Talk:Proud Boys

Questioning the sourcing on "white nationalist"

There are three sources used to justify the label, and only one of the three actually claim that the proud boys are a white nationalist organisation.

• The first, The New York Times, doesn't really come close. It's describing the Canadian government's designation of them as a terrorist group, and quotes the Canadian government's opinion that some ("and/or") of the members espouse white supremacist views and have links to other white supremacist groups: In its designation, the Canadian government said members of the Proud Boys “espouse misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, and/or white supremacist ideologies and associate with white supremacist groups.” The New York Times doesn't describe them as a white supremacist organisation, it's just quoting what the Canadian government said. They instead chose to describe them as the "Proud Boys, a far-right, all-male organization".

• The second, NBC, comes a little closer, but still no cigar. It describes them as the Proud Boys, the far-right extremist group, and then goes onto say that they are a key player in the U.S. white supremacist movement. This is describing in vague terms their broader relation to "the white supremacist movement", it is again not describing the Proud Boys as a white nationalist organisation, and is clear in their designation of them as a "far-right extremist group".

• The third, NPR, does, with a quote a little way down the article: "The Proud Boys is a white nationalist organization with multiple U.S. chapters."

I don't think a single line in an NPR piece is enough to justify the label. Reliable sources discuss the Proud Boys a lot, and all (bar that one sentence in NPR) seem to only go as far as to describe them as something like "far-right extremists" or "neo-fascists" at the most. Wikipedia should describe the Proud Boys as reliable sources do and not create our own spin. Volteer1 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1, I don't quite see why the Canadian government's "opinion" (is that really what it is, mere opinion?) should be disregarded, but this article may be a better source for the claim : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/proud-boys-white-supremacist-group-law-enforcement-agencies It's almost exclusively about how US government agencies assess the group. Vexations (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The word "opinion" there wasn't doing any work for my argument, feel free to ignore it. To be clear, they are not even quoting the Canadian government calling them a white supremacist group, they are quoting the Canadian government saying that some(!) of its members are white supremacists. Your source is closer to what we're looking for here, but still only says that some US agencies label them as white supremacists, and some don't: "the Proud Boys, who some of the US agencies label as “white supremacists” and “extremists”, and others as a “gang”". That seems worth mentioning and shouldn't just be "disregarded", but is not something that supports flatly stating in the opening sentence that it is true of them if reliable sources don't claim it to be so. Volteer1 (talk)

Volteer1, fascist gets more hits than white nationalist, and white supremacist gets over twice as many hits as either, but white nationalist seems the most anodyne. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If that's the way they are widely described by reliable sources it should be very easy to find a source, just stating that they obviously exist isn't enough. Volteer1 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian article says that several law enforcement officers have referred to them as a white supremacist group, according to leaked correspondence. Not a strong source. It seems to me that instead of identifying the best sources, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League and academic literature on the far right and using their descriptions, we have decided to call them white supremacist and look for sources to validate our opinions. That's why we use a throw away line from NPR. TFD (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that does seem do be what has happened here, which is unfortunate. I think unless someone can provide sources for it, it should probably be removed for now. Volteer1 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I just did a very quick check on google and there's plenty of reliable sources that describe them explicitly as White nationalist. See below:

Comment - A number of organisations monitoring them have noted the connection:

• The SPLC “Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions: rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists,” “Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions: rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists,”
• The FBI has described them as an "extremist group with ties to white nationalism" https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/20/fbi-says-proud-boys-have-white-nationalist-ties-law-enforcement-officials-say/
• This claim is the strongest, an article by academic subject matter expert Candyce Kelshall - Adjunct Professor, Buckingham Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, University of Buckingham in The Conversation "The Proud Boys are a far-right white nationalist organization" https://theconversation.com/designating-the-proud-boys-a-terrorist-organization-wont-stop-hate-fuelled-violence-154709
• The Independent "The FBI says its warning law enforcement across the country about the white nationalist, all-male group"

Again, this was a very quick look, I'm not convinced that it's an unverifiable claim, it's verifiable...also, NPR is a reliable source. I see no reason to remove on verifiability grounds - numerous reliable sources describe them as such. Their leader being Afro Cuban is irrelevant, people do all kinds of crazy stupid shit all then time, who knows why they do it. Bacondrum 05:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I reckon a proper RfC is probably the best course of action here, allow people to present sourcing and debate merits of claim, there's certainly enough evidence at a cursory glance to leave the status quo for now. Bacondrum 05:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The SPLC and FBI noting their ties to white nationalism/nationalists should be written about, but it is not a source for the label. The Independent source can't be used as per WP:HEADLINE given it only goes onto say The FBI has described the Proud Boys as an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism” in the body of the article, which is again the same as the previous two you mentioned. To sum up, we now have two sources for the label:

• 1: A throwaway line a fair way down an NPR article

• 2: A statement from Professor Candyce Kelshall, published in The Conversation.

We should use the terminology widely used by reliable sources, not decide ourselves what we think applies and go digging for rare exceptions in the (vast!) coverage of the group by reliable sources to justify our own views. It still does not make sense to describe them using a contentious label almost never used by reliable sources in the first sentence, clearly in flagrant violation of MOS:LABEL. I wouldn't be opposed to an RfC, but it's been almost a week now and we still haven't been able to properly source a contentious claim in the first sentence of the article, so I'm still uncomfortable with it remaining at present. Volteer1 (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Far right for sure but I don't think white nationalists are a proper description. Where in any of their official literature is there word one about white nationalism?

Im not a Proud Boy myself but lean conservative and I've met many Proud Boys that aren't white.

Can't help but feel there is some serious spin goin on here. Iscream22 (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As I argued above, all we have are a few passing references to them as white nationalist for example in the NPR artcle. What we require is expert opinion that says this is a generally accepted description, per Exceptional claims. The Proud Boys are best seen as a catch all group for the far right, uniting racists, Islamophobes, anti-Semites, misogynists, QAnon conspiracy theorists, sovereign citizens and other groups. It's wrong to say that the Proud Boys have positions on each and every one of these issues, in the way that older far right groups do. Hence the SPLC, which is the most authoritative source for current information about the far right, lists them as a general hate group rather than a white nationalist hate group. Its members can and do have contradictory views on white supremacy. While it's tempting to name 'em and shame 'em as white supremacists, I think that dishonesty is ultimately counter-productive. There is a public benefit in providing an honest description of the group, based on expert opinion, rather than hope to discredit them by making false claims. TFD (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop accusing others of being dishonest and making false claims. You want an "honest description of the group, based on expert opinion" here's an article by academic subject matter expert, Adjunct Professor, Buckingham Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, University of Buckingham, Candyce Kelshall - in The Conversation, a top tier reliable source that publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. "The Proud Boys are a far-right white nationalist organization" that's pretty explicit. seeing we are decending into personal attacks I'm gonna start an rfc, get more feedback. Bacondrum 21:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That's the first expert I have seen describe it that way. But coming to a conclusion and searching for sources to support your opinion is not the correct approach to articles. In this case, the article was written after you formed your opinion. REDFLAG applies.

What I look for in a source about this type of claim is one that is about the Proud Boys or white supremacist groups that explains why it should be labelled as such and tells us how accepted that description is. I can find lots of such sources about the Liberal Party of Canada calling it a liberal party, although that is hardly a REFLAG claim.

04:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC - White Nationalist

Is the claim labeling the Proud Boys "White nationalist" verifiable and due?

• (A) - Yes
• (B) - No

Thanks Bacondrum 21:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• (A) Yes - At a cursory glance many sources describe them as such including:

* academic subject matter expert, Adjunct Professor, Buckingham Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, University of Buckingham, Candyce Kelshall - in The Conversation: "The Proud Boys are a far-right white nationalist organization" https://theconversation.com/designating-the-proud-boys-a-terrorist-organization-wont-stop-hate-fuelled-violence-154709

* Another reliable source, NPR says: "The Proud Boys is a white nationalist organization with multiple U.S. chapters." https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/19/958240531/members-of-right-wing-militias-extremist-groups-are-latest-charged-in-capitol-si

* The SPLC doesn't label them explicitly White nationalist, but does say this: “Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions: rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists,”

* The FBI has described them as an "extremist group with ties to white nationalism" https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/20/fbi-says-proud-boys-have-white-nationalist-ties-law-enforcement-officials-say/

* The Independent "The FBI says its warning law enforcement across the country about the white nationalist, all-male group"

That was just a quick google search - I reckon that's a verifiable claim. Bacondrum 21:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• (B) - No: per MOS:LABEL. As said above, The Independent source can't be used per WP:HEADLINE (the body of the article only goes onto say "the FBI has described the Proud Boys as an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism") and the SPLC and FBI denoting their ties to white nationalism/white nationalists are relevant information but not a source for the label. This means we have just two sources:

• 1: A throwaway line from an NPR article

• 2: A statement from Professor Candyce Kelshall, published in The Conversation (who I'll note for some reason thought the Proud Boys are just based in Canada)

From MOS:LABEL: contentious labels "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". What's happened here is we've decided ourselves what label we think applies and gone digging for rare exceptions in the vast coverage of the group by reliable sources to justify our own views. This is why all we've got is a throwaway line in an NPR piece tangentially related to the proud boys and a professor's statement published by The Conversation, despite the hundreds of reliable sources covering the Proud Boys. We cannot describe them using a contentious label almost never used by reliable sources in the first sentence, this should be an extremely simple choice. Volteer1 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes: I think Bilorv's sources are sufficient to say the term "white nationalist" is "widely used by reliable sources" to refer to the Proud Boys. By my interpretation of MOS:LABEL, a term is "widely used by reliable sources" if a wide variety of reliable sources use it. Some other reliable sources not using it is not counter-evidence for the term. Otherwise one could use military histories of World War II to argue that the Nazis weren't white nationalists, since there are a ton of works about them that don't directly talk about their ideology at all. Loki (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

We currently have two usable reliable sources. What are the sources (Bilorv?) you're referring to that support the label? Volteer1 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There aren't two, there are five. The distinction between "The Proud Boys are white nationalist", "the Proud Boys have ties to white nationalism", and "the Proud Boys say white nationalist things" is a nitpick. (Also, what's this Independent source? Nobody has linked it and neither of the Independent articles used as sources in the main article has the lines you quoted.) Loki (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither "rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremist" and being an "extremist group with ties to white nationalism" are the same as a white nationalist label, that's not a nitpick. I don't know why you'd think having ties to something and being something are the same thing, and having members who are white nationalists is not the same as being a white nationalist organization (e.g. is it fair to say that the Republican Party is a "white nationalist organization" because of Steve King?). This a distinction the SPLC clearly recognises otherwise they would've just called them a white nationalist group like they do for groups who are indeed white nationalist groups, but they chose not to. This is the source Bacondrum was referring to, is that who you meant? Volteer1 (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Per Bacondrum.--Jorm (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• (B) - No Having ties to white nationalists is not the same things as saying the group is white nationalist. While they draw support from them, they also draw support from other elements of the far right that are not white nationalists. Otherwise all we have are passing references to them as white nationalist and no evidence that most sources describe them that way. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which is the most authoritative source for current information about the American far right, does not include them in their list of white nationalist hate groups. I note too that the one source that called them white nationalist also said they were based in Canada, which is incorrect. TFD (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• (B) - No, but also (A) - Yes. Definitely should not be the first thing in the lead, but could be included in the body with attribution. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Up until a few weeks ago they had an afro-cuban chairman. They specifically list anti racism as a core tenet. Calling them white nationalists is absurd. It is a disgrace to this project and obviously put in there for spurious motove Ryantheviking (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• (B) - No: The organization is referred to as having links to white nationalist people and groups - as a result of their far-right extremist associations, and even notably includes members who hold such views (in spite of tenets which oppose and reject them). The idea that a belief in "western values" makes a person or group "white nationalist" is a criticism of most fraternal organizations throughout the western world and is not unique to the proud boys, except for the ideologically driven charges that recur in "reliable sources", however vaguely alleged. The group is clearly a bunch of insensitive, polemecist, bigots (I don't think they would disagree) - but the only consistent messaging against 'others" could be toward illegal hispanic immigrants; primarily considered white and culturally western/christian - and Muslims; a significant portion of which are also considered white according to standard legal demographic measuresTuffStuffMcG (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I dug into it. The description by sources is varied. Here's some I found.

Describe the Proud Boys as "white nationalist": Politico, LA Times, Variety, and The News & Observer (Or C-SPAN? I can't tell who wrote that video description.)

Describe the Proud Boys as having "ties", "overlap with", or "connections to" white nationalist figures or rhetoric: The FBI, the SPLC, The Washington Post, CNN, NBC, USA Today, and Snopes

Curiously, I found an NPR article that describes the Proud Boys as "neo-Nazi".

Doesn't seem super clear-cut to me, but there it is for your consideration. If I had to pick a side I'd go with where the bulk of sourcing is here: "ties" or "overlap" with white nationalism. --Chillabit (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: The video caption describing the Proud Boys as "white nationalist" on The News & Observer appears to have been written by that website, or somebody affiliated with it, not by C-SPAN. Inferred from the fact that the same caption is not on C-SPAN's page for the video which that clip appears to have been pulled from. --Chillabit (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• (A) Yes per Bacondrum FiduciaryAkita (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• (A) Yes - The preponderance of reliable sources ties them directly other white supremacist organizations and point out their own actions as supporting that worldview. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• (B) No per Volteer1. The article should mention their ties to white nationalism, but based on the sources provided, we shouldn't call the organization "white nationalist" in Wikipedia's voice in the lead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• (B) No - Certainly OK to say something like "many sources and organization have described the Proud Boys as white nationalists", but not OK to say it in Wikipedia voice. NickCT (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Designated as terrorist organization

The infobox has “designated as a terrorist organization by: Canada”. It doesn’t seem right to have this information in the infobox, because it is not really a property of the group, rather an action taken against them. Would it make more sense to add a sentence to the end of the first paragraph like “The group has been designated a terrorist organization by Canada”? Fwaff (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Other articles are inconsistent on this, for example Al-Qaeda has it in the infobox but Hezbollah does not. Fwaff (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the info-box. Al Qaeda, unlike the Proud Boys was set up with the objective of carrying out terrorist attacks. Their founders believed that these attacks would motivate the people to overthrow the ungodly and establish an Islamic state. But the Proud Boys and Hezbollah do not have terrorism as their major objective. The fact that countries classify them as terrorist is irrelevant. The Canadian government could probably be considered terrorist under U.S. law for not following the Cuba embargo. TFD (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If you don't believe terrorism is a founding aspect of the Proud Boys, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Their entire existence is predicated on threatening minority groups and their rhetoric is entirely built around preparing to fight others. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't a founding aspect, I said it was not their major objective. Do you have statistics about how many Proud Boys have been accused of terrorist offenses? TFD (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you not notice all the Proud Boys being arrested for their actions in the Jan 6 assault on Capitol Hill? And that PB chatrooms were used to organize said violence? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

are the Proud Boys designated as a terrorist organization by Canada? If so there's nothing really to discuss. If the Proud boys are designated as a terrorist organization by Canada then there's obviously no issue what-so-ever with including that fact, in-fact it would be a balatant case of non-NPOV to exclude this information. There's a lot of red-herrings and opinion in these debates. Reliable sources claim that the Proud Boys designated as a terrorist organization by Canada, we reflect that...there's no reason to be talking about Cuba and Hezbollah here. Bacondrum 21:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There's discussion at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 15#Calls to define Antifa as a terrorist organization and other places where some editors think we should call it a terrorist group because the U.S. attorney general has done so. I don't know if Nazi Germany had such a list but I bet they would have added the original antifa. Your argument is that we should do so because his counterpart in Canada has done so, albeit by executive order. TFD (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the article should state that fact, but whether it belongs in the info-box. We don't even use Southern Poverty Law Center descriptions in the info-box. The SPLC incidentally have designated the Proud Boys as a general hate group. TFD (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this conversation right here shows the extreme left wing bias of some contributors. Burgs2016 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I get into the same discussions with right-wing editors who want to classify antifa as a terrorist group. I haven't seen any actual experts weigh in on this but similar groups in the past have not been described that way. TFD (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thing is no state has classified antifa as a terror group - we don't give any regard to unsourced and tendentious claims, so that's a moot point. The fact remains that Canada has designated the PB's a terrorist organisation, it's not merely a claim by the SPLC or a random news outlet. I think a large stable democratic state like Canada declaring a group as a terrorist organisation is non-controversial in terms of inclusion, I think it's unexceptionably and highly notable and can certainly be included in the info box. That doesn't mean it has to be included, but I can see no policy based reason not to include...unless it's not true that Canada has declared them to be terrorist, but I just googled the claim and it's easily verifiable. Bacondrum 23:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• For the record, the way we put it in the info box is the right way to treat this. It's a plain statement of fact. It's certainly no small thing that Canada has made this designation, it's not like Canada is a banana republic with a hyperbolic dictator making politically driven declarations willy-nilly. Looking at the info box help page and policy guidelines the inclusion of such a significant designation by a nation like Canada is definitely due in the infobox, IMO. Bacondrum 23:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

We have to bear in mind that the Criminal Code of Canada uses a definition of terrorism which may not be the same as, in fact is not the same as, any definition used in in reliable sources. Here is the relevant legislation:

Part II.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada:[1]

List of Entities

83.05 (1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish a list on which the Governor in Council may place any entity if, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that

(a) the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity

Interpretation

terrorist activity means

b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

(ii) that intentionally

(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) endangers a person’s life,

(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or

(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm....

So the attack on the Capitol represents a terrorist act, since it disrupted the count of the electoral votes, and since the Proud Boys participated they are a terrorist group. Of course that is only my guess, because the reasons for the decision are protected under the Official Secrets Act. And while the Proud Boys may challenge the finding in court, they have no right to see the evidence against them. None of this of course could happen in the U.S. where accused people have the right to see the evidence against them and due process. And it adds nothing we did not already know. We know that the Proud Boys disrupted Congress when it was counting the electoral votes. The fact that the Canadian government considers this to be an act of terrorism and the reason to call them a terrorist group is of less significance that the findings of the SPLC, which is not a random group but the most authoritative source on the U.S. far right.

Although Canada is not a banana republic, I do not welcome the day where we accept government assessments made in secret with no review. There is to me a certain fascist tone to that approach.

TFD (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested in wikilawyering claims, and this "Although Canada is not a banana republic, I do not welcome the day where we accept government assessments made in secret with no review. There is to me a certain fascist tone to that approach." You can't be serious? "certain fascist tone" Really? Come on, you're usually more reasonable than that. The fact remains that Canada has designated them a terror group and we reflect that, rightfully so. Bacondrum 05:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think we've reached an impasse if we are discussing the fascist tone of the Canadian government. Do you wanna create an RfC? Bacondrum 05:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

{{outdent}The Canadian government has a specific standard for listing an organization as terrorist which differs from that used in reliable sources. Under its definition, the U.S. could be described as a terrorist organization since among other things it has funded terrorist organizations in third world countries such as the Nicaraguan Contras. In fact, Canada put the U.S. on a list of countries that torture folks.[2] I don't remember you hollering to add it to the United States info-box.

I see a problem when we assign greater reliability to executive orders from governments than we do expert opinion by respected sources such as the SPLC and academic publishers. In fact Attorney General William Barr called antifa a terrorist organization, but Trump could not issue an executive order because there was no enabling legislation. But had he done so, you would be arguing that the U.S. is not a banana republic and who the hell are the SPLC and so-called experts to question the President of the United States. Don't think that just because someone is president of the United States or prime minister of Canada that they know more about science, social sciences, geography, etc. than experts do. Let's not change the climate change and evolution articles if the Republicans take back the White House in 2024.

The evidence required to list a terrorist group in Canada is "reasonable grounds," which is below the standard of balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt which are required by courts. Its safeguards are weaker than the UK, Australia and NZ, which also keep lists.[3] In this case, a statement by U.S. intelligence that they suspect that at least one member of the Proud Boys engaged in terrorism would be sufficient to add the group to the list. The listing has been criticized by Canadian civil rights groups for abusing human rights and for factual errors in listing.[4] The Minister of Public Safety, Bill Blair, ordered kettling during the 2010 G20 summit, leading to charges against 45 Toronto police officers who carried out his orders.[5]

TFD (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

In this case, a statement by U.S. intelligence that they suspect that at least one member of the Proud Boys engaged in terrorism would be sufficient to add the group to the list.

Again, multiple Proud Boys & their chat rooms either assisted in organizing the Jan 6 attack on the capital or participated in it.

Federal prosecutors and the FBI have accused self-identified Proud Boys of leading some of the earliest, most destructive and critical efforts to overrun police lines and break into the Capitol building. Two have been charged with counts listed as federal crimes of terrorism, relating to destruction of government property to intimidate or coerce the government.

References

Is that sufficient? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course not. Reliable sources do not classify a group as a terrorist organization because two of its members have been charged under U.S. anti-terrorism legislation. The French government blew up a Greenpeace ship, the U.S., Russian, North Korean and Saudi governments have ordered assassinations. But none of these governments are considered terrorist organizations even by the U.S. government. Per no synthesis, we report the conclusions of reliable sources, we don't make those determinations ourselves.

Again, under modern thinking, governments are no longer considered infallible and we place our trust in experts. Otherwise, we would have to change our articles on climate change, evolution and many other topics every time Americans elected a new president.

TFD (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I had no idea that Canada put the U.S. on a list of countries that torture folks. They do torture people and that;'s a shameful fact. I don't know what else you want me to say. This conversations getting way off track - fascism and US torture? Lets get back on topic and get comments from other editors, I'll start an RfC. Cheers.Bacondrum 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As I fully expected, you went back on your word, TFD. You asked for government intelligence agencies accusing any Proud Boy member of terrorism, and I supplied that. You then turned around and moved the goalposts. I'm done engaging with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find any of the supposed charges against Dominic Pezzola and William Pepe for terrorism. It's not mentioned in the DOJ press release[6] or in the indictment.[7] All the charges are under Title 18 of the United States Code, which is the U.S. criminal code. While Chapter 113b of the code includes terrorism, they were not charged under any of its sections. And contrary to the WP article, the "destruction of government property to intimidate, coerce, or retaliate against government action" is not a crime of terrorism under Title 18.

Incidentally, under political pressure the U.S. was removed from the list. The purpose of the list had been informational for Canadian diplomats and intelligence, not intended to discredit other countries.

Also, you are misunderstood my statement about government intelligence agencies accusing any Proud Boy member of terrorism. I wrote that."In this case, a statement by U.S. intelligence that they suspect that at least one member of the Proud Boys engaged in terrorism would be sufficient to add the group to the list." You even repeated it. I was referring to the criteria used by the Canadian government to list a group, not whether we should add it to the info-box.

TFD (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday the FBI said they do not classify the group as terrorists, repeating what they said after a controversy in 2018.

Canada did declare them one.

The assertion that the SPLC is authoritive is frightening though. The FBI quit using them as a resource. They are a special interest group stacking money in the cayman islands off a fear monger racket. If the PBs are terrorists because they inspired someone to riot at the capital.... then the splc are definitely a terror group..being at the root of the shooting at the family research council which actual terrorism charges were involved Ryantheviking (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The story that the FBI stopped using the SPLC turned out to be false. Their opinions are routinely cited by news media and were used by the British government. Academic sources on the far right routinely use their research. I don't see why you are arguing about them though because they do not classify the Proud Boys as neofascist, white supremacist or terrorist. TFD (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC - designated as a terrorist organization

Recently Canada designated the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization. The article currently states this fact in the info box. Should this information be included in the info box? Is it due?

• (A) - Yes
• (B) - No

Thanks Bacondrum 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• (A) Yes - We are not stating in Wikivoice that they are terrorists. Canada has designated them a terror organisation, that is highly notable and it is a verifiable fact. Canada is a major liberal democracy and shares a large land border with the USA. These are the kinds of important facts and statistics that should be included in an infobox. Bacondrum 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• (A) Yes - The fact is that they are a designated terrorist group in Canada. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• (B) No. The Canadian terrorism list lacks sufficient noteworthiness for inclusion in the info-box, although it should be included in the article. There are are also major concerns expressed by Canadian legal experts about its accuracy. TFD (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  The Four Deuces, do you have a source for those "major concerns"? I am well aware that the decision to classify them has been questioned as unwise or counterproductive, but nobody has, to my knowledge, questioned the legality of the designation. Vexations (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Kent Roach and Craig Forcese, who are experts, wrote "Listing has also been used with respect to individuals, but such listings in Canada have already produced false positives, perhaps because of the due process deficits of listing by the executive."[8] While they didn't specifically question any of the existing listing of groups, they questioned its methodology. It's a decision made by a politician with no external review. TFD (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That all sounds awfully tangential and like original research to me. Doesn't change the fact that a major liberal democracy has in-fact listed them as a terror group. Bacondrum 08:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Four Deuces, That article was published 28 Feb 2018. Vexations (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, and it was cited in a 29 January 2021 letter sent by the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations, which includes the ACLU and Canada's equivalent to the Canadian government.[9] Incidentally, as these sources show, the legality of the listings cannot be challenged. We're talking about Canada, not the U.S. or Europe. Bacondrum, living in a liberal democracy means taking the word of experts over some former police officer who's been appointed to the cabinet. Incidentally you should read about about Mohamedou Ould Salahi, whose story The Mauritanian just won several Golden Globe awards. He was wrongfully imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for fourteen years as a terrorism suspect and blames Canadian intelligence for providing the U.S. with the false information that led to his arrest.[10] TFD (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  The Four Deuces, if I understand you correctly then, we should never follow how a government designates an organization, but in stead rely on academic sources. Is that a fair summary?

  Now, if we follow the people who wrote the letter you cite, can we then describe the Proud Boys as a " violent white nationalist organization", because THEY do. Vexations (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces thanks for the recommendation, what a horrible story, I'll check the film out for sure. We had a similar story here is Australia with David Hicks. Americas vile camp at Guantanamo really has no relationship to far-right extremists being designated a terror group by Canada though, that's a bit of a red herring - if it turned out Al Qaeda was merely an islamic men's shed group that would be more akin to what we are talking about. Stories of abuse like Mohamedou Ould Salahi's and David Hicks' pull at the heart strings, but the horrors of state agencies torturing and jailing innocent people people has little or nothing to do with the subject of this article. Bacondrum 20:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The relevance is that intelligence organizations are unreliable. I mentioned Guantanamo Bay because it is one of the few cases where there was some form of external fact checking. Ultimately, intelligence had to show persuasive evidence. The vast majority of these suspected terrorists were released without charge. Hicks plead guilty in return for immediate release, otherwise he would still be there. I don't think it is a mark of liberal democracy that we would accept the opinions of intelligence officers over expert opinion.

We should never accept a government designation of a group as authoritative. In addition to their lack of accuracy, governments frequently add and delete groups for political reasons. U.S. backed insurgents are called freedom-fighters, otherwise they are terrorists.

I wouldn't call the Proud Boys white supremacist on the basis of a letter by Canadian civil rights activists, per "Context matter." I would look for a source that specifically addresses the issue of whether they are a white supremacist group. A geology textbook for example might mention in passing biographical detail about Rick Perry, the former governor of Texas. But that wouldn't be my go to source if I was editing his article. Presumably they got their information from somewhere else. Since it's not particularly significant to the writers what he majored in at college, their statement would be less reliable that a biography written about him.

17:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• (B) No - What TFD said, also one country making the claim is no where near enough for it to be considered universal. Especially a less significant country like Canada. PackMecEng (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"Especially a less significant country like Canada." Terrance and Phillip will be furious! Poor old Canada. :D Bacondrum 21:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing personal against Canada! Heck I used to live about 30 minutes south of there and would visit all the time. Lovely place. PackMecEng (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, just kidding. Bacondrum 08:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Who's saying it should be considered universal? My understanding is that we're talking about the infobox, which specifically mentions it's a designation by Canada. Loki (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• (B) No – Per TFD's note of legal scholars disagreement/doubts, the notability of Canada's designation, and consistency for how the infobox template is used across Wikipedia. For a good comparison, the PKK is designated a terrorist organization by the EU, the US, Turkey, Japan and Australia. That's not included in the infobox because its designation as a terrorist organization is disputed, despite it being far more widely recognised and by far more notable countries than the Proud Boys are. It's not in the infobox for Hezbollah either, for largely the same reasons. The field in the infobox is meant for groups like Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram, groups that are widely recognised as terrorist organizations, which the Proud Boys is most certainly not. Volteer1 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I think those articles should have the countries that list them as terror organizations in their info box, that is highly pertinent information. A glaring absence, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)

• Yes. Proud Boys has sufficient activity in Canada that this designation is within their jurisdiction, and the US has no official designation for domestic terrorism but is clearly pursuing similar theories due to their role in the insurrection. It's time to stop pussyfooting around this. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"A country the organization is active in has designated it as a terrorist organisation" is not the standard for inclusion, it also needs to be WP:DUE. Again, see PKK and Hezbollah as compared to Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram for an understanding of how this field is used. Volteer1 (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This sounds more like weighted voting than due weight. If a domestic terror organisation operates in two (and only two) countries, the smaller one so designates it, and the larger one has no system of such designations, then ipso facto the 'electoral college' determines that they're not to be so described? But if the larger one did, and the smaller not, then they should? Or is your argument, or construal from a couple of fairly ad hoc seeming examples something else? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting populations and voting from, I'm just saying that it seems the existing consensus (i.e. the conclusion other editors have come to regarding the field across Wikipedia) for how WP:DUE applies to this field in the infobox is that it should be added for groups widely recognized as terrorist organizations, which is not true of the Proud Boys. Volteer1 (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

From a lack of clarity as to what sort of 'weight' criteria you had in mind, and your "the notability of Canada's designation" comment. Especially in the context of another editor's comment about 'a less significant country' -- which I'm still trying to work out if was a poor argument, or a poor joke -- and the opaque 'per others' concurrences elsewhere. Glad you're not applying that standard, then. So even if it were designated as a domestic terror organisation by both countries it operates in as such, the infobox shouldn't contain that, due to that not being 'wide' recognition? That doesn't seem to be the existing pattern at all, unless one is construing 'widely' in a manner that's presently still unclear to me. Indeed, it seems counter the entire logic of that markup and format: if a particular group is so-designated by a large number of countries, it gets entirely unmanageable in that format, and ends up being moved into a separate table in the body of the article, with or without a link from the infobox. And for further clarity: are you here distinguishing sharply between inclusion in Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by Canada and "designated_as_terror_group_by: Canada"? Or is the former also to be excluded on the basis of your concerns about "legal scholars disagreement/doubts", etc? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sooo, looking at the list of transclusions of the template, first one I clicked on was Ulster Defence Association: "|designated_as_terror_group_by = United Kingdom". So does this shed light on our "understanding of how this field is used", or is this wildly inappropriate? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

But the U.S. does have a designation for international terrorism and apparently the Proud Boys operate in both the U.S. and Canada, which makes it international. Perhaps the reason they have not listed it as a terrorist group is that it would not pass judicial review. TFD (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a very big perhaps - we have no idea...unless you are work for the US government and know something we don't (just kidding) :D Bacondrum 20:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I think maybe more like two very big perhapses strung end-to-end. The designation is 'Foreign Terrorist Organizations', and it's made by the State Department. Does that seem like a logical fit here, on any level? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

International means "of, relating to, or affecting two or more nations." (Websters)[11] Our friends in U.S. intelligence can call them international terrorists. TFD (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• No as per the reasons given by others. I thought I had already discuss this before, but I can't find what I wrote here or in the archives. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Emir of Wikipedia: Found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proud_Boys/Archive_6#%22Terrorist%22_in_intro_sentence. - 祝好，Sinoam^(聊天) 18:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Sinoam, thanks that was it. My same views still apply. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes: I don't see why a country isn't a reliable source or why its legal determinations wouldn't be WP:DUE. Loki (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• (B) - No adding "terrorist organization" to any group labeled as such by a single State is not a scalable idea. Canada's population is roughly the size of California, with just over half of its GDP. Should it be in the article? Definitely. Should it be in the infobox if there is a consensus among sovereign states? SureTuffStuffMcG (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• No Per the reasons given above.Sea Ane (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning toward yes. According to infobox, this is a terrorist organization "as designated by Canada". This is correct information. Simply placing "a terrorist organization" would be incorrect. But should such info be included to the infobox at all? This is less certain and more subjective. Would we like to include to the infobox such info for all organizations designated as "terrorist" by countries like Turkey or Russia? Probably not. However, in this specific case, not only Canada, but the US law enforcement organizations also say about their involvement to the recent "domestic terrorism" act. My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• No per reasons of Volteer1. Mention that it's designated as a terrorist organization by Canada in the description, but not in the lead or in the infobox. - 祝好，Sinoam^(聊天) 00:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• No per reasons of Volteer1. Eccekevin (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• No per TFD's reasons. Idealigic (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. It is a fact, and Canada’s decision to make such a designation is no small feat. The relevance of such a designation is further backed up by the fact that there is an active chapter of the Proud Boys in Canada. Including this in the info box is also consistent with other articles across Wikipedia. Fwaff (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes of course. The Template:Infobox_militant_organization includes the designated_as_terror_group_by label, which conveniently links to the List_of_designated_terrorist_groups which gives a good overview of who designates who as terrorist group. I don't see a convincing arguemnt presented why it should not be included in the infobox, especially since there is a field there with exactly this purpose. I also find the claim that Canada is somehow not noteworthy pretty absurd - since when is that a criterium? "The field in the infobox is meant for groups like Al-Qaeda" is also unconvincing, that is definitely not written anywhere. --Mvbaron (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• (A) - Yes: there's no dispute in reliable sources about this designation, so it's suitable for inclusion in the infobox. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

Hello, my concern stems from the fact that the “Proud Boys” are labeled a “white nationalist” group, yet the sitting Chairman is Cuban-American; by your sources. Seems a little political to label a group as such, and really just makes me not want to use the site. ✌️“Far-Right, Male only organization “ is just fine 2601:18D:8900:2210:202D:1D3C:5B55:BDD5 (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

See above, this is currently being discussed. You're welcome to add to that discussion if you'd like, though it looks it's concluding in agreement with removing the label. Volteer1 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I see only two editors agreeing, further discussion is warranted. Bacondrum 05:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit, Tarrio was voted out as chairman, and the description and listed beliefs are absurd

1) Tarrio is no longer the chairman 2) The list of ideology is blatantly false as the group has very clear tenets that have been on their website for years.

Anti semitism..lmao they have Jewish members and AP had pics of them flying an israeli flag at a march recently

White nationalism....until a few weeks ago the chair was afro-cuban, they have done joint press conferences recently with BLM and black members.

Someone with a major agenda to smear these guys is obviously editing this page.

We need to:

1) edit the leader section to reflect tarrio being voted out, they are now led by a confederation of autonomous chapters. Each chapter is basically an independent club.

2) Post the groups actual tenets under ideology, which 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

3) Change the description to:

Far-right men's fraternal organization and drinking club. Ryantheviking (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ryantheviking, please post some sources (WP:RS) to which we can attribute these changes. Note that their own website isn't enough to change otherwise sourced content. EDIT: Also if I may add, it's pretty ridiculous to descrive the PB as merely a "Far-right men's fraternal organization and drinking club", when even Fox news describes them as "far-right, male chauvinist extremist group known for engaging in violent clashes"... Besides wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not meant to parrot everyone's self-description. Mvbaron (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

We describe subjects in the way they are described by reliable, independent sources, not the way they describe themselves. There is absolutely no way this article is going to suggest in wikivoice that the Proud Boys' ideology is "anti-racial guilt" or "reinstating the spirit of Western chauvinism"–they can do their own PR on their own website, but Wikipedia is not a place for fluff pieces. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If you cannot source the groups own manifesto and tenets published years ago to describe their ideology than what are we even doing here?

Give me a few I will get source on the leadership change Ryantheviking (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"what are we even doing here?" Well, how would you write an encyclopedia? First and foremost, an encyclopedia collects reliable information. We can get this information from from reliable sources. We can't use North Korea's self-description as a "democratic people's Republic" either when they are obviously neither a democracy, nor a republic or of the people's... At best we can describe the contradiction between how an entity describes itself and how it is written about by everyone else basically. --Mvbaron (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: "what are we even doing here": As I said, we are writing an encyclopedia based on coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources. Thank you for finding a source on Tarrio's departure. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

How can I upload a pdf here Ryantheviking (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You should be able to link to a PDF hosted online as you would link to anything else. If the PDF is not hosted online, can you give me some more information about what it is? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

These are the complete unedited bylaws of the group. The LLC currently being sued, this is very explicit in a number of areas.

1) Violence outside of self defense is prohibited.

2) The tenets and detailed explanation are clearly spelled out, they are not racist. They are open to all races as well as gay members.

3) Those with white nationalist beliefs are clearly banned from membership.

The vote on Enrique Tarrio being removed and the new structure is not on any public link yet I will have to follow up on that Ryantheviking (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Look, for example, at the Nation of Islam entry:

The Nation of Islam (NOI) is an African-American political and new religious movement,[2][3][4] founded in Detroit, Michigan, United States, by Wallace Fard Muhammad on July 4, 1930.[4][5] Its stated goals are to improve the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of African Americans.[6] Its official newspaper is The Final Call. In 2007, the core membership was estimated to be between 20,000 and 50,000.[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam

It lists the stated goals of the entity and lists its publication.

Why are we treating these guys different? Ryantheviking (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Look at the citation [6], it cites the groups own website:

https://www.noi.org/noi-history/

I have to call BS on the idea we would refuse to note the organizations stated goals and beliefs because we do it everywhere else.

No qualms from me as far as citing press articles about legal trouble or incidents involving members but the ideology section should list those tenets Ryantheviking (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as the description as far right mens fraternity and drinking club that is widely known.

The place to list controversy or legal/criminal trouble is in the body of the entry Ryantheviking (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Trying to post citation links for this Ryantheviking (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I found a url for the content but it wont post Ryantheviking (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ryantheviking: Please stop copypasting the entire bylaws here, as it's a copyright violation. Please see WP:OTHERCONTENT -- I suspect many of the editors of this article have not edited Nation of Islam (I know I haven't) and it may be that that article has issues that need to be rectified (in which case you should raise your concerns at Talk:Nation of Islam) -- that does not mean we can introduce the same issues here. We can only use statements that an organization makes about themselves if they are "neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim", and trying to paint the PB as just a "drinking club" is both of those things. Find reliable, independent sources. Multiple editors have explained to you already what is needed in terms of sourcing, and continuing to insist upon using their bylaws instead of reliable sources is not going to get you anywhere as it directly contravenes this project's goals as an encyclopedia. If they would like to evangelize themselves, they can do so on their own web properties. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

-I do not have those concerns with the article. It makes perfect sense to source the groups stated beliefs when writing an encyclopedia.

It also makes sense to note if they have done something documentable to the contrary.

That would be ethical and honest. The current entry is not, and the other talk section notes other problems.

I was able to find a web link of the Constitution and Bylaws, to document.

I also found a number of independent sources to the drinking club portion.

Unfortunately for some reason I cannot add them in here.

Ryantheviking (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ryantheviking: If you are having trouble posting the links it is likely because they are on the spam disallowlist. Can you state (without linking) the domains the links are from? That may shed some light. I see you have said that you think you personally have been prevented from posting links by "vandal admins". Admins are not able to do such a thing; the link disallowlist applies to everyone.

Regarding the bylaws, I think you are not understanding me. No one is doubting that the text you posted earlier is the group's bylaws; we are saying that the bylaws are not what we will base this article around.

I will note that finding a few links that describe the PB as a drinking club might be enough to add a statement to the article, but will not be sufficient to replace the existing description unless you can show that that is the primary descriptor used among independent reliable sources. As someone who has read a fair number of RS that describe the PB, I think you will have a hard time doing that.

I would strongly recommend toning down the rhetoric about "slander" and "calculated and malicious attempts" to malign the group, and calling editors antifa. That is the kind of thing that will quite quickly earn you a topic ban from the American politics topic area. Comment on content, not contributors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ryantheviking The problem with all this is that we don't include self serving claims by a group that are contradicted by an inexhaustible number of reliable sources. You say we need to "Post the groups actual tenets under ideology" well that's not how encyclopedias work, we don't promote their ideals, we refelct what reliable secondary sources say about them. You say they are simply a "Far-right men's fraternal organization and drinking club" but that's demonstrably false, reliable sources tell us they are much more than just a drinking club for rednecks. You talk about other editors and the Nation of Islam, nothing to do with this article. And you say that they say the club prohibits violence, they are not racist, they are open to all races as well as gay members and prohibit white nationalist beliefs...but an inexhaustible list of reliable secondary sources say otherwise, so Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. We don't publish self serving claims. Bacondrum 20:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources are not reliable sources. Burgs2016 (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Burgs2016, that would be completely wrong. In fact, secondary sources are in general the most reliable ones. Mvbaron (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That's the most anti-academic thing I've heard. You cannot have only secondary sources in your writings. You can, however, have only primary sources in your writing. If you only have secondary sources, basically you are just writing gossip. No academic paper would pass any kind of serious reviews without primary sources. With that being said, the use of primary and secondary sources by the author is very important. With this writing on the Proud Boys, the bias is shown very clearly in how they use secondary sources. Any serious writer wouldn't use a secondary source to make a definitive claim. They would say "according to" or "some organizations say" or something like that. Secondary sources are NEVER reliable sources of outright claims. They can only be given as counter to or in support of other claims. Burgs2016 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Burgs2016: If you would like to suggest Wikipedia change its entire approach to sourcing, this is not the place. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The poster above said reliable secondary sources. I simply stated a fact in response. Secondary sources are not reliable sources. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. It has everything to do with poor writing skills. Secondary sources are important sources for investigative writing, but they are difficult to use in actual writing. No need to change the requirements, but writers and editors need to improve their individual skills. This article on the Proud Boys is extremely biased due to poor writing. Burgs2016 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Burgs2016, (1) you are completely mistaken about academic writing and the use of secondary sources. They are used all the time and you do not always have to attribute them. (quoting is enough). And secondly, (2) and you seem to be mistaken about wikipedia as an encyclopedia, please review this wikipedia policy: WP:SECONDARY: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."--Mvbaron (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Burgs2016 and I agree that everyone should focus on content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, I'm not :) But (Personal attack removed). Burgs2016 (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC) scratches head* please do not make personal attacks, and have a look at the link I gave you above: it gives a nice overview of how reliable sourcing (and secondary sourcing) works on wikipedia. cheers Mvbaron (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC) It's not a personal attack. You said I was mistaken. I'm not. I said you clearly prefer biased writing. This doesn't have anything to do with wikipedia's policies. This has everything to do with poor writing skills. Why change the subject unless you are the one getting frustrated here? Burgs2016 (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC) It is a personal attack, and please do not repeat it. This has everything to do with Wikipedia policies, which are quite explicit about using primary and secondary sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC) You are sensitive. It's not a personal attack. It's true. Burgs2016 (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC) If you would like to continue insulting editors, that's your prerogative, but I suspect outside editors will agree you are being incivil here. I think it would be more productive to focus on the article content and finding the sourcing to support your arguments rather than attempting to provoke editors here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Instead of crying about a perceived insult, it would be nice if people actually discussed my main concern, which is writing standards. Burgs2016 (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Instead of continuing to insult editors, it would be nice if we focused on the content. I think we agree here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The way a writer presents a secondary source IS the content. Could you make a serious counter argument to me, or are you just that intent on closing down disagreement? Also, "quoting is enough." That's not what happened here. This is purely just biased writing. I'm the one trying to get you guys to use proper writing methods and quoting standards. You either failed on purpose or failed due to not understanding how presentation of sources is more important than the source itself. Burgs2016 (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Burgs, it sounds like you're coming from an academic background. You need to understand that Wikipedia does not work like academic writing, and does not want to be like academic writing. Our style is very, very different. You'll have to adapt to this community's style. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If adapting to this style means creating false statement, like the Proud Boys as white supremacists, I think I'll just have to be a constant annoyance on an entrenched ideology here at Wikipedia. The Proud Boys are nationalists. They are violent. They hate Antifa. But I think the evidence, both primary and secondary sources, shows they are not white supremacists. Just like BLM and Antifa, there are fringe people who have all kinds of beliefs. I'm new, yes. But, it sounds like new perspectives are needed. What I'm proposing doesn't go against Wikipedia standards. I'm simple calling for presenting sources appropriately. An appropriate way to do that is to say that some believe they are white supremacists, but other easily obtainable secondary sources show not all members are white. This also gives the fringe idea that non-white people can be white supremacists a change to be presented. You guys are arguing based on Wikipedia rules, but I'm arguing solely based on writing standards. Burgs2016 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Writing

As a writer, you shouldn't take a stance on whether or not the Proud Boys are white nationalists or white supremacists. You should state the facts. The fact is that some media and some organizations refer to them as white nationalists or white supremacists, but their members are of mixed races and their leader, up until recently, was Afro-Cuban. It's just a matter of writing it like, "Some media and organizations refer to the Proud Boys as white supremacists or white nationalist, but their leader is Afro-Cuban and many of their members are of mixed races." Poor writing skills lead to misunderstandings. Burgs2016 (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Burgs2016: If reliable sources are largely in agreement that the Proud Boys are a white nationalist group, we say so without attribution. If there was disagreement among reliable sources, we might word it more along the lines of what you are suggesting (see WP:BALANCE), but so far no one has produced much in the way of usable sources that contradict. As for your suggestion that we add something like "but their leader is Afro-Cuban and many of their members are of mixed races", please see WP:SYNTH. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

How do you define "reliable secondary sources"? That's a very curious phrase. Any secondary source that labels black people as white supremacists is questionable to me. Any secondary source needs to provide primary sources as justification for their stance. Any secondary source that labels black people as white supremacists did not do any primary source investigation. Therefore, you cannot claim these secondary sources as "reliable." Burgs2016 (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Burgs2016, please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY to understand how wikipedia uses these. another quote from the wikipedia guidelines: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them". and "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources ... rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." Mvbaron (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Burgs2016: You might do well to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's basic policies before engaging here. I left a list of them on your talk page already. WP:RS is a key one, and it is quite clear that Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources (that same "curious phrase" I've just used). As for what is reliable, that's also defined in that policy, and you can peruse WP:RSP for a summary of community consensus on some commonly used (or suggested) sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You guys have a clear agenda here. I said that primary and secondary sources are both important. However, the writer clearly misused a secondary source to make an outright claim that can be easily dismissed through a simple primary source investigation. This has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. It's clearly a writing issue, because a misuse of a secondary source is a writing issue. This can be cleared up by simply stating that "some organizations and media refer to them as...." There are enough primary and secondary sources out there to show that the Proud Boys are not all white, which is a requirement to be a white supremacist or white nationalist organization. A simple google search of images would show you this fact, assuming you don't have time to actually look through video or actually meet some Proud Boys. Instead of repeating the personal insult that I don't understand the use of primary and secondary sources, which is hilarious, try to improve your own use of these tools. It's clear that writing standards have declined in the last few years, but this conversation is a disgrace. Burgs2016 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Burgs2016: You are free to have your own opinions on the value of primary and secondary sources, but what we are trying to make clear to you is that Wikipedia policy is quite clear on which kinds of sources must be preferred, and Wikipedia policy is what dictates how Wikipedia articles are written. If you would like to write about the Proud Boys using primary sources and your interpretation of images and your personal interactions with members of the group, please feel free to do so somewhere that is not here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how you can keep going with this. First of all, it is true that primary sources are better than secondary sources, and secondary sources need to be balanced with primary sources. However, given Wikipedia's stance on secondary sources, the focus should then be put on writing and use of such sources. As I stated over and over again, the writer clearly misused a secondary source. You can't make an outright claim based on secondary sources alone. It's the most pure form of biased writing. Also, what is a "reliable" secondary source? If the secondary source doesn't do any primary source investigation, is it reliable? If there is not primary source investigation, the secondary source is far removed from fact. It's opinion. If a secondary source says that the Proud Boys, a group led by an Afro-Cuban and includes many non-white people, is a white supremacist organization, they clearly did not do any primary source investigation. This is not how you determine a reliable source. It's not an opinion that anyone who claims a black person is a white supremacists is not trustworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgs2016 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Burgs2016: I have already linked you to the reliable sources policy, which outlines what makes a source reliable, and I will not continue to repeat myself here. If you would like to change how reliable sources are determined, feel free to suggest a change to policy, but until then we will go with what policy says. And no, it is not misusing a source to state unequivocally what reliable sources agree upon--it would be misuse to couch the statement in terms such as "some sources say" when there has been no disagreement in RS. We do not write that "some sources say the Earth is round". GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, it's a clear case of biased writing. You can change the writing to "according to..." or "... refers to them as...", but you think it's not important because of your opinions. That makes it a biased article. A simple google search of the previous leader refutes your secondary sources. Do you not see your bias? Burgs2016 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is quite clear that we must represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. That is what this article does. It does not say we should perform primary research, or tailor this article around what the group and its members say about themselves. In fact there is a box at the very top of the page explaining why we don't do that (ctrl-f "The Proud Boys have a history of self-published") GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wait a second, I think I see why we disagree. I think you misunderstand what a primary source is. It's not what the Proud Boys say about themselves. A primary source is a first-hand account of a specific topic. For example, a primary source could be a video of a fight between the proud boys and Antifa if you are talking about the specific fight. A primary source is the Proud Boys website if you are talking about the website. However, a primary source is not the website if you are talking about the overall premise of an argument. All of your findings lead up to that premise. A primary source is not a journalist who only heard about a fight between the Proud Boys and Antifa, but they weren't actually there. Stating that the Proud Boys are white supremacists without any primary sources is biased writing, which is why you need the "according to..." or ".. refers to them as ...." Primary sources and secondary sources change depending on the topic. This is why I say the writer misused a secondary source. Also, the argument presented here that there are no secondary sources that refute the other secondary sources saying they are white supremacists is either lazy writing or biased writing if done on purpose. Like I said, a simple google search of the leader would refute any ridiculous secondary sources. Again, this is not about Wikipedia standards. This is about the writer's standards, or lack of standards. You guys would get ripped apart in any real academic setting.

Either way, I'll just leave this conversation here and let people decide what they think. Personally I think it's dangerous to show left-wing leanings for Wikipedia (Yes, the writing is clearly left-leaning as evidenced by secondary source selection and presentation). Neutrality lasts longer. Burgs2016 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a fringe notion called "multi-racial whiteness" that is apparently accepted as consensus on Wikipedia. The notion that even an all-black conservative group which stands for equal protections and a traditional understanding of limited government could be considered "white nationalist"; if an article is published about them on in one or more "reliable source" that they support any of the structure that was initially built to benefit whites. The messaging as well as the ethnic composition of the group is irrelevant when compared with reliable sources who have an agenda to discredit them.

Does it sound crazy and not at all consensus to you? I agree with that assessment.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/24/960060957/understanding-multiracial-whiteness-and-trump-supporters

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: Please explain how it is "not at all consensus". You have in the past expressed chagrin (at this article and related topics) that the sources do not support your point of view, and seem to understand that as a result your point of view can't be reflected in articles, but it seems you are now saying that there is an actual disparity between this article and sourcing? Or am I misunderstanding? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is an article from another eastern seaboard professor I've never heard of. East Stroudsburg University is no NYU, though - so be careful believing the sensible but unreliable article at the expense of the nonsensical reliable article.

https://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-opi-historically-speaking-seventeen-brooks-20210220-igxf6rduvrg4tgycr2jsryeyfy-story.html

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's an op-ed. So I was indeed misunderstanding you, then? I have to admit I am becoming frustrated with you continuously using talk pages to opine on how the sources don't reflect your personal point of view, as it often serves to encourage newer editors who don't understand policy particularly well, who seem to think that articles ought to present a false balance. It also is often unclear to me whether you are just musing on how you think things ought to be, or actually trying to make a policy-based point that editors ought to respond to. This case is a good example. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't accept that a hypothetical all-black conservative organization which explicitly condemned racism could realistically be considered white supremacist/nationalist (although it would be inconceivably possible). I don't accept that such a notion is the academic consensus just because it appears in a few op-eds.

I'm explaining that this theory underpins the description of Proud Boys as white nationalist, and is accepted due to the rules of wikipedia regarding reliable sources. I'm sorry if I've made that unclear in any way. My advice to the poster is; read the rules and do better, dont just criticize editorsTuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think such a hypothetical is useful here; for one because the Proud Boys are majority white. A more useful question would be "do the Proud Boys, a group widely described as white nationalist, suddenly become not so because they have some members who are people of color?" So far the answer appears to be no, and I've yet to see you or other people present reliable sources (academic or otherwise) taking a different view. Your op-ed appears to be Brooks objecting to a different scholar who has said that people of color who hold white supremacist views can be described as "multiracially white". So far as I'm aware such a descriptor is not being used anywhere on Wikipedia–the only descriptor I've seen of Tarrio's race on Wikipedia is "Afro-Cuban". I don't think you are mistaken, but just to be extremely clear, calling someone a "white nationalist" means they hold white nationalist views, not that they are white, and also a nationalist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

So it is admitted that there is a clear attempt at bias writing here? "...it often serves to encourage newer editors who don't understand policy particularly well, who seem to think that articles ought to present a false balance." It is an easy google search to show that many members of the Proud Boys are not white. The omission here is on purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgs2016 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to avoid false balance is an attempt to avoid bias. WP:FALSEBALANCE. Perhaps you missed the word "false" in my statement, in which case I could understand your mistaken interpretation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's theory. In practice, this method created false statements. Burgs2016 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If your argument is that "there are non-white members, therefore the Proud Boys cannot be white supremacists," you need to actually educate yourself about white supremacist organizations. You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of this subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH. We are not going to throw out sourcing and policy to present what one editor believes to be true. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from person insults. I got into trouble for doing that same thing. I don't need to educate myself of white supremacy. I'm arguing that the source was misused, which created a biased article. You can still have the claim that they are white supremacists in the article, but the way it is written suggests the writer is the one who claims that. If I, an independent, questions your bias, you can bet that many readers are doing the same. The solution is as simple as saying "... refers to them as white supremacists; however, (other easily obtainable secondary sources) show that not all members are white." There is nothing wrong about this statement and it shows neutrality. The statement could then go on to say "... believes that white supremacy can, in fact, include members who are not white." Honestly, I'm trying to help you guys. I'm not one of these people arguing based on my own ideology. Personally, I think everyone is radical at this point, bu this has nothing to do with the poor writing standards. Burgs2016 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)