Talk:Proud Boys

No Basis for "neo-fascist" Claim

I have been trying without success to pin down any source of the claim that the "Proud Boys" are in any way related to the notion of fascism, except for the opposition to ANTIFA which in of itself would not make one a fascist. There are loose citations to various articles which casually throw out the term "neo-fascist" but are themselves unsubstantiated.

It would seem that the most authoritative, comprehensive, and objective resource on the nature of the "Proud Boys" can be found at the Anti-Defamation League website: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/proud-boys-0

If any resource would be motivated to identify fascist organizations it would be the ADL, yet they find no such association. The wording of the "Proud Boys" as "neo-fascist" should be struck as it is not appropriate and Wikipedia should be committed to maintaining an accurate and trustworthy library of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The short answer is that the Proud Boys are verifiably neo-fascist. In dependent reliable sources -- cited in the article -- repeatedly state that the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. As a result, Wikipedia says they are neo-fascist.

If you dig through the talk page archives you will find similar discussions. What independent reliable sources say is -- for Wikipedia's purposes -- self-substantiating. Reliable sources do not need to provide substantiation, proof or evidence of any kind for what they say. As a result, when such sources say the Earth is spherical, HIV causes AIDS, New York City is the largest metropolitan area in the world by urban landmass or the Proud Boys are neo-fascists, Wikipedia reports the same, cites the sources and moves on.

Anyone who would like to argue the sources are wrong and the Earth is flat, Hong Kong is larger, etc. is free to try to find independent sources saying those things, argue with the sources (by talking to them) or blog about it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

How can something be verifiably neo-fascist without any actual verification? Surely there must be SOME evidence that this particular group meets the description. If Wikipedia is to be a reliable source, there should at a minimum be evidence presented that this group meets the definition of fascism. According to Merriam Webster, fascism can be defined as:

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

further, neofascism is described as:

a political movement arising in Europe after World War II and characterized by policies designed to incorporate the basic principles of fascism (as nationalism and opposition to democracy) into existing political systems

At a minimum there is a complete lack of support for a dictatorial leader, quite the opposite actually, and more broadly is completely against a strong government authority. The stated aims and actions of the "Proud Boys" could not be more inappropriate for the label "fascist" or "neo-fascist". There has not been any claim against democracy and the group is apparently quite pro-democracy and anti-government.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk • contribs) 01:05, August 24, 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not gather evidence, consider definitions of terms, weight the evidence and decide if the Earth is sphereical, HIV causes AIDS or anything else. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject.

If independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly said the Proud Boys are an improv comedy group from Zimbabwe, Wikipedia would say the same.

How can you tell that independent reliable sources say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist? The sources are linked in the article, in some cases with direct quotes and links to the articles. If you feel the sources do not say what we are saying they say, discuss it here. If you feel they say other things we aren't saying but should, discuss it here.

How can you tell the sources are independent reliable sources? They are independent in that they are not directly connected to the subject (for the same reason you wouldn't expect to get unbiased info on Shecky Greene from Greene, his publicist, etc.). Sources are "reliable" if they fit the criteria discussed at WP:RS. If you don't think a source we are using meets our criteria, discuss it here. If you feel there are other independent reliable sources we should be using but aren't, discuss them here.

That's the basics. For most articles, you can pretty much dive in and edit details of Greene's career or whatever. Other editors will review your changes and go from there. I suggest as a new editor looking at a contentious subject like this (see the note on your talk page) that it's generally a good idea to discuss the issues first. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the sources are unbiased. The first of the listed sources is Buzzfeed for christs sake. The second is Mother Jones, whose own Wikipedia page describes it as leftist and progressive. The third is a 404 page. The fourth is Slate, a magazine whose own Wikipedia page criticizes it for being "contrarian". These are not by any objectively reasonable standard unbiased, reliable, or authoritative sources - they are op-eds in famously biased and politically motivated publications. An op-ed should not be considered a source for a claim unless it can be reasonably argued that the author is an authority on the subject, but in that event surely it'd make more sense to just cite them from their own published work.

Personally I have no dog in this fight, I do not particularly care one way or another whether the Proud Boys are or are not in fact "neo-fascist", what I take exception to here is what I can see as being politically motivated cherry picking by Wikipedia editors. Citing only demonstrably opinion pieces from demonstrably left-wing sources for information on the nature of a demonstrably right-wing group is blatantly in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality rules. 50.69.168.189 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC) (Badharlick, not logged in)

You are mistaken in several ways.

Wikipedia's policies (specifically WP:NPOV) do not require neutral sources. There is no such thing as a neutral source. We require reliable sources (we'll get to your take on "reliable" in a moment) and that we neutrally summarize what they say. Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. We neutrally report that.

Cherry picking would involve us selecting sources based on what they say. For this to be true, you would need to demonstrate that a meaningful number or similarly reliable sources contradict this statement, saying, perhaps, that the Proud Boys are a libertarian gardening club who, through a remarkable series of mix-ups, repeatedly end up with various fascists groups at violent protests in favor of statues of failed treasons supporting owning human beings. Apparently, they were there to discuss appropriate soil amendments for hydrangeas.

"Reliable" sources are those published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You may disagree with what they feel is worthy of inclusion, but if they say it what a hot, humid night when members of the Proud Boys joined members of Identity Evropa and other neo-fascist, white supremacist groups, you can bet it wasn't a chilly afternoon tea party with the local Kiwanis Club. The full criteria are outlined at WP:IRS.

Multiple independent reliable sources state the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. Wikipedia, therefore, neutrally and verifiably states they are neo-fascist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

What positions or lineage or anything else do they share with fascism? We cannot treat certain sources as "reliable sources" when it comes to political descriptions ie CNN etc. They have featured op-eds accusing math and time of being racist/fascist institutions. This sort of behavior isn't going to further your ideology, it's just going to kill wikipedia and give rise to neutral alternatives. There are serious students of fascism who cannot swallow the idea that a an overtly multiracial, pro-capitalist, pro-free speech libertarian group are "fascist". Please provide some semblance of a supporting argument. Anything at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C801:9FA0:CDFC:3B25:8369:6793 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Upon review, the "Proud Boys" group appear to be laissez faire activists at the opposite end of the spectrum relative to the Fascist movement. There is a slang usage of the word "fascism" popular in the modern American press, but it has no coherent relationship with historical fascism. In this slang usage, it is common to refer to landlords or teachers as "fascists" on the basis that they wield bestowed authority, but not a reference to the literal fascist movement of WW2 nor neo-fascist offshoots. This is equivalent to describing homeowners associations as "Stalinist" in the opening paragraph of their Wiki entry, then backing up the claim with 3 or 4 articles referring (figuratively) to "Stalinist" regulations. While a few people can force bizarre edits, equally few will take the entry seriously. The damage is ultimately done to the medium of Wikipedia. Meanwhile "Proud Boys" -- whom benefit from portraying their opponents as hysterical zealots -- are probably thrilled to see that stereotype on display. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C801:9FA0:CDFC:3B25:8369:6793 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources say they are neo-fascist, so Wikipedia says they are neo-fascist. If you feel any of the sources are not reliable, feel free to take them to the Reliable sources noticeboard. If you feel Wikipedia articles should be based on your assessment of the evidence, please read WP:V as that is not how Wikipedia works. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"Independent reliable sources say they are neo-fascist" - no, they don't. Op-eds from politically biased publications on only one side of the political spectrum say they are neo-fascist. There is no counter-point to this produced and so far you've only provided a very watery argument in defense of this. Once again it is a pretty clear cut case of WP:Cherrypicking. You've pointed to all manner of other wikipedia policies as justification, but have not answered for the policy that has been violated. WP:Cherrypicking exists because if it didn't, it'd be possible to slant an article entirely in favour of the political opposition by only citing from sources that support that angle. That means there is more burden on an editor than just "well I found a handful of sources, that's good enough". 50.69.168.189 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC) (Badharlick, not logged in)

The sources are independent: They are in no way connected to any subject relevant to the topic. The sources are reliable: They meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS. Therefore, they are "independent reliable sources". They say the Proud Boys are neo-facist. Therefore, independent reliable sources say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. Therefore, the Proud Boys are verifiably neo-fascist.

Wikipedia:Cherrypicking is not a policy. It's not even a guideline. It's an essay. Anyone can write an essay to present their reasoning. Yes, it is possible to inject bias into an article by ignoring sources that contradict your point of view. I note that you dislike the sources that we have here but have not identified any way in which they violate any of our policies or guidelines. You have called it "cherrypicking", apparently indicating that you feel there are sources saying the Proud Boys are not neo-fascists. To have that argument taken seriously, you will need to show us such sources and present a reasonable argument that those sources are reliable and the material meets WP:WEIGHT.

That's it. That's how you will need to present your argument. I will not be making your argument for you. Find the sources, present them here and show they merit inclusion. Detail -- based on Wikipedia's policies -- any problems with existing articles and how they are used. Arguing that you don't like what the article says and therefore it must be changed is a waste of time. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Isn't there also a problem with Wikipedia policies against contradictory articles? This apparently politically biased article on the Proud Boys is in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia page on New-fascism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism). It would seem that either this Proud Boys article should be corrected or the definitions on the Neo-fascism page should be corrected in order to maintain site consistency.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.238.213 (talk • contribs) 22:16, September 16, 2020 (UTC){{subst:spa|24.2.238.213}

Neo-fascism does not say "The Proud Boys are not neo-fascists]]. Instead, it says things that you feel do not apply to the Proud Boys. You could spend the rest of your days arguing Richard Nixon contradicts Quakers and thousands of other imagined "problems".

Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. Zero independent reliable sources say they are not. Wikipedia verifiably and neutrally reports they are neo-fascist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the OP on this. Your first source quotes the OPINION of a local politician, not a law enforcement agency or any kind of watchdog organization like the ADL. Also, just because a news source (independent and reliable are up for debate at this point) repeatedly says something, doesn't mean it's true. Just look at the debacle about Sandmann. There were quite a few "independent reliable" sources claiming he was some kind of racist taunting Nathan Phillips. However, as it turns out, that wasn't true in the least, but they just kept going with that narrative even after the actual truth came out. Guess what happened after that? Sandmann sued them for defamation and won. Guyveru01 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"News source A was wrong once, therefore we can't possibly know the truth, so we should just take a violent street gang at its word. Haha, checkmate lieberals!" Nah. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed the buzzfeed source, because the basis of that inclusion was a direct quotation of some woman from some advocacy group describing it as "neo-fascist" rather than Buzzfeednews, however other sources do define it as neo-fascist. If you feel the existing presentation is taken out of context, presenting your argument to Neutral Point of View noticeboard is a good option given that it's been discussed already here and still continue to be controversial. Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"Independent" sources are those not associated with the subject. The Proud Boys are not an independent source for anything about themselves. The sources cited in the article are independent.

"Reliable" sources are those that meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS. The simplified version of those criteria is "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Essentially, that's New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, Fox News (other than for science or politics), yes and Breitbart News, The Epoch Times, Daily Mail, InfoWars, no. The sources cited in the article are reliable (many of them listed at WP:RS/P).

That you do not like or trust a source or disagree with what they say about the group is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Guyveru01: Your claims that "independent and reliable are up for debate at this point" can only be based on not understanding Wikipedia's uses of the terms.

If any source describes the Proud Boys as fascist, then that source is NOT reliable. Period. Too paraphrase SummerPhD, if a source claims that Earth is flat, witchcraft causes AIDS, Wakanda is the largest metropolitan area in the world by urban landmass, or the Proud Boys are fascist, then it's not reliable. All information from such sources should be removed from all articles. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your demand conflicts with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and therefore will be ignored. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

USA Today: "telling the neo-fascist group "Proud Boys" to "stand back and stand by." https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2020/09/30/trump-tells-proud-boys-stand-back-and-stand-by/3584435001/

Sky News: "Fred Perry has pulled one of its famous polo shirts after it became associated with a neo-fascist organisation[Proud Boys]." https://news.sky.com/story/fred-perry-stops-selling-polo-shirt-after-it-becomes-associated-with-far-right-group-12084253

The Irish Times: "telling the far-right, neo-fascist Proud Boys group to "stand back and stand by."" https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/proud-boys-stand-back-and-stand-by-trump-refuses-to-condemn-white-supremacists-1.4368304

The Guardian: "Company distances itself from US fascist group as it halts sales of garment in North America" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/28/fred-perry-withdraws-polo-shirt-adopted-by-far-right-proud-boys

La Vanguardia: "Los Proud Boys, el grupo neofascista solo para hombres que Trump evita condenar" [The Proud Boys, the men's only neo-fascist group that Trump failed to condemn.] https://www.lavanguardia.com/internacional/20200930/483765812156/proud-boys-trump-neofascista-hombres-debate.html 191.92.157.214 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of End Domestic Terrorism rally into Proud Boys

With the benefit of hindsight, I think it's clear that this event lacks the historical significance, lasting effects and/or widespread impact required to satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT. While there was a lot of press coverage in advance of the event, I'm not aware of any substantial coverage published since its immediate aftermath. Expanding the existing section of the Proud Boys article to cover some of the impact and aftermath, and redirecting this there, seems like the best solution. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Clearly enough detail at both End Domestic Terrorism rally and Proud Boys to justify standalone pages. IMO, merging would be a significant disservice. There are also many additional sources posted at Talk:End Domestic Terrorism rally to be incorporated into the article body. Further expansion needed! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: it's fairly normal for there to be no coverage after a rally takes place, unless there's significant information that only comes to light after the event, but it received substantial coverage at the time for a variety of different events and occurrences surrounding the rally, as well as the rally itself. I suppose it would be good if there were sources that note connections of its lasting significance (e.g. Trump later declaring antifa a terrorist organization) but it seems reasonably clear that it's of historical significance in the context of (e.g.) the Proud Boys' history and Antifa in Portland. — Bilorv (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The article sourcing in its present conditions might fail WP:PERSISTENCE requirements to remain as a stand alone article, but a quick search now shows coverage after the initial heat has died down, including at national level in Aljazeera, so the length of article and ongoing coverage are sufficient to merit its own article. Graywalls (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is enough information to justify a standalone article it should continue to be summerized and linked in the events sub-heading. Hollywood43ar (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The rally has had a WP:LASTING impact both as an early example of the evolving relationship of the Proud Boys and their critics as well as the Portland law enforcement response to gatherings of the sort. The rally article meets the criteria laid out at EVENTCRIT. The event had widespread coverage in reliable sources, the details of which are best be enumerated in its own article. The topic is best captured here as a summary, as shoehorning the rally into this article would demonstrate undue weight given to the topic. gobonobo ^{+ c} 04:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There's clearly little interest in merging here. Can we close this discussion and remove the tags already? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2020

The sentences stating that proud boys are a neo fascist supremist group are inherantly biased and hold no ground. These are bold unsupported claims. Many spokesmen of Proud Boys are black, and it is stated on the groups page "the group is anti-SJW without being alt-right. “Western chauvinist” includes all races, religions, and sexual preferences." All evidence provided by the article creator is given by biased websites such as SPLC which has been regarded as a far left source by mediabiasfactcheck.com, nationalreview.com, and several other sites.

Change "Neo nazi" and "white supremacist's" to "Right wing trolls" and "antagonists" MKTRCN (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As usual, no reliable sources were provided.--Jorm (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This article appears to be biased and emotional

This arrival appears to be biased and emotionally charged. I went to the Proud Boys site to see what they’re about and the description in this article is way off base. Wikipedia better clean up their act or it’s going to lose all credibility. Trusam (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction- this article, not arrival. Trusam (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Trusam, what specific changes are you seeking? Do you have alternative sources of information? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes and reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. We do not report that a breakfast cereal is a "nutritious part of this complete breakfast" or that a particular car is the "safest vehicle on the road today", though I'm certain the cereal and car companies say that. Instead, we report what indepependent reliable sources say: the cereal is 75% sugar by weight, the car was recently remodeled (and now tends to explode with rear-end collisions, and the Proud Boys "is a far-right and neo-fascist organization that admits only men as members and promotes and engages in political violence". Independent sources are those not associated with the subject. "Reliable" means the sources meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Call them what they are

they're a violent, white supremacist terrorist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F09B:A3ED:F4BC:7F76 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC) — 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F09B:A3ED:F4BC:7F76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia does not look at the group, compare them to published definitions of terms and decide what to call them. Instead, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject.

Independent reliable sources say the Proud Boys are a far-right, neo-fascist organization that promotes and engages in political violence, so that's what Wikipedia says. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Their supporters think that this Wikipedia article is biased against them, while their opponents think it is biased in favor. That's a rough indicator that we are getting things mostly right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is for everyone. Before posting anything here, please visit WP:5P2 and read through the different links within the paragraph "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" before anything. After reading them, you'll have a general idea of acceptable sources. You'll learn more with experience. There are certain sources that shouldn't be used as a general rule like the Post Millennial, anarchist zines, reader comments section of news articles, self published materials from citizen journalists, such as TWITTER FEEDS just to name a few. If the changes you are proposing can only be sourced through those sources, then the answer is no. It's not happening. If in doubt, post the source here and it can be discussed. Subject's own Twitter, Antifa's twitter, etc are also unacceptable as a source for pretty much all purposes. Graywalls (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 30 September 2020

2017 Chicago stabbing In April 2017, a concert organized by the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police to protest Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx attracted several people wearing Proud Boy clothing. One of them, Thomas Christensen, got into an argument with another attendee, and ended up stabbing him with what the prosecutor called a "folding dagger" with a 3-inch blade. Christensen was arrested on charges of aggravated battery.[77] In August 2019, Christensen was convicted at a bench trial; the judge rejected Chrsitiansen's statement that he acted in self-defense. After the trial, a friend confirmed that Christiansen was a member of the Proud Boys.[77]

The portion of this wiki-article, which I copied and pasted above, is incorrect (probably because the Sun Times article it uses as a reference is misleading). This stabbing happened at a concert, which is correct. That concert had absolutely Nothing to do with Kim Foxx, the Chicago Police, or Chicago FOP, which I am a member of. There was a Protest organized by Chicago FOP, against Cook County State's Attorney, Kim Foxx, on a different date. Members of the Proud Boys were rumored to have been in attendance at this rally. The Sun Times insists the offender from this stabbing was one of the Proud Boys who attended the FOP rally, while the FOP insist that no members of the Proud Boys were invited to, or present, at their rally. The FOP rally against Kim Foxx, and the concert where the stabbing took place, had nothing to do with one another. Chicago FOP, and Chicago Police, had nothing to do, in any way, with the concert where this stabbing took place. This wiki article is false (frankly slanderous) in that Chicago FOP had nothing to do with this concert where a Proud Boy stabbed someone, Chicago FOP obviously did not organize this concert, the Chicago FOP absolutely did not allow or condone the presence of Proud Boys at any Chicago FOP sponsored event. 73.110.196.223 (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If your position is that the Sun Times is wrong, you'll need to find a better source contesting them, or at least reporting it differently - ideally a WP:SECONDARY source rather than just a statement by the Chicago FOP. --Aquillion (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Even thought it's a reliable newspaper, there's a problem. I have removed it in entirety, because I don't find the evidence of connection meets WP:BLP standards. The newspaper didn't report he is a Proud Boys member; just that his friend said he is and reported it as just that. Chicago Tribune also reported on this stabbing incident, but makes no connection to Proud Boys; or the Chicago FOP for that matter. I say this stay off entirely; until there's a more reliable source beyond "friend said he's a Proud Boys member" regardless of who's parroting that sentiment unless it has been independently verified by a reliable source and that source is willing to speak of it in a voice other than "his friend says...". These are Chi. Tribune links to this story.

* https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-northerly-island-stabbing-verdict-20190830-cjkbkhtpnvfhbarja4cc4ck5ka-story.html

* https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-northerly-island-stabbing-charges20170810-story.html

Graywalls (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@73.110.196.223:, @Aquillion:, I have removed the whole part, but it really has nothing to do with the request, but rather because of concerns wrt to insufficient evidence to show the relevance to Proud Boys at this point. BTW, requester, if you're saying that Sun Times actually has factual errors and you're concerned about it, perhaps reach out to them and ask them to correct it. Graywalls (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

Please add a wikilink to the word "paleoconservative" in the third sentence of the lead. Not everybody knows what it means, especially outside of the US. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:8CFA:D59F:27F2:1D2E (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Alternatively, delete the word because it is not used in the article body. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:8CFA:D59F:27F2:1D2E (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. NedFausa (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 presidential election

Trump mentioned them on the debates, but it does not fall under the "activities" or "events" done by Proud Boys. Any ideas how to keep Trump's statements, while not including them in Activities section?

It could also be merged (after massively shortened) to their introduction section.SunDawn (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

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.

---

Change: "The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence."

To: "The Proud Boys is a right-wing, male-only political organization that acts as a local militia in response to political violence." Aninniemousse (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: ha. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 30 September 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.

Info is wrong

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 organization is not neo nazi fascist anything. In fact you will be disavowed if you rub elbows with racial Supremacy groups. The founder literally aid this in an interview and it's on their website. Ladysavage123 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Jan.--Jorm (talk) 17:37, 30 September 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.

Scoffing at semi-protected edit requests

Is it really necessary to scoff at users making semi-protected edit requests—as administrator Muboshgu did here ("ha") and editor Jorm did here ("Sure, Jan) [requester's handle is Ladysavage123]? NedFausa (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Surely it would be wrong to not scoff at those promoting racism and racists. Isn't a better position to permanently ban racists? Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It is when said semi-protected edit requests are trying to normalize and sanitize a page about a violent neo-fascist white supremacist militia group. If I proposed a change to the Confederacy Page to try and sanitize out the slavery stuff, I'd be quite sympathetic if people were rather dismissive of a point of view that has no basis in fact, and more importantly no basis in reliable sources. Also

"WP:NOT" and "WP:!" redirect here. For other uses of "WP:NOT", see Wikipedia:Not (disambiguation). For other uses of ! in Wikipedia jargon, see Wikipedia:Glossary. For the Department of Fun, see WP:¡.

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia does not aim to contain all knowledge. What to exclude is determined by an online community committed to building a high-quality encyclopedia. These exclusions are summarized as things that Wikipedia is not.

Style and format

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia

Print Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. There is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content.

However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.

Editors should limit individual articles to a reasonable size to keep them accessible (see Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles signals a natural growth of a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Print encyclopedias can cover most topics only in short, static articles, but Wikipedia can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly.

Encyclopedic content

Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not exhaustive.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Main page: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

No, it isn't part of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary. Missing dictionary definitions should be contributed there. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Definitions. Articles should begin with a good definition or description, but articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded, Wikipedia is not the place for them. In some cases, however, the definition of a word may be an encyclopedic subject, such as the definition of planet.
2. Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. Articles almost always focus on a single definition or usage of the title. Articles about the cultural or mathematical significance of individual numbers are also acceptable.
3. Usage, slang, or idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney, or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not. See § Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal below. For a wiki that is a collection of textbooks, visit our sister project Wikibooks. Consider transwiki-ing such content there.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

"WP:FORUM" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources, Wikipedia:Forum shopping or Wikipedia:Village pump.

Editors will try to answer relevant questions on talk and Wikipedia pages, but they are not here to fix your broken toaster.

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or new information. Per the policy on original research, do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

1. Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, communicating original ideas, offering novel definitions of terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that such material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.
2. Personal inventions. If you or a friend invented a drinking game, a new type of dance move, or even the word frindle, it is not notable enough to be given an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. And Wikipedia is certainly not for things made up one day.
3. Personal essays that state your feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, let other people write about them. (Personal essays on Wikipedia-related topics are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki.)
4. Discussion forums. Stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. However, these should be used for questions of reasonable academic interest; Wikipedia does not serve as a technical help line or customer support for products or companies that have articles.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

"WP:PROMOTION" redirects here. For other pages about advertising and promotion, see Wikipedia:Advertising.

"WP:SOAP" redirects here. For the Soap Operas WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas.

But Wikipedia isn't doing it on this billboard.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted on Wikipedia is not for:

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.
2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews, however, has "opinion" pages allowing commentary on articles.
3. Scandalmongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
4. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
5. Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editing.

Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines).

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of:

1. External links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding relevant, useful links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines.
2. Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.
3. Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are useful only when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. Public domain resources such as the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica may be used to add content to an article (see Plagiarism guideline: Public-domain sources for guidelines on doing so). See also Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy.
4. Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources.

Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site

"WP:MEMORIAL" and "WP:HOST" redirect here. For a list of deceased Wikipedians, see Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. For ownership of content, see Wikipedia:Ownership of content.

Further information: Wikipedia:User pages and Wikipedia:Alternative outlets

Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, nor a social-network game. It is not a place to host your own website, blog, wiki, résumé, or cloud. Wikipedia pages, including those in user space, are not:

1. Personal web pages. Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. If you want to post your résumé or make a personal webpage, please use one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet service provider. The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace. Personal web pages are often speedily deleted under criterion U5. Wikipedia articles use formal English and are not written in Internet posting style.
2. File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted. Ideally, freely licensed files should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.
3. Dating services. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to pursue relationships or sexual encounters. User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual orientation are unacceptable.
4. Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (WP:RIP is excluded from this rule.)
5. Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. Do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including in userspace. Please see WP:UPNOT for examples of what may not be included.

If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even just a single page, many free and commercial sites provide wiki hosting. You can also install wiki software on your own server. See the installation guide at MediaWiki.org for information on doing this.

You do not own your userpage. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion.

Wikipedia is not a directory

"WP:DIRECTORY" and "WP:NOTSALE" redirect here. For a listing of Wikipedia's directories and indexes, see Wikipedia:Directory. For "adminship is not for sale" essay, see WP:ANOT § SALE.

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists

Nuh-uh

Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for more information.
2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)
3. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.
4. Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.
5. Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.
6. A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal

It's a cookbook! (But Wikipedia is not)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:

1. Instruction manuals and cookbooks: while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not. Wording can easily be modified to avoid advising the reader: Do not give aspirin ... ⇒ The WHO advises against the use of aspirin .... Such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead.
2. Travel guides: an article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone numbers or street addresses of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.
3. Game guides: an article about a game should briefly summarize the story and the main actions the player performs in the game. Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (such as the BFG from the Doom series). A concise summary of gameplay details (specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, etc.) is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry, but walk-throughs and detailed coverage are not. See also WP:WAF and WP:VGSCOPE. As of a 2021 decision to start allowing them, such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead.
4. Internet guides: Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the Current events portal for examples.
5. FAQs: Wikipedia articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
6. Textbooks and annotated texts: the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. However, examples intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia articles.
7. Scientific journals: a Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Publishing such scientific articles may be more appropriate for WikiJournal in Wikiversity.
8. Case studies: many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to situation X in location Y, or version X of item Y. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest. Often, separate articles are needed for a subject within a range of different countries, due to substantial differences across international borders; articles such as "Slate industry in Wales" are fitting examples. Writing about "Oak trees in North Carolina" or "Blue trucks", however, would likely constitute a POV fork or original research, and would certainly not result in an encyclopedic article.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

... but Wikipedia does not.

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). In particular:

1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, the ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic.
2. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Andrea (2025)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that such a storm will occur. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented before isolation in the laboratory, provided that scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties.
3. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on weapons in Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
4. Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.
5. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events), Wikipedia:Too much detail, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper

Extra! Extra! Wikipedia is not a newspaper!

Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.
2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
3. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
4. Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

"WP:PLOT" redirects here. For information regarding plot summary manuals of style, see MOS:PLOT.

See also: Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections

To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:

1. Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. For more information regarding summaries, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction § Contextual presentation.
2. Lyrics databases. An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1928 are protected by copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of style. Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the linked-to site clearly has the right to distribute the work. See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for full discussion.
3. Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election were moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election). Wikipedia:Notability § Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Selection criteria offers guidance on what entries should be included.
4. Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied regarding the level of detail to include. A list of every version/beta/patch is inappropriate. Consider a summary of development instead.

Wikipedia is not censored

"WP:REDACTION" redirects here. For the criteria for redaction, see WP:CRD.

Main page: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer

See also: Censorship of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Offensive material, and wmf:Resolution:Controversial content

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.

Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed.

Options to hide an image

Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.

Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic.

“ The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas. Thus it permits the freest expression of views before students, trusting to their good sense in passing judgment on these views. ” — Clark Kerr, President of the University of California (1961)

Community

The above policies are about Wikipedia's content. The following relate to Wikipedia's governance and processes.

Wikipedia is not an anarchy or a forum for free speech

"WP:ANARCHY" redirects here. For WikiProject Anarchism, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism.

See also: m:Power structure, WP:User access levels, and WP:Enforcement

Main page: Wikipedia:Administration

Wikipedia is En­cy­clo­pe­dists' Corner, not Speakers' Corner.

Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not an unregulated forum for free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchist communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism.

Wikipedia is not a democracy

"WP:DEMOCRACY" redirects here. For Wikipedia's democratic structures, see WP:WikiProject Democracy.

See also: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:Elections

A ballot box. Note that most Wikipedia decisions are not a result of a vote.

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.

Off-site petitions and votes have no weight in the formation of consensus on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

"WP:BURO" and "WP:BUREAU" redirect here. For the "bureaucrat" user access level, see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats.

See also: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute: it is not a quasi-judicial body, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.

A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.

A procedural, coding, or grammatical error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it, unless the error cannot easily be fixed.

Wikipedia is not a laboratory

Research about Wikipedia's content, processes, and the people involved can provide valuable insights and understanding that benefit public knowledge, scholarship, and the Wikipedia community, but Wikipedia is not a public laboratory. Research that analyzes articles, talk pages, or other content on Wikipedia is not typically controversial, since all of Wikipedia is open and freely usable. However, research projects that are disruptive to the community or which negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed and can result in loss of editing privileges. Before starting a potentially controversial project, researchers should open discussion at the Village pump to ensure it will not interfere with Wikipedia's mission. Regardless of the type of project, researchers are advised to be as transparent as possible on their user pages, disclosing information such as institutional connections and intentions.

Some editors explicitly request not to be subjects in research and experiments. Please respect the wish of editors to opt out of research.

Wikipedia is not a battleground

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and Wikipedia:Behave

Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making unilateral changes to policies. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.

Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, its editors, or the Wikimedia Foundation—other means already exist to communicate legal problems. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.

Wikipedia is not compulsory

"WP:NOTREQUIRED" redirects here. For "References are not optional" essay, see WP:OPTIONAL.

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service

Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time.

And finally…

Wikipedia is not a lot of other things as well. We cannot anticipate every bad idea that someone might have. Almost everything on this page is here because somebody came up with a bad idea that had not been anticipated. (See WP:BEANS—it is, in fact, strongly discouraged to anticipate them.) In general, "that is a terrible idea" is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something when there is a good reason that the idea is terrible.

When you wonder what to do

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.

When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider:

1. Modifying the content of an article (normal editing).
2. Turning the page into a redirect, preserving the page history.
3. Nominating the page for deletion if it meets grounds for such action under the Deletion policy. To develop an understanding of what kinds of contributions are in danger of being deleted, you have to regularly follow discussions there.
4. Changing the rules on this page after a consensus has been reached following appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians via the talk page. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is not an official policy, but can be referred to as a record of what has and has not been considered encyclopedic in the past.

See also

• Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup § Style of writing—a list of templates that can be used to tag potentially inappropriate content when you can't fix the problem immediately yourself
• wmf:Resolution:Controversial content
• Pages titled "Wikipedia is ..." and "Wikipedia is not ..."
• Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes
• Wikipedia:Alternative outlets
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
• Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia:Recentism
• Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes for a more humorous version

Notes

191.92.157.214 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)