Talk:Patriot Prayer - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arkon (talk | contribs) at 15:42, 1 November 2017 (→Right then: DNFTT). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:42, 1 November 2017 by Arkon (talk | contribs) (→Right then: DNFTT)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article 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

	Oregon portal 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

	Politics portal 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.

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 4 sections are present.

Lead changes

I restored prior version that was agreed to at the archived discussion at Talk:Patriot_Prayer/Archive_3#Cleaning up the lede. Sorry about undoing the ref formatting changes, but the lead is just too different from what was discussed: diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes there are, consensus is to attribute anti government There is also consensus to say Portland, OR, United States that was essentially the consensus lede with those changes as well as the proposed tweaks suggested in the discussion, what exactly is wrong with it please. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comparing Lede Revisions
Old	New
Patriot Prayer is a right-wing, anti-government group based in Portland, Oregon, United States. Patriot Prayer describes itself as advocating free speech, and opposing big government. The group organizes pro-Trump rallies and controversial protests in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters. Many of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, although Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has said he denounces racism and extremism. Patriot Prayer has been connected to the alt-right, a charge Gibson denies.	Patriot Prayer is a right-wing advocacy group based in Portland, Oregon, United States. They have been described as conservative and anti-government, but state they oppose big government. They have held rallies in support of free speech as well as the presidency of Donald Trump, in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters. Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, which has lead to violent confrontations with counter-protesters, however Joey Gibson, a Japanese-American, has repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism. The group describes itself as free speech advocates, who are exercising their first amendment rights. Patriot Prayer has been connected to the alt-right, a charge Gibson denies.

Comparing Lede Revisions

Old

New

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

Patriot Prayer is a right-wing advocacy group based in Portland, Oregon, United States. They have been described as conservative and anti-government, but state they oppose big government. They have held rallies in support of free speech as well as the presidency of Donald Trump, in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters. Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists, which has lead to violent confrontations with counter-protesters, however Joey Gibson, a Japanese-American, has repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism. The group describes itself as free speech advocates, who are exercising their first amendment rights. Patriot Prayer has been connected to the alt-right, a charge Gibson denies.

I bolded the problematic portions (for me). We can't really call them an advocacy group. Omitting "anti-government" doesn't mean we need another adjective here. We can simply say group. As far as conservative: it was discussed above. It makes no sense to describe them as "right-wing" and then in the next sentence say conservative. That's like saying something which has already been called a "tulip" has also been described as a "flower"... well, of course! As far as the "free-speech" rally before the pro-Trump or controversial rallies: this is simply undue. Even the source you highlighted uses "free speech" in quotes, to make it rather clear that this is simply the group's description of the rally, not what the rally actually was primarily about. And finally, including another sentence about what the group describes themselves as seems undue. Overall, the current version is just more neutral and better worded. It could be improved, but I don't think your edit is an improvement. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There is consensus to not use the label anti-government and also a consensus for "group based in Portland, Oregon, United States" also USA is against MOS, another editor brought the issue up. So we can swap free speech and trump around, either drop that free speech bit and leave The group describes itself as free speech advocates, who are exercising their first amendment rights. Given they hold free speech rallies means it is not UNDUE to have that it the lede, which is meant to be a summary of the article. I am also not worried about dropping conservative Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As for advocacy group, that's what they are, Patriot Prayer advocacy group LA Times Patriot Prayer is a self-described "peaceful First Amendment advocacy group The group Patriot Prayer, which condemns violence and advocates for free speech Darkness Shines (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of the LA Times sources, these aren't that high quality. The problem I see with calling them an advocacy group is that the next logical question is what do they advocate for? The group's claim that they advocate for free speech is not what is primarily notable about them in RS (even if some RS quote the group citing itself as a "free speech advocacy group" it's not what those RS describe the group as). Most call them just a "right-wing" group that organizes Pro-Trump rallies and highlight their unfortunate white supremacy problem.207.222.59.50 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Recommend you look at the overview section were it says Trump stuff has been scrubbed from their rhetoric. And why has my anti gov change been reverted when that has consensus? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverted again II

This edit has consensus so why was it reverted? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I moved "anti-government" from the lead into the overview as contentious: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Mind if I put they are in favour of small government? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead already includes: "Patriot Prayer describes itself as advocating free speech, and opposing big government." -- I believe that this is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The lede is meant to be a summary of the body. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Not far right?

Regarding this revert diff, removing "far-right rallies", here's the PP profile by Spenser Sunshine of Political Research Associates:

"Joey Gibson is a Far Right activist who, since March 2017, has made a name for himself by organizing confrontational rallies in liberal enclaves on the West Coast that have frequently descended into violence. Based in Vancouver, Washington (located across the Columbia River from Portland, Oregon) Gibson organizes events under the name Patriot Prayer. He draws support from the Patriot movement, the Alt Right and fascists, homophobic Christian nationalists, and right-wing bikers. link

The source that was removed, SPLC, specifically called the rallies far-right:

"Joey Gibson and his Patriot Prayer organization may have a problem: He keeps trying to depict the anarchists and antifascists who show up to oppose his far-right rallies as the sources of the violence that surround them." link.

These two sources are RS on the topic of right-wing groups. Also, here's LA Times: "Scuffles break out during far-right march in Berkeley".

I don't believe that the revert was justified, since the content that I added matches what the source says, supported by other sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The revert is fully justified as they are not a far right group, and given they organize free speech rallies, not far right ones also justifies it. And that PRA source is junk, it is opinion Darkness Shines (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't be so quick to dismiss sources. Here's a brief bio of Sunshine from the bottom of the page ("Gibson and Patriot Prayer"):

Spencer Sunshine, Ph.D. (associate fellow) researches the Patriot movement, unorthodox fascist currents, left/right crossover movements, and left-wing antisemitism. He is the lead author of the 2016 report Up In Arms: A Guide to Oregon’s Patriot Movement, which is a collaboration between PRA and Oregon’s Rural Organizing Project.

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

From the actual bottom of the page, "This entry was posted in Eyes Right Blog by Spencer Sunshine" Note the bolded part. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The Eyes Right Blog is part of the PRA web site: http://www.politicalresearch.org/category/blog/. It's not a "blog" as in self-publishing, which generally refers to a single person's blog, website or self-published book. The PRA is not a self-published source, but rather an editorial entity with an identifiable editorial structure. The piece is bylined to Sunshine.

If you have concerns about this source, the better venue may be WP:RSN. In any case, PRA is not the only source that describes PP's events as "far-right". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

How do we determine if a rally is far-right? We already describe PP as a right-wing group, is also saying far-right necessary? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this describes a "far-right" event:

Gibson had received a permit for a June 4 rally in downtown Portland before Christian’s alleged double murder, and despite widespread condemnation, refused to cancel the rally. Thousands of people showed up to protest. Gibson was joined by a variety of Far Right actors, including the Oath Keepers (including leader Stewart Rhodes) and 3%ers; fascists from Traditionalist Worker Party, Identity Evropa, and Cascade Legion; and Alt Right activists, including the Proud Boys and Kyle “Based Stickman” Chapman. At the rally, Rhodes swore in Gibson’s associate Toese as an Oath Keeper.

I believe it's important in the lead to describe the nature of the events as not just pro-Trump. And that's how the sources describe them. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a blog in that it needs attribution per NEWSBLOG. What you posted describes a lot of far right people turning up at a rally which was billed as a free speech event. Gibson holds those, I've not seen one billed as being far right, opinions cannot be stated as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, it is against policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a gut check: they should absolutely be labeled as far-right as that is the most accurate term. It is more descriptive than "right-wing". There were discussions about this already in the archives, DS. Coverage of PP in the mainstream media has not significantly changed since then. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The majority of sources say PP are right wing, we can't label people far right without solid sources Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Right wing seems like a good descriptor, does anyone disagree? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it simply isn't strong enough. They are primarily known because they tend to attract extremist elements to their rallies. Some say that is because they themselves are far-right, some will leave it at the fact that those groups (far-right or alt-right) are just drawn to their messaging. Either way, waiting until the last sentence of the lede to mention that they are called far-right or alt-right just doesn't strike the right balance.

We actually already reference many of these in the article. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Like i said, the majority of sources describe PP as right wing, given PP is primarily one person BLP applies here, we go with what majority of sources say. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Far-right is a subset of right-wing, it's just more descriptive. Since most sources talking about patriot prayer talk about them in reference to the extremists they've drawn in, or call them far-right out right, my point is that this deserves more prominence in the lede. I'm open to wording that connects them more strongly to far-right ideologies than just the last little tidbit in the lede. I'll ponder it over night and see if I can make any suggestions. I added a few more. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I can find endless sources that say the Republican party is right wing. That doesn't mean they believe it's actually far right but they're choosing to use the less specific term, and if I can find a few sources that call the party "far right" that all sources implicitly support it. That's a garbage argument and original research to boot. When the description sources use most often is also the least contentious and most neutral, that's the one we use. 173.244.36.34 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I presented sources above for "far-right":

Far Right activist ... Political Reseach Associates
many far-right rallies ... SPLC
far-right march ... LA Times

I believe that the compromise that I offered: "...pro-Trump and far-right events..." is a good one. It does not describe the group overall as far-right, but their events. For example, last month's PP speakers included Kyle "Base Stickman" of Proud Boys. His address to the crowd included a mention of the "war on whites" which I assume is the code phrase for the alt-right's White genocide conspiracy theory.

If one has such speakers, it's no surprise that the events are described as "far-right". What are the community's thoughts on adding "far-right events" in the lead? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No, first two sources you present are blogs and need attribution, and just because those on the far right turn up at a free speech rally does not make said rally a far right one. You are quite simply implying Gibson holds far right events, which is a BLP violation without solid sources for such a statement, and I am pretty sure i already said I can find sources for those rallies which say right wing or free speech, we go with the more neutral term used rather than slapping labels on people. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Example, LA Times source you give is about The right-wing Freedom Rally, also LA Times. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

1.) your comment about blogs is misguided, Ke Coffman explained why to you above. This includes your curious comment about the LA times being... the LA times. What does that mean? 2.) There are 8 more sources above which also use far-right. And 3.) how many sources are there about Patriot Prayer that don't primarily cite them because of their controversial audience? Ke Coffman's proposal is sound, and exactly the kind of balance I would like to see. It doesn't go so far as to call the group far-right, but notes that the rally's and audience tends to be. I would like to see us switch to that wording. 97.66.48.34 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The point regarding the L.A. Times is obvious, the same rally is described by the same paper in two ways, I can use that source to write PP hold freedom rallies. Like I said, we need solid sourcing for a label about what is primarily a BLP, opinion pieces are no use for this edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Further to the Political Reseach Associates blog, their own site says blog posts have no editorial oversight, nor are those blogs factchecked, that source is polemical rubbish. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see the point you were making now about the LA Times, but you're still mistaken: the source you provided was a specific rally, of which PP was just one of a few organizers. Right wing was probably a good way to describe the group as a whole, because once again, it is the more inclusive and less specific label. Here's another one that refers to Patriot Prayer as the "far-right" group that helped organize the rally we're discussing. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/08/25/patriot-prayer-canceled-san-francisco-crissy-field/.

You also haven't addressed the other sources prevented above that also use "far-right". 97.66.48.34 (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no need to address the other sources, I have already addressed three of them, and given I have already stated we have a majority of sources which call the rallies wing we go with the more neutral wording per BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Crissy field Party poopers: rightwing rally cancelled in San Francisco amid dog poo protest Getting the picture yet? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You do though, especially since the suggested wording refers to far-right rallies, maintaining the description of the group as right wing. It would also help if you quit acting like the ultimate authority on what is in or out. We're here to build consensus. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No, i don't. I have already explained, twice now I believe, if the rallies are also described as right wing then we go with that more neutral term, BLP policy says we do, as does NPOV. We cannot state in Misplaced Pages's voice that PP hold far right rallies given we do no have a source which explicitly states so, what with other sources saying the same rallies are right wing, it's kinda OR Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. There are 8 sources above that call PP or their rallies far-right. Almost every source we include in this article focuses at least partially on the extreme elements drawn to their rallies. It deserves more than just a sentence in passing toward the end of the lede, especially since our article devotes so much space to the controversy at their rallies (as it rightly should). Regardless, you and I have already made our judgments regarding the sources. Time to let a few others chime in. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed lead revisions

As a follow-up to the above discussion, I'm proposing the following changes to the lead:

Current: The group organizes pro-Trump rallies and far-right protests in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters. Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists,although Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, said he denounced racism. Patriot Prayer has been connected to the alt-right, a charge Gibson denies.

Proposed (changes in bold): The group organizes pro-Trump rallies and protests in predominantly liberal areas, in which it has generally been significantly outnumbered by anti-racist and left-wing counter-protesters. Many of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the presence of white nationalists and other far-right groups, such as Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters. Patriot Prayer has been connected to the alt-right, a charge that Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, denies. In the aftermath of the August of 2017 Unite the Right rally, Gibson said he denounced racism and extremism.

Rationale:

Move “far-right” next to the newly added groups, to address concerns expressed above. Add said groups – their presence, including as speakers, is what’s generating some of the controversy and leading the commentators to describe the events as “far-right”, including the most recent Berkeley march.
Change “attendance” to “presence” as more general, since some of these controversial figures were there as speakers, such as Kyle “Based Stickman” Chapman.
Add that Gibson denounced racism (with the added extremism) in the wake of the Unite the Right rally. The timeframe is important, IMO, as this was the new rhetoric at that time, such as Gibson’s statements “f*** white supremacists, F*** the KKK, f*** Antifa”, etc.
Change “Some” back to “many” – “some” was inadvertently (I assume) inserted by Tornado chaser, after Darkness removed “many” with this edit: .

Please let me know of any feedback or comments. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Got a source saying many of the rallies caused controversy? Gilmore added three refs for that, two were for the same rally, and of course it is OR. Does ref 19 support what you have written? I think mentioning every group who turns up at a rally held in a public space is a bit undue, it appears to be guilt by association Darkness Shines (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I would remove the part about the "other far-right groups, such as Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters" it is the white supremacists/nationalists/racists that cause most of the controversy, not just all right-wingers. As for whether to say "many" or "some", "many" would require quite strong sourcing, there had been debate about "some" vs "many", darkness removed "many", leaving the article ungrammatical, so I put "some, assuming this is was DS meant. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously?

All formatting, and a totally unjustified revert. There are no need of citekill, what the hell was wrong with formating the refs? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Format" is not "Remove". Be honest or don't make a comment. I rolled you all the way back because you are being sloppy in your zeal.--Jorm (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Format can also be remove, you know like duplications, like I mentioned in my edit summaries. I'll be restoring my changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Technically, you can call pretty much any edit 'formatting'- it's incredibly unhelpful, just like an edit summary of 'editing' would be unhelpful. Try to make your edit summary reflect the content of the edit, not mask it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't look at all the changes, but it did look like many of these were just formatting changes. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Well yes, but my point of contention is that 'formatting' is a very broad and ambiguous verb. Specificity is the aim. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So does anyone actually object to my formatting and removal of duplicate refs? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Placing full references inline can make editing more difficult and diffs less legible to scan. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It makes it near impossible to edit or read. So you are alright with the formatting then? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Objection

Yes, I object. This edit, unless I'm not reading it right, removes SPLC as a source. Edit summary was: "Format, drop Niewert as unneeded". SPLC was replaced with {{sfn|Weise|2017}} which appears to be USA Today. I would appreciate a clarification on the purpose of this edit.

The lead was also modified; these edits did not reflect prior consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Niewert is used in the article, for his opinons. That is all that source can be used for, we have had this discussion before. The only change was an internal to presidency of Trump, cos they have held rallies in support of his presidency, it is more appropriate than linking to the Trump BLP, hardly a major change. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

SPLC is RS for the topics of extremist groups; please see for example: RSN:SPLC as Source for Labeling Someone a White Supremacist. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Are we seriously going to have to go through this again? Hatewatch is a blog, it needs attribution per NEWSBLOG. PP is not an extremist group either, I have no idea why you even wrote that. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

And having now looked at the RSN link, the consensus there is SPLC needs attribution, let alone Hatewatch, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you should read it again. I remember watching that discussion, and the consensus was NOT that the SPLC always requires attribution, but a more nuanced version of our general policy: that is to say, if they're the only source making an extraordinary claim, there should be attribution, but when there is more than one, it isn't necessarily needed. Also, this doesn't address why you removed the SPLC as a source. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The obvious consensus at that discusson is the SPLC needs attribution, and as explained before on this page Hatewatch is a blog, it needs attribution per NEWSBLOG. Dropping an opinion source for one which can be used for statements of fact is hardly a problem is it? Apart from folk just complaining for the hell of it. Niewert is cited in the article for his own opinions, and I'm pretty sure that same source is still used in the article, I have cited Niewert myself here for christs sake, I really do not get the fuss over something so obvious Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It's far from obvious. Hatewatch might be a blog, but you might want to actually read the policy you're referencing. I don't understand why you want to make the sourcing weaker, but of course, the biggest problem with letting this stand is that it tacitly approves the faulty reasoning and misrepresentation in your edit summary: of course the SPLC can be used to support this claim, WITHOUT attribution of opinion where no opinion is being expressed. Hatewatch is considered reliable, like it or not... especially when we can find other sources that also say the same thing. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Right I'm sick of this bollocks, I did not misrepresent anything I my edit summary, I already posted about this crap below, retract your falsehood or this conversation is over. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep pushing it as I've made my opinion, based on my own understanding of the relevant policies known, but DS, it would probably help you here if you didn't personalize so much... Several people have expressed that there is a problem with the edit summary, and object to the removal of this source. Speaking for myself: this is in no way meant to be an affront to you personally. Sometimes its hard to judge your own actions, and when you find yourself in the minority and deeply upset, it might be time for some self-evaluation. This makes the third time you've either blown up at me or come close to it on this page over relatively minor disagreements. It might be time to ask why. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Because you, and two others are accusing me of being a liar and using misleading edit summaries over the Niewert citation, I did not. Format, drop Niewert as unneeded Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this puts paid to the idea that Darkness was just making stylistic changes, and was lying when earlier stating that they were such. Unfortunate. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Who the hell are you calling a liar? Internal to Trump presidency format ref, lose citekill as unnecessary I have not lied, feel free to retract that please. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

And on replacing an opinion with a better ref, Format, drop Niewert as unneeded So no fecking lies at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel that it is pretty clear that Darkness Shines is editing only with the agenda of whitewashing Patriot Prayer. Removing references and calling the edits "formatting" is misleading as fuck(Personal attack removed) My big revert was reverted (ill-advisedly) by someone who didn't understand that there was no way to undo the one change I was focused on, so the (valid) reference that DS wanted removed is now gone. I suspect we'll soon remove that bit of the article as being "unreferenced"; that's how I see DS operating.--Jorm (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Retract your personal attack, how the fuck can it be "unreferenced" when I added a fucking reference to it? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jorm:Can you provide a diff of DS lying? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

He is on about this edit, and look at what's before that ref? Another one I had already added. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you did remove a ref using an (inaccurate) edit summary of "Format", this does NOT justify anyone calling you a lier, per WP:AGF this should be assumed to be a one-off error. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

But I am not sure why you are defending this error. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Because I had already formatted a ref for it. I'm not going to be called a liar when I have not lied. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The comment at the start of the section ('all formatting') is a lie without using a uselessly broad definition of formatting, as you were clearly also removing references based on your personal opinion of their reliability. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead and body changes

@Darkness: you statement at the top of this thread was: “All formatting” (emphasis mine). Not all of these edits were formatting, as being discussed above. You have removed the NPR citation from the lead and also SPLC. As you note above you do not consider SPLC to be an appropriate reference. Please don’t call your series of edits “all formatting”; this is in part a content / sourcing discussion.

The body changes were mostly converting refs to sfn style, which I did not change. There were some minor additions that I disagree with such as “…citing safety concerns”. PP claimed that: “Berkeley is a better situation because we don’t feel like we’re walking into a trap.” link. In fact, NPS placed ‘’extra’’ security precautions on the permit: various items were banned (backpacks, sticks, any potential weapons). So, I don’t think anyone took PP’s claims very seriously. We should not be stating “safety concerns” in Misplaced Pages’s voice; it’s cleaner to state that he cancelled the rally, without qualifications, as it gives undue weight to PP’s opinions.

I reverted the lead to the prior consensus version – changes should be discussed on talk. For example, you have a good point that “pro-Trump” should not link to Trump’s BLP, but I think a more useful link would be Political positions of Donald Trump, vs Presidency of Donald Trump, as that’s what PP and related #MAGA groups support. Such changes should be discussed here, since the lead was arrived at by consensus. Other changes were also made to the lead, hence the revert. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not giving half a reason, Gibson says he cancelled due to safety concerns, it is attributed to him, there is nothing undue about it. I am not explaining again why I replaced an opinion source with one which can be used to state fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why you referred to your series of edits as “All formatting” (emphasis mine). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please look at my edit summaries, I reverted you BTW, that is hours of formating work you casually destroyed over a few words, change the text not the refs ffs Darkness Shines (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

NPR source restored, why everyone wants to citekill every sentence in the lede is ridiculous Darkness Shines (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to remove SPLC source from the lead, as has been explained to you. Please restore it. Please also remove "...repeatedly disavowed them..." -- this is a new addition that was not present in the lead before; compare with this version. So, it wasn't all formatting? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

My edit summaries speak for themselves. I will not restore an opinion piece were it is not needed, the sentence has a cite and sure as he'll does not need another, I already told you if you want the text changed do it yourself. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC should not be used when better sources are available. See WP:BIASED. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Immediate thoughts: Disputes over references should probably go to WP:RSN, since it's unlikely to be resolved here. I don't see the advantage to going from "...pro-Trump rallies and other protests in predominantly liberal areas..." to "...organized rallies in support of the presidency of Donald Trump. and other protests in..."; it's taking an already somewhat wordy sentence and making it nearly unreadable. I agree with the people above who say the "safety concerns" bit seems a bit odd, since the paragraph isn't about the cancellation and since it's quoting the source selectively (the source has several paragraphs on the cancellation, leading with "However, the deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia on 12 August during a rally of white supremacists led San Francisco police and civil leaders to rethink their response to protests" and ending with Amber Cummings saying that "the meaning was being lost as rhetoric around the rally escalated." I would particularly oppose going into any more detail about the cancellation without going into the context of the Charlottesville attack, since the framing in the source makes that central. Beyond that, that paragraph already quotes Gibson extensively (with the only other person cited mentioned in just three words to introduce multiple replies from him.) If anything, it needs to be rewritten to paraphrase his views more briefly and include other people's positions - not to include his position yet again, while ignoring multiple other perspectives included in the cited source. --Aquillion (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Citekill

Does anyone object if I remove the Kron 4 News ref? We don't need four refs in the lede for a single sentence. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Also the KTLA source in overview, again four sources are a bit much for a single sentence Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Remove it from the lede? No objection. Remove it entirely? It appears to be the only source for the "stickman" text. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Had not noticed it was used there as well, the problem inherent with so many reference formats being used, I'll move it down to there then, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight?

This passage strikes me as giving undue weight to PP's POV, in the Oveview section:

A rally which was to be held at Crissy Field in San Francisco on 26 August 2017, was cancelled by Gibson, citing "safety concerns". In response to allegations by Nancy Pelosi that the event was a "white supremacist rally", Gibson said "For those of you who believe we are seriously going to throw a white nationalist supremacist rally in San Francisco, it’s time for logic,” In a video posted to his Facebook page Gibson said, “We have a black speaker, two Hispanic speakers, we’ve got an Asian, a brown speaker right here (referring to himself) — we got a transsexual, and we aren’t talking about race.”

References

CBS News b 2017. sfn error: no target: CITEREFCBS_News_b2017 (help)
Associated Press b 2017. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAssociated_Press_b2017 (help)
Wallace 2017. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWallace2017 (help)
Wildermuth 2017. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWildermuth2017 (help)

Gibson's quotes here are excessive. Also note "allegations by Nancy Pelosi" -- this is non neutral. I propose that this para be removed. The rally is covered in its own section that follows: Patriot_Prayer#San_Francisco_Bay_area_rallies.

Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

How is it not neutral to write that Pelosi alleged they were white supremacists? It is not undue as Pelosi's allegations were widely reported. So no to removing it. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Pelosi's comments, if included, should be rendered as "stated"; the language you used is non neutral; see WP:SAID and WP:ALLEGED. Also, let others comment. You don't own this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Well excuse me ever so much, you asked for feedback to a suggestion, don't complain when you get some. And for Christ's sake, read what you link to as it never supports your argument "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate" Well gee, Pelosi was inaccurate so alleged is the word to use Darkness Shines (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This is weird, why did you remove "please" from my comment? diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If I did it was unintentional and I apologize Darkness Shines (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Alleged is appropriate in this case. The paragraph is sourced to multiple RS. I see no reason to exclude it. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll echo Aquillon above: the he said/ she said is undue. It should be paraphrased... Especially the "minority bingo" game Gibson appears to be playing. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted again

This is getting really fucking annoying, hours of work reverted for no reason other than 'I can'. I have explained every fucking edit in the sections above, and I will be reverting again, this petty bulkshite has to stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that, until you understand why you are being reverted, that it's going to continue. --Jorm (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you are on course for a block, personal attacks and reverting for no reason is disruptive. There is no fucking need to undo hours of work. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to spend hours of work editing against consensus instead of establishing a consensus. We are not responsible for your wasted time, and competence is required. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

First you call me a liar and now incompetent, (Personal attack removed). Darkness Shines (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted DS's 2nd revert - disruptive and of course breaking 1RR. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing content i added is a self revert, but i did break 1RR. Hell Jorm got to do it twice in two days, why not me? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If you add content and then revert in within 24 hours that's a self-revert. If you revert content you added some time ago, it's not. In any case you stated with your 2nd revert you'd broken 1RR, then reverted again. If you object to someone's breaking 1RR, report them. The page is now protected I see. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Categories: