Talk:Proud Boys

RfC: Statements in lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Proud Boys be characterised, in wiki-voice, as:

1. Far-right;
2. Neo-fascist;
3. White supremacist;
4. A fraternal organization.

Responses may include one or more, or none. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 as it is unduly self-serving. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 4 but not 2, 3 TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 as it is unduly self-serving.--Jorm (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 as it is unduly self-serving. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes 1) far-right in wikivoice, as well supported by the sources that we use. Not 2) neo-fascist in wikivoice with the sources currently referenced, but include generally or specifically attributed; this isn't as well supported as far-right by the sources referenced - might be better supported with better sources; happy to reassess if so. Not 3) white supremacist in wikivoice - per my comment at NPOVN, Either the sources attribute ... (to various agencies & advocacy groups), or they couch it as "with ties to" <or "members with ties to"> or they're passing mentions, or they require interpretation to get there., but include generally or specifically attributed and/or with phrasing better aligned to the sources. Not 4) fraternal organization, as it's a localised US term, with elements of political spin to it, and not commonly found unattributed in the sources we reference; possibly include attributed to McInnes, Tarrio or the organisation itself, if sufficient secondary sourcing exists; prefer mens' organization as a more international, less spin noun for the first sentence. - Ryk72 ^talk 22:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4. Cedar777 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4. NightHeron (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4. - 1, 2, and 3 are regularly and repeatedly used by independent reliable sources as defining descriptors. 4 is their unduly self-serving (and vague) wording. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• *1 It's an encyclopedic article, not a rapsheet. 2 and 3 require clarification (for example they have no connection with historical fascism and do not have overtly white supremacist rhetoric). 4 is self-serving and doesn't belong. We can explain in the body why they are neo-fascist and white supremacist. While some editors may believe that a long list of negative descriptions helps to disparage the group to readers, it actually comes across as strident (and hence biased) and has the opposite effect. Also, three terms is redundant. Who ever heard of centrist or left-wing neo-fascists? TFD (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1,2, and 3, with no preference for 4. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 — as discussed by SummerPhD, coverage has focused on the former three titles, I don't see why we wouldn't follow suit. 4 is unduly self-serving as mentioned a number of times here. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• *1 Far right extremist hate group or whatever the SLPC used. It is the most commonly used RS description. The rest are extremely weak and will be challenged often. These right wing hate group pages stick to the SLPC as the lede as anyone opposed can take it up with SLPC.2601:46:C801:B1F0:1C62:B9D7:AE9A:BEB0 (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3, not 4: Sources support #1-3; as for #4 - "fraternal" suggests "companionship [or] brotherhood dedicated to the religious, intellectual, academic, physical, or social pursuits of its members"; this organization doesn't seem to promote any sort of fraternal activity beyond their infantile college-style "hazing". François Robere (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• I think that the sourcing is strongest for 1. Oppose the rest: 2 (considering the usage fascist (insult), I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to support inclusion in the first sentence), 3 (the first sentence should say that they have ties to white supremacy or something like that, this phrasing is more common in RS). I am also happy with not mentioning white supremacy in the first sentence and keeping the current second sentence as it accurately and NPOV describes the connections. Prefer "male-only association" as it is more clear than "fraternal association." (t · c) buidhe 13:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1 and 2. The facts behind 3 need more nuance and appear to have insufficient sourcing to merit mention in the first sentence, and 4 is problematic for the reasons discussed at WP:MISSION. "Male only" could be an acceptable, more factual, description. VQuakr (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  @VQuakr: Just to double-check, did you see my comment below to Hipal which linked to this discussion which includes 11 different sources for white supremacy? I'm not objecting if you did see it all, I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that there's many many many more sources out there to support statements than the few that are included in the article :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Attributed description as white supremacist in the lead is warranted. I'm struggling to think of a first sentence structure where it work work along with 1 and 2 though. VQuakr (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1, 2, and 3, which are extensively-sourced to high-quality, neutral sources and reflect what makes the organization notable. Oppose 4 as it has basically nonexistent coverage compared to the other three and is largely a self-serving self-description, which violates WP:ABOUTSELF. I strenuously disagree with the argument, above, that we can disregard high-quality reliable sources stating facts about an organization as facts, or can minimize them to mere opinions, simply because some editors feel that those descriptors are controversial. White supremacy and neo-fascism are well-defined academic terms with clear, factual meanings; while they require high-quality sourcing, that standard is met here. The idea that they must always be treated as opinions even when reliable sources overwhelmingly describe them as fact is absurd, not grounded in policy, and effectively allows editors to substitute their own opinions for the facts as determined by reliable sources by selectively choosing what academic political descriptors they consider beyond the pale. We can be cautious when citing wording from lesser sources, but it is completely absurd and untenable to argue that descriptors widely used in high-quality academic sources are somehow inappropriate - we ultimately must look to the sources to make that decision. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1 only. Support 1 - it seems non-controversial among all reliable sources that they are far-right; even sources that dislike the term agree they are very much aligned with the extreme conservative movement. Oppose 2 - while the term seems accurate based on the wiki page, it is too much a pejorative to include in the lede sentence. Oppose 3 - while they have membership alignment with white supremacist groups, most sources suggest that pro-"Western" is a better descriptor than a purely racial sense. Oppose 4 - the comparison with college fraternities and groups such as the Freemasons aren't helpful; the valuable part is "male-only", which is better stated directly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1 and 4 in the first sentence... 2 and 3 in the lead, but not in first sentence. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 per arguments already gave above, especially Aquillion's. Basically the current lead, so 1 and 2 in first sentence and 3 as it is currently worded. "The Proud Boys are a far-right[1][2] and neo-fascist[3] male-only organization[4] that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada.[5][6][7][8][9] While the group officially rejects racism, several members have been affiliated with white supremacy and the Proud Boys have been described by United States intelligence organisations as 'a dangerous white supremacist group'.[10][11][12][13]" Davide King (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Summation Currently 10/18/2020

To sum up current views above as of this edit following 8 days of RFC discussion here and previous discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard, there appears to be a clear consensus regarding the words' supportability (or in the case of option 4 / "fraternal organization" lack thereof):

• Support 1: 19/19
• Support 2: 13/19
• Support 3: 13/19
• Support 4: 2/19

For "Support 2" and "Support 3" I am counting the comments of VQuakr and Blueboar who indicate that they support the words being in the lead ("Attributed description as white supremacist in the lead is warranted." - VQuakr) but have questions about the specific wording/phrasing. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:1415:FAD2:6664:3C80 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Updated above to reflect contribution by Davide King. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:1415:FAD2:6664:3C80 (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2: 13/36 I am counting the 17 unique IP editors that have explicitly objected.2600:1002:B00E:2487:8973:D27D:22B5:3850 (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

An attempt to distil consensus from the NPOVN thread. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:, Have you started an RFC through Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment in order to bring input outside the involve crowd? Graywalls (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, partly, and also because the other discussion was straying away form anything that might result in consensus around the content. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If that is done, I suggest that it clearly state that it is about the wording of the first sentence of the lead. TFD (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: doesn't need to, read WP:RFCBEFORE. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm a little bit concerned about the calls to use only one source, particularly the SPLC sources. The suggestion to exclude content because "will be challenged often" is veering very close to censorship, and excluding descriptions that show up in several sources because one specific source doesn't include it seems like quite a blatant NPOV and balance issue to me. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That comment seems to have been made by someone who has a very weird take, some wording makes me suspect not here for good purposes. Rants about "MSM" and so on.

1. "Although it is of the we won't cover this therefore it didn't happen MSM material", "Don't notice that a supposedly mysoginist group attracts female social scientists detractors inventing terms, definitions and claims of secret motives." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=982920139
2. "but for example New Mexico Highlands University is not Harvard", "You continue to repeat this charade as if they authored the Oxford dictionary", "I do not like to cast doubt, but I highly doubt anyone else bothered to read anything but the buzzwords if even that much", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=982929780

Particularly troubling are this person's attacks on Samantha Kutner, a highly respected academic currently working for the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism https://icct.nl/people/samantha-kutner/. I would suspect the existing Gender bias on Wikipedia is probably why she doesn't have a wikipedia page yet. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:19B:99A3:485C:7505 (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Particularly troubling is Kutner neither leads with calling them fascist nor concludes with calling them fascist and yet that is being perpetually pushed as the lede here. Also, troubling, a psychology and communications academic citing 17 interviews with what are largely uneducated, disaffected men but neither making the questions or answers public. She doesn't have a page because she only became notable at all with the release of the paper cited- if he is even notable at all. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:125:F8EB:C6FA:6525 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the purposeful misquotation of what was posted either. Wilfred Reilly despite being a notable expert in quantifying political claims' material cannot be used because it conflicts with the MSM narrative, not carried by the MSM despite being topical here and a notable expert, he not only does have his own page, his historical findings have stood up to intense scrutiny. It is relevant here since Kutner responded to his findings of 10-20 percent of the group being members of color with their being victims identifying with their attackers-a very dubious claim based solely on her opinion.

I also don't appreciate the misstating of my position. The SLPC should be the exclusive source for the lede. Followed by their denials, followed in the body by the rest of these extremely weak hardly substantiated claims. There is no risk of censorship or any other WP policy that you care to cite in yet another effort to push the hardly used by an RS even Kutner in her initial description fascist to be anywhere close to the top of the page. Looking for censorship? Look how Reilly's material on this group cannot be used despite being a topical and notable expert. In the real world, that is textbook censorship.(maybe I should cast doubt on good faith and say his material can't be included because he is an African American being discriminated against by the MSM and subsequently WP?)2601:46:C801:B1F0:125:F8EB:C6FA:6525 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you have a major issue in understanding here. Wilfred Reilly is a WP:FRINGE individual who seems to only be able to get coverage by unreliable outlets and publishes on the Regnery imprint, a print-mill without editorial or factual standards from which any 'book' should be considered WP:SELFPUBLISHed. And until you brought him up, he had not been mentioned in regards to the topic here.

After doing some google searching to see what you're even ranting about, it appears you are trying to source something to a couple of his tweets that the Washington Times, i.e. the Moonie Times, very briefly covered. This faces the following problems:

1. The Moonie Times has Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources reliability issues.
2. The fact that the Moonie Times chose to cover what he said, does not lend it any legitimacy.
3. Twitter posts are considered WP:SELFPUBLISHed.
4. He is not, in fact, an expert in analyzing hate groups. Rather, his field of (supposed) research claims to be "empirical testing of political claims" but he steadfastly refuses to publish in peer-reviewed journals, which may well be a result of his "research" designs not standing up to scrutiny under peer review.

Humorously, Reilly's thesis claimed to debunk the idea of privilege by asking people if they would change their gender or race, and then declaring that individuals not simply wishing to change their gender or skin color - rather than wishing to eliminate the negative prejudices in society and the institutional barriers they faced - was evidence that they weren't "really" discriminated against. I will leave to the reader to determine if this is merely insane, or batshit insane, illogic. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:19B:99A3:485C:7505 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@2601:2C0:C300:B7:19B:99A3:485C:7505: Regenery is a publisher, they've published the memoirs of presidential candidates, such as Mitt Romney. Here is a C-Span special detailing their printing process -https://www.c-span.org/video/?436827-2/tour-regnery-publishing

They are not equivalent to "self-publishing" as you've suggested.

Wilfred Reilly is a published Phd (multiple) from a historically black college and posesses a law degree, notable enough for a cultivated wiki page. He has engaged in a public debate at KSU against white supremacists, and criticised Trump for dog whistle behavior. Washington times is a sometimes reliable source that I wouldn't use if I could avoid it, but it is not on an unreliable blacklist. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Wilfred Reilly is a notable expert with multiple books in all kinds of media including WAPO, USA Today, CBC et al dealing with empirically analyzing political claims or exactly the matter of the majority of this talk page. Furthermore the Proud Boys Whisperer, Kutner whom is trying to build a cottage industry out of tracking the Proud Boys thought highly enough of his work to respond. His information has been vigorously tested since it runs counter narrative unlike most of the sources thus far presented here whom my testing may be the first. Anything less and his page on this site would reflect it. Mr. Reilly said that about 10% to 20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color, a diverse racial composition that is “extremely well-known in law enforcement,” based on his research. (this should be in the article) He works closely with law enforcement, guess whom else works closely with law enforcement? Oh the language specific notable hate group experts ADL and SLPC work extremely closely with law enforcement? Voila, no wonder why domain experts explicitly excluded white supremacist as a label and the ADL explicitly used members of varying ethnicity. Furthermore, our beloved Snopes issued a report recently and of course no any kind of fascist to be found and their first descriptor is close to the SLPC. To sum this up on the assumption that page numbers are never coming for the books with the content inaccessible to the vast majority of visitors to the page. Most of the RS use the SLPC description as their first sentence or something close to it. The academic press sources although interesting to some degree use: neo fascist, proto fascist, crypto fascist and approach fascist or there isn't agreement among any random two of them. The ones that are accessible do not lead with any kind of fascist. Sorry Dauo is never, ever counting as a RS. The rest, McLaren the marxism human studies expert and the New Mexico Highlands first book, the non notable crew of which I think exactly one has their own page here etc....are dubious as best, but Daou is not an RS and Vitolo Hadid was sufficiently disgraced. The status quo of the first sentence and paragraph: does not reflect the majority of the RS, does not reflect best sources, does not reflect what the academic press uses in their introductions, does not reflect the majority of editors who have posted on this talk page-what it does reflect? "Look ye upon the giant, barren field of the fucks I give about your thoughts on the SPLC" "The Proud Boys are Neo-Nazis" etc...... For my 16 contributions here pushing to merely use the SLPC as the first paragraph-which is harsher than calling them neo fascists since SLPC hate group label means limited access to institutions like social media, banking etc....while calling them neo fascists merely means being factually wrong, I was personally attacked nine times, accused of being associated with the group etc...I was warned of actually reading the sources as OR, I was accused of censorship for pushing the domain experts and may or may not have been accused of wrong formatting on purpose. While calling for the harsher introduction. Ridiculous.2601:46:C801:B1F0:A9F6:4516:F04B:3ABE (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

While those are all certainly words, nothing in that wall of rambling word salad seems to cohere into a rational thought. What comes closest is the claim that Kutner "thought highly enough of his work to respond", which is certainly not the case if you read her actual Medium post at https://medium.com/@ashkenaz89/but-how-can-proud-boys-be-white-supremacists-when-they-have-black-members-6cf269b42bc3, which was not directly in response to him in any case but was a response to someone having emailed a copy of the Moonie Times article and being asked what she thought. That being said, her analysis as an actual expert in this field (as opposed to Reilly, who is in a different field of research) might be usable even though a Medium post under WP:USESPS, as an expert citation in-her-name demonstrating the fact that the PB's can both be white supremacist, and attract a token amount of minorities to use them as rhetorical shields.

Stepping back to Reilly, however, it appears that the Moonie Times may have been engaged in fabrication or misrepresentation again. The tweet in question appears to be here. https://twitter.com/wil_da_beast630/status/1311326969754255361

Note the differences in text. The numbering he writes is "~15%" versus the Moonie Times's "10% to 20%", and he does not state "based on his research" anywhere in the tweet. That ought to certainly disqualify the Moonie Times for trying to cite something to his research when his own tweet doesn't, and is one of the reasons it has such a bad reputation as a source.

Oh, and no source has been provided for the claim that Reilly "works closely with law enforcement", either. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:46B:2511:8AAE:C97B (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please make sure that you're replying to the correct thread, not just the absolutely bottom of the section, everyone. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone else wondering if Wall-O-Text-Loon is actually Reilly trying desperately to boost his own profile?

In any case, I've been trying to identify what the loon is actually referring to and the "Snopes" they reference seems to be this. https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/07/proud-boys-explained/

In keeping with loon's inability to correctly represent what sources say, however, the title/subtitle are "Who Are the Proud Boys Trump Told To ‘Stand Back and Stand By’? Members of the fringe club turned volunteer "security" force have openly advocated violence and white supremacy" and the article mentions fascism thrice, in the context of the group considering their enemies to be "people against fascism or critics of Trump". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A4D2:15CF:D346:FCFD (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Could someone identify references for each option? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: Here are a few sources for each of these descriptors:

• Neo-fascism:
• Far right: (pretty undisputed, so I'm not going to go to the trouble to find more sources)
• White supremacist: see here
• Fraternal: they call themselves that, so really, the fact of the matter isn't disputed here, but just for good measure

• I would like to see "street gang" added as an option. per [1] Vexations (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That is an opinion column, so as I understand it WP:RSOPINION restrictions would apply unless more sources begin to use the terminology in general news or academic coverage. 76.31.177.30 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WOW more personal attacks, very surprising! If one could actually properly address the material, one would have no use for personal attacks. 1)Exactly one of the academic press sources quoted (the marxist humanist expert) calls this group neo fascist. 2)Is anyone familiar with WP/UNDUE? 3)Is anyone familiar with WP/BEST SOURCES as the SLPC and ADL are drowned out by non notable academic press and hyper partisan zealots. 3)This is never a reliable source ever on any planet-White grad student apologizes for falsely claiming to be person of color-https://www.foxnews.com/us/white-grad-student-admits-to-tells-others-they-are-black-resigns-from-ta-position if the position wasn't so weak, these sort of obviously unreliable sources wouldn't appear. 4)If these allegations weren't so weak the page wouldn't be relying on the citations of non notable academic press such as gender studies, anthropologists and outright political hacks. 5)Why no pic of the black cuban leader? Why no mention of the notable expert estimate of 10-20percent people of color. 6)Wilfred Reilly himself said he works closely with law enforcement. The SLPC and ADL have both said exactly same or similar. The non notable, non expert academic press does not mention working with law enforcement once. 7)I've asked for the page citations three now four times for the inaccessible sources. Is anyone else also doubting that these references exist? 8)Snopes like the vast majority of sources including all of the non notable academic press do not lead with any kind of fascist, yet WP does lead with neo fascist for some odd reason? Does WP/UNDUE just not exist any longer? 9)How many personal attacks are permitted before the warning and subsequent block appears?2601:46:C801:B1F0:B990:D6F0:8035:28E3 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you feel is a personal attack. You will need to be more specific.

The editor immediately before this gave ten sources. You seem to be dismissing many of them at once as "obviously" unreliable, "non notable academic press and hyper partisan zealots", etc. That's not how it works. Pick a (one) source, clearly identify which source you are referring to and describe how you feel it does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS for what it is cited for. If you can establish a consensus, we'll remove it and you can move on to the next one. (That a publication is not "notable" is immaterial. InfoWars, Stormfront, The Epoch Times and numerous others are not reliable sources for much of anything, though they are notable.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

To break down Wall-Of-Text-Person's stuff here a bit more:

• 1)"the marxist humanist expert" - pejoratives like this are pretty good to establish that the writer is WP:NOTHERE in good faith.
• " 2)Is anyone familiar with WP/UNDUE?" - looking above in this discussion and in the discussion in the NPOV Noticeboard, it appears that many editors are quite aware of it, which is precisely why WP:FRINGE and WP:MANDY stuff isn't being treated as if it were the overwhelming "truth" here.
• "3)Is anyone familiar with WP/BEST SOURCES as the SLPC and ADL are drowned out by non notable academic press and hyper partisan zealots." - this sentence makes no sense, and if I am guessing at what the writer means correctly, it appears they have not actually read the article.
• some kind of skippable fox news link/rant, not sure what they're going on about there
• "4)If these allegations weren't so weak the page wouldn't be relying on the citations of non notable academic press such as gender studies, anthropologists and outright political hacks." - the writer appears to not understand the sources involved, and believes that the fields of anthropology and gender studies are somehow illegitimate?
• "5)Why no pic of the black cuban leader?" - not standard practice to put the photo up but whatever
• "Why no mention of the notable expert estimate of 10-20percent people of color." - Wilfred Reilly is not a notable expert in this field. It further turned out, after checking the source of this false claim, the claim of "10-20 percent people of color" was not even a correct citation by a non-reliable source (Moonie Times) of his tweet, which wouldn't be usable anyways since it is merely the assertion of a non-expert in this field from his personal twitter account.
• "6)Wilfred Reilly himself said he works closely with law enforcement." - And if you could provide reliable sourcing to whether or not he actually has, you'd be getting somewhere, but I can't even find a record of him making that claim in his twitter account. The fact remains, however, that he is not an expert in this field.
• "The SLPC and ADL have both said exactly same or similar." - While it is true the SPLC and ADL state that they work with law enforcement, more importantly, it is widely reported and confirmed in reliable sources of record that they do so. The same is not true of Reilly.
• "The non notable, non expert academic press does not mention working with law enforcement once." - "working with law enforcement" is not a requirement for being an expert in this field. Also, word salad.
• "7)I've asked for the page citations three now four times for the inaccessible sources. Is anyone else also doubting that these references exist?" - And it has been explained multiple times that page numbers are not required for the citation. Perhaps if we move the box of straws closer to you, you might grasp at them better?
• "8)Snopes like the vast majority of sources including all of the non notable academic press do not lead with any kind of fascist" - Weren't you just claiming that other sources were the "BEST"? Why are you on about Snopes now? And for the record, the Snopes link above references Fascism directly and includes notation that the PBs consider their enemies, per McInnes, to be "people against fascism or critics of Trump."
• "Does WP/UNDUE just not exist any longer?" - It does, which is why Wall-O-Text-Person is not getting any traction when they try to scream and throw tantrums because their WP:FRINGE stuff isn't being put front and center into the article.

At this point I am suspecting that Wall-Of-Text-Person suffers from WP:COMPETENCE issues, both in media literacy and source evaluation senses. Possibly also in the baseline ability to read and understand the policies themselves. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:1415:FAD2:6664:3C80 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

More persona attacks. If I used same description generally reserved for Marx and Einstein to describe graduate assistants and New Mexico Highlands University gender studies teachers, I might have to resort to personal attacks too.

This is WP/IGNOREALLRULES to WP/RIGHTALLWRONGS.

• "1)It is obviously not NPOV(the editors pointing this out were accused of whitewashing)
• "2)It is obviously not compliant with WP/BLP with the unsubstantiated negative hyperbole and libel.
• "3)It is obviously not WP/BALANCE excluding the black notable topical expert Reilly in favor of the no blacks, non notable, non topical academic press. Plus no inclusion of a pic of the black leader. Subverting Reilly's work in favor of a collection of no black work on a topic heavily involved in race is also bias. Hardly any source incl Snopes leads with neo fascist but WP does.
• "4)It is obviously WP/UNDUE ascribing so much esteem to a political blogger, gender studies teacher, graduate assistant et al as Freud, Marx, etc......via the phrases being used to describe the academic press-"highly respected academic scholar" etc,,,,,just shows the weakness, that adjectives normally reserved for Nobel laureates field changers and pillars of human knowledge like a Freud, Einstein is so interchangeable with a first time published New Mexico Highlands assistant sociology professor, a political blogger etc....
• "5)WP/BESTSOURCES is also largely being subverted, minimalizing the domain experts ADL and SLPC in favor of academic press.
• "6)I've been editing here since WMD in Iraq, often on hate group pages from the outset of them, this is the single weakest article that I have ever come across

Proud Boys 1 Wikipedia 0. (Books are to be accompanied by page numbers, no one should have to ask five times)2601:46:C801:B1F0:2927:3097:A2C0:1CAF (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"Proud Boys 1 Wikipedia 0"??? - I believe this has now confirmed that Wall-Of-Text troll here is WP:NOTHERE for legitimate reasons. The continued insistence that Reilly is somehow a topic expert (he isn't) while attacking and misrepresenting the reliable sources in the article is just icing on the cake. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Also wow, this Proud Boy really has an obsession with "Marx". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

- I don't contribute here often and I'd rather not jump into a hot arguement, but I just want to say anecdotally that both their website (should be the most primary of primary sources, no?) and their local recruitment officer made it seem more like #4 (a "frat") than any of them. They touted brotherhood above all else. They have mixed race members and don't discriminate based on race (group pics and leadership for proof). Their goal seems to be sternly glorifying western chauvinism, which could come across as far-right to somebody who doesn't understand the differences. Labeling them far-right would be peddling disinformation, or at least intentionally skewed information. I would highly advise prefacing the introductory sentence of this article to say "alleged far-right, white supremacist, etc...". Most news sites copy each other, so posting 8 or 9 sources from the same media parent company saying the same thing is not acceptable, especially in this unprecedented time of disinformation. Find better sources for this wiki, please. And those in here who are clearly left or right, check your bias; I shouldn't be able to tell on a website like this. 18:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• As exciting as that original research is, I am going to put my trust in the cited reliable sources. You can complain all you want ("news sites copy each other", "intentionally skewed information", "someone who doesn't understand the differences"), but for now you are not, as far as I know, an author whose conclusions about what this organization really is have been published by reliable sources. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intellectually Challenged man blames proud boys for his bomb threat

"Diskinson Police Sgt. Joe Cianni described Raymond as an "intellectually challenged Dickinson resident" who is not believed to have any affiliation with the Proud Boys."

https://www.newsweek.com/self-professed-proud-boy-arrested-after-allegedly-threatening-blow-north-dakota-voting-location-1543696

https://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/crime-and-courts/6739859-Self-professed-Dickinson-%E2%80%9CProud-Boy%E2%80%9D-arrested-following-bomb-threat

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you proposing an edit? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, maybe to a section titled "false allegations of voter intimidation" if any more pertinent and reliable sources document new activity. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG and Muboshgu: A few other more reliable sources:

• Vox Recode: "What we know about Iran and the threatening “Proud Boys” emails"
• Miami Herald: "FBI investigates ‘Proud Boys’ emails that hint at voter intimidation campaign"
• Washington Post: "U.S. government concludes Iran was behind threatening emails sent to Democrats"
• NBC New York: "‘This is a Voter Intimidation Campaign': Explaining Iran's Threatening ‘Proud Boys' Emails" ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Chapman/Alt-Knight Proud Boys Coup

Kyle Chapman proclaimed himself leader of the Proud Boys after Enrique Tarrio was stabbed. the "Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights" was rebranded into the "Proud Goys." Not exactly sure if this should be added into the article or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebeedruf22 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This would need a reliable source. At one point, Tarrio said the injuries were serious, but not life-threatening, but other sources cast doubt on the Proud Boy's account. Per this source, the injuries were minor. I cannot find any sources mentioning Chapman's new role. It is unlikely this would belong in the article without significantly better sources, and WP:NOTNEWS applies also. Grayfell (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry! Yes, a bit new to wikipedia-type stuff. At the time I posted this, I saw it posted by Berkley Antifa, however, then it was reported on by Newsweek and The Sun Sentinel --Bumblebeedruf22 (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC) ; edited 07:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding recently closed RfC

@ProcrastinatingReader: could I ask you to clarify something on your closure of the RfC above? As I understand the discussion and various points made, consensus was against changing the wording from "male-only" to instead call the Proud Boys a "fraternal organization", the RFC developing from discussions currently archived to Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 4. I believe this is also why several editors in the RFC left comments such as "Prefer "male-only association" as it is more clear than "fraternal association"" (buidhe) and "the comparison with college fraternities and groups such as the Freemasons aren't helpful; the valuable part is "male-only", which is better stated directly" (power~enwiki). Since the prior discussions to the RFC providing this context were archived off before your closure I'm not sure you read them but I think the clarification would be helpful to prevent mistaken removals. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

By my reading, the "male-only" term was not part of the RfC and no editors explicitly stated their opposition to it, so I wouldn't say the RfC explicitly provides either support or opposition to the statement "male-only political organization". However, much of the opposition to 4 mentioned their preference for the existing statement, and all discussion of the statement in the RfC was in favour of it. So I'd say it can reasonably be presumed that the statement enjoys consensus, with no prejudice against a future discussion to change that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Proud Boys Infighting

It appears the organization is splitting, and Kyle Chapman is trying to assert control. This may be relevant both to the website question, and to other questions and coverage about the organization.

1. https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-based-stickman-enrique-tarrio-goys-1546597
2. https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/civil-war-brewing-inside-proud-boys-as-top-leader-says-hes-done-pretending-he-isnt-a-nazi/
3. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-proud-boys-rebrand-20201111-kp4cr7l5pbdnxguwyb3xq4m63e-story.html
4. https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/proud-boys-leader-trying-to-rebrand-the-group-as-explicitly-antisemitic-648831
5. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/far-right-infighting-trump-defeat/
6. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-post-election-proud-boys-meltdown-is-here-and-its-ugly

"“Due to the recent failure of Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio to conduct himself with honor and courage on the battlefield, it has been decided that I Kyle Chapman reassume my post as President of Proud Boys effective immediately,” Chapman wrote. “We will no longer cuck to the left by appointing token negroes as our leaders. We will no longer allow homosexuals or other ‘undesirables’ into our ranks. We will confront the Zionist criminals who wish to destroy our civilization.” He also made clear that he believed talk of defending “Western Civilization” was really just a racist dog whistle all along. “We recognize that the West was built by the White Race alone and we owe nothing to any other race,” he wrote."

If anyone can help work on wording and keep an eye on sources it would be helpful. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Added to Proud Boys#Leadership. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

How many members do the Proud Boys have?

Do we have an estimated number? I tried to find a source in order to add that information to the article, but so far with no success. Alcaios (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Alcaios, " A Rewire survey of private Facebook groups that claim to be affiliated with Proud Boys chapters showed that there were about 6,000 members of those groups within the United States in mid-July, with the largest chapters in California." https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2017/08/28/hate-goes-mainstream-gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys/ Vexations (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alcaios and Vexations: Hm, I'm not really sure if we'd be able to use Facebook group membership as evidence for actual group membership. The ADL's page on the Proud Boys suggests "likely several hundred" members, so I would personally be in favour of something along those lines, maybe mentioning Facebook group membership: The Proud Boys likely has several hundred members (ADL citation), however a private Facebook group claiming to be affiliated with the group had around 6,000 members in late 2017 (Rewire citation). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, It varies a great deal. I don't think we should cite any number as definitive. "Kutner estimated in her research that the group has 3,000 members worldwide." https://www.insider.com/proud-boys-trump-debate-who-what-comments-hate-group-2020-9. But Kutner, in https://icct.nl/app/uploads/2020/05/Swiping-Right-The-Allure-of-Hyper-Masculinity-and-Cryptofascism-for-Men-Who-Join-the-Proud-Boys.pdf cites the splc, which, in turn, cites rewire. Vexations (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations: Sorry, you're right. Giving a specific number probably isn't best. How about something like It is unknown how many member are part of the Proud Boys, but reports estimate membership between several hundred up to six thousand.? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Added to the article, thanks. Alcaios (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Neo-Fascism sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know this is beating a dead horse at this point, but the Neofascism label should be removed, they are no doubt far-right, but there is no compelling evidence presented here. Of the four sources given, none are by historians or experts of fascism. Samantha Kutner, I can't find any academic background on and CV Vitolo-Haddad is a graduate student who recently was fired for lying about her race. Unless someone can provide statements from historians of high caliber like Ian Kershaw. Richard J. Evans, Roger Griffin, Paul Gottfried, Robert Gerwarth, Peter Longerich, Volker Ullrich, etc, I don't believe that the label should be included especially in the heading. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CV Vitollo Hadad is not a reliable source

Recently hired CSU professor admits pretending to be a person of color https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/18/recently-hired-csu-professor-admits-pretending-to-be-a-person-of-color/ 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The journal has not retracted the paper, and this constitutes an attack on the author without merit. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

reliable, consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hosang is being misattributed

HoSang-calls them proto fascist(largely the subtextual opposite of neo fascist). He is being misattributed. The reference is in passing with no explanation or clarification. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears that there is a Wikipedia:Competence is required issue here, as having pulled the book from library access, the word "protofascist" is used, in the sense of "a political movement or program tending toward or imitating fascism" [2], similar to neofascism "a political movement arising in Europe after World War II and characterized by policies designed to incorporate the basic principles of fascism (as nationalism and opposition to democracy) into existing political systems" [3]. They use the term neofascism as a similar descriptor to describe the Murder of Heather Heyer by "neofascist" James Alex Fields Jr., on page 105. Protofascist, as used in the book, is definitely not "the subtextual opposite" of neofascist. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears Hosang is still being misquoted. Proto and neo are still not synonymous.2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read, and understand the term definitions. You cannot simply try to pull the prefixes off and declare them "the subtextual opposite". I also suspect that you didn't really read the source; perhaps you got the bit about the term from a review somewhere? IHateAccounts (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest a halt to misquoting Hosang. Neo and proto are still not synonymous2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC).

Having sat down and read the book, I suggest the issue here is one of Wikipedia:Competence is required; are you a native english speaker, and do you understand that you cannot simply attempt to strip the prefixes from compound words with specific definitions? IHateAccounts (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Kutner is not a reliable source

she calls them crypto fascist or fascist in secret(the bar for this dubious claim is very high as it is axiomatically false to call them crypto fascist and then find material to justify this label). She only uses the social factors common among fascists to describe how the Proud Boys use fascist recruiting methods. Her description of any kind of fascist including her completely made up fascist 2.0, does not include any dictatorial or authoritarian control of governance or military. It focuses solely on the common social attributes. She is a Psych and Communications graduate; she based the cited piece on her interviews with 17 as she describes them largely uneducated and disaffected former members without making the questions or answers publicly available. She concluded that the subjugation of women was their largest draw. That is beyond FRINGE, they're not enslaving anyone and no one else confirms this opinion. She self-acclaims as The Proud Boys Whisperer, charges $200/hr or $1000/day for consulting on specifically The Proud Boys-this is linked to the cited piece. She is clearly COI and not a reliable source on this group. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Good lord this is flimsy. All of this is WP:OR. Leave the interpretations to reliable sources. None of this has anything to do with WP:RS or with conflicts of interest. Topic experts charge money for consulting, just like doctors, mechanics, and accountants charge money for their services. Big whoop. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There appears to be no concrete point here by the returned-WP:NOTHERE commenter; this is solely an attempt to attack the author, a respected expert and researcher with the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism [4], on unsound grounds. Attempts to attack an expert for their speaking or consulting rates are ridiculous, and clearly the commenter doesn't understand what "COI" means. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh heavens. Conflict of interest does not exclusively mean an editor is conflicted. "Beneath their libertarian exterior lies the redpill. Proud Boys don’t want freedom in the libertarian sense they have co-opted. They want the freedom to subjugate women" No one is enslaving anyone here despite Kutner's hysterical claims to the contrary. Beyond fringe, completely unreliable and zero credibility.2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"Proud Boys as a Fascist Organisation-Before continuing, it is important to provide a few working definitions of fascism in the context of this group.56Fascism may be defined as a form of political behaviour marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional beliefs, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal constraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Kutner's definition of fascism completely lacking dictatorial or authoritarian control or the single biggest tenet of fascism. Beyond fringe a self serving definition little different than the fantastical claims of enslaving women.2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

If it cannot be corroborated by and/or conflicts with the SLPC and/or the ADL involving right wing hate groups it is not credible and unreliable

The SLPC and ADL are the language specific domain experts used by think tanks, government agencies, law enforcement et al. Their descriptions are the ones most commonly used by RS. Anything that cannot be corroborated and/or conflicts with their descriptions is prima facie not credible and unreliable. That would specifically include: white supremacist, racist and fascist. We don't subjugate Einstein on The Theory of Relativity page in favor of Math Weekly and non notable academics. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with everything you posted above, hopefully an actual discussion is allowed as opposed to just closing down topics saying it is settled. It is clear that the works cited are of low quality and should be revised. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Spamming [5] is probably not the best way to go about it, but also, you are grossly misreading both Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:WEIGHT policies. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Also @3Kingdoms: it appears this is a previously blocked person returning [6] who was engaged in similar behavior [7] [8].

19:36, 19 October 2020 Bradv talk contribs blocked 2601:46:c801:b1f0::/64 talk with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: spreading disinformation / POV-pushing)

Given that they spammed this page and repeated the behavior, pinging @Bradv: who was the blocking admin, if this continues I will request admin advice on next steps. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay. However, I don't consider anything the user posted here to be disinformation. The sources for the Neo-fascism claim are weak and should be replaced with ones of high caliber and if there are no better the claim should be removed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Based on the other spammy sections posted by the IP, the implication here is that the SPLC and ADL don't use "neo-Fascist", therefore neither should Wikipedia. This is incorrect for so many reasons it would be a waste of time to explain them all individually. Presenting this as a conflict from sources is WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely the same one that was blocked as "(Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: spreading disinformation / POV-pushing)". They started ranting stuff about Reilly again at Vexations's talk page [9], then about "a marxist humanist academic" and "Einstein" and "Math Rhetoric Weekly" at ItsPugle's [10]. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I make no excuses for what the IP did if it went afoul of the rules. However, the point about the sources stands. The IP and myself both voiced issues with the sources provided, they are poor. The burden of proof is now for someone to argue that they are good. It is not much to ask for someone to provide a reasonable and detailed defense of the sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms: You have an odd idea about burden of proof. The consensus, from RFC, is that the sourcing is proper. It is YOUR job to prove your arguments, the sources have already been defended quite thoroughly. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I did. I explained that none of the sources are by experts of fascism, one has no academic background I could find, one was found to have lied about her race, one uses proto-fascism as opposed to neo, etc. So again please explain, what is credible about them. Not the what RFC says, not that there is a consensus, but why do you think they are credible. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It is too much as they haven't been able to do it for six months. They have been called out for the incredible weakness a dozen times without an iota of credible response. I have RS to back up every single thing that I have posted on this site over the past 15yrs. Unlike IHateAccounts whom posted disinformation that Proud Boys social media urged members to come and edit here. Claims that the black cuban leader is tokenism, that I am a Proud Boy, that I am promoting Wilfred Reilly, that I am here promoting the SLPC etc....that editor nor any other editor here has yet been able to address the factually incorrect fascist label.2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The gish gallop is a bit much, but I will note that your first edit upon return from block was a wall of text on the talk page of user Vexations [11] in which you returned to your ranting about Reilly and mentioned him no less than five times.

As for the term Neo-Fascism, while the current citation lists four sources, no less than ten were provided to the RFC in discussion. And, interestingly, the Proud Boys have recently had their own infighting over who is leader, with one Kyle Chapman having... revealing... choices of language regarding the question of tokenism [12]. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Please explain Grayfell. Reconcile credibility and reliability without being corroborated by or conflicting with the unquestionable topical experts. Forget that most RS use the SLPC and ADL descriptions making any contradiction or lack of corroboration on WP ludicrous. No need for explanation on how the Proud Boys are portrayed worse than Hitler and the Nazis on WP2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)