Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Article Bias

While I am not gonna defend the Proud boys, I know that their leader has disagreed with the classification of a neo-fascist several times. This article seems to have a hard-set opinion on what this is, but to it should do its best to present the defense of the organization as well--along with provide some verification as to why its a fascist group. If we compare it to the antifa page, that one does not attempt to label the ideology in bold letters like this one does. Bgrus22 (talk)

We do not aim to "provide verification as to why its a fascist group." Instead, we aim to summarize what independent reliable sources say about the organization. The citations provide verificiaton that independent reliable sources say it's a far-right, fascist organization. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

What is Source 8??

I don't really understand what citation 8 is supposed to be considering it just links to several other used citations. Bgrus22 (talk)

Those are the sources supporting the statement that the Proud Boys are far-right and neo-fascist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2019

Add to front-page of Proud Boys wiki. Remove claims of racism and/or fascism as they are empirically false and jeopardizes Wikipedia's standing as a platform for valid information.

The proud boys is verifiably not a far-right neo-fascist group, nor is it home of racists.

The proud boys is a men's club that revolves around drinking beer. The group was founded by Vice co-founder Gavin McInnes in 2016 during his tenure at compound media as host of his own show The Gavin McInnes Show [TGMS] because he wanted to get one of the producers of the show, Bret Ratner at 24-year-old virgin, laid by trying to persuade him to stop jerking off. Following that, and thanks to his reverence for western civilization and belief in Judeo-Christian values he formed the Proud Boys. A men's club, based on the Knights of Columbus, the Elk's lodge and others of the likes, that asked members to be Western Chauvinists, not jerk off [aka 'no-wanks'], and to revere the housewife and the entrepreneur. It's a traditionally neo-liberal club with a diverse pool of members of all ethnicities and nationalities that are part of independently organized chapters with no central leadership. There are four degrees of membership in the Proud Boys, none of which require the attainment or adherence to any ideology, political or otherwise, save for the reverence of western civilization and participation in 'no-wanks'. 'No-wanks' is meant to help young men strengthen their romantic relationships, and you can only 'wank' once per month when you participate in 'no-wanks'. Sources to this information can be found on Gavin McInnes podcast, Get Off My Lawn (GOML) at https://getoffmylawnpod.libsyn.com/. [G. McInnes, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019]. Larsdaman (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Especially when there is disagreement, Wikipedia prefers material from independent reliable sources over a subject's potentially self-serving descriptions of itself. Substantial previous discussion of this issue can be found in this page's archives, linked above. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Issue with interpretation of a source?

Hi! I'll be the first to admit that I am not an experienced editor with vast knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, but something strikes me as odd about this sentence in the second pargraph of the intro.

In the sentence: "While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often participate in racist rallies, events, and organizations" a source is cited at the end which links to an article about the clash between Antifa and Proud Boys, precipitated by Antifa members throwing something through the window of the Metropolitan Club a day before and leaving a threatening message. Firstly, the article is from The Daily Beast. . . I think that a more neutral or newsy source could be had for this event which was covered by many more reputable media outlets. . . but, more importantly, I don't see how this article is a reference for the statement that Proud Boys members participate in "Racist rallies."

Can someone shed some light on this for me? Thanks.

Krakaet (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi - just following up here. I see that other discussion points were responded to, but not mine. Since I can't edit anyway because of protected status, I fear that my issue will never be addressed. Can an editor please respond or perhaps engage in editing to reflect my concerns? I think it's important that when you level a charge of racism at someone or something, that there be serious evidence of such a thing aside from a Daily Beast article that neither proves nor even accuses racism. I am no Proud Boys supporter, I just think that it is important both that Wikipedia articles maintain a neutral point of view, and support any claim with references which ACTUALLY support the claim. Krakaet (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

No one has answered you because you didn't actually say anything constructive. If you think a source isn't reliable, you can take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Otherwise, there's not much to do for you.--Jorm (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you actually read my post? There are 2 issues there to be addressed. One is the reliability of Daily Beast as a news source when there are other more OBVIOUSLY trustworthy sources out there.

But. . .the main issue which is quite glaring beyond just a dispute over whether or not Daily Beast is a good source for the article. . . is the fact that this reference doesn't support the claim being made about participation in racist rallies which is problematic to say the least. As for me not saying anything constructive — I prefaced my comments by saying that I am not an experienced editor here at wikipedia and, really, I was asking for clarification more than anything. So, perhaps YOU can clarify this for me; is it standard policy to place a statement in an article and then cite a source which doesn't support the claim which you have made?

If you have concerns with a source, feel free to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. That is where that discussion must be had, not here.--Jorm (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep repeating yourself? You're not acknowledging the serious point which is that this reference literally does not support the claim being made.Krakaet (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Your point isn't "serious;" go someplace else if you want to argue about the source.
Someone (not me) should close this as non-actionable.--Jorm (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You continue to disregard my point. I'm not arguing about the source's validity at this point, that is a moot point. The point is that the source's content doesn't back up the claim in the article which is, "While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often participate in racist rallies, events, and organizations," the article itself just recounts the details of the Metropolitan Club feud between Proud Boys and Antifa. Nowhere in there is racism even asserted. If you can find that for me in this source, I'd be willing to reconsider. But at this point I see an egregious error of a claim being made and a source being cited to support this claim — yet this source doesn't talk about the claim at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krakaet (talk • contribs) 01:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

"Although the group officially rejects white supremacy, members have nonetheless appeared at multiple racist events, with a former Proud Boy organizing the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville" From the cited source, why are you claiming the source does not support the content? Random Redshirt (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Because it doesn't? This is an encyclopedia. . . forgive me if I am inaccurate here, but if we are going to make a statement about members being racist or appearing at racist rallies. . . we should have more to go on than The Daily Beast's saying so only supported by one FORMER (translated: not actually a member of the group) member having organized a Unite the Right rally which isn't proven to be a "Racist" rally more than it is an umbrella for individuals who identify with different labels across the political Right spectrum? My point is that racism is a serious charge and an encyclopedia shouldn't be leveling that charge without very good NPOV reasons.Krakaet (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

So? can't you, at the very least, alter the language to accurately reflect the fact that one source SAYS that its members are racist and/or appear at racist rallies as opposed to making it a statement of fact? I just think that this is very misleading and that the reference cited doesn't, itself, constitute a valid reference or make a valid claim when the only thing it says so support this claim is that one former member of Proud Boys organized a Unite the Right rally. 1. It's ONE member out of a LOT of members of this group. 2. Unite the Right was never a "Racist rally," it initially began as a counter-protest to those protesting that confederate statues should be removed. While there very well may have been racists there (such as the tiki torch white nationalists), it doesn't meant that the rally, itself was "Racist." Kessler's stated reason for organizing it in the first place was the removal of this statue. It doesn't seem particularly neutral of this encyclopedia to make this claim then based upon one person and one person who's stated goals are, far and away, not "racist." I am no supporter of the proud boys, not do I know this Kessler person, but a quick review of the facts, in my opinion, should fill the average editor with trepidation to make the claim that all, most, or even some of the Proud Boys members are racist or attend racist rallies when the only source cited to make this claim only references one person who wasn't a member and who organized a rally for non-racist reasons.Krakaet (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

FBI

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/08/fbi-says-proud-boys-are-not-an-extremist-group-after-all/?utm_term=.7d8fdf49f691

The FBI apparently does not consider the Proud Boys are not extremist. This is significant and the article should reflect this. Kilometerman (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It does Random Redshirt (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think the article reflects that the Proud Boys are not recognized by an extremist group by the FBI. The FBI doesn't recognize "extremist groups" in the way the Southern Poverty Law Center does. BlaineBoles22 (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)— BlaineBoles22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Welcome to Wikipedia, BlaineBoles22. The article clearly states that the FBI stated they did not intend to classify the entire group as an extremist group, only to clarify the threat from members of the group. We cannot say that the FBI "does not recognize the Proud Boys as an extremist group" for the same reason that we cannot say that the FBI "does not recognize the Proud Boys as a positive force in society". Sources do not say that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that the article is clear that the FBI doesn't classify them as an extremist group. However, the claim of FBI classification is mentioned four times in the article which is maybe WP:UNDUE: in the lede and in the sections The organization, Leadership and 2018 Metropolitan Republican Club. Sjö (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be a structural problem. It's in the lede because it's the biggest news piece about the group specifically.

It certainly fits in as part of the description of the group/their ideology/how they are described. It's certainly relevant to the purported leadership change. It's hard to avoid restating something that is a meaningful part of two sections without, well, restating it unless the entire article were restructured specifically to avoid it, which would mean basically making the FBI statements its own section. That would, of course, be a bigger problem.

The short paragraph under "2018 Metropolitan Republican Club" is probably superfluous. Though I rather dislike intra-article links, perhaps yanking that section and adding a parenthetical after "After McInnes nominally left the group..." of the "(see 'Leadership', above)" variety might work. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Multiple problems with reference 8

Reference 8 is cited as justification for the label “neo-fascist” as applies to the Proud Boys. Reference 8, in turn, cites sources 4, 5, 6, and 7. Sources 4 and 7 are opinion pieces published on websites that are openly biased. All four references use the same primary source: an associated press article about a fight in New York that contains a quote from current New York Attorney General Letitia James who uses the term.

Reference 4 — Daily Beast: “How the Proud Boys Became Roger Stone’s Personal Army” uses the term once as part of an opinion piece. This single instance is hyperlinked to another article by the same author: “Republicans Are Adopting the Proud Boys.” This article describes the primary source they all share, and it does not use the term at all.

Reference 5 — Chicago Tribune: “3 arrested in NYC clashes following speech by leader of far-right Proud Boys group.” This is the actual primary source as published in the Chicago Tribune.

Reference 6 — Law and Crime: “Proud Boys Founder Gavin McInnes Wants Neighbors to Take Down Anti-Hate Yard Signs.” This article claims that the group has been described as “neo-fascist” by several sources and lists examples. Every source in the list relies on the same primary source they all use.

Reference 7 — Huntington Post: “The Proud Boys, The GOP And ‘The Fascist Creep‘“ uses the term once as part of an opinion piece about the same primary source.

The only source for all four of these references is a Letitia James quote, but the Wikipedia article uses the label generally. Additionally, the group itself rejects the label. Four references, including 2 from openly biased publications, that ultimately rely on a single quote does not constitute enough evidence to justify the use of the term “neo-fascist.” The term should not be listed under “type,” for the organization without additional independent sources. Briandrewdrew (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)— Briandrewdrew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Briandrewdrew: Hi Brian. You say two of these sources are openly biased but don't name names. Which of these are openly biased, and what leads you to say that? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: He is referring to both The Daily Beast and Huffington Post, which are clearly center left. The source from AP doesn't even call the group neo-fascist, but it only quoting somebody else. Law and Crime calls them neo-fascist, but references three sites that don't even call the group neo-fascist, but instead quote the same person. All of this is based off of a statement from one person. LegalizeRanchNow (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)— LegalizeRanchNow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. We don't discount sources for being center-left, just as we don't discount sources for being center-right. (We don't discount sources for any particular partisan bent, actually - we discount sources if they can't be classified as reliable.) That you disagree with the sources' characterization of the group is not a reason to remove it from this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: The point is that there are far more sources that do not refer to the group as such. The only two sources who seem to consider the group neo-fascist are the Daily Beast and Huffington Post. And in that case, it appears that it is only two of their reporters who make the reference, with the majority of the articles written about them when searched on the site referring to the group as "Western chauvinist." Virtually every other reputable news source refers to the group as "western chauvinist," "pro-Trump," "far-right," etc... In this article, it appears that somebody searched for the most-negative sounding way to describe the group, and ran with it.

LegalizeRanchNow (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)— LegalizeRanchNow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I invite you to put up or shut up, then.--Jorm (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

Remove "In late November 2018, a news story which attracted national attention[24] reported that the FBI classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group with ties to white nationalism;[10] however, two weeks later, an FBI official denied that it was their intent to classify the entire group in this manner, and ascribed the mistake to a misunderstanding.[24][25] The official said that their intent was to characterize the possible threat from certain members of the group.[26]" as it is unnecessary and self defeating. JamesWoods87 (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)— JamesWoods87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Not done - It appears that you want us to insert your own original research here (as well as a bit of a rant). We need tangible, actionable statements.--Jorm (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

Remove "and embrace of violence.[44] and promotes political violence.[2][9][10][11]The organization glorifies political violence against leftists, re-enacting political assassinations, wearing shirts that praise Augusto Pinochet's murders of leftists, and participating directly in political violence.[21][22] McInnes has said "I want violence, I want punching in the face. I'm disappointed in Trump supporters for not punching enough."[21][34] He stated, "We don't start fights [...] but we will finish them."[40] " None of the sources provided show a want of political violence only self defence. The entire article has a clear bias against the organisation. Maybe a complete re-write is needed? JamesWoods87 (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)— JamesWoods87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Not done - It appears that you want us to insert your own original research here (as well as a bit of a rant). We need tangible, actionable statements.--Jorm (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy.

it would be good to ensure accuracy within the page, as many declarations made seem to be either deliberately inaccurate, or simply false.

for example, the claim that Enrique Tarrio attended the Unite the right rally(citation #48) is simply wrong,as when following through the various sources, it becomes clear that there is no evidence of him being at the rally, as the tiki torch march he cites as his reason for not attending was widely circulated before the rally had even begun.

97.107.227.114 (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Our article says Tarrio attended the march. ABC News reports that Tarrio was at the march, but claims he did not participate, per cite 48. Additionally, an ABC affiliate quotes an interview with Tarrio making as much clear. If you are accusing ABC of fabricating the interview and falsely claiming that Tarrio said he was at the march but claimed he did not participate, you will need sources for your unlikely claim. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting

WP:DENY absurd claim that descended into absurd defense for human trafficking and slavery. Channer noises too. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure how one goes about editing articles that are protected, such as this one, but my point was never adequately contended with down there. In order for Wikipedia to assert something, there should be ample evidence to go on. The claim of "While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often participate in racist rallies, events, and organizations" isn't adequately supported by the source, as the source only mentions that one former member of Proud Boys organized a Unite The Right rally, which never was intended to be a racist rally (the tiki torch Nazis having nothing to do with the legitimate issue of whether or not a confederate statue should be removed). SO. How does one go about getting editors who DO have access to edit this article to consider this fact and re-word the language going forward to show that one source, in particular, is making this claim. . . as opposed to this claim being fact? Surely if Proud Boys members DID frequently attend racist rallies, there would be ample evidence of this, right? To reiterate, my only interest here is to ensure that people aren't unfairly labelled as racists by this article when there is no evidence to support such a claim. Krakaet (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC) I have moved this to the bottom of the page, per WP:BOTTOMPOST. The evidence Wikipedia requires comes from reliable sources. The source specifically says multiple events: Although the group officially rejects white supremacy, members have nonetheless appeared at multiple racist events, with a former Proud Boy organizing the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. The group rallies around anti-left violence, and members of Proud Boy chapters in the Pacific Northwest have participated in public marches while wearing shirts that glorify the murders of leftists by Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.[1] Sources in the lede are a courtesy for readers, and there are plenty of additional sources in the body of the article. Your comments about the intentions of Unite The Right rally are also not accepted by sources. If you have reached WP:CONSENSUS for changing the article, you could place Template:Edit extended-protected in that section, but please gain consensus, based on reliable sources, before doing this, otherwise it will be denied. Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC) That the Unite the Right rally was not intended to unify the American white nationalist movement is an exceptional claim, flatly contradicted by numerous sources. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC) How so? The person who organized it stated that it was in response specifically to the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue from Lee Park (in addition to the renaming). The Unite the Right wikipedia article, on the claim that the rally was organized to unite the American white nationalist movement, cites this source which features a quote by a guy named Damigo who, as far as I can tell, is not a member of the proud boys. So, it was some guy named Damigo who said it and not Kessler. Hence, it doesn't actually reflect on the proud boys itself. As far as I can tell, it was Kessler who began the initial protest of the removal of the statue, with others joining on because of the high-profile controversy at play. If you can find any source which cites Kessler saying or indicating in some way that he organized this rally because of white nationalism or nazism, or any other -ism, I'm all ears. But, a thorough scrubbing of the internet doesn't lead me to any racially-motivated reason on Kessler's part for organizing the rally. All signs seem to point to his stated goal of non-violent protest. Again, my claim was that the reference which cites Jason Kessler as proof of the claim on this article: "While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often participate in racist rallies, events, and organizations" just doesn't hold water, in my humble opinion. Just to restate, so you are following my logic. The statement: "While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often participate in racist rallies, events, and organizations" hinges on a Daily Beast article which cites the Unite The Right rally (and Kessler's organization of it) as well as rallies in the Pacific Northwest in which Proud Boys members glorify the death of totalitarian leaders like Pinochet. I'm struggling, and perhaps you can shed light, on how this constitutes participation in explicitly RACIST events or rallies. I don't find anything particularly racially-motivated about antipathy towards totalitarian leaders, nor do I find anything racially-motivated about Kessler's stated reason for the Unite The Right rally which was a to protest the potential removal of a confederate statue. I am not trying to start a debate here about what the Unite The Right rally turned into, but I am simply trying to focus on the claim that the Proud Boys' members, of which Kessler was a member at one time, participate in racist rallies and events and how it reflects on Kessler's participation at the eventKrakaet (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC) The four cites at the beginning of the article (FOX, NYTx2 and VOX) say it was a white supremacist rally. The source you linked to, The Modesto Bee, is a reliable source. It states that the "some guy named Damigo" is the founder of Identity Evropa, "a central figure in Saturday’s white supremacist demonstration in Charlottesville" and one of rally's organizers. Between FOX, VOX, The New York Times, The Modesto Bee and "some guy named Damigo" who was a central figure in the white supremacist rally calling it "white supremacist" and it being organized by two notable white supremacists, it's getting awfully hard to believe that is was just a bunch of guys who like statues (of a losing pro-slavery traitor) getting together to have a few beers by torchlight and maybe bowl a few frames. TL;DR version:FOX, NYTx2, VOX, The Modesto Bee and one of the organizers say it was a white supremacist rally. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC) So, again, the claim is "While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often participate in racist rallies, events, and organizations" Even though Unite The Right ultimately DID become a rally inhabited by white supremacists, this piece is focusing on the Proud Boys, not Identity Evropa, Stormfront, or any other ACTUAL Neo-Nazi / White Supremacist group. Moreover, the word "often" is interesting. If it is such a common occurrence that Proud Boys members participate in racist rallies, surely there would be other examples of actual racism at play? The reason I am focusing on Kessler and his stated reason for organizing Unite The Right is that he did not envision a racist rally. He was never a part of these objectively racist groups, nor is Kessler even a current member of the Proud Boys. My whole point is that we need to be very careful before we label groups as racist or make claims that its members "often participate" in racist rallies when the only evidence we have is that Kessler was part of a rally that turned into a White Supremacist love-fest. This is why I said I'm still waiting for someone to consider rephrasing the sentence "While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often participate in racist rallies, events, and organizations." as it isn't accurate if all it is going on is one guy, in the form of Mr. Kessler, having organized a rally against the removal of a confederate statue which turned into a rally inhabited by White Supremacists. Moreover, I think your subjective-use of the phrase "pro-slavery traitor" indicates that you aren't exactly Neutral when it comes to this subject matter. That's highly unfortunate. The Civil War is, at its heart, a complicated issue — as is the figure of General Lee. Krakaet (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC) If you think that Confederates weren't "pro-slavery traitors", I'm unsure what you'd call them. They... they literally are those things. There isn't any way to unthread that needle. To say otherwise is disturbingly bad-faith.--Jorm (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC) It's a little like called George Washington, Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson "traitors." Which they were. It just does not serve much of a useful function. Carptrash (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Sorry for helping this discussion get more off-topic, but have you ever read about the Pratt Street Riot? The people of Baltimore (which had the largest free black population in the country) generally saw troops from the North as an unprovoked invasion. Also Lincoln imprisoned Francis Scott Key's grandson and came close to arresting a supreme court justice. Sounds kind of treasonous to me, but oh well. History is full of nuance and I think Wikipedia can and should be used to help people understand the complexity, not just to label people we don't like. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC) That is a cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Sorry, but the Civil War really wasn't complicated. Southern human traffickers were so Not Mad Online that a mildly anti-human-trafficking candidate was elected president that they attempted to ragequit the United States by force of arms so that they could continue to make lots of money by owning and trafficking in human beings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Man, I wish it were simple. It would be nice. Slavery in Baltimore you mean? Good job reading. Also the confederates banned importation of more slaves. Mostly for economic reasons, obviously not human rights, but anyway, history is complicated and you are LARPing. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC) All I see is someone defending a war explicitly waged by human traffickers for the purposes of perpetuating and expanding human trafficking. If that's the hill you want to die on, go for it. All yours. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Although by the time of the Civil War (and where in the Constitution does it say states can't bail out? Check out Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) came about all the slaves were in the South, but I think most of the ships that actually did the trafficking were from New England. Feel free to prove me wrong. Carptrash (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC) After Pennsylvania initiated a gradual abolition of slavery in 1780, and the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ended slavery in the state in 1783, all the other Northern states followed suit, most setting a date 28 years in advance on which all enslaved residents would be freed (and all children born in the intervening years would be born free). in the 1810s, PA extended citizenship to fugitive slaves living in the state, but the U.S. Supreme Court found the PA law unconstitutional. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act (federal law) superseded any state laws trying to grant rights to fugitive slaves. New England was the center of the American slave trade early on. It then moved to New York, which began a gradual abolition in 1899 (completed 1827). Charleston became the most important port for slave ships in the early 19th century. The cotton gin and the opening up of the Mississippi Valley made New Orleans the most important port in the mid-19th century. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2019

The Proud Boys discourages its members from masturbating and watching pornography so as to motivate them to get "off the couch" and meet women.[48] McInnes added no masturbation to the group's core ideas after interacting with Dante Neo, a relationship expert and comedian with a podcast on Riotcast, who came to serve as a sort of "pope" for this idea within the organization.[54]

<should be>

The Proud Boys discourages its members from masturbating and watching pornography so as to motivate them to get "off the couch" and meet women.[48] McInnes added no masturbation to the group's core ideas after interacting with Dante Nero, a relationship expert and comedian with a podcast on Riotcast, who came to serve as a sort of "pope" for this idea within the organization.[54]

<that is, "Dante Neo" should be "Dante Nero".> jd (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 15:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate and Poorly Cited Information in Article

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

---

This article contains inaccurate and poorly cited information. The description as "neo-fascist" is not accurate, and the citations for that label link to news articles that do not even use the phrase "neo-fascist." The organization does not, to my knowledge, describe itself as "neo-fascist" or anything approximating that. They describe themselves as "Western Chauvinist" which is not synonymous with "neo-fascist."

The entire introduction is completely one-sided and biased in its summary of the group. Highly misleading. I would have corrected parts of it, with accurate citations, but the page is locked. If someone would be willing to take a look at how shoddy this article is, it would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7CC1:B500:69D0:C6C6:37DD:F3A4 (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The very first of those citations says "The Proud Boys are a neo-fascist group that glorifies violence against opponents, particularly on the left."[2]. Readers can go to the group's website if they are interested in how the group describes itself, but Wikipedia favors independent sources in most situations. Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Daily Beast goes too far in that characterization. Repeating it here is a reflection of the editor's bias/agenda - nothing more.XDev (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should accurately represent what independent reliable sources say without adding our own opinions. Daily Beast says what Daily Beast says. We do not judge whether they "go too far"/not far enough/just right. We report what they say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Not ideal, but there is a Fox article about the incident. NBC didn't mention Ngo. There's also a totally reasonably Reason article which I'm sure will cause some backlash. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Pelirojopajaro, why is Fox not ideal? Do you have something against WP:RSs? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This is probably not the place to have the "Is Fox News an entertainment or news channel?" discussion. Carptrash (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Just chiming in from the peanut gallery, but look at antifa's clinical, and obtuse article, compared to this one. Modern right wing movements typically have harsher tones than actual 20th century death squads, or Maoists. The antifa article won't go past calling them "left wing militant anti-fascists," (whatever that means,) but to a layman, the proud boys are genocidal white supremacist terrorists. (even as American antifa are the ones targeted by the FBI, not proud boys) Actual antifa members edit the antifa articles. And those same antifa members edit this one. If you are looking for reality in wikipedia, especially as it is just a collection of biased opinion pieces, you're not even seeing this in the right mindset. Outside of hard sciences, and math, Wikipedia is utterly unreliable for learning about reality. Let it just go, because there is no "winning," here. 2601:982:4200:A6C:74B3:2C85:2DEC:62A3 (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Arguments comparing treatment of different subjects in different articles are seldom productive. One article might be superior and the other inferior or they might both be wrong. Instead, discussing articles relative to the appropriate policies and guidelines is far more productive. So, if independent reliable sources say one (for example) film is "the Citizen Kane of awful", Wikipedia does not adjust descriptions of other films to echo that. Instead, the goal for both articles is to fairly represent, without editorial bias, what independent reliable sources say about a subject. The sources say the Proud Boys are far-right, neo-fascist, and glorify violence so Wikipedia says they are far-right, neo-fascist, and glorify violence. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"To a layman the proud boys are genocidal white supremacist terrorists"? Where is your evidence? The only evidence quoted in the page on this group is from known leftist organs such as The Daily Beast. The SPLC is further left; they even class "Focus on the Family" as a hate group. Objective standards of reporting are essential in creating labels for groups which they themselves reject. What exactly do the Proud Boys believe and what are their political objectives? Stavanyar (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Arguing that sources are "known leftist organs" and demanding evidence to support what the sources say is not productive. That you disagree with a source is not meaningful. The operative question here is whether or not a source meets the criteria at WP:IRS. If it does, it is a reliable source and, within the limits of WP:WEIGHT, our job here is to accurately reflect what those sources say. The sources say the Proud Boys are far-right, neo-fascist, and glorify violence so Wikipedia says they are far-right, neo-fascist, and glorify violence. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think a large problem here is that several editors are parading out the Daily Beast as though it is an RS, but that has actually yet to be properly established. They want to be able to pretend to have a NPOV but then they drag in a whole host of non-RS material under the guise of "oh that's just what the source says". A lot of the right-wing rags have been (correctly) banned from WP but left-wing rags are still being used to POV-push. Galestar (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The local consensus is that the Daily Beast is reliable for its use here. If you disagree and have specific points relative to the criteria outlined at WP:IRS, take it to WP:RSN. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

re: "The local consensus is" Yaaa I've read the archives, that is not true. Galestar (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, if you disagree and have specific points relative to the criteria outlined at WP:IRS, take it to WP:RSN. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, my most recent comment only took issue with your mis-characterization of the consensus here. Stop mis-characterizing the consensus and you'll stop being called out for it. Galestar (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If you just want to say you don't think there is a consensus, mission accomplished; you've said that. If you don't think it's a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• This whole thing starts with an IP who thinks that some organization's politics should be self-described (a prima facie ludicrous statement) and ends with a more seasoned editor who confuses "bias" with "reliability" and calls the Daily Beast a "left-wing rag". The internet in all its glory. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

References

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.

Talk:Proud Boys

Closing as WP:SOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seriously, when this place calls Proud Boys a neo-fascist organization that engages in political violence but doesn't say the same about antifa, which is considered a domestic terrorist group by the DHS, then you know the editors are biased. Guyveru01 (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC) The idea that the Proud Boys are neo-fascist is based on various unrelated third-party sources, whereas Antifa cant have a single ideology because Antifa is not a single group, organisation or movement, but rather a term used to describe people all over the political spectrum who are highly against fascism! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC) While I actually somewhat agree with you, IMO this section should just be deleted for soap-boxing. If you have a particular content change you'd like to see here, propose it or participate in the above section. If you have a particular content change you'd like to see on Antifa page, propose it there or participate in the ongoing RfC re:terrorist group. This new section doesn't accomplish anything. Galestar (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

"The West is the Best"

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.

---

What is the provenance of the Proud Boys motto? It's a line from The Doors' The End. https://web.archive.org/web/20150906191059/https://www.thedoors.com/discography/songs/end-602 kencf0618 (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe. You need a reliable secondary source to tie them together. Maybe the Proud Boys (god, what a name!) vacationed in Belize. Or they read a book about chartering a boat. Or went hiking in the Green Mountains. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2019 (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.

Request edit on 6 July 2019

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

---

This page desperately needs to be cleaned up, it's clearly encroaching into political opinion piece territory.

Calling the Proud Boys "Neo-Facist" is clearly an exaggeration, the citations used are from politically biased opinion piece articles.

The definition of Neo-Facism is "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". All the first hand research I have done shows me that the Proud Boys organization is very pro Democracy and Capitalism. Also, as in any group you are bound to have extremeistm, but I don't call the Democratic Party "Communist" because there are members therein who identify as such. It's about what the official stance of the organization is. Any claims of Neo-Facism should be cited in the body of the article and in the header/summary area.

And citing Mother Jones, Salon, and the Daily Beast as a means to justify that label shouldn't be allowed, imagine if Fox News, Breitbart...etc. were used as citations for the Democratic Party page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoohunglow (talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliably sourced reference to support your claims.--Jorm (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The source itself from the Daily beast is unreliable though. They say that the Proud Boys are Neofascist and give a link to a second beast article, but that article was just as ambiguous. Shouldn't they have to provide evidence? 174.226.145.21 (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have concerns with the reliability of a source, you can go to WP:RSN and take it up there. This topic is done. --Jorm (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

And no, sources do not have to "provide evidence". Wikipedia does not analyze a reliable source's statements against whether or not you agree with their terminology. Wikipedia does not evaluate the evidence they provide, their sources, their sources' sources, their sources' sources' sources and so on down the rabbit hole. Maybe the Earth really is flat. Maybe HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Maybe Proud Boys really is a bridge club dedicated to building community gardens and bringing the children of the world together to join hands and sing songs of peace and harmony. For Wikipedia's purposes, independent reliable sources clearly state the Earth is spherical, HIV causes AIDS and Proud Boys is a far-right neo-fascist organization which admits only men as members and promotes political violence. All of those things are verifiable.

If you have independent reliable sources that give the community gardens and children singing, bring them here. Until then, independent reliable sources say "a far-right neo-fascist organization which admits only men as members and promotes political violence" so that's what Wikipedia says. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:LABEL these statements need to be attributed, even if reliable sources use this label. Galestar (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Not that this article particularly needs any more references, however, this is Buzzfeed News, a WP:RS/P, quoting the Attorney General of New York, Letitia James, as using the term " neo-fascist, white supremacist Proud Boys". [3]. Britishfinance (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You can add 100 reliable sources, you still have to deal with WP:LABEL and make it an attributed statement. Galestar (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

So you're demanding

"The Proud Boys are a neo-fascist group, according to Buzzfeed News^[1], Chicago Tribune^[2], The Daily Beast^[3], Huffington Post^[4], Law & Crime^[5], Joseph E. Lowndes of University of Oregon^[6], Daniel Martinez HoSang of Yale University^[7], New York Public Advocate Letitia James^[8], and University of Minnesota Press^[9]. The Proud Boys promote violence according to... The Proud Boys are far right according to..."

Something like that? Seems awfully cumbersome. Given that there are zero independent reliable sources disputing the term, I'm having trouble finding that it is "contentious". Instead, I'm thinking that an "occasional exceptions may apply" to the guideline you keep citing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, it defies common sense. If one person says that the Proud Boys are neo-Fascists, then the article really does have to say: "According to John, the Proud Boys are a neo-Fascist group." But when multiple reliable sources say that the Proud Boys are neo-Fascists, it's ridiculous to request that the article say "According to John, Paul, George, Ringo, Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith, Sacco and Venzetti, the Proud Boys are neo-Fascists." Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I'm thinking. I'm thinking, "Galestar is a tendentious editor."--Jorm (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that too, considering their edit history. People like Galestar want us to describe far-right groups only by the descriptors they use to describe themselves, so that they can fly under the radar. Look at Identity Evropa, rebranding itself as the American Identity Movement and wrapping themselves in American eagles and red, white and blue, all in an attempt to evade people seeingthem for what they actually are. Well, we don't do that here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

People like Galestar want you to follow Wikipedia policies. Galestar (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

People like Galestar want to repeatedly call a guideline a policy and apply it mechanically, rather than consider "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Proud Boys are neo-fascists. That they'd like to pretend they just get together for a beer every now and then and violent, racist incidents just happen to break out is cute, but irrelevant here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess you can just arbitrarily declare "exceptions" to WP:RS too whenever its inconvenient because its Just A Guideline (TM)? Galestar (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Jorm I'd appreciate it if you cease the personal attacks and stick to discussions about content and policy. I guess I can probably expect just a "cool story, bro" response. Galestar (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not demanding that content, that's just your strawman. I am demanding that you follow Wikipedia policies. If you can't come up with text that both follows policy and isn't cumbersome, maybe you shouldn't be trying to shove a WP:LABEL into the 6th word of the 1st sentence in the article? I can't find anywhere in WP:LABEL that says oh but you don't have to follow this if SummerPhD declares an arbitrary "exception" because they want to POV-push in the first sentence of the article (again). Galestar (talk)

You keep citing a guideline and calling it policy. You should fix that.

We are trying to summarize a far-right neo-fascist group that promotes violence. To do so, we call it "a far-right neo-fascist group that promotes violence". We aren't going to carve that down to "a group".

We don't attribute a non-contentious label because -- other than your complaints -- there is no evidence of any kind of reliable sources calling them a moderate pacifist group that promotes peace and harmony. "Proud Boys is a peaceful community service, group according to Santa Monica Observer^[1], David "Avocado" Wolfe^[2], The Daily Caller^[3], raving street preacher^[4], Breitbart News^[5], The Daily Stormer^[6], LifeSiteNews^[7], WorldNetDaily^[8], and InfoWars^[9]." - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Its a contentious label regardless of how many sources declare them as that. You have failed to understand WP:LABEL. Please read it again. Then maybe again a few more times. Eventually it might sink in. Galestar (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You cannot seem to understand that "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". That you want it to be policy and wikilawyer the article into submission is as irrelevant as Proud Boys pretending they are a mere social club. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not "contentious" because you disagree with it and say that it is contentious, nor is it contentious because the group says it is contentious. It's only contentious if reliable sources say that it is contentious, and that simply isn't the case. Please stop bludgeoning this discussion with your repeated re-statement of a discredited argument. Such behavior is disruptive and can end up with you being blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope, still misunderstanding what WP:LABEL says. Labels are contentious even if RS quotes them as such. Here, I'll quote it for you, maybe you'll actually read it this time: Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.. You haven't discreditted anything. You've disagreed but then I guess you are also bludgeoning then? If you think I'm being disruptive and want to get me blocked, report me. Until then stop your threats. Galestar (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2019 (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.

Bias in article is deceptive and incorrect

Closing as WP:SOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:ER - I added a comment to this page outlying why I believe the term "neo-fascist" should not be included as a definition, but should be included with caveats. Rather than address this, my comment was removed by a member who clearly states in his member profile that he is a "supporter of Antifa". Please don't let wikipedia turn into a propaganda arm of the far left. That would be extremely dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socratesone (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Your comment was soapboxing and personal opinion, and was removed in accordance with WP:FORUM. Don't abuse talkpages for editorializing, and don't cast aspersions against other editors for following talkpage policy. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC) AGAIN deleting my comment, and completely missing the point. I was trying to show a DISTINCTION between "soapboxing" or "opinion" and what is ACTUALLY RELEVANT to a talk page. I wanted to make sure that the original point was made -- Words have objective definitions and "reliable sources" don't change the meaning of words by misusing them'. That is NOT "soapboxing" or "opinion". Do you need me to cite sources saying that words have definitions? Or do you need me to cite the Neutral point of view policy of wikipedia? Just how, exactly, am I supposed to correct this GLARING, OBVIOUS ERROR in wikipedia? Please explain how citing wikipedia policy and making an argument is "editorializing" and "abusing" the talk page. Socratesone (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) It is very simple to get what you want: find some fucking sources that support your argument. Until then, your comments about "SJW" and "wikipedia being doomed" are unhelpful. --Jorm (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2019

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.

---

You have made statements like the Proud Boys are a far-right neo-fascist and much more. This is incorrect and clearly this entire page was written by someone that doesn't like the Proud Boys and this page is 100% incorrect. Please give me access to edit this page so I can correct the information accordingly. This page is written by the far left and is not correct. This type of writing is unacceptable on any page. This should never have got published for any side. How did this page make it by the review team without noticing this page is clearly a smear on the Proud boys. Wikipedia should strive to be as accurate as possible and not lean to any political side. I would like to correct this page along with other pages that have been clearly been edited for political mischief. Pwmcmahon (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done - Please cite reliable sources for your proposed changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2019 (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.

Y'all are pretty bad at editing

Look at the "Demand Free Speech" rally section. Last paragraph. You see something there that doesn't appear in any of the articles cited?

Pay attention before you completely lock an article next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.63.224.41 (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Contesting the "Neo-Fascism" label.

They do meet the label in terms of anti immigration and nationalism, however, according to their website they advocate for "Minimal Government." A decidedly not fascist ideal, and seem not to hold overtly strong racial beliefs. The term "Alt Right" or "Right wing" political organization would fit better. Besides, Buzzfeed news isn't a legitimate source. Sofia Arthursson (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, if only we could use what an organization says they are to describe them! If you have an issue with Buzzfeed, you can take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Until then, or unless you can find other reliable sources that say otherwise, the label will remain.--Jorm (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Clear bias in false description

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.

---

There is a clear attempt to label this group as violent and Nazi. That is simply not true. Political biases have no place here. Facts only. Nothing wrong with having links to show incidents, but the labeling here is way too strong and false. Panleya (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

We report the labels that reliable sources use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2019 (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.

Proud Boys

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.

---

Enrique Tarrio is the current leader of the Proud Boys. He doesn’t look or sound like a white racist. This article needs to be unlocked for truthful editing. Gowestjeff (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

We report the labels that reliable sources use. Acroterion (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2019 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2019

This page is supposed to be moderated by an uninvolved objective committee? This article is riddled with left-wing bias and the other side of the story is being blocked. To give this page credibility, it should include more direct sources to Gavin McInnis and a balance of conservative and liberal editors including moderators that can come to a consensus. 75.148.100.253 (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This page is moderated by the Wikipedia community and draws from the reliable sources. While Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view, where the reliable sources take a stance you see as unbalanced, the article will as well. If you have particular suggestions for article improvement, backed by citation to reliable sources, then by all means, make them. Cheers, and happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - there is nothing actionable here, as usual.--Jorm (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:organization classification change

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

---

The Proud Boys are far right, however, the source (Buzzfeed News) for the neo-fascist part is extremely suspect and it should be changed to chauvinistic instead. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/buzzfeed/ As seen here, buzzfeed's reporting is suspect. Also, rhetoric/opinion used by one person that isn't part of a law enforcement agency, should not be grounds for labeling a group as such. Guyveru01 (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check is itself a biased right wing group and is not considered a reliable source (it is essentially a blog), so its conclusions cannot be used for that purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk)

See [4], [5] Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2019 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2019

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

---

I ask that the group type is changed from "Neo-fascist" to "Chauvinist". I ask that because the sources seem to lack the backing of those claims in the first place. If you'd like to base this off of self-definition, their site explains their beliefs and intentions in great detail. http://proudboysusa.com/#post DartKitten (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No. You've provided exactly zero useful rationale why this change should be accepted.--Jorm (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

To my understanding, misrepresenting the content of a source is entirely rationale for change, especially in cases where the content is simply missing from the source. DartKitten (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You will have to point out how the source is being misused in the article. I'm going to go ahead and be honest with you: your suggested change is extremely unlikely to happen because there are zero reliable sources that support your claim. You will have to provide some. The Proud Boys homepage is absolutely unacceptable. I tell you this because I don't want you to waste your time (or ours).--Jorm (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2019 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2019

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

---

The page states that the proud boys is a "far-right neo-fascist organization". I feel it is best to change that to something like "arguably a far-right neo-fascist organization". This is to keep the page neutral. 120.17.9.95 (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The best references say that it is; we follow the references and avoid adding any of our own views. Britishfinance (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2019 (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.

"You tell that fat bitch" soure

Here.[6] Doug Weller talk 15:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I had already included the source when I wrote that section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Vague wording regarding FBI classification.

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

---

I see many remarks of the FBI classification of the group. The wording gives the implication that there was indeed a classification as such, and that it was later disavowed by word of mouth. The concern with this is that the sources will tell you that there was no documentation from the FBI, but instead from Clark County Sheriff’s Office, which released a report following a briefing presentation from the FBI. I would argue the full context of the claim is important to include at least once in the article, to prevent misinformation and misinterpretation. DartKitten (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done There is nothing actionable here.--Jorm (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2019 (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.

FBI corrected reports that Proud Boys were listed as an extremist group

There is a line in the page that says the FBI has listed Proud Boys as an extremist group. The sentence cites an article from Nov 2018. However, a few weeks later, a high ranking FBI agent said that the FBI did not list them as an extremist group and they take incidents case by case.

Here are the sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/08/fbi-says-proud-boys-are-not-an-extremist-group-after-all/ https://thinkprogress.org/fbi-walks-back-extremist-label-for-proud-boys-6f4c052e60f9/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessure (talk • contribs) 04:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yessure, the full quote from the lead section of the article reads:

In late November 2018, a news story which attracted national attention reported that the FBI classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group with ties to white nationalism; however, two weeks later, an FBI official denied that it was their intent to classify the entire group in this manner, and ascribed the mistake to a misunderstanding.

What part of that is incorrect? – bradv🍁 04:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Answer: None of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. You can close this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessure (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Enrique Tarrio

I've redirected Enrique Tarrio to here for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

New article End Domestic Terrorism could use attention

Thanks. Note it describes Joe Biggs simply as a talk show host! Doug Weller talk 10:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't we have another article for that event already? I feel like that title fails WP:COMMONNAME, since few sources use it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I've worked on this article mostly alone and invite others to help improve. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I've done a little work on the lede, and will continue to work on the article in the next few days. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Not Fascists or Neo-Fascist or Alt Right

Using the actual events in the Wikipedia page, it doesn't seem these Proud Boys are Noe-Fascists. They hate authority, promote representative democracy, despise socialism (as shown in their reenactment of a socialist leader being assassinated). They are across multiple countries (based on the information in the Wikipedia entry) thus its hard to make them a Nationalists when they are across multiple nations. They have multiple races, as depicted in multiple pictures across the internet, and openly welcome all men to the group. They formed an auxiliary group for women, and don't seem to care about sexual orientation. I reviewed a few of the sources, and though they may seem valid by their source, the actual content is based in opinion and no direct facts. They hate Nazi's and love Isreal. Again - reading hte actual facts and actions reported in the page, I would recommend removing the Neo-Fascist link. They only match maybe 30% of the list that pops up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.125.1 (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

We repeat what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say that they are neo-Nazis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Provide the reliable sources then. I don't see the Proud Boys setting up big businesses or corporatist environments, which is a core tenant of Nazism/fascism. Words have meaning. "Nazi" doesn't simply mean "something that I don't like." Fascism and the tenants of Nazism have specific meanings. Provide your reliable sources, or we will edit accordingly. Actually, let me help you out here; here's the Wikipedia definition of Fascism. Scroll to the economic viewpoints. Right wing? Sure. Authoritarian? Haven't seen anything to support this. Economically fascist? Seems quite the opposite. 24.26.218.181 (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources are in the article, where they should be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not a good enough answer, user:Beyond My Ken. You say that you repeat reliable sources, but it does not seem like that standard is high enough to inspire confidence that the assertions made in the article are true. What makes these reliable sources? Surely such a judgement should be made based on the content of the actual sources and not their reputation as it is seen by your opinion. If the sources you cite are filled with opinion, biased reporting, selective inclusion of certain voices and exclusion of contradicting sources, and there are other contradicting sources filled with fact, your claim that you are using reliable sources rings untrue and sounds like you have abandoned fair-mindedness. In all cases of good research, a fair-minded evaluation of the actual authoritativeness, validity of logic and reasoning, and neutrality of the source should be used to fairly determine whether someone is a reliable source. You have provide no proof of having conducted such a fair-minded evaluation. Let's see that reasoning right here, please. TimIngalls (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That is the only answer you will get, because WP:RS is our standard, and we stick to it. That you don't agree with what the sources say is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@TimIngalls: Check out our policies on reliable sources at WP:RS. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Thank you for posting that link. It totally justifies my comment above. Quoting the very first sentence from that page: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." I am asserting that not all majority and significant minority views have been covered. If you look at the list of sources cited in that article, it seems to me that every one of them are from the same point of view--namely, that the Proud Boys are a violent Neo-Nazi group. I don't see any sources that present an alternative viewpoint. Surely, especially among all of the first-hand videos on YouTube, someone can find an alternative viewpoint. I have seen the videos and dissected them in depth. As an example, from the research I have done, it seems that the Proud Boys do not shy away from fighting in their own defense. In fact, they glory in it, perhaps too much. That is quite different from portraying them as a group that is instigating violence and preaching hate. These nuances are vital to correctly portray the group. Surely it could be said that the American colonists in 1776 were a violent, disloyal group of vandals that were bent on destroying law and good order. In fact, quite a bit worse was said of them by the British. But there WAS a differing point of view, and most Americans would call those troublemakers patriots and heroes. The article is offensive when I read it, because it states as fact something on which there are many varying viewpoints. Instead of making a judgment, it would be better to portray the complexity of the issue by stating the various viewpoints without coming down on one side or the other on the topic of whether they are a Neo-Nazi group. That seems to be keeping with the principles of Wikipedia, especially regarding neutrality. Let's do some more work on this article and make it more balanced without making controversial declarations with loaded labels. TimIngalls (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@TimIngalls: If there's a point of view covered in reliable sources we're not including, we should include it. Could you link some reliable sources which cover this point of view? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: I will begin looking for sources that qualify as authoritative. I am not really sure where to compile those, however. I am unsure if it would make sense to make edits to the article and then include the citations. I don't want to start an edit war. I don't have much experience editing here at Wikipedia, so if anyone can suggest a good process that leads to re-writing this article to be more balanced, I'm all ears. If it makes sense to the other editors, I think it may be better to compile information here on the Talk page. If there is a more preferred method of contributing content in a way that builds consensus, please inform me. TimIngalls (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You do it on the talk page, here. Period.--Jorm (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

TimIngalls: You seem to be headed down a path many have trod before you. Wikipedia is not based on "reliable sources", it is based on reliable sources. While you might be thinking of sources you trust, we mean something quite a bit more specific. First of all, we are not examining an article and seeing if it is "right", we are looking at the source publishing the article. An article "Man Bites Dog" in Hometown Paper is not judged based on any of our judegements of the article, but rather on whether or not Hometown Paper has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Replace Hometown Paper with New York Times and it is unquestionably a reliable source. The exact same article -- word for word -- in The Daily Mail and it is unusable.

Next up is "independent" sources. Every fast food company will tell you their meal is part of a healthy diet and every politician in the world will tell you they just want what is best for their constituents. Independent sources might say that the burger is loaded with fat, salt, etc. and should rarely, if ever, be eaten. They'll also report on the politician's actual actions, policies, triumphs and scandals. What the Proud Boys want to say they are is unlikely to match what independent reliable sources say. The sources say far-right, neo-fascist, political violence, etc. So Wikipedia says the same.

You analysis and opinion of whatever youtube videos is irrelevant. Your analysis is original research, which is weeded out by the same process that weeds out various arguments ranging from evaluations of various politicians to whether or not shadows in Apollo photos indicate a Moon landing hoax. Primary sources, such as the videos, are also generally excluded under WP:PST.

Long story short: When The Guardian, National Review, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, University of Minnesota Press, etc. are saying far-right, neo-fascist, political violence, etc. and someone wants to tone it down based on the group's claims of being an innocent group of guys drinking beer and watching the game, that person has a very steep hill to climb. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Except that Chicago Tribune, National Review, etc. never used the term "neo-fascist." (Posted by an Unknown user)

SummerPhD: I suppose that the problem that a huge number of people on these talk pages are identifying is that your standard of using reliable sources is a bad standard, and one that may follow the ideal of being able to somehow justify a position taken, but that neglects the actual Truth. If all "reliable sources" were actually reliable and used the truth to tell the news, your standard would be fine. The problem is that saying that the New York Times is reliable and calling that good enough is not granular enough to solve the problem in specific cases when the actual reporting is biased. How do we solve that problem? I have outlined above several reasons why the reporting of several of your "reliable sources" is actually biased, and I think, based on the volume of people on these talk pages saying the same thing, that many people agree. If you only interview people on one side of an issue, your reporting is going to be biased. Period. You have given no solution to that problem. If the actual facts of what happened on a specific day, and are plainly recorded in a video on YouTube, cannot be cited, then the Truth loses. Your standard, then, is insufficient by itself to produce Truth.

Hiding behind the standard of "we just repeat anything that anyone at a big, established news agencies says" doesn't pass the bridge test: if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you jump, too? I believe that the standard should be much higher. I believe that evaluating the content of news articles from "reliable sources" can and should be done, and the person making those edits should provide citations to authoritative sources or even by citing commonly known logical fallacies that are being corrected. Why do we all have to abandon actual reasoned thought and logic just because you want to hide behind a standard that is lesser?

For example, please head over to the WP articles on Fascism. Research fascism. Understand fascism and what makes something fascism or not fascism. Read what Benito Mussolini (the originator of fascism) says that fascism is. Then apply the actual definition of fascism to the beginning sentence of this article, and you will see the error plainly. If you need me to quote my political science textbooks for you, I will, but you needn't go any further than reading the WP article on Fascism. One of the central tenants of fascism is the importance of the benefits of the group over the benefits and rights of the individual. Making the nation strong and pure and righteous is the goal, and individual rights will be sacrificed for that aim. If you know anything about the Proud Boys, you will know that they are interested in elevating the individual using the method of individual freedom above anything else. So how do you square that fact with the statements by the "reliable sources" that they are neo-fascist or fascist? Just because the word fascism has been misappropriated by many people in the media (on the left and right), doesn't mean that Wikipedia should ignore settled definitions in political science and go along with it. There have been many instances in history where the mainstream media have left the standard of Truth and became propagandists. Research the "yellow journalism" that led to the Spanish American war. Research how the Nazis and Soviets and (insert authoritarian regime name here) subverted and were aided by their mainstream media in controlling their populations. Why would we want Wikipedia to fall to that standard?

At a certain point, reading a dictionary should be used as part of your standard, and knowing actual historical facts and political ideologies and structured logic should count for something, but you act like these should not count. When so many readers of this article have pointed out your errors, that should probably get your attention and point you toward a problem in your process. What we should be aiming for is the actual Truth. Truth is the universal human standard for knowledge, and if you abandon it by hiding behind silly, ineffective standards like reliable sources, you are taking Wikipedia away from the standard of Truth and toward propaganda. Why can't the common rules of logic rule? What happened to avoiding logical fallacies and cognitive errors? Don't those count just as much for standards as the standard of reliable sources? What I, and others have been saying, is that you are neglecting those higher standards in favor of a weaker standard. That should be changed.

In additional to what I have said above, I see that this article violates several ideas in the reliable sources article. You seem to only say that Wikipedia will parrot whatever is said by a "reliable source," but you neglect the need, clearly specified in WP:IRS to evaluate even those reliable sources. For example, what about the following guidelines?

1. Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. [I would say that textbooks and original sources like an essay written by Mussolini himself on what Fascism is should trump what a reporter says Fascism is].
2. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces. [Many people in these talk pages have mentioned problems in the identities of several authors. They have also said that it would be appropriate to say something like "X, Y, and Z say that the Proud Boys are neo-facists," which would indicate that such a statement is an opinion, versus making a statement of fact. Those problems have been dismissed without being addressed properly. Your and other's responses have simply stated that if X Y and Z said it, we will say it as fact.]
3. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. 'Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process'. [Your comment above says that anything that appears in a "reliable source" will qualify for inclusion in the article. What I and many other are saying is that you have neglected using common sense and editorial judgment. You are not supposed to just act as a parrot for any "reliable source." Judgment and common sense is what I have argued for above, and you are all ignoring this part of the reliable sources policy when you refuse to evaluate these sources.

By the way, I have no horse in this race. I don't belong to this group or any other right-wing group. I just belong to the group called "human" and expect a higher level of truth from Wikipedia. --TimIngalls (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons that Wikipedia continues to fall short of the reputation of so-called "real encyclopedias," but the lack of intellectual honesty of more than a few editors is a major one. One way I've seen this manifested is when an editor cites a source, but that source doesn't support the attributed information in the article. What we have in this article is a closely related situation: An editor cites a number of unreliable sources that support the verbiage, mixed in with reliable sources that do not, in order to give the impression that the information is reliable and unbiased (if Wikipedia now considers Splinter News, Huffington Post, and statements attributed to Letitia James to be reliable, then we really have a problem).

I can't speak for the original, anonymous editor who started this thread, but I suspect that he was unconvinced based on the evidence that the Proud Boys are a fascist/neo-fascist organization; and I tend to agree with that position. While I think the "far-right" adjective is reasonably accurate, enough so to keep it in the article, even that isn't precise enough to fully encompass the Proud Boys' somewhat diverse positions (e.g. anti-immigration = right wing, pro-gay = liberal); I know it is human nature to like things that fit into neat categories, and journalists are certainly human, but not everything is quite so simple. And far-right is not synonymous with neo-fascist, at least not uniformly so.

|}

In summary, until someone can cite an actually reliable source that uses (and preferably explains/justifies the use of) "neo-fascist," that term really has no business in an honest, neutral article.DoctorEric (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to add a few sources: Mother Jones, "The Neo-Fascist Proud Boys Organized a “Free Speech” Rally in DC. It Flopped"; The New York Daily News "A Manhattan jury was asked to decide Wednesday whether members of far-right neofascist group 'Proud Boys' were justified....";The Independent Journal Review "...the neo-fascist group the Proud Boys"; and, less explicitly, certainly, but Slate, which asks of a Proud Boys event, "...was last weekend’s incident a turning point in the relationship between establishment Republicanism and far-right neofascists?" It would seem to me the label is justified, but reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That's in addition to the sources already in there, which all call them "neo-fascist": Associated Press/Chicago Tribune, Daily Beast, Buzzfeed, HuffPost, Law&Crime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've added the sources Dumuzid cited above, so we now have 10 reliable sources referring to the Proud Boys as "neo-fascists". As their behavior continues, and more people become familiar with their tactics, I'm sure there will be more that can be added - so maybe people will stop bitching about our supposed "left-wing bias" now? No, probably not, not as long as it's still on the list of right-wing talking points Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Proud boy member found guilty for stabbing from 2017 incident

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2019/8/30/20841201/humboldt-park-man-guilty-in-2017-stabbing-at-northerly-island-concert?utm_campaign=ChicagoSunTimes&utm_content=1567203045&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Seems appropriate for inclusion in the article, not sure exactly where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 14:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Two Members Sentenced to 4 Years Each

Today in the NYT. May be useful.--Jorm (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added it as ref name="nytoct22" for a line about the sentencing. There's probably more that it could be used for. The bit about the sentencing specifically being to deter political violence seems potentially significant. Some of it is redundant with already cited sources by the same journalist, however. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2019

In section - 2018 Metropolitan Republican Club:

Change: Following cross-provocations between both opposing sides, a protester threw a bottle at Proud Boys, resulting in a fight.<ref name=NYTsurrender/>

To something that reflects NYT (refname 'disarray' in article) which states "At the same time, previously unreleased video obtained by The New York Times shows that the Proud Boys initiated the attack in Manhattan against a handful of anti-fascist protesters, not the other way around, as Mr. McInnes had initially said." & BBC story which states "but a second angle appeared to show that the Proud Boys members were already charging at the protesters when the bottle was thrown." These 2 sources lean towards PB starting the fight, although I'm not sure what the best, most neutral wording would be.

Suggestion 1: Following cross-provocations between the opposing sides, the Proud Boys charged towards the protesters, who threw a bottle in response, resulting in a fight.<ref name=disarray/><ref name=BBCjailNY>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50148024|title=Far-right 'Proud Boys' jailed over New York City clash with anti-fascists|publisher=[[BBC News]]|date=October 23, 2019}}</ref>

Suggestion 2: Following cross-provocations between the opposing sides, the Proud Boys advanced towards the protesters, initiating a fight.<ref name=disarray/><ref name=BBCjailNY>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50148024|title=Far-right 'Proud Boys' jailed over New York City clash with anti-fascists|publisher=[[BBC News]]|date=October 23, 2019}}</ref>

Edit: I forgot Suggestion 3, something mentioning the original news: Following cross-provocations between the opposing sides, a thrown bottle was thought to result in a fight.<ref name=NYTsurrender/> Further footage showed the Proud Boys advancing towards the protesters, who threw a bottle when the Proud Boys were within a few feet.<ref name=disarray/><ref name=BBCjailNY>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50148024|title=Far-right 'Proud Boys' jailed over New York City clash with anti-fascists|publisher=[[BBC News]]|date=October 23, 2019}}</ref>

- ChrisWar666 (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense to me, so I WP:BOLDly went with the first suggestion, but I am not attached to it. If there are sourced indications the bottle was a major cause for confusion, instead of a distraction, the third would be a better choice. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

References

White supremacist in the introduction

Can we include the fact that they are a white supremacist hate group in the introduction paragraph? UmbraImpossible (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

We really don't have very solid citations from reliable sources that say that. If you know of some, you should share them here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to find any reliable sources that say a multi-racial organization that has an Afro-Cuban chairman is a white supremacist hate group. Logically, any source which publishes such an extreme contradiction without a credible explanation disqualifies itself as a reliable source on the topic. 172.78.69.8 (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• They're part of the racist right, in that they're demonstrably both racist and right-wing. However these days this is more nuanced that "white" vs. "black". They're strongly anti-semitic, but does that fall within "white supremacist"? They're strongly anti-Muslim, but again is that a simple "white supremacist" position? McInnes has both distanced himself from that as a label, whilst also supporting its main tenets. They're always quick to excuse themselves as "we're not white nationalists" whilst at the same time agreeing point-by-point with pretty much every aspect of white nationalist groups. "Western chauvinist" is maybe the best term for them. SPLC Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

As the first commenter noted, they are a multi-racial organization. Also they haven’t shown any fascist values. I would suggest Wikipedia eliminate both statements from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B154:565:D071:453D:F205:BE6B (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

As repeatedly discussed, Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say. If the sources said the Proud Boys are a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say "The Proud Boys is a cheese sandwich" and cite the independent reliable sources. We would not try to agree what makes a cheese sandwich a cheese sandwich and try to determine if the group is a stack of bread and cheese. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that, as the opening line says “the Proud Boys are a neofascist group”, it appears as though they designate themselves this way. It would be both fairer and more accurate if it read something along the lines of “a group commonly described as neo-fascist, though consider themselves to be X Y Z. You have to read further into the article before you find that they have not given themselves this epithet.

I understand (at least I think I do, I’m still getting used to this) that we go off reliable sources, but this gets very complicated in acute left vs right disputes. It seems that all of the sources for the “neo-fascist” designation are from oppositional sources, publications that are highly critical of the pro-Trump right in general.

For example, I can find plenty of equally reliable sources that designate the current incarnation British Labour Party as “anti-semitic” - but this belongs to the section on criticism or controversy, it would be absurd to say in the opening line “The Labour Party are an anti-semitic party...” even if I can stack up a list of citations and accusations.

This isnt a perfect equivocation, but it seems odd that what is an ostensibly an encyclopaedia article is composed of citations mostly by critics/political opponents.

The problem is that lots of people turn to wikipedia as an objective/neutral source, and while many articles are backed by “objective” sources, articles like this one source lots of opinion pieces as though they were something substantial. This is troubling in an age when a false accusation of fascism or racism can lead to assault, doxxing and other trouble. Anyone glancing over this page would think that the Proud Boys were a self-declared white nationalist or neo-fascist group. The so-called reliable sources i.e. the Guardian opinions column are not backed up by reliable sources themselves, but merely reflect a journalists perspective. Librairetal (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)— Librairetal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What are The Proud Boys?

I (tried to) read the article and I am none the wiser. It reads like it's trying to tell me what I'm supposed to think about it before I can even understand what it is about.

You don't write "Donald Trump is a fascist bigot sexist racist who only likes rich people" as an opening paragraph on his page, no matter how many journalists call him names. This is childish and dishonest. I see several people have protested this article's phrasing, yet the same argumentum ad guidelineum keeps being used as a shield.

No one is asking the article to hide the group's ties or accusations to whatever ideology the "reliable sources" claim, but we need to give the reader something to work with before that.

"The Proud Boys is an evil organization that only accepts men" - wrong way to write it, their hiring policies are less relevant than their goals.

Suggestion: "The Proud Boys is a men's only political organization, founded by Blah Blah in such and such place. It is widely regarded as far-right etc, although The Proud Boys deny such attributions."

Is this unreasonable? You have a description of what they are on paper (currently missing), a description of what they are according to sources (currently the only thing we have), and a clarification that they are not openly championing everything this article makes it look like, but instead operating under a different flag.

All in all, the information seems scattered in a disorderly fashion, sandwiching bad press with historical events, one moment we're talking about white supremacy, the other about Aladdin. Then back to white supremacy, and I guess it never stops (didn't manage to read past the first paragraph of "Organization"). I truly believe the introduction should be shortened to those four aspects (what they claim to be, their leaders/founders, what they're reported to be, and their disagreement with the label). At most, another short paragraph mentioned the group's involvement with several violent events and the lawsuits, without going into specifics.

Then have a section giving a quick, neutral and chronological overview (a bit of what's in the current intro, plus sections like Organization) highlighting the most relevant talking points. Then a section explaining how it works (Member/Leadership), preferably also in a more neutral tone. THEN a section focused on all the controversy and bad press, go wild. At last, the "Events" section, as is. No problemo.

Now excuse me, I've got to look for some other source of information that at least tries to explain to me what they are. 2804:7F2:298E:6519:C532:9161:FD80:B7C2 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The lead of the article describes what the subject is how it is notable. Donald Trump is not notable for bigotry, crying or whatever. My uncle is a bigoted crybaby, but it doesn't make him notable. He's most notable as the president of the U.S., "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States."

Your suggestion was "The Proud Boys is a men's only political organization, founded by Blah Blah in such and such place." They are not notable for being a men's only political organization or for who founded them. My uncle's Friday night poker group could be decribed with a similar dictionary definition: "Summer's uncle's group is a men's only poker group, founded by Blah Blah in such and such place." No reason for an article there.

The Proud Boys is is a far-right, neo-fascist, admits only men, promotes political violence. The coverage says all of this. Always. Reliable sources do not simply regurgitate that it's a political group, it's men-only and here's when it was founded -- then go into the reactionary politics and violence. They lead with it being a violent, reactionary group. That's why they are notable and why they have an encyclopedia article, rather than a dictionary definition. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is way too long and dedailed: who, whom and at what hour. Recentism etc. Zezen (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Errors regarding sources used in the classification of the group

In each of the following references, I have found no evidence that proves the accusations of neo-fascism as truth. I did discover the Daily Beast source article is referencing itself in a previous piece with regards to neo-fascism, but that lacked any source as well. Many of these sources contain the term "fascism," or "fascist," only once at most, and at least one did not contain the term anywhere in it. I am not disputing any other information at this time, but these claims being the lead to this entry is grossly misleading to users, and I highly recommend it be reconsidered with regards to the following policies referencing neutral points of view and verification.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#cite_note-weill0129-4
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#cite_note-5
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#cite_note-6
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#cite_note-7
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#cite_note-8
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#cite_note-9
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#cite_note-1
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#cite_note-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyburr (talk • contribs) 19:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You're not seriously suggesting that we... no, of course you are. Look. Find a source that supports your argument; then we'll talk.--Jorm (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Once more, for those in the back, the Proud Boys are:

• "neo-fascist"/"neofascist"[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]
• "fascist"[16]
• "glorifies violence"[17]
• "far-right"[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]
• designated/listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center[26][27][28][29]
• "street gang"/"gang"[30][31]
• "alt-right"[32]
• "frat-like"[33]
• "nationalist"[34]
• "fascism's...foot soldiers"[35]
• "pro-Trump"[36][37][38]
• "violent"[39][40]
• "militant"[41]
• "anti-feminist, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-transgender and anti-leftist"[42]
• "white supremacist"[43]
• "frequently aligned (with) neo-Nazis"[44]
• "racist and misogynistic rhetoric"[45]

To be clear, these are just from the cites currently used for "far-right neo-fascist". There is plenty more in other sources cited in the article and in sources we haven't touched.

Are the Proud Boys verifiably far-right and neo-fascist? Yes, and a whole lot more. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that research, but you do know that it's totally in vain, right? Nothing is going to convince the people that complain here that the Proud Boys are anything but a fun-loving All-American patriotic fight-club fraternity of good ol' boys, just as nothing is ever going to convince the people who complain at Fascism that Fascism is right-wing and not left-wing. We're dealing with true believers with an idée fixe here, absolutely impervious to rationality. Sad, really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, no one is blinder than he who will not see. My main intent here was to provide backup for when the article is next reshuffled, sources excised from the lead, two claims with one source split apart with the source only accompanying one, etc. Then someone complains about "far-right" or whatever and we need to re-find sources for it. Well, here's a starting list. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Great. Obviously, then, time well spent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The source for “white supremacist” is Buzzfeed. How is this a reliable source? Librairetal (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)— Librairetal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Buzzfeed News is considered a reliable source on WP per WP:RS/P. Britishfinance (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: Could you elaborate and be more specific about why it's reliable for this claim?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminikuta (talk • contribs) 03:02, November 17, 2019 (UTC)

"There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable." WP:RS/P What makes you think it isn't? - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

As another editor said, it seems like an author stating their opinion. Benjamin (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2019

The Proud Boys are a men’s organization founded in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes. McInnes has described the Proud Boys as a pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world; aka Western Chauvinists.

Proud Boys‘ values center on the following tenets:

Minimal Government Maximum Freedom Anti-Political Correctness Anti-Drug War Closed Borders Anti-Racial Guilt Anti-Racism Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment) Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment) Glorifying the Entrepreneur Venerating the Housewife Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism

THIS IS NOT AN ALT RIGHT NEO NAZI FASCIST SITE. GO DIRECTLY TO THEIR SITE AND YOU"LL SEE THAT THEY ARE NOT. SAD THAT THIS HAS BECOME FAKE NEWS TOO! 131.93.198.187 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – bradv🍁 22:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Fascists

I don't think we should call them fascists as if it's a fact. The cited sources are mostly unsubstantiated opinions, and mainstream sources such as CNN don't describe them as such. Benjamin (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done There are no fewer than ten cited reliable sources for the description of this group as "fascist." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The SPLC works in classifying hate groups and is well-regarded among academics and practitioners in gov't. If they fail to corroborate that the Proud Boys are fascist, then it's fair to say that calling the Proud Boys fascist is, charitably, a pretty heterodox viewpoint. Perhaps you should be more precise as to why the viewpoints of your ten reliable sources, which are primarily journalists with no expertise, should be privileged over those of actual academics and professionals working in the field. 2601:14D:4002:6D00:D936:BBA7:E3DC:ACC2 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Per the SPLC, the Proud Boys' ideology is similar to many European far-right groups — like the French National Front and Danish Party for Freedom... Both of which are at least fascist-adjacent, if not overtly fascist. Therefore, the SPLC has not "failed to corroborate" that the Proud Boys are fascist. The SPLC has explained the Proud Boys' far-right populist ideology, with comparisons and examples. This is entirely compatible with neo-fascism. Since we have multiple reliable sources for this, the SPLC's specific choice of words is a distraction, at best. Strange, thought, that the SPLC is suddenly reliable when it's convenient... Grayfell (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware that "fascist" is a specific term of art in security/terrorism studies, cf. Hoffman? More than that, the discourse of the SPLC is very much geared towards gov't practitioners and domain experts so it's very specific and uses precisely the words it means to use. Fascism is a salient political characteristic of a movement they would mention if the Proud Boys were clearly characterized under it. It's not something you neglect to mention any more than you would neglect to mention that Nazi Germany was fascist. While it's true that the SPLC has had hiccups in the past, it's way overstating your position to say that it's unreliable. Two points: first, fascist-adjacent is not enough to be fascist (if your claim is even true), any more than is communist-adjacent enough to be communist. Second, far-right populism is compatible with fascism only in the sense that it's a NECESSARY condition. It's not a SUFFICIENT condition. Go email your professors with your concept of political fascism and post their responses here for my amusement. Or what, are you gonna tell me they're unreliable sources as well? 2601:14D:4002:6D00:D936:BBA7:E3DC:ACC2 (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This is original research. Unless the SPLC has used the term "neo-fascist", you cannot simply infer from its article that they should have used the term and then put it in this article, citing them as your source. Furthermore, when making such a controversial claim, it's better to say "the SPLC describes them as a hate group" rather than to just call them a hate group, as though that were a widely accepted fact. None of this should be taken to imply that the SPLC is an acceptable source on this issue. It is a political activist organization, not a neutral arbiter of fact. Rectipaedia (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Which sources in particular do you think are more than unsubstantiated opinion, and why do you think they're so much more reliable than all the sources that don't describe then as such? Benjamin (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: The burden here is not on me to justify terminology used by reliable sources. The burden is on you to demonstrate that there is some reason not to trust these particular sources. Our job isn't to query reliable sources to demand "substantiation" (whatever that means) of their statements. Reliable sources (ten of them! Including an academic-press book!) have stated it - you need to come up with some far more concrete reason to create doubt of those sources. Are there reliable sources which state that describing this group as fascist is unfair, or that those descriptions are unwarranted? Those would be valid reasons to begin questioning the factual label. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

How are you counting ten sources? There are just three, and they are not high-quality sources. And yes, the burden is on you to find reliable sources and also to show that the terminology is in wide use. After all, it is impossible to prove a negative. Rectipaedia (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Academic press is not the same as academic -- anyone non-academic can publish (and they definitely do allow conspiracy theorists, e.g. genocide revisionists) and there's no peer review. I think this solidifies my opinion that you have no academic knowledge despite the airs you put on -- what you're looking for is a source by a recognized academic, think-tank, or gov't agency categorizing your hate group of consideration as explicitly fascist. This is a precise categorization, an academic term of art, and cannot be inferred if absent. Non-academics, e.g. every one of the authors of your sources, incorrectly use terms like this frequently. As for why the sources are not valid note they do not conceive of fascism a la the standard academic conception of the term, i.e. O'Sullivan (1983) or Gilbert's entry (2005) in Honderich's Oxford Companion. Citing them would be like citing popsci articles and one academic press publication using gravity incorrectly and claiming that since no general relativity textbook explicitly called their description wrong their claims are valid. Either find an academic/research org claim or gov't source, or you're citing newsmag articles using "fascist" in a nonsense popsci fashion. 2601:14D:4002:6D00:A1F6:2946:44CC:C596 (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll remind you that it's not enough to find sources describing them as fascist. It must be shown that the term is widely used. One book is not wide use, and in fact, the book uses the term "proto-fascist" to describe the Proud Boys, which is a very different accusation. The neutrality of this source is clearly in question, given that they use the term "neo-fascist" to describe Steve Bannon (in whose article the word 'fascist' does not appear). Why are we not avoiding such controversial terminology? Rectipaedia (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the term 'fascist' should be avoided. The designation is disputed, and there are no high-quality sources using the term. The sources are entirely unsubstantiated opinion. This is not consistent with a neutral point of view.

There are only three sources describing the Proud Boys as fascist. All three sources are widely accept to have a left-wing bias and are not high-quality. Note that none of the other sources discussing the Proud Boys use this term. Mainstream media, academia, and government sources do not use the term to describe the group. Specifically, it is not used by the FBI, the SPLC, or the ADL, all sources which have been cited in this article, yet whose views on the question of whether the Proud Boys are fascist have been ignored.

It makes sense that they avoid this term, given that the group does not subscribe to fascism. Fascism is a defined political ideology (if it isn't, the term should be avoided). It describes a political ideology which is opposed to democracy and liberalism. Using this term only misleads the reader. If the reader follows the link to neo-fascism, he is not reading a description of neo-fascism as it is used in this article. In particular, the following elements are completely absent: ultranationalism, racial supremacy, authoritarianism, opposition to liberal democracy, and opposition to parliamentarianism. Ultranationalism, authoritarianism, and opposition to liberalism and democracy are core elements of fascism.

When discussing controversial subjects about which we have deeply cherished beliefs, it is hard to treat the subject fairly. It helps to use analogies on which we feel more sympathy for the other position. There are sources describing President Obama as a socialist. That is not enough to describe him as an unqualified socialist in the first line of his Wikipedia article without attribution. The existence of a small number of politically biased sources is not enough to ignore how the majority of media prefers to describe the subject.

The following are some of Wikipedia's relevant policies which have not been adhered to. Because this is an article about a small group of easily identifiable living persons, WP:BLP applies. In particular,

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. ... Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively ... The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. ... BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. ... Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all ... contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion ... Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: ... is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources ... The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: ... Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.

WP:NPOV applies to all articles. In particular,

Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. ... Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. ... Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

WP:V also applies.

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion.

As a starting point, can we at least agree that the label "neo-fascist" requires an in-line attribution? Rectipaedia (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There are no fewer than 10 sources cited for the description of the group as "fascist," including an academic book published by a university press. Your simple denial of this fact is unavailing - I invite you to click on each and every cited source. Your one proffered countervailing opinion is from Andy Ngo, a discredited right-wing columnist who has been credibly and repeatedly accused of coordinating his work with fringe groups such as the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer. Sorry, that's weaksauce. Ngo can hardly be said to be "independent" on the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

After following every citation for that line, I found just three using the term "fascist" or "neo-fascist". I cited those sources. If you think there are more, please cite them here. Unless I am expected to copy and paste the entire text of every source and post a video of me doing ctrl+f "fascist", the burden of proof is on you to tell us where you found this information.

Regarding Andy Ngo, you can't have it both ways. If you cite unreliable left-wing sources to say that the Proud Boys are fascist, you can't discount unreliable right-wing sources which are only being used to show that there is a dispute. In any case, even the SPLC has implied that the Proud Boys are not fascist and have reported on the Proud Boys attempts at dissociating with fascists. So we know the dispute exists. No reputable source has described the Proud Boys using this term. The FBI, the SPLC, the ADL, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the National Review, the Guardian, Reuters, and many more avoid using this term. Wikipedia should follow their example. It doesn't make sense to use the language of the most biased unreliable sources. The fact that almost all publications and all reputable publications do not describe the Proud Boys this way should be enough for us not to use that inflammatory term. It's clear that it is only used by publications which are widely accepted to be politically biased and which seek more to promote a particular political ideology more than to inform. Those publications which have better reputations are clearly not on board with this characterization. Nor should we be.

According to WP:NPOV and WP:MoS, articles must avoid value-laden words which are not widely used. It is not enough to find a few sources using the term. It must be shown that the Proud Boys are widely considered to be fascist. Even if this were to be shown, an in-text attribution would be necessary. To be clear, the burden of proof does not lie on us to show that the Proud Boys are not fascist. The burden lies on you to show that it is a widely accepted term.

I'll point out again that I have sources describing Obama as a socialist, but I'm sure you wouldn't accept that as sufficient grounds for describing him as such in his Wikipedia article. Why do we abandon these standards when it comes to the Proud Boys? Rectipaedia (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Because the term is not widely used to describe him. It is the same, consistent standard (though obviously BLP does apply to Obama). VQuakr (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. And the term "fascist" is not widely used to describe the Proud Boys. WP:BLP is not relevant here. This comes from WP:NPOV, which applies to all articles. Rectipaedia (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You brought up BLP, not me. VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't mean everything I've said is based on just BLP. WP:NPOV applies to every Wikipedia article. It says that the contentious terms must be widely accepted. It has been established that the term 'fascist' is not widely accepted as a descriptor for the Proud Boys. Why do you continue to insist on its inclusion? Rectipaedia (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I did a sanity check of your 'I found just three using the term "fascist" or "neo-fascist"' claim. It's not my job to help you count, but it was clear you were mistaken when I got to the 4th source. The Slate source has issued a clarification that the Proud Boys dispute the label; several of the other sources use the same quote from Letitia James and are probably redundant; but the 9 of them that I could verify online appeared to contain the string "fascist" in some form. Your mention of the FBI is misleading, as they expressly avoid applying such labels to groups as a matter of policy. VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If the source is quoting someone describing them as fascist, then Wikipedia must simply report that that person called the Proud Boys fascist. That does not count as that newspaper calling the Proud Boys fascist. It counts as the person whose speech the newspaper reported calling them fascist. What 9 sources are you talking about? At this point, I am aware of 7. 4 I have discussed above, and 3 are all quoting the same, Letitia James but without proper attribution. "The Proud Boys have been called neo-fascist by Letitia James" is perfectly acceptable. One politician calling her ideological opponents "fascist" is not enough for Wikipedia to use the term without in-line attribution as though it were a widely accepted fact. By the way, I don't know where you get the idea that the FBI avoids using the term. They use it in their article on the Second World War.Rectipaedia (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

LOL I missed this before; did you seriously just juxtapose the link I provided noting the FBI avoids publicly labeling contemporary organizations, with a WW2 retrospective? I think it is safe to hat this discussion; you clearly are in nonsense territory. VQuakr (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rectipaedia: PB has a few thousand members; WP:BLPGROUP does not apply here. Statements about individuals who happen to be members of the group would obviously still fall under BLP. VQuakr (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what NorthBySouthBaranof and VQuakr said. Come with sources next time.--Jorm (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources for what exactly? Rectipaedia (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources supporting your claim that the term is not "widely used". VQuakr (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

O'Sullivan (1983) or Gilbert's entry (2005) in Honderich's Oxford Companion are the standard academic references for what is meant by "fascism" in political science, which is not the same notion of fascism that the cited sources are using. Alternatively, the article for fascism on this very Wiki is fairly close and it also isn't the same notion of fascism that the cited sources are using. Words are words are words of course so maybe you think it's OK to use "fascism" loosely, that's a semantic issue, but then "fascism" shouldn't link to the fascism article since it's no longer the same concept. Or maybe something purporting to be an encyclopedia shouldn't discredit itself by loosely throwing around political science terms with no understanding of their meaning.

Realistically I don't know what to tell you other than that this is why I don't recommend polisci students use Wikipedia even for citations, simply because Wiki editors aren't good researchers and have no notion of how to judge sources on quality. The sources cited use a different sense and reference of "fascism" than the standard academic one. To best illustrate what's going on here is like you finding 10 newspaper articles calling some unidentifiable 4-legged mammal a giraffe by virtue of having 4 legs and being a mammal, and complaining that I need to bring sources that support the counterclaim that not all 4-legged mammals are giraffes.

To turn this around, why don't you tell me why your sources indicate their writers can be trusted to have valid opinions w. r. t. political theory? Because their usage of political terms is lax at best, which is a pretty bad red flag. 2601:14D:4002:6D00:F557:B35D:C52A:CAD4 (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice try. The article about "fascism" uses sources about fascism. This article is about "the Proud Boys", so we use sources about the Proud Boys. What matters here, in this article, is sources about the Proud Boys. Citing sources about fascism as a general topic is grasping at straws, and trying to apply those sources here is a form of original research. We are not interested in that, because this is a tertiary source. Review WP:RS if you're really confused about how sources are evaluated. Grayfell (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

What, so it's OK to write things that have no validity so long as you found some collection of source which slipped through your source evaluation nets? Frankly, I don't think you even understood my comment. I'm not taking some concept from a political science textbook and "applying" it in "original research" anymore than is a mathematical proof in a math/stats Wiki article taking a concept from a textbook and applying it in "original research". Therefore it's not even valid to call this original research, so find some other excuse.

Also your language is pretty odd. "Gotcha. Here's why I'm technically allowed to write what I did this way I don't have to engage with any difficult criticism." Really? Grasping at straws indeed. Well, there's no obligation for Wikipedia to be an academically viable source so I guess yes, go ahead and cite whoever you want. As long as it technically passes the mark you're gold. Good job! 2601:14D:4002:6D00:F557:B35D:C52A:CAD4 (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You should want to improve Wikipedia, not see what is the most the inaccurate writing the rules will let you get away with. I understand that we must base articles on what secondary sources say about the subject and not do our own research. If someone has explained to you that the definition of fascism clearly does not apply here that should be worth something when considering that maybe the sources that are being used are not good sources, and indeeed, when one tests that possilibity it's clear that the term is not widely used to describe them. There is a reason that few sources describe the Proud Boys as fascist and when that reason is explained to you, you should accept that as adding to the congruity of the evidence, not dismiss it as irrelevant. Furthermore, most people associate fascism with the Nazis. Do you not see how it detracts from the article's quality to encourage such erroneous comparisons? If could you explain why you think mainstream publications avoid the term and why that same reasoning shouldn't apply to this article, that might advance the debate. Rectipaedia (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any sources explicitly saying that the Proud Boys aren't widely considered to be fascist. They don't necessarily exist. Debates on Wikipedia talk pages about obscure men's groups don't necessarily reach the attention of experts. It's our job as Wikipedia editors to judge this for ourselves. You can't prove the non-existence of sources. The burden of proof is on you to find a number of high-quality sources that have a reputation for not being biased. Rectipaedia (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

...find a number of high-quality sources... Which we have done. Whether that satisfies you is irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You are not contributing productively to this discussion. I am aware that some sources describe them as 'neo-fascists'. I have pointed out that these are not reliable independent sources. You have not addressed that point.

I have also explained that the Wikipedia's rules require terms such as 'fascist' to be widely accepted. I have shown that they are not widely accepted by listing many sources that do not describe them as fascist and a few that say that they aren't fascist. Contentious terminology must be widely accepted in order to be used. You have not addressed this either.

If you want to advance the discussion, please explain why you think the Daily Beast, the Huffington Post, and Mother Jones are high-quality unbiased sources, why the standard of wide acceptance for contentious terms does not apply, and why we should not use the terminology that is used by mainstream sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Rectipaedia (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources directly and repeatedly say they are fascist. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant.

If you have compared the group's statements and activities against a definition of "fascist" and can demonstrate with charts, graphs and illustrations that they are clearly, 100% not "fascist", this might be something to include in your blog. Here it would be original research and does not belong.

If independent reliable sources directly and repeatedly said the Proud Boys are a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say the Proud Boys are a cheese sandwich. Next, we would set about deciding whether to treat "Proud Boys" as singular or plural (are they a cheese sandwich or is it a cheese sandwich?) and deciding whether to link to Cheese sandwich, Grilled cheese, or something else.

We have this same discussion whenever someone wants to insist various people are or are not white supremacists ("racial realists"), terrorists ("freedom fighters"), fascists ("just a bunch of guys having a beer and stirring up an occasional race riot"), etc. What you want to call a group (or they want to call themselves), Wikipedia will call them what independent reliable sources call them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Not one independent reliable source has described them as 'fascist'. I haven't said anything about the relevance of any sources. I understand that we should use the descriptions that are widely used. The term 'fascist' is not widely used. If you disagree, please provide multiple high-quality sources. So far, we have none. Rectipaedia (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

We only agree that you are making that claim, repeatedly, without convincing anyone. No true RS would call them neo-fascist, eh? VQuakr (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say with that second sentence. Rectipaedia (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

What that second sentence means: You are being subtly warned that you've crossed into editing without purpose and need to drop the stick. You will not be getting the result you are looking for. That should be clear to you now, and your continued attempts at wiki-lawyering are impressing no one. Continuing to be tendentious about editing here is ill-advised on your part. --Jorm (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by wiki-lawyering, but if you mean applying the rules, there is nothing wrong with that. It is yours and others' failure to apply the rules that is source of this problem. The fact that you are not addressing any of the issues raised but have betrayed a determination to block any change, shows that you are not engaging in this discussion in good faith. Rectipaedia (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You're not understanding the point of discussion here. "Fascist" is an academic term of art for political scientists, much like "cancer agent" is an academic term of art for medical researchers. A journalist is not a reliable source for citing that red wine causes cancer and neither are they a reliable source for determining whether or not a political animus is fascist. I'm not sure why everyone here is so deadset on avoiding the terminology "right-wing ethnonationalists" or "right-wing hate group" when this is all we have w. r. t. experts (SPLC) classifying the Proud Boys movement. To wit: suppose 10 media sources misinterpret a cancer study as saying red wine causes cancer and no cancer scientist bothered to waste their time correcting this. You're claiming the 10 media sources are reliable (they may be in other contexts) and thus we can write "red wine causes cancer". I'm saying this isn't stated in the text of the cancer study and journalists aren't expert opinions, and so we shouldn't write this sentence. If it's true the Proud Boys are fascist, you should cite a recognized expert who says as much. Since you're working on or have finished your PhD, judging by your name, I'm sure you know how frequently the media misinterprets academic terms.

There's also this silly argument that somehow making this judgement is a kind of original research, but to counter this I'd like to point out that saying that cancer is a technical concept that should only cite academics isn't a form of original research otherwise all your medical-related articles would be wrong.

I have no expertise on the Proud Boys -- I was brought here by an unrelated discussion on public misunderstandings of what fascism means, so go and find me an expert opinion calling them fascist and I'll generally believe them -- but I know enough about political theory to know that being a fascist is a very specific characterization and it'd be really weird if the SPLC just forgot to mention it in categorizing the Proud Boys. They don't seem to forget when classifying actual modern fascist movements!

Also, w. r. t. the canard one of you pulled about the SPLC not being reliable: academics and gov't agencies still more or less trust the SPLC and it's a mite more reliable than your journalists. Also plenty of Wiki articles still cite the SPLC, so even by YOUR standards it's reliable.

In summary, the point of contention is analogous to whether or not media sources are good to cite for medical science claims, or whether media sources are good to cite for economic claims. Are media sources reliable for political science claims? If for some reason you think, yes, journalists have the relevant expertise in political theory, then sure! Your sources are reliable. Otherwise change the statement to exactly agree with the SPLC, FBI, or academic papers' characterization of the Proud Boys. 2601:14D:4002:6D00:8C99:1167:2752:6DF0 (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Poor analogy re red wine and cancer. We have a specific guideline for medical sources, WP:MEDRS. No such standard exists for political definitions. If you think one should exist, by all means make a proposal at WP:VP/P as it is far beyond the scope of this article talk page. Until then, we will go with what our existing policies and guidelines say - not what you think they should say. Other have noted this, but I do also find it hilarious that SPLC is suddenly the most reliable of sources once you think it supports your position. VQuakr (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, being an expert in political science means nothing. A journalist's opinion is just as good as a PhD's. Seems about right to me. Also, remind me of when the SPLC has not been a reliable source, since you seem to be implying that at some point it wasn't and you appear to be an expert on this.

I also note I can't find specific guidelines for economic or physics sources. So surely I can just go and cite the substantial number of uneducated journalists in reliable newspapers who think the field of economics or string theory are bunk. You sure there are no guidelines suggesting that academic claims should cite academic experts? 2601:14D:4002:6D00:8C99:1167:2752:6DF0 (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

See my previous post regarding guidelines that exist vs guidelines you think should exist. WP:POINT. SPLC is routinely disparaged by editors with a right wing POV. VQuakr (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You should consider that by your own admission, the cancer analogy was actually valid, since the analogy was a critique that your sources have no academic expertise, and your defense was an argument that your sources technically pass muster via Wikipedia's guidelines since academic expertise is not required in this case. OK! Sure. You should view this as a giant red flag. It would've sufficed, if you really wanted the "fascist" categorization to be robustly supported, to find an academic making said claim, but it seems strange you fight so hard over maintaining the "fascist" descriptor over the far better-supported "right-wing (ethno)nationalist hate group" descriptor, which is precisely the categorization given in expert documentation AND it's generally agreed on by your media sources as well!

Since you're so steeped in the discourse of Wikipedia's guidelines, and this isn't a particular skillset I want to develop, you're best equipped to improve or worsen Wikipedia's academic reliability. Also Wikipedia's article on fascism is reasonably accurate and cites well-recognized academics, which makes your openness to non-expert opinions w. r. t. political science on this specific application of fascism even stranger! I leave you with the repeated observation that your cited media sources use "fascism" poorly as per standard academic usage, cf. O'Sullivan (1983) or Gilbert's (2005) entry in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Even if this "evidence" is "inadmissible" consider using it as a hint that you should be thinking carefully about what's written here.

I hope you didn't come off with a negative view of political science from this interaction but I think it's important to use technical words precisely and correctly. 2601:14D:4002:6D00:DD93:619F:E1A1:4994 (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad you like our article on fascism. This is a discussion about the neo-fascist description, though - in retrospect the section title might have caused some confusion. "Right-wing nationalist" and "neo-fascist" are effectively synonyms, an observation that was made early on in this thread. VQuakr (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

There's the issue of due weight. There is enough for an attributable opinion, but the standard has not been met for a statement of fact in the encyclopedic voice. The handful of sources making the claim are just a small fraction of all the reliable sources on the subject. Benjamin (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Proud Boys Assassination Plot

The lawyer for the Proud Boys, and its former leader, Jason Lee Van Dyke, was implicated in an assassination plot that involves an audio recording made by an undercover FBI informant in which Van Dyke is plotting the murder of a person who he is suing, and that person's lawyer. According to the news reports, Van Dyke got members of the Arizona Chapter of the Proud Boys to do surveillance on the target and obtained photographs, as well as scouted places for them to shoot at the target with rifles. I think that this needs to be added to the article. Here are the news sources: https://setexasrecord.com/stories/528081198-motion-seeks-to-dismiss-van-dyke-s-100m-defamation-suit-assassination-plot-cited and https://www.dailydot.com/debug/proud-boys-lawyer-jason-van-dyke-death-threat/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bishop1914 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a bit of a stretch for this article. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Far-right?

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

---

Can we really say they are far-right and fascist when their members and chairman have repeatedly stressed the pro-western, libertarian/conservative ideology of the group with an inclusive open-door membership regardless of race/sexuality and other characteristics? Just because left-leaning publications claim they are something does not make it fact.Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources describe them as "far-right", then we describe them as "far-right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn't how a group describes itself and it's goals the primary determiner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CA01:BF60:9531:21C2:A90C:473F (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, because self-descriptions are rarely accurate and are in some case lies, which may be what's happening here.--Jorm (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The group's description of itself is a WP:Primary source, and one of the reason we try to avoid using primary sources when we can is that they can be self-serving, which is certainly the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I definitely have a conflict of interest here as a former proud boy, but if I thought the organization was affiliated in anyway to white nationalism/supremacy I would never have joined. I left not because I disagreed with the views, but because I felt the organization was roundly condemned for existing and falsely labeled as a white nationalist/alt-right group. No one I met in the course of my membership reflected those behaviors and beliefs - they were typically all right-wing libertarians and conservatives. And they weren't an all-white group in the slighest. I would think the recent events in the news would illustrate my point about what the media can do to people and groups. I do not believe it to be helping any to have Proud Boys associated with neo-fascism and white nationalism. It's disingenuous and perpetuates the culture war that is polarizing our country. [46] 209.112.216.241 (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your story is interesting, but not of much value to us. We report what reliable sources say about the subjects of our articles. WP:Reliable sources are ones which have a reputation for accuracy and for fact checking, and for correcting errors when they make them. Anecdotes such as yours do not qualify, and therefore cannot be used to support text in the article. Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 14 June 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.

Proposed change

Question asked and answered
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often participate in racist rallies, events, and organizations.[24] The organization glorifies violence, and members engage in violence at events it attends" this is unsupported by the citation and should be deleted. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC) The source says Although the group officially rejects white supremacy, members have nonetheless appeared at multiple racist events, with a former Proud Boy organizing the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. The group rallies around anti-left violence, and members of Proud Boy chapters in the Pacific Northwest have participated in public marches while wearing shirts that glorify the murders of leftists by Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. There is no need for a change in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Definitely need to remove "glorifies violence" as that is unsupported by the source. Also no mention of people associated with the Proud Boys movement "often" participating in racist rallies. There's also no proof that any violent actors were Proud Boys, so that needs to be removed. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)— ProudOfYourMan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Previous discussion solidified on that the Proud Boys "promote political violence"..."in parades and rallies across the country".Talk:Proud_Boys/Archive_2#RFC:_Promotes_Political_Violence We do not need "proof" that the Proud Boys were responsible for violence. We have reliable sources stating it. It's verifiable. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC) The article says "glorifies violence" but there's no source that supports that. And there is no reliable source for "often participating in racist rallies".ProudOfYourMan (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC) The source says Proud Boys are "appearing" at racist rallies; "participating" seems close enough. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Close enough" is hardly in keeping with Wikipedia policy. And there's still no source for "glorifies violence". ProudOfYourMan (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "There is consensus that the phrase ""promotes political violence"" should be included in both the infobox and the lead sentence of the article. Most editors believe that the description is a reasonable interpretation of reliable sources, and is a prominent enough facet of the Proud Boys to be due in both locations. A minority of editors assert that the description is not a fair interpretation of the sources." Talk:Proud_Boys/Archive_2#RFC:_Promotes_Political_Violence - SummerPhDv2.0 02:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC) There is no source for "glorifies violence" or "promotes violence". Without sources, this needs to be removed. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC) There are four sources that back up that assertion. Have you actually read those sources? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC) I was unable to find the source that says they "glorify violence" or "often attend racist rallies". This "close enough" bullshit is laughable and the above statements need to be deleted, as a good start to fixing this hit piece article. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Clearly you didn't read the article well. Give Gavin McInnis a good look as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC) So without a proper source for the above, the statements should be removed from the article. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC) You seem to be uninterested in reading anything which contradicts your assertions about Proud Boys, ProudOfYourMan. I'm getting close to the conclusion that you are not here to build the encyclopedia. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC) I'm going to close this as a waste of time around noon PST so we can move on from this.--Jorm (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Why would you close it when we haven't reached a conclusion? ProudOfYourMan (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC) But we have reached a conclusion. The conclusion is "there will be no changes" with a side order of "you are likely WP:NOTHERE and may get a visit from the topic ban fairy". You don't have any sources and you're being tendentious.--Jorm (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"glorifies violence" not located in the source.

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

---

The article includes the term "glorifies violence" but the source provided does not include that phrase. I elect that we delete the WP:SYNTH wording and try to be more NPOV. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

ProudOfYourMan, "The Proud Boys, a far-right group which promotes and glorifies violence, has been included on an FBI list of extremist groups." [47] "The Proud Boys are a neo-fascist group that glorifies violence against opponents, particularly on the left." [48] "Hare and Kinsman, 39, are “members of a far-right-wing group, an organization that glorifies violence against political opponents,” Steinglass told the court." [49] Should I go on? Vexations (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Just for fun then: "Tusitala “Tiny” Toese is a Patriot Prayer associate, with ties to the Proud Boys, a similar far-right group that glorifies violence." [50] Convinced? Vexations (talk) 19:07, 17 June 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.

Use of the term 'neo-fascist.'

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

---

The term 'neo-fascist' is controversial and arguably baseless. Eight of the ten sources provided for the use of the term seem to be news articles simply throwing around the term 'neo-fascist' with no explanation. These sources alone prove nothing more than that 'neo-fascist' is a common pejorative media buzzword for this organisation. The other sources include a book that describes them as 'proto-fascist,' not neo-fascist, and a statement from Letitia James, an understandably partisan politician. These sources aren't unreliable or invalid, but i don't understand how they constitute fact. Zephoradis (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Those news article are WP:reliable sources. Ww do not make independent evaluations, that's mot permittred by our original research policy. We report what reliable sources say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed "not" from the first sentence above because it did not say what I intended to say. Thanks to C.Fred for the catch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The choice of sources provided for the opening of this article seem very selective re WP:NPOV placing undue weight on one side of the narrative. The description does not fairly represent all significant viewpoints WP:UNDUE. Zephoradis (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I challenge you to find a single reliable source that supports your significant viewpoint. Find one. Just fucking one! A single one. Go ahead, we'll wait.--Jorm (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As it seems pretty unreasonable to request sources that specifically rebut the label of 'neo-fascist,' there are plenty of reputable sources that use in-text attribution to attribute claims to certain groups and activists, such as this BBC article and this ABC article, rather than presenting it as fact. I am not and have at no point espoused support for this organisation nor claimed it is or isn't deplorable, the specific label of neo-fascist is misleading and is without any context. The sources don't provide any information on what is or isn't neo-fascist about the organisation, or what it means. From an NPOV informative standpoint i don't understand how that works. I think 'has been labelled' or 'widely considered' would be more appropriate, as it would reflect a significant viewpoint without presenting it as a fact. The Wikipedia entry for Breitbart, as an example, has no issue with in-text attribution. I don't understand why that is such a problem for this article? Zephoradis (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. You don't have anything; you're just here to waste our time about this rather than read the many archives where this exact same topic has come up a jillion times. I'm going to close this.--Jorm (talk) 02:46, 19 June 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

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

---

I suggest you change the entire premise of the proud boys considering it is completely wrong with no factual bases for the claims of neo-fasisim. As for the violence it is well known that they go after other violent groups. 2601:547:1001:79E0:4C5D:1394:3CF:2F1E (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per reliable sources and multiple prior discussions. Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 19 June 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.

this page needs a deep re-write

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.

---

for the following reasons this wikipedia article needs to be checked

1- 56% of ALL citations are from pages very under the influence to left bios like DAILY BEAST, Buzzfeed News , BBC News.DAILY NEWS and other not reputable sources that make the research questionable

2- no where is to be seen in the article the view of the gruop or links to the actual site or for what they stand for told by one of it's leaders, it's very evident the "i read this in the news so it must be true" fallacy all the further reading is redirectioned to third parties sites that have nothig to do with the grup in matter

i did some research and i consider the manifesto of this grup should be imperative in the new article, the reader must think for himsefl ,we give the tools in how to do it,

thank you for reading hope your feed back.

1 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5450513ce4b048855519f0da/t/5ceb2567419202740b0c6c2b/1558914407793/344624815-Proud-Boy-Manifesto.pdf

Helpimtrappedinhere (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Helpimtrappedinhere

References

— Helpimtrappedinhere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

"far-right" magazine?

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.

---

ProudOfYourMan says it is "Undue" and "We don't preclude every mention of every source with scare qualifiers about their political bend and/or future/PST editors. It's not relevant to this context."[51]

Why would we say far-right ("The group was started as a joke in the far-right Taki’s Magazine")? Because the source, discussing the founding of the Proud Boys directly, doesn't merely mention the magazine. It says, "The Proud Boys were officially launched in September 2016, on the website of Taki’s Magazine, a far-right publication for which white nationalist Richard Spencer once served as executive editor." Far-right... white nationalist... Richard Spencer... It's almost like the source is trying to say the magazine is -- gasp! -- far-right, what with the white nationalism, notable neo-Nazi and such.

Given the nature of the group -- "far-right neo-fascist" -- it is perfectly relevant that it started in a far-right magazine. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess it's fine as long as we qualify every other source in the article with it's political leanings as well as note any controversial contributors that it was ever had. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not going to happen.--Jorm (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You are comparing apples and orangutans. Taki’s Magazine is not a source. Taki’s Magazine is being identified by the relialbe source as a far-right publication associated with notable neo-Nazi/white supremacist, Richard Spencer. That this far-right, neo-fascist, racist group was started in a far-right publication with ties to white supremacy is clearly relevant. Your continued efforts to obscure the well-sourced nature of this group are tendentious. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It's simply not relevant to the club, regardless of how many pejoratives you want to try and attach to them. We get it, you think the club is doubleplus bad. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant. We can tell because the observation was made by a reliable source. We're not taking the task of inserting pejoratives, as you call them, on ourselves as editors. VQuakr (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The whole article is plastered with pejoratives claiming the club is racist and fascist and blah blah, even though the club is cool and good, and all of those sources are far-left, but those types of qualifiers aren't included in the article preceding these citations. It's highly unnecessary to preclude Taki with any qualifier. We need to remove the unnecessary qualifier I'm question to maintain npov. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. We need to retain the qualifier. To remove it would violate NPOV as it would, pardon the expression, be whitewashing the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

So you agree that we need to include the political bend of every source in the article, as well as any controversial contributor that they've had? ProudOfYourMan (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No. We should not include the political bend of any source in the article, just the publications that the group or its founder have been affiliated with. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

ProudOfYourMan you keep referring to Taki’s Magazine as a source. It is not. Wikipedia is not saying it is far-right. The independent reliable source is saying it is far-right. You repeatedly say we are attaching prejoratives to the group. We are not. We are saying the independent reliable sources say it is a far-right, neofascist organization with ties to white nationalists and neo-Nazis. That is WP:NPOV.

Again, we're at WP:1AM with a conflicted single purpose account. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Careful with the accusations. But ignoring that, whatever the perception or accusations of the magazine in question, it's not relevant to the statement that was was said (a joke). We get it, you people want very badly to smear this innocent club, but in this instance, including the political bend of the magazine is undue when simply stating that it exists. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 23:05, 25 June 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.

Sock

ProudOfYourMan blocked as a sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You got a source of this alleged "promoting violence"? ProudOfYourMan (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC) It's... it's right there. Literally. Right fucking there. In the previous paragraph that you are responding to. --Jorm (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "we did not find indications in their on-platform content they planned to actively commit violence". You fucking sure about that? ProudOfYourMan (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Oi. Stop baiting/taking bait. The article in this thread does say "sending armed agitators." Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC) But it does not say "promoting violence". So we shouldn't include it. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC) A severe case of WP:IDHT. I suggest WP:DNFTT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC) So you're accusing my of trolling, saying I should be denied any response, but the only thing I'm saying is that the sources you're providing don't say what you insist on putting in the article, which is actually against the Wikipedia guidelines. This is legitimate concern and an attempt to participate with the project, but you're stonewalling and threatening banning me for honest, straightforward participation. What the fuck is going on? ProudOfYourMan (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC) And you're being told that you are incorrect, and the sources do support it, and being pointed to those sources, but you just don't hear it. probaBeyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Facebook Removes Proud Boy Accounts

Facebook takes down Proud Boys, American Guard accounts connected to protests may be a useful source, especially since the accounts were killed because they were promoting violence.--Jorm (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Neo-Fascist

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.

---

Proud boys are not neo fascist, the sources that say so may need to be removed, due to the possibility of fake news. You need to have concrete evidence that can prove they are fascist before using this label ABruhRandomUser (talk) 22:43, 20 July 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.

Neutrality

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

---

This article is certainly not neutral, and cited journalism as its sources, can somebody put a {{POV}} on this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuskiomi (talk • contribs) — Tuskiomi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Bring sources that show that it's NPOV or go home.--Jorm (talk) 15:39, 7 August 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

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.

---

Proud Boys are not neo-fascist. The Proud Boys do not promote political violence. Racial supremacy, xenophobia or anything related to fascism is NOT a part of the core ideas. Kaarlemakinen (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @Kaarlemakinen: please read the pink/red box at the top of this page. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:56, 24 September 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.

neo fascist is wrong

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.

---

Resolved

I'm a Proud Boy and we are not fascist, this article is a typical left leaning wiki smear piece. As a member we are staunchly anti fascist, right leaning? Yes we are. And there is nothing wrong with that. The most fascist group I have ever encountered is Antifa. Take it from someone who knows, but you wont. Typical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.138.251 (talk)

The talk page is not a general forum to voice your personal opinions about the article subject in general. If there is something in the article you disagree, then the talk page is a good forum for saying so, and providing a reliable source stating why it is so. While I'm at it, I remind everyone considering editing the article. If you're personally or professionally related to a group, it needs to be disclosed. Graywalls (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see the red box at the top of this page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Neo-fascist is wrong. Anti fascist is right. Carptrash (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That's what you may think. Put it in your blog.

Wikipedia is about what independent reliable sources say. They are verifiably neo-fascist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:58, 24 September 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.

Dead link

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

---

The referenced source "Disser" leads to a dead link. Would someone with the necessary permissions kindly change it to a web-archived version? [[52]] EoZahX9m (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• User:EoZahX9m, please check if I did that right. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks! EoZahX9m (talk) 00:33, 1 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.

Blackshirts

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.

---

There is a link to blackshirts in the "see also" section. Guys what the hell are you doing, lol? Anyone who has studied fascism in Italy knows how absolutely silly this is. Whoever put that there, and whoever leaves it there, is damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.198.194 (talk) 01:46, 1 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.

The "sources" used in this article.

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

---

This article relies entirely too much on sources that have a media bias rating as solidly left, including the Guardian, the Daily Beast, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Slate, Vox, the Intercept, New Republic, New York Daily News, the New Yorker, ThinkProgress, Splinter, the Independent, GQ, MSNBC, Mediate, Newsweek, and Al Jazeera . In fact, out of 144 citations on this page, more than half are from sources with a media bias rating as "left." Furthermore, only around ten of these sources don't have a leftward tilt, and only two are tilted to the right (Globe and Mail, National Review). That is essentially like only using solidly right sources when writing an article on the Democrats. No one would reasonably consider such an article to be reliable, and the lack of viewpoint diversity in this article leads to the same conclusion. I request that this article is reviewed and edited so that there is either more of a balance in the sources or a focus on sources that come from more centrist publications like The Hill or the Associated Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KVV66 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to take this up with the Reliable sources noticeboard.--Jorm (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

Proposed merge of End Domestic Terrorism rally into Proud Boys

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus not to merge based on significant coverage in reliable sources. Thanks, and happy editing! (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

---

With the benefit of hindsight, I think it's clear that this event lacks the historical significance, lasting effects and/or widespread impact required to satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT. While there was a lot of press coverage in advance of the event, I'm not aware of any substantial coverage published since its immediate aftermath. Expanding the existing section of the Proud Boys article to cover some of the impact and aftermath, and redirecting this there, seems like the best solution. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Clearly enough detail at both End Domestic Terrorism rally and Proud Boys to justify standalone pages. IMO, merging would be a significant disservice. There are also many additional sources posted at Talk:End Domestic Terrorism rally to be incorporated into the article body. Further expansion needed! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: it's fairly normal for there to be no coverage after a rally takes place, unless there's significant information that only comes to light after the event, but it received substantial coverage at the time for a variety of different events and occurrences surrounding the rally, as well as the rally itself. I suppose it would be good if there were sources that note connections of its lasting significance (e.g. Trump later declaring antifa a terrorist organization) but it seems reasonably clear that it's of historical significance in the context of (e.g.) the Proud Boys' history and Antifa in Portland. — Bilorv (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The article sourcing in its present conditions might fail WP:PERSISTENCE requirements to remain as a stand alone article, but a quick search now shows coverage after the initial heat has died down, including at national level in Aljazeera, so the length of article and ongoing coverage are sufficient to merit its own article. Graywalls (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is enough information to justify a standalone article it should continue to be summerized and linked in the events sub-heading. Hollywood43ar (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The rally has had a WP:LASTING impact both as an early example of the evolving relationship of the Proud Boys and their critics as well as the Portland law enforcement response to gatherings of the sort. The rally article meets the criteria laid out at EVENTCRIT. The event had widespread coverage in reliable sources, the details of which are best be enumerated in its own article. The topic is best captured here as a summary, as shoehorning the rally into this article would demonstrate undue weight given to the topic. gobonobo ^{+ c} 04:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. XavierItzm (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There's clearly little interest in merging here. Can we close this discussion and remove the tags already? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:22, 30 September 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.

This article appears to be biased and emotional

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

---

This arrival appears to be biased and emotionally charged. I went to the Proud Boys site to see what they’re about and the description in this article is way off base. Wikipedia better clean up their act or it’s going to lose all credibility. Trusam (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction- this article, not arrival. Trusam (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Trusam, what specific changes are you seeking? Do you have alternative sources of information? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes and reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. We do not report that a breakfast cereal is a "nutritious part of this complete breakfast" or that a particular car is the "safest vehicle on the road today", though I'm certain the cereal and car companies say that. Instead, we report what indepependent reliable sources say: the cereal is 75% sugar by weight, the car was recently remodeled (and now tends to explode with rear-end collisions, and the Proud Boys "is a far-right and neo-fascist organization that admits only men as members and promotes and engages in political violence". Independent sources are those not associated with the subject. "Reliable" means the sources meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:02, 27 September 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

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.

---

Please add a wikilink to the word "paleoconservative" in the third sentence of the lead. Not everybody knows what it means, especially outside of the US. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:8CFA:D59F:27F2:1D2E (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Alternatively, delete the word because it is not used in the article body. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:8CFA:D59F:27F2:1D2E (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. NedFausa (talk) 17:45, 30 September 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

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.

---

Change: "The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence."

To: "The Proud Boys is a right-wing, male-only political organization that acts as a local militia in response to political violence." Aninniemousse (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: ha. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 30 September 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.

Info is wrong

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.

---

Proud boys organization is not neo nazi fascist anything. In fact you will be disavowed if you rub elbows with racial Supremacy groups. The founder literally aid this in an interview and it's on their website. Ladysavage123 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Jan.--Jorm (talk) 17:37, 30 September 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.

Wikipedia is garbage like always, but would anyone kindly explain to me how is this white supremacist organization is lead by a black person?

source: https://proudboysusa.com/chairman-enrique-tarrio-vs-cnn/ As an educator i always fail every single pupil who use wikipedia. Shame on you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regonas (talk • contribs) 18:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

As an educator, you should know the difference between "lead" and "led". Shame on y'all. NedFausa (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, hmm that seems like you're "scoffing" a bit too. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, there's a difference between gentle chiding and dismissive hostility. Perhaps I should start labeling my little humorous asides as "facetious" for the slower kids in the back of the class. NedFausa (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, or perhaps you should mind your tone regarding uncivil remarks such as implying I am among the slower kids in the back of the class and stick to the content rather than commenting on editor behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Regonas:  Not done This is not a place to complain about Wikipedia. If you want something changed, please provide reliable secondary sources. Sixula (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

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

---

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

 Not done. No edit requested. NedFausa (talk) 18:50, 1 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

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

---

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

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

---

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

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

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

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

Enrique Tarrio

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

---

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

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.

---

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

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

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

Why is their official website not linked to this article?

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

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

---

The Proud Boys are not racist or white supremist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page is providing false and extremely biased information

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

---

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

@Greenman898:  Not done read the pink box at the top of this page. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Request edit on 2 October 2020

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.

---

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

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

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

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

References

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

Extreme bias in the intro

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.

---

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proud_Boys&diff=981459930&oldid=981459730
• https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201810/is-one-sexual-behavior-triggering-certain-groups
• https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/daily-show-proud-boys-alt-right-masturbation-909193/
• https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06/proud-boys-and-porn/

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

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

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

 Not done We are not going to do this.--Jorm (talk) 15:42, 2 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

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

---

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

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

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

The description of Proud Boys is flat out wrong

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

---

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

Please read the red box at the top of this page. Acroterion (talk) 00:20, 3 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.

Wrong information.

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

---

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

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.

---

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

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.

---

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

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

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.

Praise for diversity

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

---

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

 Not done without any reliable sources stating so, they have not. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:01, 3 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.

Unbalanced

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

---

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

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

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

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

Background

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

---

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

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

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

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.