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)

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)

@SummerPhDv2.0:, then you're missing the point. I removed the sources that are not providing the comment in their own word. If CNN write "the sky is purple", John says, that's not a reliable source beyond that John said sky is purple. Graywalls (talk) 13:22, 1 October 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)

73.70.13.107: Do not paraphrase what I said. You have me all wrong. We do not decide "The Truth" and then dismiss any sources that contradict that "truth" as unreliable. Wikipedia determines if a source is reliable then accepts what that source says as verifiable. Multiple independent reliable sources say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. As a result, the Proud Boys are verifiably neo-fascist. If reliable sources said the Earth is flat and the Proud Boys are a traveling theater group, Wikipedia would report both of those as verifiable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:57, 1 October 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.76.37 (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

Having only skimmed the above discussion, I thought I'd add some more corroborating articles from research journals and from published books:

• "Proud Boys... advance a fascist politic"
• "the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys"
• "The Proud Boys are a neo-fascist masculinist hate group."
• "neo-fascist gang Proud boys clashed with..."
• "The Proud Boys, an all-male neo-fascist group"
• "groups such as the protofascist Proud Boys"
• "Swiping Right: The Allure of Hyper Masculinity and Cryptofascism for Men Who Join the Proud Boys"

I'm pretty sure we can dismiss any questions about Proud Boys' fascist alignment. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Update - these sources have now been added to the article as improved referencing for this claim (thanks for your work, Davide King!). @SummerPhDv2.0, NorthBySouthBaranof, and Graywalls: are there any objections from you (I'll ping anons on their talk pages) against closing this discussion now? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"far-right[3][4][5][6] and neo-fascist[7][8][9][10][11][12]" This is unnecessary. These statements aren't really disputed other than those who have personal agenda. When you already have three reliable sources generally agreeing on it and no reliable sources disputing it, the WP:CITEBOMB is ridiculous. I don't see the need to reword, but no need for bombarding the heck out with sources like this. It looks ugly and not reader friendly. Graywalls (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I clearly misunderstand the nature of a citation. I could call Wikipedia "the deeply racist and violent Wikipedia" on multiple sites and by your rules you'd have to add that description to the Wikipedia page on itself, because we can cite multiple uses of the term. That's all I'm seeing here: citations of uses of the term. I'm not seeing any citations that support the use of the term. As I suggested above, it's still custard. I am however going to disengage from this topic at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.76.37 (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You clearly do misunderstand. If a New York Times article said "Bozo the Clown said the Proud Boys are a gardening club", it is not verifiable that the Proud Boys are a gardening club, only that Bozo said they are. If, as is the case, the New York Times (and a raft of other unquestionably reliable sources) describe the Proud Boys as fascist, it is verifiable that they are fascist. The sources, as quoted repeatedly on this talk page (and throughout the archives) regularly and repeatedly identify the Proud Boys as fascist. "The fascist Proud Boys" is a source saying it, no different than "actress Meryl Streep." The sources are under no obligation to defend, prove or backup either claim. Wikipedia reliably states the Proud Boys are fascist and Streep is an actress. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the other problem with having too many sources is that it makes it more time consuming to verify stuff like this. Yes people do sometimes cite and hide behind the cover of "properly cited look" to say things not said by the source and pray on people not checking the cited sources thoroughly. Graywalls (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

In response to the OP, I think Summer has made it perfectly clear that encyclopedia editing isn't about uncovering "the truth". Editors simply parrot what reliable independent sources (as sanctioned by Wiki criteria) have to say about a subject.

I also agree that the "bias" criticism sounds something like a high school lunch table argument. Every source is going to be 'biased', as anything written by a human is biased.

However, I do disagree with any argument that "Mother Jones" and "Slate" have a reputation for "fact checking and accuracy". No, they don't. These are highly partisan publications notorious for playing fast and loose with information. Note that there's a difference between "highly partisan" publications and those that simply lean right or left (or have 'biases').

Having said all that, I am satisfied with the current references supporting the "neo-fascist" wording. Most of them are academic publications. NY Times and Washington Post are perfectly legitimate sources as well. I have mixed feelings about "The Guardian", but generally agree that it's reliable for this topic. Same goes for Fox News. The Guardian would not, however, qualify as reliable for economic subjects, just as Fox News isn't an RS for science articles (as Summer mentioned).

I would just recommend that editors here try sticking to sources published by legit academic presses and try to limit journalist citations to a minimum.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Jonathan. We should say what the RSes say. As posted earlier we have a wide range or Reliable Sources from all over the world which without quotations or anything like that refer to the Proud Boys as a neo-fascist group. We have both Academic and News sources from the US, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the Kingdom of Spain all of which call them neo-fascist, so while political bias may be apparent in one country, it seems a stretch to say that the Republic of Ireland has an axe to grind against The Proud Boys and is thus slandering them in the Irish Times, haha. Past that, I also agree with Graywall that the amount of refs we have for each one of those assertions does make the lede a bit difficult to read. While I have seen efforts to delete the neo-fascist claims it doesn't seem like there's any sort of real will in the talk section to redefine them as a conservative gentlemen's club, so the amount of sources does seem almost peremptory. Alcibiades979 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an inaccurate weighting of the information at hand. The experts on the subject ADL, SLPC do not label this group fascist or neo fascist. The label was pejoratively attached by I do not like non experts from RS, put on WP and now being regurgitated by similar like minded we are not experts but do not like RS. By contrast the "I am antifa" killer is being omitted from the antifa page despite being labeled as such by RS because the like minded editors are drawing a distinction between an tifa and antifa. This is a disservice to the WP project as it is in no way weighting the RS information equitably. The SLPC and ADL omitting the label is of paramount importance and yet largely being ignored. Perhaps some sort of qualifier that some may consider them fascist or neo fascist but the ADL and SLPC as of now do not. Or it can go to the dispute board and ask what do when an RS is factually wrong.

Your suggestion is to call them a right-wing extremist hate group instead? https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/proud-boys-0 Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That, and/or anything the ADL uses would be much more in line with standard operating procedure on these type of WP. The detractors can go take their case to the SLPC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:F5BB:3B86:E159:625A (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. The ADL provides a critical overview of the group which is much more in-line with reality. The group is a far-right, nationalistic extremist group which encourages violence against opponents, but white Supremacy is disavowed on their website, by their local chapters and in all of the group promotional material. Additionally, the "neo-fascist" label flies in opposition to the stated values of the group (against totalitarian or powerful government) and an objective understanding of fascism and neo fascism.

It is getting to the point where; if Mother Jones and the Daily Beast called the GOP fascist white supremacists, moderators would add it to their wiki page... Does that logic carry? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Besides being factually wrong, besides being used as a political epithet, the standard is far higher than RS said therefore it belongs. WP has responsibility to accurately weight the WP based on the weighting of the RS-and in this case-even being factually wrong, even being used pejoratively-they are not being referred to as fascist or neo fascist in the vast majority of RS material. I heard CBS radio refer to them today numerous times as right wing extremists, yahoo referred o them today as a right wing hate group, WAPO today=the Proud Boys, a far-right organization linked with white supremacy and acts of violence. NJ.com-What is a proud boy? The simple answer is that they’re a racist right-wing organization started by Canadian hipster and one ... and on and on and on have to search high and low to find them labeled neo fascist so going with that in the lede besides the rest of the objections is clearly UNDUE and should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:5D45:CF9E:AA59:4786 (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Vitolo Hadad a white female grad student teacher was recently fired for profiting from claiming to be black. I would just recommend that editors here try sticking to sources that are not frauds and hyper partisan zealots to boot. As if some grad student teacher trumps the SLPC and ADL when it comes to labeling hate groups.

To which the inclusion as RS clearly shows the depths needed to find RS labeling them fascist whereas any search of the Proud Boys returns an endless litany of  RS without the fascism or neo fascism label. This is textbook undue weighting besides being obviously factually wrong.  . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:5D45:CF9E:AA59:4786 (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC) 

References

Adding to this Peter Daou should not be used as a source since he is about as reliable as Dinesh D'Souza or other extermely partistan activists.108.45.91.166 (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

@SunDawn: I'm not sure if you posted this before or after, but it looks like this coverage has been moved to its own section in the article. Personally I don't think we need an entire section on them, I would prefer to just have a paragraph in the History and organization section, but I thing I might be alone with that. I think we could be verging on giving undue weight to Trump's comments; the Unite the Right rally (Charlottesville rioting and car attack that resulted in 19 casualties and 1 fatality) for example, is a sub-section, whereas Trump's comments that have only been used as a promotional tagline for the group is a full blown section. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Source changeouts in the lead

Ok, so what was the justification of all that source changing for the two words in lead? The existing sources were fine. It wasn't being disputed. Why the change from news articles to books and journals? Some of which was quite obviously a biased source. Graywalls (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, well, one criticism was that those news sources were "left-leaning", "biased", etc. Maybe now users and IPs will be less likely to moan on the talk page? I doubt that though. I also thought that those academically ones listed by ItsPugle were better. The news sources are still there, I just moved them in the main body. If we can use those book and journal sources in the main body too, that would be good. Davide King (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Then, let them moan. The amount of unnecessary source bloating is getting out of hand. Graywalls (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I would not dismiss academic sources as bloating and it is four for each, not eight or ten each. Davide King (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally speaking... in this article. Look at the end of first paragraph under membership. That's ridiculous. Graywalls (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, I agree, they should probably be better distributed. The same source may be used to source something else, etc., rather than having many for a single sentence. I hope the ones in the lead were not eliminated though. They should either be used somewhere else in the main body or add as Bibliography or Further reading. Davide King (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: Misquotation

Above, under "Misquotation D. J. Trump in section of presidential debate 2020", my amendement was closed by Jorm, who stated "Another sourceless and malformed change request. Nothing to do here."

I don't really see what the point of striking down an honest correction like mine is (and so callously, my goodness!). I mentioned my source for the back-and-forth in the debate (i.e. the broadcast of the debate itself, to be found plentifully in full-length online), but if I should've provided a weblink, then here you go: the timestamp I mentioned, on CNN's YouTube replay of the debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHFI8TsSKXY&t=3920. It clearly shows that the quotations of Trump as mentioned are not fully accurate, and they should be.

My other point, I reiterate: since this article discusses the mention of Proud Boys in the first 2020 presidential debate, and since this very article contains the phrase "AntiFa" 14 times, it seems to be extremely relevant to mention that Biden ended the quoted exchange by stating AntiFa is an idea, not an organisation. I don't see how this is a malformed change request (nor is what I asked above): it's crystal clear, and backed.

Also, while the archival text of my previous post mentions Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page., I think this seems to me to be that page. Don't kill me for it, Jorm -- some Wikipedia contributors actually just want to contribute. --MewTheEditor (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

MewTheEditor: Speaking for myself alone, I apologize for the way you and other users have been treated when submitting edit requests or making other comments. As I objected here yesterday, the conduct at this talk page by at least one administrator and one other editor has been rudely dismissive. Wikipedia has guidelines in place discouraging such behavior (Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith), but some people obviously do as they please. I assure you they are not representative of the larger community of Wikipedians. NedFausa (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

[Redacted - unsupported personal attack] I notice that despite all the beyond-reliable sources indicating that it's a white supremacist group, the page still says "they deny being white supremacist"... typical wikipedia failure on accuracy there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:5545:4200:E313:1BBF (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is questionable in the quote ... other than perhaps adding Trump's complete sentence, with a couple of words after the comma, which shows as a period. Biden's observation about anti-fascism being a movement, and not an organization doesn't seem germane - nor would be controversial, as I can't imagine anyone challenging such a simple statement. At the same time, I have no idea why Jorm closed the discussion; I'd have simply reopened it. Nfitz (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Nfitz: As a reader trying to see all sides, my initial takeaway from the section was Trump seemingly going for a resolute, blind dismissal of anything that went against the idea that "left-wing violence should be fought and that's the end of it" (not a quotation). Yet, in the debate, we saw him concede specifically that he wants peace, in between saying he'd be willing to condemn and asking whom he should condemn specifically. On the other hand, he specifically states at the end that he thinks it's a left-wing problem, not just not a right-wing problem. Both might seem trivial at first, but you and I both know how much it comes down to detail with these kinds of sensitive back-and-forths. Some people haven't gotten over Charlotsville due to missing details in selective coverage! Look, I'm no defender whatsoever of either parties' or candidates' missteps (or the associated extremist groups, neo-Nazis and anarchists alike), and I'm not saying either is being honest when speaking. I genuinely just want people who visit this article (I got here originally because it was n°1 trending on mobile yesterday) to get as clear of a picture as possible. That's lacking right now, and I've given a (my own) transcript to aid in editing.\newline Also, I'd like to correct you (with due mildness): Biden specifically said "an idea, not an organisation", not "a movement, not an organisation", and hence it's relevant here: the section on the debate in this article focuses on Trump only semi-condemning the Proud Boys, but equally, it's worth mentioning that AntiFa, which Proud Boys have come out against for being a dangerous movement (as AntiFa members have committed plenty of violence), is totally dismissed by Biden in the same beat Trump only semi-condemns Proud Boys. Again: extremely relevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MewTheEditor (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

What trump was doing is DARVO. The violent ones at the protests have been predominantly the white supremacist groups, and same is true for the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally (noticing you can't spell it correctly either). False equivalence isn't an argument, it's gaslighting.

How can one be a member of something that isn't an organization? There's literally not a membership - you almost write like there's an actual organization called antifa! I don't know what the reference to Charlotsville (Charlottesville?) and missing details in selective coverage means - or it's relevance. We shouldn't give too much weight on the words of a racist, unless it particularly relevant - perhaps if you could provide a clear proposed edit, rather than just critiquing it. Nfitz (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa: That's definitely an accurate observation. We're losing the sentiment of "Assume good faith" with each passing month ... Sad to see, because that way, we also exclude those who just want to make things a little better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MewTheEditor (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A good amount of the time people who aren't on wikipedia in good faith scream "assume good faith" as a shielding tactic, and it burns people out on bothering with wikipedia. And sometimes people have had enough of that gaslighting and start standing up. "Our social policies are not a suicide pact. " - Jimmy Wales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's start again from scratch since this seems to be heading away from the article. What exactly needs changing, what does it need to be changed to, and what sources do you have that support such amendment? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Arrest of Proud Boy member Alan James Swinney in Portland incident

Perhaps this information might be added, from Fox News, today:

"A known member of the far-right group Proud Boys was arrested Wednesday on various charges after allegedly pointing a gun at far-left demonstrators during clashes in Portland two months ago. Alan James Swinney, 50, has been charged with fourth-degree assault, fourth-degree attempted assault, two counts of second-degree unlawful use of mace, second-degree attempted assault, three counts of unlawful use of a weapon, two counts of second-degree assault, menacing, and pointing a firearm at another person, Multnomah County District Attorney's Office announced Wednesday." - Damingo Sanchez (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The basic content RE: Swinney, sourced to OPB and Guardian, was added. Thanks, Cedar777 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

References

"white nationalist" source

Source which has to confirm their white nationalist nature leads to paywalled Washington post. So it actually confirms nothing.

Paywalled and dead-tree sources are perfectly fine. Acroterion (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This Guardian article can be added as a source supporting the assertion that it is a white nationalist group. --2A02:AA13:6142:EE80:39EF:7175:3D2:F447 (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is the most left-wing mainstream newspaper in the UK... no one in Britain would trust them to report about an issue like this in an unbiased manner. It's like citing CNN. I don't know much (or care) about PBs but unbiased centrist newspapers (better yet academic journals etc.) would be needed.WisDom-UK (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says "There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable."

Even this article states that they deny white nationalim but have "ties" to white nationalism. What ties is that? Do they go to the same dentist?

All sources say "ties to white nationalism" - this is what should be stated in the article. Current claim is unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The source cited in the lead says Proud Boys have ties to white supremacists and sometimes use nationalist rhetoric common among hate groups. (Emphasis added.) NedFausa (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That claim is unsubstantiated and does not meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.153.199 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Perspective/Numbers

According to a recent piece in The Guardian (UK) these clowns number no more than a few hundred. Numbers should be stated in the lede to put this fad in perspective. Anyone looking at this article would think they were the SS. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"Far right"? Is that well supported?

They are in the news, so I came here looking for concrete examples of what people have been accusing them of. I find this article lacking in examples.

Looking at the first ref. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/proud-boys-trump.html

"Far-Right Group That Trades in Political Violence Gets a Boost", that's the NYT headline. So maybe it should be "the NYT considers them to be far right".

Next mention is "the Proud Boys joined a group of right-wing demonstrators". So that ain't the ref.

"By reputation, the Proud Boys are a far-right group of brawlers". Is second hand reputation something we should be using?

"The Proud Boys have been able to make inroads with mainstream conservatives in part because its members wrap themselves in libertarian values, said Samantha Kutner of the Khalifa Ihler Institute". If the NYT wants to attribute this opinion, why don't we?

Why do I not find good examples of how they are "far right"? Seems like it's taken for granted. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: There are more sources throughout the entire article that support far-right. Wikipedia is neutral, but we also call a spade a spade. Just to clear the record:

• "Proud Boys: who are the far-right group that backs Donald Trump?"
• "Proud Boys: ‘Western chauvinist’ far-right group explained - and their reaction to Trump’s statement ‘Stand back and stand by’"
• "Who are the Proud Boys? Far-right group known for political brawls are in the spotlight after Trump tells them to ‘stand back and stand by.'"
• "The chairman of the far-right fraternity with a violent reputation..."
• "On the right, the Proud Boys'... official Twitter accounts were selected for their characteristic expression of Far Right political views"
• "Proud Boys: What we know about the far-right group Trump mentioned in the debate" (even Sky News has called them far-right)

Anything else? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Are these examples of opinion, or fact? Why is the first ref I looked at lacking? Do I need to read every ref to find it lacking? "Prove each ref wrong like you did the first" is the feeling I"m getting from you. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Taking a look at your first reference headline and subheadline. "Proud Boys: who are the far-right group that backs Donald Trump? Organisation founded ahead of 2016 US election is classified by the FBI as an ‘extremist group’"

THe Guardian doesn't feel comfortable saying the PB are far right themselves, they attribute it to the FBI. Why is every example I see like this? If it's so simple simon, just provide that evidence. Or at least a ref that I don't have to go only two sentences in to find it's opinion and not fact. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The job of the editors is NOT to decide what is "fact" and what is "opinion". It is to report what the reliable sources actually state, and they explicitly state it's "far right." Rjensen (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You are incorrect. If reliable source A says "reliable source B says that the PB are 'far right'", then we must say "reliable source B says that the PB are 'far right'". I think I remember you from the old days rjensen. You should know the difference between those two. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: With respect, we call a spade a spade. The FBI's determination of Proud Boys as an extremist group has no relevance to their far-right position. All the provided evidence supports calling them "far-right", and even disregarding the first source that you misread which calls the group "far-right" independently of any commentary about the FBI, all the other sources explicitly say far-right. Do you have any sources that explicitly say Proud Boys is not far-right? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you are incorrect as well. Controversial statements should be attributed. Saying "we call a spade a spade" sounds like the argument of someone who is wrong. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A statement is only "controversial" if reliable sources significantly disagree on it; simply stating that you disagree with what they say is not sufficient. There is no indication in these sources that there's any substantial disagreement; many of them are high-quality reliable sources, usable for statements of fact, describing the topic in an dispassionate, neutral tone. If you feel that their conclusions are debatable then you must provide other sources of comparable quality and weight to support that - otherwise, we are required to report the truth as the sources report it; presenting factual statements from high-quality reliable sources as if it were mere opinion would itself be improper editorializing on our part. I also disagree with your (implicit) assertion that "far-right" is an inherently value-laden term; it is not some insult or pejorative, but a neutral descriptor of political alignment that is widely used in both academia and high-quality journalism. --Aquillion (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Evidence that PB are white supremacists?

Sounds like it's easy to come by. Not accusations, but evidence. Let's provide it here with quotes and refs and then we can add it to the article. Should be simple simon.Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: A really basic Google search shows an abundance of sources that support that claim:

1. "President Donald Trump has condemned all white supremacist groups, including the far-right 'Proud Boys,'"
2. "Days after President Donald Trump failed to condemn white supremacist groups,... denounced all such groups, including the Proud Boys and the Ku Klux Klan"
3. "as academics and advocates have warned the group has ties to white supremacy."
4. "Proud Boys are a dangerous 'white supremacist' group say US agencies"
5. "...Donald Trump has still refused to condemn white supremacist groups. During yesterday's debate he instructed one such group, the Proud Boys,..."
6. "CAIR Condemns Trump's Call for White Supremacist, Islamophobic Group Proud Boys to 'Stand By'"
7. "The far-right Proud Boys group, ... have been linked to... white supremacist organizing..."
8. "Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists"
9. "McInnes announced to the world Proud Boys as... focused on “anti-political correctness” and “anti-white guilt”"
10. "Proud Boys organised a pro-Trump rally in Portland. Kate Brown, the Oregon state governor, declared a state of emergency in anticipation of “white supremacist groups”"
11. "The Proud Boys, an extremist right-wing organization... with links to violence and white-supremacist activism"

Two of those sources need a bit of between-the-lines, but even without them, there's still nine sources explicitly calling Proud Boys white supremacist. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Trying to improve the lead

What exactly is the problem?[1] -- Kendrick7^talk 03:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is American society is undergoing a fundamental change and it does not make many very happy. So many want to revise what is documented into what they they believe to be the truth. It is the problem of national mythologies and history colliding that cause these tensions, form what I have found. Damingo Sanchez (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure we have articles all about all that stuff. But all that shouldn't be lain at the feet of a group of violent thugs. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: Hey Kendrick! There have been quite a few intense discussions about the labelling of Proud Boys (especially around white supremacy), and I feel as though your change, moving their classification as a far-right, neo-fascist, white supremacist and male-only to further down and the addition of "although led by a black Cuban-American", needs to get some more input and consensus before it should be published (especially around the wording). Also, just as a matter of fact, I don't think Proud Boys are engage in anti-left political violence "for the sake of fraternity". ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I can certainly put all of that in the opening sentence. I think it's only fair to summarize the various race issues involved here distinctly in the lead, but I am happy to discuss how best to do that. You shouldn't have completely removed my reference, in any case, per WP:REMOVECITE... actually, there are perhaps too many cites in the lead overall, but I don't know if I want to rock that boat! -- Kendrick7^talk 04:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: Per the BRD cycle, contentious or otherwise disputed edits may be reverted to seek consensus. Just for me to understand the end goal that you'd like to head towards, what specific things do you think need to be improved? Is it just the representation of white supremacy? If so, I think it's best that you find a number of sources that so prominently highlight the race of the Proud Boys' leader, keeping in mind that existing reliable sources have not ordinarily made such prominent injunctions. While it's certainly a factor to consider, I don't think, at this stage based on the sources provided, it is neutral and balanced to have any more discussion in the lead about it. It also sounds like a bit of a "I'm not racist, I have black friends" sort of thing, which raises other neutrality concerns. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the leader of the group is black seems worthy of mention somewhere in the lead, after all, if the group is indeed white supremacist, then having a black leader is highly notable, isn't it? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: We don't determine notability of facts; we rely on sources. If you can provide a significant number of reliable, high-quality secondary sources that prominently qualifies white supremacy with something like, "with ties to white supremacy, although their leader is a black Cuban-American", then absolutely we can talk about including it to prominently, but the current body of sources does not include such information as predominantly. That's not to say that it isn't mentioned anywhere, but it so far is not highlighted in enough sources to qualify being in the lead. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You are forgetting all about the WP:NPOV policy. Certainly in the interest of balance, it's only fair to mention this prominently. Can you not see that? In any case, I'll restore the source and we can go from there. I'll start a new discussion about that particular issue soon. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, NPOV is not about giving equal weight or balance to the mainstream and fringe views, nor it is about bothsideism and false balance. As stated by ItsPugle, we need reliable sources emphasizing this point. I also agree with ItsPubgle that "I'm not racist, but... I have black friends" is a good example and analogy. Davide King (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but we're talking about an actual organization with white supremacist ties being being led by black man What's wrong with mentioning that in the lead? That's not a "fringe" view; it's reality. We're allowed to apply WP:COMMON sense here. But like I said, I'll start a new discussion about it. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, I was not saying that was a "fringe" view, just that we do not give equal weight to fringe views or that we do not apply false balance; if reliable sources have not made that connection or emphasised that, then it is undue; if they did, it can be included. By the way, as noted above by Muboshgu, it is not uncommon or a impossibility that "nonwhite people join white supremacist groups." One does not need to be white to be a white supremacist, or a racial supremacist in general. There was a time when Irish people, among others, or white immigrants in general, especially in the United States, were not considered white, or 'pure' white, were discriminated against, etc. Davide King (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This article needs to go to NPOV/N or have an RFC to get input from fresh set of uninvolved editors. Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I've started the discussion over here: WP:NPOV/N#White supremacy and the Proud Boys. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Enrique Tarrio

Page watchers are invited to help improve Enrique Tarrio and contribute to discussions at Talk:Enrique Tarrio. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Extremely broad edit by User:Davide King on 2020-10-04

@Davide King: your edit 981825720 was very broad and seems to have been made without sufficient discretion. Many of the items covered in your reversion were already discussed and you can use this Talk page to raise your objections. Your reversion also deleted unobjectionable improvements, e.g. the naming of some refs. Please review your changes more carefully. Tobor0 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You were the one to make significant changes to the lead and you were reverted by, so we should follow BRD. You changed organization to fraternal organization, but given refs do not support that statement; they support the neo-fascist, all-male statement. You also made other questionable changes, like removing the SLPC designation as hate group or the removal of white nationalism from the infobox. There were just many things wrong, including many ref errors caused by your edits, that I was not able to incorporate the improved refs' name changes.--Davide King (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Another example is your white-washing change from "As the Proud Boys emerged as part of the alt-right movement, McInnes distanced himself from them in early 2017, saying his focus was "Western values" while the alt-right's focus was race. The re-branding effort intensified following the Unite the Right rally.[21][22] to "Following the 2017 Unite the Right rally, McInnes distanced himself and the group from the alt-right movement, saying his focus was "Western values" while the alt-right's focus was race.[20][21]" Please, self-revert. You did a bold edit and was reverted, we should discuss this on the talk page and gain consensus for whatever your edits were an improvement. Davide King (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't make many of the changes you are mentioning, you're mistaken. Please review the history of the article more carefully. Tobor0 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, yes, it was Kendrick7 who did most of the edits and messed up the refs in the first place, but you did this (I have reword it adding planned per source), you did remove white nationalism from the infobox and also NPR's hate group designation. Davide King (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I fixed a bunch of refs, I didn't break them. I suspect you might have reverted my fixes though! -- Kendrick7^talk 21:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, I reverted your change of ref names, which may have been an improvement, because most of your other edits were problematic and I was not able to incorporate them. Sorry about that, I hope that can be fixed. Davide King (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Right. Someone else started changing the ref names, leaving them in a broken state. But whatever, water under the bridge. They are all working now. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: I replaced the NPR hate group designation with the ADL's designation -- a much more relevant group to the question at hand. I wrote a comment about this below Tobor0 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, no, you did not "replace[...] the NPR hate group designation with the ADL's designation." You simply removed that from the lead and it was the SPLC and NPR, where did you add or get the ADL designation? Davide King (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: Again, you are mistaken. Please direct your attention to edit 981761231 --Tobor0 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, here you removed NPR (without adding the ADL's designation, where did you add that? Or did you confuse the ADL for the SPLC?) and here you removed white nationalism. Here it was Kendrick7 who removed the hate group designation from the lead, if that is what you are referring; they are the one who made the most mess. Some of your other edits were fine. Davide King (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: no, look at the edit I shared in my most recent comment. I put the ADL text there, before it read "NPR Takeaway and SPLC", and after, it read "ADL and SPLC". In the edit you're referring to, I removed NPR because it's not an authority on who are hate groups, unlike the other two. It's like saying quantum physics has been confirmed by Einstein, Bohr, and Mr Jones my 10th grade physics teacher. The podcast in mention is not in anyway notable, nor is it an authority on who is a hate group. It makes the article read dumb, as though the authors are reaching to substantiate the hate group designation. --Tobor0 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong--NPR (National Public Radio) is a highly professional news media with many experienced reporters in every state. It is a reliable sources on current events--and one that scholars rely upon as does Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That makes them a credible source of news. It doesn't make them an authority on who is a hate group. Tobor0 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, sorry, I finally got it. You did remove NPR and changed it to "The organization has been described as a hate group by the ADL and the SPLC." But I am not sure whether the ADL has actually described it as a hate group (the SPLC clearly said so and I could verify that) and I agree with Rjensen that you cannot so easily dismiss that NPR source. Davide King (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: on this talk page editor User:The_Four_Deuces says "As you pointed out, news media routinely refer to them as white supremacist. I have always taken the view that news reporters do not have the expertise to make this determination." This is my point: being a reliable news source doesn't mean NPR can competently decide who is and isn't a hate group. And that doesn't begin to address the fact that NPR is not a monolith, but comprises many programs, and there is no reason to think a relatively unknown podcast like The Takeaway deserves the same presumption of competence as Morning Edition. It weakens the article to cite The Takeaway, a no-name podcast which holds no authority about deciding who is a hate group, when you have organizations who are authoritative on the question. As a reader, including it creates the appearance of cherry picking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobor0 (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, I understand what you are saying but I do not see a big issue. It is a reliable source and provides some context for why and how "the Proud Boys seem to have an ability to attract men of color, which seems at odds with groups that borrow heavily from a white supremacist ideology." It also cites "Tanya Hernández, professor of law at Fordham University and the author of the forthcoming book Multiracials and Civil Rights, and David Neiwert, author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump, and correspondent for the Southern Poverty Law Center, join the program to help make sense of this current phenomenon." Davide King (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

We will not be white-washing this article or downplaying their racism and white nationalist footprint in any way.--Jorm (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Jorm, so how could the organization remove a description of themselves which doesn't match their tenants, expressed beliefs, or membership? Would a few semireliable sources or court summaries which suggest that they are not neo-fascists or white supremacists do the trick? It is unclear how the Democratic party isn't called "white nationalist" on their entry, even though it used to be stated as a platform but is obviously no longer the case. The current description does not inform the reader, but does the opposite of that. Maybe a section could discuss alleged views by come current or past members, but it doesn't shouldn't label the organization -TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

An organization can get "ties with white nationalists" removed from their article by... not having ties to white nationalism. We are not a propaganda arm for neo-nazis. If they stop being neo-fascists and this is reflected in reliable sources, we'll stop calling them that. It's that simple.--Jorm (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jorm: stating the ideology of the organization as white nationalist is not supported by any facts. "Ties to white nationalists" -- many of which when investigated in the sources appear to be as simple as "a person was a member of both PB and a white supremacist group" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobor0 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jorm: you are a very dubious choice to be the guardian of this article. You routinely assume bad faith, for example, by alleging white-washing off the bat. Evidence of your condescension is all over this talk page. You appear to have no shame about the fact that your definition of white supremacy, racism, etc are unfalsifiable. At times you've even delved into psychoanalysis e.g. the "I have a black friend" sort of speculation above. As someone who actually worked at WP and represents the org in your bio still, I would have higher expectations for objectivity and fairness from you. Tobor0 (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• You made fairly WP:BOLD edits to the article, so it's not that surprising that someone would object and revert. Just going over your changes, I take issue with:

• The change from "male-only" to "fraternal organization"; those terms don't have the same connotations, and I don't think "fraternal organization" is what the sources use. Even worse (if I am reading the somewhat-confusing diffs right), it appears that the source for "male-only" was removed from that sentence at the same time?
• In this edit, the timeline with regards to their designation as an extremist hate group is obviously significant and is noted as such in the sources.
• In this edit, I don't understand your objection to NPR; it's a high-quality source and having them overtly describe the Proud Boys as a hate group is plainly significant enough to deserve a mention.
• In this edit you removed a description from the infobox that seems to reflect the group's uncontroversial description among reliable sources. You can't dismiss something as an "editorial assessment" just because you disagree with it; it reflects the factual description of the group by numerous high-quality expert sources, with no sources of comparable weight disputing or disagreeing with it. If anything, removing it feels like trying to apply editorial assessment to the conclusions of reliable sources.

None of these changes had consensus on talk that I can see, and most of them hadn't even been discussed, so it's hardly surprising they were reverted. --Aquillion (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I didn't change make the male-only change, and I added more and more reputable sources for the hate group claim. A random podcast on NPR is not an authoritative source on who is or is not a hate group, but the ADL is. Mentioning NPR's Takeaway podcast as the source when there are more sources relevant to the subject. It's like saying "quantum mechanical theories have been confirmed by leading theorists such as Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, and Dr Bob Dobbs associate physics professor at Dubuque Community College." The article is actually made more dumb if you don't stop at Bohr. Tobor0 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "fraternal organization", the Proud Boys do appear to refer to themselves as a fraternity, at least if the Daily Beast article cited in the Membership section is to be believed: "no heterosexual brother of the Fraternity shall masturbate more than one time in any calendar month". If some RS specifically contests the idea that they are "fraternal order", that's one thing. But according to common English usage and their own self-definition, the Proud Boys seem to qualify. I read "fraternal organization" as being somewhat more informative than "all-male", given the general flavor of the organization. According to the current WP page on fraternity, the definition is fairly loose. The gist is "an organization, society, club or fraternal order traditionally of men associated together for various religious or secular aims". NillaGoon (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Jorm, I understand that there should be a mention of "ties to white Supremacy" as that informs the reader. To list it under the group's ideology is wrong and untrue and is very concerning. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not, and Wikipedia should not, take an organization or person at their word about their ideologies if there is compelling evidence that those are falsehoods, especially when that is covered in reliable sources. I can tell you that I prefer red M&Ms to the exclusion of all others, but if I never eat a red M&M and everyone observes that I eat green and brown ones, then very little weight should be given to my statement.--Jorm (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jorm: ok -- what is the accurate entry for the M&M Preference field in your infobox? Jorm is a red m&m-ist because that's his self-description, or Jorm is a pan m&m-ist? What is the intention of the Ideology field in the infobox -- recap what the article finds or list the group's espoused principles? --Tobor0 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, I believe it is supposed to summarise what reliable sources and body say, not merely self-descriptions or self-esposued principles. Davide King (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: okay there are two issues here. First, I don't see evidence of consensus on this interpretation, so why is it being followed? Second, none of these sources and nowhere in the article is it being alleged that the Proud Boys themselves are white nationalists, only that they have connections, and it's been covered how tenuous a "tie" is. So even if we accept your interpretation that the infobox is meant for de facto assessments, we're not presenting evidence that this is their constructive ideology either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobor0 (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/white-supremacist-protest-activism-emily-gorcenski

The author of the above article calls the proud boys racist neo Nazis, but never makes the case that they are white supremacists. Ironically, she does call Trump, his admin and police in general "heavily infiltrated by white supremacists". I wonder if this would be an adequate source to update other people and organizations as white supremacists? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"TuffStuffMcG", they ARE white supremacists. https://time.com/5894743/trump-proud-boys-history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Opening sentence of the link "TuffStuffMcG" posted: "The far-right Proud Boys group, whom Donald Trump refused to denounce this week, have been linked to assaults on protesters, white supremacist organizing, the spread of Covid misinformation and other threats against Americans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It is hard to prove a negative. They recruit on anti racism, they preach anti racism, and they promote people of all races to the highest levels of the organization. I am unaware of any other white supremacist organization that does this. It seems like doublethink on the part of moderators here and is a cause for alarm about practices elsewhere on wikipedia TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

They don't "recruit on anti racism", nor do they "preach anti racism". This is getting silly to have Proud Boys sockpuppets showing up constantly trying to feed nonsense into this page. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/15/17978358/proud-boys-trump-biden-debate-violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It isn't nonsense. That vox article says things that are true. The speech coming out of the organization is polemical, and intentionally insulting and racially, ethnically charged - but when you take the bait and actually read the arguments, they tend to make the opposite point perceived at face value.https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/227053

Misogynistic, violent, extreme, far right, xenophobic even are all arguable. But White supremacist and neo-nazi is only defensible in the context that they are "linked to", due to shared forums for the deplatformed. The organization has become much more sensitive to this and taken a harder line against this association.

I am not a Proud Boy, but I do watch them pretty closely for consistency. White Supremacy and neo-nazism are abhorrent to me. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva, which you linked, is not a reliable source. The rest of your arguments do not hold water either.

First you claim "they tend to make the opposite point perceived at face value", literally trying to argue they don't say what they say... ridiculous.

Then you claim that they are only "linked to" other white supremacist and neo-nazi because they were deplatformed, but the reverse is the truth: they were deplatformed for their white supremacist hate, for their advocacy of terrorist violence, and for their associations with other white supremacist and neo-nazi movements. The behavior and associations came before the deplatforming.

As for your not being a "proud boy", I'm not buying the denial. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment to everyone - there's a new discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard about white supremacy and the Proud Boys. As for this discussion, almost everything seems to be based on personal opinions about sources and "that's not true" sort of arguments. For complaints about individual editor conduct, take it to user talk pages or if you feel so, the administrators' noticeboard. If you want to change content in the article, please provide significant reliable and independent sources to support your assertions. Claims that sources aren't true, or that a source is unreliable, should only be made when supported by an existing consensus listed for a source or a consensus from the reliable sources noticeboard, not personal opinion or what we think "the truth" is. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There was an allegation that the proud boys were anti-semitic. If a zionist Israeli press doesn't take issue with Proud Boys being anti-semitic, that should be an indicator - as they should be expert on those opposed to their own cause. This would be "reliable in this specific context" even though there is a suggestion it is a "deprecated source" TuffStuffMcG (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: Using what a news agency (let alone one that's classified as a deprecated source with a consensus against it) doesn't say is original research and not allowed. If you're talking about the Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) site, the second line literally mentions that there have been an "outcry" of allegations of anti-Semitism:

Originally titled “10 things I hate about Jews,” the name of the clip was altered to “10 things I hate about Israel,” following an outcry on social media and accusations of anti-Semitism.

Do you have any reliable and independent sources that explicitly say that Proud Boys is not anti-Semitic? Anyways, is that already in the article? If so, it should already have reliable sources attached to it. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That same article mentions that the writer of the insultingly titled article/video was in Israel at the time, on the invitation of a pro-Israel event. He lambasted Nazis and made it clear that he likes Jews and defends Israel (in the linked article). The article is pretty informative toward the point I'm trying to make, that his "shtick" was pretty average even for a tell aviv comic on a regular night and that the content was clearly pro-Israel.

As I've said before, it is tough to prove a negative. The best way to do that is to undercut a knee-jerk initial impression (that was intentionally cultivated by mcinness for shock affect) that he was anti-semitic at all. You are supposed to read the title and think you are going to see a fascist. You are then met by a mainstream conservative comedy, recorded in Israel about how great Jews are and how Israel is a major ally.

This illustrates the point that the organization is a vice-signalling group, with a more extreme version of otherwise standard conservative principles. I only have issue with the white supremacist and neo-nazi labels as I believe they miss the point entirely. The organization can reliably be called violent, nationalistic, xenophobic etc as I think that their messaging and independent sources have evidence of these things. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"a vice-signalling group, with a more extreme version of otherwise standard conservative principles is definitely a fancy doubletalk or weasel word way of avoiding saying what the consensus of reliable sources say, which is that the group is a far-right,[1][2] neo-fascist,[3][4][5][6] and male-only[7][8] organization affiliated with white supremacists[9][10][11][12] that promotes and engages in political violence.[13][14][15][16]. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with some of that.

the group is a far-right,[1][2] and male-only[7][8] organization that promotes and engages in political violence.[13][14][15][16].

"Associated with" is a weak and bizarre rationalization for their organizational description and summary. Neo-fascist is directly in contradiction of their tenants, but I have seen the Pinochet shirts which are confusing TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, they are self-declared "Western chauvinists". Western seems to be a dog-whistle for "White" and chauvinism is "the irrational belief in the superiority or dominance of one's own group or people, who are seen as strong and virtuous, while others are considered weak or unworthy." So ironically, by their own self-description, they are white supremacists. This point was made here by The Four Deuces and I find it a nice analogy. Regarding "Neo-fascist is directly in contradiction of their tenants", let me succinctly quote you that "[a] number of far right groups officially renounce racism or fascism but it's cosmetic rather than genuine. [...] And there's a long history of racists showing admiration for some minority groups." Davide King (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

https://officialproudboys.com/uncategorized/what-is-a-western-chauvinist/

Since the adamantly define themselves as NOT that, it could help to read what they say that they mean TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have more than one ideology in the info-box. All the categories mentioned roll up to far right so why not just use that? In truth experts have a hard time further classifying far right groups into specific ideological units, since they tend to change and aren't very coherent anyway. Also, they tend not to have a pedigree. They suddenly emerge, usually led by veterans of earlier far right groups, then disappear. And they always try to distance themselves from earlier far right groups. TFD (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

FBI backtracking pertinent enough for the lead?

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.

---

Do we really need a whole paragraph about the FBI flip-flopping on their opinion about this group in the lead? Seems like this would barely pass WP:NOTNEWS to make it into the article at all, but I don't think it's informative enough to be in the lead. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: A designation of several members of the group as a threat and as white supremacists by the FBI is not minor. We can probably remove some of the mentions about how the whole group was originally classified, but based on the coverage and reactions to the declaration, we would be unbalanced to not mention that several members were indeed classified. Also, WP:NOTNEWS is about the enduring value of content; an FBI-deemed connection to white supremacy is of enduring value. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, but I think we can do all that in a sentence, not a paragraph. I'll think about how to cut this down. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: I'll go through and remove some of the excess information about the FBI's miscommunication about the scope of the designation, but we're not going to remove every mention. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Connections to white supremacy should be mentioned in the article, but is questionable of it should define the group, or receive more mention than a sentence or subsection. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: The FBI's designation of several members as white supremacy threats is important and irremovable context to a number of events. We can remove some of the excess detail, but we're not going to straight out remove crucial context. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As I've said, reference to past or current members stated beliefs belongs in the article. My suggestion is that past members views don't belong in the current organizations description when they fly directly on contrast with the rules and tenants. That's all.

Proud Boys are concerned about white nationalist infiltration themselves. When McInness was still in charge, he went so far as to blanket remove all members involved in "unite the right" particularly the disturbing torch procession. That could be PR. But it is consistent with the stated goals of the organization - to entice non-white members. It beggars belief that the proud boys would WANT non-white members in particular if their "secret goal" was white nationalism.

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/proud-boys-founder-tries-and-fails-to-distance-itself-from-charlottesville-6862fb8b3ae9/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: Removing details because they contrast with the organisation's self-proclaimed rules is original research and an NPOV issue since we're then not addressing the very common and accepted POV that the organisation has ties to white supremacists. And for ThinkProgress, there is [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#ThinkProgress|a consensus that the source is partisan for US politics] and has a community consensus that it could be considered an opinion blog and could be a reliable source on non-political topics. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"Kicking out just a few people who became a PR liability" or "Kicking out the guys who manage to get themselves arrested" isn't evidence that they "are concerned about white nationalist infiltration". Their continued alliances with other white supremacist groups speak for themselves. Similarly, Tarrio's pronouncements are about as two-faced as McInnes's. Note that he made the perfunctory "official claim" but the actual reaction on the PB hashtag has been something else. https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/10/04/the-proud-boys-are-furious-that-gay-men-have-taken-over-proudboys-on-twitter/#55af370f2aaf 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 02:50, 6 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.

Linking Western culture in lead

OK, so why is this controversial? We have a whole article on Western culture so as to clarify the meaning of the term. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, I think the issue in my view is that it is not clear what is meant by that; same thing for "Western values". Several other right-wing or far-right groups also have an idiosyncratic views of the Constitution. It may well be the Proud Boys have a similar idiosyncratic view on "Western culture" and "Western values". Are there any source that describe what the Proud Boys meant by those terms? Davide King (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If we started applying that standard, we'd have to remove half the links on Wikipedia. I don't see the point in denying our readers the opportunity to learn more about the topic via a handy link. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, well, I like to think we do apply that standard already. If something in quote is not clear, it should not be linked and should be linked somewhere else, for example in a See also section. I could be wrong though and it is not a big deal, I just would like to hear what other users think and if there are sources that discuss what the Proud Boys mean by those terms. Davide King (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

https://officialproudboys.com/uncategorized/what-is-a-western-chauvinist/

As Gavin McInness apparently invented the combination of those 2 words (according to this article), it stands to reason that he or the organization who subscribes to it should inform the definition somewhat

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, that is interesting. So by Western civilisation, culture and values, they mean Judeo-Christian ethics, not Western culture, which may actually include many things the Proud Boys oppose. Davide King (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Informed by* seems to be an important qualifier, as does the Graeco Roman Republic mentioned in the article. As a Christian, I am "informed by religion", but you will read that government should be secular.

There are other important expanses on the idea in the same article. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Either way, I think my point stands; that since it is their own particular interpretation, it should not be directly wikilinked to either Western civilisation/culture/values, perhaps adding this quote as self-description, if it is found to be notable or due, with a link to Judeo-Christian ethics. Davide King (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It's overlinking. There's no reason why a reader would follow the link to find out more about Western culture. You don't have to know about Plato to understand what they are talking about. TFD (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It's got about as much to do with "western culture" as Scientology (ethics) has to do with actual ethics. Delink it. It's doubletalk and fake definitions used as weasel words to support a white-supremacist agenda. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixing some citation efficiency issues

Hey everyone. Just based on the general excess of citation, I think the issue isn't over citations but just that so many statements are naturally controversial that they need several reliable sources. To help clean up the visuals of the article while still providing adequate and efficient citations, why don't we have a look at bundling citations into one footnote? My understanding of how that works is that within a <ref>...</ref> tag, you include several {{cite news}} etc templates separated by semi-colons. For example: this is a statement with two citations bundled into one.

Sources

New link

There seem to be reliable sources claiming that the proud boys are white supremacists and terrorists.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/proud-boys-white-supremacist-group-law-enforcement-agencies

Many other links exist. I will leave it to more experienced editors to draw the appropriate conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.44.134 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Enrique Tarrio in the lead

Emir of Wikipedia, please clarify what is undue about "Enrique Tarrio, the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, has been the chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019." That he is the Florida State Direct of Latinos for Trump? But given ref says and also talks about the Proud Boys, so it seems to be relevant and due. Or that he has been the chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019? Surely, this short uncontroversial information, that Tarrio has been the group's chairman, can have one sentence in the lead. Davide King (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, please actually discuss and clarify rather than add a bunch of tags. Davide King (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you stop removing them before discussion has finished. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, and can you please open a discussion yourself and actually discuss it rather than just adding tags left and right? I think it is good manner to open a discussion about it when putting the tag; the tag should be justified and not based on the opinion of a single editor. I opened this one for you, I removed the tag because it was not clear which part of that phrasing you found undue (if you had replied about which part, I would have added it back myself already), but I did leave intact the rewrite tag. Davide King (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry. Have had a few edits with you recently. Is this section about the inclusion of "Enrique Tarrio, the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, has been the chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019" in the lead? If so can you restore the tag, and please link to this discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, yes, this discussion is about that phrasing, but it is not clear what exactly is undue in your view. Are you referring to the whole phrase or just to "the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump"? Please, clarify this and I will put myself the tag in. Davide King (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to the whole phrase. We do not to include a mention of the chair in the lead and his other roles, especially if it not really a consequential or influential position. I am not saying that the sources are not reliable, or that is can not be mentioned in the text body. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, so I re-added it with a link to this discussion (see here). I thought it was not controversial to add a sentence about the current leader of the group in the lead (I did not add that sentence myself, it was there for a while, I simply reworded it from "Enrique Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019, is also the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump." to "Enrique Tarrio, the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, has been the chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019." I also added two refs already in body and removed a primary one from the Latinos for Trump website. The CNN source mentions both the Proud Boys and that Tarrio is the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, etc., so I thought my wording, which made it more about Tarrio being the group's chairman since early 2019 than being the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, which is mentioned in the CNN source. Davide King (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally do not think it should be in at all at the moment. Other editors may think it should be in with mention of Latinos for Trump, and other without. We will have to wait and see. That is the beauty of consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, Enrique Tarrio is a notable person. Chairman is a notable role. As mentioned below I am in favor of keeping but without mention of Latinos for Trump (which is not independently notable). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, I thought the tag {{undue inline}} was for "a fact or posit to signify that this statement may be giving undue weight to an idea or point of view". I'm not sure that there is an undue POV in the factual statement. On the other hand, it is not the one of the article's most important contents that ought to be summarized in the lead either. I don't think it needs to be in the lead, and we already have it in the infobox. Vexations (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Just keep mention of Enrique Tarrio in his role as chairman since whatever date. No need to worry about Latinos for Trump. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The association with another racist front/astroturf group seems notable. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)