Talk:Proud Boys

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proud Boys article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 14 days

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.

Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.

Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: I'd like to suggest a change. Where should I start?

A1: Great! The first thing you should do is check that no one else has already brought up your suggestion. You can check this by going through the current discussions below, or by searching the talk archives.

Q2: Why does the article describe the Proud Boys as "far-right", "neo-fascist" or as having connections to white supremacists?

A2: Wikipedia is built off reliable sources, and the significant and clear majority of sources use such descriptions. You can see a few selected sources for these determinations in the article's content, though many other sources have also been included in previous talk discussions: far-right discussion, neo-fascist discussion, white supremacy discussion. Discussion amongst editors around this happened in 2020, resulting in an editorial consensus to keep this three terms per all available evidence.

Q3: I have a connection to the Proud Boys, but there's something wrong.

A3: Neutrality is important to Wikipedia, so editors with conflicts of interests are generally discouraged from editing directly, and instead should request edits to be made to ensure their independence. This can be done by creating a new talk section, describing your request (including what needs changing and sources), and adding {{Request edit}} to the top of the section. If there is something wrong like spelling or grammar, feel free to change it yourself, but any meaningful changes are best to be discussed first.

Q4: What sort of policies should I be aware of before I start editing?

A4: If you're wanting to jump in and start editing, it's best that you're familiar with Wikipedia's neutrality, verifiability (referencing), and biography policies. We're all here to help build a better encyclopedia, so if you would like some help making sure your change is okay or would like a second pair of eyes to skim over it before you save it, just post a new message on the talk page!

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view.

216.41.138.251 (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection. (talk page participation)

This article was nominated for merging with End Domestic Terrorism rally on 18 September 2020. The result of the discussion was consensus not to merge.

Conservatism C‑class Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Men's Issues C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics C‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States C‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"^[1]

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^[2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

@SummerPhDv2.0:, then you're missing the point. I removed the sources that are not providing the comment in their own word. If CNN write "the sky is purple", John says, that's not a reliable source beyond that John said sky is purple. Graywalls (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

73.70.13.107: Do not paraphrase what I said. You have me all wrong. We do not decide "The Truth" and then dismiss any sources that contradict that "truth" as unreliable. Wikipedia determines if a source is reliable then accepts what that source says as verifiable. Multiple independent reliable sources say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. As a result, the Proud Boys are verifiably neo-fascist. If reliable sources said the Earth is flat and the Proud Boys are a traveling theater group, Wikipedia would report both of those as verifiable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regarding "Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist." I believe those sources are misunderstood. They are accusations of being neo-fascist, and not references of that as fact. A more appropriate representation on Wikipedia would be to describe the Proud Boys as "accused of being neo-fascists, although such accusations are never supported by evidence." It doesn't matter how many clowns scream that their custard is a delicious chianti, it's still custard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.76.37 (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Having only skimmed the above discussion, I thought I'd add some more corroborating articles from research journals and from published books:

"Proud Boys... advance a fascist politic"^[3]
"the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys"^[4]
"The Proud Boys are a neo-fascist masculinist hate group."^[5]
"neo-fascist gang Proud boys clashed with..."^[6]
"The Proud Boys, an all-male neo-fascist group"^[7]
"groups such as the protofascist Proud Boys"^[8]
"Swiping Right: The Allure of Hyper Masculinity and Cryptofascism for Men Who Join the Proud Boys"^[9]

I'm pretty sure we can dismiss any questions about Proud Boys' fascist alignment. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update - these sources have now been added to the article as improved referencing for this claim (thanks for your work, Davide King!). @SummerPhDv2.0, NorthBySouthBaranof, and Graywalls: are there any objections from you (I'll ping anons on their talk pages) against closing this discussion now? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"far-right[3][4][5][6] and neo-fascist[7][8][9][10][11][12]" This is unnecessary. These statements aren't really disputed other than those who have personal agenda. When you already have three reliable sources generally agreeing on it and no reliable sources disputing it, the WP:CITEBOMB is ridiculous. I don't see the need to reword, but no need for bombarding the heck out with sources like this. It looks ugly and not reader friendly. Graywalls (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly misunderstand the nature of a citation. I could call Wikipedia "the deeply racist and violent Wikipedia" on multiple sites and by your rules you'd have to add that description to the Wikipedia page on itself, because we can cite multiple uses of the term. That's all I'm seeing here: citations of uses of the term. I'm not seeing any citations that support the use of the term. As I suggested above, it's still custard. I am however going to disengage from this topic at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.76.37 (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly do misunderstand. If a New York Times article said "Bozo the Clown said the Proud Boys are a gardening club", it is not verifiable that the Proud Boys are a gardening club, only that Bozo said they are. If, as is the case, the New York Times (and a raft of other unquestionably reliable sources) describe the Proud Boys as fascist, it is verifiable that they are fascist. The sources, as quoted repeatedly on this talk page (and throughout the archives) regularly and repeatedly identify the Proud Boys as fascist. "The fascist Proud Boys" is a source saying it, no different than "actress Meryl Streep." The sources are under no obligation to defend, prove or backup either claim. Wikipedia reliably states the Proud Boys are fascist and Streep is an actress. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the other problem with having too many sources is that it makes it more time consuming to verify stuff like this. Yes people do sometimes cite and hide behind the cover of "properly cited look" to say things not said by the source and pray on people not checking the cited sources thoroughly. Graywalls (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the OP, I think Summer has made it perfectly clear that encyclopedia editing isn't about uncovering "the truth". Editors simply parrot what reliable independent sources (as sanctioned by Wiki criteria) have to say about a subject.

I also agree that the "bias" criticism sounds something like a high school lunch table argument. Every source is going to be 'biased', as anything written by a human is biased.

However, I do disagree with any argument that "Mother Jones" and "Slate" have a reputation for "fact checking and accuracy". No, they don't. These are highly partisan publications notorious for playing fast and loose with information. Note that there's a difference between "highly partisan" publications and those that simply lean right or left (or have 'biases').

Having said all that, I am satisfied with the current references supporting the "neo-fascist" wording. Most of them are academic publications. NY Times and Washington Post are perfectly legitimate sources as well. I have mixed feelings about "The Guardian", but generally agree that it's reliable for this topic. Same goes for Fox News. The Guardian would not, however, qualify as reliable for economic subjects, just as Fox News isn't an RS for science articles (as Summer mentioned).

I would just recommend that editors here try sticking to sources published by legit academic presses and try to limit journalist citations to a minimum.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree with Jonathan. We should say what the RSes say. As posted earlier we have a wide range or Reliable Sources from all over the world which without quotations or anything like that refer to the Proud Boys as a neo-fascist group. We have both Academic and News sources from the US, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the Kingdom of Spain all of which call them neo-fascist, so while political bias may be apparent in one country, it seems a stretch to say that the Republic of Ireland has an axe to grind against The Proud Boys and is thus slandering them in the Irish Times, haha. Past that, I also agree with Graywall that the amount of refs we have for each one of those assertions does make the lede a bit difficult to read. While I have seen efforts to delete the neo-fascist claims it doesn't seem like there's any sort of real will in the talk section to redefine them as a conservative gentlemen's club, so the amount of sources does seem almost peremptory. Alcibiades979 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inaccurate weighting of the information at hand. The experts on the subject ADL, SLPC do not label this group fascist or neo fascist. The label was pejoratively attached by I do not like non experts from RS, put on WP and now being regurgitated by similar like minded we are not experts but do not like RS. By contrast the "I am antifa" killer is being omitted from the antifa page despite being labeled as such by RS because the like minded editors are drawing a distinction between an tifa and antifa. This is a disservice to the WP project as it is in no way weighting the RS information equitably. The SLPC and ADL omitting the label is of paramount importance and yet largely being ignored. Perhaps some sort of qualifier that some may consider them fascist or neo fascist but the ADL and SLPC as of now do not. Or it can go to the dispute board and ask what do when an RS is factually wrong.

Your suggestion is to call them a right-wing extremist hate group instead? https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/proud-boys-0 Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That, and/or anything the ADL uses would be much more in line with standard operating procedure on these type of WP. The detractors can go take their case to the SLPC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:F5BB:3B86:E159:625A (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original poster. The ADL provides a critical overview of the group which is much more in-line with reality. The group is a far-right, nationalistic extremist group which encourages violence against opponents, but white Supremacy is disavowed on their website, by their local chapters and in all of the group promotional material. Additionally, the "neo-fascist" label flies in opposition to the stated values of the group (against totalitarian or powerful government) and an objective understanding of fascism and neo fascism.

It is getting to the point where; if Mother Jones and the Daily Beast called the GOP fascist white supremacists, moderators would add it to their wiki page... Does that logic carry? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being factually wrong, besides being used as a political epithet, the standard is far higher than RS said therefore it belongs. WP has responsibility to accurately weight the WP based on the weighting of the RS-and in this case-even being factually wrong, even being used pejoratively-they are not being referred to as fascist or neo fascist in the vast majority of RS material. I heard CBS radio refer to them today numerous times as right wing extremists, yahoo referred o them today as a right wing hate group, WAPO today=the Proud Boys, a far-right organization linked with white supremacy and acts of violence. NJ.com-What is a proud boy? The simple answer is that they’re a racist right-wing organization started by Canadian hipster and one ... and on and on and on have to search high and low to find them labeled neo fascist so going with that in the lede besides the rest of the objections is clearly UNDUE and should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:5D45:CF9E:AA59:4786 (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vitolo Hadad a white female grad student teacher was recently fired for profiting from claiming to be black. I would just recommend that editors here try sticking to sources that are not frauds and hyper partisan zealots to boot. As if some grad student teacher trumps the SLPC and ADL when it comes to labeling hate groups.

To which the inclusion as RS clearly shows the depths needed to find RS labeling them fascist whereas any search of the Proud Boys returns an endless litany of  RS without the fascism or neo fascism label. This is textbook undue weighting besides being obviously factually wrong.  . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:5D45:CF9E:AA59:4786 (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neofascism. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Vitolo-Haddad, CV (11 June 2019). "The Blood of Patriots: Symbolic Violence and "The West"". Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 49: 280–296 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
^ McLaren, Peter (10 October 2019). "Are those whiffs of fascism that I smell? Living behind the orange curtain". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 52: 1011{{ndash]}1015 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
^ Álvarez, Rebecca (2020). Vigilante Gender Violence: Social Class, the Gender Bargain, and Mob Attacks on Women Worldwide. Routledge. ISBN 1000174131.
^ Daou, Peter (2019). Digital Civil War: Confronting the Far-Right Menace. Melville House. p. 6. ISBN 1612197884.
^ Sernau, Scott (2019). Social Inequality in a Global Age. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9781544309309.
^ HoSang, Daniel (2019). Producers, Parasites, Patriots: Race and the New Right-Wing Politics of Precarity. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9781452960340.
^ Kutner, Samantha (2020). "Swiping Right: The Allure of Hyper Masculinity and Cryptofascism for Men Who Join the Proud Boys" (PDF). International Centre for Counter-Terrorism: 1 – via JSTOR.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2020

Nothing actionable.--Jorm (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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

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.

Yeah, but the original post in the article has no reliable sources either. So why bother posting it? You have a guy using 1 line from 1 Newsweek article as source? How is that "reliable?"

This is the very reason why Wikipedia is nothing but a joke, a complete unreliable farce. and it is getting worse in these days of political bigotry and cancel culture. This is why I had never and will never donate penny to your website. I suspect Wiki won't exist much longer in the near future as funding slides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitromon (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nitromon, there are plenty of citations out there for the "neofascist" claim, such as The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, and The Spokeman Review. We don't need to WP:CITEBOMB the claim. Your concern trolling is noted but not helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Cullen328 - that's the dumbest logic I've ever heard in my life. And if you disagree with me, it proves that I am getting it mostly right according to your own logic.

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)[reply]

Request edit on 30 September 2020

Nothing more to do here.--Jorm (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

@SunDawn: I'm not sure if you posted this before or after, but it looks like this coverage has been moved to its own section in the article. Personally I don't think we need an entire section on them, I would prefer to just have a paragraph in the History and organization section, but I thing I might be alone with that. I think we could be verging on giving undue weight to Trump's comments; the Unite the Right rally (Charlottesville rioting and car attack that resulted in 19 casualties and 1 fatality) for example, is a sub-section, whereas Trump's comments that have only been used as a promotional tagline for the group is a full blown section. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scoffing at semi-protected edit requests

NOTHING ACTIONABLE

Nothing needing to be done here. For future references, personal disputes like this are better placed on user talk pages. (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

NedFausa, in general you're right, we should not scoff. With a situation like this though, and that edit request being the accounts only edit, it's hard to see it as anything other than trolling, even with AGF. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Claim that Proud Boys are racist

NOT DONE

No appropriate reliable sources given; closing this before this gets heated. (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

On the Proud Boys Website, under About > Tenets on the seventh line you will find the tenet "Anti-Racism". Wikipedia requires commenters to "assume good faith". Why does this not apply to the Proud Boys Website? It is also interesting to note that there is no anti-racism statement to be found on the Black Lives Matter website, and I'd bet that if I went to Wikipedia's Black Lives Matter page and said they were more racist than the Proud Boys because the do not have an explicit tenet stating they they are anti-racist, I'd get a reprimand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.217.71.178 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We prefer WP:SECONDARY sourcing over WP:PRIMARY sourcing. It's hard to imagine the Proud Boys ever admitting to be a racist organization. Please don't WP:OTHERSTUFF by bringing up BLM, they aren't relevant to this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:108.217.71.178 they are racist, with their anti-Muslim views. Or do you deny that? Surely we should be blocking those that are providing support here for hardcore racists like Proud Boys and Donald Trump. Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being anti-Muslim is not racist. It is Islamophobic. Please do not use imprecise and vague language.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about User:Editing Scapegoat? If being anti-Polish or antisemetic is racist, how is being anti-Muslim not racist? I'd suggest you take a good look at the dictionary and not spread racist and white-supremacist propaganda! Nfitz (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Clarification

Asked, answered.--Jorm (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Can you clarify the "racism and violence of New York City" line in the Islamberg section.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No clarification is needed. Cited source states Islamberg was founded in 1980 by Muslims, primarily African American, to escape the crime and racism of the big city. It's currently home to about two dozen Muslims families. NedFausa (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Neo fascists

Asked and answered.--Jorm (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This group is in no shape or form a neo-fascists group, nor are they “alt-right”. Whomever posted this misinformation is either an antifa member or someone who has no idea what they’re taking about. This needs to be fixed. Argkd6 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done @Argkd6: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to determine things, not opinions such as the one you've just provided. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Adding "White Supremacist" in first line

According to this, this, and this (archived), Proud Boys have pretty significant ties to White Supremacist groups. I propose adding the term "white supremacy group" in the first line of the article. ChipotleHater (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--good idea. Rjensen (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter that the leader of the Proud Boys was voted in and black? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.218.58 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why would it? Racists who say "well, I have black friends" are still racists and it's entirely possible to be self-hating. I'm frankly baffled at the number of people who don't seem to grasp that people lie and take liars at their word. The deeds of the Proud Boys show white supremacist direction. Who cares what their words are.--Jorm (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add this to the sources in support of adding White Supremacist to the lead: "...US agencies label as “white supremacists” and “extremists”, and others as a “gang”,..." Damingo Sanchez (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they reject that they are white supremacists, and they accept members of all races, how do you identify them as white supremacists? Did they ever claim superiority of white race? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.73.244 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

they claim they are not white supremacists. to claim they are is to read their minds.

"Current Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who is Afro-Cuban, says the group has "longstanding regulations prohibiting racist, white supremacist or violent activity," Ronald D. Coleman wrote in an email to USA TODAY. "

BURIED in the latest USA TODAY report that does not support it's somewhat inflammatory headline: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/30/who-proud-boys-group-mentioned-debate-has-violent-history/5868406002/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.115.15 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that article is only direct quotes from the group and their denial of allegations, it is not a qualified secondary sourced article. This means it is merely, the view they wish the public to see, and not critical determinations based on their actions, from what I read. Damingo Sanchez (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The groups leaders, Torrrio and McInes are NOT white. How can we call a group led by people of color white supremacist? 47.137.178.203 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they claim to accept members of all races, do they actually have members of all races? Are there any African American members of the Proud Boys? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is User:47.137.178.203 claiming that McInnes is not white? Both of his parents are Scottish. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Scots are not white. Take a walk around Glasgow some day. Torrio is not white, the group allows all races, and is not white supremacist. 47.137.178.203 (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McInnes has said: "I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of" ^[1] Vexations (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I don't see any evidence presented anywhere that they have ties to White Supremacists. There are statements of fact....without presenting any facts or evidence supporting this; from The Washington Post article, "Leaders say they disavow racism, though the Proud Boys have ties to white supremacists and sometimes use nationalist rhetoric common among hate groups." . . . it says they have ties. But which ties? To whom? How do we know? This is just wildly incomplete and there are no facts or pieces of evidence brought out to support these claims. We are taught in MIDDLE SCHOOL that when you make a claim, you need to bring out supports for that claim and then evidence for that support. Unless we can find a source that actually delineates these supposed ties, I propose that this line regarding them having ties to White Supremacists is removed. There's no evidence supporting it.Krakaet (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it needs to be removed because there's no factual basis for it, only assertions. It was only added after the debate to make Trump look bad, but Wikipedia articles should stick to the facts. Even the ADL quote in the 2nd paragraph says "its members represent a range of ethnic backgrounds," which makes the article self-contradictory. I tried removing "white supremacists", but user NedFausa immediately reverted my change. I'm new to Wikipedia editing: how do we resolve these disputes? User:Exmartian 2 October 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what way do those articles paint a picture of "pretty significant" ties? The NYT article simply says "Its participants have espoused misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and anti-immigrant views while making allies with white supremacists whom group leaders claim to disavow," while the WaPo article says, "Leaders say they disavow racism, though the Proud Boys have ties to white supremacists and sometimes use nationalist rhetoric common among hate groups." Neither give examples, the WaPo article merely states with no justification that ties exist. How does this create evidence of "significant ties"? Tobor0 (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobor0: Apologies there. I miswrote with including the descriptor "significant". Per the 11 sources provided below, there is an existing consensus amongst high-quality reliable sources that the Proud Boys maintain affiliations with white supremacists and hold several beliefs grounded in white supremacy (such as believing there is some sort of innate superiority of the West). If you would like it to be changed, would you be able to provide a significant number of independent reliable sources that explicitly say that the Proud Boys do not have any affiliations with white supremacy? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsPugle:I was contending only with the word "significant" I'll take a look below and see if what you suggest is even possible. I'll be honest though, in looking through these sources, the affiliations tend to be "someone who did or said some white supremacist things also claimed to be a Proud Boy," which is a standard of evidence that allows anything to be white supremacist frankly. The justifications I've seen here are basically saying, if the press says it then it's an independent fact. I'm not sure what I'd suggest as an alternative, but it doesn't seem in the best interests of WP to simply repeat things read in papers when one can plainly see that the provided sources are themselves not being very rigorous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobor0 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobor0: I'm afraid that isn't really a determination that we can, or should, make. As per WP:NOTTRUTH, we cover material that's in external, independent and reliable sources, regardless of our own personal beliefs about the validity of those statements. As part of that, we can't exclude sources or information because we disagree with them, and we're not here to criticise and reject sources.

The only exception to that is when there is a broad consensus not to use certain sources - this is done at the reliable sources noticeboard, with the results for major discussions being posted on WP:RSPSOURCES. As for the 11 sources posted below, all but one have either been explicitly accepted by the community as reliable sources or have no consensus (either from equivocal discussions or not being discussed). The only one that is borderline is the PR Newswire source, which is a primary source and can be used when attributed to the Council on American–Islamic Relations. Also, don't forget to sign your comments! ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsPugle: Thanks for the very thorough reply. Tobor0 (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsPugle: I saw that you removed my edit 981761231, where I replaced "NPR's Takeaway" with the "ADL". I didn't remove Takeaway because I disagreed with them, I removed them because the sentence is listing out who has named PB as a hate group. In that context, there's no reason to specifically call out a largely unknown podcast who is not an authority on what is and isn't a hate group, especially when the claim appears right next to the SPLC. Given your edit comment, I think you misunderstood my motivation, so I'm going to restore it -- especially since you kept my addition.

References

^ https://www.scotsman.com/news/world/gavin-mcinnes-who-founder-neo-fascist-group-proud-boys-and-co-founder-vice-magazine-and-his-links-scotland-2989805

Misquotation of D. J. Trump in section of presidential debate 2020

Another sourceless and malformed change request. Nothing to do here.--Jorm (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Currently, the article reads:

"Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups, and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha, and as we have seen in Portland." Trump replied "Sure" and "Sure, I am willing to do that" and then asked for clarification, saying "Who would you like me to condemn?" Wallace mentioned "white supremacists and right wing militia". During the exchange, Biden prompted "Proud Boys" and Trump replied "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by, but I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about Antifa and the left, because this is not a right-wing problem."

Some of these quotations are incomplete or not real (e.g. the reduplication of "I'll tell you what"), and thus directly violate Quotations. The exchange takes place around the 01:05:00-mark. Literally:

Trump: Sure, I'm willing to do that, but I would say - I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing, not the right wing.
Wallace: So what're you saying ... ?
Trump: I'm willing to do anything- I want to see peace.
Wallace: Then do it sir.
Trump: You want to call them- what do you want to call them? Give me a name. Give me a name. Go ahead, who would you like me to condemn?
Wallace: White supremacists and right-wing millitia.
Biden: Proud Boys.
Trump: Proud Boys: stand back, and stand by, but I'll tell you what, someone's gotta do something about AntiFa and the left, because this is not a right-wing problem, this is a left-wing problem.
Biden: His own FBI director said the threats are the white supremacists. AntiFa's an idea, not an organisation.
Trump: Oh, you've gotta be kidding.

Hence, the section should be corrected.

By the way, since it is very relevant to the article, Biden's last response is definitely worth mentioning as context ("AntiFa's an idea, not an organisation") as Proud Boys have a direct history relating to AntiFa. --MewTheEditor (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

proud boys - USA TODAY

We've already covered what the Proud Boys say about themselves.--Jorm (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/30/who-proud-boys-group-mentioned-debate-has-violent-history/5868406002/?fbclid=IwAR31YIGhuaeOHZZLUJEocKUaYXFTiz9rNMaTZ3e-P60Z0ie1sXYQcx5lEqY

Current Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who is Afro-Cuban, says the group has "longstanding regulations prohibiting racist, white supremacist or violent activity," Ronald D. Coleman wrote in an email to USA TODAY. Coleman said he is a spokesman for the Proud Boys.

"We do not care what color you are or what your background is ... if you love America ... we consider you a brother," Tarrio said in a written statement provided by Coleman. The group condemns racism, fascism, communism and socialism, the statement says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.98.38 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

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.

Proud Boys - Largely Peaceful

Nothing to do here.--Jorm (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-protests-portland/proud-boys-rally-has-portland-in-state-of-emergency-idUSKBN26H0I8

PORTLAND, Ore. (Reuters) - Hundreds of supporters of the right-wing Proud Boys group rallied in Portland, Oregon on Saturday in a largely peaceful event but police and left-wing protesters later clashed in the city’s downtown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.98.38 (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL yeah right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Source changeouts in the lead

Ok, so what was the justification of all that source changing for the two words in lead? The existing sources were fine. It wasn't being disputed. Why the change from news articles to books and journals? Some of which was quite obviously a biased source. Graywalls (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, well, one criticism was that those news sources were "left-leaning", "biased", etc. Maybe now users and IPs will be less likely to moan on the talk page? I doubt that though. I also thought that those academically ones listed by ItsPugle were better. The news sources are still there, I just moved them in the main body. If we can use those book and journal sources in the main body too, that would be good. Davide King (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then, let them moan. The amount of unnecessary source bloating is getting out of hand. Graywalls (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not dismiss academic sources as bloating and it is four for each, not eight or ten each. Davide King (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking... in this article. Look at the end of first paragraph under membership. That's ridiculous. Graywalls (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, I agree, they should probably be better distributed. The same source may be used to source something else, etc., rather than having many for a single sentence. I hope the ones in the lead were not eliminated though. They should either be used somewhere else in the main body or add as Bibliography or Further reading. Davide King (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

DONE

Thanks for your collaboration, this has now been amended by NedFausa. (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please append the "Taunting soccer fans" section as follows:

As of Sept. 24, 2019, MLS officials have now allowed the Iron Front to be displayed at league games saying, "As part of this decision to update the Fan Code of Conduct for 2020, MLS has suspended the prohibition on the Iron Front imagery at matches for the balance of the 2019 season and MLS Cup Playoffs while the working group conducts its analysis." Flags were flown at the beginning of the 2020 MLS season, prior to the COVID outbreak.

^[1] Depling82 (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.opb.org/news/article/iron-front-ban-suspended-mls-portland-seattle/

Done with this edit. NedFausa (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is being closed so fast ... there's WP:NORUSH. As noted above, I did an edit that should mostly cover this, but the reference only covers the temporary 2019 change, and doesn't reflect the finalized 2020 code (nor does the above September 2019 reference I didn't use, as I'm not very familiar with the source - and given the sensitivies, using a more neutral national media source seemed wiser. The only good source I've found for the new 2020 code, is a bit vague, though both right-wing and very neutral, being foreign - anyone got a better one from the February 2020 period? Nfitz (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz: How can Reuters be "both right-wing and very neutral"? That's a contradiction in terms. NedFausa (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the newspaper that published it, National Post, as being right-wing and neutral - I'm not sure how much they edited the feed. They are certainly right-wing, but also don't have any sticks in the fire on the US decline and cultural wars. Though one could easily disagree with my assessment (and I'd be quite happy to argue from the other point of view) - I don't see the relevance as I'm already seeking a better source! Nfitz (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here's a better one (because it's clearer that Iron Cross is now allowed), but also gives bigger perspective when combined with the foreign National Post one. I'll add both. I think that covers the whole thing. Nfitz (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done (again) with addition of two 2020 references by Nfitz. NedFausa (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Re: Misquotation

Above, under "Misquotation D. J. Trump in section of presidential debate 2020", my amendement was closed by Jorm, who stated "Another sourceless and malformed change request. Nothing to do here."

I don't really see what the point of striking down an honest correction like mine is (and so callously, my goodness!). I mentioned my source for the back-and-forth in the debate (i.e. the broadcast of the debate itself, to be found plentifully in full-length online), but if I should've provided a weblink, then here you go: the timestamp I mentioned, on CNN's YouTube replay of the debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHFI8TsSKXY&t=3920. It clearly shows that the quotations of Trump as mentioned are not fully accurate, and they should be.

My other point, I reiterate: since this article discusses the mention of Proud Boys in the first 2020 presidential debate, and since this very article contains the phrase "AntiFa" 14 times, it seems to be extremely relevant to mention that Biden ended the quoted exchange by stating AntiFa is an idea, not an organisation. I don't see how this is a malformed change request (nor is what I asked above): it's crystal clear, and backed.

Also, while the archival text of my previous post mentions Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page., I think this seems to me to be that page. Don't kill me for it, Jorm -- some Wikipedia contributors actually just want to contribute. --MewTheEditor (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MewTheEditor: Speaking for myself alone, I apologize for the way you and other users have been treated when submitting edit requests or making other comments. As I objected here yesterday, the conduct at this talk page by at least one administrator and one other editor has been rudely dismissive. Wikipedia has guidelines in place discouraging such behavior (Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith), but some people obviously do as they please. I assure you they are not representative of the larger community of Wikipedians. NedFausa (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Redacted - unsupported personal attack] I notice that despite all the beyond-reliable sources indicating that it's a white supremacist group, the page still says "they deny being white supremacist"... typical wikipedia failure on accuracy there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:5545:4200:E313:1BBF (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is questionable in the quote ... other than perhaps adding Trump's complete sentence, with a couple of words after the comma, which shows as a period. Biden's observation about anti-fascism being a movement, and not an organization doesn't seem germane - nor would be controversial, as I can't imagine anyone challenging such a simple statement. At the same time, I have no idea why Jorm closed the discussion; I'd have simply reopened it. Nfitz (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz: As a reader trying to see all sides, my initial takeaway from the section was Trump seemingly going for a resolute, blind dismissal of anything that went against the idea that "left-wing violence should be fought and that's the end of it" (not a quotation). Yet, in the debate, we saw him concede specifically that he wants peace, in between saying he'd be willing to condemn and asking whom he should condemn specifically. On the other hand, he specifically states at the end that he thinks it's a left-wing problem, not just not a right-wing problem. Both might seem trivial at first, but you and I both know how much it comes down to detail with these kinds of sensitive back-and-forths. Some people haven't gotten over Charlotsville due to missing details in selective coverage! Look, I'm no defender whatsoever of either parties' or candidates' missteps (or the associated extremist groups, neo-Nazis and anarchists alike), and I'm not saying either is being honest when speaking. I genuinely just want people who visit this article (I got here originally because it was n°1 trending on mobile yesterday) to get as clear of a picture as possible. That's lacking right now, and I've given a (my own) transcript to aid in editing.\newline Also, I'd like to correct you (with due mildness): Biden specifically said "an idea, not an organisation", not "a movement, not an organisation", and hence it's relevant here: the section on the debate in this article focuses on Trump only semi-condemning the Proud Boys, but equally, it's worth mentioning that AntiFa, which Proud Boys have come out against for being a dangerous movement (as AntiFa members have committed plenty of violence), is totally dismissed by Biden in the same beat Trump only semi-condemns Proud Boys. Again: extremely relevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MewTheEditor (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What trump was doing is DARVO. The violent ones at the protests have been predominantly the white supremacist groups, and same is true for the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally (noticing you can't spell it correctly either). False equivalence isn't an argument, it's gaslighting.

How can one be a member of something that isn't an organization? There's literally not a membership - you almost write like there's an actual organization called antifa! I don't know what the reference to Charlotsville (Charlottesville?) and missing details in selective coverage means - or it's relevance. We shouldn't give too much weight on the words of a racist, unless it particularly relevant - perhaps if you could provide a clear proposed edit, rather than just critiquing it. Nfitz (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NedFausa: That's definitely an accurate observation. We're losing the sentiment of "Assume good faith" with each passing month ... Sad to see, because that way, we also exclude those who just want to make things a little better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MewTheEditor (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A good amount of the time people who aren't on wikipedia in good faith scream "assume good faith" as a shielding tactic, and it burns people out on bothering with wikipedia. And sometimes people have had enough of that gaslighting and start standing up. "Our social policies are not a suicide pact. " - Jimmy Wales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's start again from scratch since this seems to be heading away from the article. What exactly needs changing, what does it need to be changed to, and what sources do you have that support such amendment? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

waste of time--Jorm (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This entire article is libel, beginning with the very first sentence. It is all lies. I am not requesting an edit, because I know it won't happen, and the errors and lies are too numerous and egregious to correct. It would be better to delete the entire entry. I will cease donating to Wikimedia, and will never financially support them again. MudCamper (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No edit requested. NedFausa (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The proud boys have black members how can they be white nationalist 68.56.18.231 (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done nothing actionable here.--Jorm (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical precedents: the Mischling who nevertheless joined the Nazi party, thinking that it would protect them if they joined. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-12-24-mn-12209-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:DC86:D98F:FCCF:BBC7 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Tokenism and the phenomenon of the "black friend defense" https://apnews.com/article/c7e6681046e3463aa9967a8302e5a102 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:DC86:D98F:FCCF:BBC7 (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Proud Boy member Alan James Swinney in Portland incident

Perhaps this information might be added, from Fox News, today:

"A known member of the far-right group Proud Boys was arrested Wednesday on various charges after allegedly pointing a gun at far-left demonstrators during clashes in Portland two months ago. Alan James Swinney, 50, has been charged with fourth-degree assault, fourth-degree attempted assault, two counts of second-degree unlawful use of mace, second-degree attempted assault, three counts of unlawful use of a weapon, two counts of second-degree assault, menacing, and pointing a firearm at another person, Multnomah County District Attorney's Office announced Wednesday." ^[1] - Damingo Sanchez (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The basic content RE: Swinney, sourced to OPB and Guardian, was added. Thanks, Cedar777 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-protests-proud-boy-arrested-gun-antifa

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

no air for legal threats.--Jorm (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This page referring to the 'proudboys' is false and misleading and leaves you open to litigation.The leaders of the 'ProudBoys' are African American and Latino. clearly not 'white' so therefore your claim they are a white supremacy group is slanderous / misleading. 2A02:8084:B03F:B380:21D:4FFF:FEF7:E883 (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"white nationalist" source

Source which has to confirm their white nationalist nature leads to paywalled Washington post. So it actually confirms nothing.

Paywalled and dead-tree sources are perfectly fine. Acroterion (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Guardian article can be added as a source supporting the assertion that it is a white nationalist group. --2A02:AA13:6142:EE80:39EF:7175:3D2:F447 (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is the most left-wing mainstream newspaper in the UK... no one in Britain would trust them to report about an issue like this in an unbiased manner. It's like citing CNN. I don't know much (or care) about PBs but unbiased centrist newspapers (better yet academic journals etc.) would be needed.WisDom-UK (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says "There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable."

Even this article states that they deny white nationalim but have "ties" to white nationalism. What ties is that? Do they go to the same dentist?

All sources say "ties to white nationalism" - this is what should be stated in the article. Current claim is unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited in the lead says Proud Boys have ties to white supremacists and sometimes use nationalist rhetoric common among hate groups. (Emphasis added.) NedFausa (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is unsubstantiated and does not meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Perspective/Numbers

According to a recent piece in The Guardian (UK) these clowns number no more than a few hundred. Numbers should be stated in the lede to put this fad in perspective. Anyone looking at this article would think they were the SS. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

close another pointless request--Jorm (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first three sentences of this entry should be changed to this:

The proud boys is not a fascist organization. Radical left hate groups have branded them as such as a purely political diversion. The group actively disavows white nationalism and in fact has a diverse membership. 2601:403:100:2730:DC29:247D:5A35:C539 (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Sources describe the Proud Boys as "fascist" and "neo-fascist". Don't cite nonexistent "radical left hate groups" and decry "political diversion". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Enrique Tarrio

His name is everywhere. Nothing to to here.--Jorm (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Why is their leader not mentioned at all? Or many of the other Hispanic and African-American leaders mentioned? Is it to make it seem like they are White Supremacist when they clearly are not? 2600:1003:B000:6695:1952:6B18:519C:CE52 (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use CTRL+F, and you'll see that Tarrio is mentioned many times. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

True things are not defamatory.--Jorm (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove any reference to white nationalism, neo-fascism, or white supremacy from this article. It is defamatory. They are Western Chauvinists. Hjdsjkuenbnkfsd (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Why is their official website not linked to this article?

NOT DONE

{{Infobox militant organization}} doesn't include a parameter for including websites. (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

proudboysusa.com -- am I wrong or should this be included here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2463:4848:B12D:4CBE:4FA6:B928 (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources indicates it shouldn't. And why drive traffic to a terrorist group's website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:DC86:D98F:FCCF:BBC7 (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:2C0:C300:B7:DC86:D98F:FCCF:BBC7 Please refrain from using personal feelings to dictate reasons for articled content. First warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.153.199 (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion page, not an article. While statements should be backed with reliable and independent sources, personal opinions aren't prohibited and should not be punished. {{Infobox militant organization}} doesn't include a website or URL parameter. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article is wrong about the Proud Boys, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaY_0Z4Vb2w, at this link the founder tells EXACTLY what they are about, they aren't against any race, religon, or sexuallity. They are just alined consevativly and through that are linked together with white supremesists. DrLight1491 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: oh because they say they aren't racist we should believe their words over their actions? And the secondary sourcing? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious white supremacist spammer is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:DC86:D98F:FCCF:BBC7 (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the sources to back up my statement right now but I'm in Oregon and although the Washington chapter of the Proud Boys have caused a great deal of disruption with their protests, their membership here is multiracial. They are predominantly white but they are not a white-only group in the Northwest. I think there is so much attention on this group this week that any nuances in their makeup is getting ignored which is why there are so many angry edit requests on this page over the past two days. I expect this issue will get resolved over time when there isn't such a public focus on the group. I'll try to find some sources to back up my points which I don't think will be difficult because they have been active in the Vancouver/Portland area for over 4 years and have gotten a lot of attention here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Repeated warnings about the Proud Boys, and descriptions of them as a dangerous white supremacist group, were issued by members of the national network of counter-terrorist fusion centers." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/proud-boys-white-supremacist-group-law-enforcement-agencies

Liz, here's one that talks about why nonwhite people join white supremacist groups. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, Tokenism and the "I have one black friend defense" apply here. They are white supremacist, while relying on white-passing "latinos" as a less-than-honest defensive tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:DC86:D98F:FCCF:BBC7 (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a historical parallel, you should look at the book "How the Irish Became White" by Noel Ignatiev. https://www.jstor.org/stable/366567?seq=1

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

Still nothing to do.--Jorm (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Proud Boys are not racist or white supremist.

Black professor insists 'Proud Boys aren't white supremacists' as Trump takes flak https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/30/wilfred-reilly-insists-proud-boys-arent-white-supr/

Mr. Reilly said that about 10% to 20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color, a diverse racial composition that is “extremely well-known in law enforcement,” based on his research.

“Enrique Tarrio, their overall leader, is a Black Cuban dude. The Proud Boys explicitly say they’re not racist,” Mr. Reilly told The Washington Times. “They are an openly right-leaning group and they’ll openly fight you — they don’t deny any of this — but saying they’re White supremacist: If you’re talking about a group of people more than 10% people of color and headed by an Afro-Latino guy, that doesn’t make sense.”

Afro-Cuban chairman of Proud Boys says they are not racist or white supremacists https://www.christianpost.com/news/afro-cuban-chairman-of-proud-boys-says-they-are-not-racist-or-white-supremacists.html 2600:1700:4EF0:E40:9DDB:6210:8129:303C (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources would indicate that the Moonie Times is not reliable for this topic, and I suspect the "Christian Post" is not either (plus, all they're doing is repeating a self-promotional claim, not doing any actual reporting). Self-promotional claims are dubious facially, as white supremacists are not likely to admit to being so and the claim in the face of reliable reporting otherwise is "Unduly Self-Serving". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:DC86:D98F:FCCF:BBC7 (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This page is providing false and extremely biased information

Invalid complaints about sources that provide nothing actionable.--Jorm (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This page needs to be reviewed. The proud boys are not white supremacists or fascists. They have stood with blm on many occasions. There was just yesterday a collaboration speech with blm leaders to clear their name. They do go against Antifa when Antifa engages in destroying property and looting. Which has been proven. Proud boys is non violent but Defend property from criminals. The writer of this page must be radical left. You are providing the world fake information. It needs to stop. I will be writing reporting this page to further sources for misinformation. Greenman898 (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman898:

Not done read the pink box at the top of this page. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does that excuse opinion sources with no citations being used as sources?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.153.199 (talk • contribs)

No, it doesn't -- but you've falsely indicated a source is an opinion piece - section below - when it's not. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Source 9

As above; inaccurate complaints about source reliability.--Jorm (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hawkins, Derek; Jr, Cleve R. Wootson; Timberg, Craig. "Trump's 'stand by' remark puts the Proud Boys in the spotlight". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on October 2, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020. Proud Boys have ties to white supremacists and sometimes use nationalist rhetoric common among hate groups.

What is the source of their information "have ties to white supremacists" ? This source, added today, does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable standards. There are not corroborating sources and the article is opinionated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.153.199 (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not opinion piece, you just don't like what you read. Either way, don't misrepresent the source, which actually is reliable. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Request edit on 2 October 2020

Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of Alternate Realities.--Jorm (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It is requested that edits be made to the following semi-protected articles:

D (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
V (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Replace: "The Proud Boys are a far-right,[1][2] neo-fascist[3][4][5][6] and male-only[7][8] organization with ties to white supremacists[9] that promotes and engages in political violence." With: "Proud boys is a non-violent, Western Chauvinist, nationalist organization that promotes limited government, what they call "maximum freedom, anti-drug war, closed borders, anti-racial guilt, anti-racism, first and second Amendment freedoms, glorifying the entrepreneur, revering and respecting housewives, and reinstating the Spirit of Western Chauvinism."

The original opening is biased and full of opinion over fact and was written in a complicity theorist manner. Proud Boys has never committed violent acts, and they make it very clear where they stand on issues. They are nationalist in the traditional sense that they care solely about the United States. They are a non-racist organization, however they don't buy into White Guilt. Their leader is Latino, not white, which makes it even more interesting that the author has the audacity to refer to them as White Supremacists, while their core values are anti-racism. The information included in the edit can be found at ^[1]

209.50.148.106 (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Wikipedia only relies on reliable sources for its content -- reliable sources already provided in the article's lead -- reliable sources you have not provided. Please read the pink box at the top of this page before submitting another request. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://proudboysusa.com/tenets/

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.

Extreme bias in the intro

Nothing to do.--Jorm (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change promotes violence to promotes limiting masturbation addiction and violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baratiiman (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deserves change Baratiiman (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Not intro-worthy. It might be worth exploring the connection between their violence and their anti-masturbation attitude in the body of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fredthird opinion.Baratiiman (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done We are not going to do this.--Jorm (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

Nothing to do.--Jorm (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The information about the Proud Boys being White Supremacisits is incorrect, they are not white supremacistis the founder is what an Afro-Cubano he is Latin and African American. They are an anti socialism, anti fascism, anti Marxist organization. 97.113.175.2 (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Perhaps you should read about how Wikipedia works, or any other entry in this talk page.--Jorm (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proud Boys URL was removed

RESOLVED

Amended. (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The only objective link/URL to what the organization claims to believe has been removed recently. Is that standard policy? I thought the page was "protected"? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox being used does not include a space for a link to an external site.--Jorm (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This infobox does include a URL link.

If someone has changed the infobox template recently, they appear to have done so simply to omit the URL. Google is already burying the official link, wikipedia was the only way for readers to verify the official tents which directly contradict the narrative. This is an attempt to reduce transparency and source information

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_militant_organization

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it just reappeared....

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The description of Proud Boys is flat out wrong

Yet another person discovering that "reality" is different than they think.--Jorm (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Has Wikipedia has gone woke? After checking out from other sources this narrative it simply is not close to the truth. The leader of Proud Boys is a half black half Cuban guy that is not racist, not far right, not much of anything extreme except for attempting to stand up to Antifa and BLM violence. As freedom loving Americans we must stand up against these thugs. Those that put up this narrative are probably leftist liberal liars out to paint anyone who objects to liberal hate and violence as a Nazi, an ultra right winger, a woman hater, racist...you know...liberal name calling not based on truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrydkl (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the red box at the top of this page. Acroterion (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wrong information.

NOT DONE

Nothing to be done. Before re-requesting a change, please read the pink notice at the top of the page. (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/afro-cuban-chairman-of-proud-boys-says-they-are-not-racist-or-white-supremacists.html

From the leader of proud boys himself condemning white supremacy. 75.118.182.211 (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done read the pink box at the top of this page. Also, it is already mentioned in the lead section of the article that the group Officially, the group rejects white supremacy, although it has significant ties with white supremacist groups. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"Far right"? Is that well supported?

They are in the news, so I came here looking for concrete examples of what people have been accusing them of. I find this article lacking in examples.

Looking at the first ref. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/proud-boys-trump.html

"Far-Right Group That Trades in Political Violence Gets a Boost", that's the NYT headline. So maybe it should be "the NYT considers them to be far right".

Next mention is "the Proud Boys joined a group of right-wing demonstrators". So that ain't the ref.

"By reputation, the Proud Boys are a far-right group of brawlers". Is second hand reputation something we should be using?

"The Proud Boys have been able to make inroads with mainstream conservatives in part because its members wrap themselves in libertarian values, said Samantha Kutner of the Khalifa Ihler Institute". If the NYT wants to attribute this opinion, why don't we?

Why do I not find good examples of how they are "far right"? Seems like it's taken for granted. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peregrine Fisher: There are more sources throughout the entire article that support far-right. Wikipedia is neutral, but we also call a spade a spade. Just to clear the record:

Anything else? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are these examples of opinion, or fact? Why is the first ref I looked at lacking? Do I need to read every ref to find it lacking? "Prove each ref wrong like you did the first" is the feeling I"m getting from you. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at your first reference headline and subheadline. "Proud Boys: who are the far-right group that backs Donald Trump? Organisation founded ahead of 2016 US election is classified by the FBI as an ‘extremist group’"

THe Guardian doesn't feel comfortable saying the PB are far right themselves, they attribute it to the FBI. Why is every example I see like this? If it's so simple simon, just provide that evidence. Or at least a ref that I don't have to go only two sentences in to find it's opinion and not fact. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The job of the editors is NOT to decide what is "fact" and what is "opinion". It is to report what the reliable sources actually state, and they explicitly state it's "far right." Rjensen (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. If reliable source A says "reliable source B says that the PB are 'far right'", then we must say "reliable source B says that the PB are 'far right'". I think I remember you from the old days rjensen. You should know the difference between those two. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peregrine Fisher: With respect, we call a spade a spade. The FBI's determination of Proud Boys as an extremist group has no relevance to their far-right position. All the provided evidence supports calling them "far-right", and even disregarding the first source that you misread which calls the group "far-right" independently of any commentary about the FBI, all the other sources explicitly say far-right. Do you have any sources that explicitly say Proud Boys is not far-right? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are incorrect as well. Controversial statements should be attributed. Saying "we call a spade a spade" sounds like the argument of someone who is wrong. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A statement is only "controversial" if reliable sources significantly disagree on it; simply stating that you disagree with what they say is not sufficient. There is no indication in these sources that there's any substantial disagreement; many of them are high-quality reliable sources, usable for statements of fact, describing the topic in an dispassionate, neutral tone. If you feel that their conclusions are debatable then you must provide other sources of comparable quality and weight to support that - otherwise, we are required to report the truth as the sources report it; presenting factual statements from high-quality reliable sources as if it were mere opinion would itself be improper editorializing on our part. I also disagree with your (implicit) assertion that "far-right" is an inherently value-laden term; it is not some insult or pejorative, but a neutral descriptor of political alignment that is widely used in both academia and high-quality journalism. --Aquillion (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

NOT DONE

Nothing to be done. Before re-requesting a change, please read the pink notice at the top of the page. (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

NOT True will never donate to you again if you do not allow corrections and stop the slander. 2601:602:CA01:2980:A423:8DFD:5F0D:79F7 (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done – please clarify: unclear about what you want to be changed, let alone any reliable source to back it up. Please see the pink notice at the top. Also, Wikipedia is not censored by donors. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

NOT DONE

Nothing to be done. Before re-requesting a change, please read the pink notice at the top of the page. (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Came here out of curiousity. Not a Proud Boys member nor supporter, but this Wikipedia page is total garbage. The text is garbage and your sources are garbage. ADL an dSPLC. Give me a break! No wonder only idiots use Wikipedia. 2601:642:4300:3110:10A8:E6AA:96:BB61 (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: unclear about what you need changed, let alone any sources to support you. ADL and SPLC are respected, authoritative reliable sources. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Evidence that PB are white supremacists?

Sounds like it's easy to come by. Not accusations, but evidence. Let's provide it here with quotes and refs and then we can add it to the article. Should be simple simon.Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peregrine Fisher: A really basic Google search shows an abundance of sources that support that claim:

Two of those sources need a bit of between-the-lines, but even without them, there's still nine sources explicitly calling Proud Boys white supremacist. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praise for diversity

Nothing to do.--Jorm (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The group has received widespread praise for being the most racially diverse white supremacy group in history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F7F0:1D50:9966:DC3E:7EE3:E6E2 (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done without any reliable sources stating so, they have not. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unbalanced

Nothing actionable--Jorm (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I had little idea what the Proud Boys are about. After reading this article, I still have little idea. From the start to the end, it only presents negative information and doesn't even state what they claim to be. It's obvious whoever is editing this has an axe to grind.

I think an editor should add one of those unbalanced tags to it until some alternative viewpoints are added. ~~ Akvadrako (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Akvadrako:

Not done how about the tag from this page? Or perhaps consider that Wikipedia follows the viewpoint of a majority of reliable sources. If you have proof that editors have an axe to grind, back that up - or don't make that claim. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Background

Nothing to do here!--Jorm (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

add The fraternity could be easily seen as McInnes’s attempt to have other young men not make the same mistakes he did, spending one’s twenties and thirties in aimless partying rather than establishing his place in the world with a young family as an anchor. https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06/proud-boys-and-porn/ Baratiiman (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this change. The Federalist is a partisan source that largely publishes opinion, making it unsuitable to cite for unattributed statements of fact; and that line would be WP:UNDUE even if we attributed it to Pullmann. --Aquillion (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Baratiiman:

Not done: not only is that a partisan source, but it's also a primary source since that quote is attributed to McInnes. Beyond that, we don't copy word-for-word from sources. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Trying to improve the lead

What exactly is the problem?[2] -- Kendrick7^talk 03:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is American society is undergoing a fundamental change and it does not make many very happy. So many want to revise what is documented into what they they believe to be the truth. It is the problem of national mythologies and history colliding that cause these tensions, form what I have found. Damingo Sanchez (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we have articles all about all that stuff. But all that shouldn't be lain at the feet of a group of violent thugs. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendrick7: Hey Kendrick! There have been quite a few intense discussions about the labelling of Proud Boys (especially around white supremacy), and I feel as though your change, moving their classification as a far-right, neo-fascist, white supremacist and male-only to further down and the addition of "although led by a black Cuban-American", needs to get some more input and consensus before it should be published (especially around the wording). Also, just as a matter of fact, I don't think Proud Boys are engage in anti-left political violence "for the sake of fraternity". ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly put all of that in the opening sentence. I think it's only fair to summarize the various race issues involved here distinctly in the lead, but I am happy to discuss how best to do that. You shouldn't have completely removed my reference, in any case, per WP:REMOVECITE... actually, there are perhaps too many cites in the lead overall, but I don't know if I want to rock that boat! -- Kendrick7^talk 04:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendrick7: Per the BRD cycle, contentious or otherwise disputed edits may be reverted to seek consensus. Just for me to understand the end goal that you'd like to head towards, what specific things do you think need to be improved? Is it just the representation of white supremacy? If so, I think it's best that you find a number of sources that so prominently highlight the race of the Proud Boys' leader, keeping in mind that existing reliable sources have not ordinarily made such prominent injunctions. While it's certainly a factor to consider, I don't think, at this stage based on the sources provided, it is neutral and balanced to have any more discussion in the lead about it. It also sounds like a bit of a "I'm not racist, I have black friends" sort of thing, which raises other neutrality concerns. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the leader of the group is black seems worthy of mention somewhere in the lead, after all, if the group is indeed white supremacist, then having a black leader is highly notable, isn't it? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendrick7: We don't determine notability of facts; we rely on sources. If you can provide a significant number of reliable, high-quality secondary sources that prominently qualifies white supremacy with something like, "with ties to white supremacy, although their leader is a black Cuban-American", then absolutely we can talk about including it to prominently, but the current body of sources does not include such information as predominantly. That's not to say that it isn't mentioned anywhere, but it so far is not highlighted in enough sources to qualify being in the lead. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting all about the WP:NPOV policy. Certainly in the interest of balance, it's only fair to mention this prominently. Can you not see that? In any case, I'll restore the source and we can go from there. I'll start a new discussion about that particular issue soon. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are garbage.

Declaring that mainstream reliable sources such as the NYT and USA Today are "garbage" suggests that you are not capable of constructively contributing to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

New York Times? USA Today? The Guardian? Washington Post? No wonder this article is full of garbage. You sourced from garbage! So, I had to dig for the actual Proud Boys websites (there are at least 2), and I had to do it from Duck Duck Go, because Google is also full of shit. I found nothing about white surpremacy in there. They even state they don't care about your race, religion, or even your sexuality. I then went on YouTube to look for minorities in their group. Found at least 2 black guys in the one where they're praying in Portland. This article is garbage. It sources from garbage. 10 minutes of research and you'd see it.

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.

Anyone can build a website to promote a vision. People are not always truthful with others or even themselves. This is why Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. A secondary source is once removed and thus more likely to be truthful/objective. A primary source (such as a personal website or businesses website) may be truthful, but it is less likely to be a source of objective facts as the party producing it has everything at stake. This is why Wikipedia policy requires secondary sources. Cedar777 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] ttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neofascism. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[3] Vitolo-Haddad, CV (11 June 2019). "The Blood of Patriots: Symbolic Violence and "The West"". Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 49: 280–296 – via Taylor & Francis Online.

[4] McLaren, Peter (10 October 2019). "Are those whiffs of fascism that I smell? Living behind the orange curtain". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 52: 1011{{ndash]}1015 – via Taylor & Francis Online.

[5] Álvarez, Rebecca (2020). Vigilante Gender Violence: Social Class, the Gender Bargain, and Mob Attacks on Women Worldwide. Routledge. ISBN 1000174131.

[6] Daou, Peter (2019). Digital Civil War: Confronting the Far-Right Menace. Melville House. p. 6. ISBN 1612197884.

[7] Sernau, Scott (2019). Social Inequality in a Global Age. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9781544309309.

[8] HoSang, Daniel (2019). Producers, Parasites, Patriots: Race and the New Right-Wing Politics of Precarity. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9781452960340.

[9] Kutner, Samantha (2020). "Swiping Right: The Allure of Hyper Masculinity and Cryptofascism for Men Who Join the Proud Boys" (PDF). International Centre for Counter-Terrorism: 1 – via JSTOR.

[10] ttps://www.scotsman.com/news/world/gavin-mcinnes-who-founder-neo-fascist-group-proud-boys-and-co-founder-vice-magazine-and-his-links-scotland-2989805

[11] ttps://www.opb.org/news/article/iron-front-ban-suspended-mls-portland-seattle/

[12] ttps://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-protests-proud-boy-arrested-gun-antifa

[13] ttps://proudboysusa.com/tenets/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]