Talk:Proud Boys

Proud Boys Assassination Plot

The lawyer for the Proud Boys, and its former leader, Jason Lee Van Dyke, was implicated in an assassination plot that involves an audio recording made by an undercover FBI informant in which Van Dyke is plotting the murder of a person who he is suing, and that person's lawyer. According to the news reports, Van Dyke got members of the Arizona Chapter of the Proud Boys to do surveillance on the target and obtained photographs, as well as scouted places for them to shoot at the target with rifles. I think that this needs to be added to the article. Here are the news sources: https://setexasrecord.com/stories/528081198-motion-seeks-to-dismiss-van-dyke-s-100m-defamation-suit-assassination-plot-cited and https://www.dailydot.com/debug/proud-boys-lawyer-jason-van-dyke-death-threat/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bishop1914 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a bit of a stretch for this article. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Far-right?

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

---

Can we really say they are far-right and fascist when their members and chairman have repeatedly stressed the pro-western, libertarian/conservative ideology of the group with an inclusive open-door membership regardless of race/sexuality and other characteristics? Just because left-leaning publications claim they are something does not make it fact.Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources describe them as "far-right", then we describe them as "far-right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn't how a group describes itself and it's goals the primary determiner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CA01:BF60:9531:21C2:A90C:473F (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, because self-descriptions are rarely accurate and are in some case lies, which may be what's happening here.--Jorm (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The group's description of itself is a WP:Primary source, and one of the reason we try to avoid using primary sources when we can is that they can be self-serving, which is certainly the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I definitely have a conflict of interest here as a former proud boy, but if I thought the organization was affiliated in anyway to white nationalism/supremacy I would never have joined. I left not because I disagreed with the views, but because I felt the organization was roundly condemned for existing and falsely labeled as a white nationalist/alt-right group. No one I met in the course of my membership reflected those behaviors and beliefs - they were typically all right-wing libertarians and conservatives. And they weren't an all-white group in the slighest. I would think the recent events in the news would illustrate my point about what the media can do to people and groups. I do not believe it to be helping any to have Proud Boys associated with neo-fascism and white nationalism. It's disingenuous and perpetuates the culture war that is polarizing our country. [1] 209.112.216.241 (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your story is interesting, but not of much value to us. We report what reliable sources say about the subjects of our articles. WP:Reliable sources are ones which have a reputation for accuracy and for fact checking, and for correcting errors when they make them. Anecdotes such as yours do not qualify, and therefore cannot be used to support text in the article. Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposed change

Question asked and answered
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often participate in racist rallies, events, and organizations.[24] The organization glorifies violence, and members engage in violence at events it attends" this is unsupported by the citation and should be deleted. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC) The source says Although the group officially rejects white supremacy, members have nonetheless appeared at multiple racist events, with a former Proud Boy organizing the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. The group rallies around anti-left violence, and members of Proud Boy chapters in the Pacific Northwest have participated in public marches while wearing shirts that glorify the murders of leftists by Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. There is no need for a change in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Definitely need to remove "glorifies violence" as that is unsupported by the source. Also no mention of people associated with the Proud Boys movement "often" participating in racist rallies. There's also no proof that any violent actors were Proud Boys, so that needs to be removed. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)— ProudOfYourMan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Previous discussion solidified on that the Proud Boys "promote political violence"..."in parades and rallies across the country".Talk:Proud_Boys/Archive_2#RFC:_Promotes_Political_Violence We do not need "proof" that the Proud Boys were responsible for violence. We have reliable sources stating it. It's verifiable. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC) The article says "glorifies violence" but there's no source that supports that. And there is no reliable source for "often participating in racist rallies".ProudOfYourMan (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC) The source says Proud Boys are "appearing" at racist rallies; "participating" seems close enough. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Close enough" is hardly in keeping with Wikipedia policy. And there's still no source for "glorifies violence". ProudOfYourMan (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "There is consensus that the phrase ""promotes political violence"" should be included in both the infobox and the lead sentence of the article. Most editors believe that the description is a reasonable interpretation of reliable sources, and is a prominent enough facet of the Proud Boys to be due in both locations. A minority of editors assert that the description is not a fair interpretation of the sources." Talk:Proud_Boys/Archive_2#RFC:_Promotes_Political_Violence - SummerPhDv2.0 02:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC) There is no source for "glorifies violence" or "promotes violence". Without sources, this needs to be removed. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC) There are four sources that back up that assertion. Have you actually read those sources? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC) I was unable to find the source that says they "glorify violence" or "often attend racist rallies". This "close enough" bullshit is laughable and the above statements need to be deleted, as a good start to fixing this hit piece article. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Clearly you didn't read the article well. Give Gavin McInnis a good look as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC) So without a proper source for the above, the statements should be removed from the article. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC) You seem to be uninterested in reading anything which contradicts your assertions about Proud Boys, ProudOfYourMan. I'm getting close to the conclusion that you are not here to build the encyclopedia. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC) I'm going to close this as a waste of time around noon PST so we can move on from this.--Jorm (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Why would you close it when we haven't reached a conclusion? ProudOfYourMan (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC) But we have reached a conclusion. The conclusion is "there will be no changes" with a side order of "you are likely WP:NOTHERE and may get a visit from the topic ban fairy". You don't have any sources and you're being tendentious.--Jorm (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Facebook Removes Proud Boy Accounts

Facebook takes down Proud Boys, American Guard accounts connected to protests may be a useful source, especially since the accounts were killed because they were promoting violence.--Jorm (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You got a source of this alleged "promoting violence"? ProudOfYourMan (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It's... it's right there. Literally. Right fucking there. In the previous paragraph that you are responding to. --Jorm (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"we did not find indications in their on-platform content they planned to actively commit violence". You fucking sure about that? ProudOfYourMan (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Oi. Stop baiting/taking bait. The article in this thread does say "sending armed agitators." Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

But it does not say "promoting violence". So we shouldn't include it. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A severe case of WP:IDHT. I suggest WP:DNFTT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

So you're accusing my of trolling, saying I should be denied any response, but the only thing I'm saying is that the sources you're providing don't say what you insist on putting in the article, which is actually against the Wikipedia guidelines. This is legitimate concern and an attempt to participate with the project, but you're stonewalling and threatening banning me for honest, straightforward participation. What the fuck is going on? ProudOfYourMan (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

And you're being told that you are incorrect, and the sources do support it, and being pointed to those sources, but you just don't hear it. probaBeyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"glorifies violence" not located in the source.

The article includes the term "glorifies violence" but the source provided does not include that phrase. I elect that we delete the WP:SYNTH wording and try to be more NPOV. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

ProudOfYourMan, "The Proud Boys, a far-right group which promotes and glorifies violence, has been included on an FBI list of extremist groups." [2] "The Proud Boys are a neo-fascist group that glorifies violence against opponents, particularly on the left." [3] "Hare and Kinsman, 39, are “members of a far-right-wing group, an organization that glorifies violence against political opponents,” Steinglass told the court." [4] Should I go on? Vexations (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Just for fun then: "Tusitala “Tiny” Toese is a Patriot Prayer associate, with ties to the Proud Boys, a similar far-right group that glorifies violence." [5] Convinced? Vexations (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

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

---

I suggest you change the entire premise of the proud boys considering it is completely wrong with no factual bases for the claims of neo-fasisim. As for the violence it is well known that they go after other violent groups. 2601:547:1001:79E0:4C5D:1394:3CF:2F1E (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per reliable sources and multiple prior discussions. Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Use of the term 'neo-fascist.'

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

---

The term 'neo-fascist' is controversial and arguably baseless. Eight of the ten sources provided for the use of the term seem to be news articles simply throwing around the term 'neo-fascist' with no explanation. These sources alone prove nothing more than that 'neo-fascist' is a common pejorative media buzzword for this organisation. The other sources include a book that describes them as 'proto-fascist,' not neo-fascist, and a statement from Letitia James, an understandably partisan politician. These sources aren't unreliable or invalid, but i don't understand how they constitute fact. Zephoradis (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Those news article are WP:reliable sources. Ww do not make independent evaluations, that's mot permittred by our original research policy. We report what reliable sources say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed "not" from the first sentence above because it did not say what I intended to say. Thanks to C.Fred for the catch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The choice of sources provided for the opening of this article seem very selective re WP:NPOV placing undue weight on one side of the narrative. The description does not fairly represent all significant viewpoints WP:UNDUE. Zephoradis (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I challenge you to find a single reliable source that supports your significant viewpoint. Find one. Just fucking one! A single one. Go ahead, we'll wait.--Jorm (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As it seems pretty unreasonable to request sources that specifically rebut the label of 'neo-fascist,' there are plenty of reputable sources that use in-text attribution to attribute claims to certain groups and activists, such as this BBC article and this ABC article, rather than presenting it as fact. I am not and have at no point espoused support for this organisation nor claimed it is or isn't deplorable, the specific label of neo-fascist is misleading and is without any context. The sources don't provide any information on what is or isn't neo-fascist about the organisation, or what it means. From an NPOV informative standpoint i don't understand how that works. I think 'has been labelled' or 'widely considered' would be more appropriate, as it would reflect a significant viewpoint without presenting it as a fact. The Wikipedia entry for Breitbart, as an example, has no issue with in-text attribution. I don't understand why that is such a problem for this article? Zephoradis (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. You don't have anything; you're just here to waste our time about this rather than read the many archives where this exact same topic has come up a jillion times. I'm going to close this.--Jorm (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

this page needs a deep re-write

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

---

for the following reasons this wikipedia article needs to be checked

1- 56% of ALL citations are from pages very under the influence to left bios like DAILY BEAST, Buzzfeed News , BBC News.DAILY NEWS and other not reputable sources that make the research questionable

2- no where is to be seen in the article the view of the gruop or links to the actual site or for what they stand for told by one of it's leaders, it's very evident the "i read this in the news so it must be true" fallacy all the further reading is redirectioned to third parties sites that have nothig to do with the grup in matter

i did some research and i consider the manifesto of this grup should be imperative in the new article, the reader must think for himsefl ,we give the tools in how to do it,

thank you for reading hope your feed back.

1 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5450513ce4b048855519f0da/t/5ceb2567419202740b0c6c2b/1558914407793/344624815-Proud-Boy-Manifesto.pdf

Helpimtrappedinhere (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Helpimtrappedinhere

References

— Helpimtrappedinhere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

"far-right" magazine?

ProudOfYourMan says it is "Undue" and "We don't preclude every mention of every source with scare qualifiers about their political bend and/or future/PST editors. It's not relevant to this context."[6]

Why would we say far-right ("The group was started as a joke in the far-right Taki’s Magazine")? Because the source, discussing the founding of the Proud Boys directly, doesn't merely mention the magazine. It says, "The Proud Boys were officially launched in September 2016, on the website of Taki’s Magazine, a far-right publication for which white nationalist Richard Spencer once served as executive editor." Far-right... white nationalist... Richard Spencer... It's almost like the source is trying to say the magazine is -- gasp! -- far-right, what with the white nationalism, notable neo-Nazi and such.

Given the nature of the group -- "far-right neo-fascist" -- it is perfectly relevant that it started in a far-right magazine. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess it's fine as long as we qualify every other source in the article with it's political leanings as well as note any controversial contributors that it was ever had. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)