Jump to content

Talk:Gavin McInnes/Archive 3

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gavin McInnes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"Far Right"?

Far right relative to what? The far left? I never see left-wingers referred to as "far left". This designation is perjorative and smacks of left-wing bias and deliberately means to bracket someone with the likes of Hitler and Mussonlini. It is in no way honest or objective. Please remove it. 86.162.105.219 (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

See Category:Far-left politics, but note also that the Overton window means that today's "left" is in fact the centre-left, and in order to be far-right by current standards you have to be pretty much a neo-Nazi like McInness. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Guy it seems that you are hallucinating, what is your evidence that Gavin McInnes is a neo-nazi? What are your criteria for designating him as such? When there are large groups of antifa-street brawlers that are highly visible in the media it is absurd to postulate that the edge of today's left exists at some centrist position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EskilA (talk • contribs) 10:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
And it seems that you have neglected to read WP:NPA - please comment on content and do not malign your fellow editors.
I believe that Guy is speaking colloquially in expressing his own opinion of McInnes. We do not have reliable sources that refer to GM as a "neo-Nazi", and as a result, he is not called that in the article. We do, however, have more than enough sources that refer to him as "far-right", and that is why he is labelled in that manner.
As for your own POV, anyone who believes that "large groups of antifa street-brawlers" is a thing that exists is woefully misinformed. Yes, there are antifa protestors, but as far as we know, any violence has always been initiated by Proud Boys and their ilk, and not by antifa. It also brings to mind that, just as you are doing, the Nazis justified the frequent street violence of the SA by maintaining that they were only countering the street violence of the Communists. Of course, the historical fact is that Communist street violence, which did indeed exist, was of a much smaller magnitude than the Nazi violence which "countered" it, and the amount of SA violence was a deliberate destabilizing strategy on the part of Hitler, who ordered it reduced when it suited him, and increased when he needed it to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, the upshot of all of that is that "far-right" will not be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't know at all that "any violence has always been initiated by the Proud Boys". It is well known however that ANTIFA regularly use violence and intimidation tactics outside of conservative events and have initiated violence against people attending these events including Proud Boys Members. In fact there isn't one incident where we have proof that the Proud Boys initiated violence although there are cases where Proud Boys members were forced to use violence in self defence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claytos96 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, to quote Beyond My Ken: the upshot of all of that is that "far-right" will not be removed. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Many sources already cited in the article support this. Grayfell (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editor Biases

This page has been edited way too much by those who have historically shown biases, particularly towards right wing commentators. The entire article has spots where Gavin is referred to as a neo-fascist, although none of the reference points or footnotes indicate anything close to that. He said himself, over and over, that he's a Libertarian. A Libertarian would not belong on the far right and is not a neo-fascist, as this article points to. CoopDEtat19 (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing. Guy (Help!) 01:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Guy neither Gavin nor The Proud Boys match the definition for "neo-fascist" (libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism/fascism), and thus this Wikipedia article as it currently stands is simply wrong. Wikipedia is losing a lot of credibility due to slander like this. Dennisne (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

The description of the Proud Boys as a "Neo fascist" group should be changed to "conservative". The Proud boys are not fascist this is clearly not a fair and neutral description of the Proud Boys but an exaggerated accusation coming from the Proud Boys political opponents. Claytos96 (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. There are currently four sources for this statement. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
However, one of those sources doesn't even mention the term, two of them are not direct sources and they merely assert the accusation without any intellectual justification, and one of them is obviously childish and unreliable. Dennisne (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Those four sources that refer to him as a "neo fascist" are laughably unreliable. For example, the Huffington Post one was written by some boy "Christopher Mathias" and describes Gavin as "a hateful and vulgar vlogger from Canada who likes to play with his butt on camera." Will somebody please ban Grayfell from future participation in politically charged edits, he's really ruining the credibility of Wikipedia. By the way, there are plenty of sources that describe Gavin as the opposite of any kind of fascist, like this reason.com article that describse him as a "political punk" and "brash anti-establishmentarian" https://reason.com/blog/2016/11/01/clinton-cash-podcast-brett-smith Dennisne (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
So, reviewing the currently 4 provided references to the allegation that the Proud Boys are a "neo fascist" group, https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-proud-boys-became-roger-stones-personal-army-6 isn't the primary source, it instead references another article that doesn't even mention the term! https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-are-adopting-the-proud-boys
I already mentioned how https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/proud-boys-republican-party-fascist-creep_us_5bc7b37de4b055bc947d2a8c is a highly unreliable and patently biased and immature source. it merely asserts that he's "neo-fascist", with no explanation, and it retardedly childishly immaturely biasedly calls Gavin someone "who likes to play with his butt on camera" - I think just because, as a performance-comedian, Gavin did one butt routine, a long time ago. To characterize him as such proves the author of that article is childish and unreliable, not to mention he never explains how the "neo fascist" label applies. Wikipedia sources must be more reliable than childish authors asserting slanderous things. We demand a bit more intellectual integrity than that.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/proud-boys-founder-gavin-mcinnes-wants-neighbors-to-take-down-anti-hate-yard-signs/ similarly is not the original source of the accusation, it references another article: https://lawandcrime.com/police/nypd-accused-of-protecting-pro-trump-street-gang-who-beat-people-while-screaming-anti-gay-slurs/ which again only asserts the slanderous label with no justification. The article is also very biased and inaccurate from what I heard of the event - it makes it sound like the Proud Boys initiated the violence, which is false.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-proud-boys-violence-new-york-arrests-20181013-story.html only quotes a leftist (Democrat Letitia James) who again only asserts that the Proud Boys are a "neo fascist white supremacist" group, with no explanation. Why is the Proud Boy group considered neo-fascist, even though they never initiated any of the violence? It's far more apt to call the Antifa mob neo-fascist - although they are leftists, they do support populism, authoritarianism, censorship and violence.
The wikipedia article for neo-fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism is very unclear, bordering on useless. It seems like any group that's opposed to anything leftist (ranging from "liberal democracy" to marxism or communism or socialism) can be considered "neo-fascist". That's absurd. Simply liking one's nation (ie. being patriotic or nationalist) or a "western chauvinist" as gavin likes to describe himself, cannot sanely be considered neo-fascist - since the main thing that ought to define the term must be a support of authoritarianism, which Gavin and the Proud Boys are absolutely opposed to - McInnes is a libertarian, which is basically the diametric opposite of an authoritarian.
Dennisne (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Dennisne, it's best not to waste your time arguing here. I have seen the same pattern over and over again. Huffington Post is seen as a reliable source on wikipedia so the proud boys will continue to be labeled as neo-fascist. It's quite laughable given that the author of the HuffPo piece, Christopher Mathias, calls the metropolitan republican club neo-fascist and ignores the fact that they have an upcoming Shabbat dinner: [1]. Perhaps he thinks it is some sort of trap. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Pelirojopajaro, I assume Wikipedia has higher standards than unexplained assertion-quotes. I wouldn't mind if he was accused of being a neo-fascist IF the label was justified - but Gavin is obviously a libertarian https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/gavin-mcinnes-path-to-the-far-rightfrontier/article36024918/ , arguably an anarchist, which is roughly the exact opposite of any kind of fascist (authoritarian). Dennisne (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of Southern Poverty Law Center as a source in the main synopsis

I would think it would be clear by now that the SPLC should not be used as a source of information any longer given the numerous examples of slander including the 3-and-something-million dollar settlement with Maajid Nawaz. Their credibility is long gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyoKrsna (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

These "numerous examples" have already been discussed to death on Wikipedia, and the consensus is that it's findings are reliable and significant. This one examples keeps getting brought-up over and over again, which suggests they aren't so numerous after all. The SPLC apologized, admitted that they had made a mistake, and paid money to Nawaz's foundation before any lawsuit was even filed. Admitting to making a mistake, and facing the consequences of that mistake, is a sign of credibility and integrity. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Greyfell, after Gavin inevitably wins his lawsuit against the SPLC for the slander against him, will Wikipedia finally stop using them as a credible source? Greyfell's far-left bias is painfully obvious. The majority of this article on Gavin is disturbingly slanderous. As a frequent listener to his content I can assure you he espouses no bigotry.Dennisne (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You can find just about every mainstream conservative personality listed as some sort of hate monger on the SPLC. You can find every popular Christian organization that dares to believe in traditional marriage as a hate group on the SPLC. You can find all popular intellectuals who dare to criticize the tenets of Islam as an anti-Muslim hate monger. If Wikipedia wants to back such a partisan ideology, so be it--But don't pretend you believe in its credibility and integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyoKrsna (talk • contribs) 03:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream conservative personality? Is McInnes "mainstream"? Sez who? Why does the popularity of a group make them less likely to be a hate group? Even so, I can think of a lot of popular intellectuals who criticize the tenets of Islam, but who aren't listed by the SPLC. "Dares to believe in traditional marriage" is silly grandstanding, and these poor, beleaguered, billionaire-funded Christian groups do not have a monopoly on what counts as "traditional".
If you have a reliable source to propose, or an improvement to the article to suggest, go ahead, otherwise, this is a dead end. Grayfell (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You mistake my suggestion to remove the SPLC as a "reliable source" as a defense of McInnes. The man's a reactionary kook and I'm open to the idea that his boy's club could be called a hate group. The SPLC doesn't lend any credibility to the claim, though. You also seem to out yourself as heavily partisan in this instance by accepting that groups that advocate traditional marriage are indeed partaking in "hate." They may not have a monopoly on the term "traditional," but the SPLC's ideology that the Christian view of marriage must be inherently hateful is simply far-left crackpottery. My only suggestion is to remove the SPLC from the text, as it gives the page the look of a partisan screed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyoKrsna (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Have you skimmed through the list yourself? Half of them are labeled "hate groups" for being "anti-LGBT-rights" or for citing uncomfortable statistics. I don't understand why it can't be admitted that the SPLC is ideologically Progressive and so is completely unreliable as a source for labeling groups that happen to be its ideological opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyoKrsna (talk • contribs) 00:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a ridiculous statement. These are groups who want LGBT people to treated differently - whether that be marriage-based, employment-based, or merely want the right to discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation or status. If you don't think that's the definition of a hate group, try replacing "LGBT" with "black" and think about the status of an organisation that promoted that. Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think you realize that "anti-LGBT-rights" is just left-wing rhetoric for traditional-marriage-advocate. It's similar to calling a business owner "anti-LGBT-rights" if he doesn't wish to put his time and effort into creating a custom cake for a gay wedding. It comes from a complete misunderstanding of actual natural rights. The SPLC is a king of demonizing rhetoric; don't go falling for it. In any case, this is all irrelevant to my point which I will repeat: the SPLC is ideologically Progressive and so is completely unreliable as a source for labeling groups that happen to be its ideological opposition.
  • I don't understand why you're being disingenuous; you just cherrypicked through the page and found specifically egregious example to confirm your argument. I read through the page just like you. No one denies that there's gonna be some actually hateful folks in their "hate watch." Don't you think it ruins the point of a hate watch though when right beside actually hateful groups they throw in decent folks who happen to have a political disagreement with them? It makes it far more difficult to recognize the legitimately hateful when the source is completely unreliable. Do you actually believe the SPLC isn't ideologically driven to demonize conservative figures and groups?

Any organization which attempts to deny rights to a group of people based solely on their gender or sexuality is advocating for discrimination, and it should not be surprising that this is noted by sources. Some hate groups make this more obvious than others, but that doesn't necessarily matter. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the SPLC is free to decide their own criteria for determining hate groups. Many, many reliable sources cite the SPLC's hate group listing as a significant fact, so the article will include it. To omit this fact would be inappropriate. If readers want to know more about these issues, we have many articles explaining them, such as Same-sex marriage, Violence against LGBT people, Southern Poverty Law Center, hate group, List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups, List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups, and dozens more. This isn't the place to try and explain any of this. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Hey, fair enough. If the criteria for "reliable source" is that "many reliable sources cite" them, then I'm happy to leave Wikipedia to its incoherence. Pages about partisan political figures written by a number of hostile partisan writers is an exercise in futility, so in the end it can't be helped. No matter how much we tell ourselves we're trying to write a neutral article, we take for granted as common sense what is actually partisan ideology (such as your casual assumption that organizations who either protest same-sex marriage or happen to believe in the immorality of homosexuality are "denying rights.") I'll leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyoKrsna (talk • contribs) 03:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing casual about this assumption. If you think "neutral" means we must be accommodating to bigotry, your are incorrect about both the concept of neutrality, and about how Wikipedia works. These groups attempt to impose religious restriction on other people, and if you think whitewashing this is neutral, you are again incorrect. If you think a certain group people is immoral, keep it to yourself, and if you don't think that but think it's possible for them to do so "neutrally", you are arguing a position you don't hold in bad faith. Grayfell (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Grayfell As a libertarian, Gavin would never impose religious restrictions on anyone, unless those religions supported crime (such as throwing gays off buildings, hurting so-called "blasphemers", etc). Nor does he blindly call an entire group of people "immoral". None of the sources on this Wikipedia page that claim that Gavin or The Proud Boys are "neo fascist" provide any evidence or reasoning. There is even a globeandmail.com link (a leftist source) I mentioned on this talk page that considers him and his group libertarians, and plenty of others that confirm this, but aren't mentioned. Please add these facts to balance this currently left-biased article. Dennisne (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
My comment was in regard to anti-LGBT hate groups which seek to prevent gay people from getting married (among other things) under any circumstances. This is, regardless of the particular religious set-dressing, a discriminatory position all by itself. Does this have any direct bearing on McInnes? No. At least, not without reliable sources explaining the connection. We have sources which mention that the Proud Boys are a general hate group, so this belongs. That was my point, which I made in response to another point which presented the "immorality of homosexuality" as a neutral position. I do not accept that this is a neutral position, and it seems you've missed or ignored this context.
The article already mentions that he describes himself as a Libertarian. It's possible to be a self-described Libertarian and also to be described by others as a neo-Fascist. If these ideologies are truly contradictory, which I do not accept as self-evident, we would explain the contradiction according to reliable sources which discussed McInnes. If you have a problem with the sources saying that the Proud Boys are neo-Fascist, you will have to explain why they are not WP:RS. These other sources are not required to prove themselves to your personal standards of evidence or reason for them to be usable here. If you dispute them, ask them to issue a correction or retraction. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Grayfell, my point about the globeandmail.com article was that other people, even leftists, agree that he's libertarian too, but the article doesn't mention this. It only quotes people who have a grudge against Gavin. The SPLC doesn't even claim that he's neo-fascist, and they are being sued so they shouldn't be used as a reliable source here until that case gets resolved. At best their opinion should be placed in some kind of "Controversy" section, not at the top of the article.
Wikipedia itself claims that "Allegations that a group is neo-fascist may be hotly contested, especially if the term is used as a political epithet." That is how it's currently being used. Thus, for the sake of neutrality, it really ought not be used in such politically charged articles. Wikipedia says that "Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism (Gavin is not ULTRA nationalist, he's no more nationalist than any other person who is proud of their nation), racial supremacy (merely taking pride in one's race does not constitute "supremacy". Every race playfully claims to be the best too, like Jews claim to be "the chosen people", etc. Everyone pretends to be the best. "Supremacy" usually connotes oppresing other innocent people, which Gavin and the Proud Boys are absolutely opposed to), populism (Libertarians are anything but popular), authoritarianism (this is the main feature that underlies any kind of fascism, and as I already explained, libertarians are diametrically opposite to this - libertarians want an absolutely minimal government - this is the opposite of fascism), nativism and opposition to immigration, as well as opposition to liberal democracy (Gavin is very liberal, and very much in support of our democratic institutions), parliamentarianism, Marxism, Communism and socialism (opposing those brutal totalitarian regimes, as evidenced wherever it was tried in history and in the present is not "fascist").
Also, as I already explained, the sources that mention that he's a neofascist do not have any explanation whatsoever - one of them don't even mention the term! - are you saying that assertions by biased leftists, with no explanation or justification, are enough for Wikipedia? And again, why doesn't the article mention non-leftist sources that claim he's an anti-authoritarian and a libertarian (I provided links on this page)? Dennisne (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This is not the place to share your personal opinions about politics or white pride, or anything else. You are mistaken about Wikipedia's stance on WP:RS. Neither McInnes nor a random Wikipedia editor has the ability to make a source unreliable by suing it, or by calling it leftists. Sources are judged on their own merits, and a "leftist" source can still be a reliable source. So can a right-wing source, if that was a concern. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Grayfell, I did not share any personal opinions - are you not able to discern fact from opinion? I was explaining in detail how Gavin and the Proud Boys do not match Wikipedia's definition of neo-fascism, which itself is mostly a leftist slur - Wikipedia itself acknowledges this. Yet, you curiously insist on using that non-neutral language, fully aware that the sources you quoted do no better a job at justifying the slur. You also curiously refuse to mention non-lefty sources, which I mentioned earlier, that refute the allegation that Gavin is any kind of authoritarian/neo-fascist. You even refused to mention a lefty source (globeandmail.com) that contradicted that unfounded opinion - the article is currently extremely left-biased and factually inaccurate. This is unacceptable Wikipedia behavior. I am going to report you for a review. Dennisne (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input on this talk page, Dennisne. You can see in the previous discussions how Greyfell specifically has shown hostile bias and is unfit for editing this kind of page. I reported the page itself to the Noticeboard so hopefully it can be sorted out by more professional editors.DaddyoKrsna (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

Change 'far right' to 'conservative' 174.67.215.31 (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Request For Comments

The consensus is that the RfC question was not neutrally posed. Ann Delong makes a good point that more sources should be added such as The Guardian and The New York Times to make it clear that reliable sources, not Wikipedia, are calling Gavin McInnes "far-right".

Cunard (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2019 (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.

Is one single reference, of debatable quality, really enough for Wikipedia to label someone as 'far-right' without any serious discussion? I know the work of the Vice co-founder pretty well, and as a victim of far-right violence and a target of far-right prejudice all my life, am deeply worried to see Wikipedia pedaling such political bias. How should this be escalated? Leegee23 (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Leegee23: As a sincerely skeptical person, would you please explain how you've been a "victim of far-right violence and a target of far-right prejudice all my life"? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) 1). This RfC asks a rhetorical question and is not neutrally phrased as is required. 2). There are at least two refs in the lead describing the subject as being 'far-right', so it's not even accurate. 3). "I know the work of the Vice co-founder pretty well..." is shooting yourself in the foot badly as no one gives a damn about your assessment of the subject - that's even before your 'victim' and 'target' remarks. I suggest closing this RfC, before it ends in tears. Pincrete (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment this doesn't have a WP:SNOWBALL's chance. It's not neutrally formatted, doesn't contain a clear question, and there's additional sourcing available for the description (New York Times, The Guardian) Nblund talk 17:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the above, talk page discussions must remain from a neutral, non-biased standpoint. Stating that you "know his work pretty well" gives me reason to believe this is, in fact, a biased opinion rather than an objective comment. Cook907 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe the word is spelled "peddling". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No to the first question. I agree that the question is not neutrally worded; also the Globe and Mail is hardly a "questionable source", and certainly isn't known for left-wing bias. But the term "far-right" is an emotionally-loaded label and an opinion, and it should be made clear that the term is being applied to Mr. McInnis by experienced political commentators and other knowledgeable published writers and not by Wikipedia. So why not show this by adding additional references, such as to the Guardian or the New York Times? That would negate any suggestion that Wikipedia is "peddling political bias". Not strengthening the referencing just because the editor asking for it doesn't use neutral wording is arguing over nothing. As to the second question in the RFC, I have no idea what it means.(I was called here by the bot.)—Anne Delong (talk) 11:35, 23 April 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.

Depraved activity on air?

There are images (which I won't link here, Google is your friend) that show Mr. McIness inserting a dildo into his rectum with a pained grimace on his face during a live recording of his show. This is, how shall we say, highly unusual behaviour for a presenter to engage in and I am surprised that it not mentioned in the article content at all?? This absolutely did happen and I believe it should be mentioned, but I cannot find a news source mentioning it. Can anybody help find one that we can use as a citation here? Ishbiliyya (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This would only be noteworthy if WP:RS DID cover it. Pincrete (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Definition of depravity "moral corruption; wickedness." Shoving something up your ass for a laugh isn't morally corrupt or wicked. Sure its hella weird and unsettling but it doesn't make someone a bad person. 5thName (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2019

I understand this man is controversial, but citing the southern poverty law center while also noting a lawsuit the subject is engaged in with said SLPC seems like poor research. Also, citing huffpo, and various newspapers written by known hard-left journalists is not research. There is not sufficient evidence to declare that this man is a Neo-fascist. Can we please clean this thing up to at least represent FACTS and not OPINIONS? I ask that any declarations of McInnes being a neo-fascist be phrased as "alleged," "suspected," or "accused" until his trial with the southern poverty law center is concluded. If the SPLC is found guilty of defamation, then this article is currently beyond inaccurate, and entirely hostage to opinion. 2601:182:CA00:6EBB:4CDA:7632:4BF7:39B8 (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MrClog (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Things to add

Gavin was the cartoonist in his schools paper while in college.

also you could add stuff about his involvement in the punk scene while in Canada

I would add these things but the page is locked given that you down want anyone to be able to give or receive an unbiased view of Gavin

He kissed Milo and has had many gay friends throughout his life. I know that you probably wont want to add this given that it will take away from your narrative but it is true and i can prove it, but i don't want to waste my time finding the sources if you wont add it.

It is important to add because i don't think the "monstrous homophobe" that you are trying to depict would engage in such behaviors if those slanderous accusations were indeed true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopscootchica (talk • contribs) 22:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)  Not done Hey, if you can "prove it", let's see some reliable sources, but then if you can't be bothered to waste your time, then don't. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Gavin on gay people (he never says he hates them, talks about gay friends) [2]

Gavin book talks about the comic strips he made in college, gay freinds, and punk stuff (Reference: McInnes' book "The Death of Cool")

gavin kissing Milo, whom he is friends with [3]

oh i see, the information has to be chewed up and spit out by some liberal source to be able to addd. Even a youtube clip of an actual event is not enough to add something — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopscootchica (talk • contribs) 23:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, obviously (although you could use a reliable conservative source as well, I believe they do exist). As for the YouTube clip, probably best to read WP:OR (i.e. a video of McInnes kissing a man doesn't mean he's not homophobic). Come on, this isn't difficult. Seriously. I've got a video of my mother kissing my sister-in-law at my wedding but I'm pretty sure it couldn't be used to source a claim that either of them are lesbians. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay if thats the rules than those are the rules, no matter how stupid and dishonest they are. however, gavin is quoted directly several times on the page so :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopscootchica (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It was a glass bottle filled with urine that was thrown at the proud boys, not merely a plastic bottle. Mistakesumake (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Got a citation from a reliable source to support that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Bundled refs

It's been a while since I edited WP, and given the destruction of the reliable sources model I doubt I'll get back into it. However, I was wondering if there's been a change in how referencing is done now.

I always referenced every statement with a targeted reference, allowing editors or readers to quickly confirm that the statement is accurate. So:

The sky is blue,<Met Office> the sea is green.<Oceanographic Institute>

However, this article makes use of bundled refs. That's great, as it prevents the ref salad after punctuation, but it seems to me that it might be being misused here. E.g. in the Lawn sign controversy section, ref 67 contains a bundle of refs that don't all confirm the Siskind police call.

Any objection to me separating them out so they confirm the points made? Bromley86 (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Neo-fascist in Lead

Hi Beyond My Ken. You reverted my removal of an entry in the Lead what was not supported in the Body: I understand why, but I think that was the wrong thing to do. It's not in the Body, so it shouldn't be in the Lead. Include it in the Body (this BTW is not agreement from me that it belongs there), and then we can determine whether the claim is weighty enough to make the Lead.

That aside, there's the sourcing.

Law&Crime[4]

You've removed the CT/AP ref (thanks), but left the Law & Crime one. It's not suitable. It says this: " Law&Crime has previously described the group as “neo-fascist,” a designation also in use by NBC News, the Associated Press and others." (non-italics are the linked parts)

Hitting the links in reverse. The "others" is just a link to Haaretz rather than a bunch of others,[5] the AP is the CT/AP ref you removed,[6] and the NBC link is the exact same AP article.[7]. The Haaretz article is effectively the AP one (entire paragraphs are cut and pasted) with some extra information on Fox added.

So all those many sources are in fact one single AP article. Further, that article does no say "neo-fascist" in the voice of the AP, it merely quotes a "New York City Public Advocate Letitia James, a Democrat who is running for state attorney general". I.e. this is a politician with a motive, is an opinion, is given just once and in passing, and so is not suitable as support for the "neo-fascist" statement.

The Law&Crime link links to an earlier article,[8] where it includes precisely the same sentence, but this time without the L&C link. So it's clear that this L&C ref is trash, both in the way it uses internal references, but also in the basic way it fails to understand what its sources are saying.

Daily Beast[9]

The Beast makes an unsupported statement: "The Proud Boys are a neo-fascist group that glorifies violence against opponents, particularly on the left."

That's the only reference to fascist in the whole article. This is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that the Proud Boys is a fascist organisation. The sentence is a link to another Beast article.[10] There is no mention of the term neo-fascist in that article. It's actually quite interesting how that article discusses the Proud Boys and discusses fascism, but doesn't explicitly link the two. The authors clearly want you to walk away with the Proud Boys=fascist impression, but don't make the case. I'd also suggest that it's a hit piece, rather than an honest examination. Just look at this: "The Proud Boys, which have a paramilitary wing" - makes a strong statement, which is undercut a few paras later - "a paramilitary wing of the Proud Boys, a now-defunct group called the Fraternal Order of Alt Knights."

Not suitable, IMO, especially given the BLP context here.

HuffPo[11]

HuffPo mentions neo-fascist twice, but only once in the body (the other is a caption): "Gavin McInnes, the founder of the violent neo-fascist gang the Proud Boys"

Unlike the Beast, it does clearly link Proud Boys with fascism. It does this by citing "scholars of fascism", but it also calls Patriot Prayer a "violent far-right gang", and I'd question the objectivity of said scholars.

Conclusion

Although the neo-fascist tag is being applied to the Proud Boys, and not directly to McInnes, I'd expect BLP to apply here because it could be seen as an attempt to smear him. In the absence of the use of neo-fasist in a more reliable source, I'd suggest that it doesn't belong in the Lead. I'd be happy to see an entry in the Body, but one that put both sides, rather than assuming that just because HuffPo says it, it must be so. Happy to write that small section. Bromley86 (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Your expectations for sources are not consistent with how Wikipedia evaluates sources. We do not expect sources to prove every single statement they make to this degree. Multiple reliable sources are stating this, and this description is not, on its face, extraordinary. Unflattering, perhaps, but that's not enough to make it extraordinary. Providing context is what articles should do, and this surely is important context.
By the way, Fox News also calls them neo-Fascist. Not my first choice for sources, but this does suggest that it's pretty common as a description. Grayfell (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Grayfell. I am aware of how WP evaluates sources: note that BMK has already removed one of the sources in the ref bundle precisely because I know more than the person who originally added it about how we evaluate sources :) . I've explained in detail above the problem with the remaining sources: I'd assumed that the L&C one was uncontroversial, as the rational for its removal is essentially the same as that for the removal of the CT/AP one. Also, if a source makes an unsupported description of an organisation it is one of opinion, not fact, and should be represented as such (if at all, and certainly not in the Lead): this is undeniable the case with the Beast ref; perhaps less so with HuffPo.
I couldn't see anything in that Fox link you provided that referred to the Proud Boys as fascist/neo-fascist or similar. Incidentally, are you taking the position that HuffPo or the Beast is better than Fox? Bromley86 (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The Fox outlet changed it to remove "neo-fascist" without providing any explanation that I can see. It happens. Updates and corrections are a good thing for reliability, so I do not hold this against them in this specific case, but stealth corrections are less positive, for obvious reasons.
All sources must be judged in context, so Fox is sometimes better than Huffington Post (or Daily Beast), and sometimes worse. Huffington Post's journalism content is relatively reliable, while its prolific and terrible blogging content is not. This particular article was produced by one of their senior journalists, so I give it the benefit of the doubt lacking any reason not to.
How do you decide that a source is making "unsupported" claims? We do not require sources to provide support for every single claim they make in every single situation, as this is an impossible burden. However, in this case, the Huffington Post source does support this position:
In 2018, under President Donald Trump, a person like McInnes is invited to speak at a popular Republican institution not despite his extremism but because of it. His invitation to the Metropolitan Republican Club, scholars of fascism said, shows Republicans’ increasing ease with what is essentially the militant, fascist wing of their party — an especially unnerving development, given Proud Boys’ penchant for violence.[12]
It later goes in to some detail of who these scholars are and what they say. The article may not provide examples to your personal satisfaction, but to be blunt, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Grayfell (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, perhaps the Fox reporter was relying on WP for the filler? :D
As I've indicated, the HuffPo ref is the one I have the least trouble with, and is probably best left to last, as it's the one we'll agree most on. What say you on the other points I raise, specifically:
(1) Lead when not in Body. Even after it is in the Body, it's hardly a designation you'll read in the more reliable/less partisan of the RS.
(2) L&C is not a good ref, for precisely the same reason CT/AP wasn't
(3) The Beast offers an unsupported opinion Bromley86 (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:CIRC is a common problem with breaking news.
Let's step back a bit. The sources here are ones which specifically discuss the Proud Boys and McInnes. There are other sources which discuss the Proud Boys as neo-fascist without mentioning McInnes. These sources would be usable, but not ideal, so for simplicity, we should rely on the ones which draw this connection for us.
So, not counting WP:OR, what reason do you have to challenge this claim? Sources support it, and that should be enough, right?
As for specific, summarizing the Huffington Post source in the body would be appropriate.
If you think Law&Crime is not reliable for this point, you could take it to WP:RSN. The source seems acceptable to me in this context. Mediaite is not great, but Dan Abrams is or was the chief legal correspondent for NBC News, so would reasonably have some legitimacy, especially for a detail which is also supported by multiple other sources.
As I've already tried to explain, a source doesn't have to "support" its claims to your personal satisfaction. The Daily Beast says something and that is the support Wikipedia needs to say something. If you have some policy-based reason to think this point is incorrect, explain it. The article appears to be a work of reporting, not an opinion piece, if that matters. Grayfell (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I see - if there are better sources, then we should use those rather than these, as none of our current sources are being used to support a claim that McInness is neo-fascist.
Discounting OR would be sensible. What I've done is evaluated the sources (in detail, above), and it is on this basis that I challenge their use.
Have you read my justification for why I think L&C is useless in this context? Specifically, their internal reference is junk, as it just refers to a carbon copy of the same sentence in another article; and their external references are junk, as they all reference the same AP article (one already removed from this WP article by BMK because it "did not support the claim") that is churnalismed into 3 different sources, none of which call the Proud Boys neo-fascist (as L&C claims with "a designation also in use by NBC News" etc.). If you have and still disagree, I'll punt it into RSN.
It's an interesting point you raise about sources and support. I was under the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that we evaluated all statements. Of course, in reality, you'd tend to assume that a statement made by a RS was good, but if challenged you'd look closer at it to see if the source supported it. Perhaps this is not the case, and would certainly explain why I was on the losing side regarding the Daily Mail, for example.
Policy-wise, I'd suggest that WP:BIASED applies here, and as such it seems wrong to use just one or two publications that have an undeniable political leaning to define the Proud Boys when many RS have described them in other ways. Also WP:UNDUE, just based on relative numbers of RS. Do you not find it curious that there appears to be a desire to label the Proud Boys neo-fascist based on very little support, while we ignore what more mainstream publications like the NYT/LAT/BBC call them? Indeed, how many Beast articles use neo-fascist to describe them? Two, out of a couple of hundred!
And I'm not saying that we definitely shouldn't call them neo-fascist in the body. Anyway, I suspect that'll be fixed if this article is treated correctly and presents information first in the Body, as we will then have a way to determine by weight what they should be identified as in the Lead. For the avoidance of doubt, I suspect the most commonly used descriptor by RS of the PB is not "neo-fascist", and thus it should not be in the Lead if this article is to maintain a NPOV. That may change. Bromley86 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I've read your argument about Law&Crime. It isn't a fantastic source, and the writer didn't explain it well, but I don't think it's as far-off as you're presenting it. The AP story presented an assessment without challenging that assessment, and this story was picked-up by multiple reliable outlets.
We shouldn't ignore what other sources are saying, mainstream or not, but I don't see how that's happening here. "Neo-fascist" is a succinct way to describe their ideology. If other sources just say "far-right", so be it, but that would support "neo-fascism" as a label, not refute it. If you have a reliable source which actively disputes the neo-fascist label, or which describes them as something which is uncontroversially incompatible with neo-fascism, please present it here. I say uncontroversially, because the potential for OR or WP:SYNTH is high.
As I've said, the Huffington Post provides ample support. If you think this isn't enough, you will have to explain why, but I would recommend starting with what other reliable sources are saying. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I obviously disagree, so I'll RSN the L&C. I've found that this sort of thing is best dealt with incrementally, but I will just say that weight means we'd go with the most commonly used descriptor in this case. It's not for me to prove a negative. Bromley86 (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2019

Gavin McInnes is classified as "far-right" this is not substantiated. His policy support would suggest libertarian. Jake204black (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This has already been discussed on this talk page many times. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not original research. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Note that McInnes is indeed far-right, as far as WP is concerned. The BBC (always left-of-centre, but generally fair, and not directly affected by the current sea change in the US political/media landscape) now describes people who believe in deporting illegal immigrants as far-right. I disagree with this on a number of levels, not least because it takes people like McInnes and places him in the same box as people who want to murder Jews and others, but we are where we are. Note that the Beeb has evolved on this: it wasn't long ago that they were describing the Proud Boys as "right wing", but now they seem to have switched to "far right". Bromley86 (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Do not ignore context. Looking at BBC coverage, it's mostly of the multiple violent protests and scandals overlapping with barely-concealed racism.[13][14] Immigration is only occasionally brought up, but somehow I doubt a western chauvinist group is going to come out in opposition to Martin Sellner's attempt to immigrate to Idaho, for example. Grayfell (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

contributor to Taki Mag, writes for Taki mag

This article says he "is a contributor to Taki's Magazine" and "writes for Taki's Mag". Taki's Magazine calls him a "former contributor" (https://www.takimag.com/article/the-week-that-perished-49/). He is still listed on their contributor's page (https://www.takimag.com/contributors/) but his last column, 2017 (https://www.takimag.com/article/so_long_tak_gavin_mcinnes/), announces his departure. If these sources are acceptable this should be reflected in the article with "former contributor" and "formerly wrote" --47.55.231.176 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems we can verify he's a former contributor per [15] so that should be fine. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Far-Right!?

It is completely ridiculous to group a normal conservative commentator in the same category as fascist dictators who committed genocide. That there are a multitude of opinion pieces stating that he's far right doesn't constitute actual evidence. I think a fair way to do this would be to pin down an actual definition of far-right for starters and then compare that to the views the man himself states. I could go make a bunch of websites and articles saying that Morgan Freeman is a lemon and it doesn't make it true. Absolute idiocy imo.

Fyi I'm classic liberal, I don't agree with many of this guys views- doesn't mean I think its right to lie and twist peoples positions because I disagree with them. 5thName (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"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."

But hey if you think opinion pieces about other peoples political alignments are reliable sources be my guest and leave it up. 5thName (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for definitions of individual's political positions. Can you identify any "opinion pieces" that have been used that you disagree with? Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Classical liberal" seems like a trendy label for people to apply to themselves, for some strange reason.
Anyway, these are not just opinions, they are reliable sources, and there are many more where that came from. Reliable sources have evaluated his statements and actions and come to a conclusion. If you would like to know more about why they came to those conclusions, please read them. Not all of them bother to explain it, but more than enough do for this to be straightforward. Grayfell (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

SPLC is “reliable”? Perhaps listen to him and be honest about literally what he says. Using SPLC as a reference weakens the article, no matter your opinion of the subject. SalesianJ (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Id have to agree that "far-right" is completely unfair. I dont care who "evaluated" his statements (of which I'd like to see examples), far-right has become such a malleable smear term, that really could mean anything. Gavin meets none of the terms original criteria: anti-semitic, racist, eugenicist, fascist, or sitting on the right side of the french parliament for that matter. Calling Gavin "far-right," without him labeling himself far-right, is completely off base. MSPaintJob (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if you agree or not,we don;t go by the personal opinions of our editors or readers, we go by what reliable sources say, and the SPLC has been determined to be a reliable source numerous times after discussions at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. There are slo other sources that say the same thing that could be added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Could add?

The reference below is McInnes in 2004 at a bookstore in Chicago where he wore a shit-hat: https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/shithead/Content?oid=916643 Victor Grigas (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2019

change: McInnes has repeatedly called for violence against political opponents and has been banned from various social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, as a result.

to: McInnes has repeatedly been targeted by political opponents and in an effort to silence him, has been banned from various social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, as a result. Spreadforroses (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The current lead is more consistent with the description in RELIABLE SOURCES. Nblund talk 16:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019

First of all, I just want to state that I'm not a Proud Boys member, I have nothing to do with them, and you will most likely assume that I am right-wing on everything (I'm not) simply because I'm arguing about this. But really I believe that encyclopaedias should be unbiased. That's all.

"Neo-fascist" as a description for Proud Boys is not factual and therefore not encyclopaedic. It is a HIGHLY PARTISAN subjective assessment and strikes me as a bit absurd. The websites that are cited to support this purported "fact" (HuffPo and The Daily Beast) are WIDELY KNOWN FOR THEIR LEFT-WING STANCES. Are the Proud Boys a group that explicitly exists to praise the ideologies of Mussolini and Hitler? Because that is what neo-fascism would mean. I have not seen the evidence that they are - Gavin McInnes always talks about Western values and free speech and I have not heard him revering Mussolini and Hitler.

The actual impartial thing to say would be something like: "some news organisations have described the Proud Boys as neo-fascist, although the group themselves deny this label".

I am not saying don't include criticism of this group. ABSOLUTELY include such criticism, because that is encyclopaedic. By all means show any connections that any members have with more extreme groups. I know that some of their members HAVE had these connections so absolutely put those in and show the relevant citations. But that should be balanced with what Proud Boys have to say about themselves. An encyclopaedia should show the reader all of the relevant facts on each side of an argument, especially on such a politically controversial topic as this. An encyclopaedia must be balanced and impartial and not endorse any one particular side. 82.21.54.197 (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: I've noticed people often talk about "reliable sources" around issues like this, so I looked at the Wikipedia page about reliable sources. It says this: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". The articles cited for the "neo-fascist" claim should probably be considered "commentary", and the claim of Proud Boys being "neo-fascist" should probably not be considered a statement of fact. Here is another thing that page about reliable sources says about the bias of sources: "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". So this is why I think it would indeed be encyclopaedic to say "some news organisations describe the Proud Boys as 'neo-fascist'", with the sources cited included, because this is providing supporting information about a different viewpoint on a subject. But I don't think it's encyclopaedic for Wikipedia to describe the group as "neo-fascist" as if it is a statement of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.54.197 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2019

change line "contrary to his past remarks, such his "becoming anti-Semitic" after a trip to Israel," to "contrary to his past remarks, such as his "becoming anti-Semitic" after a trip to Israel," Vincentzed (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've tweaked the paragraph so that it makes more sense. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gavin_McInnes/Archive_3&oldid=942023764"