Talk:Proud Boys

No Basis for "neo-fascist" Claim

I have been trying without success to pin down any source of the claim that the "Proud Boys" are in any way related to the notion of fascism, except for the opposition to ANTIFA which in of itself would not make one a fascist. There are loose citations to various articles which casually throw out the term "neo-fascist" but are themselves unsubstantiated.

It would seem that the most authoritative, comprehensive, and objective resource on the nature of the "Proud Boys" can be found at the Anti-Defamation League website: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/proud-boys-0

If any resource would be motivated to identify fascist organizations it would be the ADL, yet they find no such association. The wording of the "Proud Boys" as "neo-fascist" should be struck as it is not appropriate and Wikipedia should be committed to maintaining an accurate and trustworthy library of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The short answer is that the Proud Boys are verifiably neo-fascist. In dependent reliable sources -- cited in the article -- repeatedly state that the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. As a result, Wikipedia says they are neo-fascist.

If you dig through the talk page archives you will find similar discussions. What independent reliable sources say is -- for Wikipedia's purposes -- self-substantiating. Reliable sources do not need to provide substantiation, proof or evidence of any kind for what they say. As a result, when such sources say the Earth is spherical, HIV causes AIDS, New York City is the largest metropolitan area in the world by urban landmass or the Proud Boys are neo-fascists, Wikipedia reports the same, cites the sources and moves on.

Anyone who would like to argue the sources are wrong and the Earth is flat, Hong Kong is larger, etc. is free to try to find independent sources saying those things, argue with the sources (by talking to them) or blog about it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

How can something be verifiably neo-fascist without any actual verification? Surely there must be SOME evidence that this particular group meets the description. If Wikipedia is to be a reliable source, there should at a minimum be evidence presented that this group meets the definition of fascism. According to Merriam Webster, fascism can be defined as:

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

further, neofascism is described as:

a political movement arising in Europe after World War II and characterized by policies designed to incorporate the basic principles of fascism (as nationalism and opposition to democracy) into existing political systems

At a minimum there is a complete lack of support for a dictatorial leader, quite the opposite actually, and more broadly is completely against a strong government authority. The stated aims and actions of the "Proud Boys" could not be more inappropriate for the label "fascist" or "neo-fascist". There has not been any claim against democracy and the group is apparently quite pro-democracy and anti-government.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk • contribs) 01:05, August 24, 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not gather evidence, consider definitions of terms, weight the evidence and decide if the Earth is sphereical, HIV causes AIDS or anything else. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject.

If independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly said the Proud Boys are an improv comedy group from Zimbabwe, Wikipedia would say the same.

How can you tell that independent reliable sources say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist? The sources are linked in the article, in some cases with direct quotes and links to the articles. If you feel the sources do not say what we are saying they say, discuss it here. If you feel they say other things we aren't saying but should, discuss it here.

How can you tell the sources are independent reliable sources? They are independent in that they are not directly connected to the subject (for the same reason you wouldn't expect to get unbiased info on Shecky Greene from Greene, his publicist, etc.). Sources are "reliable" if they fit the criteria discussed at WP:RS. If you don't think a source we are using meets our criteria, discuss it here. If you feel there are other independent reliable sources we should be using but aren't, discuss them here.

That's the basics. For most articles, you can pretty much dive in and edit details of Greene's career or whatever. Other editors will review your changes and go from there. I suggest as a new editor looking at a contentious subject like this (see the note on your talk page) that it's generally a good idea to discuss the issues first. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the sources are unbiased. The first of the listed sources is Buzzfeed for christs sake. The second is Mother Jones, whose own Wikipedia page describes it as leftist and progressive. The third is a 404 page. The fourth is Slate, a magazine whose own Wikipedia page criticizes it for being "contrarian". These are not by any objectively reasonable standard unbiased, reliable, or authoritative sources - they are op-eds in famously biased and politically motivated publications. An op-ed should not be considered a source for a claim unless it can be reasonably argued that the author is an authority on the subject, but in that event surely it'd make more sense to just cite them from their own published work.

Personally I have no dog in this fight, I do not particularly care one way or another whether the Proud Boys are or are not in fact "neo-fascist", what I take exception to here is what I can see as being politically motivated cherry picking by Wikipedia editors. Citing only demonstrably opinion pieces from demonstrably left-wing sources for information on the nature of a demonstrably right-wing group is blatantly in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality rules. 50.69.168.189 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC) (Badharlick, not logged in)

You are mistaken in several ways.

Wikipedia's policies (specifically WP:NPOV) do not require neutral sources. There is no such thing as a neutral source. We require reliable sources (we'll get to your take on "reliable" in a moment) and that we neutrally summarize what they say. Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. We neutrally report that.

Cherry picking would involve us selecting sources based on what they say. For this to be true, you would need to demonstrate that a meaningful number or similarly reliable sources contradict this statement, saying, perhaps, that the Proud Boys are a libertarian gardening club who, through a remarkable series of mix-ups, repeatedly end up with various fascists groups at violent protests in favor of statues of failed treasons supporting owning human beings. Apparently, they were there to discuss appropriate soil amendments for hydrangeas.

"Reliable" sources are those published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You may disagree with what they feel is worthy of inclusion, but if they say it what a hot, humid night when members of the Proud Boys joined members of Identity Evropa and other neo-fascist, white supremacist groups, you can bet it wasn't a chilly afternoon tea party with the local Kiwanis Club. The full criteria are outlined at WP:IRS.

Multiple independent reliable sources state the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. Wikipedia, therefore, neutrally and verifiably states they are neo-fascist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

What positions or lineage or anything else do they share with fascism? We cannot treat certain sources as "reliable sources" when it comes to political descriptions ie CNN etc. They have featured op-eds accusing math and time of being racist/fascist institutions. This sort of behavior isn't going to further your ideology, it's just going to kill wikipedia and give rise to neutral alternatives. There are serious students of fascism who cannot swallow the idea that a an overtly multiracial, pro-capitalist, pro-free speech libertarian group are "fascist". Please provide some semblance of a supporting argument. Anything at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C801:9FA0:CDFC:3B25:8369:6793 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Upon review, the "Proud Boys" group appear to be laissez faire activists at the opposite end of the spectrum relative to the Fascist movement. There is a slang usage of the word "fascism" popular in the modern American press, but it has no coherent relationship with historical fascism. In this slang usage, it is common to refer to landlords or teachers as "fascists" on the basis that they wield bestowed authority, but not a reference to the literal fascist movement of WW2 nor neo-fascist offshoots. This is equivalent to describing homeowners associations as "Stalinist" in the opening paragraph of their Wiki entry, then backing up the claim with 3 or 4 articles referring (figuratively) to "Stalinist" regulations. While a few people can force bizarre edits, equally few will take the entry seriously. The damage is ultimately done to the medium of Wikipedia. Meanwhile "Proud Boys" -- whom benefit from portraying their opponents as hysterical zealots -- are probably thrilled to see that stereotype on display. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C801:9FA0:CDFC:3B25:8369:6793 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources say they are neo-fascist, so Wikipedia says they are neo-fascist. If you feel any of the sources are not reliable, feel free to take them to the Reliable sources noticeboard. If you feel Wikipedia articles should be based on your assessment of the evidence, please read WP:V as that is not how Wikipedia works. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"Independent reliable sources say they are neo-fascist" - no, they don't. Op-eds from politically biased publications on only one side of the political spectrum say they are neo-fascist. There is no counter-point to this produced and so far you've only provided a very watery argument in defense of this. Once again it is a pretty clear cut case of WP:Cherrypicking. You've pointed to all manner of other wikipedia policies as justification, but have not answered for the policy that has been violated. WP:Cherrypicking exists because if it didn't, it'd be possible to slant an article entirely in favour of the political opposition by only citing from sources that support that angle. That means there is more burden on an editor than just "well I found a handful of sources, that's good enough". 50.69.168.189 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC) (Badharlick, not logged in)

The sources are independent: They are in no way connected to any subject relevant to the topic. The sources are reliable: They meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS. Therefore, they are "independent reliable sources". They say the Proud Boys are neo-facist. Therefore, independent reliable sources say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. Therefore, the Proud Boys are verifiably neo-fascist.

Wikipedia:Cherrypicking is not a policy. It's not even a guideline. It's an essay. Anyone can write an essay to present their reasoning. Yes, it is possible to inject bias into an article by ignoring sources that contradict your point of view. I note that you dislike the sources that we have here but have not identified any way in which they violate any of our policies or guidelines. You have called it "cherrypicking", apparently indicating that you feel there are sources saying the Proud Boys are not neo-fascists. To have that argument taken seriously, you will need to show us such sources and present a reasonable argument that those sources are reliable and the material meets WP:WEIGHT.

That's it. That's how you will need to present your argument. I will not be making your argument for you. Find the sources, present them here and show they merit inclusion. Detail -- based on Wikipedia's policies -- any problems with existing articles and how they are used. Arguing that you don't like what the article says and therefore it must be changed is a waste of time. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Isn't there also a problem with Wikipedia policies against contradictory articles? This apparently politically biased article on the Proud Boys is in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia page on New-fascism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism). It would seem that either this Proud Boys article should be corrected or the definitions on the Neo-fascism page should be corrected in order to maintain site consistency.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.238.213 (talk • contribs) 22:16, September 16, 2020 (UTC){{subst:spa|24.2.238.213}

Neo-fascism does not say "The Proud Boys are not neo-fascists]]. Instead, it says things that you feel do not apply to the Proud Boys. You could spend the rest of your days arguing Richard Nixon contradicts Quakers and thousands of other imagined "problems".

Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. Zero independent reliable sources say they are not. Wikipedia verifiably and neutrally reports they are neo-fascist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the OP on this. Your first source quotes the OPINION of a local politician, not a law enforcement agency or any kind of watchdog organization like the ADL. Also, just because a news source (independent and reliable are up for debate at this point) repeatedly says something, doesn't mean it's true. Just look at the debacle about Sandmann. There were quite a few "independent reliable" sources claiming he was some kind of racist taunting Nathan Phillips. However, as it turns out, that wasn't true in the least, but they just kept going with that narrative even after the actual truth came out. Guess what happened after that? Sandmann sued them for defamation and won. Guyveru01 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"News source A was wrong once, therefore we can't possibly know the truth, so we should just take a violent street gang at its word. Haha, checkmate lieberals!" Nah. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed the buzzfeed source, because the basis of that inclusion was a direct quotation of some woman from some advocacy group describing it as "neo-fascist" rather than Buzzfeednews, however other sources do define it as neo-fascist. If you feel the existing presentation is taken out of context, presenting your argument to Neutral Point of View noticeboard is a good option given that it's been discussed already here and still continue to be controversial. Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"Independent" sources are those not associated with the subject. The Proud Boys are not an independent source for anything about themselves. The sources cited in the article are independent.

"Reliable" sources are those that meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS. The simplified version of those criteria is "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Essentially, that's New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, Fox News (other than for science or politics), yes and Breitbart News, The Epoch Times, Daily Mail, InfoWars, no. The sources cited in the article are reliable (many of them listed at WP:RS/P).

That you do not like or trust a source or disagree with what they say about the group is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Guyveru01: Your claims that "independent and reliable are up for debate at this point" can only be based on not understanding Wikipedia's uses of the terms.

If any source describes the Proud Boys as fascist, then that source is NOT reliable. Period. Too paraphrase SummerPhD, if a source claims that Earth is flat, witchcraft causes AIDS, Wakanda is the largest metropolitan area in the world by urban landmass, or the Proud Boys are fascist, then it's not reliable. All information from such sources should be removed from all articles. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your demand conflicts with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and therefore will be ignored. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist." I believe those sources are misunderstood. They are accusations of being neo-fascist, and not references of that as fact. A more appropriate representation on Wikipedia would be to describe the Proud Boys as "accused of being neo-fascists, although such accusations are never supported by evidence." It doesn't matter how many clowns scream that their custard is a delicious chianti, it's still custard.

USA Today: "telling the neo-fascist group "Proud Boys" to "stand back and stand by." https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2020/09/30/trump-tells-proud-boys-stand-back-and-stand-by/3584435001/

Sky News: "Fred Perry has pulled one of its famous polo shirts after it became associated with a neo-fascist organisation[Proud Boys]." https://news.sky.com/story/fred-perry-stops-selling-polo-shirt-after-it-becomes-associated-with-far-right-group-12084253

The Irish Times: "telling the far-right, neo-fascist Proud Boys group to "stand back and stand by."" https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/proud-boys-stand-back-and-stand-by-trump-refuses-to-condemn-white-supremacists-1.4368304

The Guardian: "Company distances itself from US fascist group as it halts sales of garment in North America" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/28/fred-perry-withdraws-polo-shirt-adopted-by-far-right-proud-boys

La Vanguardia: "Los Proud Boys, el grupo neofascista solo para hombres que Trump evita condenar" [The Proud Boys, the men's only neo-fascist group that Trump failed to condemn.] https://www.lavanguardia.com/internacional/20200930/483765812156/proud-boys-trump-neofascista-hombres-debate.html 191.92.157.214 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of End Domestic Terrorism rally into Proud Boys

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus not to merge based on significant coverage in reliable sources. Thanks, and happy editing! (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

---

With the benefit of hindsight, I think it's clear that this event lacks the historical significance, lasting effects and/or widespread impact required to satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT. While there was a lot of press coverage in advance of the event, I'm not aware of any substantial coverage published since its immediate aftermath. Expanding the existing section of the Proud Boys article to cover some of the impact and aftermath, and redirecting this there, seems like the best solution. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Clearly enough detail at both End Domestic Terrorism rally and Proud Boys to justify standalone pages. IMO, merging would be a significant disservice. There are also many additional sources posted at Talk:End Domestic Terrorism rally to be incorporated into the article body. Further expansion needed! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: it's fairly normal for there to be no coverage after a rally takes place, unless there's significant information that only comes to light after the event, but it received substantial coverage at the time for a variety of different events and occurrences surrounding the rally, as well as the rally itself. I suppose it would be good if there were sources that note connections of its lasting significance (e.g. Trump later declaring antifa a terrorist organization) but it seems reasonably clear that it's of historical significance in the context of (e.g.) the Proud Boys' history and Antifa in Portland. — Bilorv (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The article sourcing in its present conditions might fail WP:PERSISTENCE requirements to remain as a stand alone article, but a quick search now shows coverage after the initial heat has died down, including at national level in Aljazeera, so the length of article and ongoing coverage are sufficient to merit its own article. Graywalls (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is enough information to justify a standalone article it should continue to be summerized and linked in the events sub-heading. Hollywood43ar (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The rally has had a WP:LASTING impact both as an early example of the evolving relationship of the Proud Boys and their critics as well as the Portland law enforcement response to gatherings of the sort. The rally article meets the criteria laid out at EVENTCRIT. The event had widespread coverage in reliable sources, the details of which are best be enumerated in its own article. The topic is best captured here as a summary, as shoehorning the rally into this article would demonstrate undue weight given to the topic. gobonobo ^{+ c} 04:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. XavierItzm (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There's clearly little interest in merging here. Can we close this discussion and remove the tags already? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:22, 30 September 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 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.

---

The sentences stating that proud boys are a neo fascist supremist group are inherantly biased and hold no ground. These are bold unsupported claims. Many spokesmen of Proud Boys are black, and it is stated on the groups page "the group is anti-SJW without being alt-right. “Western chauvinist” includes all races, religions, and sexual preferences." All evidence provided by the article creator is given by biased websites such as SPLC which has been regarded as a far left source by mediabiasfactcheck.com, nationalreview.com, and several other sites.

Change "Neo nazi" and "white supremacist's" to "Right wing trolls" and "antagonists" MKTRCN (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As usual, no reliable sources were provided.--Jorm (talk) 03:49, 25 September 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 article appears to be biased and emotional

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 arrival appears to be biased and emotionally charged. I went to the Proud Boys site to see what they’re about and the description in this article is way off base. Wikipedia better clean up their act or it’s going to lose all credibility. Trusam (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction- this article, not arrival. Trusam (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Trusam, what specific changes are you seeking? Do you have alternative sources of information? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes and reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. We do not report that a breakfast cereal is a "nutritious part of this complete breakfast" or that a particular car is the "safest vehicle on the road today", though I'm certain the cereal and car companies say that. Instead, we report what indepependent reliable sources say: the cereal is 75% sugar by weight, the car was recently remodeled (and now tends to explode with rear-end collisions, and the Proud Boys "is a far-right and neo-fascist organization that admits only men as members and promotes and engages in political violence". Independent sources are those not associated with the subject. "Reliable" means the sources meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:02, 27 September 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.

Call them what they are

they're a violent, white supremacist terrorist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F09B:A3ED:F4BC:7F76 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC) — 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F09B:A3ED:F4BC:7F76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia does not look at the group, compare them to published definitions of terms and decide what to call them. Instead, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject.

Independent reliable sources say the Proud Boys are a far-right, neo-fascist organization that promotes and engages in political violence, so that's what Wikipedia says. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Their supporters think that this Wikipedia article is biased against them, while their opponents think it is biased in favor. That's a rough indicator that we are getting things mostly right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is for everyone. Before posting anything here, please visit WP:5P2 and read through the different links within the paragraph "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" before anything. After reading them, you'll have a general idea of acceptable sources. You'll learn more with experience. There are certain sources that shouldn't be used as a general rule like the Post Millennial, anarchist zines, reader comments section of news articles, self published materials from citizen journalists, such as TWITTER FEEDS just to name a few. If the changes you are proposing can only be sourced through those sources, then the answer is no. It's not happening. If in doubt, post the source here and it can be discussed. Subject's own Twitter, Antifa's twitter, etc are also unacceptable as a source for pretty much all purposes. Graywalls (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 30 September 2020

2017 Chicago stabbing In April 2017, a concert organized by the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police to protest Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx attracted several people wearing Proud Boy clothing. One of them, Thomas Christensen, got into an argument with another attendee, and ended up stabbing him with what the prosecutor called a "folding dagger" with a 3-inch blade. Christensen was arrested on charges of aggravated battery.[77] In August 2019, Christensen was convicted at a bench trial; the judge rejected Chrsitiansen's statement that he acted in self-defense. After the trial, a friend confirmed that Christiansen was a member of the Proud Boys.[77]

The portion of this wiki-article, which I copied and pasted above, is incorrect (probably because the Sun Times article it uses as a reference is misleading). This stabbing happened at a concert, which is correct. That concert had absolutely Nothing to do with Kim Foxx, the Chicago Police, or Chicago FOP, which I am a member of. There was a Protest organized by Chicago FOP, against Cook County State's Attorney, Kim Foxx, on a different date. Members of the Proud Boys were rumored to have been in attendance at this rally. The Sun Times insists the offender from this stabbing was one of the Proud Boys who attended the FOP rally, while the FOP insist that no members of the Proud Boys were invited to, or present, at their rally. The FOP rally against Kim Foxx, and the concert where the stabbing took place, had nothing to do with one another. Chicago FOP, and Chicago Police, had nothing to do, in any way, with the concert where this stabbing took place. This wiki article is false (frankly slanderous) in that Chicago FOP had nothing to do with this concert where a Proud Boy stabbed someone, Chicago FOP obviously did not organize this concert, the Chicago FOP absolutely did not allow or condone the presence of Proud Boys at any Chicago FOP sponsored event. 73.110.196.223 (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If your position is that the Sun Times is wrong, you'll need to find a better source contesting them, or at least reporting it differently - ideally a WP:SECONDARY source rather than just a statement by the Chicago FOP. --Aquillion (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Even thought it's a reliable newspaper, there's a problem. I have removed it in entirety, because I don't find the evidence of connection meets WP:BLP standards. The newspaper didn't report he is a Proud Boys member; just that his friend said he is and reported it as just that. Chicago Tribune also reported on this stabbing incident, but makes no connection to Proud Boys; or the Chicago FOP for that matter. I say this stay off entirely; until there's a more reliable source beyond "friend said he's a Proud Boys member" regardless of who's parroting that sentiment unless it has been independently verified by a reliable source and that source is willing to speak of it in a voice other than "his friend says...". These are Chi. Tribune links to this story.

* https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-northerly-island-stabbing-verdict-20190830-cjkbkhtpnvfhbarja4cc4ck5ka-story.html

* https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-northerly-island-stabbing-charges20170810-story.html

Graywalls (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@73.110.196.223:, @Aquillion:, I have removed the whole part, but it really has nothing to do with the request, but rather because of concerns wrt to insufficient evidence to show the relevance to Proud Boys at this point. BTW, requester, if you're saying that Sun Times actually has factual errors and you're concerned about it, perhaps reach out to them and ask them to correct it. Graywalls (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 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.

---

Please add a wikilink to the word "paleoconservative" in the third sentence of the lead. Not everybody knows what it means, especially outside of the US. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:8CFA:D59F:27F2:1D2E (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Alternatively, delete the word because it is not used in the article body. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:8CFA:D59F:27F2:1D2E (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. NedFausa (talk) 17:45, 30 September 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.

2020 presidential election

Trump mentioned them on the debates, but it does not fall under the "activities" or "events" done by Proud Boys. Any ideas how to keep Trump's statements, while not including them in Activities section?

It could also be merged (after massively shortened) to their introduction section.SunDawn (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 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.

---

Change: "The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence."

To: "The Proud Boys is a right-wing, male-only political organization that acts as a local militia in response to political violence." Aninniemousse (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: ha. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 30 September 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.

Info is wrong

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.

---

Proud boys organization is not neo nazi fascist anything. In fact you will be disavowed if you rub elbows with racial Supremacy groups. The founder literally aid this in an interview and it's on their website. Ladysavage123 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Jan.--Jorm (talk) 17:37, 30 September 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.

Scoffing at semi-protected edit requests

Is it really necessary to scoff at users making semi-protected edit requests—as administrator Muboshgu did here ("ha") and editor Jorm did here ("Sure, Jan) [requester's handle is Ladysavage123]? NedFausa (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Surely it would be wrong to not scoff at those promoting racism and racists. Isn't a better position to permanently ban racists? Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It is when said semi-protected edit requests are trying to normalize and sanitize a page about a violent neo-fascist white supremacist militia group. If I proposed a change to the Confederacy Page to try and sanitize out the slavery stuff, I'd be quite sympathetic if people were rather dismissive of a point of view that has no basis in fact, and more importantly no basis in reliable sources. Also

For information about the Wikipedia policy, see WP:FORUM.

191.92.157.214 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, in general you're right, we should not scoff. With a situation like this though, and that edit request being the accounts only edit, it's hard to see it as anything other than trolling, even with AGF. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Claim that Proud Boys are racist

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.

---

On the Proud Boys Website, under About > Tenets on the seventh line you will find the tenet "Anti-Racism". Wikipedia requires commenters to "assume good faith". Why does this not apply to the Proud Boys Website? It is also interesting to note that there is no anti-racism statement to be found on the Black Lives Matter website, and I'd bet that if I went to Wikipedia's Black Lives Matter page and said they were more racist than the Proud Boys because the do not have an explicit tenet stating they they are anti-racist, I'd get a reprimand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.217.71.178 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

We prefer WP:SECONDARY sourcing over WP:PRIMARY sourcing. It's hard to imagine the Proud Boys ever admitting to be a racist organization. Please don't WP:OTHERSTUFF by bringing up BLM, they aren't relevant to this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Also User:108.217.71.178 they are racist, with their anti-Muslim views. Or do you deny that? Surely we should be blocking those that are providing support here for hardcore racists like Proud Boys and Donald Trump. Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Being anti-Muslim is not racist. It is Islamophobic. Please do not use imprecise and vague language.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about User:Editing Scapegoat? If being anti-Polish or antisemetic is racist, how is being anti-Muslim not racist? I'd suggest you take a good look at the dictionary and not spread racist and white-supremacist propaganda! Nfitz (talk) 21:47, 30 September 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.

The "sources" used in this article.

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 article relies entirely too much on sources that have a media bias rating as solidly left, including the Guardian, the Daily Beast, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Slate, Vox, the Intercept, New Republic, New York Daily News, the New Yorker, ThinkProgress, Splinter, the Independent, GQ, MSNBC, Mediate, Newsweek, and Al Jazeera . In fact, out of 144 citations on this page, more than half are from sources with a media bias rating as "left." Furthermore, only around ten of these sources don't have a leftward tilt, and only two are tilted to the right (Globe and Mail, National Review). That is essentially like only using solidly right sources when writing an article on the Democrats. No one would reasonably consider such an article to be reliable, and the lack of viewpoint diversity in this article leads to the same conclusion. I request that this article is reviewed and edited so that there is either more of a balance in the sources or a focus on sources that come from more centrist publications like The Hill or the Associated Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KVV66 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to take this up with the Reliable sources noticeboard.--Jorm (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

Clarification

Can you clarify the "racism and violence of New York City" line in the Islamberg section.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Dead link

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 referenced source "Disser" leads to a dead link. Would someone with the necessary permissions kindly change it to a web-archived version? [[1]] EoZahX9m (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• User:EoZahX9m, please check if I did that right. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks! EoZahX9m (talk) 00:33, 1 October 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.

Blackshirts

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.

---

There is a link to blackshirts in the "see also" section. Guys what the hell are you doing, lol? Anyone who has studied fascism in Italy knows how absolutely silly this is. Whoever put that there, and whoever leaves it there, is damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.198.194 (talk) 01:46, 1 October 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.

Neo fascists

This group is in no shape or form a neo-fascists group, nor are they “alt-right”. Whomever posted this misinformation is either an antifa member or someone who has no idea what they’re taking about. This needs to be fixed. Argkd6 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @Argkd6: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to determine things, not opinions such as the one you've just provided. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding "White Supremacist" in first line

According to this, this, and this (archived), Proud Boys have pretty significant ties to White Supremacist groups. I propose adding the term "white supremacy group" in the first line of the article. ChipotleHater (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree--good idea. Rjensen (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Misquotation of D. J. Trump in section of presidential debate 2020

Currently, the article reads:

"Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups, and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha, and as we have seen in Portland." Trump replied "Sure" and "Sure, I am willing to do that" and then asked for clarification, saying "Who would you like me to condemn?" Wallace mentioned "white supremacists and right wing militia". During the exchange, Biden prompted "Proud Boys" and Trump replied "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by, but I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about Antifa and the left, because this is not a right-wing problem."

Some of these quotations are incomplete or not real (e.g. the reduplication of "I'll tell you what"), and thus directly violate Quotations. The exchange takes place around the 01:05:00-mark. Literally:

Trump: Sure, I'm willing to do that, but I would say - I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing, not the right wing.

Wallace: So what're you saying ... ?

Trump: I'm willing to do anything- I want to see peace.

Wallace: Then do it sir.

Trump: You want to call them- what do you want to call them? Give me a name. Give me a name. Go ahead, who would you like me to condemn?

Wallace: White supremacists and right-wing millitia.

Biden: Proud Boys.

Trump: Proud Boys: stand back, and stand by, but I'll tell you what, someone's gotta do something about AntiFa and the left, because this is not a right-wing problem, this is a left-wing problem.

Biden: His own FBI director said the threats are the white supremacists. AntiFa's an idea, not an organisation.

Trump: Oh, you've gotta be kidding.

Hence, the section should be corrected.

By the way, since it is very relevant to the article, Biden's last response is definitely worth mentioning as context ("AntiFa's an idea, not an organisation") as Proud Boys have a direct history relating to AntiFa. --MewTheEditor (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)