Talk:Patriot Prayer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Cleaning up the lede

Once the article is unlocked I will use refcondense to hide where multiple references are used; the references will still be there but it will only appear as 1 reference instead of 4 or 5. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I wish I new how to do that, but I'm still learning.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Why bother? The lede violates NPOV in every way possible, once it's unlocked I will be restoring the neutral version which also uses harv referencing and is very tidy. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:, you may wish to wait until there is consensus and you makes some changes so it is more neutral and balanced. Your version whitewashes this group far too much.[1]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, you definitely shouldn't do any major changes as you don't have consensus. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is not required to fix obvious policy violations Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well versed you are on "policy violations"; nevertheless, just so it's clear, you don't have support from myself to make any major changes to the lede. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not making major changes, just rewriting so it conforms with NPOV. All the same information as there currently is will remain, just written neutrally Darkness Shines (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:Do you realize that rewriting to change to tone could be considered major changes? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, if you are proposing the version I saw in your sandbox, I would also oppose these changes. Separately, I'm unclear on what the obvious policy violations are in this article. For example, this edit summary referred to a BLP violation, but I don't see how mentioning Chapman is a violation since he was an invited speaker. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Where in that source does it say Gibson invited "Chapman and others like him to speak"? Tornado Chaser, how is it a major change if the content is essentially the same? And in all honesty, not a single person can actually say what is wrong with it, so I'm not seeing the problem tbh Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

All I said is that correcting NPOV violations can be considered a major change and can be controversial, even if the content is the same. However, "others like him" is POV-ish weasel wording that needs to go. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A revert without agreement would probably lead to the article being protected again, so please don't do this. And definitely don't change the referencing system, that would require both agreement here and a change to every reference. "Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. If an article already has citations, preserve consistency by using that method or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it," and also see WP:CITEVAR which mentions a decision by the Arbitration Committee. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: where in the article does it say "Chapman and others like him to speak"? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: that was from the old version of the article; this specific text is not in it at present. I was mostly commenting on what I perceived to be an odd interpretation of "BLP violations". K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It started of using harv referencing, nobody sought to gain consensus to change it? And the only reason there are no harv refs now is cos they got tucked up so I removed them till shut gets sorted out, I'm not going against any referencing consensus at all. TC, Drmies removed it Darkness Shines (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:Drmies as he's been mentioned here. The key thing is consistency. I love Harvard referencing for writing my own stuff, but it can be a pain to transfer a source sometimes to an article that doesn't use it. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why Darkness Shines thinks I am talking about referencing style, i don't understand the referencing style debate, am not involved in it, and don't wish to get involved in it, what i was talking about befor was NPOV issues. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry TC, I was responding to both yourself and Doug, look at the end oh my response below his Darkness Shines (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, you give too much weight to Joey Gibson's word and not enough weight to the actions of Patriot Prayer which contradict his words, over and over again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman lead proposal

The current lead is actually pretty good, just over-burdened with inline citations. Here's my proposal; mostly the same, but with citations reduced. All of this content is cited in the body of the article, so the excessive citations are not needed to begin with. I also removed some redundancies, such as "USA-based" and "based in Portland, OR, USA". I removed "provocative" as a value-laden word; I think it's pretty clear that the rallies are indeed problematic from the rest of the lead. I also trimmed "...and wouldn't let any extremists into his event", as it's not clear which event this is referring to. Here's the proposal:

• Patriot Prayer is a USA-based right-wing, anti-government group in Portland, Oregon. The group organizes pro-Trump rallies and protests in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters.[6][18] Many of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, although Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, said he denounces racism.[25] Patriot Prayer describes itself as advocating free speech,[5][6] and opposing big government.[7][8] The group has been connected to the alt-right,[26] a charge Gibson denies.[27]

Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as neither neutral nor balanced. They do not only organize pro trump rallies, calling them right wing is a no, they are also described as conservative and Gibson identifies as conservative libertarian. Care to tell me what's wrong with what I wrote Darkness Shines (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Approve.--Jorm (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Tweak "Anti-government" probably should not be stated in wikipedia's voice, add the fact that Gibson said he wouldn't let in extremists (but specify what event) and this would be a good, neutral lede. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

White nationalist still are a major factor at rallies, just look at their last rally with Kyle Chapman giving his "war onwhites" speach. In fact it is hard to find a rally where they are not a part of it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore:What are you saying should be done? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Asking that the group's provocative actions not be minimized, or Joey's words be given too much weight. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore:Which is why I support the above lead rather than the below lead. Calling or implying that PP or Gibson is/are white nationalists/supremacists based on association without RS to back it up (which it seems some editors, not necessarily you, may want) would be OR. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I only want the lead to reflect the reporting as best that is possible that PP provides a platform for white nationalist and is a magnet for even more racists types that are drwan to their rallies and protest. Speakers like Tim Gionet, Jake Von Ott, Jeffery Hughes and Kyle Chapman; as welll as attracting more extreme elements like the Proud Boys and Jeremy Christian.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That is why I support this lead option as the more accurate to the reporting. ThaksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Approve.--It appears the best I can hope for, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Sure - Having both "anti-government" and "pro-Trump" as defining traits... it's not contradictory, but that's going to cause confusion. Perhaps that's appropriate though. I would go with "...denounces racism and extremism" for simplicity. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No one said the group was logical, but just that it is.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Darkness Shine lead proposal

• Patriot Prayer are a conservative[1][2] advocacy group based in Portland, Oregon, America. They have held rallies in support of free speech[3] as well as the presidency of Donald Trump.[4] The group have been described as being 'anti-government',[5] however Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has said he espouses 'small government'.[6] The group have also been described as being 'right wing' though Gibson identifies as 'conservative-libertarian'.[7] They have held rallies in predominantly modern liberal areas such as Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco.[8] Patriot Prayer has been connected to the alt-right,[9] a charge Gibson denies.[10] Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, which has lead to violent confrontations with counter-protesters,[11] however Gibson, a Japanese-American,[12] has repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism.[13][14] The group describes itself as free speech advocates,[15] who are exercising their first amendment rights.[16]

Seriously what's wrong with this?

• The lead summarises the article, and my proposal above, based on the current lead, is a summary of the body. That's what sources focus on. For example, the "conservative libertarian" self-identification is not mentioned in the body, so it does not belong in the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• It will say that once i finish this section. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is WP:UNDUE quoting from the group's leader: "Gibson says he has always been passionate about politics, but would be "sitting in my house, complaining like everyone.” He says he got into activism after seeing supporters of the Trump presidency brawling with counter protesters. Gibson says of the incident that what he saw was "people being discouraged from participating in politics". In summary, I believe you are trying to rewrite this article against Talk page consensus. It might be a better idea to reach out to WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN; I don't see that you have consensus here for these changes. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• How is it undue to have section on the person who is essentially Patriot Prayer? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• There are three instances of "Gibson says..." in three sentences. This is undue and would turn this article into an WP:ADVOCACY page. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's a section on Gibson, obviously he will be quoted, feel free to go tweak it if you want though Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• No, it's not obvious that he should be quoted. As I mentioned, I don't find the proposed article / lead rewrite acceptable. Please feel free to bring up to WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose "Conservative" is probably a better descriptor than "anti-govt", but this version gives undue weight to Gibson's statements and is poor writing regardless of POV and weight issues. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Might I ask why you restored this to the article previously then? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:, you give too much weight to what Joey Gibson says, over what the groups actual actions are. Remember, Joey is an admitted 'provocateur,' but he is also a former delinquent and an ex-con[2] by his own admission. These are the words you only want to take as accurate, when they match the record of the organisation.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the number of times Joey has denounced white nationalist in words, but marched with them in action: Tim Gionet, aka “Baked Alaska”, Allen Pucket, Jake Von Ott, Jeffery Hughes, Kyle Chapman and lots more. It is not wise to give too much weight to his words, but more weight to the groups actions.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think there are flaws in both leads, but I changed my mind as to which version is easier to make good. As for look at his actions rather than words, actions certainly need to be taken into account, but some of the arguments about this sound like OR, the current lead mentins controversy due to white nationalists at the ralies and also Gibson's denunciation of racisim, providing a mostly balanced view. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll keep working on it, feel free to tweak it if you want. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:In case I wasn't clear, it is KE Koffmans Lead that I think is good but needs tweaking. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:, the photos you added were very good, I hope you add more soon. Do you have some pics of those Trump flags and banners? Let me know if you need links to any, I've found pages of them. -thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality consensus reached - discussion

Has general consensus been reached by the majority of contributor or are there other issues in question that need to be addressed before the banner is removed and what are those issues? Thanks to everyone who contributed.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Help restoring links to 'Overview' section

The overview was accidentally removed and I was unable to restore the links, I was hoping for some help with this, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I have four more links left to restore.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I got it all restored.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction

The part about the Aug 26th rally says that Jeremy Christian was ejected from an earlier rally, but the part about the rally on the 29th says he was ecected from that rally, was he ejected from 2 rallies? If there was controversy because he stabbed 2 men, wasin't he in jail by the 29th? and I can't figure out how to click on the sources cited. I have added a contradict tag due these issues. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Most likely an error on my part, I'll check. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Right checked the refs, Christian was booted from a rally on 29 April, which is an earlier rally. So I'm not getting the contradiction? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, thought is said August 29th, not April 29th, as the April rally was below the August rally. I have now put the rallies in chronological order. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

My mistake tbh, I got them the wrong way round, thanks for fixing it. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

For fucks sake

Why the fuck have all my edits been reverted? The whole neutrality issue was over the fucking lede, so what was wrong with my additions? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This must be a misunderstand as there is no consensus on such a MAJOR change, please submit this change first to the TALK page to gain consensus before making such a major alteration to a page under neutrality dispute, thank you.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The neutrality issue was over the lede, either point out what's wrong with my edits or I'm fucking reverting you, you're being disruptive reverting improvements without cause Darkness Shines (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Such a major changes needs to be done by consensus, on a page with neutrality in dispute, please reverse you changes and bring up your proposed MAJOR changes on this Talk page for consensus building, per community guidelines. Thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

So essentially you never even looked at my edits, just blind reverted them? Fine, I'm restoring them unless I see a policy based reason for the removal Darkness Shines (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Attempting to revert you MAJOR change to the 'Overview' section, so you can bring it up for discussion and build consensus on the Talk page first. I now need to redo all the links you destroyed.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Fuck that shit, I'm restoring it as you ain't giving any policy based reasons for reverting me, and again I'm done talking to you unless you actually respond directly to the fucking question put to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making MAJOR changes without gaining consensus? This is not the Wiki way and how edit wars start.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:In an article as controversial as this, consensus should be obtained for ANY major change, lead or otherwise. Now please be WP:CIVIL and calmly debate content rather than threatening to edit war. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Bollocks, all I did was move some stuff around, tidy up, add a cite for the tag you added and I added a new paragraph, there is fuck all controversial about my edit, at all. If anyone can give a reason within policy for it not to be restored then fine, otherwise I see no reason for the reverting of my edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:BRD, when reverted, discuss, don't just threaten to edit war or criticize eachother's conduct. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, BRD is not a policy Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You right, but following BRD wold help resolve this, anyway, WP:CON IS a policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

And how is one to get consensus pray tell? When the one who reverted refuses to give a reason for reverting, or actually point out anything wrong with the edit. I'm not spending days going in circles as I have had to in previous discussions, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You bring your MAJOR changes here to the Talk page and build consensus before implementation with lots of local sourcing and references to convince the majority that your rewrite is better than the current page. Please.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You've seen the edit, after all I'm sure you read it before reverting ya? So what's wrong with it? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not about you and me, but the community and building consensus before undertakings such a major rewrite. Bring it to the Talk page for review, discussion and consensus this all concerned parties. Thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You fucking reverted it, so either tell me what's wrong with it or i am restoring it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You did a major change without consensus, that's what is wrong with it for starters. This is how edit wars start, so please bring your ideas to the Talk page. Thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Six times I have asked you to explain what was wrong with the edit, six times you refuse to answer, I know stonewalling when I see it, conversation over. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I ask that you bring your ideas to the Talk page to gain consensus before making such a major change as is the norm for a controversial topic. This way you can reference sources and have input from the community, before you make the changes. It also allows you to explain why the current section is so horrible that it needs a rewrite and you will can defend your new section as superior to what exists. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Seven times you refuse to respond to the question. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are asking me a question, that others must answer. Consensus in built by evolving the community before you make major changes. This is not about you and me, but allowing the community to build consensus before major changes are made. Thank you for doing this before you make MAJOR changes.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please gain consensus before making major changes and be able to defend why your change is better than the current page. Thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Not how it works, you reverted you need to explain why. Eight times you have refused to respond to the question, please see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 4 A Darkness Shines (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You changed the entire 'Overview' without consensus. Now explain why on the Talk page and then if the community supports you, you can do the will of the majority. This is not about you or me, but the consensus of the majority.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Nine times you refuse to respond to the question Darkness Shines (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You did a major change without consensus and without go reason, so please put forth your ideas on the Talk page with supporting resources that support your changes and build consensus. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Ten times you have refused to respond to the question, and I'm betting a tenner you ain't read 4A have ya? Well as no reasons within policy have been given we are done here. Darkness Shines (talk)○

Bring your ideas to the Talk page with supporting evidence and gain consensus, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Eleven times, here is the edit, explain what's wrong with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:C. W. Gilmore has explained that he reverted not because he thought there was something wrong with it, but because a rewrite of a whole section in a controversial article should be discussed (not just between you and C. W. Gilmore, but among other editors as well) on the talk page before the edit is made, see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 4b. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Except I never rewrote the whole section, I added a new para and moved some stuff around, and that is not disruptive, what is disruptive is reverting an editor and refusing to explain what was wrong with the edit, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

C. W. Gilmore thought that your edit was significant ehought that it should have been discussed first, why don't you propose your changes on this talk page and see what other editors think of them? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, of course, how stupid of me, obviously I have to discuss every change I make, which is then stonewalled. But sure let's give it a go, here is what I want to do, objections please. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

For starters, the first paragraph in the section should not be describing what Patriot Prayer "isn't". Starting the section disputing a label of the group without first discussing that label is not only odd, but undue considering the weight of the sources. Second, the section without your changes just reads better. Perhaps a better way to do this would be to ask what specific content you would like added, without changing the logical order of the section. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with 207.222.59.50. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

So a section on the reception of the group ought not mention the SPLC does not consider them a hate group? Why the hell not? Why should it start with the right wing label? And saying it reads better without my changes is Bollocks, and I'm pretty sure the content I added is in the diff provided, which leads me to believe you ain't even looked at the edit and are just here to votestack. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

No, as the article currently is, the fact that PP isn't called a hate group by the SPLC IS mentioned, I just don't think a section should start by saying what PP isn't. Plese AGF and avoid accusing people of just being here to votestack. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Over the last two days that IP has argued on another article that the SPLC is a grand old source, here apparently it's been given undue weight, I wasn't born yesterday. My point that the IP never even looked at the edit stands, it did not look at the diff. And I have no objection no moving the views of Niewert and the SPLC down a para. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, what are you arguing in favor of? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying I want the new content restored, along with the improvements I made, I'm not fussed where in the article the SPLC shite is. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Might I suggest moving SPLC to the last of the section and lede with PP's stated aim so the first line starts more like: (Patriot Prayer has held rallies from the San Francisco Bay Area to Seattle,[30][31] in areas known as centers of liberal politics, with the stated aim is support of First Amendment, free speech and to “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.”) This might take care of the issue, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

What's that got to do with reception? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The section is currently called overview, since when do we have reception sections for orgainizations? I thought reception sections are for movies/songs, I am confused what is even being debated/proposed at this point. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Dude, have you even looked at the edit I made? I was sorting out a reception section, their an activist group, how the activism is received warrentsva section no? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggest that it be left as 'Overview' and that SPLC be moved to the end of the section.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Start off the overview with something like: 'Patriot Prayer has held rallies from the San Francisco Bay Area to Seattle, in areas known as centers of liberal politics, with the stated aim is support of First Amendment, free speech and to “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.”' -C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be a very soft intro stating their purpose, then discussing their actions later in the section.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:I did look at your edit, and I have edited other activist groups, none of which have had a "reception" section. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with having a section on how the group has been received? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with having an 'Overview' section?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, any actual objections to my restoring the new para I had written? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What does it look like now that you made the changes?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. There are plenty of objections. Despite your accusations, I have looked at the edit and my comments stand: you take the section out of logical order with your proposed edit and your edited prose is less readable than the section as it was. I'll ask again: what specific content would you like added to the section? We can all help determine the best place to include such material (if it should be included at all). 207.222.59.50 (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Ya right Darkness Shines (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Big government

Given we have sources which say the group is anti-government and sources which say they are opposed to big government then saying in the first line, and stating as fact PP is anti-government is undue, so if there are no objections I will be restoring this edit Darkness Shines (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is objection as PP is well know for being anti-government as the citations indicate.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You must look at all of Joey Gibson's statements on this in context, one against the other to understand his views that the current government of the U.S.A. is big-government (thus, him saying Hitler like big government) and him saying he is anti-government. They are all part of that Libertarian political view, that the best government is almost nothing, so any government is big-government in his view.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

They are also known as anti big government, should that be in the first line also? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

They are known for being anti-government, not anti-big-government, so no. Consensus is not to state that in the lede.--Jorm (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Who says they are known for being anti-government, describes itself as a group that fights big government plenty of sources say they are against big government Darkness Shines (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are you pushing this POV AGAIN???? [3] [4] [5] And why is Fox News not good enough for you this time?????C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

There is good documentation for anti-government, so leave it be and leave comments on this page be as well. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

What you need to understand is that they are one in the same to a libertarian extremist for all government beyond defense is BIG government and this is very anti-government. amount of government is BIG government to a libertarian, so it is really anti-government when he says anti-big government.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Wanting small government is not anti-government, also read WP:OR Darkness Shines (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It is when it is at this extreme level.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing extreme in wanting smaller government, and which source says that PP wanting smaller government is extreme? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

There is when all you want is support for the military, and almost nothing else. Wanting to taking away as much as 80% of the government and it's associated functions is extreme and very anti-government.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Your sources which state PP want 80% of the state removed please. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You are editing for an encyclopedia and you do not know about extreme libertarianism???? I'm sure you can find your own sources, in fact it would be nice if would provide more sources for your editing agenda.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

So no sources for your assertions then? Thought that would be the case. Returning to the actual question, given we have sources which describe PP as both anti-government and sources which say they are opposed to big government then per NPOV either both get equal prominence or we go with my original edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You will have to educate yourself on extreme libertarianism[6] and you will need to find some compelling reason to remove a well documented statement like PP being anti-government.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Stay on topic, the question given is we have sources which describe PP as both anti-government and sources which say they are opposed to big government then per NPOV either both get equal prominence or we go with my original edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

And that's why I will not try to educate you on extreme libertarianism or even the words of Joey Gibson, 'he said. "Hitler was all about big government."'[7] His view of the current US government is as corrupt big government, and look at what he says on the subject of big government. Only a small skeleton of a government would satisfy his ideology according to his speeches and YouTube postings.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Stay on topic and to the question at hand, your interpretation of Gibson's speechs is WP:OR and has no place on this talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It is on topic as it part of his words and ideas that leads to his anti-government label, the media places on him.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Now another reason why Patriot Prayer continues to be listed as 'anti-government' may also be the large numbers of Three Percenters and Oath Keepers[8] that work security for Patriot Prayer events as these two groups are described in the news as 'anti-government' along with the other anti-government groups.[9]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:OR before posting again, Darkness Shines (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Joey Gibson's views as well as the views of those, he includes in his group are quite germane to the current topic as the relate to government since this is about the group being anti-government.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, cos you seem not to have read WP:OR Darkness Shines (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually yes, because their anti-government stance has been published in reliable reference material as per WP:OR, if you would carefully read through the materials references, instead of dismissing then en mass. "And Patriot Prayer invited the often-armed, anti-government Oath Keepers to provide security on Saturday.[10] Joey Gibson's own statement and those of his groups membership are why news outlets from CNN to Fox have labeled them 'anti-government'. These news outlets have a solid basis in original content, so they should be cited.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No, because this article is about Patriot Prayer, not the oath keepers, nor anyone else who appears at their rallies. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because they are the members of Patriot Prayer, invited by Joey Gibson to be there and thus KQED’s Vice President for News Holly Kernan: "It is an anti-government group."[11] In this case the group's core is made up of these 'anti-government' types and Joey Gibson has made no moves to separate from them, instead making comments in line with them. You are pushing a POV that is not supported by facts.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Source please which says the oath keepers are members of PP. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The news sources listed in the article show Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters play key roles in Patriot Prayer rallies, starting on April 2, 2017[12][13], until there most recent on September 10, 2017[14][15]. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

But you are getting off topic again, as the reliable news outlets say they are 'anti-government', this is key and centre to the issue. I should not have to justify these news organisation's assessment as it comes from Fox 40 News, from CNN Wire, a CNN reporter as well.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Being there does not make them members. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Being invited to stay and being used as security and being part of the group and having Joey Gibson say nothing to distance the group from them or kicking them out seems to make them members, unless you have a source that says differently. "The San Francisco Examiner reported last week that the paramilitary Oath Keepers groups, who carry military-style rifles and tactical equipment like kevlar vests, planned to provide security for the San Francisco alt-right rally."[16]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems to does not equal to. Provide a source for the claim or drop it. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you not read the links, they were part of the planning of the San Francisco rally that was canceled[17] and just read how Joey reacted to them in the past,[18]? I will help you out, he did nothing. These are part and parcel of each of there rallies, like the Trump hats.[19] You need to stop pushing your POV, over the reliable sources.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You need to actually read the sources. Newsweek t"he paramilitary Oath Keepers groups, who carry military-style rifles and tactical equipment like kevlar vests, planned to provide security" It does not say they were invited, nor that Gibson planned the rally with them. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

So they made plans all alone and with on cooperation with Patriot Prayer or integration with the group...sure, that makes no sense at all, unless you are pushing a POV over reliable sources. In fact, you keep going off topic with these rants, while offering noting to dispute the well sourced opening statement.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I see no source saying they planned it together. And what rants? Darkness Shines (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, they just show up, form a perimeter, deny access to Neo-Nazis like Jake Von Ott[20] without being part of the group they are protecting; no overlap of membership, no links or anything, that makes so much more sense, yes, that's it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No sources then? Just WP:OR, which no doubt you have now read? Darkness Shines (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

So far I have give far more reference material than you and I have three sources that stand: [21][22][23]This should matter more than your point of view, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

None of those sources support what you are saying. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

They support it staying and are reliable sources for this material, much better than just your POV.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Erm, no, they most certainly do not. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I give sources, you give POV? I don't think that's the way this is suppose to work.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You say the oath keepers are members of PP, yet provide no source for the claim, you say Gibson and the oath keepers plan rallies together, yet provide no source. So no, the sources do not support your views. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggested that their inclusion into the group help the reporters shape their educated view of the organisation that they reported on, and gave some supporting information; however, most of the links are on Facebook and YouTube, which I would never cite but use with causion. No matter, as the thing you have failed to do again this week, is to give good evidence why it should change given that it is well and reliably sourced.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't "suggest it", you stated it as fact. diff Saying they oppose big government is also reliably sourced, so why have one but not the other in the opening line? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

But you already have that included (with one shaky source) so it seems only reasonable to leave things as they are, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, as I believe it violates NPOV. Can't have one without the other. And given the different descriptions it needs attribution as well, not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The NPOV is to leave it along as it includes both and they are both sourced.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Not when one description is given prominence over the other, and while one is stated as fact while the other is attributed Darkness Shines (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources, please?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I already gave some, but here's I want limited government Patriot Prayer group is about "fighting corruption and big government more. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Those are reasons to leave things as they are: Nothing you source takes away from the 'anti-government' claims, it just supports that the anti-big government should stay as well. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there something about the way I am writing this that you ain't understanding? Seriously what is it about "one description is given prominence over the other, and while one is stated as fact while the other is attributed" do you not get? Darkness Shines (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, they are book ends to the title paragraph with the one withe the most supported sources first and the other more questionable one at the end of the section. You made the arguement to leave things as they are, and that is just fine with everyone (almost). ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WTF are you on about? I have not argued to keep things the same, quite the fecking opposite in fact. Here, from WP:NPOV " If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Now do you get it? Darkness Shines (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You did not argue it, but that is what the evidence you present leads to as a logical conclusion as having a group that it's anti-government philosophy runs from warm to hot is not unusual, nor is it in conflict as you have many people in the group with slight variations of what they want as a goal. Just like you and I do not agree but we still exist, here; so too do these slightly differing views of anti-government/big government exist within Patriot Prayer. You have made that point very clear and I thank you for it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

So if I have made it clear do you now agree to my proposed change made at the beginning? Darkness Shines (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You have made it more than clear that things should stay, just as they are and for that, I thank you. You have shown that both points are supported and that they can live together in one organisation, perticularly Patriot Prayer, with their open ended philosophy. This is what you have made very clear, things are very settled as they stand, thankyou.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. If it is clear that there are two views on them from the sources, then how can the article stay the same? Per NPOV, it has to be changed Darkness Shines (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

As you made very clear over the past few weeks of pushing your POV, Patriot Prayer does not have a set manifesto or agenda, they are making it up as they go along, thus they started out as Pro-Trump, then Anti-Antifa, then Anti-Communism, then Anti-Marxism, and now Peace protesting. You have also pointed that without these set guidelines to operate, they morph as the winds blow; first embracing Proud Boys and White Nationalists, then shunning them after Charlottesville, condemning them. So no wonder they have a range of anti-government/big government views as well, and you have show us all these things, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I only have one question. How do you go about asking for someone to be blocked from editing a page? thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You can try your luck at WP:ANI Darkness Shines (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, someone keeps undoing my contributions even with good sources, but you just help me to become a better contributor.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Is that why you untagged and continue to use the duplicate source I pointed out above? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You are the only one that believes CNN Wire is not reliable, when even a local Fox News station in St. Louis believes otherwise. You also provide no evidentiary sources to support your POV you are pushing.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Look at how these participants of the Patriot Prayer are described: "Several people at the rally appeared to be part of the Three Percenters, a corner of the militia-style, largely anti-government movement that advocates for limited government, as well as the Proud Boys, a white nationalist group."[24] Just as they can be 'anti-government' and for 'limited government'; so too is it stands that both 'anti-government' and 'anti-big government' can co-exist within Patriot Prayer. One does not exclude the other.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I never said CNN was unreliable, I said it was a fox2now clone of the CNN source, you have essentially used the same citation twice Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, these are different respected local news outlets with trusted sources that felt this with not just trustworthy but news worthy as well.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The FOX2 source is explicitly a republication of the CNN source; not an independent source. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

How I wish that was the only source that [Darkness Shine] has shown zeal in questioning or removing, sometimes without even reading them or in other times disparaging them as 'lazy' and 'sloppy' journalism.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

How about instead of having a running commentary on me you actually respond to my question, per WP:NPOV " If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." This is a policy and has to be followed, PP are described in two ways, hence one cannot take precedence over the other Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You're the one pushing the POV and objecting to everything from the fact that PP is Pro-Trump, to now wanting 'anti-government' expunged from the record. Look at this Talking page, it is all about you and your POV, including your latest tact this week of WP:NPOV. Well, then please give us some sources. Something that shows that PP can not be both anti-government and anti-big government, as they are not mutually exclusive, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Last time I explain this as I am sick of you ignoring what I write and going off topic. Read this carefully and respond only to this. per WP:NPOV " If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." This is a policy and has to be followed, PP are described in two ways, hence one cannot take precedence over the other, respond to that only further stonewalling and I will just make the changes anyway to bring this article in line with policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no conflict between the two, nor have you shown any conflict. I pointed this out to you with, "the Three Percenters, a corner of the militia-style, largely anti-government movement that advocates for limited government,..."[25]. It is not a conflict to say they are 'anti-government' and 'anti-big government'. Now please provide sources or let this issue go, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I never said there was a fecking conflict, fecking read what I actually wrote. "one cannot take precedence over the other" Given your continued obstructionism I will be making the changes to bring the article inline with policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

One is at the beginning of the paragraph and on is at the end of the paragraph so both are represented prominently, and niether are in conflict with the other.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't wade through this wall of text, which has few actual sources to verify or not. BUT, I would just point out that the 'general' understanding of anti-government is being opposed to the (present) government in any country (anti-government groups in Turkey at present are those who would like to replace Erdogan). 'Anti-government' in most contexts does not mean "opposed to having any/too much government", regardless of its political character or complexion. I don't know if that helps, but it could be that you are arguing about the use of a term within a specific field, versus general understanding. Pincrete (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete in short, I was trying to show that anti-government and anti-big government are not exclusive, one to the other, especially given how radical Joey Gibson's view of big governmemt is, "I'm brown so I'm definitely not a white supremacist, definitely not a white nationalist, definitely not a Nazi because I want limited government," he said. "Hitler was all about big government."[26] or that he has called himself 'anti-government libertarian'[27].C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC) I am a memeber of Patriot Prayer, and we are NOT anti-government. Our Libertarian and Conservative members are anti-BIG government, but that is not universal to the entire group, and a distinction that needs to be made to be accurate.2601:1C2:4B00:36EE:D0FA:CBEA:C2CA:EA1A (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

They are anti BIG government, not anti government. That is a distinction that needs to be made.2601:1C2:4B00:36EE:D0FA:CBEA:C2CA:EA1A (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources including Joey's own words say both so that is why both are listed as one does not preclude the other. Do you have evidence that you cannot have both? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well that's four by my count sayinganti big gov needs attribution, so we shall be going with that Darkness Shines (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that you cannot have both in a group? You make changes without sourcing them or considering references.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't need evidence I needed consensus, which I now have Darkness Shines (talk)\

Free speech rallies, Portland -rewrite

Please return this section. April 29, 2017 just days after the Portland train stabbings was pivotal in bringing this group to province and gaining notoriety for their provocative rallies. San Francisco rally may have made more national and international news, but that is trailing on the reputation they gained in the earlier rally.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:, large scale changes to sections should be discussed here, first. Please undo your changes until consensus is reached, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: could you provide a diff of the changes that you would like reverted? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The re-write of April 29 rally. This was just days after the train stabbing.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

He's obviously on about the stuff I just added, Gilmore stop pinging me. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:, you are making huge changes without seeking consensus and April 29 rally was pivotal for this group. Please undo and bring it here first for discussion, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure i told you to stop pinging me Darkness Shines (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't even tell what edit is being debated here. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This one Darkness Shines (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? it look like another rally was added to the article, not a rewrite of existing info. Tornado chaser (talk)

@Darkness Shines:, you are dumping the 8/26 San Francisco rally into the middle of the 4/29 rally and it is confusing, please bring your changes here first for discussion before making such a major change. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Ping me one more time and I'll report you for harrasment, I've told you twice to stop, I won't tell you again Darkness Shines (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What's a 'ping'? And if I bothered you, sorry.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This was confusing and out of order, but I fixed the out of order part. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm about to ping you below. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: Tornado chaser (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Then the proper way to direct a comment at one user, is to????C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

TC, April 29, 2017 rallies are in twice now, you seem to have duplicated the para. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Darkness ShinesThis section re-write is still confusing and does not make sense.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

duplication has been removed. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but it's still a mess as you read down. Things jump around too much with no flow. Why weren't things corrected, before putting up on the page.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The August 26th rally stuff is stuck in the middle of talking about April and June rallies.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

THANKS -You cleaned it up.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It's now totally fuckec up and spread all over the place, well done. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I asked for you to undo your edits until consensus was reach.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Enough with the edit warring

This is getting ridiculous. This edit warring has got to stop. Here's what I am seeing after quietly observing this page. I see a couple of editors disputing the neutrality of the article, making seemingly reasonable edits, and then getting outright reverted by another user. Knock it off before I indefinitely fully protect this article.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

HELP! C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower: block me now, I'm not having someone go to 5RR and remove shite for no reason other than to piss me off, I'm reverting and breaking my 1RR restriction unless something is done about this fucking SPA Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Calm down Darkness Shines, I've been watching. From what I see, C. W. Gilmore isn't being very collaborative here.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: I've blocked the above editor for constant edit warring. I haven't thoroughly read through any of the discussions here but it seems to me every time you make a different edit, seemingly reasonable it got reverted for a supposed consensus that seems only supported by one or two users, while others work with your changes. May I suggest you step away from this article for a day or 2 and move to a different article for now?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I can work with most others here, just not that SPA. Sorry for the lack of patience, buf to be fair, I'm not a doctor, so have no patients at all Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite of Overview

@ Darkness, you have so good content in your idea, but you want to start off a new section with a strongly sources and a statement that is very neutral and can be defended against peer review. You also had one paragraph that was just one sentence so I suggested taking the last sentence of the paragraph above and making something like this:

Patriot Prayer has held rallies from the San Francisco Bay Area to Seattle, in areas known as centers of liberal politics. Their stated aim is support of First Amendment, free speech and to “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.”

Your later redo of putting this paragraph first, and has two very major problems and needs some work:

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

Firstly, is the weakness of the sourcing, only one source and it's from the other side of the continent, thousands of mile away. This one source supports the entire paragraph with no local sourcing. Please, go first to the local news sources, then the national and international; as the local reporters are there, on the ground and have first hand knowledge. It is so much dependent on this one source and that is problematic.

The paragraph weighs the opinion of Joey Gibson too heavily. Patriot Prayer events continue to contradict his words, as he continues to give the microphone to speakers from Tim Gionet, aka “Baked Alaska”, to Kyle Chapman with his "war on whites" speech. What Patriot Prayer does, should be given more weight than the words of it's founder when contradictions occur as reportable actions can be verified.

If anyone wishes citations for anything I wrote, I will be glad to provide them, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm putting this back, your reasons for removing it have no place in policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Working together to build consensus and compromise is the core of policy.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No it ain't, WP:V WP:RS WP:NPOV and BLP are. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not alone in having issues with your latest change to the Overview and why do you insist on ignoring my suggestion that uses your words as a better starting paragraph? What is wrong with that one? You can leave your single source paragraph further down or it will be constantly challenged because if it's weaknesses.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If you mean the lede then all i have done is rewrite it a bit to match the consensus above, it is not my lede at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This is about your proposed change of the overview to reception section. Discussion of your current editing raid is below. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm lost, I have not changed the opening of the section at all, but will restore the para you removed as you have said it's fine to go at the end, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You may be lost because while I brought up this propose of yours to change the Overview to reception that you started about a week back, you have in the meantime been editing away at the entire page on a tear. The discussion of your current wave of major edits is below.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverted again

@Tornado chaser: This is getting beyond the joke now, what edit of mine was against consensus? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

SPLC -white nationalist

The white nationalist referred to by David Neiwert was Jake Von Ott who was seen and photographed at the August 6, 2017, "Freedom March" in Portland.[28], and the Proud Boys in their black Fred Perry polo shirt with yellow pin stripping[29]. "The gathering of alt-right and white nationalist groups in Tom McCall Waterfront Park today immediately descended into brawling...".[30]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Fascist?

Is there a reason that this article is in categories about Fascists? this seems a little POV. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously it ought not be. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe it to be because of the close connection to and platform PP gave to Neo-Nazis until the Charolettevill Attack.[31] It appears that since mid-August links to the likes of Jake Von Ott, Jeffery Hughes, and Tim Gionet, aka “Baked Alaska” have been severed but still hold association with figures like Allen Pucket, and even give the microphone to people like Kyle Chapman[32][33] to preach on about the 'war on whites' on September 26th, 2017.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The thing I find odd is that we have no sources(as far as i'm aware) that call PP Fascist, isn't it OR and possibly a BLP vio to include it in a fascist category? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Even when the white nationalist, like the Proud Boys, and Neo-Nazis are not given the stage at PP events, these events act as a magnet that draws out and even brings out more radical types like Jeremy Christian to their events.[34][35]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the article may be tangentially related to fascism, is some attendees at the rallies have been fascists, but we have NO JUSTIFICATION to call PP fascists, I am not too familiar with categories, so my question is do we put an article in a category just because something in the article has to do with the category, or does the subject of the article need be in that category to merit inclusion? Tornado chaser (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is this even being discussed? Categorizing people as fascists is obviously a BLP violation as there are no source to support it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The other reasoning may be that PP's main antagonist are Antifa[36]and other anti-fascist groups[37]. There is evidence of a relationship with fascist and a draw of them to the PP rallies, but you are correct with no direct linkage.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Antifa is not an RS, calling yourself anti-fascism and getting into fights with someone does not make them a fascist. Anyway, my main question is, since the relationship is only tangental, should the article be removed from fascism related catagories? Tornado chaser (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: I was asking you, DS had already made his position clear. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I get it, and what I'm saying is that PP seems to be stuck in the middle, with their association with Neo-Nazis, Proud Boys and the like; then this brings out the anti-fascits groups, just like what is happening at this moment in downtown Portland. No direct linkage, just drawing in both the extremists from both sides to go at each other at their rallies. They are the magnet. It is like PP is the hot metal between the hammer and the anvil.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to change the categories. Looks like I did. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC

For the reasons agreed on above, I have removed this talk page from fascism-related categories. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Tornado chaser:, I had no view on it one way or another, just observations from the local media; and it looks like with this new rally today there may be a new rash of vandalism to the page as in the past.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. This is the latest fly drawn to the flame that is Patriot Prayer. [38][39]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Trump rallies

Even to this latest rally of October 8,2017, pro-Trump flags, hats and T-shirts are a staple feature at each of the Patriot Prayer rallies from the videos and photos showing the group and they even put Trump into the name of some rallies, this is true from their first rally of April 2, 2017 until the most recent in Berkley. It is also why so many news reports list 'pro-Trump Patriot Prayer' in their coverage of the group: [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Huff Post -[unreliable source?] comments

Regarding the Patriot Prayer, Sept. 10, 2017 rally is the sentence; "Among those drawn to the rallies were the militia-style Three Percenters, and the Proud Boys, a white nationalist group." and this is supported by (3)citations. [61][62][63] It is referenced only because at both the Portland rally site and Vancouver site occurred instances of separate pickup trucks driving erratically through the counter-protesters (without injuries), but was disturbing to the counter-protesters in light of the Charlotteville Attack. Someone marked the citation from Huff post[64] as unreliable and I wanted to know if this is true or cant that 'maintenance tag' be removed? Any suggestions, thanks? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing it. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Major changes without discussion

@Cyberpower678:, @EdJohnston: and @K.e.coffman:, Darkness Shine just rewrote the entire entry for Southern Poverty Law Center which took out all the media reports and changed the entire tone of the SPLC view of Patriot Prayer, as well as, rewriting major sections of the lede section and overview section. Would someone please help to bring these changes to the Talk page first, so it can be examined and vetted properly. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The misleading claim is not accurate in this new revision: "Neiwert also commented on Gibson's denunciation of neo-Nazis and white supremacists at a rally held in Seattle on 13 August and that there had been no white nationalist members at that venue." In truth, the quote is "no visible signs of white-nationalist members at the Seattle rally"[65], because previous displays of symbols where let out of this rally, just one day after Charlotteville, not that the 'nationalists' were not present.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not misleading, if nobody saw any, they weren't there, I'm betting folks were looking for em mind Darkness Shines (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it just means they left their 'black Fred Perry polo shirt' at home[66] so there were ""no visible signs of white-nationalist members at the Seattle rally". You are bending the reporting to a point of view. In fact David Neiwert say of Joey's words at the rally, "This may have surprised some of his supporters, including those with whom Gibson had marched the week before in Portland. At that rally, a number of white-nationalist Identity Evropa activists (notably Jake Von Ott, leader of the local Evropa unit) participated on the alt-right side of the protest, including throwing punches in several of the brawls that broke out."[67]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The key point is that by posting straight to the Page and not the Talk, you give no one else time for input and you will not allow anyone make changes to your posts or you get into an edit war, so by posting to the Talk first, you gain input.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

-Also, the citations were cherry picked to be most favorable to PP out of the number of SPLC Hatewatch listings which paint a very different picture[68] viewed together.[69][70][71][72][73][74]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Those citations were added by you, you accusing yourself of cherry panicking? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Also rewarding your 11.30 pits, all that was added in my edit, do you even look at my edits? Or just want them all reverted on sight? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This rewrite of the SPLC section has the same issue as some of your others by giving undo weight to Joey Gibson's words over the repeated contradicting actions of the groups rallies. Remember that not only did Patriot Prayer give white nationalists a platform and the microphone before Charelotteville and Joey Gibson's denouncing of them; but then gave it to them again and again. When words do not match reported actions, you should be careful how much weight to give to the words.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

But again, if you bring such a change to Talk first and accept some input; you very well might end up with a better product in the end and this with consensus.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines. You have now gone though every section and changed it up, from the lede to the overview, without any input, discussion or consensus.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, the changes to the lede are inline with the consensus above, what change have I made which is against that consensus? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

What was so wrong with what was there? Your changes were not based on consensus, show us what consensus was reached?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This one, with the proposed tweaks given in that discussion. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The consensus was for "K.e.coffman lead proposal", not your, you made over 26 changes so far.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That is not my lede, anyone can see that. What in there is against consensus then? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

-Your proposed lede first sentence, "Patriot Prayer are a conservative[1][2] advocacy group based in Portland, Oregon, America.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

-K.e.coffman's proposed lead sentence, "Patriot Prayer is a USA-based right-wing, anti-government group in Portland, Oregon."C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

-Current lead first sentence, "Patriot Prayer are a conservative[1][2] advocacy group based in Portland, Oregon, United States.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You are changing it all up by yourself without consensus or review.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Huh? That is what was agreed with the tweaks proposed by other editors, seriously what's wrong with it? Anti gov consensus to attribute Darkness Shines (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

[75] Portland, OR, United States consensus for that. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That's just the first sentence, you changed it all up, including the addition of that problematic paragraph that has only one source: Valerie Richardson. of the Washington Times. The Washington Times is a New York based, politically conservative publication started by Sun Myung Moon and yet this is the only source you give for this entire paragraph. What is right about that?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

" You can leave your single source paragraph further down or it will be constantly challenged because if it's weaknesses.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)" Make your mind up. And you have given to reason within policy for it not to be there, even though you said it could go back Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You are only quoting one very conservative source, you might as well be quoting Fox Cable News for how reliable they are, no good local sourcing and no secondary support. I said that it was the weakest paragraph, needed work and more better sourcing. I said it gave undue weight to Joey Gibson's words over the actions of the group that contradict the words.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I am citing a RS, there are no policy I know of which says local news sources are needed, why say I can add it then change your mind? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"I am citing a RS," this from the person that tagged Huff Post as "unreliable source?". The conservative Washington Times is not reliable, not reliable enough for the only source to support an entire paragraph about a conservative political advocacy group like PP, it is not neutral or balance.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

What you think of the source is irrelevant, it meets the criteria set out in policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a contentious right-wing conservative group that is right now rallying in Portland as I type, this is not the type of page you can do that kind of editing without better sourcing. Also, you again give undue weight to Joey Gibson's words over the actions of the group which still gives a platform and the microphone to speakers like Kyle Chapman, on Sept. 26; even with all Joey's words, the actions of the group are what matter most.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The source is RS, you saying otherwise will not change that. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do some research on your sources[76], thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do some research on our policies, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

So when that paragraph gets edited, you should note that several of us tried to help and before you report the other editor for 'edit warring', please consider that you may have started it. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Just noting: DS started a discussion here about utilizing the Washington Times, although it doesn't really address the crux of the issue brought up here on the talk page, namely that the overview section needs to begin with a discussion of what the RS have reported about Patriot Prayer. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)