Talk:Proud Boys

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gouncbeatduke (talk | contribs) at 23:23, 18 December 2022 (→‎Certainly a far-right neo-fascist hate group, but "white nationalist" doesn't really fit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contradictory information on chairman

The lead refers to Enrique Tarrio both as "chairman" and as "former chairman". The latter is cited from this press release about his indictment. A lot of news articles also refer to him as the former chairman, but I can't find anything about a change of leadership or a new leader. Perhaps the group is considered to no longer have a recognized chairman due to the statement from the Alabama, Indiana and Oklahoma chapters (quoted in the article) that they don't recognize his authority. Someone with more insight into these issues should resolve this inconsistency; in case he is no longer considered chairman, the article on Enrique Tarrio himself would also need to be updated. Joriki (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joriki this is a sources issue, not one we could use an expert for so I’ve removed your template. Opinions even of an expert would be of no help. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone missed "Proud Boys memo reveals meticulous planning for ‘street-level violence" in the Guardian

It's here.[1] Doug Weller talk 14:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

The opening sentence should be changed to this:

"The Proud Boys is an American far-right, neo-fascist, white nationalist, street gang that is exclusively a male organization that engages in a range of street-level violence and promotes and participates in political violence in the United States.[1][7][8]

additional cites:

The second sentence should be changed to this:

"Despite the Proud Boys penchant for violence and street gang characteristics[Campbell, 2022; Reid & Valasik, 2020] the group is designated as a terrorist group in Canada[9][10] and New Zealand,[6] in the United States the group is regularly Mavalasik (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curious what others think of the label "street gang" because there are several outlets (such as this one), and others that define them this way. I believe the founder called them a gang in an interview, too. Certainly not how they are typically described, though. Perhaps we can say "which has been called a street gang" or something. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“Which have been called” sounds good Dronebogus (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about as an addition to the second sentence of the lead in bold below. One possible way to phrase it:
The Proud Boys is an American far-right, neo-fascist, white nationalist, and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States. Among various definitions, it has been called a street gang and was designated as a terrorist group in Canada and New Zealand. The Proud Boys are known for their opposition to left-wing and progressive groups and their support for former U.S. President Donald Trump. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added ISBNs and a link for these sources, to make verification easier (archive.org for the contexts one, which isn't loading for me). Page numbers would be nice.
I have not checked the books, but the contexts.org opinion is interesting. As a source, it could potentially supplement other academic sourcess, but probably shouldn't stand on its own for this.
Do any reliable sources dispute that this group is a gang or street gang specifically? Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't think they have. But I don't think it's the most common label, either. Seems fine to include the term, in my opinion, based on the RS that does exist. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide you any cites that you need. Mavalasik (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: I'm closing the request while it's under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their description as a street gang is figurative. They don't actually have a street they operate from and in fact operate across the U.S. and perhaps other countries. Also, they don't engage in typical street gang behavior, such as pickpocketing and burglary. TFD (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, Mr. Dickens. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed street fighting was more the intention of the term, which does fit the Proud Boys, but it's up to reliable sources, regardless. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The most robust description in academia that someone is member of a street gang is self nomination, which Gavin McInnes has articulated numerous times. Also, street gangs are not always territorial, and do not need to be spatially bound to a specific street. That being said, Proud Boys routinely hangout in public locations, specific bars for example, and defend these spaces from outsiders. Proud Boys also engage in cafeteria-style offending with lots of different types of crime, no different than traditional street gangs. Mavalasik (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are myths about gangs that you are talking about. Street gangs are not always territorial, and do not need to be spatially bound to a specific street. That being said, Proud Boys routinely hangout in public locations, specific bars for example, and defend these spaces from outsiders. Proud Boys also engage in cafeteria-style offending with lots of different types of crime, no different than traditional street gangs Mavalasik (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Added the gist of it, with edits based on discussion. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that you did not include the other cite by Reid & Valasik, which is actual academic research vs. Campbell’s journalist piece? They are the only two substantive pieces that are sea with this issue, and Reid & Valasik came out first. Can you have both listed? Mavalasik (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Politico link that you included with the Campbell cite, is just referencing his book. It is not an independent supporting cite, like Reid & Valasik would be. Mavalasik (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Reid & Valasik, do you have page numbers? That would make it easier to summarize this.
The Politico source does cite the book, but the author also calls the Proud Boys a "street gang" for context. Specifically, the source is using this phrase as context for the interview, not just as part of the interview itself. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proud boys are discussed at length by Reid & Valasik as a street gang, but there is an entire subsection focused on the group as one on pages 24-29. Does this help? Mavalasik (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mavalasik We don't want to overcite, either. An academic source is not necessarily needed to back up how the group is defined by media, general public, etc. In short, unless someone is disputing the fact itself, I think the two sources there now are fine. Good to have more options if needed, though. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand about not overciting. My point is that by having a variety of sources, academic and journalistic, provides more support to the claim that they are a street gang, instead of readers seeing that the cites are just from the "liberal media." I always feel that a diversity of cites supporting an argument is stronger than just one voice, in this case a book by Andy Campbell and a interview with him. 130.160.126.3 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand about not overciting. My point is that by having a variety of sources, academic and journalistic, provides more support to the claim that they are a street gang, instead of readers seeing that the cites are just from the "liberal media." I always feel that a diversity of cites supporting an argument is stronger than just one voice, in this case a book by Andy Campbell and an interview with him. Mavalasik (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mavalasik It seems clear by your username that you may be, or be associated with Matthew Valasik, in which case you should state you have a conflict of interest in getting that source included in the article. 15:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am the author of the book and an expert is street gangs. I did not try to hide my identity in calling out the improper identifying of Proud Boys as a gang. I apologize for not making it more clear. The book is the only modern academic monograph that accurately looks at far-right group through the lens of street gangs. You can look at my CV and clearly see that I am not a hack. I just want the group to be labeled accurately and people and the criminal justice system to start thinking about them in that way. A throughly researched academic book that connects across disciplines will carry more weight for some audiences than a a journalists expose. Again that is the point I am trying to make. Wikipedia is not just todays hot takes but is a modern day encyclopedia and should be sourced as such. Mavalasik (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, Wikipedia has strict rules about promoting your own work. Please see WP:COI. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I am new to suggesting edits to wikipedia. That being said, can on e of the other editors tell me that the book I am suggesting, published by UC Press, is not more appropriate than an interview puff piece by Politico? One of the editors can make look at both pieces and see which cite is more valued to people trying to learn the truth about Proud Boys. Mavalasik (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Proud Boys have been called many things, and there is no formal, scientific definition of a street gang in the U.S. that I'm aware of. So, the sources for the label should be sufficient to say that they've been "called" a street gang. In this case, by an editor at a major publication, and by a journalist who covers that topic extensively. In short, the sources there now are reliable and independent, and suitable, in my opinion. I do think there should be additional explanation in the body of the article (since the lead is meant to summarize the body) and it could be that additional sources would help, depending on the context, in that area. But that's a separate edit. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are formal, scientific definitions of a street gangs that have consensus in the field of criminology. The Eurogang definition, which we use in our book is the most robust in academia. Under the Eurogang definition, “any durable, street-oriented youth group whose own identity includes involvement in illegal activity” is considered a street gang. As I state earlier, I have a PhD in Criminology and an expert in street gangs, I am not sure why there is so much pushback against the expert in the field of of study being discussed. Why are my credentials dismissed compared to journalists? While I may not know all of the ins and outs of editing on Wikipedia, I do know the research on street gangs extensively.
Would it be beneficial for me to writeup a whole section about why Proud Boys are a street gang in the body of the document?Mavalasik (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your research already appears to be cited in the first sentence of the lead, actually. See here. You're welcome to expand on the gang definition in the History and Organization section and suggest a sentence or two here on the Talk Page, this time explicitly mentioning who you are, but since you're already cited in the article, it's going to look like unnecessary promotion. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible then to switch that source cited in the first sentence to Reid, S. E., & Valasik, M. (2020). Alt-right gangs: A hazy shade of white. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520300453, instead. The chapter that is cited in the first sentence was derived from the book. Then I will also be able to cite the book appropriately in the gang section and I am not "unnecessarily promoting" myself.Mavalasik (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Suggested addition!

In the second paragraph of the History and Organization section there needs to be more discussion about Proud Boys being a street gang first and foremost. The material I am suggesting can be added at the beginning of the second paragraph. From Proud Boys inception McInnes has publicly labeled the group as being a gang (Rogan 2017). Self-nomination is consistently shown as being one of the most robust predictors of gang involvement (Esbensen et al., 2001). Despite there being no universal academic or legal definition of street gang, Proud Boys clearly meet the Eurogang definition, which has a strong consensus among gang scholars, “any durable, street-oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is part of their group identity” (Decker, Pyrooz, & Densley, 2022). Proud Boys actively appeal to marginalized men, who yearn for a nostalgic past of hegemonic masculinity where the bestowed privilege of being male were not questioned, sharing a collective identity (DeCook, 2018; Reid & Valasik, 2020). That identity is a hipster persona that deploys humor and irony to facilitate far-right arguments attacking the political, social, and cultural status quo, opposing feminism, immigration, political correctness, and establishment politics (DeCook, 2018). Proud Boys routine behaviors and characteristics are also analogous with street gangs, primarily hanging out together, drinking beer, and participating in a variety of criminal acts, primarily violence ([10]; Reid & Valasik, 2020; Rogan 2017). Additionally, Proud Boys adopted a specific set of colors, yellow and black, along with a mascot, a cockerel, frequently worn on Fred Perry polo shirts in public as a uniform to clearly display group affiliation [274][275][276]. Proud Boys also use violent initiation ceremonies to “jump in” new members, along with a variety of other identifiers, such as getting a Proud Boy tattoo, that further indicate group loyalty and reinforce collective identity [10].

Cites:

Rogan, J. (2017). Joe Rogan Experience #920—Gavin McInnes [Video]. https://www.bitchute.com/video/lrRL5PzeOxu6/

Esbensen, F.-A., Winfree, L. T., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gangs and definitional issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime & Delinquency, 47(1), 105-130.

Decker, S. H., Pyrooz, D.C., & Densley, J. A. (2022) On Gangs. Temple University Press.

DeCook, J. R. (2018). Memes and symbolic violence: #Proudboys and the use of memes for propaganda and the construction of collective identity. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(4), 485-504.

Reid, S. E., & Valasik, M. (2020). Alt-right gangs: A hazy shade of white. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520300453

I will note that I am a tenured professor of criminology and criminal justice, an expert in street gangs, and one of the few academics that are treating Proud Boys with the concern that they warrant. I am citing my own work, along with Andy Campbell's brand-new book, because they are the most appropriate pieces of research that clearly articulate the rational for why Proud Boys are a street gang. Mavalasik (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would summarize it like this: McInnes has publicly labeled the group as a gang, and criminologists have pointed to the Proud Boys initiation ceremonies, involvement in criminal and violent behavior, identifying apparel and tattoos, and other characteristics as consistent with street gangs.[1][2][3]
But I would really like some other editors input on this, as it's been only you and me discussing this, and you have a COI. Anyone? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good, but I do have a couple of concerns:
Outside of the Proud Boys, McInnes is mainly known for his supposed use of "hipster irony", which makes a quote taken from a podcast hosted on Bitchute especially flimsy as a primary source.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a journal, so we don't use sources to make conclusions. Instead, we summarize existing conclusions.
Esbensen et al., 2001 is WP:SYNTH here, since that source obviously doesn't mention the Proud Boys. Likewise, Decker, Pyrooz, & Densley should not be cited in this article unless it mentions the Proud Boys directly. Either could be cited if they clarify some disputed point, and the sources are explicitly contextualized as relevant by another reliable source on the Proud Boys. That is the kind of thing which would typically be explained in a footnote instead of in the article itself, but it's probably not necessary.
Otherwise, if the sources support this, go for it. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I agree, and think the McInnes line should go, and only sources mentioning the Proud Boys as consistent with these characteristics should be used. Which brings us back to using the Valasik and Campbell books, which I'll have to review to make sure they mention those characteristics. @Mavalasik You're welcome to chime in and point me in the right direction to the pages that would support the sentence in green. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The pages in Reid & Valasik, 2020 that directly support the sentence in green are on pages 24-29. Chapter 2 of Campbell's book supports this also. I do not have the book in front of me to look up the pages.
Also, the cite on Bitchute is the video of the Joe Rogan Experience. The direct link to the episode has the video hidden, that is why I included the bit chute one instead. Here is the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast link (https://www.jrepodcast.com/episode/joe-rogan-experience-920-gavin-mcinnes/).
Does this help? Mavalasik (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable source (which also means independent source in this case) mentions that McInnes has called them a gang, than we should just use that source. If the only source we have for this is WP:PRIMARY, in my opinion it's probably not worth including in this article. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand. Here is a independent story from Rolling Stone that you can cite instead of the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast.
Dickson, E.J. (2021). The Rise and Fall of Proud Boys. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/proud-boys-far-right-group-1183966/
Mavalasik (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the addition and added the two book sources. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Regarding recent categorization discussion, the article already exists in Category:Fascism in the United States and Category:Proud Boys, both of which are diffusing subcategories in the Category:Far-right politics in the United States tree. Please refer to WP:CATSPECIFIC. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. My knee jerked a bit. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2022

requesting more substantive changes, if they are justified with reference to reliable sources, and not the subject of ongoing discussion Coomer 3 (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a far-right neo-fascist hate group, but "white nationalist" doesn't really fit

The group is led by Enrique Tarrio, an Afro-Cuban, who says "I'm pretty brown, I'm Cuban. There's nothing white supremacist about me." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Self-hating Jew and EXPLORING WHAT IS BEHIND THE RARE PHENOMENON OF JEWISH ANTI-SEMITES. Doug Weller talk 21:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly that is one theory of why Tarrio is in bed with so many white nationalists. Another is that he willing to join forces with white nationalists (with whom he disagrees) in what he views as a more important fight against socialism. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I saw something about Proud Boys saying they think Tarrio is just a front to make them look better. Dronebogus (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article should describe them the way reliable sources do. For example, the ADL says, "The Proud Boys are a right-wing extremist group with a violent agenda. They are primarily misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration. Some members espouse white supremacist and antisemitic ideologies and/or engage with white supremacist groups."[2] The SPLC calls them a "General Hate" group, not easily categorized. IOW, they attempt to bring together various strands of the far right and deliberately do not have a core ideology. TFD (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. "Some members" espouse white supremist views, but not all members and not the leader. I have been to several BLM marches where some marchers wore communist party shirts and carried communist party signs, but if someone made the the claim that BLM was a communist movement in the led of the BLM article, it would properly be reverted. We do a disservice to our readers when we do not hold articles about despicable groups to the same high NPOV standards as normal articles.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do think the Proud Boy have a core ideology, which is pretty well summarized in their slogan “Pinochet did nothing wrong!”. Tarrio sells a t-shirt stating this on his own web site, and Tusitala Toese is often photographed wearing it. Their ideology is that bringing about a violent dictatorship where torture is commonplace is the best way to fight socialism in the US and elsewhere. See https://archive.thinkprogress.org/amazon-shirts-pinochet-far-right-aed4d58ccb0a/ and https://www.splcenter.org/files/proudboyssellingpinochetjpeg . As this ideology is not a cause celeb like white supremacy, you see far more of an issued made about one unknown Proud Boy at one rally wearing a 6MWE t-shirt, a shirt not sold on any Proud Boy web site and which no one in Proud Boy leadership has ever been photographed wearing. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proud Boys are a white nationalist group who tries to excuse their behavior as being anti-socialist (where "socialist" is used to mean "things we don't like"). Their rhetoric belies the idea that they are just against socialism, since they lump in anything they consider "woke" to be socialist. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea this hate group is open about being pro-Pinochet, pro-dictatorship, pro-torture and murder of socialists, anti-immigration, anti-feminist, anti-LGBT+ rights, and islamophobic, but is hiding their white nationalist agenda is an interesting theory. I don’t see much evidence for it, but I see a lot of evidence against it. Tarrio is Afro-Cuban, Gibson is Japanese American, and Toese is Samoan. McInnes, whose wife is the daughter of Native American activist Christine Whiterabbit Jendrisak, once said "I've made my views on Indians very clear. I like them. I actually like them so much, I made three." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being pro-Pinochet is not an ideology. Pinochet supporters included liberals, conservatives and far right. Many of them of course were also white nationalists.
I think it is very short-sighted to claim that the Proud Boys as a group have a white nationalist agenda. It's basically saying we've seen this before so they must be the same. But the American far right also originally had a virulent anti-Catholic agenda. They now however accept Irish and Italians as those groups became absorbed into American society. Six of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are now Catholics - that's not just tokenism. Now they seem to be attracting Hispanics, who are also (slowly) moving into U.S. Society. No doubt they would also like to attract more blacks. Also, while many members are anti-Semitic, they also attract members from the Jewish far right. TFD (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is short sighted. It may dangerously underestimate the Proud Boys as well to assume they are white nationalist, I think their appeal is far broader than that. I watched some of McInnes's attempted intervention with Kenya West, trying to convince him being anti-Semitic is a mistake and that many of the Orthodox Jews are Trump allies. It sounds like anyone of any race who is a Trump ally is considered a Proud Boy ally.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here[1] is a fairly good academic paper on the Proud Boys' white nationalism. The first sentence of its abstract is The Proud Boys are an opportunistic hate group whose message of white male chauvinism is infused with religious and nationalist symbols. It says in the body that However, the ideology of the Proud Boys seems to be ever fluctuating, as are its targets. It has been pointed out that founder McInnes plays a duplicitous rhetorical game in rejecting the label of white nationalist and alt-right while espousing many tenets associated therewith. This paper says much the same thing (see especially the section Denial & Shifting Blame: DARVO as a Discursive Tactic, which focuses on how they obscure their white nationalist ties.) Other good sources include "Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate: How the Alt-Right Is Warping the American Imagination"[2], an entire book from an academic publisher exploring modern white nationalism via the Proud Boys. In terms of news coverage, Politico calls them a "white nationalist fight club"[3], a characterization that another academic paper has cited approvingly. So while they deny that they are white nationalist, I don't think that this is treated seriously in academia - they're frequently covered in-depth as a white nationalist group, and are often used as an example of what a modern white nationalist group looks like. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this research is pretty out-of-date and weak. There is no mention of Tarrio, who took over in 2018, in either the Kitts or the Kutner paper. These papers make the assumption you can't prove the group is despicable unless you can uncover some hidden ties to white nationalism greater than the fact a significant subset of the membership is involved with white nationalism. I think this is unnecessary, there is plenty of despicable stuff out in the open. The thing Kitts gets right is the stuff about Trump being their hero, I wish the article would expand on that. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Kitts, Margo. [b "Proud Boys, Nationalism, and Religion"]. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ Stern, Alexandra Minna (16 July 2019). Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate: How the Alt-Right Is Warping the American Imagination. Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0-8070-6336-1 – via Google Books.
  3. ^ Magazine, Politico. "What Charlottesville Changed". POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&oldid=1128196693"