Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:57, 3 July 2018

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. Conservatism This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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. 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 when more than 8 sections are present.

Right then

The SPLC needs attribution per the link kindly supplied by Koffman, So there is a consensus on that. The other change I made, linking to presidency of Donald Trump, how is this an issue? Added a bit from the sources, bear in mind this exact wording was in the lede before, repeatedly disavowed them, that's the changes. How is this worth reverting hours of work? Why not just change the wording? I also note Trump now links to Political positions of Donald Trump, were was the consensus reached for that? Or is it just me who gets reverted all the time and nobody else needs consensus at all? Now, explain what is so wrong that hours of work was reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't let the troll patrol get to ya man. Arkon (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources state Joey Gibson has also repeatedly disavowed racism.Gibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy So thats that issue out of the way. I will restore my formatting and add this citation to support the three words I added. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Do not restore your "formatting". You've been told not to and reverted several times.--Jorm (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I will restore it, until I see an actual policy based reason given not to. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is against the rephrasing & removal of references that you have been performing. The burden is on you to provide reasons why the version you prefer is better- in the many sections above that you have started, editors have explained various issues with rhe phrasing choices you have made. An obvious criticism of mine: Your assertion that SPLC is not an RS does not appear to have any truth to it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I never said the SPLC was not RS, consensus is it ought to be attributed per the link provided by Coffman. Also the citation is from Hatewatch, the SPLC blog, so per NEWSBLOG it cannot be used for statements of fact anyway. Please bear in mind I have cited Hatewatch, and attributed it per policy. I fail to see how linking to presidency of Donald Trump, or adding the words repeatedly is "phrasing", it's an internal link and a few words, which I have sources for. It does not matter if people object, all that matters is policy, this is not a vote, it is following policy, so give me a reason within policy that three words, which are cited, and an internal link cannot be added. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

As there are no objections to the formating, policy based objections to adding repeatedly disavowed them this cited content please. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: Tornado chaser (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The policy that says you have to come to agreement with other editors is WP:CON. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Your ping didn't work mate. Consensus ain't a vote, nor can it be used to stonewall additions of cited content. I want a policy based reason to not add it, not IDONTLIKEIT. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not a vote, but editors do need to work together and threatening to edit war is not helpful (but neither is WP:IDONTLIKEIT) Tornado chaser (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you object to the addition of three words which I have citations for? BTW, I ain't threatened an editwar, I'm going with policy Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Which 3 words? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

From this edit mate, I did mention this at the top of the thread. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but the ABC source just sends me to the ABC page, not the article being referenced, so just use the CBS source. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Objection to "repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism"

I object to using the wording suggested by Darkness. The reporting on this varied, and here are other sources:

• On Saturday, the group Patriot Prayer will hold a rally in Crissy Field Park near the Golden Gate Bridge. The event has been denounced as a white supremacist rally by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, though the organizer of the event has repeatedly said white supremacists, neo-Nazis and other groups blamed for the violence in Charlottesville, Va,. earlier this month are not welcome. L.A. Times

• Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said the now-cancelled Saturday event at Chrissy Field, which is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, would bring white supremacists and neo-Nazis to the city. Gibson was adamant he is not a white supremacist and that the group does not support white supremacy or neo-Nazis.

However some of the rallies he has previously organized in the Pacific Northwest have attracted white supremacists and other alt-right supporters. Some have ended in violent confrontations between demonstrators and counterprotesters. USA Today

Saying "repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism" is repetitive and appears to be WP:SYNTH; I've not yet seen sources that use these two forms of disavowing together. This also gives undue WP:WEIGHT to PP's claims. See "repeatedly said" and "was adamant". The two sources I listed are reporting what Gibson said, with some degree of scepticism. The current version "denounced racism" is short and to the point. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What Lee and Pelosi say, which btw is obviously false, has no bearing on what Gibson says, I have given the sources which funnly enough, state ghe exact opposite of what you claim, strange that. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

So, any actual objections based in policy? If not I will move onto the next issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

How about "disavowed them and repeatedly denounced racism" since we have sources that say "disavowed them" and a source that says "repeatedly denounced racism", this says basically the same thing without anything that could be interpreted as synth. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well we do have a source which says it, but I'm ok with your wording. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this wording -- it's repetitive, WP:UNDUE and does not follow summary style. Other sources also say "was adamant" and "said white supremacists were not welcome". Should we include all of these variants? I also don't quite understand the comment funnly enough, state ghe exact opposite of what you claim -- what do I "claim" exactly? What is "exact opposite"? The comment is unclear to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

What about "repeatedly denounced racism" to remove the duplication? It seems notable that the denunciations were repeated. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, what Lee says is irrelevant, and Gibson being adamant that he's not a white supremacists, what's that got to do with anything? You said, "I've not yet seen sources that use these two forms of disavowing together", But I gave a source which does exactly that. It is not undue to say Gibson has repeatedly denounced them and racosts, cos he has. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, it is not repetitive in the least, "repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism" THEM, refers to the white nationalists mentioned in the same sentence, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a sources that states "repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism" together? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Gibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy" Given above already, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Any further objections? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I object, with the exact same reasoning as K.e.coffman. I do not believe that you have sufficiently "solved" for those objections, and I do not believe the article should contain your text. Neither, apparently, do many other people. You do not have consensus for this change.--Jorm (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Coffman's objection was he thought it synth, I already gave the source to prove that wrong, so any other objections? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You have not adequately proved that the sources you're removing are not reliable sources. Please note that reverting to your preferred version again would be breaking the conditions of your unblock. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I never said that one source was unreliable, i said it needs attribution. Consensus at RSN is SPLC has to be attributed, all I have done is replace one instance of Hatewatch, I will also point out three or four editors on this talk page have concurred with the same consensus. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• So, any further objections? I'm pretty sure everything has been covered now. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• The wording "repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism" does not appear in the sources provided. In any case, that's synthesis and cherry-picking from preferred sources, while ignoring others. The current wording is shorter and to the point, and is thus preferable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this.--Jorm (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

How many times do I need to show you that you are wrong Gibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy cite given, again. It is not synth so give up on that shite, you asked for a source, you got one. So an actual objection please. (Personal attack removed) Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. Also, this Talk page for discussing improvements to the article; for user behaviour, please see WP:ANI, where you can make your case about a "bad hand account". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Again you point to a policy which does not support you. You need to provide a reason why it shouldn't be included. And I have given you ample chance to do so. In fact, a section below I see three people saying that repeatedly should at least be there. Consensus us not with you going by that count. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, arguments put forth to exclude the content are, SYNTH, obviously not per the source, UNDUE, obviously not per Gibson has denounced white supremacists LA Times openly denounced white supremacists and neo-Nazis WaPo denounced racism Mercury news Gibson openly denounced white supremacism and neo-Nazis Hatewatch Gibson has also repeatedly disavowed racismGibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacyJoey Gibson has also repeatedly disavowed racismGibson has also repeatedly disavowed racismrepeatedly disavowed racismrepeatedly disavowed racism. These. So seriously, what objection remains Darkness Shines (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The quality of some of these sources is very wanting. Perhaps instead of insisting on all of these contested changes at once, you could start with one specific change (as I did with the synth in the lede) and work from there? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

All those sources are used in the article, and all are RS, and adding 'repeatedly disavowed them' is one specific change. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

formatting-only changes

We should separate the formatting and content discussions. Are there policy-based objections to the reformatting provided no content or sources are altered? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If the changes are converting cites to sfn style (i.e. not copy changes or source removal), then I don't have any objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Changes which involve any text changes or removal of a source, then I will want investigation and discussion, esp. if done by Darkness Shines, who I do not trust to edit honestly and openly.--Jorm (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If that wasn't a PA it was close, but no, I have no objections to the reformatting of refs. ANY text changes (even a few words) or removal of refs should be discussed first. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wider community input is needed due to a disagreement over the addition of three words to the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, although Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced racism. is the current version.

• Some of the rallies have caused controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, although Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism.

Changes are bolded. Cites for the changes are Gibson has denounced white supremacists LA Times openly denounced white supremacists and neo-Nazis WaPo denounced racism Mercury news Gibson openly denounced white supremacism and neo-Nazis Hatewatch Gibson has also repeatedly disavowed racismGibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacyJoey Gibson has also repeatedly disavowed racismGibson has also repeatedly disavowed racismrepeatedly disavowed racismrepeatedly disavowed racism. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment Neither. Whilst I can see why "repeatedly disavowed racism" is valid do the sources say he has explicitly and repeatedly disavowed those demonstrators? Also I fail to see the need for the inclusion of the word Caused (as opposed to Drawn) but either works.Slatersteven (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Four of the sources above say he has repeatedly disavowed them, he has also repeatedly requested such people not come to the rallies he organized Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment What about: Some of the rallies have sparked controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced racism and repeatedly disavowed white nationalists. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems OK to me Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer that version for clearly language in the second half ("them" had an uncertain referent), but "sparked" is journalistic emotive language. We shouldn't be implying cause and effect without sources proving it. It's better to use encyclopedic passive voice here: "Some of the rallies have been controversial because of the attendance of white nationalists."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ<  05:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced racism

and repeatedly disavowed white nationalists. (Summoned by bot) L3X1 (distænt write) 15:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• • Controversy has arisen around the rallies due to the attendance of white nationalists, Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced racism

and repeatedly disavowed white nationalists. How about this? L3X1 (distænt write) 02:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Neither of the proposals you've written are acceptable as both contain synth. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Curious, where is the synth? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The although, as pointed out in the above section which you have commented in. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

TC suggestion don't have that, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Question - Before weighing in on this I'd like to see the answer to User:Slatersteven's question; "do the sources say he has explicitly and repeatedly disavowed those demonstrators". Can we get the specific sources that state that? NickCT (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Gibson has denounced white supremacists LA Times openly denounced white supremacists and neo-Nazis WaPo denounced racism Mercury news Gibson openly denounced white supremacism and neo-NazisGibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy Yes they do. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Only one of these four sources uses 'repeatedly' to describe the disavowment. It would be best to not use this word, as it reads in a more advocative tone than an encyclopedic one. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have given what, ten sources? All which use repeatedly, so not seeing your point Darkness Shines (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You just linked four, only one of which uses that wording. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

One to avoid the synth you figured was present, the rest shows Gibson has repeatedly denounced said groups, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Only one uses the 'repeatedly' wording, and none of them say that the attendance of white nationalists did not spark controversy because Gibson had denounced them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment at 20.33 over repeatedly, the rest of your comment makes no sense to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. I will phrase this simply: Only one of the four sources you linked in response to the question supports a fraction of the changes you wish to make. You need sources which explicitly support the changes you wish to make. You cannot combine sources to say things individual sources do not (this is WP:SYNTHESIS). PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Again I refer you to my comment at 20.33, there are no synth. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That comment does not link to any sources which support either of your proposed wordings. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Second Wording - Following sources pointed to by Darkness Shines. Debates about whether or not to include the word "repeatedly" seem a little pedantic. NickCT (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: The current lede is already quite similar to what DS proposes; the changes re-introduce synthesis to the lede (see above section) and selectively apply wording from a minority of sources to downplay negative media attention the group has attracted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: - I'm pretty neutral on the inclusion of the word "repeatedly". That said, if the best source Darkness Shines can come up with for the word is Berkleyside, I might suggest we drop it if for nothing else than to end the debate. Using "repeatedly" could fairly be viewed as "downplaying". NickCT (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Reading into this subject a bit more deeply, I find the group a little perplexing. It's challenging to find any kind of manifesto or agenda attached to the group. They seem dedicated simply to yelling, "We're loud. We're proud. We're conservative" in liberal areas. Seems a little troll-ish if you ask me. Anyways, interesting subject. Thanks to both PTF and DS for discussing it. NickCT (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• (ec)It's Not the only soyrce

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/11/antifa-far-right-protesters-clash-again-in-portland-disrupting-peaceful-rallies/?utm_term=.0400b11140bc Gibson and other speakers condemned white supremacy]Gibson said his group disavows racism, white nationalism and hatredGibson, a Trump supporter who has publicly denounced white supremacists Darkness Shines (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I know it's a little pedantic, but Peter seems concerned about the level of emphasis that the word "repeatedly" creates. Frankly, I'd suggest that unless we can point to sources which use that level of emphasis, we ought to avoid it. NickCT (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

TBH when someone is accused of being a white supremacist, or neo Nazi, you kinda gave to repeat the fact that you ain't. Now if we are going to say unpleasant types turn up at these rallies, we also should state that Gibson has denounced then on a regular basis, this is not false balance, it is neutral Darkness Shines (talk)▪

@Darkness Shines: - I appreciate and sympathize with your position Darkness, particularly b/c in my reading about this group, it's definitely not obvious to me that they do represent a classical example of a racist or white supremacist group. It seems possible that these guys are being judged "guilty by association", which definitely doesn't seem fair. All that said, with sticky POV questions of this nature, I think it's really important that we keep to sources as much as possible, and I don't see support for the level of emphasis you want to apply in the sources. NickCT (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries @NickCT:, how about, repeatedly denounced racism, for which there are dozens of source's, along with he has also condemned white supremacists, for which we have six or seven sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose / neither -- all the ref for "repeatedly" are from late Aug / early Sept 2017, when PP was facing pressure around their planned rally in San Francisco. By late Sept, PP was back marching with white nationalist Kyle Chapman who, at the same event, addressed the crowd and discussed the "war on whites" (read: white genocide conspiracy theory0. It's WP:SYNTH / WP:CHERRYpicking to put this in lead in Misplaced Pages's voice that they "repeatedly" denounced racism, without giving a timeframe. "Although" is unneeded SYNTH as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not synth, we have sources. Going by your rational we should remove mention of white nationalists being present as the sources for that statement are from the same time period Darkness Shines (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

White nationalists were present much sooner than Aug; you are mistaken. Also, there's no need to respond to every post; you've commented on the RFC close to 15 times already. Please see WP:BLUDGEON. But, since you insist, this RFC appears to be an attempt to reargue the earlier discussion from Oct 3, where your preferred version of the lead has been rejected:

• Talk:Patriot_Prayer/Archive_3#Darkness Shine lead proposal

You have been trying to insert "has repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism" ever since. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose / Keep current -- "rallies have caused controversy" is not accurate, opposing opinions are the cause, without rallies controversy would still exist. Regarding "repeatedly denounced racism", reliable reports that he said it once are very important, repeating the same statement over again, so what? Dougmcdonell (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Second Wording - supported by sources, feels only fair to mention the founder's repeated denunciation of white nationalists attending his rallies. I can't imagine how the second wording could be controversial. Cjhard (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Second Wording - Same view as Cjhard. "Repeatedly disavowed them" seems like important, evidenced information, though I have no preference between "drawn" and "caused" because I don't think "caused" implies any magical prediction about the counterfactual world not having controversy; it's just used in the normal sense of the exact controversy that happened, wouldn't have happened. Utsill (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose / First wording, although "caused" is probably fine (and I'm unsure why two unrelated changes have ended up bundled together.) The purpose of the lead is to summarize, not to include every single possible wording of a point in every available source; and in this case "repeatedly disavowed" is clearly redundant with denouncing racism (the key point is that he denies the allegations, which can be expressed in just a word or two in the lead.) Beyond that, piling on so many disclaimers feels like it's non-neutral in tone. I would suggest "has disavowed racism" as a compromise (changing "denounced" to "disavowed" from the current version, with no other changes), but "repeatedly" for emphasis and having both constructions in the lead seems like it has tone issues. --Aquillion (talk)
• Oppose/Neither - per K.e.coffman. I realized I never actually voiced my position in here, so let's just make sure that happens.--Jorm (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose/First wording. And whatever happens, "repeatedly" is NOT supported by multiple sources, despites Darkness Shines's attempt tp gloss over that fact. --Calton | Talk 17:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As usual Jorm reverts, but there is a consensus here for the second choice wording, so I will be restoring the edit Darkness Shines (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I see a lot of conversation, but this doesn't look like consensus to me. As usual, reasonable minds may differ. Dumuzid (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

What consensus? I don't see any, also the RfC has only been going for 16 days. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Keep the original wording, which is more succinct and seemingly less controversial. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Per talk"?

The RfC has not closed yet, and I don't see the consensus "per Talk". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm counting six in favour of the wording suggested by TC, three against, one which seems to be a vote against my suggestion, how is that not a consensus? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The person who starts the RfC is generally not the best person to determine what the community consensus is. Let someone uninvolved do it. Besides, RfCs generally run for 30 days. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, consensus is not merely a counting of votes. It's a broad agreement--though certainly need not be unanimous. I'd still say this looks like a no consensus to me at this point. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus in the RfC for the change. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Me neither, (Personal attack removed).--Jorm (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm counting 10 in support of the second wording suggested, how the Hell is that not a consensus? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is not merely a counting of votes. It's a broad agreement--though certainly need not be unanimous. I'd still say this looks like a no consensus to me at this point. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• I count only five in support and five against. The RFC is confusingly structured and many people have posted multiple times in it, with a few comments that seem to vaguely support one side or the other without making an unambiguous declaration, but - excluding one comment from a topic-banned user - I see five broadly for some variation on your preferred wording (you, L3x, Nick, Cj, Uts) and five against (me, Peter, Coffman, Doug, Jorm), with two comments (Slater, Tornado) that don't strictly take a side but which lean opposite ways in terms of their proposals. That's not a consensus. In any case, this is clearly not a straightforward WP:SNOW situation where someone involved in it could reasonably be justified in closing it. --Aquillion (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Huh? Myself, TC who I assume is not objecting to his own suggestion. SMcCandlish Supports TC suggestion. L3X1 supports TC version, NickCT support TC proposal, Cjhard support TC proposal, Utsill supports TC suggestion, James J. Lambden supports TC suggestion, that's eight in favour to 5 against, arguments against such as synth are obviously wrong, there's to synth. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Lambden is topic-banned, so his opinion holds no weight. I don't read Tornado or SMcCandlish as unequivocally voicing support (they are experienced editors and know how to do so if they want to weigh in clearly), but if you count them, it is silly to discount Slater, who was unequivocally skeptical of your preferred version. That gives us 5-7 support and 5-6 opposing depending on how you do the counting; still clearly no consensus, and still clearly nowhere near the point where someone as heavily-involved as you could assess consensus or attempt to close it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought, but is there a source that reads "repeatedly disavowed"? That would make it easy to eliminate the seeming synth. Gabriel syme (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not see anything close to consensus. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Gibson has denounced white supremacists LA Times openly denounced white supremacists and neo-Nazis WaPo denounced racism Mercury news Gibson openly denounced white supremacism and neo-NazisGibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy Sources Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that berekelyside article looks like just what you need then. Gabriel syme (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Berkleyside a reliable source? I haven't the faintest idea. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the awards won for journalism I'd say yes. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Jah, I'd have to say it's reliable. I live here; I actually read it from time to time.--Jorm (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It's still a local source, and can't carry the weight that Darkness Shines is trying to put on it. --Calton | Talk 17:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No consensus

At all for this And Peterthe4th you have broken the 1RR restriction on the article, self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• ... do we really need a date-format edit war here? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

He changed the lede without consensus, not sure were your getting dates from? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

SFN templates

For this particular article, I do not think the template:sfn ref style is a good choice. I'm not talking about other changes which were made (or not) at the same time, just the reference style. Right now it's a mish-mash of two styles, which is bad by itself, but I don't really see why we have them at all in this case. This style is great for articles with a lot of specific cites to books or journal articles, where long works are referenced multiple times and page numbers are important. It really doesn't make sense to me here. These sources are mostly short news articles cited only once. This is creating an entire redundant bibliography section.

Some entries are too vague to be useful by themselves, such as "Associated Press, 2017". The sfn template is not really consistent for works without named authors, and there are many of those here. My choice would be to remove them and go back to the more common reference style. At the very least, the ones that are already this style should be converted, but as I said, I don't see any benefit to this.

I suppose I should wait for the temporarily banned user who made these changes to be able to comment before reformatting these, but if anybody else has any comments on it, might as well start the ball rolling. Grayfell (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Go for it my dude. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely so I say just go for it.--Jorm (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. I went through them and found many errors, mostly trivial, but some pretty substantial. I'm sure there are more I missed (or introduced myself). Many sources were mislabeled in some way. One cite confused the Washington Times with the Washington Post, which is pretty bad. A Willamette Week article was misattributed to the Williamson Gazette, which may or may not exist. The article also had two different sources labeled as "Matarrese b". One was tied to a specific date, so I attached that one, but the other didn't support the other sentence. I don't know where this belongs, but it's a great example of the kind of thing that falls through the cracks in a situation like this. There were two sources which were listed but not directly cited at all.

I also couldn't help myself and made some formatting adjustments, such as MOS:CURLY and italicizing some newspaper names, but I do not think anything could be seen as substantial or controversial. Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's tedious work, and it's good of you to take the time to do it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with changing the formatting, and see no consensus to override the existing consensus already reached above so the harv system will be restored Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that would go well for you. I've said exactly why I think the (partial) use of SFN templates was inappropriate, and other editors agreed. Your response seems to be "No, I don't like it" without providing any new information. The previous discussion was only tangentially about these changes, and support seems more resigned than enthusiastic. As I explained above, these citations contained many errors, some of which were serious, some of which made references significantly less informative and harder to edit. The current consensus seems to be for the harv system to go, so you will need to discuss this based on its own merits, not inertia. Grayfell (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The existing consensus has not been changed, and the article is far easier to edit when useing harv formatting, it is for you to change consensus not I, and formatting the remaining refs was on my to do list Darkness Shines (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There was never consensus for your changes in the first place, as evidenced by the extreme negative reaction to them. If you re-instate your changes (against consensus, again), you will be reverted. --Jorm (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Darkness Shines (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

When I said I didn't mind the reference format change, I assumed that a) You wouldn't make content changes; and b) that you wouldn't screw it up. You broke both of those assumptions, so now I very much do mind. As I said, I will revert you if you attempt this.--Jorm (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Read Darkness Shines (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus can change. I've explained why I do not think these templates are an improvement, but let me add one more reason. SFN templates make references more difficult to read by removing the link from the reference tooltips. I'm sure I'm not alone in using this for confirming references. It's just a convenience, but a big one. This is especially important for controversial topics like this, where changes are made frequently by inexperienced editors who do not always support their changes. The trade-off is often worth it for a more stable article with fewer news articles as sources, but this one needs a lot more attention. A hovering link to "Associated Press 2017" provides no useful information in this regard. This is both less useful to readers, and less useful to editors. Grayfell (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but it has not been changed, it is simple to click on AP 17, that takes you straight to the link in the bibliography. And this article is not so highly trafficked that changes are constantly being made, Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell, personally, I would like to thank you for your improvements. Darkness Shines, your claim is that consensus was for the admittedly inconsistent mishmash which existed before? It was on your "to do list," was it? Color me unimpressed. Dumuzid (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is for harv referencing Darkness Shines (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Then why are you the lone dissenter here? Moreover, everyone admits the references were a mess. I would argue there wasn't even a stable version susceptible to a consensus analysis. By all means, make your substantive arguments. But I remain unimpressed. Dumuzid (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Anti-racist

Neither source used support this at all, either add a source which does or I'll be removing it as OR Darkness Shines (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The aljazzera source says anti-hate and anti-bigotry, anti-racist is more specific and unsourced. Also, it looks like the fact that the anti-hate protesters were outnumbering them at most ralleys is OR. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Mother Jones uses "anti-racist" in this article:

• "A rotating group of anti-racist speakers is addressing a crowd gathered at a corner outside of Alamo Square Park."
• "Anti-racist protesters gather in San Francisco on August 26, 2017."

However, I'm also okay with the current version, which says simply "counter-protesters". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove POV tag?

There have not been major disputes recently -- should we remove the tag? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm good with it. Feel free. Via con dios.--Jorm (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Article is very biased. For example Jorm and others have stuck right wing in the very first sentence. While a few sources do identify the group that wau many others don't. And sources discuss the group with other issues and identifiers such as pro-Trump, free speech, anti-Big Government. Sources also discuss that the grouo's leaders has disavowed and confronted racist protesters and groups. He's also identifoed himself as Japanese and members of the group and its speakers as being of various ethnicities. He's also noted he's anti-drug war and pro Gau rights. This article in its present form violates basic lrinciples and guidelines such as NPOV and honesty. I have no objection to noting the group has been referred to as far right or right wing with attribution. But the truth and complexity of the situation as discussed in reliable independent sources should be noted. And a Willamette Week cite that says the grouo is based in Washington is inapproproate for a sentence that says the group is based in Portland. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd say we've reached a level of relative stability, and so it can be removed. But as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Unreasonable minds even more so! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The source just added noted that organizers promote free speech and say they are opposed to white nationalist and racism. It notes that the SPLC doesn't list the group or its leader as extremist. Why are we misleading readers? Using inflammatory language without explanation and misleading readers with inaccurate and incplete information is wrong. By all means lets2 include right wing in the article where the group's views and politics are discussed. But throwing around labels cherry picked from select sources is wrong. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC

I can only speak for myself, but I am misleading readers because of a fundamental corruption in my soul. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The source that was added says that Gibson says that they are opposed to white nationalist and racism. There's a difference. I.e. Gibson is WP:SPIP about himself and his group. Pls also see WP:ABOUTSELF. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It also details the SPLC view, the group's views and statements, and politics none of which support the characterization. Nut more importantly lots of sources don't refer to the group this way. And we need to reflect the various waya the group is described and ACCURATELY portray their views and the various ways they've been characterized. Accuracy and truth matter. Smears and slurs aren't appropriate. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Nope, as any attempt to make the article neutral is reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see any recent disputes, so I removed the tag. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Group's address

@FloridaArmy: The source that I added states:

• The group’s address is 431 SW Madison Street in Portland, Oregon

See: .

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, I would add that Vancouver, WA is indeed in the Portland area, despite being in a different state, much in the way that Newark, NJ might be said to be in the NYC area. While I think an explicit source is a good addition, I just thought it was worth mentioning the geography we're discussing. Happy almost Friday, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If a source said a group was based in Newark it would be inappropriate to say it the group was based in the New York City area and cite it. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I tend to disagree, but I understand the position! Dumuzid (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that if we add "metro" to "Portland, Oregon area", as in "Portland, Oregon metro area", that would solve the dilemma. @FloridaArmy: do you agree?

Note that the other source -- "Right-Wing Slugger “Tiny” Toese Arrested Again While Trolling Portland" -- describes the group as a "far-right protest group", with Gibson's sidekick Toese being referred to as "the most well-known pugilist in the Pacific Northwest's right-wing extremist movement". So calling the group "right-wing" in the lead is neither undue nor exceptional. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Should we call the Proud Boys white nationalists?

The page calls the chauvinist Proud Boys a white nationalist group, citing the Vancouver paper The Columbian. However, the body of reliable evidence I've found suggests the organization officially opposes white nationalism:

• The SPLC admits the founder rejects white nationalism, they take pains to be distanced from white nationalists, and their lawyer maintains they've never espoused white nationalism.
• This American Life's report on the Proud Boys and racism makes it clear the founding idea of group was fundamentally opposed to racism, they had an early prominent member of color, and they kicked out someone for a selfie with a white nationalist.
• The Globe and Mail quotes the Proud Boys founder saying about white nationalists, "that's not my cause."
• The Huffington Post reports the founder saying the group doesn't tolerate racism.
• Wired clarifies the group's members "say it's not about race".
• The Vancouver Sun mentions twice in an article they deny being white nationalists.
• The website of Proud Boy Magazine says "Anti-Racism" is a central tenant of the group.
• The Proud Boys USA site says the group is inclusive of "all races".
• The Georgia Straight cites a writer saying they're multiracial, also giving a possible explanation of how The Columbian could have got it wrong: "Typically, mainstream media equates chauvinism with sexism and their patriotism and nationalism for white nationalism even though the two are drastically different The lack of comprehension of these facts has lead to The Proud Boys being labeled as a racist group."
• The Intercept reports them rejecting "in the strongest possible terms" the superiority of any race.

There's a lot in these sources about members "flirting" with white nationalists and racism, but it's clear white nationalism is not what the group is about. Whatever suspicions we have about ulterior motives, Misplaced Pages probably shouldn't be the place to call them "a white nationalist group" unless reflected by the body of reliable sources, since it contradicts what the group says.

What do you think?

--Haptic Feedback (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Matarrese, Andy (September 10, 2017). "Protesters clash in Patriot Prayer demonstration on Vancouver waterfront". The Columbian.
2. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys
3. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/626/transcript
4. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/gavin-mcinnes-path-to-the-far-rightfrontier/article36024918/
5. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/07/06/who-are-the-proud-boys_a_23020006/
6. https://www.wired.com/2017/05/field-guide-far-right
7. http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-bar-receives-death-threats-from-proud-boys-supporters-after-altercation
8. http://officialproudboys.com/proud-boys/whoaretheproudboys/
9. http://proudboysusa.com
10. https://www.straight.com/news/932786/proud-boys-military-pulled-duty-after-confronting-indigenous-protesters-halifax
11. https://theintercept.com/2017/09/21/gavin-mcinnes-alt-right-proud-boys-richard-spencer-charlottesville/

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism 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