Jump to content

Talk:Gavin McInnes

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.143.67.185 (talk) at 13:54, 5 November 2019 (→‎Removing uncredible citations: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019

First of all, I just want to state that I'm not a Proud Boys member, I have nothing to do with them, and you will most likely assume that I am right-wing on everything (I'm not) simply because I'm arguing about this. But really I believe that encyclopaedias should be unbiased. That's all.

"Neo-fascist" as a description for Proud Boys is not factual and therefore not encyclopaedic. It is a HIGHLY PARTISAN subjective assessment and strikes me as a bit absurd. The websites that are cited to support this purported "fact" (HuffPo and The Daily Beast) are WIDELY KNOWN FOR THEIR LEFT-WING STANCES. Are the Proud Boys a group that explicitly exists to praise the ideologies of Mussolini and Hitler? Because that is what neo-fascism would mean. I have not seen the evidence that they are - Gavin McInnes always talks about Western values and free speech and I have not heard him revering Mussolini and Hitler.

The actual impartial thing to say would be something like: "some news organisations have described the Proud Boys as neo-fascist, although the group themselves deny this label".

I am not saying don't include criticism of this group. ABSOLUTELY include such criticism, because that is encyclopaedic. By all means show any connections that any members have with more extreme groups. I know that some of their members HAVE had these connections so absolutely put those in and show the relevant citations. But that should be balanced with what Proud Boys have to say about themselves. An encyclopaedia should show the reader all of the relevant facts on each side of an argument, especially on such a politically controversial topic as this. An encyclopaedia must be balanced and impartial and not endorse any one particular side. 82.21.54.197 (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I've noticed people often talk about "reliable sources" around issues like this, so I looked at the Wikipedia page about reliable sources. It says this: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". The articles cited for the "neo-fascist" claim should probably be considered "commentary", and the claim of Proud Boys being "neo-fascist" should probably not be considered a statement of fact. Here is another thing that page about reliable sources says about the bias of sources: "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". So this is why I think it would indeed be encyclopaedic to say "some news organisations describe the Proud Boys as 'neo-fascist'", with the sources cited included, because this is providing supporting information about a different viewpoint on a subject. But I don't think it's encyclopaedic for Wikipedia to describe the group as "neo-fascist" as if it is a statement of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.54.197 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2019

change line "contrary to his past remarks, such his "becoming anti-Semitic" after a trip to Israel," to "contrary to his past remarks, such as his "becoming anti-Semitic" after a trip to Israel," Vincentzed (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've tweaked the paragraph so that it makes more sense. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"noted for his promotion of violence"?

I've removed some statements from the lead for violating WP:LEADCITE and WP:BLP. The article only has one quote where he appears to promote violence, and I couldn't find any others after a quick search; also this isn't the reason he's notable. He was banned from Facebook and Twitter for being the leader of the Proud Boys, a "violent extremist group", and his YouTube channel was banned for violating copyright. FallingGravity 04:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I personally think a guy who brandished a sword to rally his troops in the midst of a riot is probably noted for promoting violence, the source provided failed verification. You are correct as far as that goes. Anyone have better sources for re-inclusion?Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There are numerous citations throughout the article which quote McInnes as calling for violence. Per WP:CITELEAD, the lede does not need to be cited if the material is cited int he body of the article. I have restored the material that was deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CITELEAD: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." Since McInnes is a living person, this obviously applies to him. As I mentioned before, we only have one quote where he appears to promote violence, and this isn't the reason he's notable. FallingGravity 05:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why, exactly, is this likely to be challenged, and on what grounds? To prevent WP:CRYBLP, please explain why this is a specific concern for this trait in this article. Are you disputing that this is accurate? This behavior is overwhelmingly supported by many sources, spanning several years of public activity, and these sources are either already cited or easily Googlable. Here are some sources which are not already cited in the article:
  • "Why are the Proud Boys so violent? Ask Gavin McInnes". Hatewatch. Southern Poverty Law Center. 18 October 2018. Retrieved 23 September 2019. McInnes has a well documented and long-running record of blatantly promoting violence and making threats. "We will kill you. That's the Proud Boys in a nutshell. We will kill you," he said on his Compound Media show in mid-2016. His followers often repeat his calls for violence and seemed especially emboldened this past summer as they participated in a number of large-scale "free speech" rallies across the country.
  • Coaston, Jane (15 October 2018). "The Proud Boys, the bizarre far-right street fighters behind violence in New York, explained". Vox. Retrieved 23 September 2019. It's that violence that the Proud Boys have become best known for, with the group even boasting of a "tactical defensive arm" known as the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights (or "FOAK") reportedly with McInnes's backing. McInnes made a video praising the use of violence this June, saying, "What's the matter with fighting? Fighting solves everything. The war on fighting is the same as the war on masculinity."
  • Aquilina, Kimberly M. (9 February 2017). "Gavin McInnes explains what a Proud Boy is and why porn and wanking are bad". www.metro.us. Retrieved 23 September 2019. 'People say if someone's fighting, go get a teacher. No, if someone's f---ing up your sister, put them in the hospital.' - This quote and others were cited as useful for explaining his worldview by The Independent in October 2018.
There are plenty besides this. I would hazard that most sources about him since the string of arrests last October mention how frequently he is associated with violence. Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You just reinserted misinformation about why he was banned from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and you wonder why it's likely to be challenged? As for "promoting violence", McInnes himself says he's promoting self-defense, though whether that's actually the case is up to the reader to decide. FallingGravity 09:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about we just include some inline citations from the sources Grayfell provided and that kind of solves that. I don't care if MacInnes thinks his antics are just "promoting self-defense" WP:DUCK. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may not care if he thinks his antics are in self-defense, but WP:PUBLICFIGURE says we should include his response to allegations. It's funny how we're willing to throw BLP out the window just because we don't like the guy. FallingGravity 18:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Simonm223 Since you've reverted my edit adding Salon as a reliable reference for his own response, could you explain why this is contested and WP:PUBLICFIGURE doesn't apply here? FallingGravity 18:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His statements aren't being sufficiently contextualized within the version you produced. Frankly we have no reason to trust MacInnes, a man who delights in playing the troll. So just saying, "he says nuh uh" is not actually an accurate neutral report of the circumstances. Again, this is a man who once stood in the middle of a riot instigated by his club brandishing a sword. Self defense? Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If his response is being reported by a reliable source (in this case Salon), then it should be included per WP:PUBLICFIGURE; whether or not we personally trust the guy doesn't matter. My edit didn't remove any context, it actually added more by providing another source. FallingGravity 18:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)as per very frequent recent guidance on the WP:ABOUTSELF statements of untrustworthy figures, those statements must be contextualized. Simply presenting them as a counter-point may be giving them WP:UNDUE weight, and introducing WP:FRINGE statements into the article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Salon article isn't a self-published or questionable source. A New York Times article also includes McInnes saying he "only ever advocated self-defense". If you believe Salon or The New York Times aren't reliable sources, take it to WP:RSN. FallingGravity 19:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of Salon and the NYT is not what's in question here. I believe that GM said what they reported him to say. What's in question is the reliability of McInnes himself in accurately reporting what he has or has not done in the past. GM has every reason to downplay his calls for violence as he seeks to portray himself in as uncontroversial a manner as possible. Furthermore, he has a reputation for dissembling. We cannot take his words at face value, and must examine them in the light of WP:DUE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at my recent edit, I didn't take his statements at face value; I wrote that "he claims such violence is only in self-defense." Generally I try to stay away from WP:CLAIM, but in some cases it may be warranted, especially if you look at how these statements are treated in the articles. The same tactic is employed in the previous sentence, which has GM's dubious claim that the Proud Boys has not ties to white supremacy. Just because we include his statements doesn't mean that's a wholesale endorsement. Once again, we can let the reader decide. FallingGravity 06:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe views such as those of McInnes must be placed into context for inclusion. This is true even about WP:ABOUTSELF statements. Especially WP:ABOUTSELF statements that could be deemed controversial, such as whether McInnes advocates for his violent gang that he founded and leads to be violent. While it's true that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be scarlet letters, they should also not mislead the reader into believing there is a legitimate difference of opinion among reliable sources where there are not. And in this case it is not the reliable sources saying McInnes is not advocating violence - they are merely reporting that he says that. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So we should cite Reliable Sources when stating what GM claims, in the context of that being what he said? It seems like we're in agreement. FallingGravity 16:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear that McInnes is denying that he calls for violence. He's attempting to cast these many, many calls for violence in a slightly more positive light. Even in a BLP we're not obligated to give a platform to spin. The article says he is known for his calls to violence, and this is still accurate. His particular, dubious brand of "self-defense" is still violence ("put them in the hospital", "we will kill you", etc.). There is no contradiction here, and he and his unreliable allies are the only ones implying one exists ("only self defense"). Do reliable sources indicate why this would matter? Respecting BLP means context and due weight, and this appears to be pretty light-weight. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a significant number of sources that describe him promoting violence, so I wouldn't describe this as a BLP violation. I do think his direct involvement in a violent political organization might be more significant than his general philosophical defense of political violence, so I might modify to say that McInnes is known for founding the Proud Boys - a far right political group that promotes violence against opponents, but that's a question of emphasis, not verifiability. Nblund talk 19:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The word "noted" in MOS:FIRST generally indicates that's why he's notable. He isn't notable because of his lectures on the benefits of beating up your political opponents and sending those who mess with your sister to the hospital. He's notable because he's a co-founder of Vice and founder of the Proud Boys. And yes, that the Proud Boys often resort to violence can also be included. FallingGravity 08:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for being banned from Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube

Nblund, thank you for adding reliably sourced information to the article. It boggles my mind that so many Wikipedia editors want to preserve false and unreferenced information in this article. FallingGravity 02:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think we're all on the same page regarding the reasons for his social media bans. Please refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS here. It doesn't help anyone. Nblund talk 19:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I generally try to avoid doing so, but after it got to the point where three different editors kept on reinserting the same unreferenced sentence (in violation of WP:LEADCITE) I was genuinely confused. FallingGravity 08:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2019

The proud boys is not a neo fascist group. it is no more then a drinking club. 89.160.152.82 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Care to provide a source for that? You also did not at all follow the template above.Beach drifter (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/08/fbi-says-proud-boys-are-not-an-extremist-group-after-all/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.143.67.185 (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing uncredible citations

Please remove content where huffpost is the citing entity. This is not a credible source and is an anti conservative outlet.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gavin_McInnes&oldid=924712482"