Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:05, 16 December 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Patriot Prayer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

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

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Oregon Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

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

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

1. CBS News b 2017. sfn error: no target: CITEREFCBS_News_b2017 (help)
2. Associated Press b 2017. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAssociated_Press_b2017 (help)
3. Wallace 2017. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWallace2017 (help)
4. 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)

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)

Edit request - seeming synthesis in lead

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

Change "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." to "Some of the rallies have drawn controversy due to the attendance of white nationalists. Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced racism." The 'although' appears to be an instance of WP:SYNTH - we should not seek to minimise the first statement with the second statement. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose this is being discussed above and there is no consensus for this change. Also it is not SYNTH, Joey Gibson has also repeatedly disavowed racism.Gibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy per the sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Sorry! I genuinely thought this was an uncontroversial suggestion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. After thinking about it, it is synth to include the "although". Most sources don't connect the two thoughts, so neither should we. I really don't think we lose anything by being more concise. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

*Oppose I see the argument for removing 'although', but without this word the grammar is poor and confusing. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support I think it is worth poor grammar to remove synth from such a controversial article. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support New around here, but I fall on the side of the IP user above. If the thoughts aren't connected in the sources, we shouldn't have them in such apposition, so to speak. I am also somewhat sympathetic to Tornado chaser in that without the 'although' the sentences suffer stylistically, but I think that roughness is worth a more exact replication of the sources. But reasonable minds may differ! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SYNTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unless it is also changed to active voice which is preferred style. "White nationalist have brought controversy to the rallies. Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced white nationalism and racism." --DHeyward (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Active voice suggestion

White nationalists have attended some of the rallies organised by Patriot Prayer, drawing controversy. Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, has denounced racism. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Need to remove "organised by Patriot Prayer" from the sentence about white nationalists attending rallies as it synthesizes a connection between the organizers and the unwanted racists. --DHeyward (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Were the rallies not organised by Patriot Prayer? Is this not directly noted in the sources which mention the white nationalist attendance? Then it's not synthesis! Maybe you meant a different word? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: could you clarify on Need to remove "organised by Patriot Prayer" -- the events discussed in the articles have been organized by PP; that's why they are in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Attendance by white nationalist/white supremacists were not part of organising the rally. Including the hate groups in a statement about organising the event is creating an association that doesn't exist. Antifa, white supremacists and other ne'er-do-wells attended but they were not invited or part of the planning. It's a form of Parade of horribles or Poisoning the well logical fallacy. Covering the appearance of white nationalist/white supremacists as a result of planning by Patriot Prayer is a logical fallacy. --21:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The controversy is not merely over attendance, but also due to close associations between PP and right-wing and other groups, such as 3 percenters. Kyle "Based Stickman" Chapman of Proud Boys continues to be a speaker. He spoke at the Sept PP's event in Berkeley, discussing the "war on whites" (see white genocide conspiracy theory), which I assume prompted L.A. Times to describe the event as a "far-right march": "Scuffles break out during far-right march in Berkeley; at least 3 arrested":

• "Trump supporters cheered at the arrests and continued to People’s Park, where Gibson climbed onto a wooden stage and spoke to the crowd without interruption. He declared that he and his group, Patriot Prayer, would keep returning to Berkeley until they “respect free speech.”

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

And no doubt you have a citation to support these 'close ties'? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems like, with arguments above, that you realize they should be separate and then want to say "but not really" through a variety of implied connections. It's my understanding that antifa/white supremacist violence happen at a number of locales under a number of banners. The violence last year in Folsom is a good example with only extremists attending. Whether the violence occurs at an immigrant rights rally or a Trump MAGA rally, the resultant attendees, violence and controversies are the same. --DHeyward (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose It should also say Gibson has "repeatedly disavowed white supremacists and denounced racism" per the sources. This is already being discussed above. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Support -- active voice and to the point. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment Can you draw controversy'? You can certainly draw 'criticism' and 'spark/cause etc' controversy, but 'controversy' is by nature 'heated debate'. The use seems odd, in UK Eng at least (which I realise doesn't apply here). Pincrete (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point! I was trying to make as few changes from the original version, which I believe contained synthesis, when I wrote this. 'Sparked controversy' is an improvement however. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Support with changes should probably say "repeatedly denounced racism" but active voice is good. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

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)

has repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism. Gibson is half-Japanese and has repeatedly disavowed racism and white supremacy Yes, my comment does. The source supports the wording. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 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)

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)

"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, but I don't expect Darkness Shines to follow consensus, so none of this is surprising to me.

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)

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