Jump to content

Talk:Gavin McInnes/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2019

Citation needed for the claim that Gavin McInnes is a "far-right" political commentator. A NY Times opinion article isn't a good citation. 2601:408:700:6170:595F:6F31:FA56:4CF5 (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The Times citation was not an opinion piece, it was a news article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Media Matters should never be a source

Biased political organizations shouldn't be considered sources since they have no incentive to be accurate. By using one of them, you are going against the Neutral Point of View of wikipedia.

There needs to be another source for his controversies than Media Matters. Rush Limbaugh wouldn't be considered an acceptable source for a page about Obama for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.7.197.70 (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

While I would ordinarily agree, in this case the Media Matters link is to an embedded video in which Mr. McInnes is seen and heard making the quoted remarks, which I believe is as definitive a sourcing as one can get, independent of whatever political outlook Media Matters may hold. Joalkap (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've removed it. A rubbish source is a rubbish source and it doesn't matter if in this particular case it might be OK. If the incident Media Matters covered is truly notable it will be covered by other, better sources. It's also a WP:BLP issue to use poor sources like that. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.195.208 (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. There is no better source or authenticity for a quote than a video of the speaker saying it. A printed quote could always have been misheard or mistranscribed, no matter how neutral the source is believed to be. In this case, the source is not Media Matters (a "rubbish source"? Please.) but Mr. McInnes himselfJoalkap (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC).
I've also removed a passage about two controversial blogs posts he made. Because the passage was not cited via secondary sources it's original research by whoever added it. See WP:NOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.195.208 (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is silly. Primary sources are permitted WP:NOR. By your reasoning, we could not attribute an idea to Benjamin Franklin sourced from his autobiography but rather would have to rely on another author's biography of Franklin that cited it. Today's autobiographies are often blogs or videos by the author. WP:NOR should not be used as an excuse to shield people from their own statements.Joalkap (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
A documented statement by a person is a documented statement by a person and does not qualify as Original Research, but an interpretation of that documented statement would qualify as original research, right? (Is the broader context ignored, distorting the meaning of that individual statement? etc.) The person not signing the posts (101.98.195.208) has cited three different wikipedia policies against your edits and thus may be engaging in Wikilawyering WP:WL. Jk180 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

White Nationalism

Has anyone seen his twitter feed lately? I'm pretty sure the guy is a white nationalist. He's made comments about America being only for white people and american born minority republican governors of being "immigrants" who have no place telling Americans what to do. Would it be against guidelines to highlight these statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.226.226 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


Twitter posts? Really? Anyone can post or say literally anything they want on Twitter, it is not a credible source, yet you people refer to twitter and tumblr as if they're academic publications. (50.53.159.101 (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC))


It's his own words. How is that not a credible source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.118.93 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

So you know exactly how to interpret a comedian's Twitter feed? Any other interpretation is wrong? You need a reliable, third-party source to describe him as a white nationalist. Your interpretation of his words is not adequate, because everything he's writing could just be ironic rants of some comedic character. Is Stephen Colbert also a white nationalist because he plays one on TV soemtimes? Twitter is no different. --167.88.23.143 (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
167.88.23.143, you are violating wikipedia policies, including Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite the Newbies, in your dismissive, sarcastic responses. There is ample material in third-party sources to talk about McInnes' views. "McInnes does not identify as a Nazi. He calls himself a "Western chauvinist," espousing the idea that Western civilization, which he associates with "Judeo-Christian values," is superior to all others." http://www.villagevoice.com/news/gavin-mcinnes-wants-you-to-know-he-s-totally-not-a-white-supremacist-9672999 Jk180 (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia actually does allow the use of Twitter: "A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Twitter Jk180 (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Further sources here as follows. Draw your own conclusions:
Actually this is not the place for drawing our own conclusions. Everything must be verifiable, i.e. stated expressly by reliable sources. None of these sources state expressly that McInnes is white nationalist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian "source" was not a actual FBI document. Nor has the proud Boys been labeled terrorists. Unlike ANTIFA, which wiki will not post IS labeled a far left terrorist group by DHS and the FBI in Sept 2017. PatrioticMiguel (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

^Confirmed. - FBI Says Proud Boys Are Not An Extremist Group I hold that his categorization on this page as a 'Canadian White Nationalist' should be removed, as well as the pointless and fallacious blurb about the SPLC designating the Proud Boys a 'general hate' group. Please refer to this article in regards to the SPLC, and their fast-and-loose defaming behavior: The SPLC Has Lost All Credibility These articles are from the left-leaning Washington Post as well, mind you. AspectRatiocination (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The addition of the "Canadian white nationalist" category to this page was upheld by a consensus discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. The question of the reliablility of the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source has been raised numerous times at the reliable sources noticeboard, and each time the consensus has been that it is a reliable source. Finally, The Washington Post only looks "left-leaning" to those on the far-right of the political spectrum. In actual fact, it is a middle-of-the-road newspaper with a mildly liberal editorial stance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
That's an opinion column; it represents the personal opinion of the author and nothing more. The author, Marc Thiessen, is a Republican who wrote speeches for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld; it is hardly surprising that someone who shilled for torture and illegal wars might have a dim view of a civil rights group. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
You want more? Okay. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER SETTLES LAWSUIT AFTER FALSELY LABELING ‘EXTREMIST’ ORGANIZATION
You both just disregarded evidence as opinion, and did so by espousing... opinion. Anyway. Who really cares what WP's potential bias is, the point is it's a credible source.
Once again, there is no credible evidence that he's a white nationalist. Get over your little fantasies. AspectRatiocination (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
That's correct, the SPLC reviewed their publication, admitted that they were wrong in that case, apologized and publicly corrected their error in judgment. Publicly correcting errors of fact or judgment is part of the definition of what a reliable source is — see WP:NEWSORG: Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. Sites like Breitbart aren't reliable sources in substantial part because they publish known falsehoods or blatant misrepresentations of the truth and never bother to correct them. There is a longstanding consensus that the SPLC's opinions are relevant and acceptable as a source for Wikipedia. That you disagree with this consensus is interesting but dispositive of nothing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Uh no. This is a pattern with the SPLC. They currently have over 800 pending lawsuits against them for defamation. And in the case of Maajid Nawaz, they didn't correct their decrees on him after a polite request... he had to drag them to court (for which he was awarded 3.4 million USD). This leads me to believe you aren't even reading the sources I'm providing. Also, why did you bring up Breitbart? I did not cite them. I think you're making some dull assumptions here. Did I assume that everyone who's making these baseless claims about Gavin and using shaky sources to back them up, are members of Antifa? No I did not. So why did you assume I'm some boob who guzzles whatever Breitbart spits out? It's pretty obvious that some of you have a clear bias here, and as such are utilizing sources that confirm that bias. Your displays of faux-intellectualism and attempts to feign rational high-ground are laughable. AspectRatiocination (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"Faux-intellectualism" is one of several personal insults you're making here, and it appears you've already been warned against making those. Reduced to its simplest form, you are saying "you idiots are not assuming good faith", which isn't going to get you very far. This is not the platform to re-litigate, for the billionth time, the legitimacy of the SPLC as a reliable source. The links so far seem to be mostly opinions (as in opinion journalism) and old news which doesn't mention McInnes and predates the current controversy. These are neither appropriate, nor helpful. Grayfell (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's an accurate assessment of the behavior of individuals like yourself, who as I have stated before have a clear bias, and are willfully ignoring and dismissing sources and evidence to confirm that bias. None of you who seem to be clutching this article in a tight-fist are in any way broadly informed on the subject, and can't be bothered to be either. There is some intense laziness and hollow posturing going on here. Hence why I referred to you as 'faux-intellectuals'. If you find that term offensive, then I can only conclude some of you are extremely overly-sensitive and emotionally weak. Several of you have made ludicrous assumptions (citing Breitbart for God knows what reason), and in your case, 'Grayfell' you've put words in my mouth. If I wanted to call you idiots I would. In fact I'd probably use some stronger language than that. But this is me being markedly civil and exercising a lot of restraint. I'm sorry that some of you feel threatened by me questioning your judgement, your sources, and your reasoning. But I will continue to do so. None of you hold absolute ownership on truth. Isn't that the essence of what this site is intended to be? The fact that you keep pretending that I'm in some way attacking you is ridiculous. I have a point and I'm arguing it in a civilized manner. If you can't deal with that, then maybe some serious introspection is called for. AspectRatiocination (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

English-Canadian-Scottish

Shouldn't it really say he's English-Scottish-Canadian? That's what he is, not just English-Canadian. He was born in England, to Scottish Parents and then moved to Canada at a young age. 86.2.213.86 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No, because according to wikipedia guidelines (See WP:Ethnicity), place of birth, ethnicity, and previous nationalities are not included in the lead unless relevant to notability. The country and nationality under which he became notable was Canada. Hence we only include "Canadian" in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorva Iyer (talk • contribs) 08:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Gavin McInnes isn't a libertarian

The second paragraph in Personal life starts with "McInnes adheres to libertarianism" then goes on to describe his nationalist views. Libertarian views include support for free trade, open borders, and individual choice in culture and language — not protectionism, closed borders, cultural authoritarianism. The paragraph should open with "McInnes adheres to nationalism." Benjamin5152414 (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That conclusion sounds like original research. I support status quo ante, keeping the libertarian description. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
There isn't a citation for the libertarian claim. Plus, it makes no sense in structuring a paragraph to refer to someone as a libertarian, then describe their non-libertarian and nationalist stances. The following sentences should reinforce the information presented in the opening sentence. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Is he an American Citizen?

This article has "United States" under the citizenship section, but from my understanding he doesn't hold American citizenship. He does live in the US though. Pc Retro (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed per our BLP policy until a reliable source is presented. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I just made another similar revert to an edit which added US to his citizenship. Could we find a source to verify this? I tried a quick search and had no luck right off the bat. Perhaps someone knows of an article we could use. Many thanks! Edaham (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
His verified Twitter says he a green card in 2014 [1]. In a Reddit AMA a year ago he says he wasn't a citizen. [2] However this is from /r/Donald and not /r/AMA so I am not sure if it is reliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Neither is reliable, but it doesn't matter. No one is proposing adding content saying that he isn't a US citizen. But I do think this settles the matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
For the moment I think it does, yes. We certainly aren't adding to the article based on his twitter account. Need a better source Edaham (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe that he also did a recent interview with Joe Rogan where he said that he didn't have his citizenship yet. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 05:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

more here

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/shithead/Content?oid=916643

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Called sexist

You guys say he's been called racist by Salon, Jezebel, Slate, and Feminist Current...those super liberal sites will call anyone racist or "problematic." Why are sites like these considered valid sources but not sites such as Daily Wire, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Zero Hedge, Drudge Report, etc? This is not liberalpedia...I don't understand why Wikipedia has become so biased. Ktm4391 (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Meant to say sexist. Its hard to remember since these types of outlets will call you both at the same time. Ktm4391 (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If McInnes were called sexist by sites such as Daily Wire, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Zero Hedge, Drudge Report, etc. then we would certainly include that as well. But, all jesting aside, and trying my darnedest to look past Ktm4391's hatred of the libtards, I'm actually sympathetic to their concern here. What encyclopedic benefit is there to relaying this information? If these sources have notable, substantive criticism of McInnes or his conduct, shouldn't we be relaying that instead of trivializing it down to a single word? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right

K.e.coffman, I don't understand why you reverted and re-added the bit about the media describing McInnes as alt-right. The cited source doesn't appear reliable, and it doesn't say anything about how the media describes McInnes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Apologies -- I misread the headline. I edited to reflect the source: diff. Does this work? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
No, the problem is still there. I'm going to remove per BLP, happy to continue discussing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

McInnes is not alt-right and, in fact, constantly talks about how he dislikes the alt-right. This should be changed as McInnes has stated multiple times over the years that he is a Libertarian and part of the new-right movement. Adding the new right and libertarianism into the alt-right category is simply not factual and should be changed on this page to reflect that fact. CoopDEtat19 (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Reference date format

This article is about a British born Canadian citizen who now resides in the US, with the article using Canadian English. Quinton Feldberg edited the date format to mdy with edit. Canada uses dmy, so should this article not use that? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Canadaland

Is Canadaland a reliable source? The specific source and content can be found in this edit. The content (that McInnes no longer works for The Rebel) is unexceptional, but I haven't managed to find any evidence that Canadaland has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Surely there are better sources out there? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Canadaland is staffed by professional journalists and focuses on covering the media. Can you point out evidence that they do not engage in fact checking? It is taken seriously by the media. See for example this write-up in the Montreal Gazette or this article in the Toronto Star. Nixon Now (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is a non controversial statement and Canadaland is fine for that for sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately the two links provided by Nixon Now have only strengthened my suspicion that this is not a reliable source. Jesse Brown may be a professional journalist, but Canadaland certainly appears to be his self-published blog. The Toronto Star says that "Brown is entirely the author of Canadaland" and that in preparing accusations against a CBC employee, he "depended on his wife." I can find no evidence that the content is independently fact-checked. Please note that burden is on the editor seeking to rely on a source to establish its reliability, not the other way around. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Your suspicion is incorrect. The written content on the site is not a blog and the Canadaland article that we are quoting in this Wikipedia article wasn't written by Jesse Brown but by journalists Jonathan Goldsbie and Graeme Gordon. Their byline is right there in the article so no, it's not a self-published blog. Nixon Now (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Also: "CANADALAND is a member of the National NewsMedia Council, which is an independent organization established to deal with acceptable journalistic practises and ethical behaviour."[3]
The National Newsmedia Council is "a national press council that reviews and adjudicates complaints from the public about newspapers [and other media] in Canada." Its members include all the major metropolitan daily newspapers and private radio and TV stations and members must adhere by a code of conduct. So Canadaland is accountable and is a reliable source. The Rebel Media, incidentally, is not a member of the National NewsMedia Council or any industry body. Nixon Now (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm no defender of The Rebel Media, ha ha. I'm just trying to understand Canadaland since it's come up in my research from time to time. Typically, reliability of a news outlet is established by providing affirmative evidence of professional fact-checking, such as a masthead of career journalists and/or editors, and/or a substantial number of factual attributions by other established, reliable sources. That said I guess I'm open to the argument that membership in the National NewsMedia Council is an indicator of reliability. Would anyone else like to weigh in? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Quote from Official Proud Boys website

@DrFleischman: - Sorry, I'm a bit of a Wikipedia noob. Would you mind explaining more about why you reverted my Gavin McInnes edit here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_McInnes&oldid=prev&diff=810359833 I looked at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources; here are some parts that seemed relevant: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." ... "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." So, the Proud Boys website is not objective... but it still seems like a great source for supporting information about a viewpoint that's being held on a particular subject here. And I don't think I did any original research here. Just provided a specific fact.--Clevera (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The key point when using first person sources is that it should be uncontroversial and is really used for facts that can't be argued. You have to remember Wikipedia doesn't care about what someone has to say about themselves. It only cares what a third party says in a reliable source. So as DrFleischman said, you need to find another third party source that says what you wrote instead of what McInnes had said himself. NZFC(talk) 04:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
"You have to remember Wikipedia doesn't care about what someone has to say about themselves." - Can you show me where in the policies this is stated? I agree that a person should not be considered a reliable source on themselves, but it seems a little silly to prevent a Wikipedia article about a person from making any reference to what that person thinks about themselves. "The key point when using first person sources is that it should be uncontroversial and is really used for facts that can't be argued." - In my edit, I say that McInnes says something. I didn't say it was true. I don't think it is reasonable to argue whether this is something McInnes said. Whether the reader agrees with McInnes or not is their business.--Clevera (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
In fact, just look at the other text in that section. Here are two sentences (with no citations whatsoever, mind you!), one of which references something McInnes supposedly said: "McInnes was accused of antisemitism in March 2017[by whom?] when, during a trip to Israel with "The Rebel," he made controversial comments defending Holocaust deniers, accused the Jews of being responsible for the Holodomor and the Treaty of Versailles, and said he was "becoming anti-Semitic". He later said his comments were meant to be humorous." And here's another in the next paragraph: "McInnes describes himself as libertarian." And at the top of the section: "He has referred to himself as a 'western chauvinist'". Remember, this is a section that's devoted entirely to McInnes' views! Are we really going to carefully avoid using McInnes as a source on his own views?--Clevera (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Clevera: Wikipedia not caring what person says about themselves is basically this policy WP:INDEPENDENT. Really, it wants independent third party sources, especially when it comes to WP:BLPs. Personally the other stuff you can argue for or against it as you have pointed out. This is what the talk page is for and you can do that if you think it should be removed. The bit about being a libertarian is the perfect example of when you do use the first person source as it is really just a non-controversial statement about the person. NZFC(talk) 06:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
"The bit about being a libertarian is the perfect example of when you do use the first person source as it is really just a non-controversial statement about the person." - You mean it's non-controversial that McInnes describes himself a libertarian? I agree. And it's also non-controversial that McInnes said "We openly encourage Jewish and non-white members and want them to know they’re at home with us." Re: WP:INDEPENDENT, that policy exists to prevent people from using Wikipedia for self-promotion--note how it keeps talking about conflict of interest. Re: neutral point of view--the fact that DrFleischman deleted my edit, even though it meets the same standard of quality as essentially everything else on this page, makes me wonder whether DrFleischman has a neutral point of view. I think we should either allow my edit through or else delete massive amounts of information on this page. (Not just statements from McInnes on his views, but also statements by his critics, who, in the language of WP:INDEPENDENT, seem to me like people with an "axe to grind".) I would prefer to let my edit through, but if that's not in the cards, let's get deleting.--Clevera (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Clevera, the neutrality of the source wasn't a problem; it it's the lack of independence that was an issue. There are two closely related policy issues here: one is noteworthiness and the other is neutrality. Regarding noteworthiness, you're always in dangerous soapbox territory when you rely exclusively to cite the subject's views relying exclusively on the subject's own website, since there's no indication that the view at issue is significant enough to belong in an encyclopedia article. I mean we could easily paraphrase the Proud Boys' entire website, but that wouldn't be appropriate even if framed in an appropriate light, would it? This leads to the neutrality issue. This material was being used not so much to rebut the preceding content about McInnes' comments about Jews, but to argue that he's not antisemitic (or not as antisemitic) as his comments suggested. If the content were supported by an independent secondary source then I'd be fine with that, but as it was it read as an effort to blunt or undermine the secondary source material, whether that was intended or not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I certainly don't think we should rely exclusively on the subject's own website. However, our point of view is far from neutral if we cover accusations against someone without also covering what they say in response. "there's no indication that the view at issue is significant enough to belong in an encyclopedia article" - Well, there are two possibilities here. Either McInnes' view is significant, or it isn't. If it is significant, we should cover both accusations of antisemitism and responses to those accusations, so our point of view can remain neutral. If McInnes' view is not significant, we should delete that entire antisemitism paragraph. Which do you want to do?--Clevera (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
McInnes' comments were not in response to accusations of antisemitism, they were in response to accusations that he was alt-right. We already include his rebuttal--he said that he was trying to be funny, and we have that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
"McInnes' comments were not in response to accusations of antisemitism, they were in response to accusations that he was alt-right." - I think you're splitting hairs here. Antisemitism is all over the wikipedia page Alt-right. And the comments I quote are pretty clearly an attempt to clarify McInnes' views on Jews.--Clevera (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
You're entitled to that position, but I think the distinction is critical. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is the distinction critical? The alt-right is associated with anti-semitism. McInnes wrote a post explaining why he's not alt-right, which also discussed why he's not antisemetic. This seems rather disingenuous.--Clevera (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I took at look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. The page says: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This seemed pretty clearly to apply to the unsourced claims at the beginning of the paragraph we are discussing. These claims had been present in the article for over 6 months (!) Given that this claim had been lingering in the article for over 6 months, I think we should also take a careful look over other claims to make sure their sources are high quality. The BLP page also clarifies that it is, in fact, appropriate to use McInnes as a source in this context: WP:BLPSELFPUB.--Clevera (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The things McInnes said are well-documented and included in the cited sources. I've re-added them. The accusations of antisemitism were poorly worded and sourced, so I kept them out. By all means check the sources--but so you know, the threshold is reliability, not high quality. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, sounds good. I went ahead and added back in my original edit, since WP:BLPSELFPUB clarifies that it's appropriate to use McInnes as a source in this context.--Clevera (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
No thanks. That's edit warring. Please don't do it again without consensus. Just because content complies with BLP doesn't mean it complies with the other policies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, well I figured if you reverted my recent change w/o discussion it was also fine for me to revert yours :) So, the original reason you gave for reverting my edit seems invalid, due to clarification on the BLP page. (I assume that policies on the BLP page override other policies when dealing with biographies of living persons, otherwise the page wouldn't need to exist.) Have you thought up some new reason? BTW, I hope you can agree that thinking up reasons to disallow edits you don't like is not a good way to achieve a neutral point of view? If you don't like that edit, what if we say that McInnes calls himself pro-Israel on his twitter profile bio? https://twitter.com/Gavin_McInnes I really think that we are being grossly imbalanced in the way we are representing the views of this living person. Anti-semitism is a very serious accusation, and Wikipedia owes it to the subject of such an accusation to publicize the best defense they've made against the accusation that we can find. If you can't think of any way to add balance in a way you consider acceptable, let's escalate our disagreement.--Clevera (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
"so you know, the threshold is reliability, not high quality." - FYI, I took another look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and your statement is wrong. "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." It's in the opening paragraphs. I'll offer you two choices: we can either escalate this disagreement and examine every source used in this article to make sure it's high-quality (not just reliable), or you can suggest some way to add balance that you consider acceptable. I want to work with you to give this article a neutral point of view. But if you're not willing to work with me then let's escalate the disagreement and re-examine the entire article.--Clevera (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This has taken an aggressive tone and I'm not interested in discussing this further. I think I've elaborated on my views enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm coming across as aggressive; that's not my intention. By "escalate this disagreement" I meant involve a third party through e.g. the use of the dispute resolution noticeboard. I was using "escalate" in the sense of "find a higher authority", not "raise the temperature" :P I was hoping we could save ourselves some time and strike a quick compromise instead of going through third party resolution, but it sounds like you're not amenable. If you're also unwilling to go through the process of gathering feedback from a third party with me, just avoid replying further to this discussion for a couple days, and I will add a sentence that cites McInnes' Twitter bio or something like that.--Clevera (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
You misunderstand how Wikipedia works. If I don't respond to you for a couple of days, that doesn't give you license to edit war. If you want your preferred version, go obtain consensus through whatever appropriate means you feel is appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll leave this discussion here a while longer and see if any other editors weigh in, if not I will post to a noticeboard somewhere.--Clevera (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Just found this

I'm not suggesting we use it but it might get more attention later.[4]. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't use something called Right Wing Watch as a source in this article, if and when it is reported by a reliable source, then it could possibly be added. NZFC(talk) 21:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll point out that they are part of People for the American Way and we use Media Research Center as a source. The "Sambo" comment is also reported in TheWrap[5] and The Atlanta Black Star[6] which seems an RS, see this. But as I said, I'm not going to argue that we use this, it's tricky as the original video has been altered and few seem to have noticed or worried about it. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Wife's ethnicity

The fact that his wife is Native American should be included. Especially in the light of the fact that he is accused of being a white nationalist. Knox1998 (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the article as the article isn't about her but about him WP:BLPFAMILY. It also doesn't prove that he is or isn't a nationalist, that is you taking A+B and trying to make it equal C. WP:OR. NZFC(talk) 02:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we please stop edit warring to add McInnes's wife's ethnicity? It's a BLP violation. Even if we had a reliable source, which we don't, the article is about Gavin McInnes, not his wife. His wife is not a public figure and we'd need a pretty compelling reason to include her ethnicity in an article about her famous husband. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Gavin McInnes makes ironic statements - and you know that.

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Gavin McInnes is pro Israel (not anti Israel) and opposes racial politics - if I thought you honestly did not know this and took his jokes and ironic statements (designed, for example, to WAKE UP Jews and show them that their real enemies are on the left) literally, I would engage in dialogue with you. But you do NOT seriously believe that Gavin McInnes is an anti-Semite or someone who believes that people with white skin are genetically superior, you know perfectly well that he does NOT hold these positions. The article is just a smear job - so attempts at long and serious dialogue with you would be a waste of time.2A02:C7D:B47A:C900:8C4C:57BA:70BA:D4EA (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

NYT source

There may be some good material here: Proud Boys Founder: How He Went From Brooklyn Hipster to Far-Right Provocateur Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

controversy over the n word

A new video showing Gavin saying the n word "nigger" has been shown, should we include it in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.223.112 (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2018‎

We don't include anything here unless it has been discussed in a reliable source. See WP:BLP. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

White nationalist

The result of discussion at WP:BLPN#Gavin McInnes was no consensus. It means that the category should not be added until there is consensus for adding. If you wish build a consensus, I would suggest starting a new discussion on this talk page. Politrukki (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

@PeterTheFourth: I have again removed Category:Canadian white nationalists per WP:BLP policy. We do not have a source that says McInnes is a white nationalist. All we have is the report from Washington State police saying that the FBI says his group is white nationalist. We also have McInnes's denial and previous discussion on this talk page on this matter. Do not re-add this without discussing here first. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, yes, saw this on the BLP noticeboard. MacInnes is the founder of an explicitly, clearly, and oft-referenced white supremacist organization. Nazis and other bigots regularly deny their bigotry so his objections have no due weight at all. As I said at the noticeboard, WP:SKYBLUE. Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Consensus at WP:BLPN#Gavin McInnes

It looks to me that the consensus in the discussion at BLPN is that the category should be added. Just counting noses, I make it 11-6-1 (Seraphim System abstaining). If there's a disagreement about this assessment, an uninvolved admin should be rounded up to do a formal close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the category. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Baseless. The consensus here is that some of you guys have convinced yourself that he's a Nazi/White nationalist, with no real facts. If someone denounces an ideology and POV, and does not openly demonstrate behavior or actions that are racist/bigoted etc. then you have no way of knowing if they subscribe to such ideals. You would have to read their mind to know for sure. This is childish, paranoid, and asinine. Here's some real sources: The FBI says the Proud Boys are not an extremist group after all The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER SETTLES LAWSUIT AFTER FALSELY LABELING ‘EXTREMIST’ ORGANIZATION — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspectRatiocination (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"...does not openly demonstrate behavior or actions that are racist/bigoted etc..."
Uh huh. Oh, look below: In 2003 McInnes said, "I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life."
Nope, not racist at all.
Or this bit from a New York Times article ("Why White Supremacists Are Chugging Milk (and Why Geneticists Are Alarmed)"):
And while much of current white nationalist rhetoric is framed in terms of preserving a white cultural identity, experts say it relies on a familiar narrative of immutable biological differences. On a YouTube talk show earlier this year, for instance, Gavin McInnes, founder of the Proud Boys, whose appearance set off a brawl outside a Republican club in Manhattan last week, echoed the pet white supremacist theory that the environmental challenges of cold winters explain the supposed higher intelligence of northern Europeans.
Nope, no sign of racism or a belief in white supremacy at all.
You see, we could by what reliable sources -- plural -- say rather than what you want to interpret them to say. --Calton | Talk 15:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This is going to have to be a quick rebuttal. Because it's become quite clear I have far less time on my hands than a lot of you do. 1. He said he regretted that comment and it was poorly worded. 2. Did you seriously link that infamous 'milk is racist' article? Haha. That was confirmed to be yet another 4Chan troll that weevil'd it's way into the current zeitgeist. Just as they intended.

You guys are woefully predictable. AspectRatiocination (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we're on the side of reality and reliable sources. So predictable. And it doesn't take much time because the steady influx of brand-new accounts are even more predictable, and haven't yet figured out the strategy of Making Shit Up About the Same Things and Hoping No One Notices makes recycling the reality checks easy to do.
That was confirmed to be yet another 4Chan troll that weevil'd it's way into the current zeitgeist

Uh huh. Let me repeat the relevant quote, which has fuck-all to do with your handwaving:

On a YouTube talk show earlier this year, for instance, Gavin McInnes, founder of the Proud Boys, whose appearance set off a brawl outside a Republican club in Manhattan last week, echoed the pet white supremacist theory that the environmental challenges of cold winters explain the supposed higher intelligence of northern Europeans.
Did McInnes "apologize" for that, too? --Calton | Talk 03:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You know, there's no real possible way to convert editors convinced that they know "The Truth" that an encyclopedia based on WP:verifiability and WP:reliable sources isn't going to change its rules to accommodate what they know to be true, so there's little point in arguing with them. They're never going to get a consensus for the changes they want to make, any edits they make against consensus are simply going to be reverted by the editors who watch over these kinds of articles, and if they try to do that often enough, the articles will be appropriately protected by admins.
    Because we have a bias in favor of reality, we have a disposition to try to educate everyone and turn them away from the Dark Side of ideologically-induced blindness, but it's ultimately a losing battle, because -- for whatever reason -- they don't want to be convinced, they're perfectly happy with their prejudices and their hatreds. I suppose its the only way they can feel superior to other people. In any case, in my opinion, it's probably best just to let them rant and rave and misquote and distort to their heart's content, and ignore them, on the same principle as WP:DNFTT - if they stray too far from the subject at hand, i.e. improving this article, their comments can be deleted in total per WP:NOTAFORUM. Otherwise, just let them wither on the vine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2018 (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.

Misleading racist and anti semitic sections in the wiki page

I suspect that these areas are deliberately misleading. Gavin is pro Israel, in the videos mentioned he knew they would be taken out of context because his jokes are clearly and obviously taken out of context and deliberately lied about. ZozPrime (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is noted, but Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. "Just kidding" is not a compelling defense, so there is no real contradiction here. More importantly, sources are not obligated to ask McInnes if and when they should take him seriously. Grayfell (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
That video was indeed a comedy routine, where he was saying things like he hates Israel because people in Israel are having more sex than he is. But the video no longer seems to be available, while the secondary sources are, so I guess we have to go with the available/accessible secondary sources.Avaya1 (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, the famous impervious defense of fascists: just kidding. They continue to just be kidding as they wave swords and beat people in the street. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure McInnes is far-right

I've seen here people debating whether McInnes is a white nationalist/alt-right or not (for the record, I believe he is both things, but that is neither here nor there). But come on, one thing we should all agree on is that he definitely is far-right. I say it because I'm the one who put "far-right" in the article's introduction, and someone changed that to "right-wing". I present to you: 1) an article from the reliable source New York Times considering him far-right, right from its very title (and it's an article which has been criticised by several people for allegedly being too little critical/too benevolent, to boot; you can disagree, of course, but that means it's not exactly Antifa propaganda); 2) the FBI (not the SPLC or some potentially controversial source like that, no; the friggin' Trump-administration FBI) considering the group he founded an extremist group. So... the Proud Boys are extremists but he miraculously isn't? Despite having cut ties from them only (literally) yesterday? Please, let's be reasonable; let me describe him as "far-right-wing" in the introduction, because if someone like that represents the not-far right then Susan Collins must be a goddamn commie. (85.219.14.10 (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC))

And other sources describe him as right-wing or conservative, and he himself disavows the far-right, and describes himself as a conservative. I'm not sure what the advantage is, or how it supports NPOV, for the lede to take up a controversial position, in an issue which is currently a matter of debate and controversy. It might be a good idea to discuss the controversy about whether he is far-right or not, with context and both sides of the argument, in the body of the article. For the lede, "right-wing" encompasses all parts of that side of the spectrum ("far-right" is a sub-category of "right-wing"). Avaya1 (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
But I don't understand why or how it's controversial. Whether the alt-lite to which he allegedly belongs is just a somewhat milder, whitewashed version of the alt-right (which is what I personally believe) or something different altogether can be a controversial question, that I understand; that's why I can't just describe McInnes as alt-right. But the question of whether he is far-right or not? If someone has extreme views (espousing white genocide conspiracy theories, saying that domestic abuse isn't a real problem, "joking" about choking "trannies", etc. etc.), founds an extremist group and even does things like inviting Based Stickman to join it (here, if you don't know what I'm talking about; from the Proud Boys wikipage: "At the 2017 March 4 Trump rally in Berkeley, California, Kyle Chapman was recorded hitting a counter-protester over the head with a wooden dowel. Images of Chapman went viral, and the Proud Boys organized a crowdfunding campaign for Chapman's bail after his arrest. After this, McInnes invited Chapman to become involved with the Proud Boys, through which he formed the Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights."), how the hell is he not far-right? Just because he says he isn't? If you don't know why he would deny it, presenting themselves as less extremist and more mainstream than they really are is a tactic that the far-right uses in order to persuade reluctant would-be members and convince third parties of their supposed popularity/respectability. Impartial people should be the judges of that, and you know what they say: if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and the New York Times describes it as a duck... (85.219.14.10 (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC))

Protected edit request on 23 November 2018

In the section Gavin McInnes#Views replace

In 2003 McInnes said, "I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, English-speaking way of life."

with

In 2003 McInnes said, "I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life."

which corrects the quote per the source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think we have enough support ... maybe admins are sleepy from eating too much Thanksgiving pie ... Seraphim System (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Was it discovered who introduced this doctored quote? That is very pernicious. Whoever thought it would be acceptable to surgically remove the racialist part of the statement?? If they're identified then further edits of theirs' should be scrutinized for similar distortions.Happy monsoon day 00:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The word "white" was deleted from this quote in this edit on 15 May 2017 by IP 181.90.18.46. The editor made three other edits that day (and no others before or since), and I have reverted two of those I believe to be POV edits of one sort or another. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Also a single-edit IP address: Special:Contributions/97.95.175.115 I'm no expert, but I didn't find anything similar from the range. Grayfell (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 November 2018

Replace "far-right-wing" in the second paragraph of the lead section with "far-right". "far-right-wing" seems to be a seldom used, and non-standard term. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 23:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Just because an improvement is minor, does not mean that an edit should not be done. In other words, importance is not a criteria in editing through protection, as long as the edit is sensible. See WP:ER#General_considerations —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 15:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 Not done this page is no longer protected and may be edited directly. Please ensure that disputed edits are discussed first. — xaosflux Talk 16:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

FBI designation

There is no source to the FBI report that supposedly indicates the Proud Boys are an extremist organization with ties to white nationalism. The sole source for this is a single Internal Affairs document which is defending the Clark County Sheriff's department from a discrimination and harassment lawsuit. I might add the department settled the lawsuit out of court for $775,000.

The said author of the internal affairs report, Michael McCabe, told the Guardian that the FBI revealed the classification of the Proud Boys as an extremist group during an Aug. 2 briefing at Clark County’s west precinct. It is quite possible that McCabe simply misconstrued what the FBI during the briefing. A cynic might think that since the department fired the deputy for selling Proud Girls shirts, it might be VERY easy for the department to mischaracterize the FBI's briefing.

The Guardian indicated "the FBI did not directly address the designation or the briefing in response to specific email questions."

The FBI did release a statement to multiple media sources in which they stated "Our focus is not on membership in particular groups but on individuals who commit violence and criminal activity that constitutes a federal crime or poses a threat to national security," the statement also said. "The FBI does not and will not police ideology."

The introduction "He is the founder of the Proud Boys, a chauvinist men's group considered an extremist organization by the FBI and the Southern Poverty Law Center.[6]" needs to be changed to remove the FBI designation as it is simply not supported. This did not come from the FBI but a single document from a Sheriff's department with less that 450 employees. Joe young90 (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Where? Joe young90 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Look, I'm not your mother. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I have and there is nothing about this that has been ASKED AND ANSWERED. So, I say again. The section of the article that says "considered an extremist organization by the FBI" needs to be removed.
What counts as a reliable source? How about the FBI?
Questionable sources? Questionable sources are those that have an apparent conflict of interest. The Sheriff's department quote was taken from an internal affairs document which was defending the department in a lawsuit. This BY DEFINITION has the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest.
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. There is only a single source for this and it isn't the FBI.
Joe young90 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Joe young90: Please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. Here are some examples: The Guardian, The Washington Post, National Post, The Independent, and Newsweek. Bradv🍁 16:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bradv: Please note that the Guardian is NOT the source but is simply reporting on an internal affairs document obtained from the Clark County Sheriff's department. The internal affairs document was written in defense of the department firing a deputy for wearing apparel affiliated with the Proud Boys. Nobody is saying the Guardian is wrong in their quote of the Clark County sheriff. Please see WP:EXCEPTIONAL for what constitutes an exceptional claim and the requirement for multiple high-quality sources. Multiple news agencies have contacted the FBI about this "classification" but the FBI refused to say anything about the categorization. Ari Shapiro from NPR, John Haltiwanger from the BusinessInsider and Christopher Mathias of Huffington Post all confirm this in their coverage. In the Huffington Post story, David Gomez, a retired FBI executive and former head of the Seattle counter-terrorism program, stated that the FBI describing the Proud Boys as “extremist” is not a formal designation, nor does it mean the agency is currently investigating the Proud Boys. Joe young90 (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Joe young90, for our purposes, the Guardian is the appropriate source. The Sherrif's department document would be considered a primary source (the difference is spelled out at WP:PSTS). As to the rest of your comment, it's up to the FBI whether to confirm things publicly, and their decision not to might be worth mentioning in the Views section in the article. But the basic assertion that the FBI considers the Proud Boys to be an extremist organization is very well supported. Bradv🍁 19:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Bradv I am hoping you have a better understanding of the phrase very well supported. As you hopefully know by now the FBI said Tuesday that a southwest Washington law enforcement agency was mistaken when it reported that federal officials described a right wing group as “extremist.” The top FBI official in Portland told media outlets Tuesday that the report took comments made about the Proud Boys during an August briefing out of context. “There have been instances where self-identified Proud Boys have been violent,” he said. “We do not intend and we do not designate groups, especially broad national groups, as extremists.” So now that this has been resolved, this disinformation needs to be removed from the article! Under the VIEWS section it STILL states that the FBI considers the Proud Boys an extremist group. Please have the common decency to put aside your partisanship and correct the article so it is not deliberately misleading. It is EXTREMELY troubling to present incontestable information only to have it causally brushed aside by those who appear to have a grudge with McInnes. My whole argument was that the FBI NEVER confirmed the classification. Nobody could say anything other then ... well the Guardian said it so it must be true. This site has an obligation to present accurate AND proven information. Anything less and it is simply a propaganda tool. Joe young90 (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that an FBI employee disputes the claim in the sherrif's report. This is worth mentioning in the article. Bradv🍁 15:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I think at a certain point we have to use our common sense. Then I was about to write: "I don't think the sourcing is nearly strong enough to suggest that the FBI considers Proud Boys to be an extremist organization," — but then I read the Guardian piece a bit more closely and the source in it, McCabe, explicitly describes an FBI briefing in which the Proud Boys were identified as an extremist organization. So what is there to say? Either McCabe is simply lying or it's true. That said, given that McInnes left the group (right?) and that there is some ambiguity about the FBI's categorization, it may be sensible to move it out of the introduction.Happy monsoon day 01:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
No, that's exactly the opposite conclusion you should have come to after your re-reading. The Guardian is a reliable source, we trust their quote of an official source, who reports what the FBI told him, so we report it as well. McInnes leaving the group has no bearing on the whether the FBI's determination was accurate or not, unless you believe that the locus of the Proud Boys' extremism was McInnes alone -- and there's absolutely no evidence to support that. It should stay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree it should stay in the article, but I don't think it belongs in the introduction for the reasons stated. The reason is because it is a past association and due to the issues surrounding the designation. Can you briefly state why it belongs in the introduction?Happy monsoon day 18:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Separately, I think the fact that McInnes has been widely accused of racism should go in the introduction.Happy monsoon day 18:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
eh. whatevs...Happy monsoon day 04:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy monsoon day, your conclusion that they only two choices were that McCabe was either lying or the information must be true leaves out a HUGE alternative. The other choice is that maybe McCabe, MADE A MISTAKE, maybe he possibly misunderstood the briefing the FBI gave. People make mistakes all the time. The FBI came out this week and said he was wrong. The FBI statement must come out.Joe young90 (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
So where's YOUR source for the FBI disavowal? --Calton | Talk 11:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Calton please see reference #55 in the main article. It is from the Oregonian with a DIRECT QUOTE from Oregon’s top FBI official, Special Agent in Charge Renn Cannon. I will undo your revert. Do not revert the changes again. Joe young90 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
For thread convenience, this [7] is the source being referred to.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Oregon is a state and the FBI is a federal agency, so "Oregon’s top FBI official" is meaningless and dishonest puffery on your part. The guy is in charge of the local FBI office, which puts him in middle management, at best. --Calton | Talk 15:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Calton this really isn't that hard. Renn Cannon is the top FBI agent in the state of Oregon. It should have been obvious that any FBI agent is by definition a FEDERAL employee. Renn Cannon is the special agent that gave the briefing that clarified the bureau's position. He is NOT middle management. He runs all FBI operations in the state. You demanded to see the source and it was provided. The FBI gets to set the record, not some deputy who attended a briefing.Joe young90 (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
You're assuming an awful lot there. Cannon never said that he gave the briefing. He also never said that the county officials who put out the internal memo were wrong, per se, he said there was a "misunderstanding", which was probably connected to the slide show containing information from the SPLC -- now why would the FBO include the SPLC's evaluation if they didn't in some respects agree with it? He never said outright that the FBI doesn't think the Proud Boys are dangerous, he said that they don't categorize such organizations as an "extremists with connections to white nationalists", he simply said that the purpose of the that section of the briefing was to point out the possible danger from certain members of the Proud Boys. You assume that the SAIC in charge of every office is hierarchically equal to every other SAIC in the system, whereas I can assure you that the SAICs in NYC, Los Angeles, Vegas and Miami are higher up the total pole then the head of the Oregon office. In point of fact, almost nothing you've said is actually the case according to the sources available to us, you're simply putting the best possible spin on it in order to help whitewash the Proud Boys. It ain't gonna work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Senior official" or "Special Agent in Charge"?

An editor keeps attempting to describe the FBI agent who disavowed that the FBI classified the Proud Boys as an "extremist group with ties to white nationalists" as "a Senior FBI official", when, in fact, the source provided only refers to him as "Oregon FBI Special Agent in Charge" and "Head of the Oregon office". I am not familiar with the FBI's bureaucracy, so I have no real idea if the head of the Oregon office is a "Senior FBI official" or not, but I suspect that it's kind of a middle-level position, high enough to be the head of a regional office, but not the most important of those. Be that as it may, that's my opinion, and we don't go by the opinions of editors, we go by what our sources say, and the source provided does not describe him as a "Senior official", it describes him as "Special Agent in Charge of the Oregon office". If the editor wishes to describe the person as a "Senior FBI official", then they must get a source that describes him that way. Until he does, I am reverting back to the earlier version, which accurately reports what the source says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"Special Agent in Charge" is about the lowest supervisorial rank in the FBI, meaning someone in charge of an FBI field office. So no, not even CLOSE to being described as a "Senior FBI official". --Calton | Talk 04:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Here's the press release announcing his promotion. He's probably the most senior FBI official at the Portland Division, so it's at a local level, not at a national level which "Senior FBI official" usually implies. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

White Nationalist category

McInnes is currently in the "Canadian White Nationalists" category however the section for McInnes on the WP:BLPN page only shows 8 in support of McInnes being in this category and 7 opposing (the section also seems to still be open so it has not closed yet). Is that enough consensus for him to be added to the WN category? Also one of the users on the BLPN page noted there are no RS supporting McInnes being a white nationalist, and he has also repeatedly denied being a WN or supporting racism (he seems to identify more as "new right" or "paleo/libertarian right". I have no dog in this fight, for the record McInnes seems like kind of a pugnacious macho jerk, but why do so many users here seem to be fighting really hard to put him in the white nationalist category? IAFIS (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

IAFIS blocked as a sock. O3000 (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

About 'far-right'

Question: Should the intro describe McInness, in Wikipedia's voice, as 'far-right', or should it say that he has been characterized in that manner by X and Y sources and then add how he characterizes himself (which, it seems, is 'alt-light', according to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQCZ9izaCa4).Happy monsoon day 00:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The former. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Please elaborate on the reasons you believe this is the manner we should proceed. Sorry if it wasn't clear that I imagined a view would be substantiated.Happy monsoon day 01:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Because that is what reliable sources say, and we don't use weaseling formulations such as you suggest to undermine what reliable sources say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The definition of weasel words: "A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is an informal term for words and phrases such as "researchers believe" and "most people think" which make arguments appear specific or meaningful, even though these terms are at best ambiguous and vague." - - - this is not what I suggested. If I had said "We should say 'some people think he is far-right', that would be weasel words. On the matter of his own self-identification, do editors find that irrelevant?Happy monsoon day 00:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
What the subject of the article wants to be identified as is pretty much irrelevant, as subjects do not have any editorial control over Wikipedia articles. We follow the consensus in reliable sources, and the claim that McInnes is 'far-right' is very well supported. Bradv🍁 00:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
not clear how whether subjects having editorial control over Wiki articles is relevant to the relevance of their self-characterizations? In any case WP:SELFPUB allows some use of their own sources. My key point is that the fact that he calls himself 'alt-light' but simultaneously tries to distance himself from the 'alt-right' (though alt light seems to be a strain of alt-rightness) should be noted. However, this is only in his own videos.Happy monsoon day 01:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It is noted in the Views section that he prefers the term New Right. If you have a third-party reliable source that claims he also likes the term alt-lite, feel free to add it there. Bradv🍁 01:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see I made an incorrect reference. the correct reference is to WP:BLPSELFPUB which notes that self-published sources on non-promotional matters in BLP articles are allowed as long as they do not breach a number of conditions. McInnes' calling himself alt-lite does not appear to infringe on any of those enumerated. Please let me know if you disagree after consulting WP:BLPSELFPUB.Happy monsoon day 03:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLPSELFPUB allows the use of those sources, it doesn't require them. "Alt-Right" is already poorly defined, "Alt-Lite" is even less descriptive, and many sources characterize them as little more than re-branded alt-right figures. Regardless: the term "far-right" is well-supported by reliable sources. There's no inherent contradiction between 'far right' and 'alt-lite', and the former is more informative. Nblund talk 19:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense.Happy monsoon day 03:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

'entire' group?

@Beyond My Ken, in reference to this edit [8], can you please point to me where in the source [9] the reference is made to 'entire'? It's not clear why we would add this emphasis in the Wikipedia voice. His exact language is "We do not intend and did not intend to designate the group as extremist." So, if he meant that "We do not intend and did not intend to designate the entire group as extremist," wouldn't he have done so then? I am confused about why we're inserting this additional characterization to the FBI's characterization. What do others think?Happy monsoon day 01:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

...as opposed to members of the group. The entire makes that specific. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Can you point to where he characterized "members of the group" as extremist? The language says "“tried to characterize the potential threat from individuals within that group." but there is no reference to the 'potential threat' being due to members being extremist. The nature of their 'potential threat' is not given. There are thus two justifications required here: the addition of the characterization of 'entire' and the claim that the FBI believes (presumably a sufficient number of individual members) are extremist. And I'd like to hear from other editors too. Thanks.Happy monsoon day 00:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I support the current version, as it makes the meaning of the sentence clear: Two weeks later the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Oregon office said that it had not been their intent to label the entire group as "extremist", only to characterize the possible threat from certain members of the group that way. I'm not sure what clarity could possibly be gained by omitting the word "entire". Bradv🍁 01:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, where in the piece does it say that the possible threat from certain members is due to their being extremist?Happy monsoon day 01:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There's a citation given for that clause which clearly supports it. Bradv🍁 01:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
yes, the citation above — the Oregon Live article, right? I'm asking where in the article this is stated. Because I cannot find it. Please point me to the sentence. I don't think it exists. I agree that the FBI special agent in charge is saying that the "proud boys" present an unspecified threat of some kind, but it doesn't say that he regards some of them as extremists, according to my reading. What I'm saying is that the citation doesn't appear to say what you says it says, so you would kindly point me to where it does say what you say.Happy monsoon day 03:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Both the Oregon Live citation ("Cannon said in relation to the Proud Boys, the FBI 'tried to characterize the potential threat from individuals within that group.'") and the ThinkProgress citation ("Agent Renn Cannon said the FBI did not mean to designate the whole group, rather to characterize the potential threat from individuals within that group") support the statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
guys, I know they're a threat. Frankly I would prefer to see McInnes directly called out as a racist in the introduction, and I'm looking for some RS that characterizes him clearly as a racist, as well as with the alt-lite BS, so this can be clear to the reader. HOWEVER, this source does not say the some of the proud boys are extremist, as far as I can see. So I can totally get why we'd say the FBI said some of them were a potential threat, but I don't see how the source says that some of them are extremist. What we appear to be doing now is going - ourselves - ah, FBI said some are a threat = FBI said some are extremist. That seems to overly parse the RS.Happy monsoon day 03:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I have 100% faith that you intend well, I just don't believe you're correct about this particular issue in the article. Sorry. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
well, in the end I have to continue to register my dissent and insist that the source doesn't say they're a threat because they're extremist... (even though they are). So much for being a stickler for precision. It seems that as long as we have the right view on the matter, the details are less important. Can't argue with the conclusion in this case, but the process = fail as far as I see. Oh well.Happy monsoon day 03:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
You can "register your dissent", but you're misreading the sources, which are quite clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2018

no consensus for requested edit, and we're getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory now
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the section Vice Media after

In an interview in the New York Press in 2002, McInnes said that he was pleased that most Williamsburg hipsters were white.1718 McInnes later wrote in a letter to Gawker that the interview was done as a prank intended to ridicule "baby boomer media like The Times".19

add

He stated that the quote is an "antiracist joke from several years ago that becomes reversed when taken out of context (in The NY Press we were all dressed as skinheads except for Suroosh who was wearing a suit. We were all covered with fake blood and bruises to imply a fight had just finished of course without the photo the quote becomes venomous)."

before the footnote. Source is the footnote already there.

84.177.91.145 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.
It is not clear from the source that the fake-blood incident is directly tied to this specific quote. In fact, the entire source is so cryptic I don't know if it should be used at all. McInnes claims several different lines of his were "taken out of context", while also admitting he was intentionally antagonizing journalists by lying to them. Doesn't this cancel out to be nothing at all? How is this an "antiracist joke"? Satire only works when the audience can determine who the target is supposed to be. If he has to go around implying he can't be a racist because he had a Muslim roommate once without actually saying anything, than perhaps he prefers it when people don't know what he's actually talking about. If that's the case, we should respect his wishes by not attempting to interpret his ramblings. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Any day now we're going to be told that Proud Boys was intended to be a satirical take on Fight Club: "What happens when you cross Fight Club with the Ku Klux Klan - that ought to be pretty funny." Unfortunately, McInnes has done too many of these types of things, all pointing in the same direction, to swallow the idea that everything he did was a goof. He;s either exactly what he appears to be, or the world's most incompetent satirist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Yup. All the stuff about breakfast cereal and naming his gang after a Disney song... There's always an angle, always an excuse, and nothing is ever sincere, so he can never be wrong about anything. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@Grayfell: You are right that it's not clear from the the source alone that the fake-blood incident is directly tied to McInnes' quote about Williamsburg hipsters. Thanks for taking a look by the way!
  • It comes clear when you look at the context of my quote from above:

The hysteria led to this New York Times Style Section cover where the author lazily chose several inflammatory comments, glued them together and stuck white supremacist at the top. She pasted a phone call about white guilt, to an e-mail wherein I suggested a debate with my Islamic coworker (and roommate) Suroosh, and an antiracist joke from several years ago [...]

The article in the New York Times Style Section that we use as one of the two sources for our hipster quote says:

In an interview in The New York Press last year, Mr. McInnes's views came through in the coarse ethnic expressions he used in saying how pleased he was that most Williamsburg hipsters are white.

  • There's another way to tie the two together: When you look at the other source for our hipster quote, which is the original source, "Vice Rising", and was published in the NY Press. There is a scan of a part of that actual source in print. If you look at the photo in the scan, it shows McInnes and his colleagues in the fake-blood attire he described.
I hope this helped.
--84.177.91.25 (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
McInnes's claims of cherry-picking, like the interview itself, only makes sense with a very selective, and completely unsupportable, set of prior assumptions. If we assume that McInnes cannot be racist and homophobic, for some reason, than his comment "The punk rock-ness of that is just plain honesty. We seem really racist and homophobic because we hang around with fags and niggers so much." might make sense as "irony". But why, exactly is this supposed to be insightful? How is this honesty? Was the target of this sarcasm the people who accuse him of being a bigot for using those slurs? That's not even remotely coherent, but it seems like the story he's trying to tell after the fact. The line about Williamsburg being white also seems like "irony", but it's more of the same shock-value casual racism. It's a "joke" but the target of the joke is still non-white people. Why would reliable sources buy this evasive waffle? At the end of the day, all we can do is try to summarize what sources say, not what we, as editors, think they say, or what we think they really mean. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, can you add McInnes' quote about the photo please? It seems like important context --84.177.91.25 (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
No. Your research into the connection between the photo and the quote is WP:SYNTH. What context, according to sources, does this photo provide? I still don't see how this photo even hypothetically makes his comments significantly better, but my understanding is irrelevant. What matters is reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
McInnes thinks the photo adds important context, as he states in the quote. I think it would be fair to let him have some words after we quote him. Sames as when somebody else walks back from a comment, we also add that they walked back. It's common decency --84.177.91.25 (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
This is one detail among many from a long, rambling letter. "Just kidding" isn't walking-back a quote, and we already present his claims that this was a "prank" based on this letter. If reliable sources do not mention this particular detail, I don't think we should either, so there is no consensus for your proposed change. Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean we can also just remove the whole paragraph. The quote about white hipsters is based on only one non-primary source (the NYT Styles Section) --84.177.91.25 (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Is this also WP:SYNTH: McInnes talks about a NYT Style Section cover where he is mentioned. According to the NYT archives there is only one NYT Style Section cover where he is mentioned. So we can conclude that this is the NYT Style Section cover that he is talking about --84.177.91.25 (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is still synth. Read WP:OR carefully. You still haven't explained what "context" this provides, also. It's not about what we, as editors, say. You say it's context, while I say it's a tissue-thin deflection. You say this is important, but I don't see how this makes a difference. Our opinions don't matter. What matters is reliable sources.
Further, Wikipedia favors WP:SECONDARY sources. Being a secondary source is good. We want non-primary sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The third example from WP:SYNTH seems to indicate it wouldn't be synthesis to add McInnes' later comments on his quote after we cite his quote:

"Here are two paragraphs showing more complex examples of editorial synthesis. They are based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. This first paragraph is fine, because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute:

checkY Smith stated that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

Seems like a very similar situation, we have the NY Times talking about the quote, and McInnes himself talking about the quote. They are talking about the same thing. You say we can't put the two after one another, because that would be synthesis. The Wikipedia policy I just cited suggests it's not.
Your opinion that McInnes' later comments on his quote are a tissue-thin deflection doesn't matter, and neither does mine that they provide important context. What matters is that McInnes himself finds that they are important, he seems to want to distance himself from other interpretations of his quote, and to clarify it. He says the NYT Styles Section, which we use as a source, didn't provide what he thinks is context that reverses the statement. For reasons of fairness, we should include that. Isn't there a Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living people that says be very careful with such things? So we should either remove the original quote, or allow McInnes to have his later comments, which he thinks add important context, after the quote
--84.177.94.49 (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The use of irony in humour. Gavin McInnnes is neither a Fascist or Anti Semitic.

Although Gavin McInnes now lives in North America he is actually from Britain (as one can tell from his accent), his humour is in the British tradition of IRONY - to interpret him in the Puritan American fashion (as people in the "mainstream media" or universities might do) is, therefore, in error. And American SJWs are very much Puritans who have replaced religion with politics (but have kept the "Blue Laws" Puritan attitudes).

To call Mr McInnes a "Fascist" is absurd, and to call him a hater of Jews (an anti-Semite) is also absurd. This is not my "personal opinion" - ASK HIM. Real Fascists are not shy of saying they want the state to control the economy by regulations (the basis of the policy of Mussolini in Italy - imitated, in a watered down way, by the "National Industrial Recovery Act" and "National Recovery Agency", the "Blue Eagle" types, in the United States in 1933 and struck down by the Supreme Court, nine justices to zero, in 1935). Nor are real anti-Semites shy of saying that "Palestine should be free from the river to the sea" (i.e. six million dead Jews), a popular cry in some American universities. Mr Gavin McInnes in spite of his faults (such as regrettable taste in music) most certainly does NOT want the government to control the economy with its edicts and controls (Fascism), and most certainly does NOT want Israel to be destroyed, or American Jews to have their property "redistributed" (as so many radicals on the left wish). Again NOT my "personal opinion" - just the basic facts about the opinions of Mr McInnes. None of this is very complicated - and any person of good will could find out what the real political opinions of Gavin McInnes are quite easily. Perhaps good will is in rather short supply among certain article writers.2A02:C7D:B48D:1200:2449:9B2B:1777:7BE7 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for any of this? Bradv🍁 21:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The entire comment above violates WP:NOTAFORUM, and as it is entirely the editor's opinion and analysis, WP:OR as well. We go by what reliable sources say, and if they call McInnes a white supremkacist or an anti-Semite, that's what we report. We do not go by what the subject of an article says they are, since such statements are entirely self-serving, and we do not go by the feelings of our editors or readers. Any additional discussion of what this editor thinks McInnes is or isn't should be deleted or hatted as NOTAFORUM. 21:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gavin_McInnes/Archive_2&oldid=1199202670"