an improvement however. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Support with changes should probably say "repeatedly denounced racism" but active voice is good. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Overview is just a series of libelous attacks by left-wing reports

Not a forum Darkness Shines (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How is this even an overview? Shouldn't the "overview" of an organization be its cause, its history, its members, its actions, etc.? Instead it's just you lying biased liberals tossing out every libelous attack you could find from hack journalists who know they can get away with lies and hate because they have people like you turning their lies into "truth" by simply silencing all opposition. This whole page is a joke. You're disgusting people with no respect for journalism, accuracy, or objectivity. You've smeared more feces on this page than San Franciscans did their own park to stop minorities from sharing their experiences. Oh, but that little detail isn't even in this article is it? There was an entire movement in San Francisco, promoted by local journalists actively encouraging people to smear human and animal excrement all over Crissy Field to protest the minorities of Patriot Prayer from dare speaking their personal experiences growing up in the SF Bay Area, while all their articles were lies and rhetoric claiming it was white people from Portland giving the speeches, so they weren't welcome. It was precisely the local media lying that influenced Nancy Pelosi's comment on it. which inevitably shut it down. You also leave out that even though SF successfully suppressed their First Amendment rights, radical SF protesters STILL violently attacked police that day at a location they were told was going to be an alternate speech location. Proving the San Franciscans were the violent animals, throwing feces and spitting on cops even when nobody else was around. Left all that out because you're liars and hacks. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC) This should probably go at the bottom, given normal threading practice, but, other than that -- thanks for stopping by and have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Bless your heart!--Jorm (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)