Talk:Patriot Prayer

Recent addition

Are we really going to start describing Gibson as notorious? The POV pushing on this article is fucking ridiculous Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No, we are not, but the Telegraph is [1] and you seem to hold the Telegraph in high regard as you do Fox News, except (Fox 2 News).C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This is meant to be an encyclopedia article, not a fecking newspaper, we are meant to be neutral Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps The Telegraph reporter was considering, Joey Gibson's (Patriot Prayer) known association with and draw of so many neo-Nazis and white nationalists attend his rallies including but not limited to: Allen Pucket, Jake Von Ott, Jeremy Christian, Jeffery Hughes and lots more; all in the name of “free speech”.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Telling the entire tale as reported is being neutral, but selective editing is pushing your POV from what I'm seeing. You add selective pieces from The Telegraph article but leave others out.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

From The Telegraph: "...Joey Gibson, a notorious local figure, had led his Patriot Prayer followers..." [2]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:18, 29 September 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)

Organize the Rally section, comments

Perhaps a better way to organize these rallies (other than by date) is to group them by purpose? Pro-Trump and free speech, insertion into local politics, anti-Antifa, anti-Maxist/Communist, and now their 'Peaceful' rallies; with consideration for response to train attack and Charlotteville attack, it this way the rallies may have more useful meaning to the reader. Would anyone object?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Are so many of them noteworthy? The only one of note that I can think of didn't happen at all.--Jorm (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably better off doing in by area Darkness Shines (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines, would you lump Berkley with San Fransisco, Olympia with Seattle and Vancouver with Portland so there are three groupings? I think that would work well as 'The San Francio Area Rallies/Protests', 'The Seattle Area Rallies/Protests', and 'The Portland Area Rallies/Protests'. Would that work?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jorm, what is noteworthy are the things that have changed and the things that have stayed the same; but how those two contradict Joey Gibson's own words on the group. This constant contradiction is of note; both how Pro-Trump the participants, with their Trump flags, hats, and T-shirts; as well as inviting white nationalists speakers and participants of the likes of Kyle Chapman, The Proud Boys and Three Percenters, to the likes of Allen Pucket, Jake Von Ott, and Jeffery Hughes. It is the consistency of their presence at events that make it more than guilt by association, and bring into question Gibson's denials. We can not say this, we have to show it with the reporting on the rallies, or it would be edited out as it has in the past by lazy and sloppy editors. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:NPA Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

When the words of a person do not match they pattern of actions, both must be included to keep it neutral, or you run the risk of turning Wikipedia into their propaganda machine. This latest showing with inviting Kyle Chapman and his "There's a war on whites" speech, is just the latest contradiction for PP and the statements of Joey Gibson.[28][29]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@[Darkness Shines] but you are going off topic again; what do you think of the three region grouping for rallies, will that work? P.S. Those were personal attack you made against journalists, now that you bring it up.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason why you are demanding this change is not sourced. Patriot Prayer can be both anti-government and anti-big government as I showed with the Three Percenter example. You have picked on a very small thing and are making it a reason to blow up the entire section without good cause.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Then if no one objects we can use User:Darkness Shines idea of grouping by area. Three large areas of Portland area, Berkley and Bay area, and Puget Sound area, Seattle to Olympia.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

So what's wrong with it?

Would Gilmore explain what was wrong with my edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see discussion above, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What is more important, is to ask what is so wrong with the current lead section.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Explained what's wrong with it, it violates NPOV, so what's wrong with what I added, specifically please. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It does not violate NPOV, and your proposed change is worse with misleading statements and large gaps in the factual record. We have been through this already with no compelling argument of violation and with you unwilling to change your section to match the well sourced record.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Give one example of a misleading statement Darkness Shines (talk)\

Why is it that, "...the Three Percenters, a corner of the militia-style, largely anti-government movement that advocates for limited government,..."[30] but Patriot Prayer can not be both anti-government and anti-big government; especially with the way Joey Gibson describes his anti-big government views: ("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.")[31]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You are trying to say this Portland Oregon based group of a few dozen hardcore members is an "American advocacy group" as if they have chapters across the nation, just for starters.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Erm, my edit said they are described as anti government but Gibson espouses small government, how is that misleading?Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing that violates NPOV.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously there is, I quoted from NPOV previously, so please explain what was wrong with my edit, given your one about anti v pro small government was incorrect Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with the POV you are pushing and given that everything is well sourced,it seems there is no problem with the current lead outside of your opinion, from what I can see. You will not provide evidence with sources to support what you say, only your view. Please consider working on an area of this page where there is consensus until you have supporting evidence, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So there is nothing wrong with my edit then? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@[Darkness Shine] So there is everything wrong with your edit, because nothing wrong with the current lead and you refuse to provide any sourced evidence otherwise.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Erm, you say "everything wrong with your edit" but fail to point out anything actually wrong? So I'll just go ahead and restore it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I point out that you give no sourced evidence that the current lead violates anything. Why do you insist on fixing something that is not broken, is beyond understanding, unless you are pushing a POV.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Erm, I gave sources, they are described in different ways, and NPOV, a policy says we attribute differing opinions. So as there is nothing wrong with my edit, I can restore it, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

NO, as I show from my source, about the (III%), you can be anti-government AND anti-big government, so there is no conflict.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I never said there is a conflict, I said we need follow NPOV, read this again "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." Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The optics are that you are using this non-issue as a way to purge the all the source material from the second sentence out of the lead and to add your opinion about them being an 'American' wide group.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Say what? Exactly what in the lede currently was not in my edit? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing about organising Pro-Trump rallies and provocative protests for starters.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You just reverted without even looking, it does say they held rallies in support of the presidency of Trump, and there is no consensus for provocative to be there lol, this was discused Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So you admit to changing it without consensus, why do you insist on this?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I changed it to comply with policy, you added provocative against consensus, but given your total failure to actually point out anything wrong with my edit I'm just going to restore it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It is well sources and none but you are complaining.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ain't the sources we are discussing but NPOV. Like I said, you can't say what's wrong with the edit, so it goes back in. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You can't have a NPOV without sources. You keep pushing a POV but don't provide sources that I have continually ask for, so either give sources or leave it be, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The sources are in the edit, which you can't point out anything wrong with, so I'm going to put it back, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No, there are no sources to support your claims of NPOV violations.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It don't matter how obstructionist you are, the policy is clear, the sources were given above and in the edit, so I'm restoring it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The policy is clear, but you seem to be applying it in an irregular manner without well referenced sources or consensus. Your changes will undo hours of hard collective work of many and leave out many key facts along with adding misleading and unsourced material.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Bollocks, everything is sourced, stop saying it ain't Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You have not given one well referenced source that shows that the entire section needs to be reworked by you, nor has anyone but you wanted it done. Leave it until a consensus is reached, please.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No Darkness Shines (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shine your "NO" says it all.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You refuse to listen, or follow basic policy, you misrepresent sources and persist in doing so, to the point of commiting eragarious BLP violations. I am no longer going to bother with you. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I ask for only three small changes and reasonable changes, but I refuse to listen. I post only information from reliable and local news outlets, but you don't even look at them before you undo my post and bash my sources. So please, stop for a second and consider three changes: Change the first line to: "Patriot Prayer are a conservative, Portland, Oregon based advocacy group." Then change: "The group organizes pro-Trump rallies and provocative protests in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters." You would include all the facts while staying neutral and well balanced. These points are well sourced and can be reliably defended.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of maintenance tags

These tags were removed with somewhat spurious edit summaries given the reason I added them were not addressed, 1 source says appeared to be, not that they were there The tag was removed and the OR not fixed, 2 |Blog source, needs attribution Removed and the issue not fixed, this is disruptive editing, fis the problems then remove the tags please. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There has been an odd lack of reading the sources or research of the other available sources before questionably tagging those sources.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, fix the problem then remove the tags, your newest source is also unreliable as it is the opinion of a counter protester, so is of no use. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What you call a 'Blog' has (3%) under the caption of the photo from the newspaper photographer showing the man with the Three Percenter patch on his arm, you should look at the sources before you dismiss.[32]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about a photo, nor it's caption, it is a [[WP:NEWSBLOG] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The paper's staff photographer, Doug Brown, took the photo evidence and that should be more than enough proof, unless someone is pushing a POV.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Following our policy of WP:RS is not pushing a POV, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This is RAW footage of the event, that's why it is on the newspaper's blog page, but the photos were taken by their staffer and the captions were written by Doug Brown, as well.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Photos ain't RS Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What the reporter wrote above it is and the photo is evidence that supports Doug Browns words. This was RAW footage, but still a staff reporter.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't care, photos ain't RS Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Reporter, Doug Brown wrote, "Right wing paramilitary group the Three Percenters (often spelled III%) provided security, blocking protesters from entering the fenced area." Even without the photo to support it, the written words support the statement on the page.[33] Thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So what? It still needs attribution per newsblog Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It is the reporter, Doug Brown, reporting it with pictures to support it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

For fucks sake, read WP:NEWSBLOG, follow policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a reporter reporting with photos to support it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well if your just going to ignore policy I'll just remove that source then. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's the reporters own words backed up with photo evidence, why are you degrading this?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, just read the fucking policy and stop being obtuse. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Why does it matter the format a reporter, reports on, it is still the staff writer's words with photos that support it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Because it's fucking policy Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Really, it is policy to ignore the written fist person accounts of a reporter with photo evidence to support it, that is very sad.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• C. W. Gilmore, I'm not going to read over this entire discussion, but you should be really wary of blindly trusting eyewitness-type news. Having said that, DS, I am really unconvinced by your reasons and your tag. If we're talking about that Portland Mercury article, I really don't see the need for any more attribution than the citation. From what I can tell this Doug Brown seems to work for the paper and calling his article "the opinion of a counter protester" is silly--unless you want to propose that the photos were photoshopped. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou, I try to find local reporting, however with this being their first rally, there are only two local news reports on the April 2, 2017 rally and the Three Percenters working security.[34][35] Thanks again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• To be fair, the Portland Mercury source is a photo essay, and it appears under the banner "BLOGTOWN". Neither of these inspire confidence that the text has gone through the normal rigorous editorial processes. It would be better attributed.
  The The Reflector source (if a reliable publisher) looks better. I do note that it includes only On the Trump side, the “American Patriot 3 Percenters” served as security. (approximately 1% of the article); if this is all we are taking from the source then it's a fairly egregious WP:CHERRYPICK. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There are only three news sources on this event and two mention the 3%ers, it is of note only because there presence is so consistent throughout Patriot Prayer rallies[36], coming up again[37] and again[38] and always as security for PP.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not preferred, but it is all we have given that the reporter did not file a story of the event. The photos the journalist took with the captions, should be more than enough, but Darkness Shines wanted more so I added The Reflector citation as the only other local paper covering 3%er at the rally.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Rv, why

This edit is a clear BLP violation, nowhere in the source given does it say Gibson invited Chapman or others like him to speak. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• OK--then change the wording? Drmies (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't due to my 1RR restriction Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Why didn't you just tweak it the first time around? You know the "white nationalist" part and that he was a speaker there was verified--the only problem was the "invited", which I agree wasn't in the source. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no intention of tweaking something which will then be used to land me at ani and blocked again, Gilmore needs to read the sources and edit appropriately. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And instead of berating me, tell me if that lede is even remotely neutral Darkness Shines (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Dude, you know I'm not "berating" you. I do not understand why you would think that a tweak, to make something in agreement with the source and with policy, would land you at ANI, and a revert would not--but to each his own. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It is more neutral now, that it shows Gibson's words and actions both; yes, much more neutral this way. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: I highly doubt tweaking content will land you at ANI, as long as the changes aren't disruptive. In my eyes they aren't. All I see is a content dispute and you are no where near getting yourself blocked right now. At least I gather that much from watching this page.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I know your not, but i am getting very frustrated with this SPA who is obviously here for one reason, ignores everything I say, ignores policy, and who just makes up shit on this talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand frustration. Take it easy, and thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you attacked my contribution. A good editor would see that the entire sentence needed to be deleted as redundant, not focus on me. A good editor will see the point is made one sentence below and will even be generous to add the new sources referenced to the exist sentence to make the contributor feel appreciated for their good faith effort, IMO.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Chapman / American

I will be removing Based stick man from the lede per WP:UNDUE, America is not the world, and it is doubtful many outside of American right wing circles have heard of him. I will also be removing controversial from the lede as it was added against consensus, it is after all a subjective term. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: consensus to attribute controversial and not state it as fact in wikipedias voice. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Too late; I already did. I hope writers will look at my edit summary. While we're on the topic: a. there are way too many references in the lead, evidence that this is not yet a well-developed topic and that editors are collecting scraps (that is, every bit of media coverage); b. there are too many minor events documented in this article. We're not the news and we need not give exhaustive listings of every Patriot fart blown out by this outfit. It's a minor outfit. These are minor farts. They smell bad, but they're minor. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• I know, which was the reason for this Darkness Shines (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• That draft is not going to see publication, I'm afraid.--Jorm (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

As it is not just Chapman, but also Allen Pucket, Jake Von Ott, Jeremy Christian, Jeffery Hughes, Proud Boys and many others, remove direct reference to anyone, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Realy Jorm? Why not? Tell what is wrong with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have no intention of getting drawn into one of your tit-for-tat 3,000 response arguments, so no, I'm not going to tell you what's wrong with it. You know exactly what the problems are so pretending you don't is being intellectually dishonest.--Jorm (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem with your draft is that you refuse to make a few changes to it. Change the first line to: "Patriot Prayer are a conservative, Portland, Oregon based advocacy group.[3]" Then change: "The group organizes pro-Trump rallies and provocative protests in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters." You would include all the facts while staying neutral and well balanced. Just a thought.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• So like Gilmore you can't actually say what's wrong with it, so I see no reason at all to not add it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I just told you what's wrong with it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It already says that. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

NO, it does not, you still have the misleading "American advocacy group" from unreliable 'Entertainment.ie'. You still have NOT put in 'pro-Trump' rallies and 'provocative' protests even with many supporting sources that are far more reliable than 'Entertainment.ie'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not misleading as they are American, just because a source is Irish does not make it unreliable, it just shows America is not tho world, not everyone knows American geography. It says pro trump rallies, provocative is a subjective term, and if already says Some of the rallies have drawn controversy so it would be repition and therefore redundant Darkness Shines (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The source is "Entertainment.ie', it is not local news but 'entertainment' about the poop protest of the far-right rally. The misleading part is that some two dozen from the Portland, Oregon area, does not make them an American wide group as you are suggesting. They do not have chapters from Portland Maine, to Portland Texas, to Portland Michigan; no, just Portland Oregon with a P.O. (mail) box and a facebook page. This is why calling them a Portland Oregon based advocacy group is far more accurate and it is well documented outside of 'entertainment' sections of Irish tabloids.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It does not say the group is American wide, it says it is an American group, that is fact, not misleading Darkness Shines (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That is misleading as this Portland area group has no reach beyond San Fransisco to Seattle and using Irish Entertainment.ie site as your source is very weak sourcing. Your unwillingness to compromise stalling consensus and we have not even begun discussing 'Pro-Trump' or 'provocative'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And this is the key problem, I try and make the smallest change; but I have to have a list of references and be prepared for you to, first delete the posting, then to challenge that the information is not in the sources, then challenge every source as unreliable: but you will post information based on one Irish entertainment source. Do you see the problem?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. That photo of the dog scooping is photo-shopped.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not misleading to say an American group are fucking American, it's not just fucking American's who read Wikipedia, not everyone on the fucking world knows where Portland is, he'll theres one down the road from me. I am not the only one to say this to you btw, but as usual you refuse to fucking listen Darkness Shines (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

But there's more, even an American student paper says

Patriot Prayer, an American conservative advocacy group Darkness Shines (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

A student paper and Irish entertainment, now that is reaching. Ineresting that you consider Entertainment.ie good source but mark The Columbian as 'unreliable'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Not reaching, proving a point, I never said the Colombian was unreliable Darkness Shines (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeeze, I hadn't noticed the grammar issue there when I made my edit - must've been too tired. Sorry about that, and thanks for fixing it Drmies. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• No big deal, User:PeterTheFourth--others clean up mine all the time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines, then drop 'American' and replace with 'free speech' or 'First Amendment' where there is good sourcing. "Patriot Prayer bills itself as a peaceful First Amendment advocacy group": [39][40][41]; that's a lot better than something dug up on Irish entertainment and out of a school newspaper. Then add, "The group organizes pro-Trump rallies and provocative protests in predominantly liberal areas,..." and you can have you changed lead section.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Jesus wept, No to pro trump, it is inaccurate as they also hold free speech rallies, attend anti Marxism rallies so focusing on trump is undue, and my version says they have held pro trump rallies. No to controversial as it is opinion, and also redundant as my version already says some of the rallies have caused controversy. No to dropping American cos as I said, the world is not America, not everyone knows where these places are. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

But what about the evidence of Pro-Trump rallies complete with Trump flags, hats and T-shirts: [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] You can't keep denying the sources like this and move ahead with your agenda.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What I have written says they have held rallies in support of Trump. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Not prominent enough, name one rally where they did not show up with Trump shirts, hats or flags? There are none, that is the problem with demoting it to a by-line.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Moved that line up, take a look please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

But you still have "American" advocacy, not 'free speech' or 'First Amendment'; also would you please consider this change: "They have held (provocative) rallies in predominantly modern liberal areas such as Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco." ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Provocative is subjective and opinion, it is also redundant as i have already explained. The group is American, and as not everyone who reads Wikipedia is American that is staying. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, there is already a consensus to not state in Wikipedia's voice that they are a free speech group, it has to be attributed as I have done Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Then say they are a Portland Oregon based advocacy group and the fact that they provoke the far left is very well documented, just do a quick search of 'Patriot Prayer' and 'provocative' to see all the news reports besides the ones I listed.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is why my version says some of the rallies have caused controversy, like I said provocative is opinion, and redundant. Tell me where is Portland? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(BLP vio removed}) Have you done no research on this group? This is why the sources call their rallies 'provocative', it is not an opinion, but an observation.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Where is your source which says Gibson's goal is to provoke violence? If you do not have one strike that comment please, BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I will take that as a "NO".C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Strike or remove your BLP violation please. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not violate anything, just give well sourced information which is as accurate as possible, and Portland is in the State of Oregon in the Pacific Northwest of North America.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest you do a deeper look at the sources that that call PP rallies provocative as well doing your own search of 'Patriot Prayer' and 'provocative' so you will become better informed on why these reporters are saying it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Portland is in England, and there are nine Oregon's, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There is only one 'Portland, Oregon' and only one Pacific Northwest of North America. You once called me 'obtuse' among other abuses.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You miss the point, not everyone in the world knows where Portland, or Oregon are, hence American advocacy group remains. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

'American' can be anything from two countenance which is far too wide of a category for some two dozen members in the 'Portland, Oregon' area. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Listen, read, not everyone in the world is from America, do you understand that? Not everyone in the world knows American geography, do you understand that? American is staying period. The debate on this is done, and I will implement my changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"Listen, read, not everyone in the world is" use to the term American being applied only to the United States in North America. There is South America and North America and many nations in both, thus the hyper-link for Portland, Oregon, because I like many people will use that to look up geographic details of the area in question. The current page has had no problems with people understanding that Portland, Oregon is not in China, why do you?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Three people say American is fine, so consensus is there for that, two people say my version is neutral, only you disagree so consensus is against you, stop editwarring, editing against consensus and drop this. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop pushing your POV, without consensus. It is far to Anglo/English of a view to put American is the lead section as most American do not live in the USA. The United States is not both con tenants.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Irish entertainment and a student newspaper not the basis for such a change.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What the fuck are you on? "most American do not live in the USA." Consensus on this talk page is for American to stay, so drop it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

America the continent consist of uh, Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and many other countries. USA is not only one. Imagining that USA is the only one is very silly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Lol, how many people from Brazil call themselves Americans or say they are Americans? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping you would realise that "most American do not live in the USA." In fact the Americas is 5 times the size of the United States. This is a very good start for you.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

O look, another geographically challenged person, The Americas is not America. They are completely fucking different, USA is not south America,Is it ffs Darkness Shines (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There are two Americas, one north and the other south.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, given feedback at the RSN I have made the following change, diff Are you happy now? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It is more correct and less misleading to state 'U.S.A.' as there are two Americas (North and South), and most of them lay outside of the United States. This dose not even take into consideration of the cultural use of the term America, as in Latin America and so on.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Right then, fuck this shite. I compromised, you move the goalposts, There is only one nation called America, I'm done with you, I will make my changes as I see fit. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said, you are looking at this from too much of an Anglo/English point of view as the rest of the world, does not share, especially Latin America, where they consider themselves also to be American, from Mexico to Chile. Just because South Africa has Africa in it's name does not mean, that the only Africans are from South Africa, or that you can just use Africa alone to discribe South Africa.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a fairly obvious false equivalence. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The false equivalence is to say that my family in Peru or Mexico have even heard of this Portland, Oregon based group with no reach outside of the Pacific Northwest. This is a very localised group with a very focused goal of 'liberating conservatives on the West Coast'.[63]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably best to have a read of false equivalence. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably best to leave America out of this page entirely as it denotes far larger reach and greater impact than the evidence presented can sustain. This is the really issue, no one in Latin America has heard of them and few outside of the Pacific Northwest of North America care.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

... it denotes far larger reach and greater impact than .... This would be true if the adjective were "America-wide", not "American". The latter denotes only "of or relating to the United States of America". The article subject is clearly, categorically, "of the United States of America"; and it is not inappropriate to describe it as such. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

My 'American' family and friends outside of outside of US states of California, Oregon and Washington have never even heard of this group, especially in Latin America where it is not even covered in the Spain speaking news outside of the state of California, nor in French Quebec or Portuguese speaking South American. This really is just a Pacific Northwest group of a few dozen without even a branch office outside of Portland, Oregon.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

That's nice, but not really relevant. We don't make content decisions based on the awareness, or lack thereof, of editors' families. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

So you make it based on Irish entertainment sites and student newspapers, because that's about the only places that call this group 'American'. The only thing 'American' about them is that they are located in North America.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The thing that is "American" about the article subject is that it is "of or relating to the United States of America", and yes, that is because it was founded and is located in the United States of America. That thing is sufficient for it to be described as "American". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So United States of American, ie USA is therefore more accurate, thanks that works so much better than imprecise, 'America'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In English, the adjective used to describe things of or relating to the United States of America is "American"; not "United States of American". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Or use USA which is more precise and not misleading.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In English, the adjective used to describe things of or relating to the United States of America is "American"; this is not misleading to anyone with even the pith o' sense. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Re: "USA-based": I genuinely appreciate the endeavour at finding a compromise, but am not convinced of the effect. "Nation-based" is primarily used in commercial or business related contexts, and also primarily used for entities with multinational influence or activity. While "USA-based" does suggest main activity inside the United States, it also suggests influence or activity outside the United States; which is not the intended meaning, and not accurate for this article subject.
  The adjective, "American" (of or relating to USA), is good enough for article subjects as diverse as The Coca-Cola Company, McDonalds, American Airlines Los Angeles Lakers, Boston Celtics, American Nazi Party, BAMN, History of American newspapers and List of American saints and beatified people, and for categories like Category:American engineers. Articles, lists and categories using the term American (any sense) without issue number in the multiple millions. It's not confusing, misleading or misrepresentative in any of those, and it's not confusing, misleading or misrepresentative here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The compromise happened, some put in 'USA based' so no need for America or American. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a comprehension problem? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

USA is more precise and accurate, and someone already added it so problem is solved. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Addressed above; not responded to. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

An no there is no problem, as 'American' denotes something larger than a few people in the Portland area; like "Latin American" or "African American". But lets get back on topic. As Kyle Chapman has been featured heavily at Patriot Prayer events since his arrest and shows off a side of Patriot Prayer, that Joey Gibson keeps disavowing: [64]'At People’s Park, Patriot Prayer speakers, including Kyle “Stickman” Chapman, decried what he called a war on whites and said the ongoing demonstrations are a “battle for Berkeley.”' It should not be about him, but the message he brings and the platform Patriot Prayer gives him as emblematic of the draw towards PP from the alt-right and white nationalists.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

'American' denotes something larger than a few people in the Portland area; like "Latin American" or "African American". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original research, nor a platform for advocacy. Perhaps there is a blog or website somewhere that might be more suitable for this material. Here, we include content according to our policies & guidelines, we will not engage in synthesis and we will present information from a neutral point of view. For inclusion of particular theories here, one will need to find reliable sources which support them; as a whole, not as component parts. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

[65]A·mer·i·can (ə-mĕr′ĭ-kən)

adj.

1. Of or relating to the United States of America or its people, language, or culture.

2. Of or relating to North or South America, the West Indies, or the Western Hemisphere.

3. Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples.

4. Indigenous to North or South America. Used of plants and animals.

n.

1. A native or inhabitant of America.

2. A citizen of the United States.

3. American English.

Any dictionary will give you the same results, a few people in the Portland area, do not qualify as anything more than a few people from the Portland area.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in that definition supports the statement 'American' denotes something larger than a few people in the Portland area; like "Latin American" or "African American". In fact, it directly contradicts it with the definition at n.1.
We're asked to believe here that an individual citizen of the United States is "American"; two individual citizens of the United States, either alone or collectively, are "American"; three individual citizens of the United States, either alone or collectively, are "American"; and so on ... but a group of a couple of hundred citizens of the United States are not?! That's nonsensical.
We might as well hang the dictionary in the taigh beag, it's of no use for reading. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

What have they done that is 'so' American that they deserve this accolade? Nothing, it is an attribution that is not warranted.C. W. Gilmore (talk)

Patriot Prayer is not of or about the USA, nor the Americas, nor Native Americans; it is only a few in the Portland area and thus per the definition does not meet the guidelines to be used. thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Now can we get back to the fact that Patriot Prayer keeps allowing in speakers like Kyle Chapman; Tim Gionet, aka “Baked Alaska”; Allen Pucket; Jake Von Ott; and Jeffery Hughes which is why people question the words of Joey Gibson disavowing white nationalists and neo-Nazis. The words and actions stand in sharp contrast.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I refer editors to my comment above which begins Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original research, nor a platform for advocacy. If we are to include opinions about or analysis of the article subject, those opinions or analysis need to be found in reliable sources. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Then we must rely on the good reporting of local journalists that see the pattern and report it including allowing in speakers like Kyle Chapman; Tim Gionet, aka “Baked Alaska”; Allen Pucket; Jake Von Ott; and Jeffery Hughes, as well as partnering with groups like The Three Percenters and Proud Boys; all of this adds up to an extremely provocative list of actions, so it is no wonder that the reporters and journalists, report it as such. We can not make this link, but they did and it should be allow to stay as is. I only point out what the reporters observed as a pattern that informed their reporting and it is their reporting we must use in a neutral and balanced way. thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- here's the opening sentence for Identity Evropa: "... a white supremacist group in the United States, established in March 2016." It does not say "American white supremacist group". So I'm leaning towards "... in the United States" or "Portland, OR, United States", since the group is regional. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Trump, discussion

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: [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Free speech rallies, Portland- Problem

Something happened to this section about the April 29th rally as it now has August 26th rally mixed into it. Could someone help fix this? Thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC) I hope it is fixed to everyone's satisfaction.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Provocative part deux

@Somedifferentstuff: I had tagged it as OR given PP have held 7 rallies, so stating as fact in Wikipedia's voice that all of them were provocative is kinda OR. And two of those sources are about the same rally Darkness Shines (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Then which of their protests has not been 'provocative as everyone of them has brought out large groups of counter protesters?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"Joey admits he’s not some perfectly pure-of-heart missionary, that he’s also a bit of a provocateur."[87]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"...by Vancouver, Wash. online provocateur Joey Gibson."[88] From Joey telling a reporter he is 'a bit of a provocateur' to the Willamette Week saying it, there is consensus on this and a lot of sources to this point. "Chapman and Gibson have both gained a degree of prominence in the alt-right, a nationalist movement designed to provoke and taunt liberal "snowflakes" they see as undermining America."[89]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Time Magazine: "Such statements give credence to the notion that these rallies are being held to provoke the left, even if Gibson has spoken often about love and peace."[90] The evidence is that this group engages in provocative actions as even Joey admitted that he is a bit of a provocateur.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: I realize you are busy on the Vegas shooting article, however if you do not respond here I have little choice but to go with the existing consensus and remove the provocative crap. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Darkness Shines, where is this consensus you are referring to? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Here Thanks for responding Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I took a look at your linked discussion, part of it had to do with attribution. Would you be okay with a separate sentence stating: "Some media outlets have described their protests as "provocative" ? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is that, THIS IS A PATTERN of provocative rallies on the part of Patriot Prayer again and again that the sources refer, thus when they held their rallies in Portland when asked not to do so after the Train Attack, they refused on both occasions; and when everyone else canceled there political activities in Seattle after Charlotteville, only PP refused and went on with their show. This is why the sources see the pattern and report it as such, so no attribution is needed given their pattern. And this does not even touch on PP interjecting themselves into other disputes from Portland's rose parade controversy to Evergreen State College faculty issue, to Berkley; they put themselves into the mix in the most provocative of ways and even Joey Gibson admits 'to being a bit of a provocateur'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Then we have there provocative list of speakers including allowing in speakers like Kyle Chapman; Tim Gionet, aka “Baked Alaska”; Allen Pucket; Jake Von Ott; and Jeffery Hughes, as well as partnering with groups like The Three Percenters and Proud Boys; all of this adds up to an extremely provocative list of actions, so it is no wonder that the reporters and journalists, report it as such. We can not make this link, but they did and it should be allow to stay as is.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:There was no consensus yet as you ignored my input.Here Look at my entry which states that the local media and journalist have reached a consensus to call PP's rallies and protests provocative, as long as this page footnotes it, it should remain.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Darkness Shines and Somedifferentstuff: Support the consensus in the previous discussion. As a WP:LABEL, if this is to be included it needs to be attributed. Not yet decided on whether a generic attribution ("media outlets") or specific attribution (naming the source) is best; the former may raise WP:WEASEL concerns. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is to use 'provocative' with footnotes as User:Somedifferentstuff suggested, the attribution is made. It is the reporters that made the link between the actions and the provoking of violence and it is wrong to not include this in a neutral and balanced way.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

• Comment -- here's some content I added a while back (diff); it was subsequently removed as written:

• The rallies organized by the Patriot Prayer has attracted white nationalists, including members of Identity Evropa, and resulted in clashes with counter-protesters. Southern Poverty Law Center refers to the group as an "antigovernment 'Patriot' group" that stages its events in the liberal urban centers of the Pacific Northwest "all with the clear intent of attempting to provoke a violent response from far-left antifascists".

References

My suggestion would be re-include it, instead of stating, in Wikipedia's voice, that the rallies are provocative. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

What's so wrong with the way it now?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If the article attributes the statement to a source, then we could hopefully stop arguing about it. :-) I also find the many inline citations distracting; sample: "...The group organizes pro-Trump[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] rallies and provocative[16][15][17] protests ...". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Anything less and Darkness Shines woulxd delete what I add. I don't like it either, but it keeps happening.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That's also why 'Pro-Trump' has five and Talk section with another 30 so it would not be deleted again by someone with an agenda.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Guys I wrote it as some of the events have caused controversy, will that suit everyone? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Not some but all were planned and done as provocative actions. Have you read what I wrote? This is why the local news calls them provocative and even Joey admits to being a bit of a "provocateur".C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As with "pro-Trump", you are attempting to water down a well documented action by PP.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Say at least 'many' and not some as 'some doesn't fit the sources.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Also SPLC piece needs attributing to Nieerrt. Just have "Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, which has lead to violent confrontations with counter-protesters,[11]" as I have written here Darkness Shines (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your rewrite leaves out everything around the Train Attack that PP did and all the white nationalist they had speaking at their rallies, and waters down so much more to making banal and pointless.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

PP have never attacked a train to the best of my knowledge Darkness Shines (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The were and are a magnet for white nationalist like Jeremy Christian and the speaker at their last rally, Kyle Chapman. But what is more relevant is their provocative rallies after the attack and their refusal to cancel which brought more unrest to Portland. This group does not operate in a vacuum.[91]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It was also not just their response to the Train Attack in April, with their April 29, 2017 rally[92], but also the rally of June 4th that coincided with Jeremy Christian's court appearance, this is the PATTERN of provocative actions that is behind the local media labeling their rallies 'provocative'.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As with the local media calling them 'pro-Trump', their saying Patriot Prayer holds provocative rallies is based on the PATTERN of events over these many months of reporting on them. They have a front row seat to this group and Darkness Shines should be less dismissive of their observations or his rewrite of the PP page with be not be balanced and neutral.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait, where did my entry for the June 4, 2017 "Trump Free Speech Rally Portland"[93][94][95][96][97] go? Why are my posts being deleted? Is someone trying to alter the PP page for some reason other than facts? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

citation needed????

Why did someone go through and start questioning all the citations in the overview, this was already been dealt with and settle?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I just provided citations in the Overview for 'anti-government', only to have the entire entry deleted???C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The citations were all listed in the Bibliography, but that was deleted by someone.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Where did the Bibliography section go?

All the references located in there are gone, why?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Spelling correction request

Can an admin please correct the spelling of San Francisco in the section header while this page is under full protection? Thanks. Funcrunch (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Done —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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.[98]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[99] 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)

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. [100][101][102] 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[103] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)