Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:17, 1 October 2017

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Oregon Low‑importance This 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 Low This 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hatewatch, again

this edit is obviously unacceptable, how many times must this be explained? Hatewatch is a blog, it is the opinion of the blogs author, not a statement from the SPLC. I will be reverting this addition. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Listing the what the SPLC thinks of the Patriot Prayer, is an opinion, so saying they are not a 'hate group' is only part of the SPLC view of the group. Their view also includes: "Joey Gibson's 'Patriot Prayer' has trolled the Northwest with a series of rallies designed to provoke violence and populated with extremists, but he says he's changed his approach.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

By saying only that the Southern Poverty Law Center does not list Patriot Prayer as a 'hate group' is to tell only half the opinion of the SPLC's view of this group. 'Hatchwatch' is just that for SPLC, and it expresses the opinion of SPLC for groups, even those not listed as 'hate groups'; thus to omit it from the referenced view of the SPLC, is to tell only half the story and half the truth of their opinion of the group. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is not the more complete opinion of SPLC? And if you have such evidence then please update the view of SPLC to reflect that more complete view of PP, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If you do not Southern Poverty Law Center's complete view of Patriot Prayer, then don't mention them at all. But to take only part of what the SPLC view of this group is, is to push a half truth over the real view they have of the group. Thanks, and I look forward to viewing all the research on this matter.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times, you cannot use hatewatch, a blogs the way you keep using it, this is just getting ridiculous Darkness Shines (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If you list the point of view of the SPLC, it needs to be complete or not at all. Stating that they are not a 'hate group' is only part of the opinion of SPLC regarding Patriot Prayer. Telling half the facts, only serves to push a POV, not accuracy, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Which source used says the SPLC does not consider them a hate group? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

So you want to list them as a 'hate group'???C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The opinion of the Hatewatch of the SPLC, is quite a reliable source for the opinion of the view that the SPLC holds on Patriot Prayer and helps to tell the complete tale of their view. It is quite reliable for the opinion of the SPLC since that it is from their own website.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(out) No, we have an RS which says the SPLC does not designate them as a hate group, hatewatch is a blog. Blogs can only be used for the opinions of the author, not an organization. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! You got it. The opinion of SPLC is that Patriot Prayer is not a 'hate group' and as listed in their blog, they tell the rest of SPLC's opinion of the group. To only list part of SPLC's opinion, is to only tell a half truth.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, shall we try again. Which source used says the SPLC does not consider them a hate group? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The BBC used the opinion of the SPLC that Patriot Prayer was not a 'hate group' and what is the rest of the opinion of the SPLC on this group? Well lets look at what else they say PP is as well as what it is not and for that you go back to the original source materials from the SPLC, just like the BBC did. You can not include only part of SPLC unlike you want only partial facts.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable source for statements of fact, a blog is not. Hatewatch is only suitable for the blog authors opinion, and I am getting sick of explaining this to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch is a very reliable source for the 'opinion' of the SPLC, in fact there is not a more reliable source available as it is THEM sourcing it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

You are either trolling or being deliberately obtuse. The fecking blog cannot be used for the views of the SPLC, read WP:NEWSBLOG, I will be removing that crap again, per this discussion and the one on the BLP noticeboard. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

So you remove the point of view directly from the SPLC about the view of the SPLC, what could be wrong with that???? Just to help you out, I quoted Newsweek quoting SPLC, so we don't have to rely on the opinion of SPLC anymore, but what someone says about their opinion, if that makes you happy.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Except you didn't, SPLC does not say what you think it says in that source, kindly look at where the quotation marks are, you are in such a rush to denigrate Gibson you are violating BLP. Please use more care. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

From Newsweek: "but the SPLC noted that Patriot Prayer’s rally in Seattle last Sunday saw the group’s leader, Joey Gibson, denounce white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Gibson marched the week before in Portland, Oregon, with white nationalists." If that is not the core of what I wrote then what is???C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, it is supported this press release from Senator Feinstein: “According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Patriot Prayer attracts white nationalists and other hate groups to its rallies with the intent to provoke unrest between those groups and counter-protesters,” Senator Feinstein wrote. “I am alarmed at the prospect that Crissy Field will be used as a venue for Patriot Prayer’s incitement, hate, and intimidation.”C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, cos it's a letter Feinstein wrote, Newsweek is kinda clear on that, but again, it is citing hatewatch, which by now you must realize is a blog. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, the opinion of SPLC is good enough for the BBC and Newsweek, but not for you and your POV, I understand.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

How many times, hatewatch is a blog, it is not the SPLC. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

How many times are you not going to understand that Hatewatch absolutely is published by the SPLC, and is not an unedited "personal blog" of the sort which cannot be used as sources. Items published on Hatewatch are not the personal opinions and views of their authors, but rather the published viewpoints of the SPLC, and thus are usable as sources where appropriately attributed to the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your wrong. It is no different to any newsblog, this was already discussed previously Darkness Shines (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not wrong. Newsblogs are citable as reliable sources if the authors are professionals, and the items in question are not designated anywhere as "opinion" columns. The word "blog" simply designates the type of publishing platform being used; it says nothing about the reliability or usefulness of something as a source. That depends on the editing and publishing structure which supports that platform; are there verifiable editorial controls, a reputation for accuracy, fact-checking and corrections/retractions, etc. The SPLC has all of the above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I know this, it also says such platforms need attribution to the author. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Only if the piece is identified as an opinion. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). The article in question is not an opinion piece. It is a factual article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a couple of fairly obvious issues here - First, the SPLC is an advocacy group, not a news organisation. Second, the logic does not support the leading "Only" - The statement "If A, then do B" does not cover cases where "A" is not true - that is, "Not a newsblog" does not imply "don't attribute". - Ryk72 22:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

(ecx3)David Neiwert is a freelance journalist and blogger, so it is opinion as he if just a contributing writer. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because someone is freelancing doesn't mean it's an opinion. They are a professional journalist, as you just stated, and the article is not identified as an opinion. The article is not written in a first person opinionated manner. What is your evidence that the article is opinion, other than your blind assertions? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I asked. The reply was "The blog is where we post investigative journalism pieces - it isn't an op-ed." Doug Weller talk 17:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC) signing a bit late, sorry

OK guys, I was positive it had to be treated as a newsblog, hence attributed to Niewert, if you guys figure saying what he writes can be attributed to the SPLC then we can consider this done. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Needs to be attributed, if not to the author, then to the SPLC. The SPLC is an advocacy group; the quintessence of WP:BIASED. - Ryk72 22:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The original question was if it could be cited as part of the 'opinion' of SPLC since it was written by a journalist that then posted it to the SPLC Hatewatch which said 'no' because Hatewatch was 'blog' and I say 'yes', because it was on their website and supported by SPLC so it could be used as part of their opinion. This was all about whether it was the 'opinion' of SPLC or not.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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 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..." 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???? 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 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."' 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 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.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. 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." 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, until there most recent on September 10, 2017. 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."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 and just read how Joey reacted to them in the past,? I will help you out, he did nothing. These are part and parcel of each of there rallies, like the Trump hats. 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 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: 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 Misplaced Pages'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." 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 17:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

How I wish that was the only source that 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,...". 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)

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the opening line state in Misplaced Pages's voice that Patriot Prayer are anti-government? There are sources which state they are, however there are source's which say they oppose big government. Is it neutral to have the one, but not the other? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It is well sourced, , also being 'anti-government' and 'anti-big government' are not mutually exclusive and can exist within the same organisation as levels of disagreement with the current governmental system. This appears to be the case for Patriot Prayer as the leader has made conflicting statements on the group's philosophy, goals and objectives.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No Anti-government is a controversial lable, if sources disagree, the article should mention both opinions, and if PP actively denys either lable this should be mentioned as well. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Both are mentioned, one at the beginning of the paragraph and one at the end of the Title section, also both also reliably source and no source mentions one to the exclusion of the other. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment 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. For anyone commenting on this RFC please take a look at User:Darkness Shines/pprewrite, I believe this a more neutral version of the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

However as you have pointed out, there is no conflict in the resourced information and both are listed in the Title Section, on at the beginning and one at the end. Also given Gibson's statements regarding 'anti-big government', to lead with it would be more controversial: Joey Gibson, '...because I want limited government," he said. "Hitler was all about big government."'C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on proposed lede

your proposed lead section has far too many unsubstantiated claims that are not resourced and a few statements that are incomplete, from what I can see.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Every line is cited, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

To start with, you have no citation or support for 'American advocacy group'. The organisation has had no events outside of the Pacific Northwest and as Joey Gibson stated: “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.” Things go down hill from there for incomplete and misleading statements, consider that there is not a word about Pro-Trump, yet well over a third of their rallies had Trump in the Title of the event going back to their very first one held on April 2, 2017. These are just for starters, sorry but at least the current lead is well sourced.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And where exactly is the west coast? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In this case, PP had events from Seattle Washington, Portland Oregon and the Bay Area (San Fransisco) of California, so it would be those three states, but excluding the other 47 states. If sources don't say it, then it should not go in, especially into the lead section as you did. Someone on here told me that once and it is a fair measure and one that you should follow in my opinion, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Meh, it's cited now. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You also omit Patriot Prayer's beginnings as a Pro-Trump as well as 'free speech' group. This is misleading and you have no citations for anti-government.C. W. Gilmore

It is cited, citation 4. The current lede has no mention of trump either BTW Darkness Shines (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I was working on fixing that when you went off on this.... Also, you cite a source that is in direct conflict to the words of the founder of PP: Joey Gibson “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.” This violates the N:POV of your proposed lead, best to leave things the way they are and not put words into Joey Gibson's mouth that he did not say, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what words am I putting in Gibson's mouth? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You cite a source that is in direct conflict to the words of the founder of PP: Joey Gibson “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.” This violates the N:POV of your proposed lead, best to leave things the way they are and not put words into Joey Gibson's mouth that he did not say, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You also have no citation for 'anti-government', best to just leave things as they are, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It is cited, citation 4, I already told you that. Please tell me what words am I putting in Gibson's mouth? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And as I said, 'anti-government' is not in your citation. This is a major problem with your proposal, as you are deleting citations from the lead as well as citing sources that conflict with Joey Gibson's words, please fix these issues and others before you contine with this, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It is cited. And as you seem unable to tell me how any of the sources contradict Gibson how can I fix it? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Where is 'anti-government' stated? And there are so many problems with your proposed change that I can't get to them all because you will not even fix something this simple.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You are looking at the wrong citation cite 4 Darkness Shines (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You listed the wrong citation - which is now #5. You are making things far to complicated, trying to fix a problem that does not exist. It still does not address the problem that Joey Gibson stated the groups affected area is West Coast and not all 50 states, or that your citation does not match the facts regarding this group being limited to the area from Seattle to San Fransisco. Then there is the problem of the lack of any Pro-Trump citations or references, etc., etc., etc....C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It is cite 4. Not getting what the west coast issue is, and again, the current lede has no mention of trump. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment regarding "American". From a non-American perspective, this is a more than reasonable inclusion. As for sourcing, see WP:BLUE. - Ryk72 03:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It is an inference for a Pacific Northwest organisation with a stated goal of “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.”C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@, the Pro-Trump 'thing' is still central to this group as even in their last protest in Portland on Sept. 10, 2017, members again showed up with Trump flags and hats as I pointed out to you. Over a third of their rallies had Trump's name in them and yet you insist on just give Pro-Trump a small by-line, that is not N:POV.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, Trump is not mentioned in the current lede, so why keep banging on about it? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Because it was until you took it out, Pro-trump is what they were and what they still are, but you keep pushing a different agenda that the local news outlets reporting does not agree with.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It was not until after Charlotteville that Joey Gibson starting singing a different tone on Trump, and you take that over his past record of Pro-Trump as you push your POV. The reporting does not fit your POV: "One rally was organized by pro-Trump group Patriot Prayer." C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not recall removing content relating to Trump from the lede, but if I did it does no matter, the point being the current lede has no mention of trump, and this whole conversation is about the current lede, try staying on topic. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and when I returned my post, you have me blocked. From the local Seattle news to RT, PP is recognised as Pro-Trump by everyone by you and when I tried to include it, you called my citations 'lazy, sloppy journalism', but you are the one with the POV.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not "have you blocked", you were blocked for violating WP:3RR. And again, we are discussing the current lede, please focus on that. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because you kept taking out the well sourced Pro-Trump rally information that I put in, that is why Pro-Trump is not in the lead, you edited it out, then had me blocked for trying to put it back. Now you are going off on this rewrite to undo a lot of work by a lot of poeple without a good reason.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Get back on point, there is no need for your rewrite yet and better consensus needs to be built before you do it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec)I did not have you blocked, you got yourself blocked. Now, for the final time, we are discussing the current lede, what in the current lede is not covered in my rewrite? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pro-TrumpC. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Trump was in the lead section, it should still be there but for someone pushing a POV, over the massive evidence. It was finally put into a side note in the overview, but needs to be returned as there; just in the past few hours I have given you four more news outlets calling PP, Pro-Trump.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not care what was, we are meant to be discussing what is, either respond to the question put to you or don't bother posting again, what in the current lede is not covered in my rewrite? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

What is needs work, but not 'your' rework. You make no mention of Allen Pucket, Jake Von Ott, Jeremy Christian, Jeffery Hughes, white nationalist, Proud Boys, or any of the other provocative elements of PP, it is not an impovement over what currently exists and I don't understand your need to push your POV. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Again you dismiss the Pro-Trump connections of this group.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well no-one can say I never gave you a chance, none of that shite is in the lede, and never will be as it is UNDUE, I'm done with you as you refuse to directly respond to any question put to you, always going off topic as you quite simply have no coherent arguments against the changes needed to bring the lede into compliance with NPOV Darkness Shines (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Pr

Pro-Trump: It's not just the view of the Seattle Times and Washington Post, and before Charlotteville, it was central to their message, yet you reject it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Trump, more: The fact that you still refuse to put it in the lead section and took it out when I did, speaks volumes.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that the existing lead section says "anti-government", and gives a list of four sources using this term. Is it possible to identify, for clarity's sake, the sources which describe the movement as "anti-big government"? Many thanks Cpaaoi (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

'Anti-big government' is at the end of the lead section with two references, including this - ("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.")C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarity. I note that the article is about the group "Patriot Prayer", which is described as "anti-government" in the first four sources. I also see that the two sources cited directly above by C. W. Gilmore, which mention "anti-big-government", are specifically referring to statements made by Gibson. Although Gibson may be a spokesperson for the group, I don't consider that Gibson and the Patriot Prayer group are identical. It is possible for a movement and a leader to take different views, or for one to misrepresent the other, for a variety of reasons - the leader himself may be out of touch with the movement, or fail to understand what the movement really signifies either through lack of experience or education (or indeed their very proximity to the movement), or may be a liar, or may be under pressure to misrepresent his cause (none of which I am imputing to Gibson, let me be clear - the same could be said for any leader/spokesperson/executive). If the "Patriot Prayer" group is to be described as "anti-big-government", we will need one or more reliable sources stating this, otherwise we are straying into the realms of original research and value judgment, which it is not our place to do here. In the absence of such a source, I would aver that "anti-government" suffices. Many thanks again Cpaaoi (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cpaaoi: Gibson is the founder and leader, I doubt he would misrepresent himself, we also do not know how many members are actually in the group, he organized his rallies online. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

To repeat myself, any founder or leader of a movement may have cause to purposely or accidentally misrepresent his movement as a result of ignorance, deceit, fantasy, misstatement, or misunderstanding, for the leader and his movement are not one and the same. Personal doubts are a good thing; but all guidelines and precedent on Misplaced Pages will require a reliable source describing the movement itself as "anti-big-government", if the page is to describe the movement itself as "anti-big-government". All the best. Cpaaoi (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I tried to suggest that both can exist without conflict, anti-government and anti-big government, especially given Gibson's radical anti-big government statement, but in vane, I tried. I gave the example of the that work security for PP events and how they are described: "the Three Percenters, a corner of the militia-style, largely anti-government movement that advocates for limited government,...", if they can be both, then why can't PP also be anti-government and anti-big government.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Dab page?

Why has the link to a dab page been restored? Are folk reverting just for fun now? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The question should be, why was it change in the first place, but more important: Why has , now spent weeks trying to remove well documented and referenced material from the site.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It was obvious from my edit summary, here it is a dab page, we don't link to dab pages. see WP:INTDABLINK Darkness Shines (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps it would be useful to redirect to say, 'right-libertarianism' or 'Anarcho-capitalistism' or both.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

We could also use some help in grouping the rallies in a more user friendly way that still maintains their integrity, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You got sources which say they are either right-libertarianism or Anarcho-capitalist? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Since when do you care about sources when you edit, you've been going on for weeks now about how, 'anti-government' needs to go and not once have you given sources that disprove the current sources; but if you cared to look them up, you might see why they were suggested as areas to redirect. Remember, any sources I supply are just lazy and sloppy journalistic ones, so I'm sure you are much better than I, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no then. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You can take that as me not wanting to give you a full education on the branches of Libertarianism or Ancharist political philosophy on this talk page, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification

Not a single source used says PP are known for organizing Pro-Trump rallies, this is pure OR, as such I have tagged them as fv. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That must be an editing error, for all spoke of PP as Pro-Trump rallies, just read them and there are at least another twenty separate news sources that call the them Pro-Trump as well as them listing many of the rallies as Pro-Trump. (NBC Bay Area News: "The pro-Trump group Patriot Prayer, ...") (AP: "The rally organized by the conservative pro-Trump group known as Patriot Prayer —") (From the PI: "Both the rally, organized by a Portland-based pro-Trump conservative group known as Patriot Prayer, and a counter-protest aimed...") CNN: "Pro-Trump, anti-Trump fights yields 21 arrests" -That Pro-Trump rally they speak of is the PP one) C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are still not pleased with those, then perhaps a few of these: The fact that you still refuse to allow them in the lead section and took it out when before, speaks volumes.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Which one of those say PP are known for holding pro Trump rallies then? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

They all say Pro-Trump rallies, what sources do you have that say PP has not and does not hold Pro-Trump rallies, or will you again say that you don't need to justify your edits once again?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not ask if they say they all say pro Trump, I asked a simple question which you failed to answer, so we shall try again, Which one of those say PP are known for holding pro Trump rallies then? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

So again, you provide not supporting references for your position, that speaks values.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As usual you point blank refuse to answer a question, when I get home I'll be removing your OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it matters not what the references say, it matters not how many; it only matters what YOU want and your POV. You refuse to offer up any support for all your edits, yet YOU demand them of others, YOU delete entire sections because your opinion is that it is sloppy or lazy journalism, yet YOU continue to delete well referenced material. I'm sensing a pattern.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Now do you or do you not have sources and references that show they are not holding Pro-Trump rallies, because there is a stack of evidence saying they do.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll make this easy for ya, Which one of those say PP are known for holding pro Trump rallies then? Please note the bolded part. Respond to that and I'll tell ya what's wrong with your sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll make this easy for ya, with over 100 different news reports for over twenty different outlets all saying they are holding 'Pro-Trump' rallies, what evidence do you have that they are NOT known for holding Pro-Trump rallies as the evidence of Pro-Trump rallies does not support your edits.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You are the only one saying they are not and never have been Pro-Trump, but you refuse to provide evidence, all the sources say, 'Pro-Trump' but you refuse to accept this over your POV.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine, like I said, I shall revert your OR later, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits without evidence, why an I not surprised.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You are right they are not 'known' for anything so 'known' was removed per your advice so only verifiably referenced and resource items are included in the lead. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Now it all works, for they were not 'known' for anything, but they did/do orgainise Pro-Trump rallies and provocative protest which can all be verified. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In fact, it doesn't even need your 'personal' rework and 'organise Pro-Trump' has pages of news reports referencing it, you did good.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

`Goodluck with that Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Given PP's well documented and verifiable actions, no luck is needed, just good editing. The group's inviting and working with the likes of the Proud Boys, Three Percenters, Homophobic zealots along with links to the likes of Allen Pucket, Jake Von Ott, Jeremy Christian, Jeffery Hughes, Kyle Chapman, is more than enough. Someone once told me, that if it's not in the source, it should not go on into the page.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March

This article has some information about the Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March (Vancouver, Washington), which was originally planned as the Peaceful Portland Freedom March (Portland, Oregon). In an effort to reduce detail about the event in this article, and because I think the event is independently notable, I went ahead and created Draft:Peaceful Vancouver Freedom March and invite page watchers to help by expanding the draft further. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion of the 'Proud Boys' as White Nationalists is note worthy and should be included with sources. Also you can't take Vancouver out of context of the events in Portland earlier in the day when two Pickup trucks full of Proud Boys drove through the crowded street of counter-protesters spraying then with pepper spray. It makes the events later in Vancouver more understandable.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What about just taking the current entry and putting it under a separate section? What is wrong with that, since there is not disagreement with it?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:32, 27 September 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 Misplaced Pages 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.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@ 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)

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,..." 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.")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)

@ 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.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about a photo, nor it's caption, it is a 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. 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. Thanks again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:45, 29 September 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

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." 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 Misplaced Pages, 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": ; 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: 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 Misplaced Pages is American that is staying. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, there is already a consensus to not state in Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Oregon articles
• Low-importance Oregon articles
• WikiProject Oregon pages
• Stub-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Stub-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Stub-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment