Talk:Patriot Prayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should we call the Proud Boys white nationalists?[edit]

The page calls the chauvinist Proud Boys a white nationalist group, citing the Vancouver paper The Columbian.[1] However, the body of reliable evidence I've found suggests the organization officially opposes white nationalism:

  • The SPLC admits the founder rejects white nationalism, they take pains to be distanced from white nationalists, and their lawyer maintains they've never espoused white nationalism.[2]
  • This American Life's report on the Proud Boys and racism makes it clear the founding idea of group was fundamentally opposed to racism, they had an early prominent member of color, and they kicked out someone for a selfie with a white nationalist.[3]
  • The Globe and Mail quotes the Proud Boys founder saying about white nationalists, "that's not my cause."[4]
  • The Huffington Post reports the founder saying the group doesn't tolerate racism.[5]
  • Wired clarifies the group's members "say it's not about race".[6]
  • The Vancouver Sun mentions twice in an article they deny being white nationalists.[7]
  • The website of Proud Boy Magazine says "Anti-Racism" is a central tenant of the group.[8]
  • The Proud Boys USA site says the group is inclusive of "all races".[9]
  • The Georgia Straight cites a writer saying they're multiracial, also giving a possible explanation of how The Columbian could have got it wrong: "Typically, mainstream media equates chauvinism with sexism and their patriotism and nationalism for white nationalism even though the two are drastically different[...] The lack of comprehension of these facts has lead [sic] to The Proud Boys being labeled as a racist group."[10]
  • The Intercept reports them rejecting "in the strongest possible terms" the superiority of any race.[11]

There's a lot in these sources about members "flirting" with white nationalists and racism, but it's clear white nationalism is not what the group is about. Whatever suspicions we have about ulterior motives, Wikipedia probably shouldn't be the place to call them "a white nationalist group" unless reflected by the body of reliable sources, since it contradicts what the group says.

What do you think?

--Haptic Feedback (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Good lord. That's an awful lot of flimsy, second-hand opinions taken out of context.
The Wired article calls them a fratty, white power-y redux of the Men's Rights movement immediately before acknowledging that they say it's not about race. This only makes sense if Wired doesn't accept their evasion. The article then calls them "hilarious" and likens them to a pile of puppies, and not in a good way. It's extremely clear from context that the article is saying all this to mock the Proud Boys, not to agree with their self-serving claims.
The obscure Georgia Straight article is citing some random "pro-Trump" blogger for a non-reliable site. Why would we include this opinion, or even use it to make any sort of informed assessment? The SPLC source says that "McInnes plays a duplicitous rhetorical game: rejecting white nationalism and, in particular, the term “alt-right” while espousing some of its central tenets."
The This American Life story is very, very much about how frequently the Proud Boys have been caught doing racist things, attending racist events, and how ineffective McInnis has been at clamping-down on this. "This was a group founded on the premise that they are not racist. The group's leader denounced the rally. But it's confusing, right? Like, all these groups that you hear about these days, like the groups at Charlottesville. All these little groups that stand for slightly different things in this movement that's shifting, and slippery, and hard to get a grasp on. And often the things their leaders say in public seem like a whitewash, if you'll pardon the expression, of what they really believe. Not that the leader of this particular group necessarily was whitewashing anything. The article explains that Jason Kessler was a member, and after the Proud Boys segment talks about the Aryan Nations. The context is very clearly about this being a de facto racist organization.
The Sun article follows the "they say they're not racist" paragraph with "The Proud Boys membership’s public behaviour, however, has hampered their efforts to be perceived as just a men’s club out to have a good time."
The Proud Boys website is not a reliable source for statements of fact, and all this demonstrates is that the Proud Boys have tried very hard to tell other people they are not racist. Whoopdey-doo.
Wikipedia isn't a platform for press releases or public relations. The large number of sources linking the Proud Boys to... some flavor or white supremacy, whatever we want to call it, is overwhelming. The constant need they have to distance themselves from this label is specifically because their behavior links them to this label. Reliable, independent sources document this behavior. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Let me clarify that I am not denying its members' behaviour has ever devolved into racism. My point is that if we (a) use a reasonable definition of "white nationalism" (i.e. support for a white ethnostate) and (b) want to reflect the available body of reliable information, then "white nationalist group" is probably not a good summary of what the group is about.
The only piece of evidence I've seen that they are white nationalists is a quick descriptor in a local city paper that could plausibly just be a misunderstanding from the hit pieces you cite, which actually don't call them white nationalists or show as much but instead give connections and similarities with white nationalists to suggest they're guilty by association.
Given the large body of evidence that the founder has repeatedly rejected white nationalism and even founded the group explicitly in opposition to the idea of being white-only, to still say that white nationalism is its organizational goal is to devolve into conspiracy theory. I do not doubt that hiding a group's true motives is common among racist organizations, but Wikipedia should not be the place to assert claims of a white nationalist conspiracy without the body of reliable evidence showing it clearly and strongly (i.e. significantly more than an offhand description in a small local paper and guilt by association).
Now, I think we agree that the group has dabbled in racism and that it has been often associated with white nationalists. Maybe we can find a description that neither whitewashes the group nor summarizes them inaccurately. How about "a right-wing group associated with white nationalists"?
--Haptic Feedback (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I see no reason to pussy foot around 'white nationalist', as the group is white nationalist. PeterTheFourth (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: If they're demonstrably white nationalist, then we shouldn't pussyfoot, but I don't think they are. Again, they've repeatedly overtly opposed white nationalism from day one, despite their admitted similarities to the alt right and apparent breaking of their anti-racist policy. Will you tell us why you think they're white nationalist? Do you have sources not already considered here? --Haptic Feedback (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The sources you've brought are, politely, unusable. I believe Grayfell has already elaborated on why, and I wouldn't want to beat you around the head with the facts. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: So, you refuse to give any evidence they're white nationalist? Grayfell had nothing to say about whether they're white nationalist. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Gibson for Senate Freedom March[edit]

I've redirected Gibson for Senate Freedom March to this article, per this source about a planned rally in Portland, Oregon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Infobox and category[edit]

I've added an infobox, but surely more parameters can be filled in. Perhaps a logo, too? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've also created Category:Patriot Prayer. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on having list of rallies/demonstrations?[edit]

Thoughts on having a standalone List of Patriot Prayer rallies or List of Patriot Prayer demonstrations? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Why? Do we do this for other groups?--Jorm (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Just seems like this article is turning into paragraphs about specific events. Figured this might be a good way to separate a bio of the org with descriptions of specific demonstrations. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Far Right?[edit]

There doesn't appear to be any information in the article that expands on the 'far-right' tag in the lede. What definition of far-right is being used, and why is there no information supporting the definition within the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.173 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2018‎ (UTC) 172.78.51.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There are 4 -- count 'em four -- citatpons from reliable sources which call the group "far-right". We are using the definition of "far-right" used by those media sources, because that's what we do, we report what reliable sources say. We don't make up our own definitions, that's original research and it's not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The Huffington Post is hardly a neutral source and the SPLC has been accused of using an overly broad brush. The term "far-right" seems to be widely used as a way to poison the well Dbow1986 (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Dbow1986 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Both the Huffington Post and the SPLC have been repeatedly vetted at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and are considered to be reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Has been previously discussed here Talk:Patriot_Prayer/Archive_4#Not_far_right?. The editor who had objected had since been site-banned. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
For objecting or another reason? Dbow1986 (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
For disruptive editing, not necessarily related to this article alone, but in combination with many things. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I can count the citations, but that wasn't the point I was making. The group is characterized as far-right, yet there is little no information within the article regarding their activities that leads one to the conclusion that this is a far-right group. I am rather puzzled as to why this might be. Presumably a far-right group would have an article showing at least some activity that is objectively far-right in nature. Thanks, in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.173 (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2018‎ (UTC)
So, you think every time we identify a group as being, let's say, "Republican", and support that with a citation, we should spend time in the body of the article describing their Republican-ness? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Since the term "Far Right" is used by those of a particular political viewpoint (i.e., liberal) I think it is incumbent upon them to provide support for the statement, yes. There is nothing indicated on Patriot Prayer's website that is "far right" or any other indication they are a group that should be considered somehow dangerous or violent. Moreover, the four reference to which you refer fail to show the epithet (yes, that's what it is) "Far Right" is applicable to this group. the1.mike.nichols" the1.mike.nichols (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Given the gravity of the label and the baggage that is necessarily attached to it, yes, I think we should provide information detailing the thoughts, beliefs and activity that has lead to the attachment of it to this group. The vast majority of Republicans are self-described and/or official members of a group that is either officially Republican or affiliated with the movement or party. I'm arguing for an effort to include valid points of reference within the article itself to support the far-right tag, directly because it is seen by society as such a grave condemnation of extremism. Right now, it's lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.173 (talk) subst:14:27, 5 August 2018‎ (UTC)
What's also lacking are your signatures on your comments. Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each comment so that the system will sign your comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the substance of these two remarks, we report what reliable sources say. If they say that Patriot Prayer is a "far-right" group, that is how they are perceived, and that is what we report. Personally, I can see nothing in their activities that would cause any reasonable person to think that designation is not appropriate. Of course, sympathizers may think otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm exercising my right to use an IP. If it's obligatory to sign my posts, then please point me to the rule. I see the citations are being loaded rather than the relevant material being exposed in the article. I didn't expect to discover anything other than snarky stonewall, and you haven't disappointed me. I'm glad to have been able to at least point to the fundamental discrepancy in the article without being censored, so that hopefully others can build on my thoughts. At least we do have that left, for now. Thanks, in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.173 (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2018‎ (UTC)
Signing your posts has nothing to do with being an IP. The system simply appends your IP number to the comment, which helps other editors keep track of who is saying what. Otherwise, other editors have to sign your posts for you, which is an annoyance, and is most assuredly not a "good faith action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Nobody is signing my posts for me. As you said, the system is doing it. How could that possibly annoy you personally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.17 (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2018‎ (UTC)
Nope, I've been doing it - take a look at this edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Then I'm happy to do it from now on. The suggestion of good faith was correct because I assumed autosigning was autosigning. 172.78.51.173 (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on edit replacing "far-right" with "right wing"[edit]

An editor has made a Bold edit and removed "Far-right" from the article, claiming that Al Jazeera and Huffington Post are not reliable sources, despite their having been vetted as such at WP:RSN, and ignoring that the other two sources, CBS News and the SPLC, also describe the group as "Far-right". I have reverted that edit and bring it here for discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The majority of sources (and clearly the majority of better sources) use "right-wing":
See this edit [1] and corresponding sources:
There are many more. Prioritizing a few that use the more extreme "far right" isn't neutral. I thought it was policy that the lede should reflect the body, well the body here says "right wing." This looks more like a political hit to get a jibe in for hurried readers than an effort to reflect sources. Re "CBS News", above are two CBS sources that use right wing for the one that uses far right. Are there other instances where we prioritize HuffPo and Al Jazeera over WaPo, Fox, USA Today, Chronicle of Higher Education, etc? I hope not. D.Creish (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, put away your weapons, this is not a "hit job", it's an editing dispute.
The most salient point is your last one, that the lede should reflect the body, and the body says right-wing, so I'm going to restore "right-wing" (without the references, which are needed in the lede) -- and then we can deal with the obvious dispute that will come nesx, from people protesting that they're not "right-wing", they're just "conservative". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. That's very reasonable of you. I saw some sources use "conservative" but "right wing" was much more common. Unless there's something I'm missing I'd object to "conservative." D.Creish (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness, here are the ones that used "far-right". These include CBS (the network, not a local station), the BBC and the Guardian:
Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Al Jazeera and HuffPo aren't the best. CBS is solid. SPLC should be attributed per WP:BIASED. Guardian has "far right" in the headline but the article uses right wing ("A rally by right wing group Patriot Prayer.") BBC uses far right in the headline only. Salon is below even HuffPo/Jazeera which is a shame because it used to be decent. D.Creish (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with some of your evaluations, and differ on others, but the determination of which media outlet are and aren't reliable sources is best made at WP:RSN rather than here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are my selections:

  • The Guardian: "Counterprotesters march in opposition to a rally organized by the far-right group Patriot Prayer in Portland, Oregon." [2] (August 2018)
  • Same: "Far-right group brawls with antifascist protesters in Portland streets. ‘Patriot Prayer’ group led by Republican Senate candidate Joey Gibson exchanged blows, pepper spray and insults with leftwingers." [3] (June 2018)
  • NYT: "Far-right groups arrived for a rally on the Willamette River waterfront, with lots of blustery talk of violence." [4] (August 2018)
  • Mercury News: "In Portland Saturday, small scuffles broke out between members of alt-right groups, such as the Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys, and antifa." [5] (August 2018)
  • SPLC Hatewatch: "Since early last year, the far-right groups Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys have held more than a dozen rallies throughout the Pacific Northwest under the banner of “freedom”..." [6] (July 2018)

Also, when your right-hand man wears "Pinochet did nothing wrong" T-shirt at a public event (see below), that's a pretty good indicator of what the nature of the group is. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher was an actual friend and supporter of Pinochet. Are we now to move the Conservative Party (at least of Thatcher's era) into the the 'far right' category as a result? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.173 (talk) 2:52, 5 August 2018‎ (UTC)
What the heck are you talking about? Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch were good friends but political opponents. Does their friendship make Kennedy a conservative, or Hatch a liberal? Pinochet was a mass murderer, it doesn't make Thatcher a mass murderer if they were "friends" (and were they actually friends, or did Thatcher simply support Pinochet's regime for geopolitical reasons?) The UK and US were allied with Stalin's Soviet Union to fight Nazi Germany, did that make the UK and US Communist states, or automatically turn the USSR into a democracy? Please stop talking nonsense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
So wearing a T-shirt referencing Pinochet rises above having him as an ally, friend or geopolitical partner. Additionally, I believe Thatcher did actually make statements glorifying Pinochet's regime. 172.78.51.173 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I am unaware of Thatcher's specific reasons for supporting Pinochet, but she was the head of a major Western country, and the reasons, whatever they were, were undoubtedly based on geopolitical and geo-economic considerations. I doubt very much that an aide handed her a memo saying that Pinochet was murdering his own subjects, and Thatcher said, "Good, I'm going to support his regime." In real life, I'm not even sure that she knew about his actions, but even if she did, her support was undoubtedly not because of it but in spite of it.
The person wearing the T-shirt, on the other hand, has no responsibilities in regard to supporting or not supporting Pinochet. They are not the head of a country, they have no broader concerns to consider, they are simply expressing an opinion, during a rally they were the co-organizer of. And that opinion -- without a doubt -- includes full knowledge of Pinochet's being a mass murderer. When they put on the T-shirt, they were saying "I support a mass murderer", just as much as if they put on one that said "We need more gulags", "Pol Pot was a great guy!", "Why did we stop lynching people?", or "Hitler had the right idea". K.e. coffman is exactly correct in saying that having the second-in-command wear that T-shirt gave us a good insight into this organization's viewpoint -- and until I hear a statement from them disavowing that T-shirt as not being relfective of their philosophy, that will remain the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Thatcher's support for and long friendship with Pinochet largely stemmed from the latter's assistance during the Falklands conflict; providing crucial intelligence on Argentinean military and air movements. She openly lobbied against his prosecution for war crimes. Not quite the same as wearing a T-shirt, but much more effective, coming from a world leader. Therefore, I am quite sure she knew a great deal about Pinochet and his regime, particularly as the British opposition and press would loudly decry the friendship frequently, citing Pinochet's alleged atrocities. In fact, they still do. So, it is in this context that I'm not comfortable with giving much weight to the T-shirt, because it appears that a rule is being applied unevenly and without due thought and consideration. Most importantly, we don't know if the group as a whole officially supports the alleged atrocities committed by Pinochet. They don't have an official position as far as I know, and therefore, so-and-so wearing a T-shirt 'gives a good insight into the group' doesn't get anywhere near the threshold of applying the ultra politically-charged and polarizing far-right label, for me. 172.78.51.173 (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
This is all an off topic red herring. The fact of the matter is that the group is described as far-right and alt-right in sources. Yes, some sources call it right wing, but that just indicates that 'far-right' is a subset of 'right-wing'.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I would appeal to you to please read the detailed discussion at the top of this section between editors on both sides of this issue regarding sources, and revert yourself. If you still disagree, then by all means start a formal request for consensus. Thanks. 172.78.51.173 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I have read the discussion and I see a ton of sources which support "far-right". And I see support for that term from established users, as opposed to red-lined fly-by-night accounts or IP editors with just a few edits but lots of Wikipedia knowledge.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm flattered by 'lots of Wikipedia knowledge'! I'm exercising my right to use an IP for personal reasons, which is allowed and should not diminish my edits or talk. The lack of edits is due to my ISP's policy changing IPs frequently. If you read the discussion above you will see established editors on both sides bringing their own sources. The removal of 'far-right' was actually done by an editor who was vociferously against it prior to the discussion. I think both of these points should be enough to challenge your unilateral edit sticking right now. I would prefer to see a revert to the previous edit that resulted from the above discussion between editors, and a formal consensus process begun before any further edits. I'm willing to abide by the result of a consensus discussion. I think that's reasonable. 172.78.51.173 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @ IP editor: The onus is presently on you to achieve consensus. You are welcome to start an RfC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi K.e., if I have my wikipedia rules straight, the onus is on Volunteer Marek, as prior to his unilateral edit a consensus was previously achieved between editors. Therefore the article should revert back to 'right wing'. I am not reverting anything myself as I have no wish to begin an edit war, and lack the experience to wade myself through it. 172.78.51.173 (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
See WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. After I agreed to "right wing" -- primarily on the basis that the body of the article used that expression -- K.e.coffman expressed his opinion in favor of "far-right" and then Volunteer Marek. At this point, the consensus is for "far-right".Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I also concur with "far-right".--Jorm (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I accept the reasoned argument from BMK (if I can call you that, my apologies if not). Though I would add that the edit in question owes itself to whoever had the last word (the last round of 'consensus' from a few editors). I suspect that it will change again in the future, and possibly keep changing until an RfC is done or there is significant detailed coverage of Patriot Prayer by reliable sources to sway editors firmly away from one position or the other. Thank you for your patience with my lack of understanding of the rules. 172.78.51.173 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
As k.e.coffman said, you are welcome to start an RfC, if you'd like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"Pinochet Did Nothing Wrong"[edit]

Tusitala ‘Tiny’ Toese, a Proud Boy and Patriot Prayer member implicated in the May assault of an anti-Trump person in the Portland area, donned a “Pinochet Did Nothing Wrong” T-shirt, referring to the far-right fascist Chilean dictator who murdered, tortured or detained some 40,000 of his own people.

Source: [7] K.e.coffman (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This may also be useful: "Jimmy Willingham who has become a staple member of Patriot “don’t call us Nazis” Prayer sporting his Nazi SS tattoo, via Twitter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
After research, I was not able to find sources matching the 40,000 statistic. His wikipedia article pegs it conservatively at around 3,000. I'm not interested in a numbers game here, as even one alleged political murder is a stain, but we may as well keep the facts as straight as we can. Thanks. 172.78.51.173 (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Our article on Pinochet says:

Following his rise to power, Pinochet persecuted leftists, socialists, and political critics, resulting in the executions of from 1,200 to 3,200 people,[11] the internment of as many as 80,000 people and the torture of tens of thousands.[12][13][14] According to the Chilean government, the number of executions and forced disappearances was 3,095.[15]

So, say it was 3000+ people murdered, and the persecution and torturing of many tens of thousands -- how does that have anything to do with the fact that the second-in-command of Patriot Prayer condoned those atrocities by wearing a T-shirt supporting Pinochet? Are you playing a numbers ganme,m where the murder of 3,000 is negligible to you? Are you simply trolling us? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
No, as I stated above, one political murder is not negligible to me. I would prefer to conduct this discussion with the facts at hand, and 40,000 murders is apparently not correct.172.78.51.173 (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I really don't think there's much point is discussing this with you anymore, as it's slipped into NOTAFORUM territory, and is no longer about improving the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's a shame. I don't agree that I'm airing opinions as if contributing to a forum. I am indeed attempting to improve the article by encouraging editors to flesh out the article to make the far-right tag stick, otherwise it will always be contentious and open to removal. If it deserves to be there, then show it. If not, remove it. There has already been some useful work done in that direction by editors above, including yourself! I'm also puzzled why sticking to the facts is slipping into NOTAFORUM? I do appreciate that this is an emotionally charged article/issue. I don't appreciate wiki policy being cited to me via unfounded allegations about my conduct here. I fear the next step is to unilaterally hat the discussion to censor unwelcome opinions in the name of NOTAFORUM or some other policy. If that happens, I will exercise my right to take it to an admin to arbitrate. 172.78.51.173 (talk)
HuffPo updated its article, which I reflected in the quote: "CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly said that Chilean dictator Pinochet murdered an estimated 40,000 of his countrymen. Pinochet murdered, tortured or detained that number." [8] The number comes from the BBC report here: [9]; it looks like our article is out of date.
In any case, I hope that the image of a Nazi SS tattoo would prove satisfactory. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I doubt that the image will suffice in branding the whole group 'far-right', but it's not for me to pre-judge consensus. I would think that could be easily challenged for obvious reasons, not least of which the views of one member do not necessarily constitute those of the whole group. Secondly, tattoos are (virtually) permanent, political views and beliefs are not.172.78.51.173 (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead edit[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "dated and unsuitable for the lead at this point" and "per recent discussions at Talk". --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Article's not portraying racism[edit]

Because it's been decided that they don't officially support white supremacy does not mean the group and its leadership has not portrayed and promoted racist behaviors. The article only successfully portrays the group as they want the public to see them. I agree that there is a degree of radicalism in a lot of the media's portrayal, but that doesn't mean that the documented fact, while maybe not on paper, promotes racist and bigoted view, and such things can be properly cited. Therefore the article should be changed to reflect it. I see there has already been significant debate over this, and I think because of the debate the article is suffering. Indeed, even if I'm wrong, at the very least there should be a section on their support of such views is controversial with a sentence about it in the intro. --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 19:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Oregon branch of the ACLU criticism of police handling of the recent demo[edit]

here. "“The Portland Police Bureau’s response to protest is completely unacceptable in a free society,” David Rogers said in a statement issued Sunday night. “The repeated use of excessive force, and the targeting of demonstrators based on political beliefs are a danger to the First Amendment rights of all people. We call on the Portland Police Bureau, Mayor Wheeler, and Chief Outlaw to immediately end the use of weapons, munitions, and explosives against protesters.”"

Some suggestion in the article that the police were acting mainly against the protestors. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)