Talk:Patriot Prayer/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Right then

The SPLC needs attribution per the link kindly supplied by Koffman, [1] So there is a consensus on that. The other change I made, linking to presidency of Donald Trump, how is this an issue? Added a bit from the sources, bear in mind this exact wording was in the lede before, repeatedly disavowed them, that's the changes. How is this worth reverting hours of work? Why not just change the wording? I also note Trump now links to Political positions of Donald Trump, were was the consensus reached for that? Or is it just me who gets reverted all the time and nobody else needs consensus at all? Now, explain what is so wrong that hours of work was reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't let the troll patrol get to ya man. Arkon (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources state Joey Gibson has also repeatedly disavowed racism.Gibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy So thats that issue out of the way. I will restore my formatting and add this citation to support the three words I added. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Do not restore your "formatting". You've been told not to and reverted several times.--Jorm (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I will restore it, until I see an actual policy based reason given not to. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is against the rephrasing & removal of references that you have been performing. The burden is on you to provide reasons why the version you prefer is better- in the many sections above that you have started, editors have explained various issues with rhe phrasing choices you have made. An obvious criticism of mine: Your assertion that SPLC is not an RS does not appear to have any truth to it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I never said the SPLC was not RS, consensus is it ought to be attributed per the link provided by Coffman. Also the citation is from Hatewatch, the SPLC blog, so per NEWSBLOG it cannot be used for statements of fact anyway. Please bear in mind I have cited Hatewatch, and attributed it per policy. I fail to see how linking to presidency of Donald Trump, or adding the words repeatedly is "phrasing", it's an internal link and a few words, which I have sources for. It does not matter if people object, all that matters is policy, this is not a vote, it is following policy, so give me a reason within policy that three words, which are cited, and an internal link cannot be added. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

As there are no objections to the formating, policy based objections to adding repeatedly disavowed them this cited content please. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: Tornado chaser (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The policy that says you have to come to agreement with other editors is WP:CON. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Your ping didn't work mate. Consensus ain't a vote, nor can it be used to stonewall additions of cited content. I want a policy based reason to not add it, not IDONTLIKEIT. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not a vote, but editors do need to work together and threatening to edit war is not helpful (but neither is WP:IDONTLIKEIT) Tornado chaser (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you object to the addition of three words which I have citations for? BTW, I ain't threatened an editwar, I'm going with policy Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Which 3 words? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

From this edit mate, I did mention this at the top of the thread. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but the ABC source just sends me to the ABC page, not the article being referenced, so just use the CBS source. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Objection to "repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism"

I object to using the wording suggested by Darkness. The reporting on this varied, and here are other sources:

• On Saturday, the group Patriot Prayer will hold a rally in Crissy Field Park near the Golden Gate Bridge. The event has been denounced as a white supremacist rally by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, though the organizer of the event has repeatedly said white supremacists, neo-Nazis and other groups blamed for the violence in Charlottesville, Va,. earlier this month are not welcome. L.A. Times

• Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said the now-cancelled Saturday event at Chrissy Field, which is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, would bring white supremacists and neo-Nazis to the city. Gibson was adamant he is not a white supremacist and that the group does not support white supremacy or neo-Nazis.

However some of the rallies he has previously organized in the Pacific Northwest have attracted white supremacists and other alt-right supporters. Some have ended in violent confrontations between demonstrators and counterprotesters. USA Today

Saying "repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism" is repetitive and appears to be WP:SYNTH; I've not yet seen sources that use these two forms of disavowing together. This also gives undue WP:WEIGHT to PP's claims. See "repeatedly said" and "was adamant". The two sources I listed are reporting what Gibson said, with some degree of scepticism. The current version "denounced racism" is short and to the point. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What Lee and Pelosi say, which btw is obviously false, has no bearing on what Gibson says, I have given the sources which funnly enough, state ghe exact opposite of what you claim, strange that. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

So, any actual objections based in policy? If not I will move onto the next issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

How about "disavowed them and repeatedly denounced racism" since we have sources that say "disavowed them" and a source that says "repeatedly denounced racism", this says basically the same thing without anything that could be interpreted as synth. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well we do have a source which says it, but I'm ok with your wording. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this wording -- it's repetitive, WP:UNDUE and does not follow summary style. Other sources also say "was adamant" and "said white supremacists were not welcome". Should we include all of these variants? I also don't quite understand the comment funnly enough, state ghe exact opposite of what you claim -- what do I "claim" exactly? What is "exact opposite"? The comment is unclear to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

What about "repeatedly denounced racism" to remove the duplication? It seems notable that the denunciations were repeated. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, what Lee says is irrelevant, and Gibson being adamant that he's not a white supremacists, what's that got to do with anything? You said, "I've not yet seen sources that use these two forms of disavowing together", But I gave a source which does exactly that. It is not undue to say Gibson has repeatedly denounced them and racosts, cos he has. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, it is not repetitive in the least, "repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism" THEM, refers to the white nationalists mentioned in the same sentence, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a sources that states "repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism" together? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Gibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy" Given above already, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Any further objections? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I object, with the exact same reasoning as K.e.coffman. I do not believe that you have sufficiently "solved" for those objections, and I do not believe the article should contain your text. Neither, apparently, do many other people. You do not have consensus for this change.--Jorm (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Coffman's objection was he thought it synth, I already gave the source to prove that wrong, so any other objections? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You have not adequately proved that the sources you're removing are not reliable sources. Please note that reverting to your preferred version again would be breaking the conditions of your unblock. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I never said that one source was unreliable, i said it needs attribution. Consensus at RSN is SPLC has to be attributed, all I have done is replace one instance of Hatewatch, I will also point out three or four editors on this talk page have concurred with the same consensus. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• So, any further objections? I'm pretty sure everything has been covered now. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• The wording "repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism" does not appear in the sources provided. In any case, that's synthesis and cherry-picking from preferred sources, while ignoring others. The current wording is shorter and to the point, and is thus preferable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this.--Jorm (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

How many times do I need to show you that you are wrong Gibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy cite given, again. It is not synth so give up on that shite, you asked for a source, you got one. So an actual objection please. (Personal attack removed) Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. Also, this Talk page for discussing improvements to the article; for user behaviour, please see WP:ANI, where you can make your case about a "bad hand account". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Again you point to a policy which does not support you. You need to provide a reason why it shouldn't be included. And I have given you ample chance to do so. In fact, a section below I see three people saying that repeatedly should at least be there. Consensus us not with you going by that count. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, arguments put forth to exclude the content are, SYNTH, obviously not per the source, UNDUE, obviously not per Gibson has denounced white supremacists LA Times openly denounced white supremacists and neo-Nazis WaPo denounced racism Mercury news Gibson openly denounced white supremacism and neo-Nazis Hatewatch Gibson has also repeatedly disavowed racismGibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacyJoey Gibson has also repeatedly disavowed racismGibson has also repeatedly disavowed racismrepeatedly disavowed racismrepeatedly disavowed racism. These. So seriously, what objection remains Darkness Shines (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The quality of some of these sources is very wanting. Perhaps instead of insisting on all of these contested changes at once, you could start with one specific change (as I did with the synth in the lede) and work from there? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

All those sources are used in the article, and all are RS, and adding 'repeatedly disavowed them' is one specific change. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

formatting-only changes

We should separate the formatting and content discussions. Are there policy-based objections to the reformatting provided no content or sources are altered? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If the changes are converting cites to sfn style (i.e. not copy changes or source removal), then I don't have any objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Changes which involve any text changes or removal of a source, then I will want investigation and discussion, esp. if done by Darkness Shines, who I do not trust to edit honestly and openly.--Jorm (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If that wasn't a PA it was close, but no, I have no objections to the reformatting of refs. ANY text changes (even a few words) or removal of refs should be discussed first. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus, sorry. Default to no change. I don't like closing discussions as no consensus, but user opinions are closely divided, whether enough reliable sources actually say "although" and "repeatedly" or that is synthesis is debatable since just a few words are involved, and no other Wikipedia policies or guidelines unambiguously cover this either way. --GRuban (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Wider community input is needed due to a disagreement over the addition of three words to the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists,[18] although Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced racism.[19] is the current version.

• Some of the rallies have caused controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists,[18] although Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism.

Changes are bolded. Cites for the changes are Gibson has denounced white supremacists LA Times openly denounced white supremacists and neo-Nazis WaPo denounced racism Mercury news Gibson openly denounced white supremacism and neo-Nazis Hatewatch Gibson has also repeatedly disavowed racismGibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacyJoey Gibson has also repeatedly disavowed racismGibson has also repeatedly disavowed racismrepeatedly disavowed racismrepeatedly disavowed racism. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment Neither. Whilst I can see why "repeatedly disavowed racism" is valid do the sources say he has explicitly and repeatedly disavowed those demonstrators? Also I fail to see the need for the inclusion of the word Caused (as opposed to Drawn) but either works.Slatersteven (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Four of the sources above say he has repeatedly disavowed them, he has also repeatedly requested such people not come to the rallies he organized Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment What about: Some of the rallies have sparked controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists,[18] Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced racism and repeatedly disavowed white nationalists. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems OK to me Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer that version for clearly language in the second half ("them" had an uncertain referent), but "sparked" is journalistic emotive language. We shouldn't be implying cause and effect without sources proving it. It's better to use encyclopedic passive voice here: "Some of the rallies have been controversial because of the attendance of white nationalists."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists,[18] Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced racism

and repeatedly disavowed white nationalists. (Summoned by bot) L3X1 (distænt write) 15:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• • Controversy has arisen around the rallies due to the attendance of white nationalists,[18] Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced racism

and repeatedly disavowed white nationalists. How about this? L3X1 (distænt write) 02:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Neither of the proposals you've written are acceptable as both contain synth. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Curious, where is the synth? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The although, as pointed out in the above section which you have commented in. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

TC suggestion don't have that, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Question - Before weighing in on this I'd like to see the answer to User:Slatersteven's question; "do the sources say he has explicitly and repeatedly disavowed those demonstrators". Can we get the specific sources that state that? NickCT (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Gibson has denounced white supremacists LA Times openly denounced white supremacists and neo-Nazis WaPo denounced racism Mercury news Gibson openly denounced white supremacism and neo-NazisGibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy Yes they do. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Only one of these four sources uses 'repeatedly' to describe the disavowment. It would be best to not use this word, as it reads in a more advocative tone than an encyclopedic one. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have given what, ten sources? All which use repeatedly, so not seeing your point Darkness Shines (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You just linked four, only one of which uses that wording. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

One to avoid the synth you figured was present, the rest shows Gibson has repeatedly denounced said groups, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Only one uses the 'repeatedly' wording, and none of them say that the attendance of white nationalists did not spark controversy because Gibson had denounced them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment at 20.33 over repeatedly, the rest of your comment makes no sense to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. I will phrase this simply: Only one of the four sources you linked in response to the question supports a fraction of the changes you wish to make. You need sources which explicitly support the changes you wish to make. You cannot combine sources to say things individual sources do not (this is WP:SYNTHESIS). PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Again I refer you to my comment at 20.33, there are no synth. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That comment does not link to any sources which support either of your proposed wordings. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

has repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism. Gibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy Yes, my comment does. The source supports the wording. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Second Wording - Following sources pointed to by Darkness Shines. Debates about whether or not to include the word "repeatedly" seem a little pedantic. NickCT (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: The current lede is already quite similar to what DS proposes; the changes re-introduce synthesis to the lede (see above section) and selectively apply wording from a minority of sources to downplay negative media attention the group has attracted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: - I'm pretty neutral on the inclusion of the word "repeatedly". That said, if the best source Darkness Shines can come up with for the word is Berkleyside, I might suggest we drop it if for nothing else than to end the debate. Using "repeatedly" could fairly be viewed as "downplaying". NickCT (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Reading into this subject a bit more deeply, I find the group a little perplexing. It's challenging to find any kind of manifesto or agenda attached to the group. They seem dedicated simply to yelling, "We're loud. We're proud. We're conservative" in liberal areas. Seems a little troll-ish if you ask me. Anyways, interesting subject. Thanks to both PTF and DS for discussing it. NickCT (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• (ec)It's Not the only soyrce

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/11/antifa-far-right-protesters-clash-again-in-portland-disrupting-peaceful-rallies/?utm_term=.0400b11140bc Gibson and other speakers condemned white supremacy]Gibson said his group disavows racism, white nationalism and hatredGibson, a Trump supporter who has publicly denounced white supremacists Darkness Shines (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I know it's a little pedantic, but Peter seems concerned about the level of emphasis that the word "repeatedly" creates. Frankly, I'd suggest that unless we can point to sources which use that level of emphasis, we ought to avoid it. NickCT (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

TBH when someone is accused of being a white supremacist, or neo Nazi, you kinda gave to repeat the fact that you ain't. Now if we are going to say unpleasant types turn up at these rallies, we also should state that Gibson has denounced then on a regular basis, this is not false balance, it is neutral Darkness Shines (talk)▪

@Darkness Shines: - I appreciate and sympathize with your position Darkness, particularly b/c in my reading about this group, it's definitely not obvious to me that they do represent a classical example of a racist or white supremacist group. It seems possible that these guys are being judged "guilty by association", which definitely doesn't seem fair. All that said, with sticky POV questions of this nature, I think it's really important that we keep to sources as much as possible, and I don't see support for the level of emphasis you want to apply in the sources. NickCT (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries @NickCT:, how about, repeatedly denounced racism, for which there are dozens of source's, along with he has also condemned white supremacists, for which we have six or seven sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose / neither -- all the ref for "repeatedly" are from late Aug / early Sept 2017, when PP was facing pressure around their planned rally in San Francisco. By late Sept, PP was back marching with white nationalist Kyle Chapman who, at the same event, addressed the crowd and discussed the "war on whites" (read: white genocide conspiracy theory0. It's WP:SYNTH / WP:CHERRYpicking to put this in lead in Wikipedia's voice that they "repeatedly" denounced racism, without giving a timeframe. "Although" is unneeded SYNTH as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not synth, we have sources. Going by your rational we should remove mention of white nationalists being present as the sources for that statement are from the same time period Darkness Shines (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

White nationalists were present much sooner than Aug; you are mistaken. Also, there's no need to respond to every post; you've commented on the RFC close to 15 times already. Please see WP:BLUDGEON. But, since you insist, this RFC appears to be an attempt to reargue the earlier discussion from Oct 3, where your preferred version of the lead has been rejected:

• Talk:Patriot_Prayer/Archive_3#Darkness Shine lead proposal

You have been trying to insert "has repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism" ever since. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose / Keep current -- "rallies have caused controversy" is not accurate, opposing opinions are the cause, without rallies controversy would still exist. Regarding "repeatedly denounced racism", reliable reports that he said it once are very important, repeating the same statement over again, so what? Dougmcdonell (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Second Wording - supported by sources, feels only fair to mention the founder's repeated denunciation of white nationalists attending his rallies. I can't imagine how the second wording could be controversial. Cjhard (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Second Wording - Same view as Cjhard. "Repeatedly disavowed them" seems like important, evidenced information, though I have no preference between "drawn" and "caused" because I don't think "caused" implies any magical prediction about the counterfactual world not having controversy; it's just used in the normal sense of the exact controversy that happened, wouldn't have happened. Utsill (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose / First wording, although "caused" is probably fine (and I'm unsure why two unrelated changes have ended up bundled together.) The purpose of the lead is to summarize, not to include every single possible wording of a point in every available source; and in this case "repeatedly disavowed" is clearly redundant with denouncing racism (the key point is that he denies the allegations, which can be expressed in just a word or two in the lead.) Beyond that, piling on so many disclaimers feels like it's non-neutral in tone. I would suggest "has disavowed racism" as a compromise (changing "denounced" to "disavowed" from the current version, with no other changes), but "repeatedly" for emphasis and having both constructions in the lead seems like it has tone issues. --Aquillion (talk)
• Oppose/Neither - per K.e.coffman. I realized I never actually voiced my position in here, so let's just make sure that happens.--Jorm (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose/First wording. And whatever happens, "repeatedly" is NOT supported by multiple sources, despites Darkness Shines's attempt tp gloss over that fact. --Calton | Talk 17:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As usual Jorm reverts, but there is a consensus here for the second choice wording, so I will be restoring the edit Darkness Shines (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I see a lot of conversation, but this doesn't look like consensus to me. As usual, reasonable minds may differ. Dumuzid (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

What consensus? I don't see any, also the RfC has only been going for 16 days. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Keep the original wording, which is more succinct and seemingly less controversial. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Per talk"?

The RfC has not closed yet, and I don't see the consensus "per Talk". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm counting six in favour of the wording suggested by TC, three against, one which seems to be a vote against my suggestion, how is that not a consensus? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The person who starts the RfC is generally not the best person to determine what the community consensus is. Let someone uninvolved do it. Besides, RfCs generally run for 30 days. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, consensus is not merely a counting of votes. It's a broad agreement--though certainly need not be unanimous. I'd still say this looks like a no consensus to me at this point. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus in the RfC for the change. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Me neither, (Personal attack removed).--Jorm (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm counting 10 in support of the second wording suggested, how the Hell is that not a consensus? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is not merely a counting of votes. It's a broad agreement--though certainly need not be unanimous. I'd still say this looks like a no consensus to me at this point. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• I count only five in support and five against. The RFC is confusingly structured and many people have posted multiple times in it, with a few comments that seem to vaguely support one side or the other without making an unambiguous declaration, but - excluding one comment from a topic-banned user - I see five broadly for some variation on your preferred wording (you, L3x, Nick, Cj, Uts) and five against (me, Peter, Coffman, Doug, Jorm), with two comments (Slater, Tornado) that don't strictly take a side but which lean opposite ways in terms of their proposals. That's not a consensus. In any case, this is clearly not a straightforward WP:SNOW situation where someone involved in it could reasonably be justified in closing it. --Aquillion (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Huh? Myself, TC who I assume is not objecting to his own suggestion. SMcCandlish Supports TC suggestion. L3X1 supports TC version, NickCT support TC proposal, Cjhard support TC proposal, Utsill supports TC suggestion, James J. Lambden supports TC suggestion, that's eight in favour to 5 against, arguments against such as synth are obviously wrong, there's to synth. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Lambden is topic-banned, so his opinion holds no weight. I don't read Tornado or SMcCandlish as unequivocally voicing support (they are experienced editors and know how to do so if they want to weigh in clearly), but if you count them, it is silly to discount Slater, who was unequivocally skeptical of your preferred version. That gives us 5-7 support and 5-6 opposing depending on how you do the counting; still clearly no consensus, and still clearly nowhere near the point where someone as heavily-involved as you could assess consensus or attempt to close it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought, but is there a source that reads "repeatedly disavowed"? That would make it easy to eliminate the seeming synth. Gabriel syme (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not see anything close to consensus. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Gibson has denounced white supremacists LA Times openly denounced white supremacists and neo-Nazis WaPo denounced racism Mercury news Gibson openly denounced white supremacism and neo-NazisGibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy Sources Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that berekelyside article looks like just what you need then. Gabriel syme (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Berkleyside a reliable source? I haven't the faintest idea. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the awards won for journalism I'd say yes. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Jah, I'd have to say it's reliable. I live here; I actually read it from time to time.--Jorm (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It's still a local source, and can't carry the weight that Darkness Shines is trying to put on it. --Calton | Talk 17:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus

At all for this And Peterthe4th you have broken the 1RR restriction on the article, self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• ... do we really need a date-format edit war here? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

He changed the lede without consensus, not sure were your getting dates from? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Anti-racist

Neither source used support this at all, either add a source which does or I'll be removing it as OR Darkness Shines (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The aljazzera source says anti-hate and anti-bigotry, anti-racist is more specific and unsourced. Also, it looks like the fact that the anti-hate protesters were outnumbering them at most ralleys is OR. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Mother Jones uses "anti-racist" in this article: [2]

• "A rotating group of anti-racist speakers is addressing a crowd gathered at a corner outside of Alamo Square Park."
• "Anti-racist protesters gather in San Francisco on August 26, 2017."

However, I'm also okay with the current version, which says simply "counter-protesters". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

SFN templates

For this particular article, I do not think the template:sfn ref style is a good choice. I'm not talking about other changes which were made (or not) at the same time, just the reference style. Right now it's a mish-mash of two styles, which is bad by itself, but I don't really see why we have them at all in this case. This style is great for articles with a lot of specific cites to books or journal articles, where long works are referenced multiple times and page numbers are important. It really doesn't make sense to me here. These sources are mostly short news articles cited only once. This is creating an entire redundant bibliography section.

Some entries are too vague to be useful by themselves, such as "Associated Press, 2017". The sfn template is not really consistent for works without named authors, and there are many of those here. My choice would be to remove them and go back to the more common reference style. At the very least, the ones that are already this style should be converted, but as I said, I don't see any benefit to this.

I suppose I should wait for the temporarily banned user who made these changes to be able to comment before reformatting these, but if anybody else has any comments on it, might as well start the ball rolling. Grayfell (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Go for it my dude. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely so I say just go for it.--Jorm (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. I went through them and found many errors, mostly trivial, but some pretty substantial. I'm sure there are more I missed (or introduced myself). Many sources were mislabeled in some way. One cite confused the Washington Times with the Washington Post, which is pretty bad. A Willamette Week article was misattributed to the Williamson Gazette, which may or may not exist. The article also had two different sources labeled as "Matarrese b". One was tied to a specific date, so I attached that one, but the other didn't support the other sentence. I don't know where this belongs, but it's a great example of the kind of thing that falls through the cracks in a situation like this. There were two sources which were listed but not directly cited at all.

I also couldn't help myself and made some formatting adjustments, such as MOS:CURLY and italicizing some newspaper names, but I do not think anything could be seen as substantial or controversial. Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's tedious work, and it's good of you to take the time to do it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with changing the formatting, and see no consensus to override the existing consensus already reached above so the harv system will be restored Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that would go well for you. I've said exactly why I think the (partial) use of SFN templates was inappropriate, and other editors agreed. Your response seems to be "No, I don't like it" without providing any new information. The previous discussion was only tangentially about these changes, and support seems more resigned than enthusiastic. As I explained above, these citations contained many errors, some of which were serious, some of which made references significantly less informative and harder to edit. The current consensus seems to be for the harv system to go, so you will need to discuss this based on its own merits, not inertia. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The existing consensus has not been changed, and the article is far easier to edit when useing harv formatting, it is for you to change consensus not I, and formatting the remaining refs was on my to do list Darkness Shines (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There was never consensus for your changes in the first place, as evidenced by the extreme negative reaction to them. If you re-instate your changes (against consensus, again), you will be reverted. --Jorm (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Darkness Shines (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

When I said I didn't mind the reference format change, I assumed that a) You wouldn't make content changes; and b) that you wouldn't screw it up. You broke both of those assumptions, so now I very much do mind. As I said, I will revert you if you attempt this.--Jorm (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Read Darkness Shines (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus can change. I've explained why I do not think these templates are an improvement, but let me add one more reason. SFN templates make references more difficult to read by removing the link from the reference tooltips. I'm sure I'm not alone in using this for confirming references. It's just a convenience, but a big one. This is especially important for controversial topics like this, where changes are made frequently by inexperienced editors who do not always support their changes. The trade-off is often worth it for a more stable article with fewer news articles as sources, but this one needs a lot more attention. A hovering link to "Associated Press 2017" provides no useful information in this regard. This is both less useful to readers, and less useful to editors. Grayfell (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but it has not been changed, it is simple to click on AP 17, that takes you straight to the link in the bibliography. And this article is not so highly trafficked that changes are constantly being made, Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell, personally, I would like to thank you for your improvements. Darkness Shines, your claim is that consensus was for the admittedly inconsistent mishmash which existed before? It was on your "to do list," was it? Color me unimpressed. Dumuzid (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is for harv referencing Darkness Shines (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Then why are you the lone dissenter here? Moreover, everyone admits the references were a mess. I would argue there wasn't even a stable version susceptible to a consensus analysis. By all means, make your substantive arguments. But I remain unimpressed. Dumuzid (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove POV tag?

There have not been major disputes recently -- should we remove the tag? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm good with it. Feel free. Via con dios.--Jorm (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Article is very biased. For example Jorm and others have stuck right wing in the very first sentence. While a few sources do identify the group that wau many others don't. And sources discuss the group with other issues and identifiers such as pro-Trump, free speech, anti-Big Government. Sources also discuss that the grouo's leaders has disavowed and confronted racist protesters and groups. He's also identifoed himself as Japanese and members of the group and its speakers as being of various ethnicities. He's also noted he's anti-drug war and pro Gau rights. This article in its present form violates basic lrinciples and guidelines such as NPOV and honesty. I have no objection to noting the group has been referred to as far right or right wing with attribution. But the truth and complexity of the situation as discussed in reliable independent sources should be noted. And a Willamette Week cite that says the grouo is based in Washington is inapproproate for a sentence that says the group is based in Portland. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd say we've reached a level of relative stability, and so it can be removed. But as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Unreasonable minds even more so! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The source just added noted that organizers promote free speech and say they are opposed to white nationalist and racism. It notes that the SPLC doesn't list the group or its leader as extremist. Why are we misleading readers? Using inflammatory language without explanation and misleading readers with inaccurate and incplete information is wrong. By all means lets2 include right wing in the article where the group's views and politics are discussed. But throwing around labels cherry picked from select sources is wrong. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC

I can only speak for myself, but I am misleading readers because of a fundamental corruption in my soul. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The source that was added says that Gibson says that they are opposed to white nationalist and racism. There's a difference. I.e. Gibson is WP:SPIP about himself and his group. Pls also see WP:ABOUTSELF. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It also details the SPLC view, the group's views and statements, and politics none of which support the characterization. Nut more importantly lots of sources don't refer to the group this way. And we need to reflect the various waya the group is described and ACCURATELY portray their views and the various ways they've been characterized. Accuracy and truth matter. Smears and slurs aren't appropriate. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Nope, as any attempt to make the article neutral is reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see any recent disputes, so I removed the tag. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Group's address

@FloridaArmy: The source that I added states:

• The group’s address is 431 SW Madison Street in Portland, Oregon

See: [3].

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, I would add that Vancouver, WA is indeed in the Portland area, despite being in a different state, much in the way that Newark, NJ might be said to be in the NYC area. While I think an explicit source is a good addition, I just thought it was worth mentioning the geography we're discussing. Happy almost Friday, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If a source said a group was based in Newark it would be inappropriate to say it the group was based in the New York City area and cite it. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I tend to disagree, but I understand the position! Dumuzid (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that if we add "metro" to "Portland, Oregon area", as in "Portland, Oregon metro area", that would solve the dilemma. @FloridaArmy: do you agree?

Note that the other source -- "Right-Wing Slugger “Tiny” Toese Arrested Again While Trolling Portland" -- describes the group as a "far-right protest group", with Gibson's sidekick Toese being referred to as "the most well-known pugilist in the Pacific Northwest's right-wing extremist movement". So calling the group "right-wing" in the lead is neither undue nor exceptional. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Should we call the Proud Boys white nationalists?

The page calls the chauvinist Proud Boys a white nationalist group, citing the Vancouver paper The Columbian. 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.
• 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.
• The Globe and Mail quotes the Proud Boys founder saying about white nationalists, "that's not my cause."
• The Huffington Post reports the founder saying the group doesn't tolerate racism.
• Wired clarifies the group's members "say it's not about race".
• The Vancouver Sun mentions twice in an article they deny being white nationalists.
• The website of Proud Boy Magazine says "Anti-Racism" is a central tenant of the group.
• The Proud Boys USA site says the group is inclusive of "all races".
• 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."
• The Intercept reports them rejecting "in the strongest possible terms" the superiority of any race.

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2018

"Augst" = "August" 2605:E000:9149:A600:A0C7:74DF:A7D6:5742 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Gibson for Senate Freedom March

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

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?

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)

I think patriot prayer rallies looks better personally, so far I count at least 3 rallies that have not been written about two involving the newly established #himtoo movement and one in Vancouver called the "Jesus march", I'm hoping that if this list of events has it's own page it will open much needed room for the more public leaders of patriot prayer, Tiny,Haley,Edie, etc.--Moredps (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Far Right?

If Patriot Prayer is labeled 'Far Right', why is ANTIFA not equivalently labeled 'Far Left'? Both organisations are openly using violence to push their agenda; however, there appears to be a double standard on on the front-end of Wikipedia's articles describing each organization. [4]

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

I came to this Wikipedia entry after seeing the Patriot Prayer group referenced in a news story. This entry labels the group "far right", but provides no reasoning for the label. News stories labeling the group "far right" are referenced, but these stories do not define how the term fits this group either. It may be useful to create a section in this Wikipedia entry that discusses Patriot Prayer's designation as "far right". An effort to use mostly unbiased sources would be helpful (AllSides can be helpful in this regard). A good Wikipedia entry should not allow one side of the political spectrum to label groups associated with the other side. Just as Fox News would probably provide an unreliable label for a liberal group, Huff Post and SPLC probably provide an unreliable label for a conservative group. Given the controversial nature of this Wikipedia entry, it needs to focus on using unbiased news sources as well as describing exactly why this group should or should not be described as "far right". --Auctoris (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Auctoris: We already have many articles on far-right politics (Category:Far-right politics includes many, but not all, of these articles). Your proposal makes sense in many situations, but it's not how Wikipedia works. For many reasons, we don't try and balance sources against each other based on ideology. For one, we don't assume that there are only two sides. For another, we don't assume that both "sides" are equally valid; by that I mean that it's possible for a source to be far-right or far-left and still be correct (or incorrect) on its own merits. Having an ideology, even an extreme ideology, doesn't actually make a source less reliable or less accurate, since the argument to moderation is a fallacy. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia evaluates sources based on their reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. If you know of reliable sources which discuss the definition of the term far-right in relation to Patriot Prayer, please start a new talk-page section at the bottom of the page so we can discuss how to incorporate that into the article. Since the allsides.com source doesn't mention Patriot Prayer, it is not useful for this article. It also doesn't appear to me to be a particularly reliable source, but that would depend on the source's context. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe declaring something false based on the source would fall under the genetic fallacy. That was not my intention. Is there a reason you find AllSides to not be particularly reliable? --Auctoris (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose so, but this isn't a debate, it's an encyclopedia, so we have to show our work. Wikipedia is based on sources and consensus, not individual arguments. If reliable sources say that Patriot Prayer is far-right, and they certainly do, we need a specific reason to refute them. That hypothetical reason is going to be based on other reliable sources. Ideology isn't enough by itself.

As I said, allsides.com would have to be judged in context. The idea of combining WP:UGC and a proprietary (patented, no less) method for determining bias along a single axis is extremely dubious to me for many reasons, but this isn't really the place to discuss that. It appears it's come up before and the gist was that it may be reliable with clear attribution, but it's not necessarily noteworthy enough to bother including. I agree with that, but this is all too abstract, as it has nothing to do with this article. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this. I understand that sometimes good measures do not necessarily end with good results. Unfortunately, this is an article stating that a group is far-right yet it does not state what part of their ideology makes them far-right. The reliable sources that are cited call them far-right and also do not state what part of their ideology makes them far-right. So the procedure of using reliable sources is in place, yet the rationale for the far-right label based on the group's ideology is still missing. I often come to Wikipedia when I read about topics in the news. I had never heard of this group before. I learned from this entry that reliable news outlets label this group as far-right, but I have no idea why they label them as far-right. I do understand that proper procedures are being followed. Maybe a more informative entry can be produced at some point in the future.--Auctoris (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Talk:Patriot Prayer#"Pinochet Did Nothing Wrong" is an example of the far-right belief. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That was helpful.--Auctoris (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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 [5] and corresponding sources:

• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/08/04/portland-right-wing-anti-fascist-rallies-patriot-prayer/904871002/
• https://www.yahoo.com/news/wing-patriot-prayer-rally-counter-slideshow-wp-212529094.html
• http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/04/portland-braces-itself-for-violent-clashes-between-right-wing-and-antifa-protesters.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-latest-police-will-screen-for-weapons-at-portland-rally/2018/08/04/6b3628e2-9808-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-patriot-prayer-proud-boys-antifa-today-live-updates-2018-08-04/
• https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/patriot-prayer-rally-arrests-made-as-right-wing-protesters-anti-fascists-fight-in-portland-streets.html
• https://www.cbs17.com/news/national-news/patriot-prayer-and-antifa-face-off-in-portland/1346569056
• https://www.chronicle.com/article/As-U-of-Washington-Braces-for/242507

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:

• "Far-right Patriot Prayer clashes with anti-fascists in Portland". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2018-07-02.
• Mathias, Christopher (August 3, 2018) "Portland’s Patriot Prayer Rally Could Be Most Violent Since Charlottesville, Activists Say" Huffington Post
• Staff (August 3, 2018) "Portland police warn protesters to leave guns at home ahead of planned far-right, antifa demonstrations" CBS News
• Staff (ndg} "What you need to know about the upcoming far-right rallies in the Pacific Northwest" Southern Poverty Law Center
• Jason, A. W. (Augst 5, 2018) "Portland far-right rally: police charge counterprotesters with batons drawn " The Guardian
• Link, Taylor (August 4, 2018) "Far-right groups and antifascists collide in Portland" Salon
• Staff (August 5, 2018) "Portland police arrest four in far-right rally and counter-protest" BBC News

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." [6] (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." [7] (June 2018)
• NYT: "Far-right groups arrived for a rally on the Willamette River waterfront, with lots of blustery talk of violence." [8] (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." [9] (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”..." [10] (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"

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: [11] 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." [12] The number comes from the BBC report here: [13]; 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

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)

Right-wing

Post script, from the latest protest of Saturday, 18 August- Per the Associated Press(AP) and The Seattle Times, the statement that Patriot Prayer is 'Right-wing' group along with the 3 Percenters: [14] [15] With most coverage repeating the AP and only one local station avoiding labels all together, [16] it would some version of 'ritht-wing' or 'far-right' (in a political way) seems logical to leave in the lede section. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

How should the Lead section reflect this, I have little opinion; except to not that in a less-political context the term 'far-right' is loaded with baggage the terms are often used to describe Neo-Nazis and even the Klan in some cases in place of the term, 'alt-right'. These small differences and alternative uses will keep this issue alive on pages such as this. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Other, better sources differ.--Jorm (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me, but I only wanted to point out the causes for this long-term edit warring over the terms.24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)