Talk:Proud Boys

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)

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

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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."[1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Here 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", 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", 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)

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)

Seconded. The ICCT paper is incredibly duplicitous. I quote the following from the article:

“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for our white children”. The latter is referred to as “the fourteen words”. The Proud Boy’s slogan is thematically linked to the fourteen words, as both emphasize the need to secure or preserve western or white culture. To provide further evidence of the linguistic bridge between western and white nationalism, it is important to reference an episode of the Gavin McInnes show, where his guest, Emily Youcis, a vocal supporter of white nationalism, implored him to say the fourteen words to prove he was at the crux of “this movement.” Gavin McInnes, in response, recited the 14 words, replacing “white” with western."

Somehow, the fact that McInnes declines to make pro-White statements is used as evidence that he is a white supremacist.

It seems that the main evidence that the Proud Boys is a "White Nationalist" organization is that they frequently insist that they are not. If this is true, then Antifa must be Fascist, Mumia Abu-Jamal must be a cop-killer, and Jews must be the clandestine rulers of the Earth, because they all protest so much that they are not.

Also, Tarrio is mentioned in the Hague paper, though just as an "Afro-Cuban." Harry Sibelius (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Grammar

What kind of grammar fuckery is this?

"The '''Proud Boys''' are<!-- "is" is not correct grammar. Do not change the word "are" -->...an organization"

"It" is an organization. It, it, it.

That edit was made by User:Recobben. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think both "are" and "is" would be OK in the first sentence – "are" would match "boys", "is" would match "organization". The rest of the article always uses plural verbs with "Proud Boys" (but of course singular with "organization" or "group"). Other Wikipedia articles aren't quite consistent either: Articles about musical groups and sport teams almost always use "are", e.g. "the Green Bay Packers are a ... team", but articles about political groups seem to prefer "is", even if the name of the group is a plural term. It's complicated. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I certainly prefer "is" - among other things we can use it to distinguish between the organisation, "is", and members of the group acting togather, "are".. Although it would be better to say "organization" when that's what the article is discussing. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. The confusion comes from the fact that "Proud Boys" both refers to the members and to the organization as a whole. In this particular sentence, it's referring to the overall organization, so "is" would be the appropriate word. If we were referring to the members as a collective, then "are" would be correct. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the type of situation where we should be consistent and remove all ambiguity. We can do that by always referring to the people as "members" and their organization as some synonym of "organization." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be needlessly clunky to always say "the Proud Boys members" whenever we're talking about them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I am suggesting we only write "members." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that makes the most sense I think. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There may be spots that won't work, but the idea is to prevent ambiguity by using common sense. Just make it work. Be creative when necessary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no need to change anything.

In the first sentence, we say "the Proud Boys is an [...] organization". That's fine. ("the Proud Boys are an [...] organization" would be fine as well – just like "the Green Bay Packers are a [...] team" is perfectly fine.)

In the third sentence, we say "the Proud Boys are known for [...]". That's fine as well. Changing this sentence to "the Proud Boys is known for [...]" or "members of the Proud Boys are known for [...]" would not be an improvement. Maybe one of these forms would be grammatically more correct according to some rules, but both would make the sentence less readable. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Justify the use of "Fascism"

It's not really clear what could objectively be meant by "fascist" in this article, if anything, other than perhaps nationalism and civilian political violence, which is not enough to define someone as fascist: by this definition, the Koumintang, the Vietcong, the French resistance, and the Hong Kong independence movement are all "fascist." Also, in defense of the claim that McInnes is far-right, you cite that his organization is designated as a terrorist group in Canada. So is the Communist Party of Peru. Does that make them far-right?

Of course, anyone who were to read this article would realize that "fascist" is being used in a purely juveinle, pejorative, subjective sense. The organization does not describe itself as such and has excommunicated members who promote it. It is nearly as absurd to describe the Proud Boys as fascist as it is to describe Antifa as fascist; both of them share vague cosmetic similarities with fascism, as well as in tactics, but clearly neither are fascist. Harry Sibelius (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

We describe the Proud Boys as the reliable sources describe them. We'll describe the Communist Party of Peru as the sources do as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@MuboshguAlright. Also, please excuse my liberal use of the word "you" to describe Wikipedia and its users generally. Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

White supremacy has been a common denominator of neo-fascism for most of its history. I think you see Biden trying out a new term like “semi-fascist” because this is a bit different. There are many references calling the Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990) neo-fascist, but I think Wikipedia is correct not to include it in the neo-fascism series. There is no good word for the ideology of the Pinochet government or the Proud Boys, but I think the two are very similar. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Proud Boys vs Antifa Page

Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈænti(ˌ)fə/) is a left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement in the United States. It consists of a highly decentralized array of autonomous groups that use both nonviolent direct action and violence to achieve their aims.[1][2][3] Most antifa political activism is nonviolent, involving poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, and community organizing.

The Proud Boys is an American far-right, neo-fascist, and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States.[1][11][12] It has been called a street gang[13][14] and was designated as a terrorist group in Canada[15][16] and New Zealand.

Why are Proud Boys declared a far right strictly violent street gang terrorist group, while ANTIFA is declared a highly decentralized left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement that is mostly non-violent?

This page clearly paints proud boys in a strictly highly exaggerated negative light. Proud Boys are not strictly violent, and not strictly neo facist and in most cases are peaceful. This gets a mention in the antifa first paragraph, yet proud boys don't get that same favorable courtesy? Please adjust the sentence to mention that they engage in both violent AND non violent activity, just like ANTIFA. Please also remove the neofascist mention, this is not factual. 2601:243:702:4D50:3EFA:6492:1103:95FC (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Those things in the brackets represent reliable sources that support the statements made. That's why the leads are the ways that they are. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)