Talk:Patriot Prayer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Alt right

Gibson, you use this sourc from the SPLC, it does not define PP as being alt-right, just that they attended an alt-right rally. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually that source says that Patriot Prayer organized that rally: "Joey Gibson, whose Patriot Prayer organization was the event’s main organizer." (And I assume you were addressing C. W. Gilmore, who I really wish would sign and indent their talk page posts properly.) Funcrunch (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I meant the source does not define PP as alt-right, and as such neither should we, especially as the source cited is an opinion piece by a contributing writer for the Southern Poverty Law Center's blog, Hatewatch. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again an editor has added alt-right to the lede, however the BBC does not say what @Sangdeboeuf: has written, "classed as alt-right", the source says, "Patriot Prayer is considered to be connected with the alt-right and other far-right groups", there is a big difference between considered to be and being classified as. As such I will be removing it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you consider to be the "big difference" here? As far as I know there is no "official" classification for terms like alt-right after all. Funcrunch (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I never said there was an official classification, I said there is a difference between what was written and what the source actually says. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

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. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

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

However, other sources also support the "alt-right" label. From Newsweek: "The alt-right 'Freedom Rally' in the park just below San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge on August 26 is being staged by a group called Patriot Prayer." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

the Guardian source has one person saying “I just had this image of alt-right people stomping around in the poop,” and uses alt-right once itself in scare quotes, I wouldn't think that the best source to label a bunch of people as fascists. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The Newsweek source is just a clone of the Guardian one. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC's Hatewatch strongly implies, even without explicitly stating it, that Gibson and Patriot Prayer, the "main organizer" of the June 4th rally, should be included among the "300 or so Trump supporters and alt-right 'free speech' defenders". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hatewatch is a blog, so attributed opinion only, can't be used for statements of fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Would that include statements such as "nor does [the SPLC] regard Gibson as an extremist"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the Hatewatch piece cited in that edit says nothing I can find vis-à-vis any official positions on whether or not Gibson is an "extremist". I've removed that statement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The Fox News source does support that the SPLC does not consider him an extremist. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on that source; Fox News is notoriously slanted to the right and has a history of broadcasting outright falsehoods, according to PolitiFact. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

All sources have a bias, we do not get to pick and choose those which align with our personal POV, the SPLC is notoriously slanted to the left, you don't see me complaining about it's use, I have cited it myself in this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a red herring; I never said anything about anyone's personal POV. And there is a world of difference between Fox and, say, the BBC, Reuters, or the Associated Press in terms of reliability. Those are the kind of mainstream sources we should be looking for to support statements in Wikipedia's voice. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Location

Is Portland, Oregon-based Patriot Prayer I am unsure why @ORRob00: changed it to Vancouver, Washington. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer originally started as a Vancouver, Washington organization before relocating across the river,in Portland, Oregon within a few months of starting.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Rv, why

Really. Trump supporting? Please don't continue with such rubbish. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Tagged as C. W. Gilmore can't be arsed to discuss per bird. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Other sources support that though. The Washington Post for instance.[1] However, Gibson denies this at just after 3 minutes in the video here.[2] Doug Weller talk 11:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

They may support Trump, or not, it just does not belong in the first line, it is obviously pov pushing. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Joey Gibson has stated on numerous occasions that Patriot Prayer is not a pro-Trump group, and not even necessarily conservative. PP is about free speech and bring people of diverse backgrounds and opinions together.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/08/15/seattle-patriot-prayer-rally-takes-twist-leader-gibson-denounces-supremacists

" width="560" height="401" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true" Link from UP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.143.11 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed, @C. W. Gilmore: Please do not restore it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC) The source also said they were pro-Trump but you chose to remove that factaul part. In fact, repeatedly, from the local media in Portland and Seattle, to the national media refer to them as "Pro-Trump" but you continue to remove all mention of it in a very odd bit of editing. "Pro-Trump"- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/26/a-pro-trump-group-canceled-its-rally-but-san-francisco-prepared-for-violence-anyway/?utm_term=.6cee8a0dc082 "Pro-Trump"- http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/pro-trump-demonstrators-counter-protesters-rally-in-downtown-seattle/ "Pro-Trump"- http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/us/san-francisco-berkeley-rallies/index.html "Pro-Trump"- http://thehill.com/homenews/news/348209-no-hate-protesters-assault-pro-trump-protesters-in-california

The "Patriot Prayer" even held "Pro-Trump" events with "Trump" in the title of the event as listed in the Facebook page: APR2 "Rally for Trump and Freedom" Sun 1:00 PM PDT · 171 guests Portland, OR JUN4 "Trump Free Speech Rally Portland" Sun 2:00 PM PDT · 502 guests Terry D. Schrunk Plaza Portland, OR You can't have it both ways: You can not pick which rules you like then change them when it does not suit you. Either take the sources for what they say exactly or not. This group may currently say they are not Alt-right or Pro-Trump, but their history on both, point to a very different past; to erase that past is to rewrite history.

Quoting directly from the article: "The conservative, pro-President Trump group, Patriot Prayer,..." http://komonews.com/news/local/one-arrested-after-demonstrators-clash-at-evergreen-state-college

Sloppy lazy journalism, also were exactly does provocatively appear in that source? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The 'Bret Weinstein' issue had been going on for almost a month at the Evergreen, but 'Patriot Prayer' picks the same time and same place to 'rally' as the anti-fascist group had chosen; how is this not provocative? 'Patriot Prayer' made the 100mi trip north to pick a fight and then to claim they were the victims. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/protests-roil-evergreen-campus-in-olympia-again/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/evergreen-state-college-another-side_us_598cd293e4b090964295e8fc

Also it is not 'Sloppy lazy journalism' as the 'Patriot Prayer' all started with Pro-Trump rallies last autumn. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBasZjUFPCc

Many of their events they even labled on Youtube as 'Trump and Freedom' rallies in Portland Or. and Seattle WA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG_xw3QDk_I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc5ghZeZnRY&t=89s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQuCch_j1W — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. W. Gilmore (talk • contribs) 00:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT If the source does not say provocative neither do we. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Joey Gibson can now say, he is not pro-Trump, but look at his YouTube post promoting the April 2, rally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQuCch_j1Wk

Or look through the images of the "Rally for Trump and Freedom": http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2017/04/02/18926966/photos-and-video-protesters-arrested-at-a-donald-trump-rally-in-vancouver

Or look at the images from their Seattle May 1, rally: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/pro-trump-patriot-prayer-group-to-protest-at-evergreen-state-college-amid-campus-furor/

Trump is ever present with this group: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/right-wing-free-speech-rally-draws-massive-counter-protests-in-portland/2017/06/04/12971892-496f-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html?utm_term=.ee873ac75320 C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Link to press release

You reference the press release. You should provide a link to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY1WV6jweRU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:641:C000:BA5D:288F:4707:9259:6AB0 (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

What I posted was from the local news and linked to the news of the time. Mr. Gibson went from posting pictures of dogs on his facebook page (prior to Oct. 2016) to a full on Trump supporter holding Trump rallies in his hometown of Vancouver WA. [from his facebook] This is how his 'Patriot Prayer' group started as a pro-Trump group who's ranks are filled with local Alt-right groups. I only post what I find in the local news, and from their social media outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. W. Gilmore (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC) C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right again

And again cited to a blog, the POV pushing on this article is getting silly now, I will be reverting CW Gilmore again due to the BLP implications of calling Joey Gibson alt-right without solid sources for such a label Darkness Shines (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you undid well sourced listings of their rallies along with changing the lead section, a bit over the top on editing without cause. I will concede that Joey Gibson may not want the label "alt-right" that much of the news sources give to the organization, but that does not change the evidence of the rallies they have had, on past dates.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I also undid POV pushing, and no doubt once I look through your further edits, I shall have to do the same. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I have to question who is 'POV pushing' when you call local coverage "Sloppy lazy journalism", yet take Fox News without weighing their bias. Regardless, I will continue researching local media information on this Pacific Northwest group and report as honestly as I can...C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Say what now? Pretty sure I said, all sources have a bias, please do not misquote me again, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The issues is your dismissal and disregard for local sources on the ground as "Sloppy lazy journalism", but willingness to use sources like Fox News to attack SPLC. I would never quote from http://www.politicalresearch.org/2017/09/06/joey-gibson-and-patriot-prayer-the-westboro-baptist-church-of-the-alt-right/#sthash.rHzHlf1l.dpbs , even if I use them as background to find information, yet you seem willing to do that and more; so I wonder who is 'POV pushing'. Please consider the local established news sources to be the best informed as they have people on the ground, doing the reporting like no national outlet has, not even Fox News.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Quit with the bullshite buddy, I have not attacked the SPLC, let alone used Fox to do so, stop making patently obvious rubbish up, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Your words: ["The Fox News source does support that the SPLC does not consider him an extremist. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)"] And the "bullshite" is the dismissal of local, on the ground reporters as doing "Sloppy lazy journalism". Yes, please stop, thankyou.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

LMAO, "The Fox News source does support that the SPLC does not consider him an extremist" Please explain how that is attacking the SPLC? It ain't, so ya, you made that up, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Using Fox News as your source to undermine the position of the SPLC, is just sloppy lazy editing, from what I can see.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Buddy, either stop bullshitting or get taken to ANI, Twice now you have accused me of attacking the SPLC, I ain't attacked it, at all, so stop saying I did. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I only point out your own 'words' and 'standards'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No you are not, your making shite up, so stop. Also, the SPLC source is not SPLC, I pointed this out above, it is actually Hatewatch, which is a blog. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I only point out your own 'words' and 'standards', sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Just stop now, you are not making me "uncomfortable", you are making me annoyed. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Seriously you deleted the view of Joey Gibson, that he expressed in his own words with your editing; 'He proclaimed in one speech that Islam “is not a religion, it’s an ideology,” and went on to claim that discriminating against Muslims was not racism or bigotry.' (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/08/25/what-you-need-know-about-saturdays-patriot-rally-san-francisco ) David Neiwert is drawing from Joey Gibson's on words, not giving his opinion, but you can't tell the difference, or perhaps you can?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

What part of my post at 21.38 did you not understand? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The part where you delete quotes from Joey Gibson from the record. Gibson made those speeches, and said those degrading things about Islam, but you pull it from the history; and the part where you ignore local coverage of Patriot Prayer as a Pro-Trump group and delete references from the record. Your 'standards' of editing are unique.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Where in my post at 21.38 did I mention any of that crap? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Right where I was suppose to understand that your post spoke to all my concerns about your editing zeal and prowess. In fact, you did not breach my concerns, but then it is your 'words' and 'standards', that elite entire section, not mine. You edit Joey Gibson's own words and dismiss the local media label of the Patriot Prayer as Pro-Trump as "sloppy lazy journalism", then accuse me of 'POV pushing'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You are pushing a POV, as is obvious from how many times the name of Trump appears during your edits. The rest of your post makes little sense, is English your first language? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Although Hatewatch is a blog, it is still as much a reliable source as many newspaper blogs. It's an official part of the SPLC. Attempts to treat it like a personal blog and say it can't be used have always failed. The key thing is that it should be attributed. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I have done Doug, I have attributed it to Niewert as he is the blogs author. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, just trying to make it clear, I wasn't sure what you were saying. I haven't followed this discussion very thoroughly, the socks are out in force today and I've been whacking them. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem Mr. Weller is that when I use David Neiwert's writings that stated Joey Gibson, "demonized Muslims" and, "He proclaimed in one speech that Islam “is not a religion, it’s an ideology,” and went on to claim that discriminating against Muslims was not racism or bigotry." The entry was removed and I was accused of 'pushing a POV': https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/08/25/what-you-need-know-about-saturdays-patriot-rally-san-francisco Add to that the fact that I was again accused with 'pushing a POV' for quoting local news articles that spoke of the Patriot Prayer's many Pro-Trump rallies through the spring and summer of 2017: http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2017/04/02/18926966/photos-and-video-protesters-arrested-at-a-donald-trump-rally-in-vancouver/ http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/apr/02/trump-rally-guests-protesters-square-off-in-esther-short-park/ If telling the entire story of the history of an organization is 'pushing a POV', then I might be guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. W. Gilmore (talk • contribs) 14:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC) C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

I think that if the best sources we can find for the group's stated purpose of "protecting free speech" are Fox News and The Washington Times, then mentioning it so prominently gives it undue weight. An encyclopedia article should be a summary of accepted, mainstream knowledge, not a PR page for a given organization. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with describing a group's purpose in the lede, and both sources meet our criteria of WP:RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Added a CNN source as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I question whether Fox and the Washington Times truly have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:RS. But the question is one of due weight – we shouldn't decide the relative importance of various facts based on sources that exist primarily to push a given ideological agenda, as those sources do. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

CNN is hardly going to push a right wing "ideological agenda" is it? And having an organization's stated beliefs or cause in the lede is not UNDUE, it is NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's what CNN says on the topic:

An anti-government 'free speech' group called 'Patriot Prayer' had scheduled a rally for 2 p.m. Saturday.

That's all – not much on which to base authoritative statements about the group's stated purpose (I seem to recall an earlier objection to "scare quotes" in another source, which would seem to apply here as well). This is essentially parroting the group's mission statement in the lead sentence – how is that "representing fairly, proportionately [...] the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" on the topic? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC0)

I don't think we should ever use the Universal Church's Washington Times, it's generally not considered a reliable source at RSN. All those sources are doing is, as Sangedboeuf says, rporting what the organisation says about itself. We shouldn't be using sources for that other than the group itself. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands opens with labelling the group right wing, it is easy enough to cite Facebook and Gibson starting they are a free speech group, but I suspect that would not be good enough, so I have three citations which describe them as free speech advocates, it is not UNDUE to have this in the lede, especially in the way it is currently written, were it says it is their stated purpose, it is not even written as a statement of fact, as in, they are a free speech group. And at any rate, it will be mentioned in the body, so has to be in the lede per WP:LEDE Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has apparently hit a wall. I have asked for an explanation of how the content supports NPOV, and the only reply so far is the repeated assertion/opinion that it is "not UNDUE".

The WP:LEDE guideline explicitly states:

Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.

It definitely does not say that everything in the article must appear in the lead section (which would defeat the entire purpose of the lead section).

If we are seriously discussing using Facebook as a source, I'd suggest reviewing WP:SOCIALMEDIA, especially as regards self-serving statements by the article subject. Also, it's putting quite a spin on the CNN quote to say that it describes the group as "free speech advocates". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The Facebook comment is in response to Doug's saying that we should source what the group is about to the group, they use Facebook. As you say about wp:lede "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" Please note the bolded part, free speech is the topic, PP is a free speech group. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

PP is a free speech group – based on which sources? We base articles on what established, reliable sources say – we don't decide ourselves what the main points are and then look for only the sources that support that position. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Based on the sources provided, please don't ask for sources and then complain when I add them. We have sources which state PP are a free speech group, there are dozens of sources which discusses them holding free speech rally, I really am not seeing the problem with us saying what they, and the sources say, they are a free speech group. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Now we are simply going in circles; I started this thread to highlight the problematic nature of these sources. Basing such an apparently important detail on only the three sources mentioned here creates problems of undue weight. If other mainstream sources treat the group's stated purpose of "supporting free speech" as important in their coverage of the group, then by all means add them, since I'm not finding them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

So all the sources which discuss PP holding free speech rallys don't count then? I would say the coverage of the group does mention free speech a fair old amount. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That's clearly not what I said. Exactly which mainstream sources treat the group's "free speech" claims seriously, i.e. minus the scare quotes? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries, [3] ACLU enough? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion was about media sources. The ACLU is not a mainstream, secondary source – it's a constitutional law nonprofit. Like the SPLC, it should only be used as a source with attribution. And that link mentions the ACLU's support of the group's free-speech rights in relation to a single "pro-Trump free speech rally". the ACLU are known for defending just about everyone's free speech rights – it doesn't say anything about the group's stated purpose. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

References

The Three Percenters & Proud Boys attendance at rallies

Please note from local news cited, the attendance at the Patriot rally of September 10, 2017 of: "Several people at the rally appeared to be part of the Three Percenters, a corner of the militia-style, largely anti-government movement that advocates for limited government, as well as the Proud Boys, a white nationalist group." http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/sep/10/protesters-clash-in-patriot-prayer-demonstration-on-vancouver-waterfront/ This is in keeping with their attendence at past rallies and the use of of the Three Percenters as security at other events.http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2017/04/02/18926966/photos-and-video-protesters-arrested-at-a-donald-trump-rally-in-vancouver/ C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Also cited was the pepper-spraying by Proud Boys at the Vancouver as they drove past counter-protesters: "After the man was handcuffed, a group called the "Proud Boys" drove down Columbia Avenue and sprayed pepper spray out their windows at protesters in the street. The counter-protesters lobbed rocks at their truck. Police stopped the Proud Boys, but did not detain them. Fifteen minutes later they drove away." http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/09/10/police-in-vancouver-arrest-man-for-nearly-running-down-antifa-protesters-with-his-truck/C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Raw feed from KATU News: https://www.facebook.com/pg/katunews/videos/ Shows the groups the Patriot Prayer rally attracts, from the Proud Boys to Trump supporters. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Christian

Is a redirect, so this revert was pointless. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The magnetic draw of soft-alt-right groups attacking those of the more fanatical inclination can not be overstated as it give them a safe place they did not have before. This includes such people as Allen Pucket with his homophobic views, the three precenters and others that are well documented attendees of Patriot Prayer events. It is the way that Ukip drew out those BNP types, that were in hiding. Nothing happens in a vacuum and we are not islands, but part of a social fabric that needs to be references to fully understand.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Plesse do not alter other editors posts, it is a violation of WP:TPG. You obviously don't get it, the name is a fecking redirect, having it linked serves no purpose, at, and how does a fecking name give context? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your post is inaccurate. Are you speaking about the movement started some 2,000yrs ago or the man arrested for murder that attended the Patriot Prayer rally on April 29th? Excuse me for assuming it was the later and relevant to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. W. Gilmore (talk • contribs) 17:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC) C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

What the hell are you waffling on about? We are talking about a fucking redirect, I'm reverting your pointless revert, Darkness Shines (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

This pages are linked in the real world of the murdered victims and of Portland, Oregon, so you can unlink them all you want but it will not change relative nature of the events in the minds of those in the area. The rise of groups like Patriot Prayer has given cover to those like Jeremy Christian to come out and act out in public. It is shameful to try to hide the connection. http://katu.com/news/local/patriot-prayer-rally-to-go-on-despite-calls-to-cancel http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/suspect-in-portland-stabbings-built-life-around-hate-speech/ http://www.npr.org/2017/06/04/531314097/alt-right-white-nationalist-free-speech-the-far-rights-language-explained https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-train-stabbing-suspect-thats-what-liberalism-gets-you-docs/ C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

First source shows no connection between PP and Christian, second source does not mention PP at all, third source says he was at a PP rally, as does the forth. The three sources all say he was ejected from the rally, so what point exactly are you trying to make? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The first source: "Weeks before we all knew his name, Jeremy Christian marched in a rally put on by the group Patriot Prayer. Now, just a week after police say that same man stabbed three men on a MAX after yelling racial slurs at two young girls, that group is planning to rally in downtown Portland this Sunday." http://katu.com/news/local/patriot-prayer-rally-to-go-on-despite-calls-to-cancel -That 'rally' they say in the video was put on by Patriot Prayer and was in fact the April 29, 2017, "March for Free Speech" in Portland. If you would not be so FAST to dismiss the historical record, you would understand the connection.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The second source from the caption of the photo at the top of the article: "On April 29, 2017, Jeremy Joseph Christian, right, talks during a Patriot Prayer organized by a pro-Trump group in Portland, Ore. Christian, the man accused of stabbing two commuters to death who tried to stop him from." http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/suspect-in-portland-stabbings-built-life-around-hate-speech/ C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The third and forth sources again make the like between the rise of these conservative rallies and the 2017 Portland train attack as nothing happens in a vacuum; from the campeign to elect President Trump, to the Patriot Prayer, to the train attacks, to Charelotteville, they are all interconnected and as seen by the local media, there are links.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

What sources do you have that say these events are NOT linked? As I have given you evedince, but you only give your opinion, so what sources do you have that say these events stand completely separate, one from the other? If none, then let them be linked on the record, thankyouC. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not remove anything, but I saw your post and then it was gone. If I did it, I don't know how and please repost. You must have posted at the same time as I??? Anyway, please repost your comments, thankyou.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You did it again, are you just trolling now? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I did NOT. I think I was posting at the same time as you, please repost as I would love to have you give sources to explain why these two events are not linked, something more than just your opinion; please reference so I can also see your sources and understand your editing.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no need to provide sources, the ones you posted already support what I have repeatedly said, Christian had nothing to do with this group. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

So your opinion is correct and the sources saying "Weeks before we all knew his name, Jeremy Christian marched in a rally put on by the group Patriot Prayer. Now, just a week after police say that same man stabbed three men on a MAX after yelling racial slurs at two young girls, that group is planning to rally in downtown Portland this Sunday." http://katu.com/news/local/patriot-prayer-rally-to-go-on-despite-calls-to-cancel -and that 'rally' they say in the video was put on by Patriot Prayer and was in fact the April 29, 2017, "March for Free Speech" in Portland. This news articles have no weight, thankyou for your honesty.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

-At least now I know who is 'POV pushing'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

So he turned up at a rally, lotsa people did, people turn up at rallys,its kinda the point, he was not part of it though, as he had nothing to do with PP, which is what the sources say. You might want to read WP:OR Darkness Shines (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

'lotsa people' did not go on a racist murder spree, only Jeremy Christian. This link from one to the other is what you refuse to consider, regardless of the fact that local sources made the connction. Even the Mayor of Portland made the connection between the PP rallies and the murders: http://www.kgw.com/mb/news/local/wheeler-wants-alt-right-event-permits-cancelled/443925452 C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The connection between Christian and the Patriot Prayer in not only due to the Christian's actions, but also (and probably more so) due to the fact that PP did not cancel a planned 'free speech' rally that was to take place one week after the attack. This resulted in the largest (?) counter protests in Portland. This fact was extensively covered by the press, and was PP's claim to fame. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Guy attends rally, guy is nuts, guy kills people, this in no way makes the guy connected to PP. Or should we also blame the penal system? After all, he was a nationalist in prison, he was one before he turned up at a rally in a public area, him killing people has nothing to do with this group, he was a lunatic before he went, and from where he was chucked out, so again, Christian had nothing at all to do with this group. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The link in that Joey is know for his past anti-Muslim views, his toleration of violent homophobes like Allen Pucket; and past alliances with White nationalists like Jake Von Ott and the Proud Boys. This is what draws the White supremacists out of hiding and to their rallies, then add to that the lack of response to the Train Attacks and you have a clear connection. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/08/25/what-you-need-know-about-saturdays-patriot-rally-san-francisco http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/08/31/preacher-aligned-with-portland-area-far-right-group-promises-bloodshed-at-future-rallies/ http://psuvanguard.com/former-identity-evropa-and-patriot-prayer-supporter-steps-down/ http://www.politicalresearch.org/2017/09/06/joey-gibson-and-patriot-prayer-the-westboro-baptist-church-of-the-alt-right/#sthash.rHzHlf1l.SL7wVvI2.dpbs http://katu.com/news/local/patriot-prayer-rally-to-go-on-despite-calls-to-cancel Now view Jeremy Christian, in that light and you should be able to see the wider picture.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Right this started due to you reverting a redirect back into the article, it was a pointless revert then, and remains so as it redirects to the article on the Portland killings. And for the last time, one wackjob appearing at a public rally does not make said wackjob associated with the group holding the rally. And just one thing, freedom of speech means for everyone, not just those who agree with you. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is quite simply correct. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Right, so you show again that your 'pushing POV' and ignoring the context or the reference materials, only your opinion matters, not the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. W. Gilmore (talk • contribs) 13:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC) C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The facts are against you, he was kicked out of the rally, he had nothing to do with the rally, he turned up in a public space and was told to fuck off. That's it. Conversation over. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You just ignored all the facts and the links that show what Joey is and who he surrounds himself, so is it any wonder that even more extreme elements would be drawn to these rallies, you make it sound like a one off, and not the pattern the local journalists see it for, but they are 'sloppy and lazy' in your opinion so of course you can ignore them. I understand, you have a POV to maintain. "Gibson's gatherings drew special condemnation after Jeremy Christian, an extremist now charged with killing two men and injuring another during a racist diatribe aboard a MAX train – notably attended one in April. At the march, others confronted Christian after he delivered a Nazi salute. Less than 10 days after the May train attack, Patriot Prayer held a pro-Trump rally in downtown Portland despite efforts by Mayor Ted Wheeler to derail the demonstration, fearing it would exacerbate tension and anger in the aftermath. Police arrested 14 people at the event, which remained relatively peaceful. Gibson denounced Christian at the rally." http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/08/portland_patriot_prayer_joey_g.htmlC. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirects are valid links to place in article text. And multiple reliable sources have mentioned Christian in the context of Patriot Prayer rallies, as described here. The link is valuable to readers who may want to know more about Christan and the train attacks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it still silly season? It redirects to the same fucking article Darkness Shines (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It's still relevant (regardless of your POV), as in the Pro-Trump label given the large Trump flag carried in Portland, yesterday as seen in the news videos. Also seen were the 3% and white nationalist Proud boys: http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/sep/10/protesters-clash-in-patriot-prayer-demonstration-on-vancouver-waterfront/ C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I've condensed the material on the Portland rallies and placed it under its own heading, so that should take care of the redundant links. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Provocative Rallies

The rallies seem to not just be held in ‘liberal’ areas of the Pacific Northwest and San Francisco Bay Area, but seem to be meant to provoke a response from the extreme left in those areas, then claiming that these other groups are the source of violence. Would it not be appropriate to say that Patriot Prayer has become known for organizing [provocative] rallies and protests in predominantly liberal areas as the local news sources seem to say? I'm not saying that they are fully to blame for violence, but help to create the situation for violence to happen at their rallies, I realise that the right to be provocative is part of free speech but as the Supreme Court has said, speech comes with both rights and obligations; you do not yell fire in a crowded theatre. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/09/12/patriot-prayer-rally-again-heavily-outnumbered-again-ends-violence-close-call http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Antifa-far-right-protesters-clash-again-in-12187943.php http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/09/patriot_prayer_leader_joey_gib.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/11/antifa-far-right-protesters-clash-again-in-portland-disrupting-peaceful-rallies/?utm_term=.3ef8d08d575b C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It would certainly seem a relevant thing to quote a reliable source on, but only with attribution, since provocative is a subjective term. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I listed three news outlets and the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch blog, but there are many more local news outlets that also refer to the Patriot Prayer rallies as 'provocative'. How many local news sources should I reference to make that change in the lead? Thanks for the response and the input. From the Oregonian: "An activist at the center of numerous right-wing rallies in Portland plans to take his provocative show on the road to San Francisco, setting the stage for a possible battle in the Bay Area." http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/08/portland_patriot_prayer_joey_g.html C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Provocative is a rather meaningless term absent context, so I would say there is no number of sources that can be referenced to make it appropriate to state in Wikipedia's voice. Per WP:NPOV, we should Avoid stating opinions as facts and also Prefer nonjudgmental language. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

So perhaps putting it in the 'overview' with the statement of their rallies being 'provocative' given attributed to the source as well as citing the reference? Same as the issue of 'Pro-Trump' and 'alt-right' were handled?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Overall yes, but I wouldn't give all that much attention to this one word. If the rallies have been called provocative, we should explain why various sources have seen fit to describe them as such, not just use provocative as some sort of epithet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The Portland and Seattle media, along with the SPLC site the way (Patriot Prayer) PP, interject thrmselves into existing conflicts to inflame them further. The May 29th rally was in response to the cancellation of the annual parade; the Evergreen Colloge rally was a dispute over comments by a professor; the Seattle rally was in conflict with the annual May Day parade; there was another one in Portland that they held right beside the Blues Festival; and that does not even cover the San Francisco area rallie: They interject themselves in to other events as 'provocateurs' in the literal sense according to these sources, then cry they are 'the victims' when they are met with hostility. They go on Fox Nees and Brietbart claiming the victim of the 'alt-left' and Antifa.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You summarized it well in the overview, thankyouC. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

How to organise Rally section

Perhaps a better way to organise these rallies (other than by date) is to group them by purpose? Pro-Trump and free speech, insertion into local politics, anti-Antifa, anti-Maxist/Communist, and now their 'Peaceful' rallies; with consideration for response to train attack and Charlotteville attack, it this way the rallies may have more useful meaning to the reader, but this is not my area, so I leave it for others to consider.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fox News

I've removed a citation to Fox News. With Gibson/Patriot Prayer having held explicitly pro-Trump events, Fox should be viewed as having an inherent conflict of interest here, owing to the close relationship between Donald Trump and Fox founder and CEO Rupert Murdoch. I'd also be wary of other News Corp outlets such as The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal for the same reasons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Etm. Nope fox is rs and it's bias don't matter, if bias is taken into account no source from the msm could be used. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

We are not just talking about ideological bias, but a conflict of interest regarding the personal relationships of the CEO of Fox News. Context is crucial for determining reliability, and in this context I think we should look at any stories relating to support or criticism of Donald Trump extremely skeptically. Besides, the one Fox story that was cited didn't have much of value that wasn't already covered by other sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yawn, don't care, your OR on the sources used don't matter, best to drop this bollocks now. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a non-starter. I've restored the Fox source. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fox is redundant; agree with OP: Besides, the one Fox story that was cited didn't have much of value that wasn't already covered by other sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I plan to expand it. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Arguing "because I say so" is cute, but that's not how consensus works. The burden to achieve consensus is on those wishing to include disputed material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It has already been settled by consensus at RSN. If you disagree address it there. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that. Please provide a link to a discussion on this specific issue, namely Trump and Murdoch's personal relationship and the resulting COI. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You are asking me to provide a link to a discussion no one but you thinks is relevant. The burden to establish COI is yours and RSN is the place to do it. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually I'd like to see a link to a relevant discussion at RSN also, if one exists. I did some searching on my own, but didn't see a discussion directly relevant to the objections Sangdeboeuf has raised here. Funcrunch (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The COI claim us very slipppery slope arguement to make, it would lead to us banning WaPo due to the Bezos/Trump interaction, as well as a number of additional well regarded outlets.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The Trump-Bezos brouhaha is on par with Donald Trump's attacks on the media in general ("The failing New York Times", etc.) and it's not the same as having a personal relationship, which is the basis for a COI. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Threatening to anti trust Amazon (to which wapo is really just a hobby business wise) is in a league of its own, well beyond any relationship. This is a serious multi billion dollar threat.Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Only if you believe Donald Trump's bluster, which I haven't seen any evidence of Bezos (or Amazon) taking seriously. But this all a red herring and speculation. The topic is the well-documented personal relationship between Trump and Murdoch. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In any event, there are far more reliable sources than Fox News to use for statements on the group's self-described purpose and Gibson's denouncement of white supremacists, namely, the BBC, Reuters, and the AP. I'd strongly suggest replacing the Fox citation with these sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Kelly, CNN

This was discussed under § Lead section, above. The sole mention of "free speech" in the CNN story cited in the lede is as follows:

An anti-government 'free speech' group called 'Patriot Prayer' had scheduled a rally for 2 p.m. Saturday.

This is scarcely enough to support the statement that the group "describes itself as peacefully advocating free speech". Combined with the issues raised under § Fox News above, this material is WP:UNDUE for the very first sentence in the lead section, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Along with sources like this one, I think there's enough to support including what the group calls and considers itself; but we must take care to make sure that description is stated as the group's own opinion of itself rather than a fact, because the reliable sources (even Fox) take pains to avoid referring to it as a "free speech group" in factual terms. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Using the Southern Poverty Law Center's blog for factual statements is already disputed, but there are better sources. For one, the BBC is a much stronger source for how Gibson describes the group, if it absolutely must be in the lead sentence. But using the CNN story here is going beyond what's actually stated. I don't think we can base any content on Kelly's use of the phrase "free speech" in scare quotes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of other sources that may differ on many things, but saying they do agree that as a stated goal, 'free speech' is central.[4] Also given there many rallies that list 'free speech' as their stated purpose, it makes it reasonable to let it remain. The PP has morphed in many ways since their first "Rally for Trump and Freedom", but 'free speech' is one area where they have been consistent from the local news reports. (I might question 'why' they link themselves with 'free speech' as I seen other groups from the Neo-Nazis to the KKK use the same language, but I don't see evidence to take from or add to the statement at this time).[5]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: "But Gibson's rallies have featured white nationalist speakers, and his group's events often attract a wide range of racist white nationalists, conspiracy theorists and anti-government extremists and militia types, says Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State, San Bernardino."[6]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There is simply *no* information provided here that supports the assertion that it is an anti-government group. CNN asserting it isn't support. 207.224.225.34 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I will take anti government out of the lede, it is obviously undue and incorrect, PP says they are anti big government Darkness Shines (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is supported by other sources, as I listed [7] and more besides say the same, so it should stay. "Patriot Prayer, originally based in Vancouver, Wash., and later moved to Portland, Ore., describes itself as a group that fights big government."[8] ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you even look at the edit I made? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. [Darkness Shines], but that not directed at you personally. I was attempting to help support the claim that it should stay.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

POV

Obviously. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Gee, read all the sections above. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines, I would appreciate links to local news outlets that support you point of view, thankyou C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines, did I miss your response with a long list of local media outlets that support the point of view you are pushing?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not pushing a POV Darkness Shines (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

But edits without first hand, local and reliable acts being referenced, sure looks like someone is pushing a POV. I only know of this group from my local television, radio and print media as they are operating near me, so the edits I made are based on these local sources. I will be happy to leave this behind me and return to historical research, but as someone pointed out, if it is not in specifically in the reference, it should not go into this site. Thankyou for all your help.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Tagged as POV, explain why antigoverment is fine in the first sentence, but not free speech? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are addressing me, [Darkness Shines]. Inserting that their stated goal of 'free speech and liberating conservatives on the West Coast' sounds fine and I never objected. I only object to them being listed as 'American', since their reach is only from Seattle to San Fransisco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. W. Gilmore (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure their American Darkness Shines (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You are assuming. It is not in any of their stated materials, news reports or articles, only West Coast and Pacific Northwest are listed. Please only include well sourced information and not your opinion, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are you going off topic? My question was, and remains why antigoverment is fine in the first sentence, but not free speech? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Please read carefully: "Inserting that their stated goal of 'free speech and liberating conservatives on the West Coast' sounds fine and I never objected. I only object to them being listed as 'American', since their reach is only from Seattle to San Fransisco." C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I am talking about antigoverment in the first sentence, that's all. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It is listed at the end of the paragraph, so it would be redundant.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Now we can talk about Patriot Prayer being 'only' a West Coast or Pacific Northwest organisation as is stated and verified by references. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you on about? It says Anti-Government in the first line, I am saying that is undue as they describe themselves as anti-big government, those are two very different things for christs sake. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Well if we did not spend so much time dealing with your POV, I would also have listed [9] which clarifies Joey Gibson's view of "big government". ["I'm brown so I'm definitely not a white supremacist, definitely not a white nationalist, definitely not a Nazi because I want limited government," he said. "Hitler was all about big government."]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Also [10]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And "Rally organizer Joey Gibson identifies with his Japanese ancestry and touts himself as an anti-government libertarian rather than a conservative. He says he doesn’t want white supremacists or the violent anti-protesters to attend." [11]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you seriously not know the difference between anti government and opposing big government? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And "An anti-government “free speech” group called “Patriot Prayer” had scheduled a rally for 2 p.m. Saturday in San Francisco’s Crissy Field, a popular park near the Golden Gate Bridge.[12] The evidence, even from Fox News calls them "anti-government" so what will it take for you to accept they desire the description?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

A That ain't Fox News. B That is a copy of the CNN source. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And "We tried to say all of that in our reporting, but Patriot Prayer is not a hate group per se. It is an anti-government group."[13] The facts are not supporting your POV, you are pushing.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Why have you used the source I just told you was a clone of the CNN one? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And your new source says they are anti-government, cited from hatewatch, a blog. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

KQED is not a 'clone' of CNN, nor is Fox 40 News, but even with these independent and reliable sources beyond CNN, you keep pushing your POV that the local news reporting does not support.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Who is the author of the Fox40 piece? I never said KQED was a clone, I said it cites a blog. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"Who is the author of the Fox40 piece?" Ans. Reporter: Lonnie Wong.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

So you think CNN is unreliable, but Fox news is great?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Should have looked more carefully at what you wrote, not Fox40, Fox2now is the CNN clone, and when did I say CNN was not RS? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've pinged WikiProject Politics to get more input on this debate. Funcrunch (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

KQED

I never tagged it as being unreliable, I tagged it as it actually cites a blog for their claim that PP are Anti-goverment. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

That fails for two reasons. One, once a reliable source publishes something, that something becomes reliably sourced, no matter what their "source" is. We don't go into three-level analysis of what sources are chosen by reliable sources; that is original research far beyond the bounds of what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. Two, Hatewatch is a perfectly usable source for the published opinions, viewpoints and statements of the Southern Poverty Law Center. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The point is that CNN as well as local Fox News outlets list them as 'anti-government'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Dab page?

Why has the link to a dab page been restored? Are folk reverting just for fun now? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The question should be, why was it change in the first place, but more important: Why has [Darkness Shines], now spent weeks trying to remove well documented and referenced material from the site.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It was obvious from my edit summary, here it is a dab page, we don't link to dab pages. see WP:INTDABLINK Darkness Shines (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps it would be useful to redirect to say, 'right-libertarianism' or 'Anarcho-capitalistism' or both.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

We could also use some help in grouping the rallies in a more user friendly way that still maintains their integrity, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You got sources which say they are either right-libertarianism or Anarcho-capitalist? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Since when do you care about sources when you edit, you've been going on for weeks now about how, 'anti-government' needs to go and not once have you given sources that disprove the current sources; but if you cared to look them up, you might see why they were suggested as areas to redirect. Remember, any sources I supply are just lazy and sloppy journalistic ones, so I'm sure you are much better than I, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no then. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You can take that as me not wanting to give you a full education on the branches of Libertarianism or Ancharist political philosophy on this talk page, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hatewatch, again

this edit is obviously unacceptable, how many times must this be explained? Hatewatch is a blog, it is the opinion of the blogs author, not a statement from the SPLC. I will be reverting this addition. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Listing the what the SPLC thinks of the Patriot Prayer, is an opinion, so saying they are not a 'hate group' is only part of the SPLC view of the group. Their view also includes: "Joey Gibson's 'Patriot Prayer' has trolled the Northwest with a series of rallies designed to provoke violence and populated with extremists, but he says he's changed his approach.[Neiwert, David (August 25, 2017). "Joey Gibson's 'Patriot Prayer' has trolled the Northwest with a series of rallies designed to provoke violence and populated with extremists, but he says he's changed his approach". Southern Poverty Law Center.]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

By saying only that the Southern Poverty Law Center does not list Patriot Prayer as a 'hate group' is to tell only half the opinion of the SPLC's view of this group. 'Hatchwatch' is just that for SPLC, and it expresses the opinion of SPLC for groups, even those not listed as 'hate groups'; thus to omit it from the referenced view of the SPLC, is to tell only half the story and half the truth of their opinion of the group. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is not the more complete opinion of SPLC? And if you have such evidence then please update the view of SPLC to reflect that more complete view of PP, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If you do not Southern Poverty Law Center's complete view of Patriot Prayer, then don't mention them at all. But to take only part of what the SPLC view of this group is, is to push a half truth over the real view they have of the group. Thanks, and I look forward to viewing all the research on this matter.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times, you cannot use hatewatch, a blogs the way you keep using it, this is just getting ridiculous Darkness Shines (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If you list the point of view of the SPLC, it needs to be complete or not at all. Stating that they are not a 'hate group' is only part of the opinion of SPLC regarding Patriot Prayer. Telling half the facts, only serves to push a POV, not accuracy, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Which source used says the SPLC does not consider them a hate group? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

So you want to list them as a 'hate group'???C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The opinion of the Hatewatch of the SPLC, is quite a reliable source for the opinion of the view that the SPLC holds on Patriot Prayer and helps to tell the complete tale of their view. It is quite reliable for the opinion of the SPLC since that it is from their own website.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(out) No, we have an RS which says the SPLC does not designate them as a hate group, hatewatch is a blog. Blogs can only be used for the opinions of the author, not an organization. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! You got it. The opinion of SPLC is that Patriot Prayer is not a 'hate group' and as listed in their blog, they tell the rest of SPLC's opinion of the group. To only list part of SPLC's opinion, is to only tell a half truth.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, shall we try again. Which source used says the SPLC does not consider them a hate group? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The BBC used the opinion of the SPLC that Patriot Prayer was not a 'hate group' and what is the rest of the opinion of the SPLC on this group? Well lets look at what else they say PP is as well as what it is not and for that you go back to the original source materials from the SPLC, just like the BBC did. You can not include only part of SPLC unlike you want only partial facts.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable source for statements of fact, a blog is not. Hatewatch is only suitable for the blog authors opinion, and I am getting sick of explaining this to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch is a very reliable source for the 'opinion' of the SPLC, in fact there is not a more reliable source available as it is THEM sourcing it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

You are either trolling or being deliberately obtuse. The fecking blog cannot be used for the views of the SPLC, read WP:NEWSBLOG, I will be removing that crap again, per this discussion and the one on the BLP noticeboard. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

So you remove the point of view directly from the SPLC about the view of the SPLC, what could be wrong with that???? Just to help you out, I quoted Newsweek quoting SPLC, so we don't have to rely on the opinion of SPLC anymore, but what someone says about their opinion, if that makes you happy.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Except you didn't, SPLC does not say what you think it says in that source, kindly look at where the quotation marks are, you are in such a rush to denigrate Gibson you are violating BLP. Please use more care. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

From Newsweek: "but the SPLC noted that Patriot Prayer’s rally in Seattle last Sunday saw the group’s leader, Joey Gibson, denounce white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Gibson marched the week before in Portland, Oregon, with white nationalists."[14] If that is not the core of what I wrote then what is???C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, it is supported this press release from Senator Feinstein: “According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Patriot Prayer attracts white nationalists and other hate groups to its rallies with the intent to provoke unrest between those groups and counter-protesters,” Senator Feinstein wrote. “I am alarmed at the prospect that Crissy Field will be used as a venue for Patriot Prayer’s incitement, hate, and intimidation.”[15]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, cos it's a letter Feinstein wrote, Newsweek is kinda clear on that, but again, it is citing hatewatch, which by now you must realize is a blog. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, the opinion of SPLC is good enough for the BBC and Newsweek, but not for you and your POV, I understand.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

How many times, hatewatch is a blog, it is not the SPLC. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

How many times are you not going to understand that Hatewatch absolutely is published by the SPLC, and is not an unedited "personal blog" of the sort which cannot be used as sources. Items published on Hatewatch are not the personal opinions and views of their authors, but rather the published viewpoints of the SPLC, and thus are usable as sources where appropriately attributed to the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your wrong. It is no different to any newsblog, this was already discussed previously Darkness Shines (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not wrong. Newsblogs are citable as reliable sources if the authors are professionals, and the items in question are not designated anywhere as "opinion" columns. The word "blog" simply designates the type of publishing platform being used; it says nothing about the reliability or usefulness of something as a source. That depends on the editing and publishing structure which supports that platform; are there verifiable editorial controls, a reputation for accuracy, fact-checking and corrections/retractions, etc. The SPLC has all of the above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I know this, it also says such platforms need attribution to the author. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Only if the piece is identified as an opinion. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). The article in question is not an opinion piece. It is a factual article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a couple of fairly obvious issues here - First, the SPLC is an advocacy group, not a news organisation. Second, the logic does not support the leading "Only" - The statement "If A, then do B" does not cover cases where "A" is not true - that is, "Not a newsblog" does not imply "don't attribute". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

(ecx3)David Neiwert is a freelance journalist and blogger, so it is opinion as he if just a contributing writer. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because someone is freelancing doesn't mean it's an opinion. They are a professional journalist, as you just stated, and the article is not identified as an opinion. The article is not written in a first person opinionated manner. What is your evidence that the article is opinion, other than your blind assertions? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I asked. The reply was "The blog is where we post investigative journalism pieces - it isn't an op-ed." Doug Weller talk 17:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC) signing a bit late, sorry

OK guys, I was positive it had to be treated as a newsblog, hence attributed to Niewert, if you guys figure saying what he writes can be attributed to the SPLC then we can consider this done. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Needs to be attributed, if not to the author, then to the SPLC. The SPLC is an advocacy group; the quintessence of WP:BIASED. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The original question was if it could be cited as part of the 'opinion' of SPLC since it was written by a journalist that then posted it to the SPLC Hatewatch which [Darkness Shine] said 'no' because Hatewatch was 'blog' and I say 'yes', because it was on their website and supported by SPLC so it could be used as part of their opinion. This was all about whether it was the 'opinion' of SPLC or not.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification

Not a single source used says PP are known for organizing Pro-Trump rallies, this is pure OR, as such I have tagged them as fv. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That must be an editing error, for all spoke of PP as Pro-Trump rallies, just read them and there are at least another twenty separate news sources that call the them Pro-Trump as well as them listing many of the rallies as Pro-Trump. (NBC Bay Area News: "The pro-Trump group Patriot Prayer, ...") (AP: "The rally organized by the conservative pro-Trump group known as Patriot Prayer —") (From the PI: "Both the rally, organized by a Portland-based pro-Trump conservative group known as Patriot Prayer, and a counter-protest aimed...") CNN: "Pro-Trump, anti-Trump fights yields 21 arrests" -That Pro-Trump rally they speak of is the PP one) C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are still not pleased with those, then perhaps a few of these: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] The fact that you still refuse to allow them in the lead section and took it out when before, speaks volumes.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Which one of those say PP are known for holding pro Trump rallies then? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

They all say Pro-Trump rallies, what sources do you have that say PP has not and does not hold Pro-Trump rallies, or will you again say that you don't need to justify your edits once again?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not ask if they say they all say pro Trump, I asked a simple question which you failed to answer, so we shall try again, Which one of those say PP are known for holding pro Trump rallies then? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

So again, you provide not supporting references for your position, that speaks values.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As usual you point blank refuse to answer a question, when I get home I'll be removing your OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it matters not what the references say, it matters not how many; it only matters what YOU want and your POV. You refuse to offer up any support for all your edits, yet YOU demand them of others, YOU delete entire sections because your opinion is that it is sloppy or lazy journalism, yet YOU continue to delete well referenced material. I'm sensing a pattern.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Now do you or do you not have sources and references that show they are not holding Pro-Trump rallies, because there is a stack of evidence saying they do.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll make this easy for ya, Which one of those say PP are known for holding pro Trump rallies then? Please note the bolded part. Respond to that and I'll tell ya what's wrong with your sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll make this easy for ya, with over 100 different news reports for over twenty different outlets all saying they are holding 'Pro-Trump' rallies, what evidence do you have that they are NOT known for holding Pro-Trump rallies as the evidence of Pro-Trump rallies does not support your edits.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You are the only one saying they are not and never have been Pro-Trump, but you refuse to provide evidence, all the sources say, 'Pro-Trump' but you refuse to accept this over your POV.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine, like I said, I shall revert your OR later, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits without evidence, why an I not surprised.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You are right they are not 'known' for anything so 'known' was removed per your advice so only verifiably referenced and resource items are included in the lead. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Now it all works, for they were not 'known' for anything, but they did/do orgainise Pro-Trump rallies and provocative protest which can all be verified. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In fact, it doesn't even need your 'personal' rework and 'organise Pro-Trump' has pages of news reports referencing it, you did good.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

`Goodluck with that Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Given PP's well documented and verifiable actions, no luck is needed, just good editing. The group's inviting and working with the likes of the Proud Boys, Three Percenters, Homophobic zealots along with links to the likes of Allen Pucket, Jake Von Ott, Jeremy Christian, Jeffery Hughes, Kyle Chapman, is more than enough. Someone once told me, that if it's not in the source, it should not go on into the page.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)