Misplaced Pages

Talk:Patriot Prayer: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:28, 7 September 2020 editJorm (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers7,777 editsNo edit summaryTag: Undo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:01, 9 March 2024 edit undoDreamy Jazz Bot (talk | contribs)Bots106,824 editsm Replacing Template:Ds/talk notice with Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. BRFA. 
(33 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}}
{{BLP}}
{{WikiProject Oregon |importance=Low}}
{{Copied |from=Proud Boys |from_oldid=885725671 |to=Patriot Prayer |diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Patriot_Prayer&diff=886012841&oldid=885702920 }}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=low|American=y}}
{{WPBS|1=
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=Start}} {{WikiProject United States |importance=low}}
| blp=yes
{{WikiProject Oregon |class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics |class=Start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=Start|importance=low}}
}} }}
{{Copied |from=Proud Boys |from_oldid=885725671 |to=Patriot Prayer |diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Patriot_Prayer&diff=886012841&oldid=885702920 }}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap}}

{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 28: Line 29:
I agree. I've seen national news stories about their rallies in Portland, but this article sheds almost no light on their actual views. I get that they clash with Antifa (who are also often labeled extreme) and a lot of observers call them "far-right", but not much here to clarify what they actually stand for. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> I agree. I've seen national news stories about their rallies in Portland, but this article sheds almost no light on their actual views. I get that they clash with Antifa (who are also often labeled extreme) and a lot of observers call them "far-right", but not much here to clarify what they actually stand for. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:We report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that Patriot Prayer is "far-right", so we report that. We don't analyze their ideology and make an independent assessment of where it falls on the political spectrum. That is ] and is specifically prohibited. ] (]) 22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC) :We report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that Patriot Prayer is "far-right", so we report that. We don't analyze their ideology and make an independent assessment of where it falls on the political spectrum. That is ] and is specifically prohibited. ] (]) 22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::If "reliable sources" accuse them of being far right without evidence, it would seem they aren't very reliable ] (]) 15:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812
::How does Misplaced Pages deal with bias in said reliable sources? There seems to be no evidence except what journalists allege. Certainly it's possible this is the case here, right? With these standards, it seems impossible to prove a negative if one reliable source mistakenly says it's "far-right" while others characterize it as "right-wing," "conservative," or "libertarian" without using the term "far right." Part of the reason I use Misplaced Pages for a source of information is that it tends to remove biases more than journalists do. ] (]) 04:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC) ::How does Misplaced Pages deal with bias in said reliable sources? There seems to be no evidence except what journalists allege. Certainly it's possible this is the case here, right? With these standards, it seems impossible to prove a negative if one reliable source mistakenly says it's "far-right" while others characterize it as "right-wing," "conservative," or "libertarian" without using the term "far right." Part of the reason I use Misplaced Pages for a source of information is that it tends to remove biases more than journalists do. ] (]) 04:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


Line 34: Line 36:
::: There is still no support offered for their views being right-wing, far right (how exactly is that defined anyway?) or what ever. All the article contains is a lot of 'opinions', 'circumstantial stuff' and innuendo. There should be some more thorough information available or one should simply leave out the adjectives. ] (]) 20:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC) ::: There is still no support offered for their views being right-wing, far right (how exactly is that defined anyway?) or what ever. All the article contains is a lot of 'opinions', 'circumstantial stuff' and innuendo. There should be some more thorough information available or one should simply leave out the adjectives. ] (]) 20:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


== Additional coverage that may be useful ==
== Far right ==
*Aug 18, 2019 BBC, Portland rally: Far-right and antifa groups face off https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49382386
Apparently, there was a discussion about this elsewhere, and it somehow arrived at a conclusion that runs completely counter to what our sources say. ] (]) 03:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*Aug 30, 2020 CBC, Portland mayor, Trump trade blame after fatal protest shooting https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/portland-protest-shooting-1.5705390
:I have no idea what you're trying to say here, nor have you provided any indication of a source you disagree with, or any source that may be counter to what is said. So this is a waste of everyone's time; thanks for that!--] (]) 03:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 00:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!-- -->
::Context. ] (]) 03:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Why would you think other people follow discussions on your user page? You still haven't even said what you think needs to happen. This is more time wasting.--] (]) 03:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Short version: There was a discussion outside of this talk page about the content of this article, specifically whether we should identify this organization as far-right. What I saw there was strong opposition to removing this label, as it was used by many reliable sources, following by the opposers going silent while Masem and Morbidthoughts came to an agreement. So when the latter attempted to remove the term, I restored it.
::::Clearer? ] (]) 04:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::The term should not be removed, as it is indeed supported by multiple reliable sources, regardless of what Masem and Morbidthoughts may have agreed between themselves. They do not control, consensus on this talk page does. ] (]) 04:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::The label is not removed. It was moved to the second lead sentence to give attribution. Multiple editors on the noticeboard agreed that this label needed attribution. ] (]) 04:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Yes, you and Masem add up to "multiple", but there are plenty of editors who continue to object. ] (]) 04:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::{{U|Bus stop}} and {{U|Zaereth}} also agreed with attribution while {{U|Sir Joseph}} disagreed with the label because the sources are subject to bias. {{U|Dimadick}} also disagreed with the label. ] (]) 04:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Are you going to count the people who disagreed, or should we ignore them? Note that I wasn't involved in that discussion, but I likewise disagree. ] (]) 04:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::You're free to count them in that discussion, but I was rebutting your sarcastic definition of "multiple". ] (]) 04:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sorry, but no sarcasm was intended. I was conceding that it wasn't your decision alone. But, yes, I was pointing out that it was mostly you and Masem, which still remains the case. It likewise remains the case that the people who objected to the change never did come around. ] (]) 04:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::The label is essential description, and should remain in the lede sentence, as is normal. ] (]) 04:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::There is little issue that the label is essential w.r.t. to this group based on the coverage ''but it is a label'' and thus a subjective term that can't be stated in factual wikivoice. That the group is widely acknowledged as far-right when they are reported on in the news is sufficient that we can say in wikivoice, in essence, "PP is considered a far-right group." without the need for any inline attribution in the lede (on the basis this is delved into in the body with sources) - that statement ''is'' factual. But as a subjective term, it can't be left bare in wikivoice, and for the same reason it shouldn't be introduced in the first sentence, or at least in the first part of the first sentence. It could be moved to a second part of the first sentence, ("PP is an activist group out of Portland, Oregon, broadly considered to be a far-right organization.") though the flow is better by moving it to the second second "PP is an activist group out of Portland, Oregon. They are broadly considered a far-right body, known for organizing rallies in support of Donald Trump and far-right protests in predominantly liberal areas, which have been met with large numbers of counter-protesters...") Either way still hits the reason this group is in the news and notable right up front as early as possible but without the problem of placing subjective terms in wikivoice. --] (]) 05:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
"Stormfront is a white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denialist, and neo-Nazi Internet forum, and the Web's first major racial hate site." ] (]) 05:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:] is never a valid argument (I'm sure there's an endless supply of other examples on en.wiki that can be pulled). This is about PP and established policy while maintaining what the sources say and the relevant facet of those sources. --] (]) 05:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:Further, that's a website while PP is a group of people. ]s are to be written conservatively and ] requires in-text attribution: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." This requirement overrides any talk page "consensus". ] (]) 06:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
::I would suggest that Stormfront is a good indicator of Misplaced Pages policy because it is such a high-profile page, so it has many experienced sets of eyes on it to ensure that it complies. It demonstrates that it is entirely consistent with policy to accurately label an organization in wiki-voice, as opposed to accepting the self-description as factual. ] (]) 06:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Far-right is not a "value-laden label". It only describe their political activism. Also, saying that "] is never a valid argument" is actually wrong. Even the Essay that you linked says it is valid in some occasions and this is indeed one of them.--] (]) 07:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Also, there are many articles with far left in them describing individuals and organisations etc. It doesnt make sense to say it is a value-laden label.-] (]) 07:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Whether it's laden with values or not, there are sufficient reliable sources available that we have to say it in our own voice, not attribute it to others. ] (]) 14:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
::::It is still a label, it is subjective, and can't be said in Wikivoice fact. You have more than enough sourcing to get away without in-line attribution to say, as fact, it is considered far-right, or that it is identifed as a far-right group, or numerous other ways to take the subjective term out of Wikivoice. A large number of sources using a subjective term does not mean you get to ignore NPOV per ]. --] (]) 00:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: It is not subjective. ] are objectively defined. If far-right is subjective then far-left, left-wing and so on are subjective. However, lots of articles in Misplaced Pages describe individuals and organizations as far-left, left-wing etc.--] (]) 05:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::The problem with this "objective" definition through the article you link to is that far right "feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, anti-communist, or reactionary views." This particular group rejects several common aspects attributed to the far-right label, especially those having to do with race and homophobia. Probably because of their multiracial membership. Gibson himself is half-Japanese. ] (]) 18:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Your personal feeling that the label does not apply is not relevant. It is a well-defined, objective label that is overwhelmingly and uncontroversially used for this topic among reliable sources; therefore, we must report it as fact. --] (]) 05:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::Agree with ]; it's defined, and this organization meets the definition. Masem likes to make sure we don't harm the feelings of deplorable folk by calling them what they are (c.f. his dogged insistence that Gamergate - a nebulous "organization" - not be called a "harassment campaign" even though that's exactly what it is). More of the same here, I think.--] (]) 14:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::::*Your gut telling you that it is subjective is not relevant. Your gut telling you that these sources are all biased is not relevant. If you have ''sources'' showing that there is disagreement over it, or actual arguments to demonstrate the bias you're alleging, present them. Otherwise, you need to drop this. I don't know why, but I am actually, genuinely disappointed - you know better than this, Masem. No matter how much you might disagree with a source, no matter how much it might make something in your gut twist and tell you it's wrong, we judge the facts based on the best sources available, not on your personal opinions. And you have presented nothing - not even the slightest shred of evidence - to support your baffling assertion that ''every single source'' is biased here, or that the objective, factual, well-sourced statement of fact in the lead is somehow now magically subjective despite unanimous sourcing treating it as fact. --] (]) 05:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
*Note that FollowTheSources has been blocked. While I started a SPI for that editor, I also support keeping "far-right" in the lead (and have made a few revert to restore it over the last year). Simple language is better, and a personal dislike of a term does not transform it into a "label", nor would this automatically make it non-neutral. ] (]) 00:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*{{tq|There is little issue that the label is essential w.r.t. to this group based on the coverage but it is a label and thus a subjective term that can't be stated in factual wikivoice.}} That argument is jaw-droppingly absurd; I'm baffled that an experienced editor would present an argument that is so drastically divergent from our policy. (The last time I checked, ] did not state that we are to avoid every term that Masem objects to.) We describe things as the sources do; and far-right is a well-defined academic term with a specific, objective meaning. It is no more subjective than any other political-science term. Naturally people can disagree on whether something is far-right, just like they can disagree on any other topic, but when the sources are in broad agreement we must reflect what they say - you cannot simply remove or cast doubt on their conclusions because you, personally, disagree; "this descriptor feels wrong to me" does not magically let you cast doubt on a straightforward, well-sourced, objective statement of fact like this one. If you have high-quality sources you feel indicate it is not factual, go ahead and present them; but you need to stop wasting everyone's time with this baffling belief that you can just arbitrarily declare factual statements you disagree with to be subjective. That isn't how it works - we go by the sources, not your gut. And the sources treat it as a fact. I know you have, in the past, sometimes taken issue with the entire media landscape (believing it to be biased in a way that we have an ]); I'd hoped you'd finally gotten past that? But if your argument is "yes, the sources treat this as fact, but Masem's gut says it is subjective", it really seems like we're back in the same place we were six years ago - you're being more ''genteel'' about it, but your basic argument here is that we should disregard the sources and go with your gut. --] (]) 05:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020 ==
== Suggest re-writing this page ==
{{atop|Nothing actionable, as usual.--] (]) 14:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)}}


{{edit semi-protected|Patriot Prayer|answered=yes}}
After a shooting that happened in Portland yesterday, I decided to research to understand what "Patriot Prayer" was about. I came across this Misplaced Pages article, which paints a pretty nasty picture of the group. I then came across this video from the founder: https://www.facebook.com/100013660111371/videos/314989532299715/. No reasonable person can listen to that video and then reconcile that with the claims made on this Misplaced Pages page. If Misplaced Pages wants to be a credible source, editors need to rewrite this page to be factual and honest. I appreciate that some media outlets may have made claims that clearly do not align with what I heard in that video from the founder, but that does not justify Misplaced Pages repeating or citing those outrageous and apparently false claims.
This article repeatedly refers to counter-protestors of Patriot Prayer as "antifa" with zero reference to where those protestors truly are self-described "anti-fascist protestors". Therefore the article shows heavy bias. Unless this can be backed up, each instance of "anti-fascist" and "antifa" should be removed entirely. They don't need to be replaced. "counter protestors" should be sufficient without being misleading. ] (]) 01:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] ] ] 01:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


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


Created the new stub ]. Improvements welcome. Thanks! ---] <sub>(])</sub> 18:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
"Patriot Prayer is a politically-neutral group based in Vancouver, Washington. Patriot Prayer describes itself as advocating in favor of free speech and opposing big government. The group has organized rallies in support of Donald Trump and protests in predominantly far-left areas, which have been met with large numbers of counter-protesters who initiate violence."


== Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021 ==
Since I know so little about the group, I cannot write an appropriate article. However, there is clearly a disconnect between the words I am reading on this page and what I am hearing in that video from the founder that is now three years old.


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

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

] (]) 21:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
:It is very simple: We don't give weight to self-description. I could describe myself as being a Former President of the United States and that wouldn't make it true.--] (]) 21:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
:: That's only for physical things that can be proven like job positions. For ideology and belief you should in fact give weight to people's words. You're always free to contrast those words to their actions. ] (]) 06:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

== Misrepresentation of Information ==
{{atop|Nothing actionable, as usual.--] (]) 14:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)}}

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

== I Wanted to Find Information about Patriot Prayer ==
{{atop|Nothing actionable, as usual.--] (]) 14:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)}}
But this article reads as though it was written by Antifa or some other group which opposes the organisation but can't say why. Can we either have a proper article or none at all. ] (]) 10:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== How do pages with counterdicting information get protected? ==
{{atop|Nothing to do here.--] (]) 19:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)}}
The Patriot Prayer page insinuates that the organization is far-right and welcomes white nationalists, etc, but the page says it denounces such groups. So why is the page allowed to lead with a counterdicting statement? ] (]) 14:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
:People and organisations do not always tell the truth about themselves. We report what reliable sources say about them no matter what they say about themselves. ] ] 14:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is the Citation proving that this group is "Far-Right" which is already harshly defined by Wiki? I'm creating an "alternative" page for "Patriot Prayer" since this one is "protected against vandalism." What cowardly "bunk." ] (]) 15:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
: it is. There's a footnote to it right after the first sentence of the article. Are you having difficulty accessing the footnotes, ]..? ] &#124; ] 16:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC).
{{abot}}

== Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2020 ==
{{atop|Nothing to do here.--] (]) 19:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)}}
{{edit semi-protected|Patriot Prayer|answered=yes}} {{edit semi-protected|Patriot Prayer|answered=yes}}
Re the first paragraph's sentence "The group has organized rallies in support of Donald Trump" is ambiguous. Perhaps it should be "in support of the Trump 2020 presidential campaign" or "in support of then President Donald Trump" or something else that explains why a group would support an individual, rather than a cause or a campaign. It might have made perfect sense when the sentence was first written, but it doesn't make sense now from a fresh perspective. Someone with more familiarity with the subject matter than me should be able to correctly clarify the sentence. ] (]) 05:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Update, "On August 29, 2020, a man wearing a hat and t-shirt with the Patriot Prayer emblem was fatally shot in downtown Portland, in the hours following a caravan rally in support of Trump," with the newest information.
: {{done}}. Added "former President". ] <small>(])</small> 07:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Example: On August 29, 2020, a man wearing a hat and t-shirt with the Patriot Prayer emblem was fatally shot in downtown Portland, in the hours following a caravan rally in support of Trump. The shooting suspect, Michael Forest Reinoehl, has said they are, "100% Antifa." In multiple videos, someone can be heard saying, "We've got one right here! We've got a couple of them right here," followed by the shooting suspect firing at and hitting Jay Bishop. ] (]) 16:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
:{{notdone}} Provide a reliable source that supports this and not "some youtube videos say this".--] (]) 16:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


== Additional sources ==
Where is the Citation proving that this group is "Far-Right" which is already harshly defined by Wiki? I'm creating an "alternative" page for "Patriot Prayer" since this one is "protected against vandalism." What cowardly "bunk." ] (]) 15:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
:It's in citation no. 1 beside "far-right." ] (]) 16:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
::And I just replied the same thing above. Why are you asking the same question several times, ]? Are you determined to waste as many editors' time as possible? ] &#124; ] 16:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC).
:::Oh, I see you actually posted it ''five'' times, and that is the sum of your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Blocked for disruptive editing. ] &#124; ] 16:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC).
{{abot}}


*'']'' in September 8, 2020: ] (]) 21:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
== Prejudicial Terminology Used - Observations from a First-Time Member/Editor==
{{atop|This is a cool story! However, this isn't a forum and there's nothing actionable.--] (]) 19:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)}}
Earlier today I read an online article which mentioned a group I had never heard of named "Patriot Prayer". Having, in the past, found Misplaced Pages to be a source of quick, generally reliable information, I copied the organization's name and sought edification from Misplaced Pages.


*'']'' September 4, 2020 https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/04/facebook-patriot-prayer-joey-gibson/ ] (]) 00:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
After having read the entire article, and reviewed the references, I was dumbfounded. I re-read the article to verify that my feelings and concerns were not misplaced. Re-reading did not help to assuage my feelings. I do not believe that I have ever read a WIKI article which made such a brazen claim against a group (calling them "far-right"), without adequate evidence.


* '']'' August 30, 2020 What Is Patriot Prayer? https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/what-is-patriot-prayer-far-right-group-confrontations-portland.html ] (]) 00:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Patriot Prayer does not describe itself as "far-right", and there is little or no hard information in the article to indicate that they are. In this day and age of prejudicial reporting in all branches of media, relying upon the fact that a newspaper, magazine, or television reporter used the term is laughable.


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


Not sure if the group's involvement in the (removal of the) ] is worth mentioning? More sources on the article's talk page. ---] <sub>(])</sub> 04:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I will use WIKIPEDIA again, but I view the information with new and justified skepticism.
{{abot}}


== August 29 2020 shooting == == Applying qualifiers without source. ==
I've gone through several sources and they say the victim was "a supporter of" as well as Joey's personal friend, but just wearing a hat is like wearing a collegial apparel. I find the inclusion into this page until reliable sources show membership or attendance on behalf of the group undue. ] (]) 16:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
:A shooting is a much bigger deal than marching, flag waving and public brawls. The sudden influx of ] accounts discovering this article for the first time makes this clear. If someone were killed for wearing collegial apparel, that would also be highly due and deserve a mention on the Misplaced Pages page of the college (regardless of whether or not the victim was a member). ] (]) 22:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
:Sources do indeed call him a supporter and friend, what else do you want? We say what sources say. We’re not saying “he attended weekly meetings at the sooper sekrit hideout”. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
::I'm not sure it's worth including here right now, though. Getting shot is not, by any real stretch of the imagination, a "Patriot Prayer" activity; the section shouldn't just become "collection of stuff that happened involving people who are part of Patriot Prayer." All the other stuff in the section either involves a group of people acting under the Patriot Prayer name, or things done / directed by the group's leader under its name. --] (]) 01:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
::: That's my thinking. I think it's best to keep it off unless/until a sufficiently strong connection is made. Similarly, if someone did something in a Ducks cap, or even while a UO student, it would be undue to put it on the UO article. However, if reliable reported news coverage says if a student athlete traveling for the team did something in a host town while they're there for an away game, then, that is different. Currently, the verifiable connection is that the shooter was a PP supporter wearing a PP hat (I don't know how hard they are to come by..) whose friends with Joey. No reported account that he was there representing the group or together with the group. ] (]) 03:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


I think it's pretty clear calling groups like Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys terms like "white nationalists" is blatantly not true on its own (Proud Boys isn't even run by anyone who is white right now). And considering there are no articles being sourced that support the statement that Proud Boys is a white nationalist or far-right group, there is no reason for this to be included in the opening paragraph.
== Right Wing ==
As of this writing I've had Jorm revert my edit multiple times and is claiming I'm the one doing disruptive edits for removing unsubstantiated claims. Until there is any source (I'm well aware that Misplaced Pages is about sourcing and not "truth," whether the qualifiers are true or not), there is no reason to include blatantly inflammatory descriptions of these groups.
Many reports from reliable sources such as the following from BBC News https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53962363 describe the group as "Right-Wing" rather than "Far-Right". This range of descriptions should be included or the article is effectively selectively cherry picking adjectives from sources while claiming NPOV. ] (]) 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
:All "far right" groups are ''also'' "right wing" so that doesn't mean what you think it means. You should learn what "NPOV" actually means.--] (]) 15:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC) I'll revert my edit back and request a source either be provided or explain why these terms should be included. I'm hoping we can be more civil with this and not continue to cause issues in cleaning up the article. ] (]) 23:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
:What you think is true or not true is irrelevant; the cited ''Vox'' source says {{tq|The group, founded in 2016, has also had close associations with far-right groups like the Proud Boys and with white supremacists.}} It's sourced, the end. ] (]) 00:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
::That's pure interpretation and irrelevant reasoning. While a Far Right party is by definition Right Wing, a Right Wing party is not necessarily Far Right by any means. If the original author from the BBC desired to call them Far-Right instead of Right-Wing they were free to do so and its not wikipedia's place to ignore non-interchangeable descriptions used by reliable sources. ] (]) 15:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Didn't notice the article being inserted in there in the middle of these edits. Vox being a source is extremely questionable, but I'm not going to spend my time since they're considered a reliable source on the list of Wiki's sources. But I did adjust the wording so it follows what the article claims. As it was, the page is saying Proud Boys are white supremacists, which the source is not claiming. ] (]) 22:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
:::That is a cool story, bro.--] (]) 15:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
::::Very mature. ] (]) 16:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::I don't know how representative this example is but the IP makes a valid point. If a preponderance of sources use the term "right wing" and only a minority of them feel comfortable strengthening this to "far right", the amount of weight we give to each term in the wiki article must be adjusted accordingly. ] (]) 16:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::It is abundantly evident that Misplaced Pages has no desire to document facts. Some left-wing news outlets will declare anything slightly to the right of them as "far right" and Misplaced Pages editors accept those claims as gospel, even in the face of a mountain of evidence (including a video where the founder provides a background on the group) to the contrary. They are apparently unaware of their own biases. Above, I called for the article to be re-written because it is full of discrepancies, even within the article itself. My suggestion was summarily dismissed and the discussion blocked for edits. This isn't the first time I've come across such articles on Misplaced Pages and it's this intolerant, biased nonsense that has prompted me to just stop donating to Misplaced Pages altogether. The platform has been taken over to push a political agenda, it seems. For certain, there is no desire to publish the truth. While I'm still no expert on Patriot Prayer, what they are NOT is a "far right" group, but you cannot persuade Misplaced Pages editors otherwise. I'm not sure how they justify calling a Japanese-American who describes himself as a libertarian and calls for people to join his group from both the left and the right as "far right". I simply cannot wrap my head around such stupidity.] (]) 18:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

: If you look in the talk archives, I believe this discussion has gone around numerous times. ] (]) 19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
:: Your political POV becomes ever more apparent for you to offer an unbiased opinion on this and any related article. ] (]) 20:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
::: I agree this is blatant misinformation, for a group to be labelled far-right, something about their policies should be associated with far-right ideologies. As a reminder, literally Nazis are far-right, not being a just being a Christian, and supporting Trump.--] (]) 21:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

: Reliable sources sometimes use the expression right-wing to describe the far right, but the meaning is always clear in context. If context is lacking, then we could be referring to a group of Mitt Romney Republicans. But Mitt Romney Republicans don't put on baseball caps and attack Black Lives Matters protesters. Instead they go to country clubs where they won't see either BLM or Patriot Prayer members. ] (]) 19:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

: Sources that are considered ] in the Misplaced Pages realm throw around both far right and right. After seeing the long discussion on this in archives, I don't really care enough to get into it. Those of you who feel strongly about it can open up a formal Request for Comment or take this to neutral point of view noticeboard if they want to. ] (]) 23:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
:: There are reliable sources that describe Joe Biden and Joe Stalin as left-wing, although none that would say they have similar ideologies. Obviously the terms left and right can be stretched to cover a lot of territory. Used on their own, without context isn't very helpful. ] (]) 00:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
:: My understanding of this disagreement over the magnitude of "right" ness that keeps coming up is over the general labeling. Even Fox News characterizes it as far-right here: https://www.foxnews.com/us/antifa-far-right-fight-portland-bar-protests but it could be that they're not consistent with it. I stopped caring. ] (]) 04:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

== Additional coverage that may be useful ==

*Aug 18, 2019 BBC, Portland rally: Far-right and antifa groups face off https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49382386

*Aug 30, 2020 CBC, Portland mayor, Trump trade blame after fatal protest shooting https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/portland-protest-shooting-1.5705390

Latest revision as of 00:01, 9 March 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Patriot Prayer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOregon Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Proud Boys was copied or moved into Patriot Prayer with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

What exactly are the "far-right" views of this group (none are specifically mentioned)?

As it stands, it just seems designed to slander the group (Patriot Prayer), without offering any evidence of "far-right" activities or views. It seems the only such activities are its recurring confrontations with the far-left group Antifa?151.143.51.84 (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's be honest, we all know why it's in the first paragraph. Don't waste your time arguing with propagandists, i mean that sincerely. LegendLength (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, if this isn't the fallacy of argumentum ad populum / appeal to common belief, nothing is.

I agree. I've seen national news stories about their rallies in Portland, but this article sheds almost no light on their actual views. I get that they clash with Antifa (who are also often labeled extreme) and a lot of observers call them "far-right", but not much here to clarify what they actually stand for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.80.236.53 (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that Patriot Prayer is "far-right", so we report that. We don't analyze their ideology and make an independent assessment of where it falls on the political spectrum. That is WP:Original research and is specifically prohibited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
If "reliable sources" accuse them of being far right without evidence, it would seem they aren't very reliable History Man1812 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812
How does Misplaced Pages deal with bias in said reliable sources? There seems to be no evidence except what journalists allege. Certainly it's possible this is the case here, right? With these standards, it seems impossible to prove a negative if one reliable source mistakenly says it's "far-right" while others characterize it as "right-wing," "conservative," or "libertarian" without using the term "far right." Part of the reason I use Misplaced Pages for a source of information is that it tends to remove biases more than journalists do. 47.156.163.253 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this criticism. The page uses the term “far right“ repeatedly, but never cites facts. It just quotes other people calling this group far right. Surely there must be some evidence from the group’s own statements or actions, if this is a fair characterization.Sajita (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There is still no support offered for their views being right-wing, far right (how exactly is that defined anyway?) or what ever. All the article contains is a lot of 'opinions', 'circumstantial stuff' and innuendo. There should be some more thorough information available or one should simply leave out the adjectives. 105.0.2.155 (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional coverage that may be useful

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cedar777 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This article repeatedly refers to counter-protestors of Patriot Prayer as "antifa" with zero reference to where those protestors truly are self-described "anti-fascist protestors". Therefore the article shows heavy bias. Unless this can be backed up, each instance of "anti-fascist" and "antifa" should be removed entirely. They don't need to be replaced. "counter protestors" should be sufficient without being misleading. Samsepi0I (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Related: John Turano

Created the new stub John Turano. Improvements welcome. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Re the first paragraph's sentence "The group has organized rallies in support of Donald Trump" is ambiguous. Perhaps it should be "in support of the Trump 2020 presidential campaign" or "in support of then President Donald Trump" or something else that explains why a group would support an individual, rather than a cause or a campaign. It might have made perfect sense when the sentence was first written, but it doesn't make sense now from a fresh perspective. Someone with more familiarity with the subject matter than me should be able to correctly clarify the sentence. 67.131.54.112 (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Added "former President". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources

Nightmare Elk

Not sure if the group's involvement in the (removal of the) Nightmare Elk is worth mentioning? More sources on the article's talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Applying qualifiers without source.

I think it's pretty clear calling groups like Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys terms like "white nationalists" is blatantly not true on its own (Proud Boys isn't even run by anyone who is white right now). And considering there are no articles being sourced that support the statement that Proud Boys is a white nationalist or far-right group, there is no reason for this to be included in the opening paragraph. As of this writing I've had Jorm revert my edit multiple times and is claiming I'm the one doing disruptive edits for removing unsubstantiated claims. Until there is any source (I'm well aware that Misplaced Pages is about sourcing and not "truth," whether the qualifiers are true or not), there is no reason to include blatantly inflammatory descriptions of these groups. I'll revert my edit back and request a source either be provided or explain why these terms should be included. I'm hoping we can be more civil with this and not continue to cause issues in cleaning up the article. Sarstan (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

What you think is true or not true is irrelevant; the cited Vox source says The group, founded in 2016, has also had close associations with far-right groups like the Proud Boys and with white supremacists. It's sourced, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Didn't notice the article being inserted in there in the middle of these edits. Vox being a source is extremely questionable, but I'm not going to spend my time since they're considered a reliable source on the list of Wiki's sources. But I did adjust the wording so it follows what the article claims. As it was, the page is saying Proud Boys are white supremacists, which the source is not claiming. Sarstan (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Patriot Prayer: Difference between revisions Add topic