Jump to content

Talk:Patriot Prayer/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Article's not portraying racism

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

Pretty sure a couple of the members espouse white nationalism, Haley has openly supported it an Tiny recently said he doesn’t care if they bring in real racists to Portland. Moredps (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Oregon branch of the ACLU criticism of police handling of the recent demo

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

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

Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March

Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March was redirected to this article. See here in case any of the content can be copied over, or whatever. Also, there are more sources here: Talk:Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Image size

@Beyond My Ken: Why do you insist on having images displayed larger than necessary? Can't we just use the default setting instead of your personal preference? ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

So people can see them, of course. Postage stamp-sized images do not help anyone, and do not enhance an article. What do you image the ability to size images is there for? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
There's a reason we have a standard thumb size. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, so that if someone doesn't put in a size, the image will have a default size to display at. But it's a default size, not a "standard" size. Nowhere does policy or guidelines say that the default size is the preferred size. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Your personal preference is not more important than the default setting. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Again, DEFAULT -- i.e. what to do if nothing's specified -- NOT "standard". If you don't like getting the same results all the time, then stop doing the same thing all the time. Edit constructively, instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

What is their agenda?

Closing as yet another rant about bias.--Jorm (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I came to this page wondering what this group's agenda is after they were mentioned in a news article: what do they support? what do they believe? what is their platform? After reading about halfway in I started skimming, after three-quarters I abandoned the article as it doesn't really tell us anything about the group. Can anyone knowledgeable add at least 1 section that describes anything about what the group represents or what its purpose is (even if that is to say they don't have one)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@192.91.173.36: Being racist, basically. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree, this article is more of a hit piece, and it doesn't even contain a link to the organization's website or any discussion of their purpose and beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9500:3180:D503:3948:FFA4:E08A (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree, this article is one great big nose-thumb at the very concept of NPOV. I'm sure there's no point in trying to fix that -- it's what Wikipedia is infamous for, after all -- but I did go ahead and add external links to the organization's official websites. NCdave (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Jorm, deleting another user's Talk page comments about the problems with an article violates WP:Talk_page_guidelines. Please review those guidelines, and do not repeat your mistake.
Additionally, deleting all the "official websites" from the external links for an article about an organization is vandalism. Please do not do it again. NCdave (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@NCdave: No, that wasn't a mistake. All talk pages are Wikipedia property. Random rants with no content suggestions and no sources will be removed on sight per WP:NOTAFORUM. Other editors would do the same as well. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 14:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing random about complaining about astonishingly blatant NPOV violations, nor is there anything random about the fact that "I did go ahead and add external links to the organization's official websites," and both remarks are obviously about the content of this article.
There is, however, a rule about civility, and calling someone else's constructive comment a "random rant" violates it. Please behave. NCdave (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
You left a random rant. I'm going to close this thread now as it has served (and will continue to serve) no purpose.--Jorm (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2019 (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.

Hello Moredps, I'm not interested in an edit war, but your insertion of a wikilink to Christian Identity, renamed Hell Shaking Street Preachers is misleading and constitutes an EASTEREGG. The target article includes no mention of Hell Shaking Street Preachers. If you want to edit Christian Identity and add a properly referenced mention of Hell Shaking Street Preachers, have at it. Until then, the piped wikilink needs to go. Rhadow (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

In the alternative, you could create an article on Hell Shaking Street Preachers. Rhadow (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

yes I'm not intrested in an edit war either that's why i put this down as minor, I'm not sure if they even need a page they are a small group of white nationalist Christians I'd like to encourage others to read christian identity/Groups, as there isn't really much about them but they can be recognized through common traits.--Moredps (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

sorry for trying to delete this so many times we fixed the piped link so I didn't think it was necessary to keep this around but while it's here I may as well ask if people think the Hell shaking street preachers wikilink would look better next to the proud boys at the top of the article.--Moredps (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)moredps

Hello Moredps, I'm not interested in an edit war, but your insertion of a wikilink to Christian Identity, renamed Hell Shaking Street Preachers is misleading and constitutes an EASTEREGG. The target article includes no mention of Hell Shaking Street Preachers. If you want to edit Christian Identity and add a properly referenced mention of Hell Shaking Street Preachers, have at it. Until then, the piped wikilink needs to go. Rhadow (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

In the alternative, you could create an article on Hell Shaking Street Preachers. Rhadow (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

yes I'm not intrested in an edit war either that's why i put this down as minor, I'm not sure if they even need a page they are a small group of white nationalist Christians I'd like to encourage others to read christian identity/Groups, as there isn't really much about them but they can be recognized through common traits.--Moredps (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

sorry for trying to delete this so many times we fixed the piped link so I didn't think it was necessary to keep this around but while it's here I may as well ask if people think the Hell shaking street preachers wikilink would look better next to the proud boys at the top of the article.--Moredps (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)moredps

"this definitely needs discussion first"

User:Dumuzid, you reverted my edit with the comment "this definitely needs discussion first." Unfortunately, that's not possible when Jorm / Tsumikiria keeps deleting the discussions from the Talk page.

On 5/21/2019, User:T.Nuvolari tried to discuss the extreme bias of this article. He wrote, "I don't think I have seen an article more obviously biased then this one in my many years of reading this site. Its entirely one sided pushing a left wing narrative and uses sources like the Southern Poverty Law Center (referred to 6 times in the article) which can hardly be considered a neutral organisation." Which is right.

But instead of discussing the problems with the article, Jorm deleted T.Nuvolari's Talk page comment, contravening WP:Talk_page_guidelines.

I noticed the same problems with the article, independently, but when I tried to discuss it, Jorm deleted my Talk page comment, too, again contravening WP:Talk_page_guidelines.

I restored my deleted comment, and added another, informing Jorm that deleting other users' Talk page comments about the article violates WP:Talk_page_guidelines. But and Jorm / Tsumikiria then archived the discussion (effectively deleting it again), which is contrary to the talk page guidelines which suggest archiving stale talk page discussions when the talk page exceeds 75 KB; this talk page was nowhere near that big, and the discussion was active the same day he archived it.

How do you propose that we have the discussion about the extreme bias of this article, when every attempt to do so is immediately deleted? NCdave (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Read the archives. Post useful suggestions with sources. Don't make edits that have long-standing consensus against. This talk page is not your forum; you are not allowed to use it to air grievances. When you post "this just sucks" and provide no sourcing? You're using it as a forum.--Jorm (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I've just made an even weaker edit, which leaves in the term "alt-right" but notes that "alt-right" is an accusation, and also notes that founder Gibson calls himself "moderate" or "conservative-libertarian" (citing reliable sources for both, of course). The article is still very severely biased to the Left, but I hope that everyone can at least agree to this tiny improvement.
Really, there's way too much POV baggage attached to the term "far-right," and we shouldn't be using it at all. The AP calls this group "right-wing," but when I tried to change "far-right" to "right-wing' it was immediately reverted. But I'm trying to work with you, in a spirit of compromise. Okay? NCdave (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not an improvement. If the article is "biased to the left" it probably means that this is what they are, because that is all that the reliable sources cover. If you can provide a reliable source (and please, laughingly, not self-descriptions) that say otherwise, feel free to bring it here for discussion. Please note that no one has been able to do this, so good luck with your Indiana Jones level quest.
We will not compromise on the language just to white-wash perceptions or inject false balance.--Jorm (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

NCdave, your discussion above really had nothing to do with your proposed edits. I'm sorry that you feel frustrated, and sometimes following Wikipedia policies does, in fact, lead to frustrating results. But what I had in mind is less an edit back-and-forth and more why you feel the proposed edit is appropriate and the sources upon which you are relying. I will caution that while self-descriptions can certainly be taken into account, they alone do not override the weight of reliable sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Interactions with Abolish ICE?

Fellow Editors, Looking at the page history I see some recent edits & reverts to a sentence, which currently states: Patriot prayer has a history of harassing and assaulting Abolish ICE activists; and is sourced to Willamette Week 1, Willamette Week 2, SPLC's Hatewatch Blog. On review those sources they do not appear to support the text as written:

  • None of the sources mention Abolish ICE.
  • Willamette Week 1 and SPLC's Hatewatch Blog do not mention assault.
  • Willamette Week 1 does mention Occupy ICE, and does mention Patriot Prayer; but describes the PP actions as taunting, and is clear that in the incident which the source documents, there was no physical violence.
  • Willamette Week 2 does mention assault, in the context The violence likely violated several Oregon laws because, as WW reported in March, mutual combat is not a defense against assault charges. It is just the latest brawl between antifascists and the far-right. The source documents a an incident in which Patriot Prayer members & Antifa members engaged in mutual violence; it would be misrepresentative to describe that simply as assault.
  • None of the sources mentions a history or pattern of assault.

Suggest that, if WP:DUE and not already covered elsewhere in the article, we include a sentence on the taunting of the Occupy ICE protestors, and a sentence on the Antifa fracas; both sentences aligned strongly to the sources. Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Unless there are objections raised here, I will shortly remove this line from the article as unverified. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
It was actually "Occupy ICE" according to KION6 [1], so such a change would be more accurate. Damingo Sanchez (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Any

scholarly publication covering the subject? ∯WBGconverse 15:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Not that I've found. I don't believe there are any sources covering the organisation as the main focus of the source; as opposed to events or incidents in which the organisation or its members were involved. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2019

Woodrya (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Image size

*sigh* @Beyond My Ken: We've had this discussion before. Talk:Union_Square,_San_Francisco#Image_layout and Talk:Jack Kerouac Alley come to mind. There's a default image size for a reason. Why does everyone need to see larger images just because you prefer them? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my preference, it is entirely to do with people being able to visually comprehend an image in an article. Images must be presented at a size that people can easily see and not be forced to click through to comprehend We're here to service our readers, amd presenting images they can actually see is part of that. The default size is just that, a default, it is not the mandatory size, it's just what images go to if you don't adjust them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Beyond My Ken, I'm not "screwing around", and I'm always trying to improve articles even if you disagree. I don't appreciate your reply, actually. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry, striking my comment because of edit conflict; my comment was in response to your original reply. Whatever, I still disagree and find the larger image size unnecessary, but I'll work on other things. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portland Mercury

Here is a very interesting article that may be of use.--Jorm (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There might be more to squeeze out of it, but I used it here and in the Joey Gibson article to say that the infiltrator "Ben" took videos of the violence at PP rallies, and was expected to testify at JG's trial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Logo?

Is there an official logo to add to the infobox? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I've seem images of Gibson wearing a tee-shirt with "Patriot Prayer" on it and a waving flag between, and there's an image on Google with that as a tattoo, but they don't use that design on their Facebook page, so I don't think we can assume that either of those is an official logo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Material on SPLC

Nothing is going to happen here, per usual.--Jorm (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Since the article is not about the SPLC, and since it is an antagonist in the cultural war, the material about SPLC's statements/claims is not appropriate in this article. SPLC's polemical comments are not a reliable source. The comments are potentially libelous and defamatory. So I took the liberty of removing that material. (PeacePeace (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC))

The SPLC is a perfectly fine source for this article. You removed a section that was properly sourced, not just to the SPLC but to other reliable sources as well. Please do not continue to vandalize articles to promote your own point of view. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources to substantiate what SPLC opines does not make the opinions of SPLC valid. A claim that SPLC says negative things about Patriot Prayer is improper in this article, which is not about the slant of SPLC, but PP. Please do not post vandalistic defamation about any group, even if such favors your own POV. (PeacePeace (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC))
Edit conflicted with the close; the WP:RSN is thataway if you want to argue that SPLC isn't valid.--Jorm (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2019 (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.

Merge Joey Gibson (political activist) into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, given no consensus, stale discussion and consistent objections given clear justifications. Klbrain (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Gibson is not notable for anything outside of his founding of and activities with Patriot Prayer. The two articles substantially overlap, with only one or two sentences being about Gibson personally. The entire article should be merged into here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Gibson ran for the Senate in the Republican 2018 primary, which offers independent notability. And the attack on the customers at Cider Riot earlier this year does not appear to be so much a "Patriot Prayer" action as Gibson & associates deciding to terrorize a business that supports progressive causes. Watching his activities thru the local media, I believe his relationship to Patriot Prayer has become frayed as that organization has started to disintegrate; he is likely to remain a prominent far right activist long after Patriot Prayer is gone. -- llywrch (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPOL, a failed run in a primary does not confer notability If he survives the passiing of Patroot Prayer and does more stuff outside of their purview, his article can easily ne recreated. As of now, thought, there's not reason to have two articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • End copied text

To elaborate on my points above, Gibson has a political career beyond Patriot Prayer. Besides his unsuccessful campaign there is his involvement in the Cider Riot incident, which I believe was not an official PP activity. And it doesn't help that both articles are confusingly organized, & in need of work. If anything, this article should be merged into the other, as it appears this is one stage in his political career, as PP seems to be falling apart: his lieutenant Tusitala "Tiny" Toese has reportedly fled Portland to evade his arrest, & other members reportedly have left PP. We'll see what putting Gibson behind bars for a while does to PP, whether it can survive without him. -- llywrch (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Llywrch, I agree, the PP article needs work. I had tried to create articles about a couple of the notable protests, in an effort to reduce some of the detail in the parent article (such as Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March, but the community decided to redirect here). If the PP article continues to grow, we may need to consider ways to reduce detail, or possibly even fork some content. Certainly merging more content into the PP article is not a good idea. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 21 August 2019 (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.

connected? What does that mean?

Article says, "According to the BBC, Patriot Prayer have been connected to the alt-right as well as other far-right groups." I suggest that "connected to" be deleted and some specific connection be asserted with proper reliable sources, if such is truthful. "Connected to" is a way of vague defamation. A connection could be favorable or antagonistic. ("The leach was connected to his back" does not mean that his back was in sympathy with the leach.) Probably the verb should be "has", not "have." But using the passive voice here is weasel-wording, connected by whom? Is the alleged connector a reliable source? (PeacePeace (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC))

If you read the source, it says "Patriot Prayer is considered to be connected with the alt-right and other far-right groups, but the group insists its message is unity and freedom of speech." So, that's what the article says. We don't get to impose our view of events in Wikipedia articles, we report what the sources say. I know that's horribly inconvenient, but there you go. Also you seem to be tossing around words like "defamatory" and "libellous" without really understanding what those terms mean. I do hope you aren't trying to make a legal threat. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The comment is only about the nature of what is in the article. As the article has nothing to do with me, the idea that I am making a legal threat is absurd. I don't know much about the group this article is about, but all groups deserve fair treatment from material on subject & reliable, instead of polemical. And fair editors should remove polemics from articles. BTW, the SPLC is not a reliable source for anything in the cultural wars. See Washington Post and many analyses of SPLC on internet. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html My edits are in good faith. (PeacePeace (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC))
I suggest that, until you learn what "opinion pieces" are, and how to tell the difference between them and actual news articles (hint: in this case, it has the word "opinions" at the top!) - until you have this basic competency - I suggest you stay away from contentious articles.--Jorm (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
PeacePeace, That WaPo link takes us to a polemic from a writer who's made a career of promoting the most right-leaning of the mainstream and who has arguably strayed into the beyond -- see, e.g. his defense of Rumsfeld-era "enhanced interrogation." It's not helpful to cite his work in a sourcing discussion about SPLC. Please take a moment to reflect on the feedback you're getting from other editors. There are no "culture wars" among Wikipedia editors. We're all just trying to improve these articles. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
PeacePeace -- I certainly don't mean to speak for The Mirror Cracked, but I think his mention of a legal threat was more of a friendly warning than an accusation. We do indeed take legal language like "defamation" pretty seriously since there are plenty of people who try to get their way through the threat of litigation. That being said, we don't really "fisk" the reliable sources here; Wikipedia exists to reflect, in a neutral way what the reliable sources say. We're not after truth, we're after verifiability as reflected by the coverage of reliable sources. Now, no one is saying that it's a perfect system or that it doesn't lead to sub-optimal outcomes, but that is the Wikipedia way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I also have concerns about directly labeling them as far right when they dispute it themselves. I have modified the lead of the article to emphasize that's what some of the media describe them and moved the attending groups (guilt by association) from the lead down into the contents. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that Patriot Prayer is "far-right", so we report that. We don't analyze their ideology and make an independent assessment of where it falls on the political spectrum. That is WP:Original research and is specifically prohibited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Archived BLPN discussion. [2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Yet another request for white-washing without sources.--Jorm (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Change all mentions of “far-right wing” to “right wing”. Source links fail to substantiate “far-right” claim, rather gives a significant amount of evidence to the contrary. Based on Wikipedia’s definition of “far-right”.

Change order of events, misleading. A portion of events that occurred in 2017 is directly preceding events in 2018. This is misleading in that it appears more damning if the events in 2017 happened following events in 2018. And simply this is just not chronologically accurate. 172.58.45.140 (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

We report the descriptions used by reliable sources. I do not see the 2017/2016 chronology problem you're reporting, please be more specific. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2020 (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.

Patriot Prayer is based in Vancouver, Washington not Portland, Oregon

As per their own Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/PatriotPrayerUSA Phone number is a 360 area code. Their founder ran for a US Senate seat in Washington https://ballotpedia.org/Joey_Gibson and lives in Vancouver as well https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100013660111371 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutphux (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Information

Nothing actionable, as usual.--Jorm (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Some of the information in this article is either picking and choosing the information of it source or misrepresenting it altogether. For example, the article for source (80) states that the projectile that started the riot was first thrown at patriot prayer *however* it also states that there is no clear evidence of where the projectile came from. The Wikipedia page then uses this source to support the claim that counter-protesters began the riot. This changes the the Wiki article from fact (the projectile was thrown at patriot prayer but from an unknown source) to persuasion (it was thrown by counter protesters). Since this article is protected to avoid vandalism I would like to request that it be looked over and *all* instances of subjective opinions be rewritten by just the facts. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective and unbeholden to either side. Please, don't let this happen. LylaFrisk (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2020 (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.

I Wanted to Find Information about Patriot Prayer

Nothing actionable, as usual.--Jorm (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

But this article reads as though it was written by Antifa or some other group which opposes the organisation but can't say why. Can we either have a proper article or none at all. 81.158.193.177 (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2020 (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.

Far right

Apparently, there was a discussion about this elsewhere, and it somehow arrived at a conclusion that runs completely counter to what our sources say. FollowTheSources (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, nor have you provided any indication of a source you disagree with, or any source that may be counter to what is said. So this is a waste of everyone's time; thanks for that!--Jorm (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Context.[3] FollowTheSources (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Why would you think other people follow discussions on your user page? You still haven't even said what you think needs to happen. This is more time wasting.--Jorm (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Short version: There was a discussion outside of this talk page about the content of this article, specifically whether we should identify this organization as far-right[4]. What I saw there was strong opposition to removing this label, as it was used by many reliable sources, following by the opposers going silent while Masem and Morbidthoughts came to an agreement. So when the latter attempted to remove the term, I restored it.
Clearer? FollowTheSources (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The term should not be removed, as it is indeed supported by multiple reliable sources, regardless of what Masem and Morbidthoughts may have agreed between themselves. They do not control, consensus on this talk page does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The label is not removed. It was moved to the second lead sentence to give attribution. Multiple editors on the noticeboard agreed that this label needed attribution. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you and Masem add up to "multiple", but there are plenty of editors who continue to object. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop and Zaereth also agreed with attribution while Sir Joseph disagreed with the label because the sources are subject to bias. Dimadick also disagreed with the label. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you going to count the people who disagreed, or should we ignore them? Note that I wasn't involved in that discussion, but I likewise disagree. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You're free to count them in that discussion, but I was rebutting your sarcastic definition of "multiple". Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but no sarcasm was intended. I was conceding that it wasn't your decision alone. But, yes, I was pointing out that it was mostly you and Masem, which still remains the case. It likewise remains the case that the people who objected to the change never did come around. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The label is essential description, and should remain in the lede sentence, as is normal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
There is little issue that the label is essential w.r.t. to this group based on the coverage but it is a label and thus a subjective term that can't be stated in factual wikivoice. That the group is widely acknowledged as far-right when they are reported on in the news is sufficient that we can say in wikivoice, in essence, "PP is considered a far-right group." without the need for any inline attribution in the lede (on the basis this is delved into in the body with sources) - that statement is factual. But as a subjective term, it can't be left bare in wikivoice, and for the same reason it shouldn't be introduced in the first sentence, or at least in the first part of the first sentence. It could be moved to a second part of the first sentence, ("PP is an activist group out of Portland, Oregon, broadly considered to be a far-right organization.") though the flow is better by moving it to the second second "PP is an activist group out of Portland, Oregon. They are broadly considered a far-right body, known for organizing rallies in support of Donald Trump[6] and far-right protests in predominantly liberal areas, which have been met with large numbers of counter-protesters...") Either way still hits the reason this group is in the news and notable right up front as early as possible but without the problem of placing subjective terms in wikivoice. --Masem (t) 05:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

"Stormfront is a white nationalist,[3] white supremacist,[4] antisemitic, Holocaust denialist,[5][6][7] and neo-Nazi[8] Internet forum, and the Web's first major racial hate site.[9]" FollowTheSources (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument (I'm sure there's an endless supply of other examples on en.wiki that can be pulled). This is about PP and established policy while maintaining what the sources say and the relevant facet of those sources. --Masem (t) 05:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Further, that's a website while PP is a group of people. WP:BLPs are to be written conservatively and WP:LABEL requires in-text attribution: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." This requirement overrides any talk page "consensus". Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest that Stormfront is a good indicator of Wikipedia policy because it is such a high-profile page, so it has many experienced sets of eyes on it to ensure that it complies. It demonstrates that it is entirely consistent with policy to accurately label an organization in wiki-voice, as opposed to accepting the self-description as factual. FollowTheSources (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Far-right is not a "value-laden label". It only describe their political activism. Also, saying that "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument" is actually wrong. Even the Essay that you linked says it is valid in some occasions and this is indeed one of them.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, there are many articles with far left in them describing individuals and organisations etc.[5] It doesnt make sense to say it is a value-laden label.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Whether it's laden with values or not, there are sufficient reliable sources available that we have to say it in our own voice, not attribute it to others. FollowTheSources (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
It is still a label, it is subjective, and can't be said in Wikivoice fact. You have more than enough sourcing to get away without in-line attribution to say, as fact, it is considered far-right, or that it is identifed as a far-right group, or numerous other ways to take the subjective term out of Wikivoice. A large number of sources using a subjective term does not mean you get to ignore NPOV per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. --Masem (t) 00:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not subjective. Far-right politics are objectively defined. If far-right is subjective then far-left, left-wing and so on are subjective. However, lots of articles in Wikipedia describe individuals and organizations as far-left, left-wing etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem with this "objective" definition through the article you link to is that far right "feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, anti-communist, or reactionary views." This particular group rejects several common aspects attributed to the far-right label, especially those having to do with race and homophobia. Probably because of their multiracial membership.[6] Gibson himself is half-Japanese. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Your personal feeling that the label does not apply is not relevant. It is a well-defined, objective label that is overwhelmingly and uncontroversially used for this topic among reliable sources; therefore, we must report it as fact. --Aquillion (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree with SharʿabSalam▼; it's defined, and this organization meets the definition. Masem likes to make sure we don't harm the feelings of deplorable folk by calling them what they are (c.f. his dogged insistence that Gamergate - a nebulous "organization" - not be called a "harassment campaign" even though that's exactly what it is). More of the same here, I think.--Jorm (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Your gut telling you that it is subjective is not relevant. Your gut telling you that these sources are all biased is not relevant. If you have sources showing that there is disagreement over it, or actual arguments to demonstrate the bias you're alleging, present them. Otherwise, you need to drop this. I don't know why, but I am actually, genuinely disappointed - you know better than this, Masem. No matter how much you might disagree with a source, no matter how much it might make something in your gut twist and tell you it's wrong, we judge the facts based on the best sources available, not on your personal opinions. And you have presented nothing - not even the slightest shred of evidence - to support your baffling assertion that every single source is biased here, or that the objective, factual, well-sourced statement of fact in the lead is somehow now magically subjective despite unanimous sourcing treating it as fact. --Aquillion (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Note that FollowTheSources has been blocked. While I started a SPI for that editor, I also support keeping "far-right" in the lead (and have made a few revert to restore it over the last year). Simple language is better, and a personal dislike of a term does not transform it into a "label", nor would this automatically make it non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There is little issue that the label is essential w.r.t. to this group based on the coverage but it is a label and thus a subjective term that can't be stated in factual wikivoice. That argument is jaw-droppingly absurd; I'm baffled that an experienced editor would present an argument that is so drastically divergent from our policy. (The last time I checked, WP:LABEL did not state that we are to avoid every term that Masem objects to.) We describe things as the sources do; and far-right is a well-defined academic term with a specific, objective meaning. It is no more subjective than any other political-science term. Naturally people can disagree on whether something is far-right, just like they can disagree on any other topic, but when the sources are in broad agreement we must reflect what they say - you cannot simply remove or cast doubt on their conclusions because you, personally, disagree; "this descriptor feels wrong to me" does not magically let you cast doubt on a straightforward, well-sourced, objective statement of fact like this one. If you have high-quality sources you feel indicate it is not factual, go ahead and present them; but you need to stop wasting everyone's time with this baffling belief that you can just arbitrarily declare factual statements you disagree with to be subjective. That isn't how it works - we go by the sources, not your gut. And the sources treat it as a fact. I know you have, in the past, sometimes taken issue with the entire media landscape (believing it to be biased in a way that we have an obligation to correct); I'd hoped you'd finally gotten past that? But if your argument is "yes, the sources treat this as fact, but Masem's gut says it is subjective", it really seems like we're back in the same place we were six years ago - you're being more genteel about it, but your basic argument here is that we should disregard the sources and go with your gut. --Aquillion (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggest re-writing this page

Nothing actionable, as usual.--Jorm (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

After a shooting that happened in Portland yesterday, I decided to research to understand what "Patriot Prayer" was about. I came across this Wikipedia article, which paints a pretty nasty picture of the group. I then came across this video from the founder: https://www.facebook.com/100013660111371/videos/314989532299715/. No reasonable person can listen to that video and then reconcile that with the claims made on this Wikipedia page. If Wikipedia wants to be a credible source, editors need to rewrite this page to be factual and honest. I appreciate that some media outlets may have made claims that clearly do not align with what I heard in that video from the founder, but that does not justify Wikipedia repeating or citing those outrageous and apparently false claims.

Perhaps something like this would be a more appropriate introduction, as it appears to be far closer to the truth.

"Patriot Prayer is a politically-neutral group based in Vancouver, Washington. Patriot Prayer describes itself as advocating in favor of free speech and opposing big government. The group has organized rallies in support of Donald Trump and protests in predominantly far-left areas, which have been met with large numbers of counter-protesters who initiate violence."

Since I know so little about the group, I cannot write an appropriate article. However, there is clearly a disconnect between the words I am reading on this page and what I am hearing in that video from the founder that is now three years old.

While I guess I ought not be surprised, when I followed the link from this page to Joey's page it described him as a "far right" individual, in spite of later saying "Gibson describes himself politically as a 'moderate libertarian'". I do not know why Wikipedia publishes such clearly contradictory statements, but I can only assume it's politically motivated. Reading the bits about his platform when he was running for Senate and the words coming out of his mouth, yeah, he definitely sounds more like a politically-neutral libertarian. He also claims to be Japanese-American, which only further leaves me wondering why Wikipedia publishes words claiming he and and his group are "far right" when Wikipedia describes "far right" as, more-or-less, white nationalists or neo-Nazis.

So what is the truth? Why do I see such astoundingly conflicting claims?

Paulej (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It is very simple: We don't give weight to self-description. I could describe myself as being a Former President of the United States and that wouldn't make it true.--Jorm (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
That's only for physical things that can be proven like job positions. For ideology and belief you should in fact give weight to people's words. You're always free to contrast those words to their actions. LegendLength (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting because I found something similar about this article where they suggested things that weren't true about what happened during riots. I agree that this article needs to be overhauled and rewritten with just facts. No persuasion from far right or far left. LylaFrisk (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2020 (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.

Prejudicial Terminology Used - Observations from a First-Time Member/Editor

This is a cool story! However, this isn't a forum and there's nothing actionable.--Jorm (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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. 

  Earlier today I read an online article which mentioned a group I had never heard of named "Patriot Prayer".  Having, in the past, found Wikipedia to be a source of quick, generally reliable information, I copied the organization's name and sought edification from Wikipedia.

  After having read the entire article, and reviewed the references, I was dumbfounded.  I re-read the article to verify that my feelings and concerns were not misplaced.  Re-reading did not help to assuage my feelings.  I do not believe that I have ever read a WIKI article which made such a brazen claim against a group (calling them "far-right"), without adequate evidence.

  Patriot Prayer does not describe itself as "far-right", and there is little or no hard information in the article to indicate that they are.  In this day and age of prejudicial reporting in all branches of media, relying upon the fact that a newspaper, magazine, or television reporter used the term is laughable.

  I was so upset by this article that I interrupted my otherwise busy day to fill out the information which would allow me to comment upon this, and bring it to others' attention, so that it could be rectified.  As you might imagine, it was very disappointing to find that this issue had already been considered ... to no avail.

  I will use WIKIPEDIA again, but I view the information with new and justified skepticism.
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.

How do pages with counterdicting information get protected?

Nothing to do here.--Jorm (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

The Patriot Prayer page insinuates that the organization is far-right and welcomes white nationalists, etc, but the page says it denounces such groups. So why is the page allowed to lead with a counterdicting statement? FlashPrayer2020 (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

People and organisations do not always tell the truth about themselves. We report what reliable sources say about them no matter what they say about themselves. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is the Citation proving that this group is "Far-Right" which is already harshly defined by Wiki? I'm creating an "alternative" page for "Patriot Prayer" since this one is "protected against vandalism." What cowardly "bunk." Production and Decay (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Here it is. There's a footnote to it right after the first sentence of the article. Are you having difficulty accessing the footnotes, Production and Decay..? Bishonen | tålk 16:01, 1 September 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

Nothing to do here.--Jorm (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Update, "On August 29, 2020, a man wearing a hat and t-shirt with the Patriot Prayer emblem was fatally shot in downtown Portland, in the hours following a caravan rally in support of Trump," with the newest information. Example: On August 29, 2020, a man wearing a hat and t-shirt with the Patriot Prayer emblem was fatally shot in downtown Portland, in the hours following a caravan rally in support of Trump. The shooting suspect, Michael Forest Reinoehl, has said they are, "100% Antifa." In multiple videos, someone can be heard saying, "We've got one right here! We've got a couple of them right here," followed by the shooting suspect firing at and hitting Jay Bishop. Norsfam5 (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Provide a reliable source that supports this and not "some youtube videos say this".--Jorm (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is the Citation proving that this group is "Far-Right" which is already harshly defined by Wiki? I'm creating an "alternative" page for "Patriot Prayer" since this one is "protected against vandalism." What cowardly "bunk." Production and Decay (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It's in citation no. 1 beside "far-right." TFD (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
And I just replied the same thing above. Why are you asking the same question several times, Production and Decay? Are you determined to waste as many editors' time as possible? Bishonen | tålk 16:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC).
Oh, I see you actually posted it five times, and that is the sum of your contributions to Wikipedia. Blocked for disruptive editing. Bishonen | tålk 16:07, 1 September 2020 (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.

Right Wing

Many reports from reliable sources such as the following from BBC News https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53962363 describe the group as "Right-Wing" rather than "Far-Right". This range of descriptions should be included or the article is effectively selectively cherry picking adjectives from sources while claiming NPOV. 2A02:8084:4EE0:6900:7C7D:2FBD:D6D7:F7B3 (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

All "far right" groups are also "right wing" so that doesn't mean what you think it means. You should learn what "NPOV" actually means.--Jorm (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
That's pure interpretation and irrelevant reasoning. While a Far Right party is by definition Right Wing, a Right Wing party is not necessarily Far Right by any means. If the original author from the BBC desired to call them Far-Right instead of Right-Wing they were free to do so and its not wikipedia's place to ignore non-interchangeable descriptions used by reliable sources. 2A02:8084:4EE0:6900:7C7D:2FBD:D6D7:F7B3 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
That is a cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Very mature. 2A02:8084:4EE0:6900:7C7D:2FBD:D6D7:F7B3 (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how representative this example is but the IP makes a valid point. If a preponderance of sources use the term "right wing" and only a minority of them feel comfortable strengthening this to "far right", the amount of weight we give to each term in the wiki article must be adjusted accordingly. Connor Behan (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
It is abundantly evident that Wikipedia has no desire to document facts. Some left-wing news outlets will declare anything slightly to the right of them as "far right" and Wikipedia editors accept those claims as gospel, even in the face of a mountain of evidence (including a video where the founder provides a background on the group) to the contrary. They are apparently unaware of their own biases. Above, I called for the article to be re-written because it is full of discrepancies, even within the article itself. My suggestion was summarily dismissed and the discussion blocked for edits. This isn't the first time I've come across such articles on Wikipedia and it's this intolerant, biased nonsense that has prompted me to just stop donating to Wikipedia altogether. The platform has been taken over to push a political agenda, it seems. For certain, there is no desire to publish the truth. While I'm still no expert on Patriot Prayer, what they are NOT is a "far right" group, but you cannot persuade Wikipedia editors otherwise. I'm not sure how they justify calling a Japanese-American who describes himself as a libertarian and calls for people to join his group from both the left and the right as "far right". I simply cannot wrap my head around such stupidity.Paulej (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
If you look in the talk archives, I believe this discussion has gone around numerous times. Graywalls (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Your political POV becomes ever more apparent for you to offer an unbiased opinion on this and any related article. 48Pills (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree this is blatant misinformation, for a group to be labelled far-right, something about their policies should be associated with far-right ideologies. As a reminder, literally Nazis are far-right, not being a just being a Christian, and supporting Trump.--23.252.83.1 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources sometimes use the expression right-wing to describe the far right, but the meaning is always clear in context. If context is lacking, then we could be referring to a group of Mitt Romney Republicans. But Mitt Romney Republicans don't put on baseball caps and attack Black Lives Matters protesters. Instead they go to country clubs where they won't see either BLM or Patriot Prayer members. TFD (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Sources that are considered reliable in the Wikipedia realm throw around both far right and right. After seeing the long discussion on this in archives, I don't really care enough to get into it. Those of you who feel strongly about it can open up a formal Request for Comment or take this to neutral point of view noticeboard if they want to. Graywalls (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There are reliable sources that describe Joe Biden and Joe Stalin as left-wing, although none that would say they have similar ideologies. Obviously the terms left and right can be stretched to cover a lot of territory. Used on their own, without context isn't very helpful. TFD (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
My understanding of this disagreement over the magnitude of "right" ness that keeps coming up is over the general labeling. Even Fox News characterizes it as far-right here: https://www.foxnews.com/us/antifa-far-right-fight-portland-bar-protests but it could be that they're not consistent with it. I stopped caring. Graywalls (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

August 29 2020 shooting

I've gone through several sources and they say the victim was "a supporter of" as well as Joey's personal friend, but just wearing a hat is like wearing a collegial apparel. I find the inclusion into this page until reliable sources show membership or attendance on behalf of the group undue. Graywalls (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

A shooting is a much bigger deal than marching, flag waving and public brawls. The sudden influx of WP:NOTHERE accounts discovering this article for the first time makes this clear. If someone were killed for wearing collegial apparel, that would also be highly due and deserve a mention on the Wikipedia page of the college (regardless of whether or not the victim was a member). Connor Behan (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Sources do indeed call him a supporter and friend, what else do you want? We say what sources say. We’re not saying “he attended weekly meetings at the sooper sekrit hideout”. Volunteer Marek 23:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's worth including here right now, though. Getting shot is not, by any real stretch of the imagination, a "Patriot Prayer" activity; the section shouldn't just become "collection of stuff that happened involving people who are part of Patriot Prayer." All the other stuff in the section either involves a group of people acting under the Patriot Prayer name, or things done / directed by the group's leader under its name. --Aquillion (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
That's my thinking. I think it's best to keep it off unless/until a sufficiently strong connection is made. Similarly, if someone did something in a Ducks cap, or even while a UO student, it would be undue to put it on the UO article. However, if reliable reported news coverage says if a student athlete traveling for the team did something in a host town while they're there for an away game, then, that is different. Currently, the verifiable connection is that the shooter was a PP supporter wearing a PP hat (I don't know how hard they are to come by..) whose friends with Joey. No reported account that he was there representing the group or together with the group. Graywalls (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl

Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl 2003:F3:23C6:1277:4C02:8F57:AD09:6662 (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patriot_Prayer/Archive_6&oldid=1137073234"