Talk:Proud Boys

Citation overkill

Hi, I think we should reduce the number of the citations in the lede as per WP:TOOMANYREFS and MOS:CITELEAD. It's looking like a dogs breakfast. What do others think? Bacondrum (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Another user tried to do combination cites so that it limits the number of numbers in text, but as long as there are editors trying gambits to cherry pick one source off at a time to attack and misrepresent, and then claiming "well because of that the wording has to be removed", it's probably not a great thing. It'll just be even more headache. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I think there's an issue in ignoring guidelines and style manuals in order to appease POV pushers, though I understand wanting to avoid the endless argy bargy. Editors should not be cherrypicking and making endless lists of flimsy sources to push their POV in the first place, by compromising on this we are kind of condoning a dodgy way of citing claims, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, the main reason for citation overkill is that no good sources can be found and we try to overcome quality with quantity of sources. Instead of searching for sources that say what we want, we should search relevant sources and report what they say. For example, Cas Mudde's book The Far Right Today (John Wiley & Sons, 2019) would be a great source since Mudde is one of the world's leading experts on political extremism and collaberated in 2004 with the fascism scholar Roger Eatwell to write a book about the modern extreme right. Alexandra Minna Stern's book Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate: How the Alt-Right Is Warping the American Imagination (Beacon Press, 2019) would be another good source. Then there's Gangs in the Era of Internet and Social Media (Springer, 2020) and Alt-Right Gangs (University of California Press, 2020.) I would rather use them than an editorial in an education journal where the writer mentions the Proud Boys in passing. TFD (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, "citation overkill" happens because people keep moving the goalposts and demanding ever more citations for something that's blindingly obvious. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Since I begin by identifying the best sources for articles, and I have created or contributed to a lot of articles about the far right, I can't remember if I ever had that problem. I never look for sources to state what I want in articles and therefore don't come up with a passing reference in an op-ed about a different topic as a source. But if I were challenged I would be able to defend what I used. The main objection I find when I am on the defending side of someone else's source is people who think the source is biased. I then explain that there is a different between a fact and an opinion and that for example The Routledge Handbook to Fascism and the Far Right is published by an academic publisher, it is specifically about fascism and the far right and its facts are as reliable as one would expect. And I usually challenge sources even if I disagree with them if they go against policy. TFD (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Cute, and yet what I'm seeing here and on other pages is editors who want to attack one source at a time arguing that they're "biased" or "it's WP:UNDUE, either way. And so then more sources are brought, to show that there is consistency over more than just one source.

And then cue the goalpost moving with the "you're just bundling because the sources are weak" BS. It's a Catch-22 setup. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason I took them one at a time is that it is time-consuming. First determine what type of article it is and learn about the publication and its author(s). Then read the article. Determine if the statement is a fact or opinion, or how relative to the article it is. It's a lot harder than doing a google search for "Proud Boys"+"Fascist" and copying in the first dozen hits you get. I guess the logic is that they can't all be inappropriate, hence the argument based on number of sources. TFD (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks TFD, I tend to agree. We should be selecting solid sources, like Cas Mudde and reflecting those, not googling piles of flimsy sources that fit our beliefs. As Wikipedia:Citation overkill says, the main causes of citation overkill is edit warring. Bacondrum (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

People who are concerned about the readability of the article due to too many inline sources may want to consider WP:CITEBUNDLE. Vexations (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a overhaul is needed for the sources, both for reading and for better sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for the feedback, I'd like to start by bundling the sources, as suggested by Vexations, so they at least comply with guidelines "Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations." Are there any objections to bundling excessive cites? Bacondrum (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Another suggestion I think could help is to WP:CITESHORT. And I still think we should cull some, for example if we have a high quality academic paper written by a subject matter expert, there's not really any need to use lesser quality cites at all (ie: news sources are far lesser quality than academic sources). Bacondrum (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• I just went to start bundling, and it's completely nuts. There's 13 cites in the opening sentence. I'm gonna need help with this job, or at least an assurance that I've got backing from other editors to put in the massive amount of work involved in fixing this cite overkill. I think something needs to be done about editors adding excessive cites, it's extremely disruptive. Bacondrum (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• So, I smashed through a bunch of excess cites in the lede, thinned and bundled them. There's still around thirty cites which is obviously excessive...Anyone feel like giving me a hand thinning the remaining ones? I don't want to remove anymore unilaterally. Bacondrum (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to reduce citation clutter, but I think we've gone overboard here at the expense of text-source integrity. It used to be that we had separate footnotes for each part of the first sentence: one for far-right, one for all-male, etc. That was good, not bad. Those footnotes have now all been lumped into a single, bundled footnote, making it more difficult for readers to identify the backing sources for each part. Moreover, now we have two sources in the bundle purporting to support "extremism and racism." Why are those there, if the first sentence says nothing about extremism or racism?

In fact, citations like this: "The Proud Boys is a far-right,[2][3] neo-fascist[4] and male-only[5] political organization[6]..." are not overkill. The overkill in the first sentence is at the end: "that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada.[7][8][9][10][11]" We can probably thin and/or bundle those citations 7-11, but we shouldn't be throwing citations 1-6 into the bundle as well.

If the primary concern here is the overall clutter of the lead section rather than the number of citations supporting a particular point, then that's not citation overkill, that's a MOS:LEADCITE issue. The appropriate solution would be to move the citations to the body, rather than to bundle them. R2 (bleep) 17:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Same problem for the last sentence of the second paragraph. Citations supporting different parts of a sentence shouldn't be lumped into a single footnote. R2 (bleep) 17:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable and it clearly violates policy to have have 26 cites in a single sentence (that's how many the first sentence included). I agree, (and it is policy) to place most cites in the body, not in the lede. Regardless the insanely high number of cites that have been added to the lede is disruptive editing. We can create separate notes, if it is felt to be really necessary, but the number of cites in the lede and for quite a few claims in the body are out of step with policy, disruptive and need to be thinned significantly. How we get there and what we keep is up for discussion, of course. For example, if we have academic sources for a claim, there's no need to have a bunch of lesser quality news cites tacked on - most the claims included have some really solid academic citations (and/or very good news cites), the others should go. Bacondrum (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Another option is WP:CITESHORT (probably the best solution), but that looks like a really big job. Bacondrum (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I for one do not think that news sources are inferior to academic sources in a current events context such as this. And I'm against short-form citations for non-academic articles. I agree that 26 citations for the first sentence is too much clutter. Of the various options, I'm in favor of moving the citations to the body. (As an aside, 26 citations violates no policy. Check LEADCITE, which isn't even a policy or guideline. In any case there seems to be consensus here to reduce the clutter.) R2 (bleep) 21:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I'd support moving most of the lead out into the article itself, including the cites. It was originally heavily cited because of all the people slamming the article for making statements in the lead without cites (although that's how it's supposed to work). Adding cites was just a way to stop those people complaining, but it has spiraled a bit out of control. We really should cut the lead down, moving most (if not all) of the citations into the body. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Excessive detail in lede

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.

---

Does this even belong in the lede? "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has said that "[w]hile the group can be described as violent, nationalistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and misogynistic, its members represent a range of ethnic backgrounds, and its leaders vehemently protest any allegations of racism." Despite denying that they are a racist group, the Proud Boys tends to espouse racist ideologies and attract white supremacists as members, with founder McInnes having said, "I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of. I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life."" I think that level of detail belongs in the body, not the lede. Bacondrum (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I tend to take the default position that attributed opinion should go below the fold. And accordingly, concur that the statement attributed to the ADL should be in the body, not the lead. The editorialising part of the content doesn't belong in the article. - Ryk72 ^talk

Done. Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 00:29, 6 December 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.

It should read ...

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 is a centralized political and social movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in PEACEFUL protest against incidents of political & racial brutality, all attempts to divide the American citizens plus all racially or politically motivated violence against the American people. PissedOffMeMa (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source for the changes you want to make. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:34, 7 December 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.

name of group

do we have any sources regarding the choice of name for the group and why proud boys? KKK and similar large alt right pages have a history section explaining the choice for group name. seems lacking without similar here. the boys part makes logical sense being all men but curious what they are meant to be claiming pride in given nature of protests. 101.167.226.91 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

2nd sentence of the lead explains it. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, as IHateAccounts points out, it's... not very deep, and explained in the History section of the article. The "pride" part is western chauvinism, the idea that white European males are responsible for everything valuable in our society, and they detest any criticism of that concept. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"Western" only means "white" if you discount the non-white contributions to Western civilization, which the Proud Boys do not. That sound more like a personal belief than something supported by objective sourcesTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Domestic terrorism

Acroterion, where's the source for PB being a domestic terrorism organization [1]? R2 (bleep) 20:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I'm not aware of such a designation. Acroterion (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Misclick, sorry about that, probably on an @#$%&! iPad. Acroterion (talk)

URL deleted again

Proud Boys official URL has been deleted again. I'm not seeing a discussion of why in the talk, but there is extensive discussion of why it was there in the archivesTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

likewise, any mention of the groups repeated assertion that they are against racism and authoritarianism has also been deleted from the ledeTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was to remove per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proud_Boys/Archive_5#Website. See this edit by ItsPugle. [2] IHateAccounts (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Likewise, the denials are in WP:MANDY territory and are not WP:DUE for the lead, especially after the November 2020 leadership disagreements. They have coverage in the body. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: Was there a specific diff that removed PB's take on racism from the lede, or do you just feel like more discussion of that is warranted to accurately summarize the body of the article? VQuakr (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

there were 2 votes to exclude the URL, yours being one of them. I disagree. If there is consensus that Enrique Tarrio is the Chairman, the website he promotes is the offiial URL. What about removal of any mention that they reject racism and white supremacy? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't comment in that section. Again, can you provide a link to the before/after on what was removed? VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

sorry, I meant ihateaccounts, who mentioned that there was consensus, was one of the 2 voting on that consensus.

The terminology about the group officially rejecting racism and authoritarianism - I don't have a copy/paste of the exact wording. According to Reuters and the ADL, they "tend to reject overt white Supremacy". According to their own tenets which they recruit with - they adamantly reject those things which has been discussed in archives at length

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-extremists-explainer-idUSKBN26L3Q1

https://proudboysusa.com/

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Their response is mentioned several times throughout the article, [3]. I don't think their description of themselves warrants mention in the lede; WP:MANDY was already noted above. VQuakr (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The link I attached was a paraphrase by Reuters of what the ADL saysTuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

What specific edit are you proposing? The Reuters article also quotes the governor of Oregon calling them White supremacists and the SPLC calling them a hate group. Why are you singling out the one sentence in it that summarizes the ADL characterization? VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The governor of Oregon is a politician opposed to their political aims.

You had said that it was their description of themselves, but the reuters article reported it as a fact backed up by the ADL; that they tend to reject white supremacy. If reuters said they tend to claim to reject white supremacy that would be a self description.

Since google has buried their website many pages in, and their official page has been erased from the wiki article, there would be no way for a reader to understand that the organization claims to stand against most of the epithets against them, which I expect is the point of all of the edits. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)