Talk:Proud Boys

URL

Should we link to or display the url the Proud Boys?

• (A) - No
• (B) - YES

Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - As stated previously, I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but we can also apply common sense on a case by case basis. Here we are talking about linking to the website of a violent extremist white supremecist organisation that is recruiting new members, encouraging, planning and perpetrating the most serious of crimes, political violence, terrorism, racialially motivated attacks etc. I think it is common sense to omit links to websites where extremists recruit and plan attacks. Wikipedia is not censored sure, but as always other considerations apply. Not linking to an active violent extremist site is just common sense, in my opinion. We don't include url's to the websites of groups like Atomwaffen Division, Ku Klux Klan, Ulster Defence Association, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant etc. At the Continuity Irish Republican Army page we have a screenshot of propaganda, rather than link directly to any recruitment/propaganda pages, this approach make a lot more sense, IMO. As per the external links guidelines and particularly handling disputes WP:ELBURDEN which states that "...the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard...Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." WP:NOTCENSORED is not a mandate for inclusion. Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• No - I support disincluding the URLs for sites of groups/organizations that are primarily engaged in violent behavior and similar, especially when those sites are used to promote violence or recruit for the organizations. Wikipedia "isn't censored" but there's no reason to WP:PROMO hate groups, especially violent/terrorist ones. The Proud Boys website clearly falls into this category, as the group's primary purposes are bigoted hatred and illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Pudeo (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• No per my previous comment. It would be nice if there some easy pass/fail test for when to include links, but that cannot ever be the case. Even by their own admission, the Proud Boys are a social group, not a website, so this semi-official website is not a significant part of the group's notability. For this and other reasons, the website lacks encyclopedic value on its own. Inclusion of official websites is an optional courtesy to readers, but we are not hidebound to include links to websites out of some simplistic or warped sense of fairness. This URL is not useful to readers for various reasons, so it can and should be left-out. It would be misleading to readers to point them to such a flimsy resource, and we should not knowingly waste reader's time offering bad resources. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. No censorship on wikipedia. The site is official, and the ideology (true or not) is not presented in the article which is critical for understanding a political organization and why it exists.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - Addition of an external link to their official website in the infobox is not an endorsement of the group or their activities. If that were actually a thing, it could be argued that this article should not exist in general. Now a couple notes on the examples given of other websites that are not linked. Atomwaffen Division as far as I can tell does not have an official website. If you check the KKK's page it is not linked because there is not one unified site. Same goes for Ulster Defence Association, not even sure they are still around. Again same for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, no official website that I can tell. A more relevant example would be places like Westboro Baptist Church, 8chan, 4chan, Charlie Hebdo, and Stormfront (website). Places labeled as extremists that do have official websites and are listed as such. I know this has been said a lot here and at Village pump but WP:NOTCENSORED is a thing. We do not remove reliably sourced information because we like or dislike a particular group. No matter how horrible said group is. PackMecEng (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue what-so-ever with including links to Westboro Baptist Church, 8chan, 4chan, Charlie Hebdo...it's a blatant false equivalence. Stormfront is a fair comparison, that site is run by violent neo-Nazi extremists used to recruit and plan for murder and mass shootings etc. I really don't understand why you'd compare a violent Nazi extremist site to Charlie Hebdo a perfectly reasonable satirical magazine whose staff have been tragically murdered by violent extremists? That's a very strange comparison. Have you ever visited Stormfront? I suggest you do, see what we are actually talking about, just create a fake gmail account and sign up, it's actually a terrifying place to visit and see just how serious these sickos are. Bacondrum (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, you say WP:NOTCENSORED is a thing, well so is editorial discretion, we use it all the time...And also, wikipedia: Ignore all rules can just as easily be thrown around. Better to have a proper discussion than to simply go NOTCENSORED, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well Charlie Hebdo has also been called Islamophobia for some of their depictions of Islam, though I agree the weakest from the bunch. Also 8Chan & 4Chan are known for alt-right views and extremism as well. Westboro is self explanatory on their bigotry I think. No one is arguing that those places are not shitty place, I think you will find broad agreement that they in fact are. The issue is how that relates to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. PackMecEng (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

8Chan & 4Chan also have normal users discussing kitten memes and baby yoda, it's not the same. The explicit purpose of Stormfront to recruiting, propaganda and preparation for violent extremist acts including a number of real life mass shootings, many racist murders and a number or terror attacks - that sets it apart and warrants a frank and open discussion about an exceptionally horrific site - there are limits to everything. Sure Proud Boys aren't quite as extreme, but they're still actively involved in violent extremism. Sure most Jihadist groups don't have official websites, but if they did I don't think there'd be any question about not linking to places where they plan attacks and recruit etc. We provide all relevant information, I don't see how the url is particularly important to en encyclopedic entry, I don't see how it is useful for anything other than promoting the group and directing traffic there. I think there's a social and moral responsibility not to promote violent extremists in anyway, intentional or not. I'm sure we can all agree they are exceptional, it's not mainstream discourse, it's not merely a far-right YouTube conspiracy video. What is the purpose of including the url to such violent extremist groups that outweigh concerns and dangers surrounding violent extremism and terrorism? I can't see any. Bacondrum (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

8chan, 4chan, etc. are websites. All reliable sources about them are about them as websites. The Proud Boys are not a website, so this comparison is flawed. The Proud Boys are a real-life group with activities spread across both the real world and other websites. Reliable sources seldom mention the group's official URL, and as far as I can see, those sources do not treat the website as important or credible for information about the group. We do not remove reliably sourced information because we like or dislike a particular group. You are sadly mistaken if you think this is a reliable source for anything at all. Adding links to unreliable primary sources is not helpful. Calling this "censorship" is unhelpful. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a public square, and even public squares have limits. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - Per Bacondrum. Leaving the URL out is not "censorship"; it's "editorial restraint". I wish folk would learn the definitions of words before they use them.--Jorm (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• what is the definition of editorial restraint?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yup, seems most here do not understand the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. For example it starts out with Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. It then goes on to say Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive. Both of which seem to apply here. So what you refer to as "editorial restraint", in Wikipedia terms is straight out of NOTCENSORED. Since the only reasons given are that the link is objectionable. PackMecEng (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a misrepresentation (getting into Minimisation (psychology) territory) to claim "the only reasons given are that the link is objectionable" when the actual reasoning is that the Proud Boys' website is used for recruiting and the promotion of illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think my reasoning here is being massively oversimplified by a number of detractors. I also think simply going "NOTCENSORED" and not having a proper discussion is silly, I could just as easily turn around and say ignore all rules. Same with these tedious "malformed question" "improper rfc" type resposes that turn up and are ignored at nearly every RFC, I could just as easily turn around an say, "malformed response"...there's something deeply disingenuous about such responses, it's like a mindless refusal to engage discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps you are over complicating a simple and widely accepted practice on Wikipedia while fighting the same fight over and over across several pages. I get what you are trying to do, which from what I can tell, is trying to minimize peoples exposure to just terrible organizations. Which most of the time is the correct course of action. I just disagree with it from a Wikipedia point of view on how pages are written and content is presented to our readers. I really want to lean back into what I mentioned in my summary above which is essentially content on here is NOT an endorsement of whatever view or organization. We cannot pick and choose who is good enough to receive equal treatment under policy. PackMecEng (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope there's no hard feelings. All the best. Bacondrum (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, no hard feelings on my end. PackMecEng (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been an enjoyable discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the term Jorm was looking for was "editorial discretion", which doesn't lend to his point.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No: no encyclopedic value. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. This does not provide encyclopedic value, and it is proper for us to exercise editorial discretion to avoid directly linking here. Neutrality^talk 05:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• No: Per BaconDrum, the link conveys no educational or encyclopedic value, and the group uses it for recruitment towards their violent, racist organization. WP:NOTCENSORED is not an excuse to ignore the real-world damage such groups do, nor is it a straightjacket requiring us to provide such a convenience. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC
  • That seems more in line with a WP:RGW argument. Per WP:NOTCENSORED Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. So if the only argument for exclusion is that it is objectionable, which seems to be the only reason given in the opposition section, then it has no policy basis that I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Calling this an RGW argument is highly disingenuous. This isn't "being objectionable" it's "actively endorses white-supremacist violence". If you see no difference between the two, I don't know what you tell you. But as I said, there is no encyclopedic value to linking to a violent white-supremacist recruitment site, so... your argument this is just RGW has no merit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I am sorry but you are mistaken. Links on Wikipedia are not endorsements. It just does not work that way. I think you are misunderstanding both the policy notcensored and what it is to write and encyclopedia vs a new article or a blog. PackMecEng (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I did not say it was an endorsement, so you've completely misunderstood my argument. You also appear to have placed NOTCENSORED as some kind of bright-line rule, which is a complete misunderstanding of that policy. It is not a blanket "We must include everything." So, you're 0 for 2 today. I won't be responding further, as I feel my argument stands on its own merits. Make your argument stand on its own, instead of badgering everyone else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

          I dunno, I am the one listing policies and how they apply. You are listing personal feelings. Out of feelings or policy which do YOU think stands on its own merits better? Yeah I think I will stick with policy. PackMecEng (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC. I'm sure Bacondrum meant well, but they shouldn't have started dueling RfCs between this one and WP:VPP#RFC: active violent extremist websites (hate groups). They appear to be headed toward opposite consensus, in which case the broader VPP consensus controls. This is also starting to look like forum shopping. R2 (bleep) 19:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The way I see it this is a separate discussion. At Village Pump I'm asking if there's a level of extreme content that we should draw a line at and say these kinds of links should never be included. These are not dueling rfc's regardless of the outcome at Village Pump the external links guidelines are clear that inclusion of an external url on any particular page needs to achieve consensus for inclusion from editors and thus needs to be discussed, please see WP:ELBURDEN for where I take my ques here. Thanks for assuming that I mean well, I most certainly have no ill intent - if I really am doing the wrong thing I'm happy to be corrected. Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

RfCs are a form of dispute resolution to be used sparingly, and only when disputes arise. You started three RfCs nearly simultaneously that were all clearly intended to resolve the matter of whether we should link to the PBs' and Stormfronts' websites. Admins will almost certainly see that as disruptive, whatever your intentions. You need to cool off and focus on one discussion, letting that discussion run its course (which for RfCs, generally requires at least 30 days). If you're not going to close one or two of the pending RfCs, then at least please try to stop bludgeoning the process. R2 (bleep) 00:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Come on, that's a bit unfair. You mentioned me in your comment, surely I can respond. Bacondrum (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't referring to that specific reply. I was referring to your cumulative continuing involvement across all three RfCs. Best practice when you resort to the RfC process is to start one RfC and to basically leave it alone for 30 days. R2 (bleep) 20:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, provided consensus exists for which url is the website for the "movement". BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I only bring this up because previously, stormfront has been used as a precedent for including links to potentially unsavoury subjects. In the case of stormfront however, there is absolutely no ambiguity as per their official URL. Here however, given the fractured nature of their leadership, real confusion exists about who actually can be said to represent the proud boys. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Second comment I must say I'm starting to agree with @R2 - this is looking awfully like forum shopping after previous discussions did not result in consensus to remove links to unsavoury subjects BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

So report me at ANI, otherwise I ask you and R2 to stop with the false allegations which are a personal attack. Bacondrum (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa there, cowboy. No personal attacks here. You've been a bit disruptive, so you were politely asked to stop. That's all. R2 (bleep) 22:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like Bacondrum has been given multiple, contradictory instructions when trying to post this very real and important issue. Accusing them of being "disruptive" isn't cool. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that's exactly what's been going on. Bacondrum (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it's pretty clear that this is turning into an edit warring attraction. I'm not saying Bacondrum is being disruptive, I'm just saying that there is no consensus, and repeatedly bringing up this particular RFC (the 3rd one now) is probably not going to get anywhere. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes-Links should be included for the value of the information that they contain. This is not a terrorist group like ISIS. If it's best not to link to a group because it's a violent extremist organization, we should also remove the link to the official website of Black Lives Matter on that group's page. Display name 99 (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not a terrorist group like ISIS.
  • Given they organized a violent insurrection against the United States government, you might want to reconsider this stance. Comparing them to BLM is just asinine. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, the Proud Boys do not support insurrection. I compared them to BLM because BLM is way worse. The Proud Boys defend themselves and others from attack by BLM and other thugs. They keep peace. The Proud Boys helped storm the Capitol in response to an allegedly stolen election. BLM and antifa, in response to conservatives exercising their rights and black criminals getting killed, kill and assault countless numbers of innocent people and destroy enormous amounts of property, including both private and federal property, which makes the slight damage inflicted on the Capitol building look miniscule. BLM is a thousand times more violent than the Proud Boys. Display name 99 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

the Proud Boys do not support insurrection.

You're either lying, or not paying attention. They were instigators at the insurrection.

I compared them to BLM because BLM is way worse.

And at this point I can see there's no point discussing the matter with you. You're supporting a white supremacist group, while decrying minorities who oppose police brutality. You've shown your colors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Is it an official URL? User:BrxBrx says that given the fractured nature of their leadership, real confusion exists about who actually can be said to represent the proud boys. If that's right, then I think we're better off not choosing one of multiple competing websites to link to. If reliable sources are clear that this is the Proud Boys' official website, then yes, we should link to it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment When I came to this page to find out about the proud boys due to the recent events in the US I found that this page claimed that they were neo-fascist without discussing why or their ideology. I searched for their website to find out more and found that google weren't indexing them (and then found them by searching duckduckgo). I think this page should address their ideology and this might render much of this issue moot. I'd note that the website is not particularly useful as it doesn't have much content. Talpedia (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Talpedia: I'm not sure what you mean by "without discussing why or their ideology", the wording includes citations and their ideology - to the extent that there are WP:RS citations to what they actually believe - is covered in the lede and in the "History and organization" section. If you are suggesting that this page should have a WP:PROMOtional section that writes up claims from their website that are not covered, and/or are unduly self-serving WP:SELFPUBLISHed content that falls under WP:MANDY, that probably wouldn't be viable? IHateAccounts (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting directly quoting their material. I have reviewed the history section (I think I skimmed over it before). I guess it might be nice to separate out their ideology. I would probably like some more scholarly sources discussing their ideology rather than "the ADL" said such and such. I guess I also wanted to know *why* they were fascist rather than just have a citation. (See the section of nazism on this section) Talpedia (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - It does not fall to Wikipedia editors to determine whether an organisation is too violent or extremist for its official website to merit inclusion. If we know an organisation's official website as reported by RS, there is no reason to include it bar legal grounds. Readers don't need us to decide for them what is "too dangerous" to read. Caius G. (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• No I'm sure people are perfectly capable of finding it themselves. Apeholder (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Since an RfC (of considerably broader scope, which includes this issue in its purview) is currently running at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC:_active_violent_extremist_websites_(hate_groups) on this same subject, I think it would be prudent for people to comment there rather than here. jp×g 15:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"Value"

per Ahrtoodeetoo, this was definitely distracting from the topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
in the most recent talk thread, the editor Jorm used the official website to verify the organization's logo. This demonstrates in action, rather than words, that he believes there is a value to knowing what the website is and that it carries at least some academic value. I can't be sure which website he used, to be fair, but he can.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I apologize to Jorm, it was Baconundrum who used the URL as a source - the editor advocating that the website has no value to academic inquiry about the organization. I will move my comment to the other threat. Reading comprehension issues on my partTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I've taken the liberty of separating this into a sub-thread, since it's not a direct !vote or comment on the RfC. As a comment here, you're conflating encyclopedic value to the reader with our work as editors to evaluate information before adding it to the article. In other words, this seems more like you're trying to make a point rather than a serious argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Well, I was trying primarily to make a serious argument. A controversy came up, and editors immediately used the URL as a source to address that controversy in their favor. I've read arguments that the URL is unreliable as a source, but it clearly wasn't, for certain purposes. The idea that a certain elect should have access to information germain and vetted as official, but it must be censored from the reader's view is cynical and against the spirit of wikipedia - though I'm sure the notion wasnt intended to be.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "Taking a quick look to see if someone changed the logo on a webpage" is not reason to permalink the recruiting website of a hate group, especially one whose primary tactic is illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "Taking a quick look" sounds like a simple action, but not when the private advertising company, google, has buried the official link 7 pages in for 90% of international seach users. Google can, apparently, censor the internet in order to appease advertisers, but wikipedia shouldn't and doesnt (it is the first or second link by click volume if you use duckduckgo). It has an unusually high value for readers, as a result of mainstream censorship.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Calling that "censorship" is hyperbole, and I think I'm done with this tangent. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC) The suppression of information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive - is censorship. I'm not even the first in this thread to have suggested it. Perhaps it is hyperbole, although I mean it to be taken literally since it is part of the literal definition of censorship.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Word have meaning. Please stop using the word "Censor" until you know what it actually is.--Jorm (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I posted the words from Wikipedia's censorship lede. Please inform me what your definition of censorship is so we can better understand one another.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict)Ranting about the position of a link in Google search results versus another search engine is meaningless to this discussion. The facts regarding the URL remain, there is no encyclopedic value to a direct link from this article given the fact that the Proud Boys organization promotes and recruits for the purpose of illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC) How does the controversial or even illegal activity of a group or publisher affect the encyclopedic value of that publisher's content?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC) No. Unnecessary, adds nothing, and drives traffic to a violent hate site. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Regardless of anyone's intentions, this sub-discussion was pointy and somewhat off-topic from the beginning, is getting rather nasty, and has zero chance of affecting anyone's !vote. If there's no objection I'm going to collapse it, if someone doesn't beat me to it first. R2 (bleep) 20:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Prominent Proud Boys During Rally & Breach

I've been looking for sources advising where prominent proud boys were during the rally. There are articles saying: Tarrio was 100 miles away in his hotel room due to court order. Nordean and Biggs were leading a group of proud boys near the speech site. Jeremy Bertino was home due to recent stabbing Others were spotted in orange hats associating with leadership

Does anyone have articles detailing proud boy timeline of events? I was hoping to see more articles by now.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why the references are posted here, I don't see an option to removeTuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's because someone used Template:Reflist earlier in a comment. It just always puts the references at the bottom, which is why I hate it when people put that template on a Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks, I thought I messed something up.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorted, just add the template ref talk at the bottom of the subsection in which the refs were cited. Britishfinance (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Federal charges against prominent proud boys for conspiring to assault the capitol would undermine any credible claims that the organization stands for lawful defensive violence. There has to be some footage of members assaulting officers and destroying property by now, as these are the allegations being suggested. Any updates?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Federal charges don't prove anything. Policy says that we cannot consider people guilty until it is proved in court. TFD (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I know that nothing would have been "proven", but charges at least show probable cause officially backed up. It's important to show in wiki, right? We've done it for Tarrio's charges for burning the sign and for carrying 2 magazines. I'm not arguing, it would just be worth a mention for an informed readerTuffStuffMcG (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This Vice article mentions some of the Proud Boys leaders who seemed to be coordinating things at the Capitol. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

it appears that Joe Biggs may have entered the Capitol at some point, however briefly.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9160965/Proud-Boys-leader-Joe-Biggs-seen-entering-Capitol-saying-awesome.html TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspect in Kenosha unrest shooting and the Proud Boys

See this.[1]. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The White Power hand sign has to be made with the right hand I believe, so that your hand somewhat looks like a "WP". Rittenhouse uses his left hand making what looks like an OK sign in that photo in the WaPo article. The prosecutos nevertheless call this a White Power sign. That's far-fetched and I wouldn't trust anything those lawyers have to say. --Distelfinck (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

White supremacists have been seen making taunt photos using left hand, right hand, or both hands. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a tedious recurring discussion. It is a trolling move used by far-right groups generally for various purposes. It is unlikely that practitioners are deeply versed in symbolology, and their potential motives are so numerous that speculating outside of specific contexts is questionable. Even the ADL, for all of their hair-triggers, understands the nuance.

"Other, similar-seeming hand gestures have also been mistakenly assumed to have white supremacist connotations as a result of the “okay” hoax. One of these is the so-called “Circle Game,” in which people attempt to trick each other into looking at an okay-like hand gesture made somewhere below the waist. Another is the hand sign of the Three Percenter movement, a wing of the anti-government extremist militia movement. Three Percenters, who are right-wing extremists but are not typically white supremacists, often make a hand gesture to symbolize their movement that uses the outstretched middle, ring, and pinky fingers to represent a Roman numeral “3.” This gesture, from certain angles, can often resemble an “okay” hand gesture and has been misinterpreted by some as a white supremacist symbol." https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-hand-gesture TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Within the pattern of white supremacist groups co-opting other imagery so as to 'hide in plain sight', the presence of "plausible deniability" is a goal of such behavior. That doesn't change the realities of it when done by an (alleged) white-supremacist (alleged) murderer, hanging out with white supremacists from a known-violent/neo-fascist/white-supremacist group (in this case, the Proud Boys). I'm honestly surprised the terms of his release on bail didn't already include a prohibition on contact with white supremacist groups. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Your suggestion the person in question is a "white-supremacist" is baseless and against Wikipedia policy --Distelfinck (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Please be advised that WP:NOTFORUM, especially when making claims about BLP subjects. jp×g 18:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Please remove it, it's slander. It would be all over the news if it were true, I looke through like 3 Google News pages and there's nothing there, it's a baseless accusation and defamatory --Distelfinck (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I will not, but I've added a clarification above. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so you added "alleged". You are still not saying who alleges that he is a white supremacist though. I assume it's you? --Distelfinck (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't WP:CRYBLP. Just as convenient examples, NBC News, Fox News, and many, many other sources specifically use "white supremacist" and "white power" to explain this exact issue. Further, by actively refuting this claim across many media outlets, the shooter's own defense team are contributing to its encyclopedic significance. The talk page is the place to discuss how to summarize these reliable sources in the article. Dancing around unflattering terms ignores the letter and spirit of BLP. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

When you say "by actively refuting this claim", what claim are you referring to? The articles you cited don't talk about anybody calling K.R. a White Supremacist. The only person who made that claim that I'm aware of is IHateAccounts, in this thread --Distelfinck (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I just googled the guys name and I don't think there's any doubt the guy is a white supremacist. This complaint looks like a wee bit like sealioning to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) Don't remove my comment again, this is bullshit, I'm taking it to ANI, you need to be blocked for this. Bacondrum (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• [removed for violating the Biographies about living persons policy Distelfinck (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)]

These days, I would struggle to name a short list of people who wouldn't be considered "white supremacists" by the new catch-all standard. To better understand, here is an article about "multiracial whiteness" which seeks to explain how even black people can be white supremacists (pertains to proud boys) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/15/understand-trumps-support-we-must-think-terms-multiracial-whiteness/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, that comment shows a marked misunderstanding of both the opinion article and the phenomenon of Passing, of modern science's understanding that race and identity are social constructs, and the phenomenon of various "racial" groups or immigrant subgroups "becoming white" (e.g. "How the Irish Became White"[2]) by taking on and participating in the trappings and functions of white supremacist groups at various points in American history. More than that, though, it's completely inapplicable to Kyle Rittenhouse. Bottom line: making bad-faith accusations about those commenting in good faith having a "new catch-all standard" regarding the definition is pretty much sealioning, as Bacondrum said. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it has to be noted, just in case, that in a discussion related to whether or not the article subject is a white supremacist, Distelfinck is misrepresenting policy to vexatiously remove comments from others simply stating that they believe based on the WP:RS coverage that he is. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The comment I removed today didn't cite any sources, except that it said those can be found by performing a Google search, which is not citing sources according to our policies. WP:BLPREMOVE calls for the removal of contentious unsourced material. You can also read WP:V to learn more about sourcing --Distelfinck (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a discussion related to whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist. Your attempting to remove comments is simply uncivil, vexatious antagonism and has no real basis in policy- as shown as well by your trying to remove the whole comment, rather than just redacting the parts you (falsely, vexatiously, WP:POINTily) are WP:CRYBLPing about. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You are claiming that my removal has no basis in policy. Can you back that up? --Distelfinck (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"I don't think there's any doubt the guy is a white supremacist", in a discussion about whether or not the guy is a white supremacist, is absolutely not a BLP violation. Further, you removed the wording "This complaint looks like a wee bit like sealioning to me.", which has nothing to do with BLP at all. This is just as observed by others (Bacondrum and Grayfell) above: vexatious sealioning, WP:CRYBLP behavior designed to antagonize. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, Distelfinck please focus on improving the article. Vexations (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION candidate

In this video (https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/01/17/extremist-groups-media-alex-stamos-rs-stelter-vpx.cnn) two experts, Alex Stamos and Chris Krebs, discuss the Proud Boys and indicate that they should be tracked and treated as similar to ISIS. Seems relevant as WP:RSOPINION though I would like some second opinions and suggestions on the wording if possible. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Have other reliable sources reported on this? That might make it notable. Vexations (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

These sources are hardly reliable, nor are they experts, they have well-known and proven political bias which should be noted if their opinions are used. DanBoomerman (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Canada

This is almost an entirely American thing.

Should Canada really be mentioned in the first line considering there are only a handful of people that are part of this group? There are probably a similar number in many other countries as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.167.100.219 (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Linked Youtube video not available anymore

Hi,

The currently (2021-01-21) linked video "Who are the Proud Boys?" on YouTube (CBC News) July 5, 2017 is not available on YouTube anymore. At least not under this link. I suggest to either remove the link, link to a different video or directly include a video with clarified copyright situation. What do you suggest? Thanks. Ichbinder (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a direct CBC video link that may be usable here: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/984404035633 IHateAccounts (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Involvement in events at the Capitol should be at the end of the lead-in paragraph

The opening para outlines the various public events to have involved this group. The arrests of several members of the PB involved in the January 6 riot is now the most widely publicised event to have involved members of this group, so the details of the various members involved and arrested, like Joseph Biggs and others involved, should be at the top.

Independence1416 (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree. The capitol riot appears to be the thing they are most widely known for now. Bacondrum 23:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, although it should go into the lede of Joe Biggs, Nick Ochs and other notable proud boys who were charged with occupation of the building or premises.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect that the events at the Capitol were attended by "this group". The vast majority of the group did not attend or were instructed that, if they did attend, it would be as private citizens, not as members of the group. There were members of the military, law enforcement, various political parties and many corporations in attendance, even members of the government - can we claim that, because members of those groups were in attendance that the actual groups themselves with in attendance? I contend the answer is no. DanBoomerman (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of the group [...] were instructed that, if they did attend, it would be as private citizens, not as members of the group. Do we have a source for that? Vexations (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on this I withdraw my comment. DanBoomerman (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The WSJ investigation is damning and compelling. It should inform a large section of the article and some mention should probably be in the lede. Thanks for referring the link, Dan.- TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist?

the designation of this group as a "terrorist organisation" is factually incorrect. The cited article clearly states; "The motion now awaits consideration from leadership in Ottawa, which reportedly has the final say in the matter." DanBoomerman (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Vexations (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That will be the second step, and it would put Proud Boys on the list of internatioally-0recognized terrorist groups. Even if it is only one nation (for example the Iranian government lists the American Department of Defense as a terrorist group), any recognition qualifies. I would guess that Proud Boys are on the fast track to such infamy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs) 18:32, January 26, 2021 (UTC)

White Nationalist?

I do not believe "white nationalist" is a factual representation of this organization. They have shown to have a multi-racial membership and indeed are a multi-national organization that includes chapters world-wide, including in Israel. I have found no factual citations that they promote a white "homeland" or advocate racial separatism. The fact that they are a "nationalist" group in their respective home countries is easily supported by facts, so why introduce non-factual adjectives? DanBoomerman (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The characterization as white nationalist is supported by sources in the article. Your own assessment of the group isn't relevant. VQuakr (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, no one wants to discuss it again. Bacondrum 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not sourced or mentioned elsewhere in the article. The SPLC categorizes them as general hate, rather than white nationalist. TFD (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I downloaded all the online references and searched them for white nationalist/ism. I found 409 matches. Vexations (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A search of the SPLC article on them shows 14 matches for the terms, but doesn't call them white nationalist.[3] While you may find it a subtle distinction, the group includes people with a variety of types of hate, including white nationalism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, etc. But unlike other hate groups, none of these types of hate are core to their ideology, hence they are listed under general hate, rather than white nationalist. TFD (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

From that same article: "Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions". They're probably not

"primarily" anything, other than a street gang. Vexations (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

All white group?

The chairman Tarrio is Afro Cuban so it is not an all white group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD40:6D00:7C2B:10CC:F7BE:1D26 (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No one said they were all white. VQuakr (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Leader an FBI informant

[4] and many other sources. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Milo posted on Telegram that Tarrio was likely to step down or be removed it as chairman within the next 48 hours. No RS yet.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edit by Mikehawk10

I have reverted a substantial edit by Mikehawk10, which may contain some individual changes which are unobjectionable but on the whole, substantively makes the article worse.

For example, Mikehawk10's proposal introduces a number of points of attribution to uncontradicted factual statements, such as the fact that Proud Boys' members have been seen wearing group-affiliated apparel with the anti-Semitic slogan "6MWE". There is no reason to attribute this statement of fact - no reliable source contradicts it. Similarly, no reliable source contradicts the statement that Proud Boys members repeatedly appear at racist events. As per WP:YESPOV, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Changing the description of Rebel News from "far-right" to "conservative" is directly contradicted by the wide array of sources cited in our article on Rebel News, where we factually describe it as "far-right." There appears to be no valid reason not to do so in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)