Talk:Proud Boys

URL

Should we link to or display the url the Proud Boys?

• (A) - No
• (B) - YES

Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - As stated previously, I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but we can also apply common sense on a case by case basis. Here we are talking about linking to the website of a violent extremist white supremecist organisation that is recruiting new members, encouraging, planning and perpetrating the most serious of crimes, political violence, terrorism, racialially motivated attacks etc. I think it is common sense to omit links to websites where extremists recruit and plan attacks. Wikipedia is not censored sure, but as always other considerations apply. Not linking to an active violent extremist site is just common sense, in my opinion. We don't include url's to the websites of groups like Atomwaffen Division, Ku Klux Klan, Ulster Defence Association, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant etc. At the Continuity Irish Republican Army page we have a screenshot of propaganda, rather than link directly to any recruitment/propaganda pages, this approach make a lot more sense, IMO. As per the external links guidelines and particularly handling disputes WP:ELBURDEN which states that "...the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard...Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." WP:NOTCENSORED is not a mandate for inclusion. Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• No - I support disincluding the URLs for sites of groups/organizations that are primarily engaged in violent behavior and similar, especially when those sites are used to promote violence or recruit for the organizations. Wikipedia "isn't censored" but there's no reason to WP:PROMO hate groups, especially violent/terrorist ones. The Proud Boys website clearly falls into this category, as the group's primary purposes are bigoted hatred and illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• No per my previous comment. It would be nice if there some easy pass/fail test for when to include links, but that cannot ever be the case. Even by their own admission, the Proud Boys are a social group, not a website, so this semi-official website is not a significant part of the group's notability. For this and other reasons, the website lacks encyclopedic value on its own. Inclusion of official websites is an optional courtesy to readers, but we are not hidebound to include links to websites out of some simplistic or warped sense of fairness. This URL is not useful to readers for various reasons, so it can and should be left-out. It would be misleading to readers to point them to such a flimsy resource, and we should not knowingly waste reader's time offering bad resources. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. No censorship on wikipedia. The site is official, and the ideology (true or not) is not presented in the article which is critical for understanding a political organization and why it exists.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - Addition of an external link to their official website in the infobox is not an endorsement of the group or their activities. If that were actually a thing, it could be argued that this article should not exist in general. Now a couple notes on the examples given of other websites that are not linked. Atomwaffen Division as far as I can tell does not have an official website. If you check the KKK's page it is not linked because there is not one unified site. Same goes for Ulster Defence Association, not even sure they are still around. Again same for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, no official website that I can tell. A more relevant example would be places like Westboro Baptist Church, 8chan, 4chan, Charlie Hebdo, and Stormfront (website). Places labeled as extremists that do have official websites and are listed as such. I know this has been said a lot here and at Village pump but WP:NOTCENSORED is a thing. We do not remove reliably sourced information because we like or dislike a particular group. No matter how horrible said group is. PackMecEng (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue what-so-ever with including links to Westboro Baptist Church, 8chan, 4chan, Charlie Hebdo...it's a blatant false equivalence. Stormfront is a fair comparison, that site is run by violent neo-Nazi extremists used to recruit and plan for murder and mass shootings etc. I really don't understand why you'd compare a violent Nazi extremist site to Charlie Hebdo a perfectly reasonable satirical magazine whose staff have been tragically murdered by violent extremists? That's a very strange comparison. Have you ever visited Stormfront? I suggest you do, see what we are actually talking about, just create a fake gmail account and sign up, it's actually a terrifying place to visit and see just how serious these sickos are. Bacondrum (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, you say WP:NOTCENSORED is a thing, well so is editorial discretion, we use it all the time...And also, wikipedia: Ignore all rules can just as easily be thrown around. Better to have a proper discussion than to simply go NOTCENSORED, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well Charlie Hebdo has also been called Islamophobia for some of their depictions of Islam, though I agree the weakest from the bunch. Also 8Chan & 4Chan are known for alt-right views and extremism as well. Westboro is self explanatory on their bigotry I think. No one is arguing that those places are not shitty place, I think you will find broad agreement that they in fact are. The issue is how that relates to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. PackMecEng (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

8Chan & 4Chan also have normal users discussing kitten memes and baby yoda, it's not the same. The explicit purpose of Stormfront to recruiting, propaganda and preparation for violent extremist acts including a number of real life mass shootings, many racist murders and a number or terror attacks - that sets it apart and warrants a frank and open discussion about an exceptionally horrific site - there are limits to everything. Sure Proud Boys aren't quite as extreme, but they're still actively involved in violent extremism. Sure most Jihadist groups don't have official websites, but if they did I don't think there'd be any question about not linking to places where they plan attacks and recruit etc. We provide all relevant information, I don't see how the url is particularly important to en encyclopedic entry, I don't see how it is useful for anything other than promoting the group and directing traffic there. I think there's a social and moral responsibility not to promote violent extremists in anyway, intentional or not. I'm sure we can all agree they are exceptional, it's not mainstream discourse, it's not merely a far-right YouTube conspiracy video. What is the purpose of including the url to such violent extremist groups that outweigh concerns and dangers surrounding violent extremism and terrorism? I can't see any. Bacondrum (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

8chan, 4chan, etc. are websites. All reliable sources about them are about them as websites. The Proud Boys are not a website, so this comparison is flawed. The Proud Boys are a real-life group with activities spread across both the real world and other websites. Reliable sources seldom mention the group's official URL, and as far as I can see, those sources do not treat the website as important or credible for information about the group. We do not remove reliably sourced information because we like or dislike a particular group. You are sadly mistaken if you think this is a reliable source for anything at all. Adding links to unreliable primary sources is not helpful. Calling this "censorship" is unhelpful. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a public square, and even public squares have limits. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - Per Bacondrum. Leaving the URL out is not "censorship"; it's "editorial restraint". I wish folk would learn the definitions of words before they use them.--Jorm (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• what is the definition of editorial restraint?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yup, seems most here do not understand the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. For example it starts out with Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. It then goes on to say Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive. Both of which seem to apply here. So what you refer to as "editorial restraint", in Wikipedia terms is straight out of NOTCENSORED. Since the only reasons given are that the link is objectionable. PackMecEng (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a misrepresentation (getting into Minimisation (psychology) territory) to claim "the only reasons given are that the link is objectionable" when the actual reasoning is that the Proud Boys' website is used for recruiting and the promotion of illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think my reasoning here is being massively oversimplified by a number of detractors. I also think simply going "NOTCENSORED" and not having a proper discussion is silly, I could just as easily turn around and say ignore all rules. Same with these tedious "malformed question" "improper rfc" type resposes that turn up and are ignored at nearly every RFC, I could just as easily turn around an say, "malformed response"...there's something deeply disingenuous about such responses, it's like a mindless refusal to engage discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps you are over complicating a simple and widely accepted practice on Wikipedia while fighting the same fight over and over across several pages. I get what you are trying to do, which from what I can tell, is trying to minimize peoples exposure to just terrible organizations. Which most of the time is the correct course of action. I just disagree with it from a Wikipedia point of view on how pages are written and content is presented to our readers. I really want to lean back into what I mentioned in my summary above which is essentially content on here is NOT an endorsement of whatever view or organization. We cannot pick and choose who is good enough to receive equal treatment under policy. PackMecEng (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope there's no hard feelings. All the best. Bacondrum (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, no hard feelings on my end. PackMecEng (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been an enjoyable discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the term Jorm was looking for was "editorial discretion", which doesn't lend to his point.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No: no encyclopedic value. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. This does not provide encyclopedic value, and it is proper for us to exercise editorial discretion to avoid directly linking here. Neutrality^talk 05:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• No: Per BaconDrum, the link conveys no educational or encyclopedic value, and the group uses it for recruitment towards their violent, racist organization. WP:NOTCENSORED is not an excuse to ignore the real-world damage such groups do, nor is it a straightjacket requiring us to provide such a convenience. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC
  • That seems more in line with a WP:RGW argument. Per WP:NOTCENSORED Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. So if the only argument for exclusion is that it is objectionable, which seems to be the only reason given in the opposition section, then it has no policy basis that I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Calling this an RGW argument is highly disingenuous. This isn't "being objectionable" it's "actively endorses white-supremacist violence". If you see no difference between the two, I don't know what you tell you. But as I said, there is no encyclopedic value to linking to a violent white-supremacist recruitment site, so... your argument this is just RGW has no merit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I am sorry but you are mistaken. Links on Wikipedia are not endorsements. It just does not work that way. I think you are misunderstanding both the policy notcensored and what it is to write and encyclopedia vs a new article or a blog. PackMecEng (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I did not say it was an endorsement, so you've completely misunderstood my argument. You also appear to have placed NOTCENSORED as some kind of bright-line rule, which is a complete misunderstanding of that policy. It is not a blanket "We must include everything." So, you're 0 for 2 today. I won't be responding further, as I feel my argument stands on its own merits. Make your argument stand on its own, instead of badgering everyone else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

          I dunno, I am the one listing policies and how they apply. You are listing personal feelings. Out of feelings or policy which do YOU think stands on its own merits better? Yeah I think I will stick with policy. PackMecEng (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC. I'm sure Bacondrum meant well, but they shouldn't have started dueling RfCs between this one and WP:VPP#RFC: active violent extremist websites (hate groups). They appear to be headed toward opposite consensus, in which case the broader VPP consensus controls. This is also starting to look like forum shopping. R2 (bleep) 19:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The way I see it this is a separate discussion. At Village Pump I'm asking if there's a level of extreme content that we should draw a line at and say these kinds of links should never be included. These are not dueling rfc's regardless of the outcome at Village Pump the external links guidelines are clear that inclusion of an external url on any particular page needs to achieve consensus for inclusion from editors and thus needs to be discussed, please see WP:ELBURDEN for where I take my ques here. Thanks for assuming that I mean well, I most certainly have no ill intent - if I really am doing the wrong thing I'm happy to be corrected. Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

RfCs are a form of dispute resolution to be used sparingly, and only when disputes arise. You started three RfCs nearly simultaneously that were all clearly intended to resolve the matter of whether we should link to the PBs' and Stormfronts' websites. Admins will almost certainly see that as disruptive, whatever your intentions. You need to cool off and focus on one discussion, letting that discussion run its course (which for RfCs, generally requires at least 30 days). If you're not going to close one or two of the pending RfCs, then at least please try to stop bludgeoning the process. R2 (bleep) 00:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Come on, that's a bit unfair. You mentioned me in your comment, surely I can respond. Bacondrum (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't referring to that specific reply. I was referring to your cumulative continuing involvement across all three RfCs. Best practice when you resort to the RfC process is to start one RfC and to basically leave it alone for 30 days. R2 (bleep) 20:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, provided consensus exists for which url is the website for the "movement". BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I only bring this up because previously, stormfront has been used as a precedent for including links to potentially unsavoury subjects. In the case of stormfront however, there is absolutely no ambiguity as per their official URL. Here however, given the fractured nature of their leadership, real confusion exists about who actually can be said to represent the proud boys. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Second comment I must say I'm starting to agree with @R2 - this is looking awfully like forum shopping after previous discussions did not result in consensus to remove links to unsavoury subjects BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

So report me at ANI, otherwise I ask you and R2 to stop with the false allegations which are a personal attack. Bacondrum (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa there, cowboy. No personal attacks here. You've been a bit disruptive, so you were politely asked to stop. That's all. R2 (bleep) 22:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like Bacondrum has been given multiple, contradictory instructions when trying to post this very real and important issue. Accusing them of being "disruptive" isn't cool. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that's exactly what's been going on. Bacondrum (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it's pretty clear that this is turning into an edit warring attraction. I'm not saying Bacondrum is being disruptive, I'm just saying that there is no consensus, and repeatedly bringing up this particular RFC (the 3rd one now) is probably not going to get anywhere. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes-Links should be included for the value of the information that they contain. This is not a terrorist group like ISIS. If it's best not to link to a group because it's a violent extremist organization, we should also remove the link to the official website of Black Lives Matter on that group's page. Display name 99 (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not a terrorist group like ISIS.
  • Given they organized a violent insurrection against the United States government, you might want to reconsider this stance. Comparing them to BLM is just asinine. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, the Proud Boys do not support insurrection. I compared them to BLM because BLM is way worse. The Proud Boys defend themselves and others from attack by BLM and other thugs. They keep peace. The Proud Boys helped storm the Capitol in response to an allegedly stolen election. BLM and antifa, in response to conservatives exercising their rights and black criminals getting killed, kill and assault countless numbers of innocent people and destroy enormous amounts of property, including both private and federal property, which makes the slight damage inflicted on the Capitol building look miniscule. BLM is a thousand times more violent than the Proud Boys. Display name 99 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

the Proud Boys do not support insurrection.

You're either lying, or not paying attention. They were instigators at the insurrection.

I compared them to BLM because BLM is way worse.

And at this point I can see there's no point discussing the matter with you. You're supporting a white supremacist group, while decrying minorities who oppose police brutality. You've shown your colors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Is it an official URL? User:BrxBrx says that given the fractured nature of their leadership, real confusion exists about who actually can be said to represent the proud boys. If that's right, then I think we're better off not choosing one of multiple competing websites to link to. If reliable sources are clear that this is the Proud Boys' official website, then yes, we should link to it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment When I came to this page to find out about the proud boys due to the recent events in the US I found that this page claimed that they were neo-fascist without discussing why or their ideology. I searched for their website to find out more and found that google weren't indexing them (and then found them by searching duckduckgo). I think this page should address their ideology and this might render much of this issue moot. I'd note that the website is not particularly useful as it doesn't have much content. Talpedia (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Talpedia: I'm not sure what you mean by "without discussing why or their ideology", the wording includes citations and their ideology - to the extent that there are WP:RS citations to what they actually believe - is covered in the lede and in the "History and organization" section. If you are suggesting that this page should have a WP:PROMOtional section that writes up claims from their website that are not covered, and/or are unduly self-serving WP:SELFPUBLISHed content that falls under WP:MANDY, that probably wouldn't be viable? IHateAccounts (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting directly quoting their material. I have reviewed the history section (I think I skimmed over it before). I guess it might be nice to separate out their ideology. I would probably like some more scholarly sources discussing their ideology rather than "the ADL" said such and such. I guess I also wanted to know *why* they were fascist rather than just have a citation. (See the section of nazism on this section) Talpedia (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - It does not fall to Wikipedia editors to determine whether an organisation is too violent or extremist for its official website to merit inclusion. If we know an organisation's official website as reported by RS, there is no reason to include it bar legal grounds. Readers don't need us to decide for them what is "too dangerous" to read. Caius G. (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• No I'm sure people are perfectly capable of finding it themselves. Apeholder (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Since an RfC (of considerably broader scope, which includes this issue in its purview) is currently running at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC:_active_violent_extremist_websites_(hate_groups) on this same subject, I think it would be prudent for people to comment there rather than here. jp×g 15:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. Unnecessary, adds nothing, and drives traffic to a violent hate site. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Adds value, even if to a controversial group. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  Emir of Wikipedia, have you seen the website lately? ATM it's just a gif of Donald Trump dancing. Vexations (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Value"

per Ahrtoodeetoo, this was definitely distracting from the topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
in the most recent talk thread, the editor Jorm used the official website to verify the organization's logo. This demonstrates in action, rather than words, that he believes there is a value to knowing what the website is and that it carries at least some academic value. I can't be sure which website he used, to be fair, but he can.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I apologize to Jorm, it was Baconundrum who used the URL as a source - the editor advocating that the website has no value to academic inquiry about the organization. I will move my comment to the other threat. Reading comprehension issues on my partTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I've taken the liberty of separating this into a sub-thread, since it's not a direct !vote or comment on the RfC. As a comment here, you're conflating encyclopedic value to the reader with our work as editors to evaluate information before adding it to the article. In other words, this seems more like you're trying to make a point rather than a serious argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Well, I was trying primarily to make a serious argument. A controversy came up, and editors immediately used the URL as a source to address that controversy in their favor. I've read arguments that the URL is unreliable as a source, but it clearly wasn't, for certain purposes. The idea that a certain elect should have access to information germain and vetted as official, but it must be censored from the reader's view is cynical and against the spirit of wikipedia - though I'm sure the notion wasnt intended to be.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "Taking a quick look to see if someone changed the logo on a webpage" is not reason to permalink the recruiting website of a hate group, especially one whose primary tactic is illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "Taking a quick look" sounds like a simple action, but not when the private advertising company, google, has buried the official link 7 pages in for 90% of international seach users. Google can, apparently, censor the internet in order to appease advertisers, but wikipedia shouldn't and doesnt (it is the first or second link by click volume if you use duckduckgo). It has an unusually high value for readers, as a result of mainstream censorship.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Calling that "censorship" is hyperbole, and I think I'm done with this tangent. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC) The suppression of information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive - is censorship. I'm not even the first in this thread to have suggested it. Perhaps it is hyperbole, although I mean it to be taken literally since it is part of the literal definition of censorship.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Word have meaning. Please stop using the word "Censor" until you know what it actually is.--Jorm (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I posted the words from Wikipedia's censorship lede. Please inform me what your definition of censorship is so we can better understand one another.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict)Ranting about the position of a link in Google search results versus another search engine is meaningless to this discussion. The facts regarding the URL remain, there is no encyclopedic value to a direct link from this article given the fact that the Proud Boys organization promotes and recruits for the purpose of illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC) How does the controversial or even illegal activity of a group or publisher affect the encyclopedic value of that publisher's content?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Regardless of anyone's intentions, this sub-discussion was pointy and somewhat off-topic from the beginning, is getting rather nasty, and has zero chance of affecting anyone's !vote. If there's no objection I'm going to collapse it, if someone doesn't beat me to it first. R2 (bleep) 20:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION candidate

In this video (https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/01/17/extremist-groups-media-alex-stamos-rs-stelter-vpx.cnn) two experts, Alex Stamos and Chris Krebs, discuss the Proud Boys and indicate that they should be tracked and treated as similar to ISIS. Seems relevant as WP:RSOPINION though I would like some second opinions and suggestions on the wording if possible. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Have other reliable sources reported on this? That might make it notable. Vexations (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

These sources are hardly reliable, nor are they experts, they have well-known and proven political bias which should be noted if their opinions are used. DanBoomerman (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization that they aren't experts. According to his Wikipedia page, Krebs served as Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the United States Department of Homeland Security from November 2018 to November 2020. He seems to be a SME on cybersecurity policy, including as it pertains to terrorism. Stamos is a former Chief Security Officer at Facebook and is a current professor at Stanford and his Stanford University bio reveals a lot of additional qualifications that aren't on his Wikipedia page. I think he could reasonably qualify as a SME, given his intersectional work with tech and democracy. Given this, I think we can include their comments as they are relevant experts, and they absolutely be attributed per WP:RSOPINION because the twp are clearly opining in the linked clip. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Involvement in events at the Capitol should be at the end of the lead-in paragraph

The opening para outlines the various public events to have involved this group. The arrests of several members of the PB involved in the January 6 riot is now the most widely publicised event to have involved members of this group, so the details of the various members involved and arrested, like Joseph Biggs and others involved, should be at the top.

Independence1416 (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree. The capitol riot appears to be the thing they are most widely known for now. Bacondrum 23:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, although it should go into the lede of Joe Biggs, Nick Ochs and other notable proud boys who were charged with occupation of the building or premises.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect that the events at the Capitol were attended by "this group". The vast majority of the group did not attend or were instructed that, if they did attend, it would be as private citizens, not as members of the group. There were members of the military, law enforcement, various political parties and many corporations in attendance, even members of the government - can we claim that, because members of those groups were in attendance that the actual groups themselves with in attendance? I contend the answer is no. DanBoomerman (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of the group [...] were instructed that, if they did attend, it would be as private citizens, not as members of the group. Do we have a source for that? Vexations (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on this I withdraw my comment. DanBoomerman (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The WSJ investigation is damning and compelling. It should inform a large section of the article and some mention should probably be in the lede. Thanks for referring the link, Dan.- TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist?

the designation of this group as a "terrorist organisation" is factually incorrect. The cited article clearly states; "The motion now awaits consideration from leadership in Ottawa, which reportedly has the final say in the matter." DanBoomerman (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Vexations (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That will be the second step, and it would put Proud Boys on the list of internatioally-0recognized terrorist groups. Even if it is only one nation (for example the Iranian government lists the American Department of Defense as a terrorist group), any recognition qualifies. I would guess that Proud Boys are on the fast track to such infamy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs) 18:32, January 26, 2021 (UTC)

Only Canada lists the Proud Boys as a Terrorist entity. No other country currently recognizes the Proud boys as a terror organization. That is an important distinction that should be clearly made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F6:EF05:D13D:40F7:8024:F166:7ED3 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

White Nationalist?

I do not believe "white nationalist" is a factual representation of this organization. They have shown to have a multi-racial membership and indeed are a multi-national organization that includes chapters world-wide, including in Israel. I have found no factual citations that they promote a white "homeland" or advocate racial separatism. The fact that they are a "nationalist" group in their respective home countries is easily supported by facts, so why introduce non-factual adjectives? DanBoomerman (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The characterization as white nationalist is supported by sources in the article. Your own assessment of the group isn't relevant. VQuakr (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, no one wants to discuss it again. Bacondrum 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not sourced or mentioned elsewhere in the article. The SPLC categorizes them as general hate, rather than white nationalist. TFD (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I downloaded all the online references and searched them for white nationalist/ism. I found 409 matches. Vexations (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A search of the SPLC article on them shows 14 matches for the terms, but doesn't call them white nationalist.[1] While you may find it a subtle distinction, the group includes people with a variety of types of hate, including white nationalism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, etc. But unlike other hate groups, none of these types of hate are core to their ideology, hence they are listed under general hate, rather than white nationalist. TFD (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

From that same article: "Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions". They're probably not "primarily" anything, other than a street gang. Vexations (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There are no sources calling them white nationalists. The only source that comes close is the SPLC, which is not a reliable source due to their activitist nature and reputation for distorting the truth. Even the SPLC only says they share white nationalist memes. They don't call them white nationalists. Given that the vast majority of sources avoid using this term, none of them directly call them white nationalists, the fact that they never express any white nationalist beliefs, and due to the fact that it's absurd on its face, given how racially diverse the group is, they clearly should not be called white nationalists.

Anyone arguing otherwise needs to take a step back consider whether he is really looking at this objectively. It's easy to get emotional about politically charged topics. Not liking a group is not a good enough reason to comb through and ignore the vast majority of sources and use an exaggerated characterization drawn from the most biased and inflammatory sources that flies in the face of any reasonable assessment of the preponderance of evidence.

These types of articles tend to get babysat by radicals with too much free time who fake consensus by dogpiling the occasional person who notices the issue and goes to the talk page to discuss it. Then they delete the discussion so that no one notices they're in the distinct minority and have not successfuly defended their point-of-vew. I see my comments about the erroneous "neo-fascist" label are already gone, even though that was just a few months ago that I wrote that. This problem is getting worse, as we've now gone from "neo-fascist" to the even more absurd "white nationalist". If you cannot refrain from letting your politics influence the way you edit these articles, stop editing them. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the general consensus of reliable sources. It's not supposed to be used as a tool to advance a radical political agenda to label all conservatives you don't like as white nationalists and fascists.Rectipaedia (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why earlier participants in this conversation just said that sources exist when you Google them; that isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:V. I've gone ahead and added a few of these sources (which are indeed easily found) to hopefully put this issue to bed.

@Rectipaedia: Please comment on content rather than contributors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The correct approach is to summarize what expert sources say rather than search for sources that say what you want to see in the article. TFD (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. What is the argument for using obviously erroneous terms only used by left-wing sources like NPR when more neutral and objective sources never use the term? If there's a disagreement, it seems obvious to me that we should go with the commonly used descriptors. If Wikipedia is going to describe a racially diverse group that explicitly disavows white nationanlism as white nationalists, there needs to be a widespread majority view among reliable sources that they're lying.

From WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Whenever you see the Proud Boys described as white nationlists, it's opinion, not fact. Every supporting argument that one can find depends on the idea that they are secretly white nationalists, despite their disavowels of the ideology and racial diversity, and that their referrals to "Western chauvinism" are dog-whistles. There are no sources that make these accusations based on anything other than speculation. For example, the SPLC says "McInnes plays a duplicitous rhetorical game: claiming to reject white nationalism while espousing a laundered version of popular white nationalist tropes. He has ties to the racist right and has contributed to such hate sites as VDare.com and American Renaissance, which publish the work of white supremacists and so-called race realists." The idea that they're white nationalists is far from an established fact. It is speculation by a decidedly left-wing, activist organization, that has been forced, in the past, to retract similarly erroneous accusations (e.g. see Maajid Nawaz's case in particular, but there are many others)[2]. In all likelihood, those few news articles that use the term are relying on the SPLC's designation or even Wikipedia! We can't know because journalists don't use citations. From WP:R: "Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing." I suggest looking for a source that used the term before either Wikipedia or the SPLC did.

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." This clearly applies to a group that has repeatedly denied the accusation that they're white nationalists and which the FBI has explicitly said are not extremists. The idea that non-whites who denouce white nationalism are secretly white nationalists is inherently controversial and needs to be widely sourced before it can be nakedly asserted without attribution. The founder has even sued the SPLC for referring to them as a hate group.

"Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." The vast majority of sources do not refer to them as white nationalists. Rectipaedia (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

All white group?

The chairman Tarrio is Afro Cuban so it is not an all white group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD40:6D00:7C2B:10CC:F7BE:1D26 (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No one said they were all white. VQuakr (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist political organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada. "White nationalist" FALSE Also There is no Source or Facts stated that accuses them of engaging in violence in US or Canada. Its a Opinion needs to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:6B40:DA:D140:3F8C:A961:9A73 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Leader an FBI informant

[3] and many other sources. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Question Should we include this info in the opening paragraph? It doesn't seem to be something that it core to describing the Proud Boys as a group, and MOS:LEAD states that "[t]he first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edit by Mikehawk10

I have reverted a substantial edit by Mikehawk10, which may contain some individual changes which are unobjectionable but on the whole, substantively makes the article worse.

For example, Mikehawk10's proposal introduces a number of points of attribution to uncontradicted factual statements, such as the fact that Proud Boys' members have been seen wearing group-affiliated apparel with the anti-Semitic slogan "6MWE". There is no reason to attribute this statement of fact - no reliable source contradicts it. Similarly, no reliable source contradicts the statement that Proud Boys members repeatedly appear at racist events. As per WP:YESPOV, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Changing the description of Rebel News from "far-right" to "conservative" is directly contradicted by the wide array of sources cited in our article on Rebel News, where we factually describe it as "far-right." There appears to be no valid reason not to do so in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll address the specific points made above, and I will try to re-institute the changes that I don't believe you are objecting to in an upcoming edit (though please feel free to revert if I'm misinterpreting your above statement.

First, regarding the "6MWE", the source given is Snopes, which per WP:SNOPES is a reliable source, though "attribution may be necessary." There have been quite a few discussions relating to their reliability, and it is consensus that they are generally reliable, with which I agree, though the article's phrasing itself is vague with the term "association" doing a lot of work. The more narrow claim that the article makes is that there were at least some Proud Boys who wore the shirts, and some of the shirts are marketed with the term "proud", so there is an association in that narrow sense. I believe that, in line with MOS:PMC, we should try to keep the rhetoric as close as possible to the Snopes piece, though as the term "association" is vague, it should be attributed. The addition of the second source (the ADL) renders this point about snopes moot, so I don't think there's any need to revisit it.

Second, regarding Rebel Media, that was my mistake; I had glanced at the headline and made the change. "Conservative" and "far-right" are not synonyms, but we should use the article's text when the two disagree. On a separate note (and this was not something I considered when I was making my edits) I would like to raise the point that previous discussions at WP:RSN (diffs:1, 2) indicate that Mediaite is only marginal reliable, so we may want to choose a different source for that sentence if we want to keep it.

Third, regarding the remaining statements, I don't see objection to them in your comment, so I will attempt to re-add the statements that were not objected to in your comment. Please feel free to remove anything that I have missed an objection to. Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Letting the defense speak for themselves

I had added a copy of the values from their website, then someone undid it. How can there be a fair court trial if the defendant is not even there to represent himself? Obviously, attitudes do not always match behaviors, but at least is what they claim. This is what was added:

---

The tenets listed by the organization themself are:

"Minimal Government

Maximum Freedom

Anti-Political Correctness

Anti-Drug War

Closed Borders

Anti-Racial Guilt

Anti-Racism

Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)

Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)

Glorifying the Entrepreneur

Venerating the Housewife

Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism"

https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/wankers-disrupt-indigenous-ceremony-morning-file-tuesday-july-4-2017/

https://wbckfm.com/kalamazoo-michigan-proud-boys-antifa-counter-protesters-meet/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 22:11, January 31, 2021 (UTC)

If we can find RS that describe their beliefs in these ways, then something probably can be added to the article in wikitext. Otherwise, we would require attribution to the particular source you are referencing (it's a bit unclear since there isn't a link) to describe how they describe their own ideology. Where are you sourcing this from? Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.wpr.org/controversial-proud-boys-embrace-western-values-reject-feminism-and-political-correctness gives: McInnes and his followers believe there are 10 ways to "save America": Abolish prisons, give each American a gun, legalize drugs, end welfare, close borders to illegal immigrants, outlaw censorship, venerate the housewife, glorify the entrepreneur, shut down the government and declare "the West is the best." The article links to a video of McInnes, who lists the "10 ways to save America" as 1 Abolish Prison, 2 Give Everyone a Gun, 3 Legalize Drugs, 4 End Welfare, 5 Close the Borders, 6 Outlaw Censorship, 7 Venerate the Housewife, 8 Glorify the Entrepreneur, 9 Recognize "West is the Best", 10 Shut Down the Government. Some not-so subtle difference there. Vexations (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Those are pretty close. The news sources I just added are using quotes from citing te PB website directly.

• Comment We are not here to promote their ideas. Nor provide the "defense" a platform to "speak for themselves", this would be a blatant violation of multiple policies including WP:ADVOCATE WP:SOAPBOX WP:NPOV WP:PROMO WP:POVPUSHING and others. I think this discussion should be deleted as WP:NOTFORUM and because of the the above policy violations that Hippypink is advocating. Bacondrum 06:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think that the discussion should be deleted per se. The first comment in here might be off-topic, but I think that the comment from Vexations was substantive. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bacondrum 09:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Two news sources added. Why didnt you just say something productive like "you need to include a link to a news source that quoted their values." instead of just trying to delete everything? Would have taken far fewer less words, and added value instead of subtracting it.

Ethnicity/Race of Enrique Tarrio in the Opening Paragraph

Question: In the opening paragraph, Enrique Tarrio is currently described Cuban-American, which is true, though the ethnic descriptor present on his own page states that he is Afro-Cuban. Should we include the more specific ethnic/racial modifier of "Afro-Cuban", or keep "Cuban-American" as the modifier?

I'm seeing quite a few RS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) refer to Tarrio as Afro-Cuban or note that he identifies as such.

My initial thoughts are that if we are to include his ethnicity in the opening paragraph, we ought to use the more specific term of "Afro-Cuban", though I am wondering where consensus lies on this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with Afro-cuban, but don't make it into an WP:EASTEREGG as you previously did. Don't remove the informant part again without discussion, it's backed by three RS's. Bacondrum 09:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are we including his ethnicity in the opening paragraph of this page but not his own? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10 - Well since there's still discussion and I don't see a clear consensus, I'd like to give my thoughts. Sources may have described him as being "Afro-Cuban", but Tarrio was born, raised and most notable in America. He's an American of Cuban heritage, which is what the page for Cuban Americans states. Also technically, the proper term that should be linked is Afro-Latino Americans (describing Americans of Afro-Latino background) or maybe add "Cuban-American" but then link to both the aforementioned pages? I also agree with Emir of Wikipedia. Ultimately, I'm not sure if his ethnicity is relevant to the lede. People can always click the link his page if they want to see his background. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, you make a good point. I'd support changing to Cuban American or leaving off ethnicity all together...after all it only appears relevant to those trying to say "look, they're not racist, they have a Black member" which is a kinda weird racial/racist claim, IMO. Bacondrum 19:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Tarrio's ethnicity somehow relevant to his notability? MOS:ETHNICITY says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Doco on Proudboys leading capital attack

The ABC has released this powerful and compelling documentary that exposes the extent of the proudboys planning and leadership in the capitol attack. Amazing footage. Proud boys clearly lead the attack and use military tactics during the attack the capitol https://medium.com/four-corners-downfall-the-last-days-of-president/four-corners-downfall-the-last-days-of-president-trump-january-31-2021-abc-full-show-95184669a026 Bacondrum 20:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure that's a good link to post here? It seems to be a link to a Medium page that is serving to link users to an illegal streaming service . — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum, Is that the same as this: https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/downfall:-the-last-days-of-president-trump/13110382 Vexations (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, but I’m not sure if ABC is available out of Australia. Didn’t know Medium was dodgy. Bacondrum 23:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum, medium itself is fine (except as a reference, because WP:SPS), but the page links to an url shortner that redirects to sites that appear unsafe. The abc URL seems to work from where I am, on the other side of the world. Vexations (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks Vexations Bacondrum 08:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect date on daily beast reference?

I would fix it myself, but there are a lot of warnings on this page about editing.

I think found an error in this page. Under the section titled "Membership and doctrine" it says that "The Daily Beast reported in February 2018..." but the reference is from November 2018. I read the referenced article thinking that perhaps the bylaws were from February of 2018 but no mention is made of that in the Daily Beast article either. I then sought out the actual bylaws themselves. I also searched for other Daily Beast articles which could have been the intended reference, but found none. The article referenced seems to be the correct one other than the February date.

I tried to find outside sources which mentioned this date but could not find any which makes this claim. The adl website mentioned bylaws changes in Oct 2018 and quoted from them. Searching from this quote did not produce any documents from October, but I did find a copy of the November 24 bylaws (enacted 11/25/2018) from here and here (exhibit 1 at the end) which are identical. While the existence of these November documents does not preclude that other changes took place in Feb 2018, I just simply can find no evidence of this.

I think the correct change is just to swap "February" for "November" but I'll leave that to a pro who knows the rules better than me. Thanks for doing a great job making the infinitely-valuable resource that is wikipedia everyone! 2601:1C0:6E01:16D0:117C:5987:FDEC:1E91 (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls added that in [[4]] on 28 September 2020. Perhaps they remember why there is a discrepancy? Vexations (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethan Nordean Arrested related to Capitol Riot

"Ethan Nordean, sergeant at arms of the Seattle chapter, was charged with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, aiding and abetting, and knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building"

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-arrests-seattle-washington-courts-f128fa38d6ad2ca0561985a4138b83fe TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Terrorist" in intro sentence

Bringing over a discussion that started at Talk:Enrique Tarrio#terrorist designation to here, since this seems the proper place for it. I see the lead sentence has been changed to say "The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist terrorist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada." This seems to have been added today based on the choice by Canada to designate them a terrorist organization. I'm not sure if there is a wider standard for when a lead sentence can describe a group as a terrorist organization—is one country designating it as such sufficient, or should we omit it in favor of just leaving the sentence (also already in the lead) that Canada designated them as such? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You might want to look at Hezbollah. Many countries have called it a terrorist group over a long period of time, yet they had the sense not to shove that into the first sentence of the lead. We must remember MOS:TERRORIST applies even if some people do not like an organisation founded by a black man. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope you are not implying without evidence that a) editors are making editorial decisions based on their distaste for the group, and b) their distaste for the group is due to it being founded chaired by a black man. Your first two sentences are useful input; you might consider striking the third, since if you didn't intend it that way, that's how it reads. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As a point of fact, the Proud Boys was founded by Gavin McInnes who is of Scottish ancestry. Tarrio joined much later. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha, yeah Emir of Wikipedia don't let the facts stop you falsely accusing the rest of us of bad faith editing and racism. Bacondrum 23:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, Hezbollah is a political party. Proud Boys is a far right hate group. You might have a point if you were talking about Hezbollah's Jihad Council - sort of like the difference between Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Not only does LABEL apply but we are supposed to use reliable sources. Most sources restrict the term terrorist group to a group set up in order to carry out terrorist attacks, such as al Qaeda. They also define the term terrorist attack more narrowly. TFD (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, the Canada Gazette, as the official government gazette of the Government of Canada is as reliable and official as it comes. http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2021/2021-02-03-x2/html/sor-dors8-eng.html Vexations (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The source merely says that a government regulation has added the Proud Boys to a list of terrorist organizations. No one has questioned that. The issue is how important it is to this article. TFD (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you wrote we are supposed to use reliable sources. I gave you the most reliable source imaginable. It is widely reported on. Every major news source in Canada reported on it: The Globe and Mail the Star the National Post], the CBC Vexations (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the Hezbollah analogy is a red herring, of the highest order. Imagine Trump was connected to Hezbollah and urging them to storm the capitol? lol! I think Canada designating the PB's a terrorist organisation is a very big deal and should be mentioned in the first sentence. If the USA made such a designation there would be no question about putting it in the first sentence, would there? Even if the USA was the only country in the world to do so, we would include this fact...citisens of the USA often think only their view of the world matters, but that is not how the rest of us outside the US see things. Bacondrum 23:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be stated as currently is in the lede, but moved up to the first sentence. Having one of the two main countries they operate in designate them a terrorist organisation is a very big deal. The Canadian government is not some pissy little second rate cousin to the USA. Editors should not be saying things along the line of "Oh, it's only Canada". Bacondrum 23:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, I said that in order to call them terrorists we need a reliable source that calls them terrorists, not just a source that someone has called them that. Do you understand the difference? There are reliable sources that some Proud Boys believe in the QAnon conspiracy theory. That does not mean that the theory is true, just that reliable sources have quoted people who claim it is true. TFD (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. We have a seemingly interminable number of reliable sources that report Canada has designated the group a terrorist organisation. Are you saying Canada has not made the designation? That the Canadians are unreliable? or that the news oulets reporting on this are unreliable? I've got a copy of one of Australia's most respected papers, the The Age sitting in front of me right now, page 27 article title: "Proud Boys on Terrorist List" first para: "Canada has described the Proud Boys a terrorist entity, adding the far-right group to a list that includes al-Qaeda, ISIS and al-Shabab." Bacondrum 00:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read the disputed wording which was posted at the top of this discussion thread: "The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist terrorist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada." In order to call them terrorists we need a reliable source that calls them terrorists, not just sources that someone has called them that.

In answer to your second question, the Canadian government is not a reliable source for determining something is a terrorist group, any more than they are a reliable source for determining that cannabis and coca leaves are narcotics. (Cannabis and cocaine were added to the Schedule of the Narcotic Control Act by order in council just as the Proud Boys were added to a schedule of the Criminal Code of Canada by order in Council.) Note too that the definition of "terrorist group" in the Criminal Code applies to Part II of the Criminal Code only.[5]

TFD (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, thanks. I’m not completely sure about the reasoning there, weed and cocaine are narcotics. Though I do think we should say Canada has designated them as a terrorist organisation rather than calling them terrorists in wikivoice. Bacondrum 04:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum, It seems we're using an intensional definition and an extensional definition at the same time. If Canada makes a list of terrorists and add the Proud Boys, that's an extensional definition. If we have a scholarly source that puts forward a set of criteria for terrorism, and shows that the PBs meet all those criteria, that's an intensional definition. TFD appears to want the latter. What he's not taking into consideration is that Bill Blair (politician) has stated, after the house called on the government to make that designation, that the designation would be based on objective criteria. My view is that both definitions are met, but I can see that because those deliberations have not been made public, we'd require a published source. I'm fine with clarifying that it is a designation by public safety and emergency preparedness. Vexations (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: A lot of the discussion above is about whether or not a designation by a single government of a group as a “terrorist” organization is enough for us to include it in the lede. We don’t use, for example, New Jersey's declaration that Antifa is a domestic anarchist extremist organization in its opening, despite it being a government source. Similarly, we don’t label the Council on American–Islamic Relations as a terrorist group in the lede, even though it has been declared one by the UAE (a sub-section in the article is devoted to this instead) and the FBI believes they are connected to Hamas (which is included in another sub-section).

While it is true that Canada labels the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization, any inclusion of the government’s claim should be attributed as such. I can’t find RS that regularly describe them as a terrorist organization in their own voice (I.e. without attributing the claim to Canada itself). As such, it might be possible to make a subsection in the article dedicated to Canada’s designation, but it should be framed along the same ways as it is done for CAIR, with both Canada’s opinion and the opinion of those who disagree (either quotes from PB representatives, or from opinion writers that publish in major newspapers). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, your claim that New Jersey designated Antifa as a "domestic anarchist extremist organization" is not supported by your source. Vexations (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, these are poor comparisons, and we will not be adding any self serving denials by the PB's as per WP:MANDY. There's no issue stating that the Canadian government designates these guys a terror organisation, it's not in wikivoice, it's a statement of fact. Bacondrum 20:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations: The source literally is a New Jersey state government document that describes Antifa as anarchist extremists. Other sources issued by New Jersey have used the label of “anarchist extremists” and lumped them among domestic extremists in their analyses.

@Bacondrum: WP:MANDY is not a policy, nor a guideline, but an essay. Over at Uyghur genocide, another page that I have been heavily involved in editing, we include official Chinese denials of human rights abuses because we are supposed to maintain a neutral POV. Of course China (or any accused state) would deny human rights abuses, but it is appropriate to include it in the article. Likewise, we should include those statements that have been covered in news articles here, even if we don’t agree with the group’s rosy self-characterization. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, There is a difference between an amendment to the criminal code of a country (Canada) and a description by a government agency (the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness. The United States simply cannot designate something a "domestic terrorist organisation". You quoted "domestic anarchist extremist organization" , and when confronted about that changed it to “anarchist extremists”. I struggle to believe that your are editing in good faith. Vexations (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, NJ recognizes that Antifa is domestic (as opposed to international) and that it is a "anarchist extremist" group. I didn't put that in quotes, as if it were directly lifted from the source, but there's a basic syllogism there that would render my statement as a reasonable paraphrase of the source. I'm a bit confused as to why the implication is that I am editing in bad faith, especially since I'm willing to provide more sources (which I did, after you objected to my paraphrasing) and to engage with others on specific objections. What's more, Canada doesn't appear to have passed legislation to specifically designate the PB as terrorists, but rather a government agency seems to have made the designation, akin to that which NJ has done.

Separately, why does my analysis as it applies to the Council on American–Islamic Relations (the UAE has officially designated them as a terrorist group, but the article handles it with nuance in several sections) indicate bad faith? I stated in my comment that "it might be possible to make a subsection in the article dedicated to Canada’s designation, but it should be framed along the same ways as it is done for CAIR, with both Canada’s opinion and the opinion of those who disagree (either quotes from PB representatives, or from opinion writers that publish in major newspapers)". We have two cases in which a government has officially declared a group to be a terrorist group. We don't have RS (as far as I have seen) that have described PB as a "terrorist" group in their own voice, so I'm struggling to see why we should include it simply because a government has asserted it. Per WP:V, "[a]ll quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material," and we have seen plenty of reporting that Canada has designated the PB as terrorist. We can include Canada's designation, but it should be attributed to the relevant Canadian agency until RS report that the PB are terrorists. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, I think a section that explains how the designation came about and what it means would be helpful. This article might be usable: https://www.lawfareblog.com/complicated-consequences-canadas-proud-boys-terrorist-listing. Lawfare has been considered at WP:RS/N and consensus appears to be that while it calls itself a blog, it is a reliable source. Perhaps you can find more. Vexations (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, with [6] I have expanded the section of Canada with what I hope is a clear explanation of what the designation as a terrorist entity means. I hope this clarifies things for you too. Your insistence that " Canada doesn't appear to have passed legislation" is irrelevant, because that is not how the law works; you cannot legislate such a designation in Canada. It has to be done this way; it's the law. Vexations (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

arrestee rosters

So from my understanding of WP:BLPCRIME, it's not proper to just rattle off so and so and so were arrested even with citations prior to convictions. Whether it's this one, or Antifa type articles. This can be entertained at BLP/N if needed. Graywalls (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, I suspect that presumption may be weakened in cases where those arrested openly advertised their actions on teh socials. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, Graywalls. Maybe we could summarize the list to simply mention name and arrests generally and then reference link the allegations without mentioning specific charges. If a conviction occurs, then we can expandTuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant language is For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. "Seriously consider" does not mean that mentioning that certain people have been accused of criminal activity is forbidden by policy, and we routinely mention the names of people accused of high profile unusual crimes of long term significance. I believe that the January 6 events at the Capitol are of enormous importance and that it is justified to mention these arrests as long as the content is properly referenced and we do not include any language stating that the person is guilty unless they are convicted. These are not random people but members of a violent far right organization that seeks out public attention. I believe that this content is necessary to a complete encyclopedic understanding of the Proud Boys, and that the article is worse off without it. In the spirit of full disclosure, I added most of the content in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Currently, the section "Storming of the Capitol Building" is gutted and a reader would have no idea that any Proud Boys entered the Capitol or were arrested for their actions that day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could take a simple tally, rather than stating the names and charges? Such as, "8 prominent officers in the PB organization have been arrested and charged with felony crimes related to the Capitol Riot". Then, we're being accurate without impugning specific people.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, are you sure you meant "impugning"? I don't think that anyone has been doing that. Vexations (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, "charging" and "impugning" are rather different, especially when the charges are basically founded on public confessions. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The gutting of the Storming of the Capitol Building section is concerning. It is well-supported by reliable sources that the Proud Boys played a central role in the storming of the capitol, or, as the Wall Street Journal puts it: they were key instigators. [7] Somehow that needs to be reflected in the article. Vexations (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I should have used another word. I thought the BLP rule was meant to avoid having a person's character called into question before the trial has started (is that impugnment of character?). I didn't assume that there was an issue listing charges associated with names, but it makes sense to do more than necessary to pressume innocence, in court or public opinion.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The proud boys and these arrests are pretty much daily front page news globally at the moment. I don't think WP:BLPCRIME applies here at all. The proud boys and these particular members are going down in historic infamy, of the highest order, there's no doubt about it. Also, as pointed out already "seriously consider not including" does not mean do not include. Once the scale and infamy/notoriety, weight of video evidence etc is taken into account there is no reason to exclude. I think the way some of the content has been rephrased is an improvement though. Bacondrum 23:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion/non inclusion should be consistent with Antifa type articles. So and so have been arrested/charged here doesn't seem necessary if such contents aren't regularly included on Antifa type articles. Graywalls (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The proud boys and these arrests are pretty much daily front page news globally at the moment. See WP:NOTNEWS. The way it's justified by the person that first inserted it, These are not random people but members of a violent far right organization that seeks out public attention. sounds rather biased. Some editors vigorously opposed to the inclusion of Eric Clanton and bike lock beating incident into Antifa article for example. Why shouldn't the inclusion/non inclusion on these political articles be somewhat similar? Graywalls (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS does not mean to censor things though if they are WP:DUE. If there is a problem with the Antifa article go and fix it there, don't complain here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, because the bike lock beating incident and the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol are not remotely similar? Vexations (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Proud_Boys_and_political_protest_type_articles_in_general Graywalls (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I was brought in from BLPN and believe that while not all of those arrested should be named due to BLPCRIME and BLPNAME, Joe Biggs is a WP:publicfigure so WP:BLPCRIME shouldn't apply to him. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also coming from BLPN, I agree that most of these individuals appear to be covered by WP:BLPCRIME and should not have their names included. Media figures and politicians are almost always going to be public figures, but individuals need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Simply being associated with a group or organization does not make a person a public figure, and I think there are many reasons why we take serious consideration of privacy issues and the possible harm we can cause. I'm also not sure how including the names of specific non-notable individuals is going to improve the article. I don't think anyone disagrees that the January 6 events are an incredibly important issue, but the issue here is specifically about why the names of particular individuals is important to include, and that does not seem to have been addressed yet by those who have said the names should be included. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, but those in leadership roles, and arguably those charged with the more serious offense of conspiracy, will pass BLPCRIME as public figures (the leaders) and people prominently involved in a crime of international impact (conspiracists). It's not a simple binary call here. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)\

JzG, whether or not an individual is a public figure is not determined by the severity of their alleged crime, but rather by the factors described in WP:LOWPROFILE. Ultimately, this is a binary call of whether or not to include names of particular individuals in the article as we either we include them or we don't. Would you agree that we should be evaluating whether to include individuals' names on a case-by-case basis based on those factors? (Also, I should note that legally, "conspiracy" isn't a more serious crime but rather is simply the agreement to commit a crime or other illegal act between two or more people). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, I disagree. It's our determination what constitutes public v. non-public in this specific context, because the names are in multiple reliable sources. BLPCRIME overrides V and RS only for private individuals; when people have deliberately inserted themselves into the public eye, we're not obligated to protect them from the consequences of their actions. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

JzG, the issue is exactly whether or not they are non-public figures. You seriously disagree with evaluating individuals on a case-by-case basis for whether they are public figures? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, I concur with Cullen328. We do not wave away the consensus of independent sources on what constitutes a public figure. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

JzG, what sources discuss whether these individuals are public figures? Being in news reports does not necessarily make one a public figure. The issue is whether a person voluntarily seeks out media attention or has a certain level of influence, and that is not the same as being arrested for participating in a high profile criminal event that involved hundreds of people. People who engaged in multiple interviews or who are being described as leaders or instigators of the event would be public figures, but I strongly disagree with your implication that we should not be looking at the individual names and instead should make a blanket exception here to WP:BLPCRIME even for non-public figures. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, you are arguing from a false premise. The concept of a public figure or a limited purpose public figure is an artifact from defamation law, triggering the threshold test of actual malice when a statement is false.

In this case, the statement is true: they have been charged, and usually as a result of gleefully posting images or video of them committing the crime. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Coming from BLPN, I could see merit to naming those who are notable especially if sources say they had some sort of leadership role. I don't see any reason to name non notable individuals, especially without a conviction baring some extraordinary circumstance. Since a week or so after the storming, I've seen some limited coverage of the Proud Boys in NZ, especially stuff like the Canadian designation, but I have not see daily coverage, let alone daily front page coverage. I suspect the coverage in Malaysia has been even less. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Some of the leaders are public figures or have publicly claimed leadership roles. Some the crimes they are accused of clearly rise above the level of "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." A complicating factor is that some of the rioters have been charged with fairly minor minor offences like trespassing, and prosecutors are still working to bring more serious charges like conspiracy. I don't think it's a good idea to simply list anyone charged with anything, nor is it worthwhile listing people who have so far only been charged with minor offences. People with leadership roles, who have already been charged with serious offences, should be mentioned. Nicholas Ochs for example, a one-time Republican candidate for the Hawaii State Legislature who claims to have founded a Honolulu chapter, has been charged with conspiracy.[8] That meets two important thresholds; he's a public figure AND he has been charged with (several) very serious offences. Vexations (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Which guideline are you relying on to argue that severity of allegation sways inclusion decision when it has not resulted in a conviction? Just for scholarly purpose, here's a discussion on the inclusion of bike lock assault that resulted in the assailant being sentenced Talk:Antifa_(United_States)/Archive_22#Bike_lock_assault_by_Eric_Clanton but for some reason not one bit of that was decided to be included. Accusation that a phone has been grabbed from someone's hand could range anywhere from a simple theft to robbery. Hypothetical example: Nothing in guidelines that I'm aware of suggests that if the cop was to charge the alleged perpetrator with robbery, we should lean towards inclusion than charged as a simple theft/harassment. Graywalls (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Take the 2019 El Paso shooting as an example. It was headline news across the country, the shooter had been named by multiple media outlets, and his name was on relevant wiki page the same day. There was discussion of whether his name should be posted, with some back and forth, and even a question of whether or not we should be practicing damnatio memoriae (here). The consensus was largely that regardless of what Wikipedia does, the cat's out of the bag already because his name is everywhere. Further, Wikipedia is not censored, so as long as he has at least been charged (not just arrested) and cited in multiple headline news articles, his name should be included as part of the NPOV documentation of the events.

Similar articles follow a similar pattern, e.g. Charleston church shooting, the 2020 boogaloo killings, the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, the Poway synagogue shooting, the Jeffersontown Kroger shooting, the Charlottesville car attack, the October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts, etc. Mass murders, bombings, assassinations, and attempts of those sort are usually high profile enough that someone who has been charged with the crime will forever be associated with that event regardless of what we do on Wikipedia. So, to simplify all that into an easy rule of thumb, here's the test to use for inclusion: If they were ultimately found not guilty, would we still include their name on the relevant wiki article for the event, even if only to cite the fact that they were initially charged and later found not guilty? If so, even if they've only been charged with the crime, we can recognize that whether or not they ultimately end up convicted is irrelevant because they will still be notable and end up included on the relevant page either way. -NorsemanII (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

NorsemanII, but let's not forget that those incidents are substantially less significant than the first ever storming of the Capitol with the intent of overturning a democratic election. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

JzG, I don't think anyone has said the event is not significant. The main issue is whether the individuals are public figures or WP:LOWPROFILE under WP:BLPCRIME. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert Right. The test for naming these individuals prior to being convicted is whether or not they have become so infamous that they would still be mentioned here even if they were ultimately found not guilty, even if just to say that they were charged but found not guilty. As JzG noted, rioters storming the Capitol Building with zip ties, beating a police officer to death, and having previously discussed plans to kill congressional representatives makes headline news that goes well beyond even something like the 2020 boogaloo killings or the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot. Leaders will certainly end up getting named here, even if just to say whether or not they were found guilty, and even followers will probably get named too, as long as the list is less than 20 or so people. -NorsemanII (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with including leaders and followers who had prominent roles, but not simply anyone arrested for a crime related to the January 6 riot. I think WP:BLPCRIME requires individual consideration. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Public figures

Many of these Proud Boys members who were arrested are limited interest public figures, defined in U.S. law as "a person who voluntarily and prominently participates in a public controversy for the purpose of influencing its outcome". WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures. They include former candidates for public office and other people considered celebrities on the far right who are frequently interviewed by the media and have podcasts and online shows devoted to discussing controversies for the public. Joe Biggs is just one example. I see no reason to exclude the names of public figures who have been arrested for serious offenses. Here are other examples of Proud Boys arrested at the Capitol who are public figures: Nicholas Ochs was a 2020 candidate for the Hawaii State Legislature, backed by Roger Stone. Gabriel Garcia was a 2020 candidate for the Florida House of Representatives. Nicholas DeCarlo runs a group called Murder the Media and has a YouTube channel called Thunderdome TV. Ethan Nordean AKA Rufio Panman was interviewed at length in 2018 by Alex Jones on Infowars and runs a political podcast called Rebel Talk with Rufio. I support mentioning these public figures in our coverage of the arrests of Proud Boys in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a good point, but we need to make sure that this article does not turn into a list of members who have been accused of a crime, unless of course that is what they become primarily known for. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Seems obvious to me that these are notable events, the arrests have made international news for weeks on end, these men and their actions are now infamous and historically they are highly significant/noteworthy. Bacondrum 23:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Cullen328. Yes, it's tricky - the difference between legal terms and Wikipedia policy. In the end, though, a limited purpose public figure is actually remarkably consistent with how Wikipedia views things. Someone who inserts themselves into public discourse in a specific area, may be considered to have forfeited the normal protections accorded to those who are dragged in against their will.

Proceed with caution, but there is certainly no prohibition here. The fact that they set out to be the heroes of the new Trump era and ended up being pathetic victims of their own incompetence, is really not our problem. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There is one person arrested who was wearing a Proud Boys hat in the Capitol but I have not been able to verify any other involvement with Proud Boys or previous public advocacy. I do not intend to add truly low profile people like him to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Each individual needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis before including their name based on the factors at WP:LOWPROFILE. I would likely support including the names of previous candidates for statewide offices. I think we should be careful with making broad statements, such as "frequently interviewed by the media" if that is not accurate, and I don't think we should be including names of individuals who are not public figures simply because some other Proud Boys members are public figures. Under U.S. law, one or two interviews would rarely be sufficient to establish a person as a "limited public figure". think it would also be helpful to discuss why particular names are relevant to the article, such as having a leadership role in the organization that is discussed in reliable sources or having actually "prominently participated" in the events, which usually means having some type of important or enduring role. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The question for whether a person is notable isn’t necessarily whether or not their face and name were published in an article alongside a notable crime, but whether the people have a high enough profile to be considered public figures. I’m struggling to see that, since I can’t find reporting from multiple RS on those who were arrested as individuals.

WP:BLPNAME states that "[w]hen deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.” Implied in this quote is the principle that the brief appearance of names in news stories may not be enough to warrant inclusion, even if the event the article describes is notable.

I also take issue with the analysis that all of those arrested “prominently” participated in the Capitol riots. Being arrested for trespassing, for example, might not bring some of these people up to the level of being limited-interest public figures, so we should use caution when placing names here.

The point of the article is to provide an encyclopedic description of the Proud Boys. As such, we should not name its rank-and-file members except where the omission of their names negatively impacts our ability to describe the Proud Boys itself. We need to use caution in choosing who to include—if the inclusion of a name does no more than simply adding another name to the article, it should be left out. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Red herring - hundreds of people have been arrested, no one is arguing to make an exhaustive list of all arrestees, just the prominent ones. Bacondrum 20:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum#s, your statement does not appear accurate given several of the arguments above (and below) where people have explicitly said that being a participant should be enough for inclusion and we should not be evaluating individuals on a case-by-case basis for whether they had a prominent role in the event or the Proud Boys. Mikehawk10 is saying that an arrest alone is not sufficient to determine the person is a public figure or had prominently participated in the January 6 riots, and I agree with that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the reason for mentioning members unless it improves the article. Joe Biggs was arrested in connection with the events of Jan. 6 (which is all the information his article includes) isn't very helpful. TFD (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual (linked from "Public figures" in WP:BLP). It tells that essentially any person who was "engaged in high-profile activity" should be treated as a public figure. Attacking the United States Capitol is an extremely "high-profile activity". My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • My very best wishes, that is not what WP:LOWPROFILE says, as determining what is "high profile activity" is based on the four examples (media attention, promotional activities, appearances and performances, and eminence). Which one of those do you believe applies to the participants in the January 6 riot who were arrested? For example, under "promotional activities", I think anyone who was giving interviews to the media or if anyone was hosting their own podcast or Youtube show when engaging in the riot, then they would be participating in an "attention-seeking manner" and they therefore no longer have the same privacy interest. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, these are just four examples. There are other high profile activities, and this is one of them. Also, #2 is very close: Has voluntarily ... participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee. Well, they certainly acted (a) "in an attention-seeking manner", (b) "for a cause" and (c) in relation to an election campaign. Yes, they did not act solely to seek attention, but to "change regime", but same can be said about any election-related activities. It does not matter if they were arrested or charged of anything. All of them, not only "Proud Boys", would qualify as public figures per this guideline, as soon as they are covered in RS. Sure, the WP:DUE still applies, but this is not a matter of BLP:CRIME. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
      • My very best wishes, engaging "in an attention-seeking manner" is not merely participating in a high-profile event (and certainly not under U.S. defamation law, which requires "prominent" participation for a person to be a limited public figure). Your reasoning would mean anyone who engages in a political demonstration would be a public figure, which is not true. Hence why I gave the example of individuals who had given interviews during the event or had been hosting their own podcast or Youtube show during it. Simply participating is not "attention-seeking" though, which is why individuals need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for their level of participation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
        • No, I am not saying that anyone who engages in a political demonstration would be a public figure. I am saying that anyone who was engaged in Storming of the United States Capitol AND covered in multiple RS should be treated as a "high-profile individual" (which I assume is the same as a "public figure" per this guideline). This is not just a political demonstration, but a unique and extremely high profile event in the history of USA, and the storming was a de facto "attention-seeking" activity which they did voluntarily, My very best wishes (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I disagree that storming the Capitol alone was a "de facto attention-seeking activity" (and that would also not be sufficient to establish an individual limited public figure under U.S. law, which requires an individual to have prominently participated in a controversy, regardless of how "high profile" the controversy), but I think we at least identified where we disagree. I don't think that WP:BLPCRIME no longer applies to hundreds of individuals solely from their participation in trespassing into the Capitol to overturn an election. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
            • And you are saying this guy is not seeking public attention? Look at him. Of course he does. He wants to make a political statement so that everyone knows. This is all a political performance, as usually during such events. That's why he dressed himself this way, just like the horn helmet-wearing "shaman". They have achieved their glory. My very best wishes (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
              • My very best wishes, I have already twice mentioned "individuals who had given interviews during the event or had been hosting their own podcast or Youtube show during it". That first article does not provide a lot of content for the Facebook livestream, such as whether it was public, and I would be interested in additional sources. As for Jacob Chansley, I do not believe anyone has argued that he is not a public figure, as he has repeatedly interacted with the media and that article also describes him as having a "leadership in the QAnon movement". However, Chansley being a public figure does not mean that everyone arrested for entering the Capitol was engaged in "a de facto attention-seeking activity" as you stated in your previous comment. I believe that the sources need to show that each person whose name is added was themselves engaged in activity that would make them a public figure. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                • No, my link was about another guy (not Chansley), one that you someone unilaterally removed from this page [9]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                  • My very best wishes, I think you need to check your diffs. You linked to two articles in your previous comment (including one about Chansley), and I have never edited this article at all. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                    • wallyfromdilbert Please don't WP:BLUDGEON the debate. You've said your piece. Bacondrum 05:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                      • Bacondrum#s, I don't know what you are talking about, but responding back to someone in a conversation is not bludgeoning the debate. Please take your advice elsewhere. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                        • please read the guideline and stop. Bludgeoning is disruptive and can lead to sanctions. Bacondrum 08:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                          • Bacondrum#s, your accusation is ridiculous. Please feel free to take me to ANI or else please stop yourself. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                            • A lot of them did broadcast their participation (hence the "attention-seeking"). That's why I gave this link as an example. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                              • My very best wishes, yes, and I already responded to that link by asking if you had any others since that article provides little context and does not mention whether the stream was public (while also characterizing the livestreaming as an "accusation" from a "newly unsealed criminal complaint", which to me implies it may not have been public). You may want to reread my responses to you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Partial support: The former candidates for public office have certainly crossed the threshold of being a public figure (pretty much by definition), so Ochs and Garcia should definitely be mentioned by name. I don't think the other people mentioned are notable enough, their social media views appear to be in the hundreds and the fact that they're trying to be a social media figure doesn't actually make them a public figure.Shadybabs (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

New Wikipedia article

Please take a look at Ethan Nordean. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Update on local chapter controversy

Article addresses local chapter devolution due to the national brand controversies.

Some chapters seem to be clarifying their opposition to the unlawful violent acts allegedly perpetrated by national level figures.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/12/proud-boys-splintering-after-capitol-riot-revelations-leader/6709017002/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, If I had to summarize that article, I point out the following:

• The Proud Boys has long been a refuge for white supremacists, anti-Semites and assorted extremists seeking a veneer of legitimacy.
• state chapters disavow the group's chairman
• leaders bicker in public
• Tarrio was arrested days before the Capitol riot and charged with two federal weapons charges
• Tarrio was outed as a longtime FBI informant
• members of the group were arrested for their involvement in the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6
• on Feb. 3, Canada designated the Proud Boys as a domestic terrorist group
• three state chapters denounced Tarrio
• three state chapters proclaim their independence from central Proud Boy leadership
• experts are concerned about more radical factions of the Proud Boys emerging

Your summary suggests that the article says something it doesn't.The article does not say that Some chapters seem to be clarifying their opposition, not does it say that the unlawful violent acts were allegedly perpetrated by national level figures. Vexations (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The spirit of the article appears to be;

3 local chapters have distanced themselves from national level leadership, due to the loss of the air of respectability resulting from the January 6th involvement.

I post it here because is catalogues the chapter rift (which should be included), the other information has already been included. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, we probably should, if we had sources that say that say that the rift is due to the the national leadership supporting the storming of the capitol, and regional leadership opposing it. This is not such a source, because the article does not say why the three chapters distanced themselves. "The barrage of controversy, discord and betrayal seems to have been too much for at least three state chapters of the Proud Boys, who used the messaging app Telegram to denounce Tarrio and proclaim their independence from central Proud Boy leadership." That this is due to the loss of the air of respectability is WP:OR, so we can't say that. Vexations (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

the "air of respectability" part is listed in this very article, though, to be clear. They are insinuating that this is the reason for the distancingTuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree with TuffStuff, the article is clear as to why they are splitting: the loss of the any pretense to an "air of respectability" resulting from the January 6th involvement. That article was a good read, by-the-way, thanks. Bacondrum 23:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, We paraphrase what sources say, not what they insinuate. What we might say is that the Alabama, Indiana and Oklahoma chapters have temporarily disassociated themselves from Tarrio and "the Elders". The "Any air of respectability is gone" quote could be attributed to Daryle Lamont Jenkins, but not to the PBs themselves as the motivation for their move. If we're going to mention the stated desire to return to "brotherhood and beer", (which is the PBs POV) we should also mention that experts like Amarasingam and Jenkins consider their masquerade a ruse, "western chauvinism" a dogwhistle and the schism an attempt at whitewashing. Vexations (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)