Jump to content

Talk:Proud Boys

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TuffStuffMcG (talk | contribs) at 12:44, 21 March 2021 (→‎Questioning the sourcing on "white nationalist"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Questioning the sourcing on "white nationalist"

Overarching note here: the people who want to label the Proud Boys with the contentious label of white nationalist have only cited Canadian sources, and two articles (from NPR and NBC) that say the Proud Boys are white nationalist in passing without any evidence cited in the article.

There are three sources used to justify the label, and only one of the three actually claim that the proud boys are a white nationalist organisation.

  • The first, The New York Times, doesn't really come close. It's describing the Canadian government's designation of them as a terrorist group, and quotes the Canadian government's opinion that some ("and/or") of the members espouse white supremacist views and have links to other white supremacist groups: In its designation, the Canadian government said members of the Proud Boys “espouse misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, and/or white supremacist ideologies and associate with white supremacist groups.” The New York Times doesn't describe them as a white supremacist organisation, it's just quoting what the Canadian government said. They instead chose to describe them as the "Proud Boys, a far-right, all-male organization".
  • The second, NBC, comes a little closer, but still no cigar. It describes them as the Proud Boys, the far-right extremist group, and then goes onto say that they are a key player in the U.S. white supremacist movement. This is describing in vague terms their broader relation to "the white supremacist movement", it is again not describing the Proud Boys as a white nationalist organisation, and is clear in their designation of them as a "far-right extremist group".
  • The third, NPR, does, with a quote a little way down the article: "The Proud Boys is a white nationalist organization with multiple U.S. chapters."

I don't think a single line in an NPR piece is enough to justify the label. Reliable sources discuss the Proud Boys a lot, and all (bar that one sentence in NPR) seem to only go as far as to describe them as something like "far-right extremists" or "neo-fascists" at the most. Wikipedia should describe the Proud Boys as reliable sources do and not create our own spin. Volteer1 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volteer1, I don't quite see why the Canadian government's "opinion" (is that really what it is, mere opinion?) should be disregarded, but this article may be a better source for the claim : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/proud-boys-white-supremacist-group-law-enforcement-agencies It's almost exclusively about how US government agencies assess the group. Vexations (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word "opinion" there wasn't doing any work for my argument, feel free to ignore it. To be clear, they are not even quoting the Canadian government calling them a white supremacist group, they are quoting the Canadian government saying that some(!) of its members are white supremacists. Your source is closer to what we're looking for here, but still only says that some US agencies label them as white supremacists, and some don't: "the Proud Boys, who some of the US agencies label as “white supremacists” and “extremists”, and others as a “gang”". That seems worth mentioning and shouldn't just be "disregarded", but is not something that supports flatly stating in the opening sentence that it is true of them if reliable sources don't claim it to be so. Volteer1 (talk)
Volteer1, fascist gets more hits than white nationalist, and white supremacist gets over twice as many hits as either, but white nationalist seems the most anodyne. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the way they are widely described by reliable sources it should be very easy to find a source, just stating that they obviously exist isn't enough. Volteer1 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article says that several law enforcement officers have referred to them as a white supremacist group, according to leaked correspondence. Not a strong source. It seems to me that instead of identifying the best sources, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League and academic literature on the far right and using their descriptions, we have decided to call them white supremacist and look for sources to validate our opinions. That's why we use a throw away line from NPR. TFD (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that does seem do be what has happened here, which is unfortunate. I think unless someone can provide sources for it, it should probably be removed for now. Volteer1 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I just did a very quick check on google and there's plenty of reliable sources that describe them explicitly as White nationalist. See below:
I have contacted the writers at both NPR and NBC to explain why they, in passing, labeled the Proud Boys as white nationalists or white supremacists. Still no reply. There is no source mentioned in the articles or explanation of the reasoning. Meanwhile, many other mainstream sources characterize the Proud Boys as right-wing, conservative or nationalist, in closer accordance with how the Proud Boys as a group or as individual members describe themselves.
A better written article: https://censored.tv/news/trump-questioned-on-telling-proud-boys-to-stand-back-and-stand-by/
"The Proud Boys, a fraternal order of “Western chauvinists” who position themselves as opposed to far-left violence and often act as security detail against Antifa violence for right-wing figures at events, have been ceaselessly maligned in media and by the extreme left as allegedly endorsing white supremacist and misogynistic views.
The group has repeatedly gone on record to denounce white nationalist rhetoric and has always been accepting of all races in its membership. They have gone viral on social media over the years for being physically attacked by left-wing militants throughout the country, usually coming out on the winning side of such altercations in decisive fashion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you hear from them and they publish a retraction or modify their articles, you can let us know.
CENSORED.TV is not a reliable source. Even if it was, the section you quoted is explaining how the Proud Boys describe themselves. I'm sure I could find you a reliable source that also supports that the Proud Boys describe themselves as "western chauvinists" (and the article mentions the phrase a few times already)–that does not mean this article will describe them in wikivoice as "Western chauvinists". When the two are in conflict, the description given in wikivoice must reflect how RS describe the group, not how RS report the group describes itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A number of organisations monitoring them have noted the connection:

Again, this was a very quick look, I'm not convinced that it's an unverifiable claim, it's verifiable...also, NPR is a reliable source. I see no reason to remove on verifiability grounds - numerous reliable sources describe them as such. Their leader being Afro Cuban is irrelevant, people do all kinds of crazy stupid shit all then time, who knows why they do it. Bacondrum 05:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon a proper RfC is probably the best course of action here, allow people to present sourcing and debate merits of claim, there's certainly enough evidence at a cursory glance to leave the status quo for now. Bacondrum 05:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The SPLC and FBI noting their ties to white nationalism/nationalists should be written about, but it is not a source for the label. The Independent source can't be used as per WP:HEADLINE given it only goes onto say The FBI has described the Proud Boys as an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism” in the body of the article, which is again the same as the previous two you mentioned. To sum up, we now have two sources for the label:
  • 1: A throwaway line a fair way down an NPR article
We should use the terminology widely used by reliable sources, not decide ourselves what we think applies and go digging for rare exceptions in the (vast!) coverage of the group by reliable sources to justify our own views. It still does not make sense to describe them using a contentious label almost never used by reliable sources in the first sentence, clearly in flagrant violation of MOS:LABEL. I wouldn't be opposed to an RfC, but it's been almost a week now and we still haven't been able to properly source a contentious claim in the first sentence of the article, so I'm still uncomfortable with it remaining at present. Volteer1 (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Far right for sure but I don't think white nationalists are a proper description. Where in any of their official literature is there word one about white nationalism?

Im not a Proud Boy myself but lean conservative and I've met many Proud Boys that aren't white.

Can't help but feel there is some serious spin goin on here. Iscream22 (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I argued above, all we have are a few passing references to them as white nationalist for example in the NPR artcle. What we require is expert opinion that says this is a generally accepted description, per Exceptional claims. The Proud Boys are best seen as a catch all group for the far right, uniting racists, Islamophobes, anti-Semites, misogynists, QAnon conspiracy theorists, sovereign citizens and other groups. It's wrong to say that the Proud Boys have positions on each and every one of these issues, in the way that older far right groups do. Hence the SPLC, which is the most authoritative source for current information about the far right, lists them as a general hate group rather than a white nationalist hate group. Its members can and do have contradictory views on white supremacy. While it's tempting to name 'em and shame 'em as white supremacists, I think that dishonesty is ultimately counter-productive. There is a public benefit in providing an honest description of the group, based on expert opinion, rather than hope to discredit them by making false claims. TFD (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop accusing others of being dishonest and making false claims. You want an "honest description of the group, based on expert opinion" here's an article by academic subject matter expert, Adjunct Professor, Buckingham Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, University of Buckingham, Candyce Kelshall - in The Conversation, a top tier reliable source that publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. "The Proud Boys are a far-right white nationalist organization" that's pretty explicit. seeing we are decending into personal attacks I'm gonna start an rfc, get more feedback. Bacondrum 21:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the first expert I have seen describe it that way. But coming to a conclusion and searching for sources to support your opinion is not the correct approach to articles. In this case, the article was written after you formed your opinion. REDFLAG applies.
What I look for in a source about this type of claim is one that is about the Proud Boys or white supremacist groups that explains why it should be labelled as such and tells us how accepted that description is. I can find lots of such sources about the Liberal Party of Canada calling it a liberal party, although that is hardly a REFLAG claim.
04:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Stop using Canadian sources to justify a contentious label about a bypredominantly American group and Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have no such policy about using sources published in other countries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." Even the left wing SLPC would be scared to call them white nationalists. They would be sued. Whoever is enjoying this power trip controlling this article, hang it up and remove the contentious label immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also no conservative sources are cited which would balance the article. You would find that the term white nationalist is only used by left-wing sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/References — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add that vote with that rationale to the RfC below, if you like, but no one is going to "remove the contentious label immediately" as you have ordered while there is an active RfC underway. Also, please note WP:NPA. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also no conservative sources are cited which would balance the article.
WP:FALSEBALANCE. Neutrality does not mean "both sides" get coverage, it means we reflect what the majority of reliable sources say. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found that the New York Post has called the Proud Boys a white nationalist group. The NYP is considered conservative-leaning, but it's not generally considered a reliable source here, so I didn't think it pertinent to mention in my list of source mentions I found. But as long as you're saying only left-wing sources are claiming this, there you have it. --Chillabit (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, so has Reason ([1]), though WP:HEADLINE probably applies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also no conservative sources are cited which would balance the article That is not true. We cite The Wall Street Journal for example, which our own article says has a "conservative political editorial line", the Toronto Sun "a conservative broadsheet", the National Post "has retained a conservative editorial stance", the Chicago Tribune "typically conservative" and the National Review a "conservative editorial magazine". Vexations (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the article applies the contentious label of white nationalist but doesn't cite any conservative sources to give balance to how the left-wing categorizes the proud boys.
National Review calls the Proud Boys, "a fringe men’s group that frequently instigates confrontations with left-wing protesters." I am okay if you add that to balance the white nationalist categorization NPR adds in passing.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/multiple-people-stabbed-23-arrested-during-election-protest-in-washington-d-c/
Chicago Tribune calls them "Far right"
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-capitol-attack-proud-boys-charged-20210319-abd3poiuazd2zmycb5p5wrb67m-story.html
The guy looking to cherry pick an instance where a "conservative outlet" like the New York Post calls them white nationalist makes it appear that you are indeed starting from a desired outcome ie. making the Proud Boys look bad and then working towards that goal by cherry picking articles rather than working to describe the Proud Boys in a neutral manner by looking at both sides. That is a blatant violation of Wikipedia standards.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/multiple-people-stabbed-23-arrested-during-election-protest-in-washington-d-c/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP#National Review. I believe Vexations was saying we use various right-leaning sources elsewhere in the article, but I don't believe any of their listed sources support the "white nationalist" label. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, that's what I was saying. We use a wide variety of sources, including conservative ones, but exclide some that are sympathetic to the Proud Boys, such as Infowars, because they are not reliable. See WP:INFOWARS and WP:BREITBART
As for right-wing sources not calling the Proud Boys white nationalist; that we provide biased sources is a requirement that is not supported by any policy, but it still can be met. For example, the
Toronto Sun writes "The storming of Capitol Hill in Washington last month spurred calls for Canada to add the Proud Boys and other prominent white nationalist organizations to the list." Vexations (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "balance" you are expecting would be false balance. We don't arbitrarily add "conservative" sources to balance out "left-wing" ones. Nowhere does the NR article challenge the idea that this is a white nationalist group. It's very possible to be both "a fringe men’s group that frequently instigates confrontations with left-wing protesters" and "white nationalist". Why wouldn't it be? Arguably, the NR source supports "white nationalist", since the overlap is pretty clear. The Chicago Tribune article calls them "far-right" and also "neo-fascist" which even more directly supports white nationalism, as the overlap is even more obvious. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - White Nationalist

Is the claim labeling the Proud Boys "White nationalist" verifiable and due?

  • (A) - Yes
  • (B) - No

Thanks Bacondrum 21:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • (A) Yes - At a cursory glance many sources describe them as such including:
* academic subject matter expert, Adjunct Professor, Buckingham Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, University of Buckingham, Candyce Kelshall - in The Conversation: "The Proud Boys are a far-right white nationalist organization" https://theconversation.com/designating-the-proud-boys-a-terrorist-organization-wont-stop-hate-fuelled-violence-154709
* Another reliable source, NPR says: "The Proud Boys is a white nationalist organization with multiple U.S. chapters." https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/19/958240531/members-of-right-wing-militias-extremist-groups-are-latest-charged-in-capitol-si
* The SPLC doesn't label them explicitly White nationalist, but does say this: “Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions: rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists,”
* The FBI has described them as an "extremist group with ties to white nationalism" https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/20/fbi-says-proud-boys-have-white-nationalist-ties-law-enforcement-officials-say/
* The Independent "The FBI says its warning law enforcement across the country about the white nationalist, all-male group"
That was just a quick google search - I reckon that's a verifiable claim. Bacondrum 21:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (B) - No: per MOS:LABEL. As said above, The Independent source can't be used per WP:HEADLINE (the body of the article only goes onto say "the FBI has described the Proud Boys as an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism") and the SPLC and FBI denoting their ties to white nationalism/white nationalists are relevant information but not a source for the label. This means we have just two sources:
  • 1: A throwaway line from an NPR article
  • 2: A statement from Professor Candyce Kelshall, published in The Conversation (who I'll note for some reason thought the Proud Boys are just based in Canada)
From MOS:LABEL: contentious labels "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". What's happened here is we've decided ourselves what label we think applies and gone digging for rare exceptions in the vast coverage of the group by reliable sources to justify our own views. This is why all we've got is a throwaway line in an NPR piece tangentially related to the proud boys and a professor's statement published by The Conversation, despite the hundreds of reliable sources covering the Proud Boys. We cannot describe them using a contentious label almost never used by reliable sources in the first sentence, this should be an extremely simple choice. Volteer1 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: I think Bilorv's sources are sufficient to say the term "white nationalist" is "widely used by reliable sources" to refer to the Proud Boys. By my interpretation of MOS:LABEL, a term is "widely used by reliable sources" if a wide variety of reliable sources use it. Some other reliable sources not using it is not counter-evidence for the term. Otherwise one could use military histories of World War II to argue that the Nazis weren't white nationalists, since there are a ton of works about them that don't directly talk about their ideology at all. Loki (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have two usable reliable sources. What are the sources (Bilorv?) you're referring to that support the label? Volteer1 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't two, there are five. The distinction between "The Proud Boys are white nationalist", "the Proud Boys have ties to white nationalism", and "the Proud Boys say white nationalist things" is a nitpick. (Also, what's this Independent source? Nobody has linked it and neither of the Independent articles used as sources in the main article has the lines you quoted.) Loki (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither "rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremist" and being an "extremist group with ties to white nationalism" are the same as a white nationalist label, that's not a nitpick. I don't know why you'd think having ties to something and being something are the same thing, and having members who are white nationalists is not the same as being a white nationalist organization (e.g. is it fair to say that the Republican Party is a "white nationalist organization" because of Steve King?). This a distinction the SPLC clearly recognises otherwise they would've just called them a white nationalist group like they do for groups who are indeed white nationalist groups, but they chose not to. This is the source Bacondrum was referring to, is that who you meant? Volteer1 (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Per Bacondrum.--Jorm (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (B) - No Having ties to white nationalists is not the same things as saying the group is white nationalist. While they draw support from them, they also draw support from other elements of the far right that are not white nationalists. Otherwise all we have are passing references to them as white nationalist and no evidence that most sources describe them that way. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which is the most authoritative source for current information about the American far right, does not include them in their list of white nationalist hate groups. I note too that the one source that called them white nationalist also said they were based in Canada, which is incorrect. TFD (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (B) - No, but also (A) - Yes. Definitely should not be the first thing in the lead, but could be included in the body with attribution. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up until a few weeks ago they had an afro-cuban chairman. They specifically list anti racism as a core tenet. Calling them white nationalists is absurd. It is a disgrace to this project and obviously put in there for spurious motove Ryantheviking (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (B) - No: per Volteer1. The organization is referred to as having links to white nationalist people and groups - as a result of their far-right extremist associations, and even notably includes members who hold such views (in spite of tenets which oppose and reject them). The idea that a belief in "western values" makes a person or group "white nationalist" is a criticism of most fraternal organizations throughout the western world and is not unique to the proud boys, except for the ideologically driven charges that recur in "reliable sources", however vaguely alleged. The group is clearly a bunch of insensitive, polemecist, bigots (I don't think they would disagree) - but the only consistent messaging against 'others" could be toward illegal hispanic immigrants; primarily considered white and culturally western/christian - and Muslims; a significant portion of which are also considered white according to standard legal demographic measuresTuffStuffMcG (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dug into it. The description by sources is varied. Here's some I found.
Describe the Proud Boys as "white nationalist": Politico, LA Times, Variety, and The News & Observer (Or C-SPAN? I can't tell who wrote that video description.)
Describe the Proud Boys as having "ties", "overlap with", or "connections to" white nationalist figures or rhetoric: The FBI, the SPLC, The Washington Post, CNN, NBC, USA Today, and Snopes
Curiously, I found an NPR article that describes the Proud Boys as "neo-Nazi".
Doesn't seem super clear-cut to me, but there it is for your consideration. If I had to pick a side I'd go with where the bulk of sourcing is here: "ties" or "overlap" with white nationalism. --Chillabit (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: The video caption describing the Proud Boys as "white nationalist" on The News & Observer appears to have been written by that website, or somebody affiliated with it, not by C-SPAN. Inferred from the fact that the same caption is not on C-SPAN's page for the video which that clip appears to have been pulled from. --Chillabit (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Here is a more recent article from NPR that doesn't say white nationalist but rather far-right extremist. So this cancels out the NPR article you are currently using? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A group can be both white nationalist and far-right extremist, so no. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is your goal to collect every label that was ever applied to the Proud Boys by a website from your list? Or is the goal to
"when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance."
It is clear NPR itself does not have a consistent view on the Proud Boys yet you are 100% certain to go with the contentious white nationalist label, even going so far as to lock the page so people can't edit it... and censor anyone who wants to moderate your defamatory writing or provide an alternate viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If editors were "100% certain to go with the contentious white nationalist label" there would not be a currently active RfC on the topic to establish what the article should say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of this has anything to do with this RFC. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that MOS:LABEL is really the breach. Degrading and contentious buzzwords should be avoided in principle, because they appear to be used more as badges of shorthand dishonor than serious attempts to elucidate for the reader. They really suggest a reader should "go no further". As a result, they are overused as a rhetorical style to kill nuance. They are less offensive in the body than in the ledeTuffStuffMcG (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - designated as a terrorist organization

Recently Canada designated the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization. The article currently states this fact in the info box. Should this information be included in the info box? Is it due?

  • (A) - Yes
  • (B) - No

Thanks Bacondrum 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • (A) Yes - We are not stating in Wikivoice that they are terrorists. Canada has designated them a terror organisation, that is highly notable and it is a verifiable fact. Canada is a major liberal democracy and shares a large land border with the USA. These are the kinds of important facts and statistics that should be included in an infobox. Bacondrum 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (A) Yes - The fact is that they are a designated terrorist group in Canada. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (B) No. The Canadian terrorism list lacks sufficient noteworthiness for inclusion in the info-box, although it should be included in the article. There are are also major concerns expressed by Canadian legal experts about its accuracy. TFD (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Four Deuces, do you have a source for those "major concerns"? I am well aware that the decision to classify them has been questioned as unwise or counterproductive, but nobody has, to my knowledge, questioned the legality of the designation. Vexations (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kent Roach and Craig Forcese, who are experts, wrote "Listing has also been used with respect to individuals, but such listings in Canada have already produced false positives, perhaps because of the due process deficits of listing by the executive."[2] While they didn't specifically question any of the existing listing of groups, they questioned its methodology. It's a decision made by a politician with no external review. TFD (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds awfully tangential and like original research to me. Doesn't change the fact that a major liberal democracy has in-fact listed them as a terror group. Bacondrum 08:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Four Deuces, That article was published 28 Feb 2018. Vexations (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and it was cited in a 29 January 2021 letter sent by the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations, which includes the ACLU and Canada's equivalent to the Canadian government.[3] Incidentally, as these sources show, the legality of the listings cannot be challenged. We're talking about Canada, not the U.S. or Europe. Bacondrum, living in a liberal democracy means taking the word of experts over some former police officer who's been appointed to the cabinet. Incidentally you should read about about Mohamedou Ould Salahi, whose story The Mauritanian just won several Golden Globe awards. He was wrongfully imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for fourteen years as a terrorism suspect and blames Canadian intelligence for providing the U.S. with the false information that led to his arrest.[4] TFD (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Four Deuces, if I understand you correctly then, we should never follow how a government designates an organization, but in stead rely on academic sources. Is that a fair summary?
    Now, if we follow the people who wrote the letter you cite, can we then describe the Proud Boys as a " violent white nationalist organization", because THEY do. Vexations (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Four Deuces thanks for the recommendation, what a horrible story, I'll check the film out for sure. We had a similar story here is Australia with David Hicks. Americas vile camp at Guantanamo really has no relationship to far-right extremists being designated a terror group by Canada though, that's a bit of a red herring - if it turned out Al Qaeda was merely an islamic men's shed group that would be more akin to what we are talking about. Stories of abuse like Mohamedou Ould Salahi's and David Hicks' pull at the heart strings, but the horrors of state agencies torturing and jailing innocent people people has little or nothing to do with the subject of this article. Bacondrum 20:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is that intelligence organizations are unreliable. I mentioned Guantanamo Bay because it is one of the few cases where there was some form of external fact checking. Ultimately, intelligence had to show persuasive evidence. The vast majority of these suspected terrorists were released without charge. Hicks plead guilty in return for immediate release, otherwise he would still be there. I don't think it is a mark of liberal democracy that we would accept the opinions of intelligence officers over expert opinion.

We should never accept a government designation of a group as authoritative. In addition to their lack of accuracy, governments frequently add and delete groups for political reasons. U.S. backed insurgents are called freedom-fighters, otherwise they are terrorists.

I wouldn't call the Proud Boys white supremacist on the basis of a letter by Canadian civil rights activists, per "Context matter." I would look for a source that specifically addresses the issue of whether they are a white supremacist group. A geology textbook for example might mention in passing biographical detail about Rick Perry, the former governor of Texas. But that wouldn't be my go to source if I was editing his article. Presumably they got their information from somewhere else. Since it's not particularly significant to the writers what he majored in at college, their statement would be less reliable that a biography written about him.

17:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

intelligence organizations are unreliable - this entire line of argumentation is absurd, as though "terrorist organization" has an objective, concrete definition that can be neatly applied in every case, completely outside the national agencies which make the designations. The question isn't whether the Proud Boys are objectively (?) a terrorist organization, but whether a country has designated them as such. In this case, they have. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Especially a less significant country like Canada." Terrance and Phillip will be furious! Poor old Canada. :D Bacondrum 21:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing personal against Canada! Heck I used to live about 30 minutes south of there and would visit all the time. Lovely place. PackMecEng (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, just kidding. Bacondrum 08:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who's saying it should be considered universal? My understanding is that we're talking about the infobox, which specifically mentions it's a designation by Canada. Loki (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (B) No – Per TFD's note of legal scholars disagreement/doubts, the notability of Canada's designation, and consistency for how the infobox template is used across Wikipedia. For a good comparison, the PKK is designated a terrorist organization by the EU, the US, Turkey, Japan and Australia. That's not included in the infobox because its designation as a terrorist organization is disputed, despite it being far more widely recognised and by far more notable countries than the Proud Boys are. It's not in the infobox for Hezbollah either, for largely the same reasons. The field in the infobox is meant for groups like Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram, groups that are widely recognised as terrorist organizations, which the Proud Boys is most certainly not. Volteer1 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think those articles should have the countries that list them as terror organizations in their info box, that is highly pertinent information. A glaring absence, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)
  • Yes. Proud Boys has sufficient activity in Canada that this designation is within their jurisdiction, and the US has no official designation for domestic terrorism but is clearly pursuing similar theories due to their role in the insurrection. It's time to stop pussyfooting around this. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A country the organization is active in has designated it as a terrorist organisation" is not the standard for inclusion, it also needs to be WP:DUE. Again, see PKK and Hezbollah as compared to Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram for an understanding of how this field is used. Volteer1 (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds more like weighted voting than due weight. If a domestic terror organisation operates in two (and only two) countries, the smaller one so designates it, and the larger one has no system of such designations, then ipso facto the 'electoral college' determines that they're not to be so described? But if the larger one did, and the smaller not, then they should? Or is your argument, or construal from a couple of fairly ad hoc seeming examples something else? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you're getting populations and voting from, I'm just saying that it seems the existing consensus (i.e. the conclusion other editors have come to regarding the field across Wikipedia) for how WP:DUE applies to this field in the infobox is that it should be added for groups widely recognized as terrorist organizations, which is not true of the Proud Boys. Volteer1 (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From a lack of clarity as to what sort of 'weight' criteria you had in mind, and your "the notability of Canada's designation" comment. Especially in the context of another editor's comment about 'a less significant country' -- which I'm still trying to work out if was a poor argument, or a poor joke -- and the opaque 'per others' concurrences elsewhere. Glad you're not applying that standard, then. So even if it were designated as a domestic terror organisation by both countries it operates in as such, the infobox shouldn't contain that, due to that not being 'wide' recognition? That doesn't seem to be the existing pattern at all, unless one is construing 'widely' in a manner that's presently still unclear to me. Indeed, it seems counter the entire logic of that markup and format: if a particular group is so-designated by a large number of countries, it gets entirely unmanageable in that format, and ends up being moved into a separate table in the body of the article, with or without a link from the infobox. And for further clarity: are you here distinguishing sharply between inclusion in Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by Canada and "designated_as_terror_group_by: Canada"? Or is the former also to be excluded on the basis of your concerns about "legal scholars disagreement/doubts", etc? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sooo, looking at the list of transclusions of the template, first one I clicked on was Ulster Defence Association: "|designated_as_terror_group_by =  United Kingdom". So does this shed light on our "understanding of how this field is used", or is this wildly inappropriate? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the U.S. does have a designation for international terrorism and apparently the Proud Boys operate in both the U.S. and Canada, which makes it international. Perhaps the reason they have not listed it as a terrorist group is that it would not pass judicial review. TFD (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very big perhaps - we have no idea...unless you are work for the US government and know something we don't (just kidding) :D Bacondrum 20:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe more like two very big perhapses strung end-to-end. The designation is 'Foreign Terrorist Organizations', and it's made by the State Department. Does that seem like a logical fit here, on any level? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
International means "of, relating to, or affecting two or more nations." (Websters)[5] Our friends in U.S. intelligence can call them international terrorists. TFD (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as per the reasons given by others. I thought I had already discuss this before, but I can't find what I wrote here or in the archives. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emir of Wikipedia: Found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proud_Boys/Archive_6#%22Terrorist%22_in_intro_sentence. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 18:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sinoam, thanks that was it. My same views still apply. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: I don't see why a country isn't a reliable source or why its legal determinations wouldn't be WP:DUE. Loki (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (B) - No adding "terrorist organization" to any group labeled as such by a single State is not a scalable idea. Canada's population is roughly the size of California, with just over half of its GDP. Should it be in the article? Definitely. Should it be in the infobox if there is a consensus among sovereign states? SureTuffStuffMcG (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Per the reasons given above.Sea Ane (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward yes. According to infobox, this is a terrorist organization "as designated by Canada". This is correct information. Simply placing "a terrorist organization" would be incorrect. But should such info be included to the infobox at all? This is less certain and more subjective. Would we like to include to the infobox such info for all organizations designated as "terrorist" by countries like Turkey or Russia? Probably not. However, in this specific case, not only Canada, but the US law enforcement organizations also say about their involvement to the recent "domestic terrorism" act. My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per reasons of Volteer1. Mention that it's designated as a terrorist organization by Canada in the description, but not in the lead or in the infobox. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 00:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per reasons of Volteer1. Eccekevin (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per TFD's reasons. Idealigic (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It is a fact, and Canada’s decision to make such a designation is no small feat. The relevance of such a designation is further backed up by the fact that there is an active chapter of the Proud Boys in Canada. Including this in the info box is also consistent with other articles across Wikipedia. Fwaff (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes of course. The Template:Infobox_militant_organization includes the designated_as_terror_group_by label, which conveniently links to the List_of_designated_terrorist_groups which gives a good overview of who designates who as terrorist group. I don't see a convincing arguemnt presented why it should not be included in the infobox, especially since there is a field there with exactly this purpose. I also find the claim that Canada is somehow not noteworthy pretty absurd - since when is that a criterium? "The field in the infobox is meant for groups like Al-Qaeda" is also unconvincing, that is definitely not written anywhere. --Mvbaron (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (A) - Yes: there's no dispute in reliable sources about this designation, so it's suitable for inclusion in the infobox. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - How is this even a question? We have a field in the infobox for terrorist designations, we have a terrorist designation that has received a massive amount of coverage, and the manner of inclusion in the infobox does not extend beyond an attributed designation by a particular country/agency. There is no "objective" measure we must weigh the designation against so that we can determine whether it is Truly and Rightly a terrorist organization. That people disagree with the designation, or with terrorist designations in general is perfectly relevant in the body of the article, but the infobox is just for whether the designation exists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (B) - No. Only because this is an editorial decision we are making to decide what gets included in the infobox. I browsed through List of designated terrorist groups and Organizations designated as terrorist by Canada, and I saw a significant amount of organizations that didn't have their designation as a terrorists included in their infobox: FLQ, Combat 18, PKK, Tamil Tigers, PLF; even Liwa al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar and FARC (the latter two being the only ones not designated by Canada). I don't say this because I think that if the designation is included for the article on the Proud Boys that I think it needs to be added for the others.. far from it! I think this infobox field should be used extremely lightly since it gives so much prominence. Like gosh, I would be pretty devastated to see this infobox field widely used since it's such a black mark with no room for nuance or context.
    The other reason I have for placing myself in this option is because something TFD said that didn't sit well with me. There does not seem to be a lot of oversight for Canada's terrorist designation process that pretty much leaves it to a handful of politicians to make the call and/or verify an organization's inclusion. It reminds me of that time Dan Malloy (governor of my state) called the NRA "in essence a terrorist organization" (source). You can also compare this to the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA) writing a training guide that says to treat BLM activists as terrorists ([6][7]). If either ILEETA or Malloy had the ability to officially designate groups as terrorists, I wouldn't feel comfortable making their pronouncements so prominent on Wikipedia. Let's just leave it in the lead (with prose!) where it belongs. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forum discussions

Hi all, we've had a problem here recently with trolling - forum discussions and personal attacks. Comments about other editors being "left-wing fascists" and general, unactionable complaints should not be responded to as per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, instead these comments should be promptly removed. I urge everyone not to allow these kinds of disruptive editors to fill the talk page with garbage and nonsense. Bacondrum 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soapboxing and unactionable demands
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To be fair though it is clear that the people who have the edit control of this page started with the goal of slandering the Proud Boys and cherry picked articles to support their claims. They are not working in good faith to provide alternative view points from conservative outlets, and they have locked the page for editing. They have been provided with countless sources that do not describe the Proud Boys as white nationalists and refuse to include these view points in the article, in violation of Wikipedia's standards for issues like this.67.243.144.101 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make baseless accusations. For example, the page was protected in accordance with policy, not by anyone involved in editing the page, a fact which is easily proven by looking at the (public) protection log and searching edit history. As for your comment about "countless sources that do not describe the Proud Boys as white nationalists"—I can find countless sources that do not mention that the earth is round. That does not mean I can use them to say the earth is flat. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but the white nationalist thing is certainly a point of contention, even among left-wing outlets. https://www.mediamatters.org/white-nationalism/cnns-new-day-downplays-proud-boys-links-white-nationalists Yet you willingly apply the white nationalist label without qualification. Why won't you say in the article that some news outlets call them white nationalists and some don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as I've said repeatedly, the discussion to determine how we treat the claim is still underway and has not yet been closed with a result. You are welcome to join it and present your suggestions for how the article ought to approach it; just please note that it's not a vote. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our side has presented sufficient evidence to show that conservative news sources do not call the Proud Boys white nationalists. I'm sure if someone called you a "white nationalist" you would consider that a contentious label. In accordance with Wikipedia's own standards, the contentious label must be removed immediately and without discussion. Specifically, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I am familiar with Wikipedia's basic policies. You'll note that WP:BLP is talking about removing "unsourced or poorly sourced" material (this is not), not material that is not sourced to conservative publications. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taking some passing lines from left-leaning publications and using that to paint the Proud Boys as white nationalist, without any moderating effect from mentioning how they are portrayed in conservative sources, is certainly poorly sourced contentious material. So what is the hold up now to making the correction now? Will the editors act in good faith to Wikipedia's own standards or stall some more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough, you've been warned about accusations of bad faith. Acroterion (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you Acroterion?67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the administrator who's about to block you for disruptive editing. Acroterion (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are certainly not contributing to the discussion. I just established why the white nationalist contentious label has to be removed or explicitly sourced to the left wing sources it comes from while adding the conservative view point as well to balance the article. This must be done immediately and without discussion per Wikipedia's own guidelines. Now you want to block me?67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&oldid=1013400470"