Talk:Proud Boys

No Basis for "neo-fascist" Claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

further, neofascism is described as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does the first line say "The Proud Boys are... neo-fascist" when the next line says the group officially rejects racism? Those are conflicting statements. Clearly there is some bias going on here and I don't know why it's being allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Br467322 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The first line says they are neo-fascist because independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say they are neo-fascists. We say that they say they reject racism because they say they reject racism. Two things: 1) A group can be something and say they are not that thing. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say. 2) Racism is neither fascism nor a necessary component of fascism. Perhaps you meant white supremacist instead of fascist. In that case, see #1. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. The denials from the Proud Boys are unduly self-serving. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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"
• "the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys"
• "The Proud Boys are a neo-fascist masculinist hate group."
• "neo-fascist gang Proud boys clashed with..."
• "The Proud Boys, an all-male neo-fascist group"
• "groups such as the protofascist Proud Boys"
• "Swiping Right: The Allure of Hyper Masculinity and Cryptofascism for Men Who Join the Proud Boys"

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) 

References

Adding to this Peter Daou should not be used as a source since he is about as reliable as Dinesh D'Souza or other extermely partistan activists.108.45.91.166 (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 presidential election

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.

---

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@Davide King and Graywalls: I've started a section for a possible solution to look at here. Let's keep talking about a way to resolve this over there? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"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)

@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:

• "Proud Boys: who are the far-right group that backs Donald Trump?"
• "Proud Boys: ‘Western chauvinist’ far-right group explained - and their reaction to Trump’s statement ‘Stand back and stand by’"
• "Who are the Proud Boys? Far-right group known for political brawls are in the spotlight after Trump tells them to ‘stand back and stand by.'"
• "The chairman of the far-right fraternity with a violent reputation..."
• "On the right, the Proud Boys'... official Twitter accounts were selected for their characteristic expression of Far Right political views"
• "Proud Boys: What we know about the far-right group Trump mentioned in the debate" (even Sky News has called them far-right)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

1. "President Donald Trump has condemned all white supremacist groups, including the far-right 'Proud Boys,'"
2. "Days after President Donald Trump failed to condemn white supremacist groups,... denounced all such groups, including the Proud Boys and the Ku Klux Klan"
3. "as academics and advocates have warned the group has ties to white supremacy."
4. "Proud Boys are a dangerous 'white supremacist' group say US agencies"
5. "...Donald Trump has still refused to condemn white supremacist groups. During yesterday's debate he instructed one such group, the Proud Boys,..."
6. "CAIR Condemns Trump's Call for White Supremacist, Islamophobic Group Proud Boys to 'Stand By'"
7. "The far-right Proud Boys group, ... have been linked to... white supremacist organizing..."
8. "Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists"
9. "McInnes announced to the world Proud Boys as... focused on “anti-political correctness” and “anti-white guilt”"
10. "Proud Boys organised a pro-Trump rally in Portland. Kate Brown, the Oregon state governor, declared a state of emergency in anticipation of “white supremacist groups”"
11. "The Proud Boys, an extremist right-wing organization... with links to violence and white-supremacist activism"

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)

This standard of evidence is not good enough. Some of these sources are just quoting Donald Trump, who is not a reliable source. Other articles say there are "links" to supremacist organizing, but don't substantiate that the group actually is doing any such organizing. We should be guarded against slippery articles that are biased and use scandalizing language. A lot of bad evidence is not good evidence. Do we have any more reliable sources? It would be especially helpful if we had some primary source material to look at, to help understand the secondary sources. 2001:569:71B6:EB00:840C:304B:E05E:D408 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources are reliable for quoting Donald Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Would you be able to point out exactly which of these sources only describe the Proud Boys as white supremacist when explicitly quoting Trump? These articles have largely been spurred by Trump's comments, but these sources consistently describe the Proud Boys as white supremacists independently from quoting Trump (or with significant links to, which is what is in the article already). In terms of saying biased and scandalising language, that's innately going to happen - part of not being censored is that sometimes we use language that paints a less than favourable light simply because that's how the subject has been reported. Similarly, primary evidence isn't particularly great - while it might be appropriate and favourable to include some primary mentions in the article body, the lead probably doesn't need to be polluted with "sociologist Jane Doe has described the group as with ties to white supremacy" when there are is a significant repository of other independent and reliable sources that establish that. Also, exactly how is the standard of evidence not good enough? These are some of the most reputable news organisations in the world, and they all use the same range of descriptors, further corroborating the use of these terms. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: So, I briefly scanned the article and I see that it now shows this sentence, ". . .and they have been described by US intelligence organisations as "a dangerous white supremacist group'." The curious thing about this is that the only support I can see for it is source #4 on your list from The Guardian which quotes a leaked CIAC report that lumps them in with Neo-Nazi and Skinhead groups. However, I don't see any other news source having even reported on such a leak. Moreover, I can't find the actual leaked documents anywhere. I understand how WP:RS works and that, apparently, Wikipedia takes Reliable Sources' words at face value without needing to verify the source's information. But, doesn't it seem odd that such a link hasn't been shown in any officially released law enforcement document anywhere else? Is there any method for verifying this? Or is the stock answer that it is not Wikipedia's job to verify a Reliable Source? It just seems odd to me that there's no corroboration for this Guardian article anywhere else. Thanks, in advance, for your response. Please ping me back, as well. Krakaet (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Krakaet: On Wikipedia, the reliability of sources are generally dealt with at the publisher level - individual articles are not necessarily scrutinised or prevented, but rather the entire publication. For The Guardian (I think that's what you're referencing), there's already a very broad consensus (WP:RSPSOURCES#The_Guardian) that it is reliable (last consensus was 2019, so it's very recent). While I understand your concern about face value considerations, I'm afraid the consensus is already set - it's a bit of a thing where we have to assume good faith about off-Wiki sources. And in terms of the lack of corroborating sources, that is somewhat unusual, but I assume that the nature of a law enforcement counter-terrorism publication is that it's treated with some level of official protection - there might be a court injunction or another legal protection censoring the press from reporting. Nonetheless, that's one source of eleven - despite us not really being able to independently verify what the article claims (which isn't needed, and almost verges on WP:OR), the article supports the description of white supremacy. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Trying to improve the lead

What exactly is the problem?[1] -- Kendrick7^talk 03:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

Kendrick7, NPOV is not about giving equal weight or balance to the mainstream and fringe views, nor it is about bothsideism and false balance. As stated by ItsPugle, we need reliable sources emphasizing this point. I also agree with ItsPubgle that "I'm not racist, but... I have black friends" is a good example and analogy. Davide King (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but we're talking about an actual organization with white supremacist ties being being led by black man What's wrong with mentioning that in the lead? That's not a "fringe" view; it's reality. We're allowed to apply WP:COMMON sense here. But like I said, I'll start a new discussion about it. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, I was not saying that was a "fringe" view, just that we do not give equal weight to fringe views or that we do not apply false balance; if reliable sources have not made that connection or emphasised that, then it is undue; if they did, it can be included. By the way, as noted above by Muboshgu, it is not uncommon or a impossibility that "nonwhite people join white supremacist groups." One does not need to be white to be a white supremacist, or a racial supremacist in general. There was a time when Irish people, among others, or white immigrants in general, especially in the United States, were not considered white, or 'pure' white, were discriminated against, etc. Davide King (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This article needs to go to NPOV/N or have an RFC to get input from fresh set of uninvolved editors. Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I've started the discussion over here: WP:NPOV/N#White supremacy and the Proud Boys. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Enrique Tarrio

Page watchers are invited to help improve Enrique Tarrio and contribute to discussions at Talk:Enrique Tarrio. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Extremely broad edit by User:Davide King on 2020-10-04

@Davide King: your edit 981825720 was very broad and seems to have been made without sufficient discretion. Many of the items covered in your reversion were already discussed and you can use this Talk page to raise your objections. Your reversion also deleted unobjectionable improvements, e.g. the naming of some refs. Please review your changes more carefully. Tobor0 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You were the one to make significant changes to the lead and you were reverted by, so we should follow BRD. You changed organization to fraternal organization, but given refs do not support that statement; they support the neo-fascist, all-male statement. You also made other questionable changes, like removing the SLPC designation as hate group or the removal of white nationalism from the infobox. There were just many things wrong, including many ref errors caused by your edits, that I was not able to incorporate the improved refs' name changes.--Davide King (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Another example is your white-washing change from "As the Proud Boys emerged as part of the alt-right movement, McInnes distanced himself from them in early 2017, saying his focus was "Western values" while the alt-right's focus was race. The re-branding effort intensified following the Unite the Right rally.[21][22] to "Following the 2017 Unite the Right rally, McInnes distanced himself and the group from the alt-right movement, saying his focus was "Western values" while the alt-right's focus was race.[20][21]" Please, self-revert. You did a bold edit and was reverted, we should discuss this on the talk page and gain consensus for whatever your edits were an improvement. Davide King (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't make many of the changes you are mentioning, you're mistaken. Please review the history of the article more carefully. Tobor0 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, yes, it was Kendrick7 who did most of the edits and messed up the refs in the first place, but you did this (I have reword it adding planned per source), you did remove white nationalism from the infobox and also NPR's hate group designation. Davide King (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I fixed a bunch of refs, I didn't break them. I suspect you might have reverted my fixes though! -- Kendrick7^talk 21:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, I reverted your change of ref names, which may have been an improvement, because most of your other edits were problematic and I was not able to incorporate them. Sorry about that, I hope that can be fixed. Davide King (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Right. Someone else started changing the ref names, leaving them in a broken state. But whatever, water under the bridge. They are all working now. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: I replaced the NPR hate group designation with the ADL's designation -- a much more relevant group to the question at hand. I wrote a comment about this below Tobor0 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, no, you did not "replace[...] the NPR hate group designation with the ADL's designation." You simply removed that from the lead and it was the SPLC and NPR, where did you add or get the ADL designation? Davide King (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: Again, you are mistaken. Please direct your attention to edit 981761231 --Tobor0 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, here you removed NPR (without adding the ADL's designation, where did you add that? Or did you confuse the ADL for the SPLC?) and here you removed white nationalism. Here it was Kendrick7 who removed the hate group designation from the lead, if that is what you are referring; they are the one who made the most mess. Some of your other edits were fine. Davide King (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: no, look at the edit I shared in my most recent comment. I put the ADL text there, before it read "NPR Takeaway and SPLC", and after, it read "ADL and SPLC". In the edit you're referring to, I removed NPR because it's not an authority on who are hate groups, unlike the other two. It's like saying quantum physics has been confirmed by Einstein, Bohr, and Mr Jones my 10th grade physics teacher. The podcast in mention is not in anyway notable, nor is it an authority on who is a hate group. It makes the article read dumb, as though the authors are reaching to substantiate the hate group designation. --Tobor0 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong--NPR (National Public Radio) is a highly professional news media with many experienced reporters in every state. It is a reliable sources on current events--and one that scholars rely upon as does Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That makes them a credible source of news. It doesn't make them an authority on who is a hate group. Tobor0 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, sorry, I finally got it. You did remove NPR and changed it to "The organization has been described as a hate group by the ADL and the SPLC." But I am not sure whether the ADL has actually described it as a hate group (the SPLC clearly said so and I could verify that) and I agree with Rjensen that you cannot so easily dismiss that NPR source. Davide King (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: on this talk page editor User:The_Four_Deuces says "As you pointed out, news media routinely refer to them as white supremacist. I have always taken the view that news reporters do not have the expertise to make this determination." This is my point: being a reliable news source doesn't mean NPR can competently decide who is and isn't a hate group. And that doesn't begin to address the fact that NPR is not a monolith, but comprises many programs, and there is no reason to think a relatively unknown podcast like The Takeaway deserves the same presumption of competence as Morning Edition. It weakens the article to cite The Takeaway, a no-name podcast which holds no authority about deciding who is a hate group, when you have organizations who are authoritative on the question. As a reader, including it creates the appearance of cherry picking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobor0 (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, I understand what you are saying but I do not see a big issue. It is a reliable source and provides some context for why and how "the Proud Boys seem to have an ability to attract men of color, which seems at odds with groups that borrow heavily from a white supremacist ideology." It also cites "Tanya Hernández, professor of law at Fordham University and the author of the forthcoming book Multiracials and Civil Rights, and David Neiwert, author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump, and correspondent for the Southern Poverty Law Center, join the program to help make sense of this current phenomenon." Davide King (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

We will not be white-washing this article or downplaying their racism and white nationalist footprint in any way.--Jorm (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Jorm, so how could the organization remove a description of themselves which doesn't match their tenants, expressed beliefs, or membership? Would a few semireliable sources or court summaries which suggest that they are not neo-fascists or white supremacists do the trick? It is unclear how the Democratic party isn't called "white nationalist" on their entry, even though it used to be stated as a platform but is obviously no longer the case. The current description does not inform the reader, but does the opposite of that. Maybe a section could discuss alleged views by come current or past members, but it doesn't shouldn't label the organization -TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

An organization can get "ties with white nationalists" removed from their article by... not having ties to white nationalism. We are not a propaganda arm for neo-nazis. If they stop being neo-fascists and this is reflected in reliable sources, we'll stop calling them that. It's that simple.--Jorm (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jorm: stating the ideology of the organization as white nationalist is not supported by any facts. "Ties to white nationalists" -- many of which when investigated in the sources appear to be as simple as "a person was a member of both PB and a white supremacist group" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobor0 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jorm: you are a very dubious choice to be the guardian of this article. You routinely assume bad faith, for example, by alleging white-washing off the bat. Evidence of your condescension is all over this talk page. You appear to have no shame about the fact that your definition of white supremacy, racism, etc are unfalsifiable. At times you've even delved into psychoanalysis e.g. the "I have a black friend" sort of speculation above. As someone who actually worked at WP and represents the org in your bio still, I would have higher expectations for objectivity and fairness from you. Tobor0 (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• You made fairly WP:BOLD edits to the article, so it's not that surprising that someone would object and revert. Just going over your changes, I take issue with:

• The change from "male-only" to "fraternal organization"; those terms don't have the same connotations, and I don't think "fraternal organization" is what the sources use. Even worse (if I am reading the somewhat-confusing diffs right), it appears that the source for "male-only" was removed from that sentence at the same time?
• In this edit, the timeline with regards to their designation as an extremist hate group is obviously significant and is noted as such in the sources.
• In this edit, I don't understand your objection to NPR; it's a high-quality source and having them overtly describe the Proud Boys as a hate group is plainly significant enough to deserve a mention.
• In this edit you removed a description from the infobox that seems to reflect the group's uncontroversial description among reliable sources. You can't dismiss something as an "editorial assessment" just because you disagree with it; it reflects the factual description of the group by numerous high-quality expert sources, with no sources of comparable weight disputing or disagreeing with it. If anything, removing it feels like trying to apply editorial assessment to the conclusions of reliable sources.

None of these changes had consensus on talk that I can see, and most of them hadn't even been discussed, so it's hardly surprising they were reverted. --Aquillion (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I didn't change make the male-only change, and I added more and more reputable sources for the hate group claim. A random podcast on NPR is not an authoritative source on who is or is not a hate group, but the ADL is. Mentioning NPR's Takeaway podcast as the source when there are more sources relevant to the subject. It's like saying "quantum mechanical theories have been confirmed by leading theorists such as Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, and Dr Bob Dobbs associate physics professor at Dubuque Community College." The article is actually made more dumb if you don't stop at Bohr. Tobor0 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "fraternal organization", the Proud Boys do appear to refer to themselves as a fraternity, at least if the Daily Beast article cited in the Membership section is to be believed: "no heterosexual brother of the Fraternity shall masturbate more than one time in any calendar month". If some RS specifically contests the idea that they are "fraternal order", that's one thing. But according to common English usage and their own self-definition, the Proud Boys seem to qualify. I read "fraternal organization" as being somewhat more informative than "all-male", given the general flavor of the organization. According to the current WP page on fraternity, the definition is fairly loose. The gist is "an organization, society, club or fraternal order traditionally of men associated together for various religious or secular aims". NillaGoon (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Jorm, I understand that there should be a mention of "ties to white Supremacy" as that informs the reader. To list it under the group's ideology is wrong and untrue and is very concerning. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not, and Wikipedia should not, take an organization or person at their word about their ideologies if there is compelling evidence that those are falsehoods, especially when that is covered in reliable sources. I can tell you that I prefer red M&Ms to the exclusion of all others, but if I never eat a red M&M and everyone observes that I eat green and brown ones, then very little weight should be given to my statement.--Jorm (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jorm: ok -- what is the accurate entry for the M&M Preference field in your infobox? Jorm is a red m&m-ist because that's his self-description, or Jorm is a pan m&m-ist? What is the intention of the Ideology field in the infobox -- recap what the article finds or list the group's espoused principles? --Tobor0 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, I believe it is supposed to summarise what reliable sources and body say, not merely self-descriptions or self-esposued principles. Davide King (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: okay there are two issues here. First, I don't see evidence of consensus on this interpretation, so why is it being followed? Second, none of these sources and nowhere in the article is it being alleged that the Proud Boys themselves are white nationalists, only that they have connections, and it's been covered how tenuous a "tie" is. So even if we accept your interpretation that the infobox is meant for de facto assessments, we're not presenting evidence that this is their constructive ideology either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobor0 (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/white-supremacist-protest-activism-emily-gorcenski

The author of the above article calls the proud boys racist neo Nazis, but never makes the case that they are white supremacists. Ironically, she does call Trump, his admin and police in general "heavily infiltrated by white supremacists". I wonder if this would be an adequate source to update other people and organizations as white supremacists? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"TuffStuffMcG", they ARE white supremacists. https://time.com/5894743/trump-proud-boys-history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Opening sentence of the link "TuffStuffMcG" posted: "The far-right Proud Boys group, whom Donald Trump refused to denounce this week, have been linked to assaults on protesters, white supremacist organizing, the spread of Covid misinformation and other threats against Americans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It is hard to prove a negative. They recruit on anti racism, they preach anti racism, and they promote people of all races to the highest levels of the organization. I am unaware of any other white supremacist organization that does this. It seems like doublethink on the part of moderators here and is a cause for alarm about practices elsewhere on wikipedia TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

They don't "recruit on anti racism", nor do they "preach anti racism". This is getting silly to have Proud Boys sockpuppets showing up constantly trying to feed nonsense into this page. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/15/17978358/proud-boys-trump-biden-debate-violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It isn't nonsense. That vox article says things that are true. The speech coming out of the organization is polemical, and intentionally insulting and racially, ethnically charged - but when you take the bait and actually read the arguments, they tend to make the opposite point perceived at face value.https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/227053

Misogynistic, violent, extreme, far right, xenophobic even are all arguable. But White supremacist and neo-nazi is only defensible in the context that they are "linked to", due to shared forums for the deplatformed. The organization has become much more sensitive to this and taken a harder line against this association.

I am not a Proud Boy, but I do watch them pretty closely for consistency. White Supremacy and neo-nazism are abhorrent to me. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva, which you linked, is not a reliable source. The rest of your arguments do not hold water either.

First you claim "they tend to make the opposite point perceived at face value", literally trying to argue they don't say what they say... ridiculous.

Then you claim that they are only "linked to" other white supremacist and neo-nazi because they were deplatformed, but the reverse is the truth: they were deplatformed for their white supremacist hate, for their advocacy of terrorist violence, and for their associations with other white supremacist and neo-nazi movements. The behavior and associations came before the deplatforming.

As for your not being a "proud boy", I'm not buying the denial. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment to everyone - there's a new discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard about white supremacy and the Proud Boys. As for this discussion, almost everything seems to be based on personal opinions about sources and "that's not true" sort of arguments. For complaints about individual editor conduct, take it to user talk pages or if you feel so, the administrators' noticeboard. If you want to change content in the article, please provide significant reliable and independent sources to support your assertions. Claims that sources aren't true, or that a source is unreliable, should only be made when supported by an existing consensus listed for a source or a consensus from the reliable sources noticeboard, not personal opinion or what we think "the truth" is. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There was an allegation that the proud boys were anti-semitic. If a zionist Israeli press doesn't take issue with Proud Boys being anti-semitic, that should be an indicator - as they should be expert on those opposed to their own cause. This would be "reliable in this specific context" even though there is a suggestion it is a "deprecated source" TuffStuffMcG (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: Using what a news agency (let alone one that's classified as a deprecated source with a consensus against it) doesn't say is original research and not allowed. If you're talking about the Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) site, the second line literally mentions that there have been an "outcry" of allegations of anti-Semitism:

Originally titled “10 things I hate about Jews,” the name of the clip was altered to “10 things I hate about Israel,” following an outcry on social media and accusations of anti-Semitism.

Do you have any reliable and independent sources that explicitly say that Proud Boys is not anti-Semitic? Anyways, is that already in the article? If so, it should already have reliable sources attached to it. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That same article mentions that the writer of the insultingly titled article/video was in Israel at the time, on the invitation of a pro-Israel event. He lambasted Nazis and made it clear that he likes Jews and defends Israel (in the linked article). The article is pretty informative toward the point I'm trying to make, that his "shtick" was pretty average even for a tell aviv comic on a regular night and that the content was clearly pro-Israel.

As I've said before, it is tough to prove a negative. The best way to do that is to undercut a knee-jerk initial impression (that was intentionally cultivated by mcinness for shock affect) that he was anti-semitic at all. You are supposed to read the title and think you are going to see a fascist. You are then met by a mainstream conservative comedy, recorded in Israel about how great Jews are and how Israel is a major ally.

This illustrates the point that the organization is a vice-signalling group, with a more extreme version of otherwise standard conservative principles. I only have issue with the white supremacist and neo-nazi labels as I believe they miss the point entirely. The organization can reliably be called violent, nationalistic, xenophobic etc as I think that their messaging and independent sources have evidence of these things. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"a vice-signalling group, with a more extreme version of otherwise standard conservative principles is definitely a fancy doubletalk or weasel word way of avoiding saying what the consensus of reliable sources say, which is that the group is a far-right,[1][2] neo-fascist,[3][4][5][6] and male-only[7][8] organization affiliated with white supremacists[9][10][11][12] that promotes and engages in political violence.[13][14][15][16]. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with some of that.

the group is a far-right,[1][2] and male-only[7][8] organization that promotes and engages in political violence.[13][14][15][16].

"Associated with" is a weak and bizarre rationalization for their organizational description and summary. Neo-fascist is directly in contradiction of their tenants, but I have seen the Pinochet shirts which are confusing TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, they are self-declared "Western chauvinists". Western seems to be a dog-whistle for "White" and chauvinism is "the irrational belief in the superiority or dominance of one's own group or people, who are seen as strong and virtuous, while others are considered weak or unworthy." So ironically, by their own self-description, they are white supremacists. This point was made here by The Four Deuces and I find it a nice analogy. Regarding "Neo-fascist is directly in contradiction of their tenants", let me succinctly quote you that "[a] number of far right groups officially renounce racism or fascism but it's cosmetic rather than genuine. [...] And there's a long history of racists showing admiration for some minority groups." Davide King (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

https://officialproudboys.com/uncategorized/what-is-a-western-chauvinist/

Since the adamantly define themselves as NOT that, it could help to read what they say that they mean TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have more than one ideology in the info-box. All the categories mentioned roll up to far right so why not just use that? In truth experts have a hard time further classifying far right groups into specific ideological units, since they tend to change and aren't very coherent anyway. Also, they tend not to have a pedigree. They suddenly emerge, usually led by veterans of earlier far right groups, then disappear. And they always try to distance themselves from earlier far right groups. TFD (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

FBI backtracking pertinent enough for the lead?

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.

---

Do we really need a whole paragraph about the FBI flip-flopping on their opinion about this group in the lead? Seems like this would barely pass WP:NOTNEWS to make it into the article at all, but I don't think it's informative enough to be in the lead. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: A designation of several members of the group as a threat and as white supremacists by the FBI is not minor. We can probably remove some of the mentions about how the whole group was originally classified, but based on the coverage and reactions to the declaration, we would be unbalanced to not mention that several members were indeed classified. Also, WP:NOTNEWS is about the enduring value of content; an FBI-deemed connection to white supremacy is of enduring value. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, but I think we can do all that in a sentence, not a paragraph. I'll think about how to cut this down. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: I'll go through and remove some of the excess information about the FBI's miscommunication about the scope of the designation, but we're not going to remove every mention. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Connections to white supremacy should be mentioned in the article, but is questionable of it should define the group, or receive more mention than a sentence or subsection. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: The FBI's designation of several members as white supremacy threats is important and irremovable context to a number of events. We can remove some of the excess detail, but we're not going to straight out remove crucial context. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As I've said, reference to past or current members stated beliefs belongs in the article. My suggestion is that past members views don't belong in the current organizations description when they fly directly on contrast with the rules and tenants. That's all.

Proud Boys are concerned about white nationalist infiltration themselves. When McInness was still in charge, he went so far as to blanket remove all members involved in "unite the right" particularly the disturbing torch procession. That could be PR. But it is consistent with the stated goals of the organization - to entice non-white members. It beggars belief that the proud boys would WANT non-white members in particular if their "secret goal" was white nationalism.

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/proud-boys-founder-tries-and-fails-to-distance-itself-from-charlottesville-6862fb8b3ae9/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: Removing details because they contrast with the organisation's self-proclaimed rules is original research and an NPOV issue since we're then not addressing the very common and accepted POV that the organisation has ties to white supremacists. And for ThinkProgress, there is [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#ThinkProgress|a consensus that the source is partisan for US politics] and has a community consensus that it could be considered an opinion blog and could be a reliable source on non-political topics. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"Kicking out just a few people who became a PR liability" or "Kicking out the guys who manage to get themselves arrested" isn't evidence that they "are concerned about white nationalist infiltration". Their continued alliances with other white supremacist groups speak for themselves. Similarly, Tarrio's pronouncements are about as two-faced as McInnes's. Note that he made the perfunctory "official claim" but the actual reaction on the PB hashtag has been something else. https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/10/04/the-proud-boys-are-furious-that-gay-men-have-taken-over-proudboys-on-twitter/#55af370f2aaf 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Linking Western culture in lead

OK, so why is this controversial? We have a whole article on Western culture so as to clarify the meaning of the term. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, I think the issue in my view is that it is not clear what is meant by that; same thing for "Western values". Several other right-wing or far-right groups also have an idiosyncratic views of the Constitution. It may well be the Proud Boys have a similar idiosyncratic view on "Western culture" and "Western values". Are there any source that describe what the Proud Boys meant by those terms? Davide King (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If we started applying that standard, we'd have to remove half the links on Wikipedia. I don't see the point in denying our readers the opportunity to learn more about the topic via a handy link. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, well, I like to think we do apply that standard already. If something in quote is not clear, it should not be linked and should be linked somewhere else, for example in a See also section. I could be wrong though and it is not a big deal, I just would like to hear what other users think and if there are sources that discuss what the Proud Boys mean by those terms. Davide King (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

https://officialproudboys.com/uncategorized/what-is-a-western-chauvinist/

As Gavin McInness apparently invented the combination of those 2 words (according to this article), it stands to reason that he or the organization who subscribes to it should inform the definition somewhat

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, that is interesting. So by Western civilisation, culture and values, they mean Judeo-Christian ethics, not Western culture, which may actually include many things the Proud Boys oppose. Davide King (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Informed by* seems to be an important qualifier, as does the Graeco Roman Republic mentioned in the article. As a Christian, I am "informed by religion", but you will read that government should be secular.

There are other important expanses on the idea in the same article. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Either way, I think my point stands; that since it is their own particular interpretation, it should not be directly wikilinked to either Western civilisation/culture/values, perhaps adding this quote as self-description, if it is found to be notable or due, with a link to Judeo-Christian ethics. Davide King (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It's overlinking. There's no reason why a reader would follow the link to find out more about Western culture. You don't have to know about Plato to understand what they are talking about. TFD (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It's got about as much to do with "western culture" as Ethics (Scientology) has to do with actual ethics, to wit: NOTHING. Delink it. It's doubletalk and fake definitions used as weasel words to support a white-supremacist agenda. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixing some citation efficiency issues

Hey everyone. Just based on the general excess of citation, I think the issue isn't over citations but just that so many statements are naturally controversial that they need several reliable sources. To help clean up the visuals of the article while still providing adequate and efficient citations, why don't we have a look at bundling citations into one footnote? My understanding of how that works is that within a <ref>...</ref> tag, you include several {{cite news}} etc templates separated by semi-colons. For example: this is a statement with two citations bundled into one. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've started a trial run of using bundling in the article. Because of the way that we reuse sources, with <ref name="...">, I can't think of an easy workaround for bundling sources used in multiple times other than just repeating citations (which I think might be a worthwhile trade-off). You should be able to see a bundled citation here. I originally was using {{Unbulleted list}}, but it made it almost impossible to tell where one citation stars and begins when it's put into columns, so I changed it to {{Bulleted list}} - does anyone have any idea how to get rid of the spare blank link at the beginning of the ref? Also, does anyone know how to use {{Multiref}}? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Enrique Tarrio in the lead

Emir of Wikipedia, please clarify what is undue about "Enrique Tarrio, the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, has been the chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019." That he is the Florida State Direct of Latinos for Trump? But given ref says and also talks about the Proud Boys, so it seems to be relevant and due. Or that he has been the chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019? Surely, this short uncontroversial information, that Tarrio has been the group's chairman, can have one sentence in the lead. Davide King (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, please actually discuss and clarify rather than add a bunch of tags. Davide King (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you stop removing them before discussion has finished. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, and can you please open a discussion yourself and actually discuss it rather than just adding tags left and right? I think it is good manner to open a discussion about it when putting the tag; the tag should be justified and not based on the opinion of a single editor. I opened this one for you, I removed the tag because it was not clear which part of that phrasing you found undue (if you had replied about which part, I would have added it back myself already), but I did leave intact the rewrite tag. Davide King (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry. Have had a few edits with you recently. Is this section about the inclusion of "Enrique Tarrio, the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, has been the chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019" in the lead? If so can you restore the tag, and please link to this discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, yes, this discussion is about that phrasing, but it is not clear what exactly is undue in your view. Are you referring to the whole phrase or just to "the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump"? Please, clarify this and I will put myself the tag in. Davide King (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to the whole phrase. We do not to include a mention of the chair in the lead and his other roles, especially if it not really a consequential or influential position. I am not saying that the sources are not reliable, or that is can not be mentioned in the text body. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, so I re-added it with a link to this discussion (see here). I thought it was not controversial to add a sentence about the current leader of the group in the lead (I did not add that sentence myself, it was there for a while, I simply reworded it from "Enrique Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019, is also the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump." to "Enrique Tarrio, the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, has been the chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019." I also added two refs already in body and removed a primary one from the Latinos for Trump website. The CNN source mentions both the Proud Boys and that Tarrio is the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, etc., so I thought my wording, which made it more about Tarrio being the group's chairman since early 2019 than being the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, which is mentioned in the CNN source. Davide King (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally do not think it should be in at all at the moment. Other editors may think it should be in with mention of Latinos for Trump, and other without. We will have to wait and see. That is the beauty of consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, Enrique Tarrio is a notable person. Chairman is a notable role. As mentioned below I am in favor of keeping but without mention of Latinos for Trump (which is not independently notable). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, I thought the tag {{undue inline}} was for "a fact or posit to signify that this statement may be giving undue weight to an idea or point of view". I'm not sure that there is an undue POV in the factual statement. On the other hand, it is not the one of the article's most important contents that ought to be summarized in the lead either. I don't think it needs to be in the lead, and we already have it in the infobox. Vexations (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Just keep mention of Enrique Tarrio in his role as chairman since whatever date. No need to worry about Latinos for Trump. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The association with another racist front/astroturf group seems notable. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Would you be able to just quickly explain why the entire lead needs to be rewritten? Just briefly skimming over this, it sounds like the only meaningful disagreement here is about if to include Tarrio as the leader for Latinos for Trump or not. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, I agree. I just tried to fix that by doing this. Davide King (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle:, I don't disagree with him for tagging it. It's too controversial to boldly make a major change, but it's a huge mess. The lead is like the executive summary section and should summarize the remainder of the article. It has quotations and such that should below in body. See WP:LEAD. Also "male only" in lead is just tacky especially with such a group name. See the Good Article Boy Scouts of America, a boys only group. It doesn't start with anything like boys-only scouting group. Graywalls (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls:, you may have missed this, but the reason that wording isn't in Boy Scouts of America is that the organization is no longer boys-only. They changed their policies over the last few years to allow gender-separated troops of either boys or girls, trying to compete against the Girl Scouts of the USA and peel off some membership in areas where hyperconservatives are angry about GSA's acceptance of nonbinary and transgender members. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Also, Proud Boys is also not particularly obvious that it's male only. While it hints to it, I think there's no harm in having "male-only", and as the IP comment below, there are notable organisations where their gender-access is unrelated to their name. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

also see Navy Midshipmen football No reference to gender/sex at all. I think the "men-only" in first line is ridiculous. Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC) @ItsPugle: Graywalls (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That a group has a membership criterion that eliminates half the population is noteworthy. Whether or not a completely unrelated article about a completely unrelated sport has such a restriction or the article mentions it is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think they were questioning more about in the being in the first line than inclusion in general. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Can everyone please stopping tag me in this discussion if I have not replied in just a few seconds. There is obviously different views as shown in the above discussion, so I feel that some tag is justified for the time being. If there is consensus that no changes should be made, then I will have to accept the tags removal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: With all due respect, you added the tag that calls for the entire lead to be rewritten, so you do need to kind of actually be engaged here? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between someone not engaging and someone getting ping if they had not replied shortly after another ping. The second seems like borderline WP:harassment. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I don't know what you're trying to suggest here? You're engaging in multiple lines of discussion here, and with multiple editors, so it's natural that you're going to be getting multiple notifications when different users reply to different discussions. If you think that being pinged across multiple discussions is harassment, then I'd encourage you to maybe look at changing your notification settings, but you're actively engaging in a highly-active discussion on a controversial article's talk page - getting several pings is kind of expected. I cannot see anywhere in this discussion where you've been pinged twice by the same editor without you replying in-between. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, after I literally asked to stop being pinged you decide to ping me. I could somewhat understand your argument in good faith, but the fact you have just gone and done that what am I even meant to say. Please be respectful, like I did and followed your preferred ping preferences, otherwise I might have to ask for a WP:IBAN. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm just very very confused as to exactly what you want here. To me, you started complaining about getting multiple pings for the same message, then you seemed to be complaining about getting multiple pings across multiple conversations; I did not take that as a request for people to just blanketly never ping you. I now know that you just never want to be pinged, so I'll try and remember that if I ever run into you again on WP ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 00:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I accept your apology, and it it my fault for being unclear. You can ping me if you me elsewhere. Just please don't do it if someone has just pinged me on the same article less than a day ago. Funnily enough someone was threatening to take me to WP:ANI for pinging (via their talkpage) in response to their false claims about me. (no need to ping me on reply) -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"Reclamation of #proudboys hashtag" section

This section seems pretty badly written. The phrase "to transform the hashtag #proudboys from hate and bigotry, to inclusion and joy" just isn't neutral at all, and the title's use of the word "reclamation" suggests the group stole the name "Proud Boys" from the gay community, and this is not the case. The origin of their name is discussed earlier in the article. There's also no citation that "messages posted by members contained chiefly hateful comments" on Parler. This whole Wikipedia article seems a bit weird, to be honest, some users contributing to it are very openly biased against the Proud Boys on this talk page and the article reflects that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:278:2018:C41:A8EB:6C8E:F5F6:A54E (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing of the Parler comments is the Forbes article cited. If you read the article there's probably a lot more that should be cited to show how the Proud Boys organization really acted, to put their unduly self-serving initial denials into context. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I just deleted the entire section as insignificant to the subject of this article per WP:RECENTISM. Not every news story, no matter how many outlets cover it, is an encyclopedic entry for the wiki page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: That's definitely an inappropriate removal. I see that I can't undo it but I definitely would if I could. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe it was inappropriate, but I will defer if WP:CONSENSUS builds to restore it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You blanked a section that was well sourced, with no discussion. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not know whether it is due or not, so I hope other users can state their thoughts and reach a consensus. IP, why do you not create an account? Davide King (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I would be pleased as punch to see IP make an account. I feel they're a good voice around, and I don't like losing their contributions in a cloud of IP addresses.--Jorm (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It was a newly added section that can be deleted through WP:BRD. This is the discussion. If there's consensus to restore it, it can be restored. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu deleting it. I feel that the entire hashtag thing is a fart in a bag, and would at best be worthy of a sentence... unless it gets bigger. However, I don't feel very strongly, though, and would not be opposed to it being restored.--Jorm (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources:

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/10/04/the-proud-boys-are-furious-that-gay-men-have-taken-over-proudboys-on-twitter/#184b084a2aaf
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/10/05/proud-boys-gay-men-use-twitter-reclaim-right-wing-group/3620924001/
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/04/us/proud-boys-twitter-hashtag-gay-men-trnd/index.html
• https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/10/05/proud-boys-infuriated-gay-love-flooding-its-twitter-hashtag
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/05/proudboys-twitter-lgbtq-takei/
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54380656
• https://www.cnet.com/news/gay-men-take-over-proud-boys-twitter-hashtag-with-messages-of-love-and-lgbtqi-pride/
• https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/twitter-users-flood-proudboys-hashtag-gay-pride-images-n1242101

I think at least minimal mention is necessary. Side note: as a gay man, this makes me so happy. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, so, what you're saying, is you were a "Proud Boy"? :P It got lots of coverage sure, but now it's over. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, Didn't participate in the campaign but support the takeover. "Now it's over" doesn't quite work for me. The End Domestic Terrorism rally is also "over" but that doesn't mean not worth including. I'm not suggesting these are similar in scale, but at the same time, I don't see how a single sentence about the takeover is problematic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, by "now it's over", I mean I don't think hijacking the hashtag leads to any WP:LASTING impact. I'm open to the other points of view on this though. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I should note, a notable person (George Takei) spearheaded the effort. Also, I find this relevant in the context of Proud Boys' stances on sexuality. Besides, if we can have a single (currently unsourced) sentence about masturbation ("The masturbation policy was modified to read: "no heterosexual brother of the Fraternity shall masturbate more than one time in any calendar month".), your argument falls a bit flat. We don't have to make this a big deal -- one sentence about a temporary takeover spearheaded by Takei in early October 2020 seems sufficient to me. I'll be keeping an eye on this discussion, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I do know about Takei's involvement, and had no idea there was a sentence in this article about masturbation. Weird. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: There's a sentence about masturbation because they make a surprisingly big deal about it, it's literally one of their requirements for membership. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FD59:4855:C8D6:F3B9 (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Yeah, Takei reportedly started the entire thing. It's also been picked up by Australian and New Zealand news agencies:

• ABC News
• SBS News
• NZ Herald

ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for some explanation from @Muboshgu: to justify failing to include coverage of something that was noted internationally, especially with the level of vitriolic response from the Proud Boys despite their "official" claim to not care... 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2C26:E795:C811:3DED (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I already have. It was a thing in the 24 hour news cycle and has since past without any lasting impact. If inclusion relied on the presence of sourcing alone, we would be Kardashianopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It's now even causing fact-checking. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boys-change-name-leather-men/ 2601:2C0:C300:B7:ACBB:DDDC:F690:A1EA (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have a feeling that there is enough enduring sources and coverage to warrant a section (maybe under the 2020 header, instead of a level 1 section). It has been substantially covered by sources across the entire world (including in countries like Australia and New Zealand where the Proud Boys have no presence) over several days (Saturday/Sunday–Thursday). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Agreed, the event has achieved enough notoriety to warrant inclusion. It is also still being reported on, so we're past the 24 hour news cycle argument. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Removal: It was wonderful fun, but I support the removal based primarily on WP:LASTING. If the information about Takei is confirmed (I didn't check into it), then it may merit a statement there (if there already isn't one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 14:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: WP:LASTING is about standalone articles about a single event, not a section. The source I added before it was removed said that Takei was the initiator of the trend, and it's been continually covered now for almost a week across the world. Also, please don't forget to sign your comments :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 00:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion --- per Locke Cole and itsPuggle. Best if kept brief. Include mention of Takei & contrast between the PB public response vs message board response. Cedar777 (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Support inclusion just to make sure I note it officially. Mention Takei, mention possibly magnitude of takeover, mention contradiction between PB public responses and other responses (PB official Parler account response and rank-and-file PB member behavior cited in reliable sources). 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this section ought to get back in. Palnatoke (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Palnatoke: I agree, the consensus appears to be hinting towards restoring it. @Muboshgu: I don't want to tread over the line, so if you're in agreement, would you be happy to restore the content, or would you like one of us to? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, I don't agree with it, so I'm not going to reinsert it. But, if it is the consensus, I'm not going to remove it again. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: weren't you the person who said "I do not believe it was inappropriate, but I will defer if WP:CONSENSUS builds to restore it" above? Are you going back on your statement since the consensus seems to be to restore? 2601:2C0:C300:B7:61F1:70B1:3D7F:EDDD (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: All good! I don't agree with the semantics of the reply to you from the IP, but I just wanted to give you a chance to self-revert instead of being reverted by someone else. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, I'm okay with someone reverting my edit, rather than self-reverting. It's been long enough that we're not in any 1RR trouble here. I do believe that IP has misunderstood what I've been saying. I said I'd defer, and that's what I'm doing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Include. It was big news. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Should Joint Event with BLM chapter be mentioned?

Should joint events with groups other than extremist and white supremacist organizations be mentioned? Now, or if they become more frequent?

(3 sources for same event)

http://kutv.com/news/local/blm-group-proud-boys-stand-together-at-salt-lake-city-press-conference

https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/10/01/black-lives-matter-proud-boys-utah-trump.html

https://www.theblaze.com/news/local-blm-leader-holds-joint-press-conference-with-proud-boys-these-are-not-white-supremacists TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again a failure of media literacy.

1. The "BLM" involved, "Black Lives Matter, Northern Utah" is a WP:FRINGE group with a name possibly intended to confuse people.
2. "Black Lives Matter, Northern Utah" is so WP:FRINGE that at least one if not both of much larger/legitimate Utah chapters disavow them. https://twitter.com/blcklvsmatut/status/1312931393329004544 The coverage is very careful to make clear that this WP:FRINGE group is not affiliated with BLM Utah.
3. Neither of the supposed representatives of the "Salt Lake City Chapter of the Proud Boys" would actually identify themselves.
4. The statements made by the Proud Boys representatives fall well into the unduly self-serving category. This includes items such as:
   1. Attacking the SPLC and trying to cast the Proud Boys as victims of the SPLC.
   2. Attempting to declare that the "antifa" are the problem, going so far as "He lumped them [Antifa] with outright white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Identity Evropa"
   3. The combination No True Scotsman and "it was a joke" defenses: "And when it comes to Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes, who has vocally embraced far-right, Islamophobic, racist, misogynistic and overall xenophobic rhetoric, “Thad” and “Seth” would only agree that McInnes is a “professional provacateur” looking for “clickbait” who primarily started the group as a “joke.”"
5. "TheBlaze", and any other portion of "Blaze Media", is not a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

If there were a national level detente from the top of the Proud Boys organization down, or a large-scale series of occurrences over weeks or months from true state-level leadership that indicated an actual change in the Proud Boys organization that would be one thing. This was a dog and pony show signifying nothing. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It would need coverage in reliable national media. TFD (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View discussion

It is still ongoing at NPOVN Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#White_supremacy_and_the_Proud_Boys I'm under the impression that consensus hasn't been reached that the current presentation of lead is neutrally presented. am I wrong? Graywalls (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: My understanding of the discussion is that although the statements are supported, the disagreement right now is about the prominence and balance. There's some editors wanting to remove everything apart from what the SPLC and ADL have said, while there are others wanting the status quo. Personally, I feel as though the discussion on NPOV/N combined with local consensuses here support the status quo (just needing to swap out some citations with others that are already out there), but that might just be me applying my own biases. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Oh, and this discussion should also probably be on the noticeboard, not here. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

At this point what is probably needed is a discussion, or RFC, on the newly proposed "rule" by the likes of Masem that somehow nothing that the subject of an article disagrees with (no matter how disingenuous or unduly self serving the statements by the subject may have proven to be) may be allowed into the first sentence of an article. As long as we're having to deal with people just making up nonexistent rules out of whole cloth... 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Masem every said that, so please don't put words in their mouth. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Then I guess I need to question your WP:COMPETENCE in reading what was plainly written over and over by Masem and Springee both, to wit "The first sentence should be 100% objective and no matter how much we dislike the subject should not be the sentence where the negativity starts" being the new rule they want to create out of whole cloth despite zero support in the written policy. Maybe it's english language troubles? Of course there's also the constant snide commenting and agenda-revealing language about "liberal groups" and nonsensical portrayals such as "It can be hard for groups that are this hated in the world" and "despite how hated the group is by mass media" to consider from the source of those trying to create a rule out of nothing. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Masem said "We should never lede off with that characterization, per NPOV, no matter how universal that is.", which I read as essentially the same thing. (It is an... idiosyncratic interpretation of policy that I know they have presented before but which plainly does not reflect current practice at all.) The fact is that we are required to summarize the topic according to the best sources available; "this cannot be a dry, uncontroversial fact, because it feels too controversial to me" is a common WP:FALSEBALANCE problem that has no basis in policy. --Aquillion (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Aquillion, I agree, we should present the group as reliable independent secondary sources present them. Sure they dispute the fact that they are far-right misogynist white supremacists. They would say that, wouldn't they? I have no doubt that many historiucal fascist groups were equally adamant that they were merely fraternal organisations representing the legitimate views of their members.

  Equally, though, this is not supposed to be a hatchet job, and articles on groups like this are robbed of much of their power if they are perceived as attack articles. There is no need to lead the reader here. Any neutral presentation of the facts will inevitably show that this group is beyond the pale. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guy:

It is one thing to deny a label over semantic issues (as the KKK itself has rejected the white Supremacy label, which is substantively absurd https://apnews.com/article/b0256e138327481ebcba6e23e2d03957)

It is another thing to deny a label because it contradicts stated organizational tenants and the personal beliefs of interviewed members. It has been said here that "western world" chauvanism is indistinguishable from "white nationalism", but this is on its face a racist belief that only "whites" have contributed to building the "western world" which false; or that the "white" ethnic construct is in posession of the western world, which are untrue ideas. The Western World can be upheld for its pluralism, equal protections of law, respect for individual liberties, and minimization of the state to protect those things. People of all backgrounds have contributed and continue to contribute significantly to it's development.

It is interesting that the ADL and SPLC, who are viewed as experts in this area, chose not to label the organization as white supremacists or white nationalists - this should be instructive for a neutral point of view. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

If we have better sources than the SPLC we can use them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

SPLC denialism is itself a pretty strong evidence of competence issues.

Beyond that, though, TuffStuffMcG grossly misrepresents SPLC's and ADL's coverage, which states:

1. "Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions: rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists.". https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys
2. "While the Proud Boys often publicly denounce white supremacy, their activity has attracted white supremacists who share the group’s opposition to progressive politics and proclivity for violence."https://www.adl.org/proudboys
3. "But while the alt right and alt lite are theoretically distinct – and include a number of warring factions, as seen at dueling June 2017 rallies in Washington DC – there is crossover between them. There are a number of people and groups who walk the line between alt right and alt lite, to the extent that it’s not always easy – or even possible -- to tell which side they’re on. The Proud Boys, an alt lite, right-wing activist group founded by Gavin McInnes and dedicated to “Reinstating a Spirit of Western chauvinism,” is a good example of a group toeing that line; some of their members support alt right figures and events, while others have made a point of steering clear of anything associated with white supremacist beliefs." ... "Within the Proud Boys creed “The West is the Best” lies an implicit anti-Eastern bias common among right-wing extremists and white supremacists." https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/from-alt-right-to-alt-lite-naming-the-hate

It's not good to blatantly misrepresent sources. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if I made it seem like I was criticizing SPLC in my above post. I was highlighting the difference between linking individuals within an organization to white nationalist rhetoric (as SPLC does) and categorizing the entire organization as white nationalist, as the wiki info box here does.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for removal: "Members often carry guns"

Citation is unsubstatiated conjecture. We could fill this page up with phrases that may be true, but are not useful in any way. "Members often breathe atmospheric oxygen" "Members sometimes wear clothing" "Members usually sleep in beds"

RfC: Statements in lead

Should the Proud Boys be characterised, in wiki-voice, as:

1. Far-right;
2. Neo-fascist;
3. White supremacist;
4. A fraternal organization.

Responses may include one or more, or none. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 as it is unduly self-serving. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 4 but not 2, 3 TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 as it is unduly self-serving.--Jorm (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 as it is unduly self-serving. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes 1) far-right in wikivoice, as well supported by the sources that we use. Not 2) neo-fascist in wikivoice with the sources currently referenced, but include generally or specifically attributed; this isn't as well supported as far-right by the sources referenced - might be better supported with better sources; happy to reassess if so. Not 3) white supremacist in wikivoice - per my comment at NPOVN, Either the sources attribute ... (to various agencies & advocacy groups), or they couch it as "with ties to" <or "members with ties to"> or they're passing mentions, or they require interpretation to get there., but include generally or specifically attributed and/or with phrasing better aligned to the sources. Not 4) fraternal organization, as it's a localised US term, with elements of political spin to it, and not commonly found unattributed in the sources we reference; possibly include attributed to McInnes, Tarrio or the organisation itself, if sufficient secondary sourcing exists; prefer mens' organization as a more international, less spin noun for the first sentence. - Ryk72 ^talk 22:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4. Cedar777 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4. NightHeron (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4. - 1, 2, and 3 are regularly and repeatedly used by independent reliable sources as defining descriptors. 4 is their unduly self-serving (and vague) wording. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• *1 It's an encyclopedic article, not a rapsheet. 2 and 3 require clarification (for example they have no connection with historical fascism and do not have overtly white supremacist rhetoric). 4 is self-serving and doesn't belong. We can explain in the body why they are neo-fascist and white supremacist. While some editors may believe that a long list of negative descriptions helps to disparage the group to readers, it actually comes across as strident (and hence biased) and has the opposite effect. Also, three terms is redundant. Who ever heard of centrist or left-wing neo-fascists? TFD (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1,2, and 3, with no preference for 4. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 — as discussed by SummerPhD, coverage has focused on the former three titles, I don't see why we wouldn't follow suit. 4 is unduly self-serving as mentioned a number of times here. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• *1 Far right extremist hate group or whatever the SLPC used. It is the most commonly used RS description. The rest are extremely weak and will be challenged often. These right wing hate group pages stick to the SLPC as the lede as anyone opposed can take it up with SLPC.2601:46:C801:B1F0:1C62:B9D7:AE9A:BEB0 (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3, not 4: Sources support #1-3; as for #4 - "fraternal" suggests "companionship [or] brotherhood dedicated to the religious, intellectual, academic, physical, or social pursuits of its members"; this organization doesn't seem to promote any sort of fraternal activity beyond their infantile college-style "hazing". François Robere (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• I think that the sourcing is strongest for 1. Oppose the rest: 2 (considering the usage fascist (insult), I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to support inclusion in the first sentence), 3 (the first sentence should say that they have ties to white supremacy or something like that, this phrasing is more common in RS). I am also happy with not mentioning white supremacy in the first sentence and keeping the current second sentence as it accurately and NPOV describes the connections. Prefer "male-only association" as it is more clear than "fraternal association." (t · c) buidhe 13:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1 and 2. The facts behind 3 need more nuance and appear to have insufficient sourcing to merit mention in the first sentence, and 4 is problematic for the reasons discussed at WP:MISSION. "Male only" could be an acceptable, more factual, description. VQuakr (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  @VQuakr: Just to double-check, did you see my comment below to Hipal which linked to this discussion which includes 11 different sources for white supremacy? I'm not objecting if you did see it all, I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that there's many many many more sources out there to support statements than the few that are included in the article :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Attributed description as white supremacist in the lead is warranted. I'm struggling to think of a first sentence structure where it work work along with 1 and 2 though. VQuakr (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

An attempt to distil consensus from the NPOVN thread. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:, Have you started an RFC through Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment in order to bring input outside the involve crowd? Graywalls (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, partly, and also because the other discussion was straying away form anything that might result in consensus around the content. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If that is done, I suggest that it clearly state that it is about the wording of the first sentence of the lead. TFD (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: doesn't need to, read WP:RFCBEFORE. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm a little bit concerned about the calls to use only one source, particularly the SPLC sources. The suggestion to exclude content because "will be challenged often" is veering very close to censorship, and excluding descriptions that show up in several sources because one specific source doesn't include it seems like quite a blatant NPOV and balance issue to me. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That comment seems to have been made by someone who has a very weird take, some wording makes me suspect not here for good purposes. Rants about "MSM" and so on.

1. "Although it is of the we won't cover this therefore it didn't happen MSM material", "Don't notice that a supposedly mysoginist group attracts female social scientists detractors inventing terms, definitions and claims of secret motives." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=982920139
2. "but for example New Mexico Highlands University is not Harvard", "You continue to repeat this charade as if they authored the Oxford dictionary", "I do not like to cast doubt, but I highly doubt anyone else bothered to read anything but the buzzwords if even that much", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=982929780

Particularly troubling are this person's attacks on Samantha Kutner, a highly respected academic currently working for the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism https://icct.nl/people/samantha-kutner/. I would suspect the existing Gender bias on Wikipedia is probably why she doesn't have a wikipedia page yet. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:19B:99A3:485C:7505 (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Particularly troubling is Kutner neither leads with calling them fascist nor concludes with calling them fascist and yet that is being perpetually pushed as the lede here. Also, troubling, a psychology and communications academic citing 17 interviews with what are largely uneducated, disaffected men but neither making the questions or answers public. She doesn't have a page because she only became notable at all with the release of the paper cited- if he is even notable at all. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:125:F8EB:C6FA:6525 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the purposeful misquotation of what was posted either. Wilfred Reilly despite being a notable expert in quantifying political claims' material cannot be used because it conflicts with the MSM narrative, not carried by the MSM despite being topical here and a notable expert, he not only does have his own page, his historical findings have stood up to intense scrutiny. It is relevant here since Kutner responded to his findings of 10-20 percent of the group being members of color with their being victims identifying with their attackers-a very dubious claim based solely on her opinion.

I also don't appreciate the misstating of my position. The SLPC should be the exclusive source for the lede. Followed by their denials, followed in the body by the rest of these extremely weak hardly substantiated claims. There is no risk of censorship or any other WP policy that you care to cite in yet another effort to push the hardly used by an RS even Kutner in her initial description fascist to be anywhere close to the top of the page. Looking for censorship? Look how Reilly's material on this group cannot be used despite being a topical and notable expert. In the real world, that is textbook censorship.(maybe I should cast doubt on good faith and say his material can't be included because he is an African American being discriminated against by the MSM and subsequently WP?)2601:46:C801:B1F0:125:F8EB:C6FA:6525 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you have a major issue in understanding here. Wilfred Reilly is a WP:FRINGE individual who seems to only be able to get coverage by unreliable outlets and publishes on the Regnery imprint, a print-mill without editorial or factual standards from which any 'book' should be considered WP:SELFPUBLISHed. And until you brought him up, he had not been mentioned in regards to the topic here.

After doing some google searching to see what you're even ranting about, it appears you are trying to source something to a couple of his tweets that the Washington Times, i.e. the Moonie Times, very briefly covered. This faces the following problems:

1. The Moonie Times has Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources reliability issues.
2. The fact that the Moonie Times chose to cover what he said, does not lend it any legitimacy.
3. Twitter posts are considered WP:SELFPUBLISHed.
4. He is not, in fact, an expert in analyzing hate groups. Rather, his field of (supposed) research claims to be "empirical testing of political claims" but he steadfastly refuses to publish in peer-reviewed journals, which may well be a result of his "research" designs not standing up to scrutiny under peer review.

Humorously, Reilly's thesis claimed to debunk the idea of privilege by asking people if they would change their gender or race, and then declaring that individuals not simply wishing to change their gender or skin color - rather than wishing to eliminate the negative prejudices in society and the institutional barriers they faced - was evidence that they weren't "really" discriminated against. I will leave to the reader to determine if this is merely insane, or batshit insane, illogic. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:19B:99A3:485C:7505 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@2601:2C0:C300:B7:19B:99A3:485C:7505: Regenery is a publisher, they've published the memoirs of presidential candidates, such as Mitt Romney. Here is a C-Span special detailing their printing process -https://www.c-span.org/video/?436827-2/tour-regnery-publishing

They are not equivalent to "self-publishing" as you've suggested.

Wilfred Reilly is a published Phd (multiple) from a historically black college and posesses a law degree, notable enough for a cultivated wiki page. He has engaged in a public debate at KSU against white supremacists, and criticised Trump for dog whistle behavior. Washington times is a sometimes reliable source that I wouldn't use if I could avoid it, but it is not on an unreliable blacklist. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Wilfred Reilly is a notable expert with multiple books in all kinds of media including WAPO, USA Today, CBC et al dealing with empirically analyzing political claims or exactly the matter of the majority of this talk page. Furthermore the Proud Boys Whisperer, Kutner whom is trying to build a cottage industry out of tracking the Proud Boys thought highly enough of his work to respond. His information has been vigorously tested since it runs counter narrative unlike most of the sources thus far presented here whom my testing may be the first. Anything less and his page on this site would reflect it. 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. (this should be in the article) He works closely with law enforcement, guess whom else works closely with law enforcement? Oh the language specific notable hate group experts ADL and SLPC work extremely closely with law enforcement? Voila, no wonder why domain experts explicitly excluded white supremacist as a label and the ADL explicitly used members of varying ethnicity. Furthermore, our beloved Snopes issued a report recently and of course no any kind of fascist to be found and their first descriptor is close to the SLPC. To sum this up on the assumption that page numbers are never coming for the books with the content inaccessible to the vast majority of visitors to the page. Most of the RS use the SLPC description as their first sentence or something close to it. The academic press sources although interesting to some degree use: neo fascist, proto fascist, crypto fascist and approach fascist or there isn't agreement among any random two of them. The ones that are accessible do not lead with any kind of fascist. Sorry Dauo is never, ever counting as a RS. The rest, McLaren the marxism human studies expert and the New Mexico Highlands first book, the non notable crew of which I think exactly one has their own page here etc....are dubious as best, but Daou is not an RS and Vitolo Hadid was sufficiently disgraced. The status quo of the first sentence and paragraph: does not reflect the majority of the RS, does not reflect best sources, does not reflect what the academic press uses in their introductions, does not reflect the majority of editors who have posted on this talk page-what it does reflect? "Look ye upon the giant, barren field of the fucks I give about your thoughts on the SPLC" "The Proud Boys are Neo-Nazis" etc...... For my 16 contributions here pushing to merely use the SLPC as the first paragraph-which is harsher than calling them neo fascists since SLPC hate group label means limited access to institutions like social media, banking etc....while calling them neo fascists merely means being factually wrong, I was personally attacked nine times, accused of being associated with the group etc...I was warned of actually reading the sources as OR, I was accused of censorship for pushing the domain experts and may or may not have been accused of wrong formatting on purpose. While calling for the harsher introduction. Ridiculous.2601:46:C801:B1F0:A9F6:4516:F04B:3ABE (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

While those are all certainly words, nothing in that wall of rambling word salad seems to cohere into a rational thought. What comes closest is the claim that Kutner "thought highly enough of his work to respond", which is certainly not the case if you read her actual Medium post at https://medium.com/@ashkenaz89/but-how-can-proud-boys-be-white-supremacists-when-they-have-black-members-6cf269b42bc3, which was not directly in response to him in any case but was a response to someone having emailed a copy of the Moonie Times article and being asked what she thought. That being said, her analysis as an actual expert in this field (as opposed to Reilly, who is in a different field of research) might be usable even though a Medium post under WP:USESPS, as an expert citation in-her-name demonstrating the fact that the PB's can both be white supremacist, and attract a token amount of minorities to use them as rhetorical shields.

Stepping back to Reilly, however, it appears that the Moonie Times may have been engaged in fabrication or misrepresentation again. The tweet in question appears to be here. https://twitter.com/wil_da_beast630/status/1311326969754255361

Note the differences in text. The numbering he writes is "~15%" versus the Moonie Times's "10% to 20%", and he does not state "based on his research" anywhere in the tweet. That ought to certainly disqualify the Moonie Times for trying to cite something to his research when his own tweet doesn't, and is one of the reasons it has such a bad reputation as a source.

Oh, and no source has been provided for the claim that Reilly "works closely with law enforcement", either. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:46B:2511:8AAE:C97B (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please make sure that you're replying to the correct thread, not just the absolutely bottom of the section, everyone. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone else wondering if Wall-O-Text-Loon is actually Reilly trying desperately to boost his own profile?

In any case, I've been trying to identify what the loon is actually referring to and the "Snopes" they reference seems to be this. https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/07/proud-boys-explained/

In keeping with loon's inability to correctly represent what sources say, however, the title/subtitle are "Who Are the Proud Boys Trump Told To ‘Stand Back and Stand By’? Members of the fringe club turned volunteer "security" force have openly advocated violence and white supremacy" and the article mentions fascism thrice, in the context of the group considering their enemies to be "people against fascism or critics of Trump". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A4D2:15CF:D346:FCFD (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Could someone identify references for each option? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: Here are a few sources for each of these descriptors:

• Neo-fascism:
• Far right: (pretty undisputed, so I'm not going to go to the trouble to find more sources)
• White supremacist: see here
• Fraternal: they call themselves that, so really, the fact of the matter isn't disputed here, but just for good measure

• I would like to see "street gang" added as an option. per [2] Vexations (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That is an opinion column, so as I understand it WP:RSOPINION restrictions would apply unless more sources begin to use the terminology in general news or academic coverage. 76.31.177.30 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WOW more personal attacks, very surprising! If one could actually properly address the material, one would have no use for personal attacks. 1)Exactly one of the academic press sources quoted (the marxist humanist expert) calls this group neo fascist. 2)Is anyone familiar with WP/UNDUE? 3)Is anyone familiar with WP/BEST SOURCES as the SLPC and ADL are drowned out by non notable academic press and hyper partisan zealots. 3)This is never a reliable source ever on any planet-White grad student apologizes for falsely claiming to be person of color-https://www.foxnews.com/us/white-grad-student-admits-to-tells-others-they-are-black-resigns-from-ta-position if the position wasn't so weak, these sort of obviously unreliable sources wouldn't appear. 4)If these allegations weren't so weak the page wouldn't be relying on the citations of non notable academic press such as gender studies, anthropologists and outright political hacks. 5)Why no pic of the black cuban leader? Why no mention of the notable expert estimate of 10-20percent people of color. 6)Wilfred Reilly himself said he works closely with law enforcement. The SLPC and ADL have both said exactly same or similar. The non notable, non expert academic press does not mention working with law enforcement once. 7)I've asked for the page citations three now four times for the inaccessible sources. Is anyone else also doubting that these references exist? 8)Snopes like the vast majority of sources including all of the non notable academic press do not lead with any kind of fascist, yet WP does lead with neo fascist for some odd reason? Does WP/UNDUE just not exist any longer? 9)How many personal attacks are permitted before the warning and subsequent block appears?2601:46:C801:B1F0:B990:D6F0:8035:28E3 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you feel is a personal attack. You will need to be more specific.

The editor immediately before this gave ten sources. You seem to be dismissing many of them at once as "obviously" unreliable, "non notable academic press and hyper partisan zealots", etc. That's not how it works. Pick a (one) source, clearly identify which source you are referring to and describe how you feel it does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS for what it is cited for. If you can establish a consensus, we'll remove it and you can move on to the next one. (That a publication is not "notable" is immaterial. InfoWars, Stormfront, The Epoch Times and numerous others are not reliable sources for much of anything, though they are notable.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Possible Source

"Proud Boys Website, Online Store Dropped by Web Host" may be of use or interest.--Jorm (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

active locations

is says they are active in America and Canada, however they have a large presence in the UK (Proud Boys Britannia) and Australia! In fact, the UK are hugely active. To ignore would be dangerous. RAngel1986 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have sources for the Australia claim? I was able to find this Newsweek piece regarding "Proud Boys Britannia" but the only other coverage I could find was from suspect outlets or outright propaganda outlets such as RT (TV network) (formerly "Russia Today"): https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-uk-ship-fred-perry-polo-us-1535257

Note that the Newsweek source doesn't give any information on the size of the PB-Britannia organization, so the idea that they are "hugely active" is not able to be supported there. The description of the group as given sounds more like it's 5-6 british neo-nazis money laundering shirt purchases, as a mere 250 shirts wouldn't require a large group to order online or repackage for shipping to the USA. Their Telegram (not going to link it because EWWWWW) has multiple highly racist, homophobic/transphobic, antisemitic and neo-nazi posts up, including one from a Canadian neo-nazi group "Canada First" photoshopping Trudeau into blackface. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)