Talk:Patriot Prayer

What exactly are the "far-right" views of this group (none are specifically mentioned)?
As it stands, it just seems designed to slander the group (Patriot Prayer), without offering any evidence of "far-right" activities or views. It seems the only such activities are its recurring confrontations with the far-left group Antifa?151.143.51.84 (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest, we all know why it's in the first paragraph. Don't waste your time arguing with propagandists, i mean that sincerely.  LegendLength (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if this isn't the fallacy of argumentum ad populum / appeal to common belief, nothing is.

I agree. I've seen national news stories about their rallies in Portland, but this article sheds almost no light on their actual views. I get that they clash with Antifa (who are also often labeled extreme) and a lot of observers call them "far-right", but not much here to clarify what they actually stand for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.80.236.53 (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that Patriot Prayer is "far-right", so we report that.  We don't analyze their ideology and make an independent assessment of where it falls on the political spectrum.  That is WP:Original research and is specifically prohibited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If "reliable sources" accuse them of being far right without evidence, it would seem they aren't very reliable History Man1812 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812
 * How does Wikipedia deal with bias in said reliable sources? There seems to be no evidence except what journalists allege. Certainly it's possible this is the case here, right? With these standards, it seems impossible to prove a negative if one reliable source mistakenly says it's "far-right" while others characterize it as "right-wing," "conservative," or "libertarian" without using the term "far right." Part of the reason I use Wikipedia for a source of information is that it tends to remove biases more than journalists do. 47.156.163.253 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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


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

Additional coverage that may be useful
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cedar777 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Aug 18, 2019 BBC, Portland rally: Far-right and antifa groups face off  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49382386
 * Aug 30, 2020 CBC, Portland mayor, Trump trade blame after fatal protest shooting https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/portland-protest-shooting-1.5705390

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020
This article repeatedly refers to counter-protestors of Patriot Prayer as "antifa" with zero reference to where those protestors truly are self-described "anti-fascist protestors". Therefore the article shows heavy bias. Unless this can be backed up, each instance of "anti-fascist" and "antifa" should be removed entirely. They don't need to be replaced. "counter protestors" should be sufficient without being misleading. Samsepi0I (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021
Re the first paragraph's sentence "The group has organized rallies in support of Donald Trump" is ambiguous. Perhaps it should be "in support of the Trump 2020 presidential campaign" or "in support of then President Donald Trump" or something else that explains why a group would support an individual, rather than a cause or a campaign. It might have made perfect sense when the sentence was first written, but it doesn't make sense now from a fresh perspective. Someone with more familiarity with the subject matter than me should be able to correctly clarify the sentence. 67.131.54.112 (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Added "former President". ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 07:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources

 * Vox in September 8, 2020: Patriot Prayer Explained Cedar777 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Tech Crunch September 4, 2020 https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/04/facebook-patriot-prayer-joey-gibson/  Cedar777 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Slate August 30, 2020 What Is Patriot Prayer? https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/what-is-patriot-prayer-far-right-group-confrontations-portland.html Cedar777 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Applying qualifiers without source.
I think it's pretty clear calling groups like Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys terms like "white nationalists" is blatantly not true on its own (Proud Boys isn't even run by anyone who is white right now). And considering there are no articles being sourced that support the statement that Proud Boys is a white nationalist or far-right group, there is no reason for this to be included in the opening paragraph. As of this writing I've had Jorm revert my edit multiple times and is claiming I'm the one doing disruptive edits for removing unsubstantiated claims. Until there is any source (I'm well aware that Wikipedia is about sourcing and not "truth," whether the qualifiers are true or not), there is no reason to include blatantly inflammatory descriptions of these groups. I'll revert my edit back and request a source either be provided or explain why these terms should be included. I'm hoping we can be more civil with this and not continue to cause issues in cleaning up the article. Sarstan (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What you think is true or not true is irrelevant; the cited Vox source says The group, founded in 2016, has also had close associations with far-right groups like the Proud Boys and with white supremacists. It's sourced, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

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