Talk:Proud Boys: Difference between revisions
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
::That's not going to happen.--[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] ([[User talk:Jorm|talk]]) 15:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC) |
::That's not going to happen.--[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] ([[User talk:Jorm|talk]]) 15:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
::You are comparing apples and orangutans. ''Taki’s Magazine'' is not a source. ''Taki’s Magazine'' is being identified by the relialbe source as a far-right publication associated with notable neo-Nazi/white supremacist, Richard Spencer. That this far-right, neo-fascist, racist group was started in a far-right publication with ties to white supremacy is clearly relevant. Your continued efforts to obscure the well-sourced nature of this group are tendentious. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>[[User talk:SummerPhDv2.0|v2.0]]</sup> 16:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC) |
::You are comparing apples and orangutans. ''Taki’s Magazine'' is not a source. ''Taki’s Magazine'' is being identified by the relialbe source as a far-right publication associated with notable neo-Nazi/white supremacist, Richard Spencer. That this far-right, neo-fascist, racist group was started in a far-right publication with ties to white supremacy is clearly relevant. Your continued efforts to obscure the well-sourced nature of this group are tendentious. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>[[User talk:SummerPhDv2.0|v2.0]]</sup> 16:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
::: It's simply not relevant to the club, regardless of how many pejoratives you want to try and attach to them. We get it, you think the club is doubleplus bad. [[User:ProudOfYourMan|ProudOfYourMan]] ([[User talk:ProudOfYourMan|talk]]) 16:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:39, 25 June 2020
Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proud Boys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Proud Boys. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Proud Boys at the Reference desk. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proud Boys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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.
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)
|
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)
- You got a source of this alleged "promoting violence"? ProudOfYourMan (talk) 15:51, 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)
- But it does not say "promoting violence". So we shouldn't include it. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 18:35, 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)
- 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)
"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.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
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[1] 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.
Helpimtrappedinhere (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Helpimtrappedinhere
References
- ^ 1
- — Helpimtrappedinhere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"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. - SummerPhDv2.0 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)
- That's not going to happen.--Jorm (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- You are comparing apples and orangutans. Taki’s Magazine is not a source. Taki’s Magazine is being identified by the relialbe source as a far-right publication associated with notable neo-Nazi/white supremacist, Richard Spencer. That this far-right, neo-fascist, racist group was started in a far-right publication with ties to white supremacy is clearly relevant. Your continued efforts to obscure the well-sourced nature of this group are tendentious. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's simply not relevant to the club, regardless of how many pejoratives you want to try and attach to them. We get it, you think the club is doubleplus bad. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- C-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- C-Class Men's Issues articles
- Low-importance Men's Issues articles
- WikiProject Men's Issues articles
- C-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles