Talk:Proud Boys

Should the article include both "Neo-Fascism" and "Chauvinism"?

It appears very redundant because both ideologies are very similar. Additionally, I did not want to get into an edit-war with the other contributors, so I would ask that here to better know. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

How are these similar ideologies?--Jorm (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There are similarities, though I don't know if I would say they are so similar as to be redundant. That said, I could support removing "chauvinist" from the lead sentence simply because although it's a term that the Proud Boys often use for themselves, it's not widely used in reliable independent sources (except when quoting the Proud Boys). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The term "Chauvinist" is objectively descriptive and helpful in distinguishing the organization from other nationalist movements. "Western Chauvinism" describes the focus on a pan-"western" alternative to nationalism. The group mythologizes western cultural advancements in a way similar to historical fascist movements, but disconnected from race - that "culture" is key and all races are welcome to contribute to it - in a unique way that isn't present in eastern cultures (which focus on ethno-nationalism). In this way it distances itself from racialist pseudoscience and focuses on the ideological environment unique to "the west".

Unfortunately, many tenets are opposed to the multiculturalism that has, to an extent, made western culture great - which leads to cognitive dissonance.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you got sourcing to resolve the concern about this currently only being a self-descriptive term? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

ADL mentions their extreme focus on western culture, combined with the terms we are describing.It is helpful and undisputed though, wouldnt you agree? It isn't like the controversy behind claims of "anti-racist" or "pro-liberty" as the group claims - but which claims are directly disputed by RS. I'll dig a bit deeper.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Anon the group its self condemns Fascism, it does not feel right putting neo fascists there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.224.56.242 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

We describe subjects in the way they are widely described by reliable sources. In some cases, that includes using labels that the group does not use for itself, or even rejects. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

They are an overtly anti fascist group which can be verified by their charter and multiple other sources. Much of this entry is verifiably false the fact that many of its "sources" are opinion pieces by far left activist groups is enough to make one lose faith in the collective integrity of Wikipedia altogether. Savatage2k (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It's common for controversial groups to officially deny things they support, to deflect criticism. Wikipedia has enough integrity to ask around instead. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The term "fascism" should be removed, or at least revised

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The recommendation for a rewriting of the introduction was addressed briefly above, I don't see this exact question addressed: Why are the Proud Boys considered a "fascist" organization.

The response to one objection to its use above, from "Jorm", proves its own point by using words that have no meaning, and uses them to ostensibly respond to the request.

I can see why that request had problems since it does not provide for the possibility of a right-wing socialism. The political term "fascism" usually denotes a political movement or organization of some kind to the right, even though it has socialist elements. This seems obvious since Nazis are usually considered fascists and the name itself includes the word: National Socialism. The Proud Boys don't seem to advocate any socialist positions, in fact quite the opposite. That they should be classified to the right seems hard to dispute, but the description of the group as "fascist" is very questionable. It is so for at least one reason: The term "fascism" has proved very difficult to define with any specificity despite nearly 100 years of trying, since Mussolini established his first "Fasci Italiani di Combattimento" around this time a century ago.

This topic shows how the traditional right/left spectrum has been breaking down for well over a century, with some graphs showing the extremes of both left and right meeting to form "totalitarian" systems of government. This is not the place for an extended political discussion, but it think Wikipedia has a large systemic problem when it comes to treatment of groups that are identified on the right, from the mildly conservative all the way to the extreme right. They fall into the trap of the progressive/left of using the most extreme adjectives to characterize certain groups, with the clear purpose of pushing them into the the extremist category. The "they" here are the uber-editors and those making the decisions at the Wiki administrator level. I tend to the think calling the Proud Boys "fascist" is more pejorative than explanatory. It is another example of the broad breakdown of the term, a process described by Orwell in 1944. He said that the word has ceased to mean much other than "something not desirable". (See "What is Fascism?", George Orwell; https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39403-the-word-fascism-has-now-no-meaning-except-in-so)

I would be happy to attempt a discussion of whether the Proud Boys qualify as fascist from what I know on the subject, but something tells me it would be instantly reverted were I to try. So, I leave it as a topic worth discussing since it seems any group deserves to be accurately characterized and not have adjectives repeated from sources once deemed reputable that have degraded in quality. Sych (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs)

You don't help your argument by presenting fringe views on fascism. We cannot in any case use arguments to determine whether the Proud Boys are fascist, we can only report what reliable sources say. Whether or not they are fascist was previously discussed and you can find the discussion in the talk page archives. My objection was that none of the sources used were written by experts in fascism, the far right, politics or sociology. The SPLC, whose opinions are routinely reported in Wikipedia articles for extremist groups, refers to their ideology as "General Hate," rather than fascist.[1]

Incidentally, could you please sign your posts.

TFD (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place for an extended political discussion Yes. soibangla (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The Proud Boys are an avowed anti-fascist group which is verifiable through their charter. Saying that there are "reliable sources" that say otherwise only makes those sources verifiable unreliable. Furthermore, they are an all inclusive group which is expressly stated at many points in their application process where they expressly warn against "hate" or racism in any way. Much of this article cites far left sources including the Anti Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center which are widely known for their efforts to smear and misinform Savatage2k (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

No true Scotsman —Mvbaron (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with this one. The neofascism article itself links to the fact that fascist is often used as an insult against political groups.

Fascism, while developing from socialism, and having socialistic (more accurately, corporatist) elements, is primarily ultranationalist and anti communist, and thus belongs on the far right. However, not all far right ideologies are fascist. Theocracies, absolute monarchies, etc.

While the Proud Boys qualify for some aspects of fascism (ultranationalist, populist, nativist, etc.) I haven't seen much evidence of them supporting opposition to democracy as a government form, or a corporatist economic structure (a tripartite system with government, business, and unions making decisions together). Owlblocks (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Your personal opinion as to whether they meet the definition is WP:OR and not useful here. We go by how reliable sources describe the group. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:27, 12 August 2021 (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.

Change of strategy?

[2] and [3]. Of course we'd want more and better sources. We can't use Kos and there's no consensus on Vice. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

August 22nd Portland Clashes

Yesterdays clashes with far left "anti fascist" terrorists in Portland should be included in the article as they were notable and well publicized, and at least two Proud Boys were involved as organizers in the event who later participated in the violence. History Man1812 (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

Sources? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's coverage in the Washington Post. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

They engage in violent protests/clash with counter protestors every other week. Is there anything noteworthy about August 22nd in Portland in particular? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly, there's probably been enough Proud Boys activity in Portland by now to justify Proud Boys activities in Portland, Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Phrasing in lead

I might suggest a couple of tweaks to the lead. The fist one is the redundant back-to-back repetition of "multiple racist events". And the second tweak is to fit MOS a bit better:

According to The Daily Beast, though the group officially rejects white supremacy, "members have nonetheless appeared at multiple racist events". Members have also engaged in multiple racist events and events centered around fascist, anti-left, and anti-socialist violence; and events centered around ... The Proud Boys glorifies violence The group is frequently accused of glorifying violence,

Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a policy-based reason as to why we should use weasel words to white wash the organization? Jorm (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I absolutely do not want to "whitewash" this organization. They are a terrible, racist group as far as I'm concerned. But explaining this to the reader will be more effective without awkward phrasing, would you not agree? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing "They glorify violence" (fact) to "some people say they glorify violence" (opinion) white-washes it. We are not going to do that. Jorm (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what you mean. So why does this sentence say, "The organization has been described as a hate group by NPR's The Takeaway"? Isn't that also whitewashing, if they are, in fact, a hate group? Please know I'm not trying to argue here, just trying to see what you mean. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You didn't quote the whole sentence. 'Hate group' is a designation used by specific organizations, and it has a quasi-official status. SPLC designated them as a hate group, that's the key part. Saying how "SPLC designated x as a hate group" as opposed "x is a hate group" is whitewashing is like saying "FBI designated x as a domestic terrorist" as opposed to "x is a domestic terrorist" is whitewashing... Which is clearly... not... correct. Now, someone apparently thought that it's a good idea to squeeze in a media organization, NPR, to pad the claim that they are a hate group. NPR is a trusted news org, but they're not expected to make such a designation, it would have to be seen as an opinion. However, an organization glorifying violence is certainly something any competent observer can state as fact, which would make this claim verifiable for our purposes.

In short: the difference is in the specific character of the hate group designation, it's traditionally tied to certain organizations. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

They aren't "frequently" "accused" of glorifying violence. A select number of reliable observers made this statement of fact which makes the claim verifiable. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. What about the other point. The repetition of the phrase? Seems almost like a typo. I'd just fix it, but I thought I'd bring it here, first. I'm not on any kind of mission here, just looking for copy edit opportunities to make the article stronger. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

How about:

Though the group officially rejects white supremacy, members have participated in many racist events and events centered around fascist, anti-left, and anti-socialist violence.

This trims out the quote and attribution to Daily Beast, which doesn't seem necessary, and the bit about Jason Kessler, which introduces more questions than it answers. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that reads a lot better, in my opinion. I wonder if others agree? Thanks for jumping in. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Neo-Nazi ‘active clubs’ spring up around country as handiwork of notorious fascist living abroad"

See [4]. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources for neo-fascism label

There are only four sources cited for labelling the Proud Boys network as neo-fascist, two of which actually do not use the word neo-fascist but protofascist and cryptofascist. Out of the two remaining sources, one is an editorial piece by Peter McLaren, who is not a political scientist, and is not in the least trying to be neutral (boasting about punching a life-size picture of Donald Trump). I do not think that article qualifies as a neutral source. The only remaining source, the New York Times, does call the group neo-fascist, but does not explain why, and which definition of neo-fascism they used.

I think this article's neutrality would be greatly helped if more sources were added justifying the neo-fascist label, and if those sources also clarified why the group meets a specific definition of neo-fascism. As an example, I would look at the wikipedia page on the Rise Above Movement, where the labels used to describe the group are much more well-defined in the sources referred to. The ADL and the SPLC are generally good sources for these kinds of subjects.

--82.169.68.56 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful input. I will remove McLaren's piece and add two British reliable sources that explicitly call PB "neo-fascist." soibangla (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The SPLC and ADL do not call them neo-fascist, nor do any experts on fascism or the far right. These are the best sources we could find. TFD (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

SPLC: "organized fascist street gangs such as the Proud Boys", "the proto-fascist group", and "The greatest threat to the country comes from a fascistic right-wing political bloc that includes groups like the Proud Boys." Maybe more in this search. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

They make no reference to fascism in their main entry for the group.[5] i don't think that the listing of a search for ""proud boys" fascist" is helpful because it includes terms such as anti-fascist or "far right and fascist." Proto-fascist btw means "tending toward or imitating fascism." (Merrian-Webster)[6] TFD (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

Proud boys in not far right or extremists. They are traditional and patriotic. 2001:569:5109:8000:4058:4842:3F02:5245 (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)