Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Scoffing at semi-protected edit requests

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 it really necessary to scoff at users making semi-protected edit requests—as administrator Muboshgu did here ("ha") and editor Jorm did here ("Sure, Jan) [requester's handle is Ladysavage123]? NedFausa (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Surely it would be wrong to not scoff at those promoting racism and racists. Isn't a better position to permanently ban racists? Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It is when said semi-protected edit requests are trying to normalize and sanitize a page about a violent neo-fascist white supremacist militia group. If I proposed a change to the Confederacy Page to try and sanitize out the slavery stuff, I'd be quite sympathetic if people were rather dismissive of a point of view that has no basis in fact, and more importantly no basis in reliable sources. Also

For information about the Wikipedia policy, see WP:FORUM.

191.92.157.214 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, in general you're right, we should not scoff. With a situation like this though, and that edit request being the accounts only edit, it's hard to see it as anything other than trolling, even with AGF. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Claim that Proud Boys are racist

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.

---

On the Proud Boys Website, under About > Tenets on the seventh line you will find the tenet "Anti-Racism". Wikipedia requires commenters to "assume good faith". Why does this not apply to the Proud Boys Website? It is also interesting to note that there is no anti-racism statement to be found on the Black Lives Matter website, and I'd bet that if I went to Wikipedia's Black Lives Matter page and said they were more racist than the Proud Boys because the do not have an explicit tenet stating they they are anti-racist, I'd get a reprimand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.217.71.178 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

We prefer WP:SECONDARY sourcing over WP:PRIMARY sourcing. It's hard to imagine the Proud Boys ever admitting to be a racist organization. Please don't WP:OTHERSTUFF by bringing up BLM, they aren't relevant to this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Also User:108.217.71.178 they are racist, with their anti-Muslim views. Or do you deny that? Surely we should be blocking those that are providing support here for hardcore racists like Proud Boys and Donald Trump. Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Being anti-Muslim is not racist. It is Islamophobic. Please do not use imprecise and vague language.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about User:Editing Scapegoat? If being anti-Polish or antisemetic is racist, how is being anti-Muslim not racist? I'd suggest you take a good look at the dictionary and not spread racist and white-supremacist propaganda! Nfitz (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Clarification

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

---

Can you clarify the "racism and violence of New York City" line in the Islamberg section.Editing Scapegoat (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. No clarification is needed. Cited source states Islamberg was founded in 1980 by Muslims, primarily African American, to escape the crime and racism of the big city. It's currently home to about two dozen Muslims families. NedFausa (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Neo fascists

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

---

This group is in no shape or form a neo-fascists group, nor are they “alt-right”. Whomever posted this misinformation is either an antifa member or someone who has no idea what they’re taking about. This needs to be fixed. Argkd6 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @Argkd6: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to determine things, not opinions such as the one you've just provided. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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

proud boys - USA TODAY

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

---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/30/who-proud-boys-group-mentioned-debate-has-violent-history/5868406002/?fbclid=IwAR31YIGhuaeOHZZLUJEocKUaYXFTiz9rNMaTZ3e-P60Z0ie1sXYQcx5lEqY

Current Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who is Afro-Cuban, says the group has "longstanding regulations prohibiting racist, white supremacist or violent activity," Ronald D. Coleman wrote in an email to USA TODAY. Coleman said he is a spokesman for the Proud Boys.

"We do not care what color you are or what your background is ... if you love America ... we consider you a brother," Tarrio said in a written statement provided by Coleman. The group condemns racism, fascism, communism and socialism, the statement says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.98.38 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Proud Boys - Largely Peaceful

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

---

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-protests-portland/proud-boys-rally-has-portland-in-state-of-emergency-idUSKBN26H0I8

PORTLAND, Ore. (Reuters) - Hundreds of supporters of the right-wing Proud Boys group rallied in Portland, Oregon on Saturday in a largely peaceful event but police and left-wing protesters later clashed in the city’s downtown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.98.38 (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

LOL yeah right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

The proud boys have black members how can they be white nationalist 68.56.18.231 (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done nothing actionable here.--Jorm (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Historical precedents: the Mischling who nevertheless joined the Nazi party, thinking that it would protect them if they joined. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-12-24-mn-12209-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:DC86:D98F:FCCF:BBC7 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Also: Tokenism and the phenomenon of the "black friend defense" https://apnews.com/article/c7e6681046e3463aa9967a8302e5a102 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:DC86:D98F:FCCF:BBC7 (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Proud Boys URL was removed

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

---

The only objective link/URL to what the organization claims to believe has been removed recently. Is that standard policy? I thought the page was "protected"? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The infobox being used does not include a space for a link to an external site.--Jorm (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This infobox does include a URL link.

If someone has changed the infobox template recently, they appear to have done so simply to omit the URL. Google is already burying the official link, wikipedia was the only way for readers to verify the official tents which directly contradict the narrative. This is an attempt to reduce transparency and source information

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_militant_organization

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, it just reappeared....

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Source 9

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.

---

Hawkins, Derek; Jr, Cleve R. Wootson; Timberg, Craig. "Trump's 'stand by' remark puts the Proud Boys in the spotlight". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on October 2, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020. Proud Boys have ties to white supremacists and sometimes use nationalist rhetoric common among hate groups.

What is the source of their information "have ties to white supremacists" ? This source, added today, does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable standards. There are not corroborating sources and the article is opinionated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.153.199 (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not opinion piece, you just don't like what you read. Either way, don't misrepresent the source, which actually is reliable. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2020

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

---

The sentences stating that proud boys are a neo fascist supremist group are inherantly biased and hold no ground. These are bold unsupported claims. Many spokesmen of Proud Boys are black, and it is stated on the groups page "the group is anti-SJW without being alt-right. “Western chauvinist” includes all races, religions, and sexual preferences." All evidence provided by the article creator is given by biased websites such as SPLC which has been regarded as a far left source by mediabiasfactcheck.com, nationalreview.com, and several other sites.

Change "Neo nazi" and "white supremacist's" to "Right wing trolls" and "antagonists" MKTRCN (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As usual, no reliable sources were provided.--Jorm (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Yeah, but the original post in the article has no reliable sources either. So why bother posting it? You have a guy using 1 line from 1 Newsweek article as source? How is that "reliable?"

This is the very reason why Wikipedia is nothing but a joke, a complete unreliable farce. and it is getting worse in these days of political bigotry and cancel culture. This is why I had never and will never donate penny to your website. I suspect Wiki won't exist much longer in the near future as funding slides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitromon (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Nitromon, there are plenty of citations out there for the "neofascist" claim, such as The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, and The Spokeman Review. We don't need to WP:CITEBOMB the claim. Your concern trolling is noted but not helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Misquotation of D. J. Trump in section of presidential debate 2020

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

---

Currently, the article reads:

"Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups, and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha, and as we have seen in Portland." Trump replied "Sure" and "Sure, I am willing to do that" and then asked for clarification, saying "Who would you like me to condemn?" Wallace mentioned "white supremacists and right wing militia". During the exchange, Biden prompted "Proud Boys" and Trump replied "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by, but I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about Antifa and the left, because this is not a right-wing problem."

Some of these quotations are incomplete or not real (e.g. the reduplication of "I'll tell you what"), and thus directly violate Quotations. The exchange takes place around the 01:05:00-mark. Literally:

Trump: Sure, I'm willing to do that, but I would say - I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing, not the right wing.

Wallace: So what're you saying ... ?

Trump: I'm willing to do anything- I want to see peace.

Wallace: Then do it sir.

Trump: You want to call them- what do you want to call them? Give me a name. Give me a name. Go ahead, who would you like me to condemn?

Wallace: White supremacists and right-wing millitia.

Biden: Proud Boys.

Trump: Proud Boys: stand back, and stand by, but I'll tell you what, someone's gotta do something about AntiFa and the left, because this is not a right-wing problem, this is a left-wing problem.

Biden: His own FBI director said the threats are the white supremacists. AntiFa's an idea, not an organisation.

Trump: Oh, you've gotta be kidding.

Hence, the section should be corrected.

By the way, since it is very relevant to the article, Biden's last response is definitely worth mentioning as context ("AntiFa's an idea, not an organisation") as Proud Boys have a direct history relating to AntiFa. --MewTheEditor (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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

These sources are garbage.

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.

---

New York Times? USA Today? The Guardian? Washington Post? No wonder this article is full of garbage. You sourced from garbage! So, I had to dig for the actual Proud Boys websites (there are at least 2), and I had to do it from Duck Duck Go, because Google is also full of shit. I found nothing about white surpremacy in there. They even state they don't care about your race, religion, or even your sexuality. I then went on YouTube to look for minorities in their group. Found at least 2 black guys in the one where they're praying in Portland. This article is garbage. It sources from garbage. 10 minutes of research and you'd see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c2:4d02:1b90:b0dd:3fc7:ec83:85fb (talk • contribs)

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.

Anyone can build a website to promote a vision. People are not always truthful with others or even themselves. This is why Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. A secondary source is once removed and thus more likely to be truthful/objective. A primary source (such as a personal website or businesses website) may be truthful, but it is less likely to be a source of objective facts as the party producing it has everything at stake. This is why Wikipedia policy requires secondary sources. Cedar777 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This post is why Wikipedia has no credibility. Claiming Proud Boys is white supremacist, fascist and violent - three claims that are obviously false - just makes it look stupid.

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.

---

Whoever wrote this is obviously either ignorant or a bad propagandist. Making such claims against and organization like PB is what makes everyone ignore any "Facts" quoted from Wikipedia out of hand. I know it's hard to control the leftist online agenda, but really? What White Supremacist organization has a Hispanic CEO? What Fascist organization promotes hard work and capitalism? What violent organization has been proven again and against to only get violent in response to violence? May I suggest that someone open their eyes and take a look at some facts before posting this BS? Bobtheelder1958 (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a credible organization, but I agree that this article contains disinformation. I believe it is an attempt to use sources to discredit the organization when there during a wave of interest. By the time that this information is corrected as I believe it will be, the damage will be done as people will have found the information during the wave, seen these labels, and decided to look no further as white supremacy and neo-nazism are clearly terrible things that the vast majority disagree with for good reason. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, see this comment by ItsPugle outlining academic and book sources describing them as fascist well before the current news cycle. Davide King (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've been watching the "neo-fascist" label for a while, but the "white supremacists" angle has recently spread all over the page based on a tenuous link. The timing is questionable, but could be credited to volume of interest, however the previous rival of the official URL made me more concerned as there would be no way to combat this. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Actual reaction to #ProudBoys versus Tarrio's perfunctory denial.

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

---

This is probably something that should be noted. https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/10/04/the-proud-boys-are-furious-that-gay-men-have-taken-over-proudboys-on-twitter/#55af370f2aaf "The Proud Boys took none too kindly to this, filling up Parler with the type of hateful messages that got them kicked off Twitter in the first place. Much of the action was carried out by the Proud Boys’ official account on the app, which has 60,000 followers. Enrique Tarrio, the Proud Boys’ chairman, said in a separate Parler post that the left was attempting to turn the group’s name into “a slur” and that the gay pride campaign with #proudboys was an attempt “to drown out the voices of our supporters.”"2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you so much for this reliable source. I've gone through and added the information. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Leader of the group is an black Cuban-American, shouldn't that be mentioned in the lead?

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

---

I feel like for the sake of WP:YESPOV and WP:N we should mention that Enrique Tarrio, the current chairman of the Proud Boys, is a black Cuban American in the lead, given how much the lead is otherwise focused on race issues pertaining to the group. Others have disagreed, so I thought I'd start a new discussion about it. It's a weird thing to gloss over; I can't think of any other alt-right groups with an African-American in so prominent a leadership position. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, we already do report the ADL as saying that "[w]hile the group can be described as violent, nationalistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and misogynistic, its members represent a range of ethnic backgrounds, and its leaders vehemently protest any allegations of racism." Davide King (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, but that's a WP:SELFPUB source, and may not survive too much scrutiny. It would be quite useful to have an independent source presenting the ADL's view here, but that's a whole other topic. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, that's not according to Wikipedia perennial list which list it as green. Again, we need reliable sources to say and emphasise this. It is rare but not uncommon or a impossibility that "nonwhite people join white supremacist groups." This may as well be part of PR or rebranding which started since the United the Right rally aftermath and it does not change in any way the characterisation reliable sources have given. I say this since the same argument has been used to claim the group is not far-right, fascist, racist, white supremacist, etc. Davide King (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As noted above, Tokenism and the "I have one black friend defense" apply here. They are white supremacist, while relying on keeping a few white-passing "latinos" around as a less-than-honest defensive tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Request edit on 30 September 2020

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

---

2017 Chicago stabbing In April 2017, a concert organized by the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police to protest Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx attracted several people wearing Proud Boy clothing. One of them, Thomas Christensen, got into an argument with another attendee, and ended up stabbing him with what the prosecutor called a "folding dagger" with a 3-inch blade. Christensen was arrested on charges of aggravated battery.[77] In August 2019, Christensen was convicted at a bench trial; the judge rejected Chrsitiansen's statement that he acted in self-defense. After the trial, a friend confirmed that Christiansen was a member of the Proud Boys.[77]

The portion of this wiki-article, which I copied and pasted above, is incorrect (probably because the Sun Times article it uses as a reference is misleading). This stabbing happened at a concert, which is correct. That concert had absolutely Nothing to do with Kim Foxx, the Chicago Police, or Chicago FOP, which I am a member of. There was a Protest organized by Chicago FOP, against Cook County State's Attorney, Kim Foxx, on a different date. Members of the Proud Boys were rumored to have been in attendance at this rally. The Sun Times insists the offender from this stabbing was one of the Proud Boys who attended the FOP rally, while the FOP insist that no members of the Proud Boys were invited to, or present, at their rally. The FOP rally against Kim Foxx, and the concert where the stabbing took place, had nothing to do with one another. Chicago FOP, and Chicago Police, had nothing to do, in any way, with the concert where this stabbing took place. This wiki article is false (frankly slanderous) in that Chicago FOP had nothing to do with this concert where a Proud Boy stabbed someone, Chicago FOP obviously did not organize this concert, the Chicago FOP absolutely did not allow or condone the presence of Proud Boys at any Chicago FOP sponsored event. 73.110.196.223 (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If your position is that the Sun Times is wrong, you'll need to find a better source contesting them, or at least reporting it differently - ideally a WP:SECONDARY source rather than just a statement by the Chicago FOP. --Aquillion (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Even thought it's a reliable newspaper, there's a problem. I have removed it in entirety, because I don't find the evidence of connection meets WP:BLP standards. The newspaper didn't report he is a Proud Boys member; just that his friend said he is and reported it as just that. Chicago Tribune also reported on this stabbing incident, but makes no connection to Proud Boys; or the Chicago FOP for that matter. I say this stay off entirely; until there's a more reliable source beyond "friend said he's a Proud Boys member" regardless of who's parroting that sentiment unless it has been independently verified by a reliable source and that source is willing to speak of it in a voice other than "his friend says...". These are Chi. Tribune links to this story.

* https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-northerly-island-stabbing-verdict-20190830-cjkbkhtpnvfhbarja4cc4ck5ka-story.html

* https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-northerly-island-stabbing-charges20170810-story.html

Graywalls (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@73.110.196.223:, @Aquillion:, I have removed the whole part, but it really has nothing to do with the request, but rather because of concerns wrt to insufficient evidence to show the relevance to Proud Boys at this point. BTW, requester, if you're saying that Sun Times actually has factual errors and you're concerned about it, perhaps reach out to them and ask them to correct it. Graywalls (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

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

---

Please append the "Taunting soccer fans" section as follows:

As of Sept. 24, 2019, MLS officials have now allowed the Iron Front to be displayed at league games saying, "As part of this decision to update the Fan Code of Conduct for 2020, MLS has suspended the prohibition on the Iron Front imagery at matches for the balance of the 2019 season and MLS Cup Playoffs while the working group conducts its analysis." Flags were flown at the beginning of the 2020 MLS season, prior to the COVID outbreak.

Depling82 (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done with this edit. NedFausa (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure why this is being closed so fast ... there's WP:NORUSH. As noted above, I did an edit that should mostly cover this, but the reference only covers the temporary 2019 change, and doesn't reflect the finalized 2020 code (nor does the above September 2019 reference I didn't use, as I'm not very familiar with the source - and given the sensitivies, using a more neutral national media source seemed wiser. The only good source I've found for the new 2020 code, is a bit vague, though both right-wing and very neutral, being foreign - anyone got a better one from the February 2020 period? Nfitz (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Nfitz: How can Reuters be "both right-wing and very neutral"? That's a contradiction in terms. NedFausa (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the newspaper that published it, National Post, as being right-wing and neutral - I'm not sure how much they edited the feed. They are certainly right-wing, but also don't have any sticks in the fire on the US decline and cultural wars. Though one could easily disagree with my assessment (and I'd be quite happy to argue from the other point of view) - I don't see the relevance as I'm already seeking a better source! Nfitz (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, here's a better one (because it's clearer that Iron Cross is now allowed), but also gives bigger perspective when combined with the foreign National Post one. I'll add both. I think that covers the whole thing. Nfitz (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done (again) with addition of two 2020 references by Nfitz. NedFausa (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Article is too much biased towards smearing the Proud Boys

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

---

I'd suggest to copy-paste the first paragraph description from the official source instead: https://officialproudboys.com/proud-boys/whoaretheproudboys/ The Proud Boys are a men’s organization founded in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes. McInnes has described the Proud Boys as a pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world; aka Western Chauvinists.

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

And moving current defamation & bias into a separate "Controversy" subgroup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.163.177 (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Call them what they are

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.

---

they're a violent, white supremacist terrorist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F09B:A3ED:F4BC:7F76 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC) — 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F09B:A3ED:F4BC:7F76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia does not look at the group, compare them to published definitions of terms and decide what to call them. Instead, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject.

Independent reliable sources say the Proud Boys are a far-right, neo-fascist organization that promotes and engages in political violence, so that's what Wikipedia says. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Their supporters think that this Wikipedia article is biased against them, while their opponents think it is biased in favor. That's a rough indicator that we are getting things mostly right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328 - that's the dumbest logic I've ever heard in my life. And if you disagree with me, it proves that I am getting it mostly right according to your own logic.

This is for everyone. Before posting anything here, please visit WP:5P2 and read through the different links within the paragraph "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" before anything. After reading them, you'll have a general idea of acceptable sources. You'll learn more with experience. There are certain sources that shouldn't be used as a general rule like the Post Millennial, anarchist zines, reader comments section of news articles, self published materials from citizen journalists, such as TWITTER FEEDS just to name a few. If the changes you are proposing can only be sourced through those sources, then the answer is no. It's not happening. If in doubt, post the source here and it can be discussed. Subject's own Twitter, Antifa's twitter, etc are also unacceptable as a source for pretty much all purposes. Graywalls (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@All The proud boys leader is a black/cuban man who denounces white supremacy. This entire article is EXTREMELY BIASED to a non-factual degree. It really isn't honest.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/1/enrique-tarrio-says-proud-boys-not-white-supremaci/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.92.136 (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Times is not a reliable source, so.--Jorm (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Adding "White Supremacist" in first line

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.

---

According to this, this, and this (archived), Proud Boys have pretty significant ties to White Supremacist groups. I propose adding the term "white supremacy group" in the first line of the article. ChipotleHater (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree--good idea. Rjensen (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Does it matter that the leader of the Proud Boys was voted in and black? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.218.58 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No. Why would it? Racists who say "well, I have black friends" are still racists and it's entirely possible to be self-hating. I'm frankly baffled at the number of people who don't seem to grasp that people lie and take liars at their word. The deeds of the Proud Boys show white supremacist direction. Who cares what their words are.--Jorm (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Add this to the sources in support of adding White Supremacist to the lead: "...US agencies label as “white supremacists” and “extremists”, and others as a “gang”,..." Damingo Sanchez (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

If they reject that they are white supremacists, and they accept members of all races, how do you identify them as white supremacists? Did they ever claim superiority of white race? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.73.244 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

they claim they are not white supremacists. to claim they are is to read their minds.

"Current Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who is Afro-Cuban, says the group has "longstanding regulations prohibiting racist, white supremacist or violent activity," Ronald D. Coleman wrote in an email to USA TODAY. "

BURIED in the latest USA TODAY report that does not support it's somewhat inflammatory headline: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/30/who-proud-boys-group-mentioned-debate-has-violent-history/5868406002/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.115.15 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that article is only direct quotes from the group and their denial of allegations, it is not a qualified secondary sourced article. This means it is merely, the view they wish the public to see, and not critical determinations based on their actions, from what I read. Damingo Sanchez (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The groups leaders, Torrrio and McInes are NOT white. How can we call a group led by people of color white supremacist? 47.137.178.203 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

If they claim to accept members of all races, do they actually have members of all races? Are there any African American members of the Proud Boys? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is User:47.137.178.203 claiming that McInnes is not white? Both of his parents are Scottish. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

All Scots are not white. Take a walk around Glasgow some day. Torrio is not white, the group allows all races, and is not white supremacist. 47.137.178.203 (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

McInnes has said: "I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of" Vexations (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Yea I don't see any evidence presented anywhere that they have ties to White Supremacists. There are statements of fact....without presenting any facts or evidence supporting this; from The Washington Post article, "Leaders say they disavow racism, though the Proud Boys have ties to white supremacists and sometimes use nationalist rhetoric common among hate groups." . . . it says they have ties. But which ties? To whom? How do we know? This is just wildly incomplete and there are no facts or pieces of evidence brought out to support these claims. We are taught in MIDDLE SCHOOL that when you make a claim, you need to bring out supports for that claim and then evidence for that support. Unless we can find a source that actually delineates these supposed ties, I propose that this line regarding them having ties to White Supremacists is removed. There's no evidence supporting it.Krakaet (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it needs to be removed because there's no factual basis for it, only assertions. It was only added after the debate to make Trump look bad, but Wikipedia articles should stick to the facts. Even the ADL quote in the 2nd paragraph says "its members represent a range of ethnic backgrounds," which makes the article self-contradictory. I tried removing "white supremacists", but user NedFausa immediately reverted my change. I'm new to Wikipedia editing: how do we resolve these disputes? User:Exmartian 2 October 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

In what way do those articles paint a picture of "pretty significant" ties? The NYT article simply says "Its participants have espoused misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and anti-immigrant views while making allies with white supremacists whom group leaders claim to disavow," while the WaPo article says, "Leaders say they disavow racism, though the Proud Boys have ties to white supremacists and sometimes use nationalist rhetoric common among hate groups." Neither give examples, the WaPo article merely states with no justification that ties exist. How does this create evidence of "significant ties"? Tobor0 (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tobor0: Apologies there. I miswrote with including the descriptor "significant". Per the 11 sources provided below, there is an existing consensus amongst high-quality reliable sources that the Proud Boys maintain affiliations with white supremacists and hold several beliefs grounded in white supremacy (such as believing there is some sort of innate superiority of the West). If you would like it to be changed, would you be able to provide a significant number of independent reliable sources that explicitly say that the Proud Boys do not have any affiliations with white supremacy? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle:I was contending only with the word "significant" I'll take a look below and see if what you suggest is even possible. I'll be honest though, in looking through these sources, the affiliations tend to be "someone who did or said some white supremacist things also claimed to be a Proud Boy," which is a standard of evidence that allows anything to be white supremacist frankly. The justifications I've seen here are basically saying, if the press says it then it's an independent fact. I'm not sure what I'd suggest as an alternative, but it doesn't seem in the best interests of WP to simply repeat things read in papers when one can plainly see that the provided sources are themselves not being very rigorous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobor0 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tobor0: I'm afraid that isn't really a determination that we can, or should, make. As per WP:NOTTRUTH, we cover material that's in external, independent and reliable sources, regardless of our own personal beliefs about the validity of those statements. As part of that, we can't exclude sources or information because we disagree with them, and we're not here to criticise and reject sources.

The only exception to that is when there is a broad consensus not to use certain sources - this is done at the reliable sources noticeboard, with the results for major discussions being posted on WP:RSPSOURCES. As for the 11 sources posted below, all but one have either been explicitly accepted by the community as reliable sources or have no consensus (either from equivocal discussions or not being discussed). The only one that is borderline is the PR Newswire source, which is a primary source and can be used when attributed to the Council on American–Islamic Relations. Also, don't forget to sign your comments! ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Thanks for the very thorough reply. Tobor0 (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: I saw that you removed my edit 981761231, where I replaced "NPR's Takeaway" with the "ADL". I didn't remove Takeaway because I disagreed with them, I removed them because the sentence is listing out who has named PB as a hate group. In that context, there's no reason to specifically call out a largely unknown podcast who is not an authority on what is and isn't a hate group, especially when the claim appears right next to the SPLC. Given your edit comment, I think you misunderstood my motivation, so I'm going to restore it -- especially since you kept my addition.

References

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

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

---

The article is wrong about the Proud Boys, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaY_0Z4Vb2w, at this link the founder tells EXACTLY what they are about, they aren't against any race, religon, or sexuallity. They are just alined consevativly and through that are linked together with white supremesists. DrLight1491 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: oh because they say they aren't racist we should believe their words over their actions? And the secondary sourcing? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Obvious white supremacist spammer is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:DC86:D98F:FCCF:BBC7 (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the sources to back up my statement right now but I'm in Oregon and although the Washington chapter of the Proud Boys have caused a great deal of disruption with their protests, their membership here is multiracial. They are predominantly white but they are not a white-only group in the Northwest. I think there is so much attention on this group this week that any nuances in their makeup is getting ignored which is why there are so many angry edit requests on this page over the past two days. I expect this issue will get resolved over time when there isn't such a public focus on the group. I'll try to find some sources to back up my points which I don't think will be difficult because they have been active in the Vancouver/Portland area for over 4 years and have gotten a lot of attention here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"Repeated warnings about the Proud Boys, and descriptions of them as a dangerous white supremacist group, were issued by members of the national network of counter-terrorist fusion centers." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/proud-boys-white-supremacist-group-law-enforcement-agencies

Liz, here's one that talks about why nonwhite people join white supremacist groups. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As I noted above, Tokenism and the "I have one black friend defense" apply here. They are white supremacist, while relying on white-passing "latinos" as a less-than-honest defensive tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:DC86:D98F:FCCF:BBC7 (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

For a historical parallel, you should look at the book "How the Irish Became White" by Noel Ignatiev. https://www.jstor.org/stable/366567?seq=1

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2020

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

---

Proud boys are not a while supremist group. Based on your own website look at the current leader... 50.53.196.250 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

We do not say they are a white supremacist group, we say they are "affiliated with white supremacists" per sources. There is a long history of racists showing admiration for some minority groups, see white supremacists courting black separatists. Davide King (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It actually says "white nationalist" in the ideology section. I believe that this is inappropriate and non-informative. Nationalist could be argued, maybe even Western Nationalist if that is a dog whistle, buy white nationalist is not supported. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I would change the term "White Nationalist" to "Western Nationalist" in the "ideology section" - or remove the particular description entirely as "ultranationalism" might already cover that TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: that's not what reliable sources say. Please, please, start providing sources to support your claims - there is a burden of proof on you to provide evidence. We cannot change terms because we disagree with them. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/1/enrique-tarrio-says-proud-boys-not-white-supremaci/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Wilfred Reilly, who teaches political science at Kentucky State University, a historically Black college, said “the Proud Boys aren’t White supremacists.” He said the group espouses a “Western chauvinism” philosophy, which isn’t the same as White supremacy.

Mr. Reilly, author of “Hate Crime Hoax,” said his research shows law enforcement officials estimate that 10% to 20% of Proud Boys members are racial minorities. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, The Washington Times is not a reliable source. ("There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations.") Davide King (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

But it referenced a specific published professor at a historically black college refuting the assertion, and providing an estimate of more than token" minority membership. The source is not ideal, but when competing with mother Jones and buzzfeed.... C'mon

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No. Washington Times is not a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, Mother Jones is generally reliable. Note that sources are required to be reliable, not neutral; no source is truly neutral. Davide King (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, same exact quote from a critical Medium article

https://medium.com/a-universalist-in-an-identitarian-age/the-proud-boys-are-not-white-supremacists-that-makes-them-more-dangerous-7bbb62eae831 TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Medium is a self-published source ("Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons.") Davide King (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've reached out to the professor on Twitter, because I can't find a 3rd exact same quote yet from a reliable source TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, the problem is not the quote; it is that we need multiple reliable sources reporting the quote or making the same point. Either way, I do not understand the issue; we do not say they are a white supremacist group. White nationalism is considered by some an euphemism for white supremacism, but we also describe it as "a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white racial and national identity." Davide King (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, I need you to look at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout and indent properly, please. It is impossible to tell what is going on here and who you are responding to. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: Please also take notice that reaching out to authors to support your particular opinions is a vast NPOV violation, anything on social media is self-published and generally not reliable (and actually prohibited under BLP as WP:SOCIALMEDIA since it concerns a third-party). There's a very very obvious consensus here, that's supported by reliable sources, that the group has ties to white supremacy. While we're all here to build a better encyclopedia, consistently and constantly bringing up the same thing in different discussions and trying to force your efforts to remove terms such as "white supremacist", "neo-fascist" or "far-right" with POV, non-reliable, non-independent sources and original research is starting to verge on bludgeoning the process. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@itspugle @davide king There is an injustice here. I will wait for reliable sources to appear and then come back with them. You are making a defendable argument that I don't disagree with; that they have/had ties, links or affiliations with white nationalists or supremacists.

It is just unclear why an organization can't define its own ideologies and must rely on obviously biased media to define them libelously. My main issue is in the firm categorization of them as white nationalist, not the insinuation of it.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@itspugle @davide king: TuffStuffMcG (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: Wikipedia isn't here to correct an injustice. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, and since you have not provided reliable sources to back the changes you'd like to make -- I don't think anyone can help you here. You claim that actual secondary reliable sources are biased, yet now you suggest that Proud Boys should identify themselves, which sounds pretty biased to me (and won't happen anyway). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: If you're having to "wait for reliable sources" to 'prove your point' when all existing reliable sources say the opposite, you're point is a fringe theory and frankly not appropriate for Wikipedia. There is nothing libellous in saying an organisation with ties to white supremacy has such connections, and if every single source is contradicting what one organisation says about itself, we follow the sources (pretty much common sense). Do you think Nazi Germany called itself a genocidal fascist dictatorship? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

After re-reading this entire page I think I am justified in saying that the problem here is not "an injustice" or "biased media", but rather TuffStuffMcG having competence issues, especially in the areas of source evaluation and media literacy. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources for "neo-fascist" are getting tighter. When I started arguing, they were mother Jones and other questionable sources. The last source doesn't actually support the organization being "neo-fascist", but rather "crypto-fascist" which I guess is less damning?

My competency issues aside, I will try to learn the structure. My understanding of proper sourcing isn't an issue. There hadn't been good sources, but they are getting better.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep25259.pdf TuffStuffMcG (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: Please start indenting your replies correctly, it's really hard to figure out who and what you're exactly replying to, which causes continuity errors for conversations. I'm really happy that you're working to understand and learn how reliable sources and verifiability work on Wikipedia; as a bit of sage advice, I'd recommend probably editing less-controversial articles, or at least articles not subject to extensive vandalism protection. Also, make sure that you sign your comments with four tides: ~~~~, otherwise it can cause issues for people using some editorial software and it puts additional work on Wikipedia's servers to calculate who makes edits and to attribute them. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

    I'm doing this on a phone
    Is this what you mean? 
    Just hit 5 spaces to 
    indent so it looks like 
    I'm replying to you? I'm 
    not used to such a low 
    level modification. Also, 
    the addition of ~ seemed 
    pointless as my name 
    appeared automatically. I 
    edited stuff years ago 
    and I ly got back into it 
    recently because of the 
    level dissonance between 
    this article and 
    anecdotal observation 
    over the past year. I 
    will get to minor edits 
    as well, but 
    disinformation is 
    becoming a big problem 
    all over the internet
    TuffStuffMcG (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: So, what you need to do if to indent based on using colons (:). Each time that you're going to reply to a message, you add one colon to the number of colons used in the previous message. For example, a reply to an initial comment would use one colon (:message), a reply to that would use two (::message), a reply to that reply would use three (:::message), and you just continue using that sort of system. If you get to using maybe six or seven colons, you can use the template {{Od}} to reset. And you need to use four tides (~~~~) to sign your posts so that we know who's posted. After the end of my messages, etc, you can see my username, a link to my talk page, and the time and date. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This behavior by TuffStuffMcG seems to have passed into the realm of sea lioning. The competence level failure to have created that eyeball-gouging comment mess above is staggering and it's hard to imagine it's not deliberate. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

that's a new term for me. That must be it. I must be a sea lion, I guess

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

New link

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

---

There seem to be reliable sources claiming that the proud boys are white supremacists and terrorists.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/proud-boys-white-supremacist-group-law-enforcement-agencies

Many other links exist. I will leave it to more experienced editors to draw the appropriate conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.44.134 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a really helpful resource for the different classifications given to the group by law enforcement. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Blatant ACAB left bias

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

---

This entire article is biased for the ACAB left. Proud Boys are not racists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.131.74 (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's nobody else's problem that you clearly just don't like what you read. According to the reliable sources provided in this article, they are. Interestingly, you've not provided reliable sources that dispute this. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Arrest of Proud Boy member Alan James Swinney in Portland incident

Perhaps this information might be added, from Fox News, today:

"A known member of the far-right group Proud Boys was arrested Wednesday on various charges after allegedly pointing a gun at far-left demonstrators during clashes in Portland two months ago. Alan James Swinney, 50, has been charged with fourth-degree assault, fourth-degree attempted assault, two counts of second-degree unlawful use of mace, second-degree attempted assault, three counts of unlawful use of a weapon, two counts of second-degree assault, menacing, and pointing a firearm at another person, Multnomah County District Attorney's Office announced Wednesday." - Damingo Sanchez (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The basic content RE: Swinney, sourced to OPB and Guardian, was added. Thanks, Cedar777 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Perspective/Numbers

According to a recent piece in The Guardian (UK) these clowns number no more than a few hundred. Numbers should be stated in the lede to put this fad in perspective. Anyone looking at this article would think they were the SS. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"white nationalist" source

Source which has to confirm their white nationalist nature leads to paywalled Washington post. So it actually confirms nothing.

Paywalled and dead-tree sources are perfectly fine. Acroterion (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This Guardian article can be added as a source supporting the assertion that it is a white nationalist group. --2A02:AA13:6142:EE80:39EF:7175:3D2:F447 (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is the most left-wing mainstream newspaper in the UK... no one in Britain would trust them to report about an issue like this in an unbiased manner. It's like citing CNN. I don't know much (or care) about PBs but unbiased centrist newspapers (better yet academic journals etc.) would be needed.WisDom-UK (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says "There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable."

Even this article states that they deny white nationalim but have "ties" to white nationalism. What ties is that? Do they go to the same dentist?

All sources say "ties to white nationalism" - this is what should be stated in the article. Current claim is unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The source cited in the lead says Proud Boys have ties to white supremacists and sometimes use nationalist rhetoric common among hate groups. (Emphasis added.) NedFausa (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That claim is unsubstantiated and does not meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.153.199 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: Misquotation

Above, under "Misquotation D. J. Trump in section of presidential debate 2020", my amendement was closed by Jorm, who stated "Another sourceless and malformed change request. Nothing to do here."

I don't really see what the point of striking down an honest correction like mine is (and so callously, my goodness!). I mentioned my source for the back-and-forth in the debate (i.e. the broadcast of the debate itself, to be found plentifully in full-length online), but if I should've provided a weblink, then here you go: the timestamp I mentioned, on CNN's YouTube replay of the debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHFI8TsSKXY&t=3920. It clearly shows that the quotations of Trump as mentioned are not fully accurate, and they should be.

My other point, I reiterate: since this article discusses the mention of Proud Boys in the first 2020 presidential debate, and since this very article contains the phrase "AntiFa" 14 times, it seems to be extremely relevant to mention that Biden ended the quoted exchange by stating AntiFa is an idea, not an organisation. I don't see how this is a malformed change request (nor is what I asked above): it's crystal clear, and backed.

Also, while the archival text of my previous post mentions Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page., I think this seems to me to be that page. Don't kill me for it, Jorm -- some Wikipedia contributors actually just want to contribute. --MewTheEditor (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

MewTheEditor: Speaking for myself alone, I apologize for the way you and other users have been treated when submitting edit requests or making other comments. As I objected here yesterday, the conduct at this talk page by at least one administrator and one other editor has been rudely dismissive. Wikipedia has guidelines in place discouraging such behavior (Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith), but some people obviously do as they please. I assure you they are not representative of the larger community of Wikipedians. NedFausa (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

[Redacted - unsupported personal attack] I notice that despite all the beyond-reliable sources indicating that it's a white supremacist group, the page still says "they deny being white supremacist"... typical wikipedia failure on accuracy there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:5545:4200:E313:1BBF (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is questionable in the quote ... other than perhaps adding Trump's complete sentence, with a couple of words after the comma, which shows as a period. Biden's observation about anti-fascism being a movement, and not an organization doesn't seem germane - nor would be controversial, as I can't imagine anyone challenging such a simple statement. At the same time, I have no idea why Jorm closed the discussion; I'd have simply reopened it. Nfitz (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Nfitz: As a reader trying to see all sides, my initial takeaway from the section was Trump seemingly going for a resolute, blind dismissal of anything that went against the idea that "left-wing violence should be fought and that's the end of it" (not a quotation). Yet, in the debate, we saw him concede specifically that he wants peace, in between saying he'd be willing to condemn and asking whom he should condemn specifically. On the other hand, he specifically states at the end that he thinks it's a left-wing problem, not just not a right-wing problem. Both might seem trivial at first, but you and I both know how much it comes down to detail with these kinds of sensitive back-and-forths. Some people haven't gotten over Charlottesville[edit: spelling] due to missing details in selective coverage! Look, I'm no defender whatsoever of either parties' or candidates' missteps (or the associated extremist groups, neo-Nazis and anarchists alike), and I'm not saying either is being honest when speaking. I genuinely just want people who visit this article (I got here originally because it was n°1 trending on mobile yesterday) to get as clear of a picture as possible. That's lacking right now, and I've given a (my own) transcript to aid in editing.\newline Also, I'd like to correct you (with due mildness): Biden specifically said "an idea, not an organisation", not "a movement, not an organisation", and hence it's relevant here: the section on the debate in this article focuses on Trump only semi-condemning the Proud Boys, but equally, it's worth mentioning that AntiFa, which Proud Boys have come out against for being a dangerous movement (as AntiFa members have committed plenty of violence), is totally dismissed by Biden in the same beat Trump only semi-condemns Proud Boys. Again: extremely relevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MewTheEditor (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

What trump was doing is DARVO. The violent ones at the protests have been predominantly the white supremacist groups, and same is true for the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally (noticing you can't spell it correctly either). False equivalence isn't an argument, it's gaslighting.

How can one be a member of something that isn't an organization? There's literally not a membership - you almost write like there's an actual organization called antifa! I don't know what the reference to Charlotsville (Charlottesville?) and missing details in selective coverage means - or it's relevance. We shouldn't give too much weight on the words of a racist, unless it particularly relevant - perhaps if you could provide a clear proposed edit, rather than just critiquing it. Nfitz (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa: That's definitely an accurate observation. We're losing the sentiment of "Assume good faith" with each passing month ... Sad to see, because that way, we also exclude those who just want to make things a little better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MewTheEditor (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A good amount of the time people who aren't on wikipedia in good faith scream "assume good faith" as a shielding tactic, and it burns people out on bothering with wikipedia. And sometimes people have had enough of that gaslighting and start standing up. "Our social policies are not a suicide pact. " - Jimmy Wales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's start again from scratch since this seems to be heading away from the article. What exactly needs changing, what does it need to be changed to, and what sources do you have that support such amendment? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"Far right"? Is that well supported?

They are in the news, so I came here looking for concrete examples of what people have been accusing them of. I find this article lacking in examples.

Looking at the first ref. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/proud-boys-trump.html

"Far-Right Group That Trades in Political Violence Gets a Boost", that's the NYT headline. So maybe it should be "the NYT considers them to be far right".

Next mention is "the Proud Boys joined a group of right-wing demonstrators". So that ain't the ref.

"By reputation, the Proud Boys are a far-right group of brawlers". Is second hand reputation something we should be using?

"The Proud Boys have been able to make inroads with mainstream conservatives in part because its members wrap themselves in libertarian values, said Samantha Kutner of the Khalifa Ihler Institute". If the NYT wants to attribute this opinion, why don't we?

Why do I not find good examples of how they are "far right"? Seems like it's taken for granted. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: There are more sources throughout the entire article that support far-right. Wikipedia is neutral, but we also call a spade a spade. Just to clear the record:

• "Proud Boys: who are the far-right group that backs Donald Trump?"
• "Proud Boys: ‘Western chauvinist’ far-right group explained - and their reaction to Trump’s statement ‘Stand back and stand by’"
• "Who are the Proud Boys? Far-right group known for political brawls are in the spotlight after Trump tells them to ‘stand back and stand by.'"
• "The chairman of the far-right fraternity with a violent reputation..."
• "On the right, the Proud Boys'... official Twitter accounts were selected for their characteristic expression of Far Right political views"
• "Proud Boys: What we know about the far-right group Trump mentioned in the debate" (even Sky News has called them far-right)

Anything else? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Are these examples of opinion, or fact? Why is the first ref I looked at lacking? Do I need to read every ref to find it lacking? "Prove each ref wrong like you did the first" is the feeling I"m getting from you. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Taking a look at your first reference headline and subheadline. "Proud Boys: who are the far-right group that backs Donald Trump? Organisation founded ahead of 2016 US election is classified by the FBI as an ‘extremist group’"

THe Guardian doesn't feel comfortable saying the PB are far right themselves, they attribute it to the FBI. Why is every example I see like this? If it's so simple simon, just provide that evidence. Or at least a ref that I don't have to go only two sentences in to find it's opinion and not fact. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The job of the editors is NOT to decide what is "fact" and what is "opinion". It is to report what the reliable sources actually state, and they explicitly state it's "far right." Rjensen (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You are incorrect. If reliable source A says "reliable source B says that the PB are 'far right'", then we must say "reliable source B says that the PB are 'far right'". I think I remember you from the old days rjensen. You should know the difference between those two. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: With respect, we call a spade a spade. The FBI's determination of Proud Boys as an extremist group has no relevance to their far-right position. All the provided evidence supports calling them "far-right", and even disregarding the first source that you misread which calls the group "far-right" independently of any commentary about the FBI, all the other sources explicitly say far-right. Do you have any sources that explicitly say Proud Boys is not far-right? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you are incorrect as well. Controversial statements should be attributed. Saying "we call a spade a spade" sounds like the argument of someone who is wrong. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A statement is only "controversial" if reliable sources significantly disagree on it; simply stating that you disagree with what they say is not sufficient. There is no indication in these sources that there's any substantial disagreement; many of them are high-quality reliable sources, usable for statements of fact, describing the topic in an dispassionate, neutral tone. If you feel that their conclusions are debatable then you must provide other sources of comparable quality and weight to support that - otherwise, we are required to report the truth as the sources report it; presenting factual statements from high-quality reliable sources as if it were mere opinion would itself be improper editorializing on our part. I also disagree with your (implicit) assertion that "far-right" is an inherently value-laden term; it is not some insult or pejorative, but a neutral descriptor of political alignment that is widely used in both academia and high-quality journalism. --Aquillion (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Enrique Tarrio

Page watchers are invited to help improve Enrique Tarrio and contribute to discussions at Talk:Enrique Tarrio. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Trying to improve the lead

What exactly is the problem?[2] -- Kendrick7^talk 03:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is American society is undergoing a fundamental change and it does not make many very happy. So many want to revise what is documented into what they they believe to be the truth. It is the problem of national mythologies and history colliding that cause these tensions, form what I have found. Damingo Sanchez (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure we have articles all about all that stuff. But all that shouldn't be lain at the feet of a group of violent thugs. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: Hey Kendrick! There have been quite a few intense discussions about the labelling of Proud Boys (especially around white supremacy), and I feel as though your change, moving their classification as a far-right, neo-fascist, white supremacist and male-only to further down and the addition of "although led by a black Cuban-American", needs to get some more input and consensus before it should be published (especially around the wording). Also, just as a matter of fact, I don't think Proud Boys are engage in anti-left political violence "for the sake of fraternity". ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I can certainly put all of that in the opening sentence. I think it's only fair to summarize the various race issues involved here distinctly in the lead, but I am happy to discuss how best to do that. You shouldn't have completely removed my reference, in any case, per WP:REMOVECITE... actually, there are perhaps too many cites in the lead overall, but I don't know if I want to rock that boat! -- Kendrick7^talk 04:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: Per the BRD cycle, contentious or otherwise disputed edits may be reverted to seek consensus. Just for me to understand the end goal that you'd like to head towards, what specific things do you think need to be improved? Is it just the representation of white supremacy? If so, I think it's best that you find a number of sources that so prominently highlight the race of the Proud Boys' leader, keeping in mind that existing reliable sources have not ordinarily made such prominent injunctions. While it's certainly a factor to consider, I don't think, at this stage based on the sources provided, it is neutral and balanced to have any more discussion in the lead about it. It also sounds like a bit of a "I'm not racist, I have black friends" sort of thing, which raises other neutrality concerns. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the leader of the group is black seems worthy of mention somewhere in the lead, after all, if the group is indeed white supremacist, then having a black leader is highly notable, isn't it? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: We don't determine notability of facts; we rely on sources. If you can provide a significant number of reliable, high-quality secondary sources that prominently qualifies white supremacy with something like, "with ties to white supremacy, although their leader is a black Cuban-American", then absolutely we can talk about including it to prominently, but the current body of sources does not include such information as predominantly. That's not to say that it isn't mentioned anywhere, but it so far is not highlighted in enough sources to qualify being in the lead. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You are forgetting all about the WP:NPOV policy. Certainly in the interest of balance, it's only fair to mention this prominently. Can you not see that? In any case, I'll restore the source and we can go from there. I'll start a new discussion about that particular issue soon. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, NPOV is not about giving equal weight or balance to the mainstream and fringe views, nor it is about bothsideism and false balance. As stated by ItsPugle, we need reliable sources emphasizing this point. I also agree with ItsPubgle that "I'm not racist, but... I have black friends" is a good example and analogy. Davide King (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but we're talking about an actual organization with white supremacist ties being being led by black man What's wrong with mentioning that in the lead? That's not a "fringe" view; it's reality. We're allowed to apply WP:COMMON sense here. But like I said, I'll start a new discussion about it. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, I was not saying that was a "fringe" view, just that we do not give equal weight to fringe views or that we do not apply false balance; if reliable sources have not made that connection or emphasised that, then it is undue; if they did, it can be included. By the way, as noted above by Muboshgu, it is not uncommon or a impossibility that "nonwhite people join white supremacist groups." One does not need to be white to be a white supremacist, or a racial supremacist in general. There was a time when Irish people, among others, or white immigrants in general, especially in the United States, were not considered white, or 'pure' white, were discriminated against, etc. Davide King (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This article needs to go to NPOV/N or have an RFC to get input from fresh set of uninvolved editors. Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I've started the discussion over here: WP:NPOV/N#White supremacy and the Proud Boys. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Extremely broad edit by User:Davide King on 2020-10-04

@Davide King: your edit 981825720 was very broad and seems to have been made without sufficient discretion. Many of the items covered in your reversion were already discussed and you can use this Talk page to raise your objections. Your reversion also deleted unobjectionable improvements, e.g. the naming of some refs. Please review your changes more carefully. Tobor0 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You were the one to make significant changes to the lead and you were reverted by, so we should follow BRD. You changed organization to fraternal organization, but given refs do not support that statement; they support the neo-fascist, all-male statement. You also made other questionable changes, like removing the SLPC designation as hate group or the removal of white nationalism from the infobox. There were just many things wrong, including many ref errors caused by your edits, that I was not able to incorporate the improved refs' name changes.--Davide King (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Another example is your white-washing change from "As the Proud Boys emerged as part of the alt-right movement, McInnes distanced himself from them in early 2017, saying his focus was "Western values" while the alt-right's focus was race. The re-branding effort intensified following the Unite the Right rally.[21][22] to "Following the 2017 Unite the Right rally, McInnes distanced himself and the group from the alt-right movement, saying his focus was "Western values" while the alt-right's focus was race.[20][21]" Please, self-revert. You did a bold edit and was reverted, we should discuss this on the talk page and gain consensus for whatever your edits were an improvement. Davide King (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't make many of the changes you are mentioning, you're mistaken. Please review the history of the article more carefully. Tobor0 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, yes, it was Kendrick7 who did most of the edits and messed up the refs in the first place, but you did this (I have reword it adding planned per source), you did remove white nationalism from the infobox and also NPR's hate group designation. Davide King (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I fixed a bunch of refs, I didn't break them. I suspect you might have reverted my fixes though! -- Kendrick7^talk 21:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, I reverted your change of ref names, which may have been an improvement, because most of your other edits were problematic and I was not able to incorporate them. Sorry about that, I hope that can be fixed. Davide King (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Right. Someone else started changing the ref names, leaving them in a broken state. But whatever, water under the bridge. They are all working now. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: I replaced the NPR hate group designation with the ADL's designation -- a much more relevant group to the question at hand. I wrote a comment about this below Tobor0 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, no, you did not "replace[...] the NPR hate group designation with the ADL's designation." You simply removed that from the lead and it was the SPLC and NPR, where did you add or get the ADL designation? Davide King (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: Again, you are mistaken. Please direct your attention to edit 981761231 --Tobor0 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, here you removed NPR (without adding the ADL's designation, where did you add that? Or did you confuse the ADL for the SPLC?) and here you removed white nationalism. Here it was Kendrick7 who removed the hate group designation from the lead, if that is what you are referring; they are the one who made the most mess. Some of your other edits were fine. Davide King (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: no, look at the edit I shared in my most recent comment. I put the ADL text there, before it read "NPR Takeaway and SPLC", and after, it read "ADL and SPLC". In the edit you're referring to, I removed NPR because it's not an authority on who are hate groups, unlike the other two. It's like saying quantum physics has been confirmed by Einstein, Bohr, and Mr Jones my 10th grade physics teacher. The podcast in mention is not in anyway notable, nor is it an authority on who is a hate group. It makes the article read dumb, as though the authors are reaching to substantiate the hate group designation. --Tobor0 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong--NPR (National Public Radio) is a highly professional news media with many experienced reporters in every state. It is a reliable sources on current events--and one that scholars rely upon as does Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That makes them a credible source of news. It doesn't make them an authority on who is a hate group. Tobor0 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, sorry, I finally got it. You did remove NPR and changed it to "The organization has been described as a hate group by the ADL and the SPLC." But I am not sure whether the ADL has actually described it as a hate group (the SPLC clearly said so and I could verify that) and I agree with Rjensen that you cannot so easily dismiss that NPR source. Davide King (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: on this talk page editor User:The_Four_Deuces says "As you pointed out, news media routinely refer to them as white supremacist. I have always taken the view that news reporters do not have the expertise to make this determination." This is my point: being a reliable news source doesn't mean NPR can competently decide who is and isn't a hate group. And that doesn't begin to address the fact that NPR is not a monolith, but comprises many programs, and there is no reason to think a relatively unknown podcast like The Takeaway deserves the same presumption of competence as Morning Edition. It weakens the article to cite The Takeaway, a no-name podcast which holds no authority about deciding who is a hate group, when you have organizations who are authoritative on the question. As a reader, including it creates the appearance of cherry picking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobor0 (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, I understand what you are saying but I do not see a big issue. It is a reliable source and provides some context for why and how "the Proud Boys seem to have an ability to attract men of color, which seems at odds with groups that borrow heavily from a white supremacist ideology." It also cites "Tanya Hernández, professor of law at Fordham University and the author of the forthcoming book Multiracials and Civil Rights, and David Neiwert, author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump, and correspondent for the Southern Poverty Law Center, join the program to help make sense of this current phenomenon." Davide King (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

We will not be white-washing this article or downplaying their racism and white nationalist footprint in any way.--Jorm (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Jorm, so how could the organization remove a description of themselves which doesn't match their tenants, expressed beliefs, or membership? Would a few semireliable sources or court summaries which suggest that they are not neo-fascists or white supremacists do the trick? It is unclear how the Democratic party isn't called "white nationalist" on their entry, even though it used to be stated as a platform but is obviously no longer the case. The current description does not inform the reader, but does the opposite of that. Maybe a section could discuss alleged views by come current or past members, but it doesn't shouldn't label the organization -TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

An organization can get "ties with white nationalists" removed from their article by... not having ties to white nationalism. We are not a propaganda arm for neo-nazis. If they stop being neo-fascists and this is reflected in reliable sources, we'll stop calling them that. It's that simple.--Jorm (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jorm: stating the ideology of the organization as white nationalist is not supported by any facts. "Ties to white nationalists" -- many of which when investigated in the sources appear to be as simple as "a person was a member of both PB and a white supremacist group" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobor0 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jorm: you are a very dubious choice to be the guardian of this article. You routinely assume bad faith, for example, by alleging white-washing off the bat. Evidence of your condescension is all over this talk page. You appear to have no shame about the fact that your definition of white supremacy, racism, etc are unfalsifiable. At times you've even delved into psychoanalysis e.g. the "I have a black friend" sort of speculation above. As someone who actually worked at WP and represents the org in your bio still, I would have higher expectations for objectivity and fairness from you. Tobor0 (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• You made fairly WP:BOLD edits to the article, so it's not that surprising that someone would object and revert. Just going over your changes, I take issue with:

• The change from "male-only" to "fraternal organization"; those terms don't have the same connotations, and I don't think "fraternal organization" is what the sources use. Even worse (if I am reading the somewhat-confusing diffs right), it appears that the source for "male-only" was removed from that sentence at the same time?
• In this edit, the timeline with regards to their designation as an extremist hate group is obviously significant and is noted as such in the sources.
• In this edit, I don't understand your objection to NPR; it's a high-quality source and having them overtly describe the Proud Boys as a hate group is plainly significant enough to deserve a mention.
• In this edit you removed a description from the infobox that seems to reflect the group's uncontroversial description among reliable sources. You can't dismiss something as an "editorial assessment" just because you disagree with it; it reflects the factual description of the group by numerous high-quality expert sources, with no sources of comparable weight disputing or disagreeing with it. If anything, removing it feels like trying to apply editorial assessment to the conclusions of reliable sources.

None of these changes had consensus on talk that I can see, and most of them hadn't even been discussed, so it's hardly surprising they were reverted. --Aquillion (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I didn't change make the male-only change, and I added more and more reputable sources for the hate group claim. A random podcast on NPR is not an authoritative source on who is or is not a hate group, but the ADL is. Mentioning NPR's Takeaway podcast as the source when there are more sources relevant to the subject. It's like saying "quantum mechanical theories have been confirmed by leading theorists such as Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, and Dr Bob Dobbs associate physics professor at Dubuque Community College." The article is actually made more dumb if you don't stop at Bohr. Tobor0 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "fraternal organization", the Proud Boys do appear to refer to themselves as a fraternity, at least if the Daily Beast article cited in the Membership section is to be believed: "no heterosexual brother of the Fraternity shall masturbate more than one time in any calendar month". If some RS specifically contests the idea that they are "fraternal order", that's one thing. But according to common English usage and their own self-definition, the Proud Boys seem to qualify. I read "fraternal organization" as being somewhat more informative than "all-male", given the general flavor of the organization. According to the current WP page on fraternity, the definition is fairly loose. The gist is "an organization, society, club or fraternal order traditionally of men associated together for various religious or secular aims". NillaGoon (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Jorm, I understand that there should be a mention of "ties to white Supremacy" as that informs the reader. To list it under the group's ideology is wrong and untrue and is very concerning. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not, and Wikipedia should not, take an organization or person at their word about their ideologies if there is compelling evidence that those are falsehoods, especially when that is covered in reliable sources. I can tell you that I prefer red M&Ms to the exclusion of all others, but if I never eat a red M&M and everyone observes that I eat green and brown ones, then very little weight should be given to my statement.--Jorm (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jorm: ok -- what is the accurate entry for the M&M Preference field in your infobox? Jorm is a red m&m-ist because that's his self-description, or Jorm is a pan m&m-ist? What is the intention of the Ideology field in the infobox -- recap what the article finds or list the group's espoused principles? --Tobor0 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tobor0, I believe it is supposed to summarise what reliable sources and body say, not merely self-descriptions or self-esposued principles. Davide King (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: okay there are two issues here. First, I don't see evidence of consensus on this interpretation, so why is it being followed? Second, none of these sources and nowhere in the article is it being alleged that the Proud Boys themselves are white nationalists, only that they have connections, and it's been covered how tenuous a "tie" is. So even if we accept your interpretation that the infobox is meant for de facto assessments, we're not presenting evidence that this is their constructive ideology either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobor0 (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/white-supremacist-protest-activism-emily-gorcenski

The author of the above article calls the proud boys racist neo Nazis, but never makes the case that they are white supremacists. Ironically, she does call Trump, his admin and police in general "heavily infiltrated by white supremacists". I wonder if this would be an adequate source to update other people and organizations as white supremacists? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"TuffStuffMcG", they ARE white supremacists. https://time.com/5894743/trump-proud-boys-history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Opening sentence of the link "TuffStuffMcG" posted: "The far-right Proud Boys group, whom Donald Trump refused to denounce this week, have been linked to assaults on protesters, white supremacist organizing, the spread of Covid misinformation and other threats against Americans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It is hard to prove a negative. They recruit on anti racism, they preach anti racism, and they promote people of all races to the highest levels of the organization. I am unaware of any other white supremacist organization that does this. It seems like doublethink on the part of moderators here and is a cause for alarm about practices elsewhere on wikipedia TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

They don't "recruit on anti racism", nor do they "preach anti racism". This is getting silly to have Proud Boys sockpuppets showing up constantly trying to feed nonsense into this page. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/15/17978358/proud-boys-trump-biden-debate-violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It isn't nonsense. That vox article says things that are true. The speech coming out of the organization is polemical, and intentionally insulting and racially, ethnically charged - but when you take the bait and actually read the arguments, they tend to make the opposite point perceived at face value.https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/227053

Misogynistic, violent, extreme, far right, xenophobic even are all arguable. But White supremacist and neo-nazi is only defensible in the context that they are "linked to", due to shared forums for the deplatformed. The organization has become much more sensitive to this and taken a harder line against this association.

I am not a Proud Boy, but I do watch them pretty closely for consistency. White Supremacy and neo-nazism are abhorrent to me. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva, which you linked, is not a reliable source. The rest of your arguments do not hold water either.

First you claim "they tend to make the opposite point perceived at face value", literally trying to argue they don't say what they say... ridiculous.

Then you claim that they are only "linked to" other white supremacist and neo-nazi because they were deplatformed, but the reverse is the truth: they were deplatformed for their white supremacist hate, for their advocacy of terrorist violence, and for their associations with other white supremacist and neo-nazi movements. The behavior and associations came before the deplatforming.

As for your not being a "proud boy", I'm not buying the denial. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:4D78:CD7E:FE2F:A196 (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment to everyone - there's a new discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard about white supremacy and the Proud Boys. As for this discussion, almost everything seems to be based on personal opinions about sources and "that's not true" sort of arguments. For complaints about individual editor conduct, take it to user talk pages or if you feel so, the administrators' noticeboard. If you want to change content in the article, please provide significant reliable and independent sources to support your assertions. Claims that sources aren't true, or that a source is unreliable, should only be made when supported by an existing consensus listed for a source or a consensus from the reliable sources noticeboard, not personal opinion or what we think "the truth" is. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There was an allegation that the proud boys were anti-semitic. If a zionist Israeli press doesn't take issue with Proud Boys being anti-semitic, that should be an indicator - as they should be expert on those opposed to their own cause. This would be "reliable in this specific context" even though there is a suggestion it is a "deprecated source" TuffStuffMcG (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: Using what a news agency (let alone one that's classified as a deprecated source with a consensus against it) doesn't say is original research and not allowed. If you're talking about the Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) site, the second line literally mentions that there have been an "outcry" of allegations of anti-Semitism:

Originally titled “10 things I hate about Jews,” the name of the clip was altered to “10 things I hate about Israel,” following an outcry on social media and accusations of anti-Semitism.

Do you have any reliable and independent sources that explicitly say that Proud Boys is not anti-Semitic? Anyways, is that already in the article? If so, it should already have reliable sources attached to it. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That same article mentions that the writer of the insultingly titled article/video was in Israel at the time, on the invitation of a pro-Israel event. He lambasted Nazis and made it clear that he likes Jews and defends Israel (in the linked article). The article is pretty informative toward the point I'm trying to make, that his "shtick" was pretty average even for a tell aviv comic on a regular night and that the content was clearly pro-Israel.

As I've said before, it is tough to prove a negative. The best way to do that is to undercut a knee-jerk initial impression (that was intentionally cultivated by mcinness for shock affect) that he was anti-semitic at all. You are supposed to read the title and think you are going to see a fascist. You are then met by a mainstream conservative comedy, recorded in Israel about how great Jews are and how Israel is a major ally.

This illustrates the point that the organization is a vice-signalling group, with a more extreme version of otherwise standard conservative principles. I only have issue with the white supremacist and neo-nazi labels as I believe they miss the point entirely. The organization can reliably be called violent, nationalistic, xenophobic etc as I think that their messaging and independent sources have evidence of these things. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"a vice-signalling group, with a more extreme version of otherwise standard conservative principles is definitely a fancy doubletalk or weasel word way of avoiding saying what the consensus of reliable sources say, which is that the group is a far-right,[1][2] neo-fascist,[3][4][5][6] and male-only[7][8] organization affiliated with white supremacists[9][10][11][12] that promotes and engages in political violence.[13][14][15][16]. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with some of that.

the group is a far-right,[1][2] and male-only[7][8] organization that promotes and engages in political violence.[13][14][15][16].

"Associated with" is a weak and bizarre rationalization for their organizational description and summary. Neo-fascist is directly in contradiction of their tenants, but I have seen the Pinochet shirts which are confusing TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, they are self-declared "Western chauvinists". Western seems to be a dog-whistle for "White" and chauvinism is "the irrational belief in the superiority or dominance of one's own group or people, who are seen as strong and virtuous, while others are considered weak or unworthy." So ironically, by their own self-description, they are white supremacists. This point was made here by The Four Deuces and I find it a nice analogy. Regarding "Neo-fascist is directly in contradiction of their tenants", let me succinctly quote you that "[a] number of far right groups officially renounce racism or fascism but it's cosmetic rather than genuine. [...] And there's a long history of racists showing admiration for some minority groups." Davide King (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

https://officialproudboys.com/uncategorized/what-is-a-western-chauvinist/

Since the adamantly define themselves as NOT that, it could help to read what they say that they mean TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have more than one ideology in the info-box. All the categories mentioned roll up to far right so why not just use that? In truth experts have a hard time further classifying far right groups into specific ideological units, since they tend to change and aren't very coherent anyway. Also, they tend not to have a pedigree. They suddenly emerge, usually led by veterans of earlier far right groups, then disappear. And they always try to distance themselves from earlier far right groups. TFD (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

FBI backtracking pertinent enough for the lead?

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.

---

Do we really need a whole paragraph about the FBI flip-flopping on their opinion about this group in the lead? Seems like this would barely pass WP:NOTNEWS to make it into the article at all, but I don't think it's informative enough to be in the lead. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: A designation of several members of the group as a threat and as white supremacists by the FBI is not minor. We can probably remove some of the mentions about how the whole group was originally classified, but based on the coverage and reactions to the declaration, we would be unbalanced to not mention that several members were indeed classified. Also, WP:NOTNEWS is about the enduring value of content; an FBI-deemed connection to white supremacy is of enduring value. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, but I think we can do all that in a sentence, not a paragraph. I'll think about how to cut this down. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: I'll go through and remove some of the excess information about the FBI's miscommunication about the scope of the designation, but we're not going to remove every mention. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Connections to white supremacy should be mentioned in the article, but is questionable of it should define the group, or receive more mention than a sentence or subsection. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: The FBI's designation of several members as white supremacy threats is important and irremovable context to a number of events. We can remove some of the excess detail, but we're not going to straight out remove crucial context. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As I've said, reference to past or current members stated beliefs belongs in the article. My suggestion is that past members views don't belong in the current organizations description when they fly directly on contrast with the rules and tenants. That's all.

Proud Boys are concerned about white nationalist infiltration themselves. When McInness was still in charge, he went so far as to blanket remove all members involved in "unite the right" particularly the disturbing torch procession. That could be PR. But it is consistent with the stated goals of the organization - to entice non-white members. It beggars belief that the proud boys would WANT non-white members in particular if their "secret goal" was white nationalism.

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/proud-boys-founder-tries-and-fails-to-distance-itself-from-charlottesville-6862fb8b3ae9/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: Removing details because they contrast with the organisation's self-proclaimed rules is original research and an NPOV issue since we're then not addressing the very common and accepted POV that the organisation has ties to white supremacists. And for ThinkProgress, there is [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#ThinkProgress|a consensus that the source is partisan for US politics] and has a community consensus that it could be considered an opinion blog and could be a reliable source on non-political topics. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"Kicking out just a few people who became a PR liability" or "Kicking out the guys who manage to get themselves arrested" isn't evidence that they "are concerned about white nationalist infiltration". Their continued alliances with other white supremacist groups speak for themselves. Similarly, Tarrio's pronouncements are about as two-faced as McInnes's. Note that he made the perfunctory "official claim" but the actual reaction on the PB hashtag has been something else. https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/10/04/the-proud-boys-are-furious-that-gay-men-have-taken-over-proudboys-on-twitter/#55af370f2aaf 2601:2C0:C300:B7:C17:56A1:4AF:868E (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Linking Western culture in lead

OK, so why is this controversial? We have a whole article on Western culture so as to clarify the meaning of the term. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, I think the issue in my view is that it is not clear what is meant by that; same thing for "Western values". Several other right-wing or far-right groups also have an idiosyncratic views of the Constitution. It may well be the Proud Boys have a similar idiosyncratic view on "Western culture" and "Western values". Are there any source that describe what the Proud Boys meant by those terms? Davide King (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If we started applying that standard, we'd have to remove half the links on Wikipedia. I don't see the point in denying our readers the opportunity to learn more about the topic via a handy link. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, well, I like to think we do apply that standard already. If something in quote is not clear, it should not be linked and should be linked somewhere else, for example in a See also section. I could be wrong though and it is not a big deal, I just would like to hear what other users think and if there are sources that discuss what the Proud Boys mean by those terms. Davide King (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

https://officialproudboys.com/uncategorized/what-is-a-western-chauvinist/

As Gavin McInness apparently invented the combination of those 2 words (according to this article), it stands to reason that he or the organization who subscribes to it should inform the definition somewhat

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, that is interesting. So by Western civilisation, culture and values, they mean Judeo-Christian ethics, not Western culture, which may actually include many things the Proud Boys oppose. Davide King (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Informed by* seems to be an important qualifier, as does the Graeco Roman Republic mentioned in the article. As a Christian, I am "informed by religion", but you will read that government should be secular.

There are other important expanses on the idea in the same article. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Either way, I think my point stands; that since it is their own particular interpretation, it should not be directly wikilinked to either Western civilisation/culture/values, perhaps adding this quote as self-description, if it is found to be notable or due, with a link to Judeo-Christian ethics. Davide King (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It's overlinking. There's no reason why a reader would follow the link to find out more about Western culture. You don't have to know about Plato to understand what they are talking about. TFD (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It's got about as much to do with "western culture" as Ethics (Scientology) has to do with actual ethics, to wit: NOTHING. Delink it. It's doubletalk and fake definitions used as weasel words to support a white-supremacist agenda. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 presidential election

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.

---

Trump mentioned them on the debates, but it does not fall under the "activities" or "events" done by Proud Boys. Any ideas how to keep Trump's statements, while not including them in Activities section?

It could also be merged (after massively shortened) to their introduction section.SunDawn (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@SunDawn: I'm not sure if you posted this before or after, but it looks like this coverage has been moved to its own section in the article. Personally I don't think we need an entire section on them, I would prefer to just have a paragraph in the History and organization section, but I thing I might be alone with that. I think we could be verging on giving undue weight to Trump's comments; the Unite the Right rally (Charlottesville rioting and car attack that resulted in 19 casualties and 1 fatality) for example, is a sub-section, whereas Trump's comments that have only been used as a promotional tagline for the group is a full blown section. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Source changeouts in the lead

Ok, so what was the justification of all that source changing for the two words in lead? The existing sources were fine. It wasn't being disputed. Why the change from news articles to books and journals? Some of which was quite obviously a biased source. Graywalls (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, well, one criticism was that those news sources were "left-leaning", "biased", etc. Maybe now users and IPs will be less likely to moan on the talk page? I doubt that though. I also thought that those academically ones listed by ItsPugle were better. The news sources are still there, I just moved them in the main body. If we can use those book and journal sources in the main body too, that would be good. Davide King (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Then, let them moan. The amount of unnecessary source bloating is getting out of hand. Graywalls (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I would not dismiss academic sources as bloating and it is four for each, not eight or ten each. Davide King (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally speaking... in this article. Look at the end of first paragraph under membership. That's ridiculous. Graywalls (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, I agree, they should probably be better distributed. The same source may be used to source something else, etc., rather than having many for a single sentence. I hope the ones in the lead were not eliminated though. They should either be used somewhere else in the main body or add as Bibliography or Further reading. Davide King (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King and Graywalls: I've started a section for a possible solution to look at here. Let's keep talking about a way to resolve this over there? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixing some citation efficiency issues

Hey everyone. Just based on the general excess of citation, I think the issue isn't over citations but just that so many statements are naturally controversial that they need several reliable sources. To help clean up the visuals of the article while still providing adequate and efficient citations, why don't we have a look at bundling citations into one footnote? My understanding of how that works is that within a <ref>...</ref> tag, you include several {{cite news}} etc templates separated by semi-colons. For example: this is a statement with two citations bundled into one. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've started a trial run of using bundling in the article. Because of the way that we reuse sources, with <ref name="...">, I can't think of an easy workaround for bundling sources used in multiple times other than just repeating citations (which I think might be a worthwhile trade-off). You should be able to see a bundled citation here. I originally was using {{Unbulleted list}}, but it made it almost impossible to tell where one citation stars and begins when it's put into columns, so I changed it to {{Bulleted list}} - does anyone have any idea how to get rid of the spare blank link at the beginning of the ref? Also, does anyone know how to use {{Multiref}}? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Should Joint Event with BLM chapter be mentioned?

Should joint events with groups other than extremist and white supremacist organizations be mentioned? Now, or if they become more frequent?

(3 sources for same event)

http://kutv.com/news/local/blm-group-proud-boys-stand-together-at-salt-lake-city-press-conference

https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/10/01/black-lives-matter-proud-boys-utah-trump.html

https://www.theblaze.com/news/local-blm-leader-holds-joint-press-conference-with-proud-boys-these-are-not-white-supremacists TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again a failure of media literacy.

1. The "BLM" involved, "Black Lives Matter, Northern Utah" is a WP:FRINGE group with a name possibly intended to confuse people.
2. "Black Lives Matter, Northern Utah" is so WP:FRINGE that at least one if not both of much larger/legitimate Utah chapters disavow them. https://twitter.com/blcklvsmatut/status/1312931393329004544 The coverage is very careful to make clear that this WP:FRINGE group is not affiliated with BLM Utah.
3. Neither of the supposed representatives of the "Salt Lake City Chapter of the Proud Boys" would actually identify themselves.
4. The statements made by the Proud Boys representatives fall well into the unduly self-serving category. This includes items such as:
   1. Attacking the SPLC and trying to cast the Proud Boys as victims of the SPLC.
   2. Attempting to declare that the "antifa" are the problem, going so far as "He lumped them [Antifa] with outright white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Identity Evropa"
   3. The combination No True Scotsman and "it was a joke" defenses: "And when it comes to Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes, who has vocally embraced far-right, Islamophobic, racist, misogynistic and overall xenophobic rhetoric, “Thad” and “Seth” would only agree that McInnes is a “professional provacateur” looking for “clickbait” who primarily started the group as a “joke.”"
5. "TheBlaze", and any other portion of "Blaze Media", is not a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

If there were a national level detente from the top of the Proud Boys organization down, or a large-scale series of occurrences over weeks or months from true state-level leadership that indicated an actual change in the Proud Boys organization that would be one thing. This was a dog and pony show signifying nothing. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It would need coverage in reliable national media. TFD (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2020

Change the organization website from http://officialproudboys.com/ to https://proudboysusa.com/. This is because http://officialproudboys.com/ is a dead link and the official website location has changed to https://proudboysusa.com/. For verifying this information, check the links provided as well as view the following YouTube video at 2:23:15 where Enrique Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys, lists the website https://proudboysusa.com/ as the official website. Here is that video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj-WUk0c5wQ&feature=youtu.be&t=8595 GreysonMazar (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for the updated URL and for the video, which I verified. NedFausa (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Enrique Tarrio in the lead

Emir of Wikipedia, please clarify what is undue about "Enrique Tarrio, the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, has been the chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019." That he is the Florida State Direct of Latinos for Trump? But given ref says and also talks about the Proud Boys, so it seems to be relevant and due. Or that he has been the chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019? Surely, this short uncontroversial information, that Tarrio has been the group's chairman, can have one sentence in the lead. Davide King (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, please actually discuss and clarify rather than add a bunch of tags. Davide King (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you stop removing them before discussion has finished. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, and can you please open a discussion yourself and actually discuss it rather than just adding tags left and right? I think it is good manner to open a discussion about it when putting the tag; the tag should be justified and not based on the opinion of a single editor. I opened this one for you, I removed the tag because it was not clear which part of that phrasing you found undue (if you had replied about which part, I would have added it back myself already), but I did leave intact the rewrite tag. Davide King (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry. Have had a few edits with you recently. Is this section about the inclusion of "Enrique Tarrio, the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, has been the chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019" in the lead? If so can you restore the tag, and please link to this discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, yes, this discussion is about that phrasing, but it is not clear what exactly is undue in your view. Are you referring to the whole phrase or just to "the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump"? Please, clarify this and I will put myself the tag in. Davide King (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to the whole phrase. We do not to include a mention of the chair in the lead and his other roles, especially if it not really a consequential or influential position. I am not saying that the sources are not reliable, or that is can not be mentioned in the text body. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, so I re-added it with a link to this discussion (see here). I thought it was not controversial to add a sentence about the current leader of the group in the lead (I did not add that sentence myself, it was there for a while, I simply reworded it from "Enrique Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019, is also the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump." to "Enrique Tarrio, the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, has been the chairman of the Proud Boys since 2019." I also added two refs already in body and removed a primary one from the Latinos for Trump website. The CNN source mentions both the Proud Boys and that Tarrio is the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, etc., so I thought my wording, which made it more about Tarrio being the group's chairman since early 2019 than being the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump, which is mentioned in the CNN source. Davide King (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally do not think it should be in at all at the moment. Other editors may think it should be in with mention of Latinos for Trump, and other without. We will have to wait and see. That is the beauty of consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, Enrique Tarrio is a notable person. Chairman is a notable role. As mentioned below I am in favor of keeping but without mention of Latinos for Trump (which is not independently notable). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, I thought the tag {{undue inline}} was for "a fact or posit to signify that this statement may be giving undue weight to an idea or point of view". I'm not sure that there is an undue POV in the factual statement. On the other hand, it is not the one of the article's most important contents that ought to be summarized in the lead either. I don't think it needs to be in the lead, and we already have it in the infobox. Vexations (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Just keep mention of Enrique Tarrio in his role as chairman since whatever date. No need to worry about Latinos for Trump. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The association with another racist front/astroturf group seems notable. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Would you be able to just quickly explain why the entire lead needs to be rewritten? Just briefly skimming over this, it sounds like the only meaningful disagreement here is about if to include Tarrio as the leader for Latinos for Trump or not. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, I agree. I just tried to fix that by doing this. Davide King (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle:, I don't disagree with him for tagging it. It's too controversial to boldly make a major change, but it's a huge mess. The lead is like the executive summary section and should summarize the remainder of the article. It has quotations and such that should below in body. See WP:LEAD. Also "male only" in lead is just tacky especially with such a group name. See the Good Article Boy Scouts of America, a boys only group. It doesn't start with anything like boys-only scouting group. Graywalls (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls:, you may have missed this, but the reason that wording isn't in Boy Scouts of America is that the organization is no longer boys-only. They changed their policies over the last few years to allow gender-separated troops of either boys or girls, trying to compete against the Girl Scouts of the USA and peel off some membership in areas where hyperconservatives are angry about GSA's acceptance of nonbinary and transgender members. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Also, Proud Boys is also not particularly obvious that it's male only. While it hints to it, I think there's no harm in having "male-only", and as the IP comment below, there are notable organisations where their gender-access is unrelated to their name. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

also see Navy Midshipmen football No reference to gender/sex at all. I think the "men-only" in first line is ridiculous. Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC) @ItsPugle: Graywalls (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That a group has a membership criterion that eliminates half the population is noteworthy. Whether or not a completely unrelated article about a completely unrelated sport has such a restriction or the article mentions it is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think they were questioning more about in the being in the first line than inclusion in general. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Can everyone please stopping tag me in this discussion if I have not replied in just a few seconds. There is obviously different views as shown in the above discussion, so I feel that some tag is justified for the time being. If there is consensus that no changes should be made, then I will have to accept the tags removal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: With all due respect, you added the tag that calls for the entire lead to be rewritten, so you do need to kind of actually be engaged here? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between someone not engaging and someone getting ping if they had not replied shortly after another ping. The second seems like borderline WP:harassment. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I don't know what you're trying to suggest here? You're engaging in multiple lines of discussion here, and with multiple editors, so it's natural that you're going to be getting multiple notifications when different users reply to different discussions. If you think that being pinged across multiple discussions is harassment, then I'd encourage you to maybe look at changing your notification settings, but you're actively engaging in a highly-active discussion on a controversial article's talk page - getting several pings is kind of expected. I cannot see anywhere in this discussion where you've been pinged twice by the same editor without you replying in-between. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, after I literally asked to stop being pinged you decide to ping me. I could somewhat understand your argument in good faith, but the fact you have just gone and done that what am I even meant to say. Please be respectful, like I did and followed your preferred ping preferences, otherwise I might have to ask for a WP:IBAN. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm just very very confused as to exactly what you want here. To me, you started complaining about getting multiple pings for the same message, then you seemed to be complaining about getting multiple pings across multiple conversations; I did not take that as a request for people to just blanketly never ping you. I now know that you just never want to be pinged, so I'll try and remember that if I ever run into you again on WP ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 00:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I accept your apology, and it it my fault for being unclear. You can ping me if you me elsewhere. Just please don't do it if someone has just pinged me on the same article less than a day ago. Funnily enough someone was threatening to take me to WP:ANI for pinging (via their talkpage) in response to their false claims about me. (no need to ping me on reply) -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View discussion

It is still ongoing at NPOVN Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#White_supremacy_and_the_Proud_Boys I'm under the impression that consensus hasn't been reached that the current presentation of lead is neutrally presented. am I wrong? Graywalls (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: My understanding of the discussion is that although the statements are supported, the disagreement right now is about the prominence and balance. There's some editors wanting to remove everything apart from what the SPLC and ADL have said, while there are others wanting the status quo. Personally, I feel as though the discussion on NPOV/N combined with local consensuses here support the status quo (just needing to swap out some citations with others that are already out there), but that might just be me applying my own biases. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Oh, and this discussion should also probably be on the noticeboard, not here. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

At this point what is probably needed is a discussion, or RFC, on the newly proposed "rule" by the likes of Masem that somehow nothing that the subject of an article disagrees with (no matter how disingenuous or unduly self serving the statements by the subject may have proven to be) may be allowed into the first sentence of an article. As long as we're having to deal with people just making up nonexistent rules out of whole cloth... 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Masem every said that, so please don't put words in their mouth. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Then I guess I need to question your WP:COMPETENCE in reading what was plainly written over and over by Masem and Springee both, to wit "The first sentence should be 100% objective and no matter how much we dislike the subject should not be the sentence where the negativity starts" being the new rule they want to create out of whole cloth despite zero support in the written policy. Maybe it's english language troubles? Of course there's also the constant snide commenting and agenda-revealing language about "liberal groups" and nonsensical portrayals such as "It can be hard for groups that are this hated in the world" and "despite how hated the group is by mass media" to consider from the source of those trying to create a rule out of nothing. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Masem said "We should never lede off with that characterization, per NPOV, no matter how universal that is.", which I read as essentially the same thing. (It is an... idiosyncratic interpretation of policy that I know they have presented before but which plainly does not reflect current practice at all.) The fact is that we are required to summarize the topic according to the best sources available; "this cannot be a dry, uncontroversial fact, because it feels too controversial to me" is a common WP:FALSEBALANCE problem that has no basis in policy. --Aquillion (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Aquillion, I agree, we should present the group as reliable independent secondary sources present them. Sure they dispute the fact that they are far-right misogynist white supremacists. They would say that, wouldn't they? I have no doubt that many historiucal fascist groups were equally adamant that they were merely fraternal organisations representing the legitimate views of their members.

  Equally, though, this is not supposed to be a hatchet job, and articles on groups like this are robbed of much of their power if they are perceived as attack articles. There is no need to lead the reader here. Any neutral presentation of the facts will inevitably show that this group is beyond the pale. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guy:

It is one thing to deny a label over semantic issues (as the KKK itself has rejected the white Supremacy label, which is substantively absurd https://apnews.com/article/b0256e138327481ebcba6e23e2d03957)

It is another thing to deny a label because it contradicts stated organizational tenants and the personal beliefs of interviewed members. It has been said here that "western world" chauvanism is indistinguishable from "white nationalism", but this is on its face a racist belief that only "whites" have contributed to building the "western world" which false; or that the "white" ethnic construct is in posession of the western world, which are untrue ideas. The Western World can be upheld for its pluralism, equal protections of law, respect for individual liberties, and minimization of the state to protect those things. People of all backgrounds have contributed and continue to contribute significantly to it's development.

It is interesting that the ADL and SPLC, who are viewed as experts in this area, chose not to label the organization as white supremacists or white nationalists - this should be instructive for a neutral point of view. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

If we have better sources than the SPLC we can use them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

SPLC denialism is itself a pretty strong evidence of competence issues.

Beyond that, though, TuffStuffMcG grossly misrepresents SPLC's and ADL's coverage, which states:

1. "Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions: rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists.". https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys
2. "While the Proud Boys often publicly denounce white supremacy, their activity has attracted white supremacists who share the group’s opposition to progressive politics and proclivity for violence."https://www.adl.org/proudboys
3. "But while the alt right and alt lite are theoretically distinct – and include a number of warring factions, as seen at dueling June 2017 rallies in Washington DC – there is crossover between them. There are a number of people and groups who walk the line between alt right and alt lite, to the extent that it’s not always easy – or even possible -- to tell which side they’re on. The Proud Boys, an alt lite, right-wing activist group founded by Gavin McInnes and dedicated to “Reinstating a Spirit of Western chauvinism,” is a good example of a group toeing that line; some of their members support alt right figures and events, while others have made a point of steering clear of anything associated with white supremacist beliefs." ... "Within the Proud Boys creed “The West is the Best” lies an implicit anti-Eastern bias common among right-wing extremists and white supremacists." https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/from-alt-right-to-alt-lite-naming-the-hate

It's not good to blatantly misrepresent sources. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if I made it seem like I was criticizing SPLC in my above post. I was highlighting the difference between linking individuals within an organization to white nationalist rhetoric (as SPLC does) and categorizing the entire organization as white nationalist, as the wiki info box here does.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible Source

"Proud Boys Website, Online Store Dropped by Web Host" may be of use or interest.--Jorm (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

"Reclamation of #proudboys hashtag" section

This section seems pretty badly written. The phrase "to transform the hashtag #proudboys from hate and bigotry, to inclusion and joy" just isn't neutral at all, and the title's use of the word "reclamation" suggests the group stole the name "Proud Boys" from the gay community, and this is not the case. The origin of their name is discussed earlier in the article. There's also no citation that "messages posted by members contained chiefly hateful comments" on Parler. This whole Wikipedia article seems a bit weird, to be honest, some users contributing to it are very openly biased against the Proud Boys on this talk page and the article reflects that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:278:2018:C41:A8EB:6C8E:F5F6:A54E (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing of the Parler comments is the Forbes article cited. If you read the article there's probably a lot more that should be cited to show how the Proud Boys organization really acted, to put their unduly self-serving initial denials into context. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I just deleted the entire section as insignificant to the subject of this article per WP:RECENTISM. Not every news story, no matter how many outlets cover it, is an encyclopedic entry for the wiki page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: That's definitely an inappropriate removal. I see that I can't undo it but I definitely would if I could. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe it was inappropriate, but I will defer if WP:CONSENSUS builds to restore it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You blanked a section that was well sourced, with no discussion. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A0D1:A9CD:A352:B563 (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not know whether it is due or not, so I hope other users can state their thoughts and reach a consensus. IP, why do you not create an account? Davide King (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I would be pleased as punch to see IP make an account. I feel they're a good voice around, and I don't like losing their contributions in a cloud of IP addresses.--Jorm (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It was a newly added section that can be deleted through WP:BRD. This is the discussion. If there's consensus to restore it, it can be restored. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu deleting it. I feel that the entire hashtag thing is a fart in a bag, and would at best be worthy of a sentence... unless it gets bigger. However, I don't feel very strongly, though, and would not be opposed to it being restored.--Jorm (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources:

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/10/04/the-proud-boys-are-furious-that-gay-men-have-taken-over-proudboys-on-twitter/#184b084a2aaf
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/10/05/proud-boys-gay-men-use-twitter-reclaim-right-wing-group/3620924001/
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/04/us/proud-boys-twitter-hashtag-gay-men-trnd/index.html
• https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/10/05/proud-boys-infuriated-gay-love-flooding-its-twitter-hashtag
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/05/proudboys-twitter-lgbtq-takei/
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54380656
• https://www.cnet.com/news/gay-men-take-over-proud-boys-twitter-hashtag-with-messages-of-love-and-lgbtqi-pride/
• https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/twitter-users-flood-proudboys-hashtag-gay-pride-images-n1242101

I think at least minimal mention is necessary. Side note: as a gay man, this makes me so happy. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, so, what you're saying, is you were a "Proud Boy"? :P It got lots of coverage sure, but now it's over. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, Didn't participate in the campaign but support the takeover. "Now it's over" doesn't quite work for me. The End Domestic Terrorism rally is also "over" but that doesn't mean not worth including. I'm not suggesting these are similar in scale, but at the same time, I don't see how a single sentence about the takeover is problematic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, by "now it's over", I mean I don't think hijacking the hashtag leads to any WP:LASTING impact. I'm open to the other points of view on this though. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I should note, a notable person (George Takei) spearheaded the effort. Also, I find this relevant in the context of Proud Boys' stances on sexuality. Besides, if we can have a single (currently unsourced) sentence about masturbation ("The masturbation policy was modified to read: "no heterosexual brother of the Fraternity shall masturbate more than one time in any calendar month".), your argument falls a bit flat. We don't have to make this a big deal -- one sentence about a temporary takeover spearheaded by Takei in early October 2020 seems sufficient to me. I'll be keeping an eye on this discussion, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I do know about Takei's involvement, and had no idea there was a sentence in this article about masturbation. Weird. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: There's a sentence about masturbation because they make a surprisingly big deal about it, it's literally one of their requirements for membership. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FD59:4855:C8D6:F3B9 (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Yeah, Takei reportedly started the entire thing. It's also been picked up by Australian and New Zealand news agencies:

• ABC News
• SBS News
• NZ Herald

ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for some explanation from @Muboshgu: to justify failing to include coverage of something that was noted internationally, especially with the level of vitriolic response from the Proud Boys despite their "official" claim to not care... 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2C26:E795:C811:3DED (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I already have. It was a thing in the 24 hour news cycle and has since past without any lasting impact. If inclusion relied on the presence of sourcing alone, we would be Kardashianopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It's now even causing fact-checking. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boys-change-name-leather-men/ 2601:2C0:C300:B7:ACBB:DDDC:F690:A1EA (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have a feeling that there is enough enduring sources and coverage to warrant a section (maybe under the 2020 header, instead of a level 1 section). It has been substantially covered by sources across the entire world (including in countries like Australia and New Zealand where the Proud Boys have no presence) over several days (Saturday/Sunday–Thursday). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Agreed, the event has achieved enough notoriety to warrant inclusion. It is also still being reported on, so we're past the 24 hour news cycle argument. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Removal: It was wonderful fun, but I support the removal based primarily on WP:LASTING. If the information about Takei is confirmed (I didn't check into it), then it may merit a statement there (if there already isn't one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 14:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: WP:LASTING is about standalone articles about a single event, not a section. The source I added before it was removed said that Takei was the initiator of the trend, and it's been continually covered now for almost a week across the world. Also, please don't forget to sign your comments :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 00:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support inclusion --- per Locke Cole and itsPuggle. Best if kept brief. Include mention of Takei & contrast between the PB public response vs message board response. Cedar777 (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Support inclusion just to make sure I note it officially. Mention Takei, mention possibly magnitude of takeover, mention contradiction between PB public responses and other responses (PB official Parler account response and rank-and-file PB member behavior cited in reliable sources). 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this section ought to get back in. Palnatoke (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Palnatoke: I agree, the consensus appears to be hinting towards restoring it. @Muboshgu: I don't want to tread over the line, so if you're in agreement, would you be happy to restore the content, or would you like one of us to? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, I don't agree with it, so I'm not going to reinsert it. But, if it is the consensus, I'm not going to remove it again. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: weren't you the person who said "I do not believe it was inappropriate, but I will defer if WP:CONSENSUS builds to restore it" above? Are you going back on your statement since the consensus seems to be to restore? 2601:2C0:C300:B7:61F1:70B1:3D7F:EDDD (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: All good! I don't agree with the semantics of the reply to you from the IP, but I just wanted to give you a chance to self-revert instead of being reverted by someone else. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, I'm okay with someone reverting my edit, rather than self-reverting. It's been long enough that we're not in any 1RR trouble here. I do believe that IP has misunderstood what I've been saying. I said I'd defer, and that's what I'm doing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Include. It was big news. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for removal: "Members often carry guns"

Citation is unsubstatiated conjecture. We could fill this page up with phrases that may be true, but are not useful in any way. "Members often breathe atmospheric oxygen" "Members sometimes wear clothing" "Members usually sleep in beds" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyroboy1080 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not "unsubstantiated conjecture". It's verifiable.

Wikipedia does not require that reliable sources prove, demonstrate or support what they say.

Independent reliable sources say Proud Boys often carry guns, wear black and yellow Fred Perry polo shirts, engage in political violence, are affiliated with white supremacy, etc. Wikipedia reports those things because independent reliable sources say them, not because sources "substantiate" them. We also don't report what reliable sources say, except for those things someone challenges on the talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

active locations

is says they are active in America and Canada, however they have a large presence in the UK (Proud Boys Britannia) and Australia! In fact, the UK are hugely active. To ignore would be dangerous. RAngel1986 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have sources for the Australia claim? I was able to find this Newsweek piece regarding "Proud Boys Britannia" but the only other coverage I could find was from suspect outlets or outright propaganda outlets such as RT (TV network) (formerly "Russia Today"): https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-uk-ship-fred-perry-polo-us-1535257

Note that the Newsweek source doesn't give any information on the size of the PB-Britannia organization, so the idea that they are "hugely active" is not able to be supported there. The description of the group as given sounds more like it's 5-6 british neo-nazis money laundering shirt purchases, as a mere 250 shirts wouldn't require a large group to order online or repackage for shipping to the USA. Their Telegram (not going to link it because EWWWWW) has multiple highly racist, homophobic/transphobic, antisemitic and neo-nazi posts up, including one from a Canadian neo-nazi group "Canada First" photoshopping Trudeau into blackface. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Why can't I find any information about it from secondary sources other than Newsweek? Newsweek is listed as less than ideal/questionable in WP:RSP. Graywalls (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Its listed under chapters on their .usa website. Also I have seen that telegram too and there have been photos of Proudboys Britannia members holding their flag, seems to be around 20 or more not 5-6. By the wiki only acknowledging two regions I think ignore the webiste and dismisses it dangerously as this organisation is alot bigger globally than people realise. Their main website has numerous countries listed all over Europe. RAngel1986 (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If and when we hear about it on CNN, BBC, NY Times, etc about their British activity, we'll include it. Graywalls (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia meant to be factual? And without bias? Seems to me here that there are hidden agendas. "Propaganda outlets" and opinion added to talking points. I am aware I did however im calling into question the factual accuracy of a page and being met with a wall. Makes me wonder why. The UK and Australia used to be listed on here, then removed. Suspicious. Perhaps they are bimg protected by moderators RAngel1986 (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and we are expected to stick by verifiability, and verifiable through reliable sources. I left on your talk page, a welcome page with a ton of links, which you should find it useful. All the relevant definitions can be found in the links in that message. Graywalls (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I posted about 3 links to verifying the UK chapter. A tracking terrorism one with pictures, a police PDF with them named on it. All took a quick Google. So im just suprised the Wiki fails to mention them and I fact removed the UK as am area with presence. Because they seem way more active than Canada even. RAngel1986 (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@RAngel1986: I can't find where you supposedly posted "about 3 links". None of your four edits on wikipedia show any links. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RAngel1986 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wilfred Reilly is not a reliabale source

Interspersed in some of the discussion above is mention of Wilfred Reilly, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Kentucky State University as an expert. Reilly is not currently in use as a source, but it has been suggested that he might be useful. Reilly has defended the Proud Boys against claims that they are a fascist or racist organization. What is important to understand is Reily's understanding of fascism: In an interview with Lars Larson, (at 7:35) he explains that as follows: "Fascism is, in our terms, a left-wing movement. We think of it as right-wing because it was to the right of communism if you look at who Hitler and Mussolini were fighting. But yeah, the short definition of a fascist state, in terms of actual vocabulary, is a state where the government and business work very collectively to provide social programs and fight wars. Which interestingly enough is what a lot of antifa fighters probably would want." It's not clear who Reilly refers to as "our", if he's referring to political scientists, he is misrepresenting consensus among political scientists. Can we agree to not use such fringe definitions of fascism to "prove", with "logic" like (for example) fascism is left-wing and the Proud Boys are right-wing; therefore the Proud Boys are not fascists, that the PBs are, or are not, something? Vexations (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations: Reilly is entirely WP:FRINGE and his area of study has little if anything to do with the Proud Boys. He also doesn't publish his "research" in peer-reviewed journals, preferring instead to go through right-wing vanity press outlets that lack editorial control, fact checking, and peer review. The entirety of trying to shove him into the article is based on one person who has no understanding of Wikipedia policies. They misrepresent the Moonie Times coverage of a single Tweet from Reilly's account, and checks of the Moonie Times' coverage showed that they couldn't even get the tweet right. It's absolutely flabbergasting that they keep ranting on about this. I would encourage someone more experienced than I to report them to the WP:ANI for WP:SEALIONING behavior and WP:COMPETENCE problems connected to the modern american politics topic area. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, I agree. This was helpful, thank you. Davide King (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No Basis for "neo-fascist" Claim

I have been trying without success to pin down any source of the claim that the "Proud Boys" are in any way related to the notion of fascism, except for the opposition to ANTIFA which in of itself would not make one a fascist. There are loose citations to various articles which casually throw out the term "neo-fascist" but are themselves unsubstantiated.

It would seem that the most authoritative, comprehensive, and objective resource on the nature of the "Proud Boys" can be found at the Anti-Defamation League website: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/proud-boys-0

If any resource would be motivated to identify fascist organizations it would be the ADL, yet they find no such association. The wording of the "Proud Boys" as "neo-fascist" should be struck as it is not appropriate and Wikipedia should be committed to maintaining an accurate and trustworthy library of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The short answer is that the Proud Boys are verifiably neo-fascist. In dependent reliable sources -- cited in the article -- repeatedly state that the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. As a result, Wikipedia says they are neo-fascist.

If you dig through the talk page archives you will find similar discussions. What independent reliable sources say is -- for Wikipedia's purposes -- self-substantiating. Reliable sources do not need to provide substantiation, proof or evidence of any kind for what they say. As a result, when such sources say the Earth is spherical, HIV causes AIDS, New York City is the largest metropolitan area in the world by urban landmass or the Proud Boys are neo-fascists, Wikipedia reports the same, cites the sources and moves on.

Anyone who would like to argue the sources are wrong and the Earth is flat, Hong Kong is larger, etc. is free to try to find independent sources saying those things, argue with the sources (by talking to them) or blog about it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

How can something be verifiably neo-fascist without any actual verification? Surely there must be SOME evidence that this particular group meets the description. If Wikipedia is to be a reliable source, there should at a minimum be evidence presented that this group meets the definition of fascism. According to Merriam Webster, fascism can be defined as:

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

further, neofascism is described as:

a political movement arising in Europe after World War II and characterized by policies designed to incorporate the basic principles of fascism (as nationalism and opposition to democracy) into existing political systems

At a minimum there is a complete lack of support for a dictatorial leader, quite the opposite actually, and more broadly is completely against a strong government authority. The stated aims and actions of the "Proud Boys" could not be more inappropriate for the label "fascist" or "neo-fascist". There has not been any claim against democracy and the group is apparently quite pro-democracy and anti-government.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.196.193 (talk • contribs) 01:05, August 24, 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not gather evidence, consider definitions of terms, weight the evidence and decide if the Earth is sphereical, HIV causes AIDS or anything else. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject.

If independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly said the Proud Boys are an improv comedy group from Zimbabwe, Wikipedia would say the same.

How can you tell that independent reliable sources say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist? The sources are linked in the article, in some cases with direct quotes and links to the articles. If you feel the sources do not say what we are saying they say, discuss it here. If you feel they say other things we aren't saying but should, discuss it here.

How can you tell the sources are independent reliable sources? They are independent in that they are not directly connected to the subject (for the same reason you wouldn't expect to get unbiased info on Shecky Greene from Greene, his publicist, etc.). Sources are "reliable" if they fit the criteria discussed at WP:RS. If you don't think a source we are using meets our criteria, discuss it here. If you feel there are other independent reliable sources we should be using but aren't, discuss them here.

That's the basics. For most articles, you can pretty much dive in and edit details of Greene's career or whatever. Other editors will review your changes and go from there. I suggest as a new editor looking at a contentious subject like this (see the note on your talk page) that it's generally a good idea to discuss the issues first. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the sources are unbiased. The first of the listed sources is Buzzfeed for christs sake. The second is Mother Jones, whose own Wikipedia page describes it as leftist and progressive. The third is a 404 page. The fourth is Slate, a magazine whose own Wikipedia page criticizes it for being "contrarian". These are not by any objectively reasonable standard unbiased, reliable, or authoritative sources - they are op-eds in famously biased and politically motivated publications. An op-ed should not be considered a source for a claim unless it can be reasonably argued that the author is an authority on the subject, but in that event surely it'd make more sense to just cite them from their own published work.

Personally I have no dog in this fight, I do not particularly care one way or another whether the Proud Boys are or are not in fact "neo-fascist", what I take exception to here is what I can see as being politically motivated cherry picking by Wikipedia editors. Citing only demonstrably opinion pieces from demonstrably left-wing sources for information on the nature of a demonstrably right-wing group is blatantly in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality rules. 50.69.168.189 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC) (Badharlick, not logged in)

Why does the first line say "The Proud Boys are... neo-fascist" when the next line says the group officially rejects racism? Those are conflicting statements. Clearly there is some bias going on here and I don't know why it's being allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Br467322 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The first line says they are neo-fascist because independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say they are neo-fascists. We say that they say they reject racism because they say they reject racism. Two things: 1) A group can be something and say they are not that thing. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say. 2) Racism is neither fascism nor a necessary component of fascism. Perhaps you meant white supremacist instead of fascist. In that case, see #1. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. The denials from the Proud Boys are unduly self-serving. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken in several ways. Wikipedia's policies (specifically WP:NPOV) do not require neutral sources. There is no such thing as a neutral source. We require reliable sources (we'll get to your take on "reliable" in a moment) and that we neutrally summarize what they say. Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. We neutrally report that.

Cherry picking would involve us selecting sources based on what they say. For this to be true, you would need to demonstrate that a meaningful number or similarly reliable sources contradict this statement, saying, perhaps, that the Proud Boys are a libertarian gardening club who, through a remarkable series of mix-ups, repeatedly end up with various fascists groups at violent protests in favor of statues of failed treasons supporting owning human beings. Apparently, they were there to discuss appropriate soil amendments for hydrangeas.

"Reliable" sources are those published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You may disagree with what they feel is worthy of inclusion, but if they say it what a hot, humid night when members of the Proud Boys joined members of Identity Evropa and other neo-fascist, white supremacist groups, you can bet it wasn't a chilly afternoon tea party with the local Kiwanis Club. The full criteria are outlined at WP:IRS.

Multiple independent reliable sources state the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. Wikipedia, therefore, neutrally and verifiably states they are neo-fascist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

What positions or lineage or anything else do they share with fascism? We cannot treat certain sources as "reliable sources" when it comes to political descriptions ie CNN etc. They have featured op-eds accusing math and time of being racist/fascist institutions. This sort of behavior isn't going to further your ideology, it's just going to kill wikipedia and give rise to neutral alternatives. There are serious students of fascism who cannot swallow the idea that a an overtly multiracial, pro-capitalist, pro-free speech libertarian group are "fascist". Please provide some semblance of a supporting argument. Anything at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C801:9FA0:CDFC:3B25:8369:6793 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Upon review, the "Proud Boys" group appear to be laissez faire activists at the opposite end of the spectrum relative to the Fascist movement. There is a slang usage of the word "fascism" popular in the modern American press, but it has no coherent relationship with historical fascism. In this slang usage, it is common to refer to landlords or teachers as "fascists" on the basis that they wield bestowed authority, but not a reference to the literal fascist movement of WW2 nor neo-fascist offshoots. This is equivalent to describing homeowners associations as "Stalinist" in the opening paragraph of their Wiki entry, then backing up the claim with 3 or 4 articles referring (figuratively) to "Stalinist" regulations. While a few people can force bizarre edits, equally few will take the entry seriously. The damage is ultimately done to the medium of Wikipedia. Meanwhile "Proud Boys" -- whom benefit from portraying their opponents as hysterical zealots -- are probably thrilled to see that stereotype on display. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C801:9FA0:CDFC:3B25:8369:6793 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources say they are neo-fascist, so Wikipedia says they are neo-fascist. If you feel any of the sources are not reliable, feel free to take them to the Reliable sources noticeboard. If you feel Wikipedia articles should be based on your assessment of the evidence, please read WP:V as that is not how Wikipedia works. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"Independent reliable sources say they are neo-fascist" - no, they don't. Op-eds from politically biased publications on only one side of the political spectrum say they are neo-fascist. There is no counter-point to this produced and so far you've only provided a very watery argument in defense of this. Once again it is a pretty clear cut case of WP:Cherrypicking. You've pointed to all manner of other wikipedia policies as justification, but have not answered for the policy that has been violated. WP:Cherrypicking exists because if it didn't, it'd be possible to slant an article entirely in favour of the political opposition by only citing from sources that support that angle. That means there is more burden on an editor than just "well I found a handful of sources, that's good enough". 50.69.168.189 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC) (Badharlick, not logged in)

The sources are independent: They are in no way connected to any subject relevant to the topic. The sources are reliable: They meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS. Therefore, they are "independent reliable sources". They say the Proud Boys are neo-facist. Therefore, independent reliable sources say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. Therefore, the Proud Boys are verifiably neo-fascist.

Wikipedia:Cherrypicking is not a policy. It's not even a guideline. It's an essay. Anyone can write an essay to present their reasoning. Yes, it is possible to inject bias into an article by ignoring sources that contradict your point of view. I note that you dislike the sources that we have here but have not identified any way in which they violate any of our policies or guidelines. You have called it "cherrypicking", apparently indicating that you feel there are sources saying the Proud Boys are not neo-fascists. To have that argument taken seriously, you will need to show us such sources and present a reasonable argument that those sources are reliable and the material meets WP:WEIGHT.

That's it. That's how you will need to present your argument. I will not be making your argument for you. Find the sources, present them here and show they merit inclusion. Detail -- based on Wikipedia's policies -- any problems with existing articles and how they are used. Arguing that you don't like what the article says and therefore it must be changed is a waste of time. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Isn't there also a problem with Wikipedia policies against contradictory articles? This apparently politically biased article on the Proud Boys is in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia page on New-fascism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism). It would seem that either this Proud Boys article should be corrected or the definitions on the Neo-fascism page should be corrected in order to maintain site consistency.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.238.213 (talk • contribs) 22:16, September 16, 2020 (UTC){{subst:spa|24.2.238.213}

Neo-fascism does not say "The Proud Boys are not neo-fascists]]. Instead, it says things that you feel do not apply to the Proud Boys. You could spend the rest of your days arguing Richard Nixon contradicts Quakers and thousands of other imagined "problems".

Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. Zero independent reliable sources say they are not. Wikipedia verifiably and neutrally reports they are neo-fascist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the OP on this. Your first source quotes the OPINION of a local politician, not a law enforcement agency or any kind of watchdog organization like the ADL. Also, just because a news source (independent and reliable are up for debate at this point) repeatedly says something, doesn't mean it's true. Just look at the debacle about Sandmann. There were quite a few "independent reliable" sources claiming he was some kind of racist taunting Nathan Phillips. However, as it turns out, that wasn't true in the least, but they just kept going with that narrative even after the actual truth came out. Guess what happened after that? Sandmann sued them for defamation and won. Guyveru01 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"News source A was wrong once, therefore we can't possibly know the truth, so we should just take a violent street gang at its word. Haha, checkmate lieberals!" Nah. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed the buzzfeed source, because the basis of that inclusion was a direct quotation of some woman from some advocacy group describing it as "neo-fascist" rather than Buzzfeednews, however other sources do define it as neo-fascist. If you feel the existing presentation is taken out of context, presenting your argument to Neutral Point of View noticeboard is a good option given that it's been discussed already here and still continue to be controversial. Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"Independent" sources are those not associated with the subject. The Proud Boys are not an independent source for anything about themselves. The sources cited in the article are independent.

"Reliable" sources are those that meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS. The simplified version of those criteria is "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Essentially, that's New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, Fox News (other than for science or politics), yes and Breitbart News, The Epoch Times, Daily Mail, InfoWars, no. The sources cited in the article are reliable (many of them listed at WP:RS/P).

That you do not like or trust a source or disagree with what they say about the group is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0:, then you're missing the point. I removed the sources that are not providing the comment in their own word. If CNN write "the sky is purple", John says, that's not a reliable source beyond that John said sky is purple. Graywalls (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Guyveru01: Your claims that "independent and reliable are up for debate at this point" can only be based on not understanding Wikipedia's uses of the terms.

If any source describes the Proud Boys as fascist, then that source is NOT reliable. Period. Too paraphrase SummerPhD, if a source claims that Earth is flat, witchcraft causes AIDS, Wakanda is the largest metropolitan area in the world by urban landmass, or the Proud Boys are fascist, then it's not reliable. All information from such sources should be removed from all articles. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

73.70.13.107: Do not paraphrase what I said. You have me all wrong. We do not decide "The Truth" and then dismiss any sources that contradict that "truth" as unreliable. Wikipedia determines if a source is reliable then accepts what that source says as verifiable. Multiple independent reliable sources say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. As a result, the Proud Boys are verifiably neo-fascist. If reliable sources said the Earth is flat and the Proud Boys are a traveling theater group, Wikipedia would report both of those as verifiable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your demand conflicts with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and therefore will be ignored. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist." I believe those sources are misunderstood. They are accusations of being neo-fascist, and not references of that as fact. A more appropriate representation on Wikipedia would be to describe the Proud Boys as "accused of being neo-fascists, although such accusations are never supported by evidence." It doesn't matter how many clowns scream that their custard is a delicious chianti, it's still custard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.76.37 (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

USA Today: "telling the neo-fascist group "Proud Boys" to "stand back and stand by." https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2020/09/30/trump-tells-proud-boys-stand-back-and-stand-by/3584435001/

Sky News: "Fred Perry has pulled one of its famous polo shirts after it became associated with a neo-fascist organisation[Proud Boys]." https://news.sky.com/story/fred-perry-stops-selling-polo-shirt-after-it-becomes-associated-with-far-right-group-12084253

The Irish Times: "telling the far-right, neo-fascist Proud Boys group to "stand back and stand by."" https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/proud-boys-stand-back-and-stand-by-trump-refuses-to-condemn-white-supremacists-1.4368304

The Guardian: "Company distances itself from US fascist group as it halts sales of garment in North America" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/28/fred-perry-withdraws-polo-shirt-adopted-by-far-right-proud-boys

La Vanguardia: "Los Proud Boys, el grupo neofascista solo para hombres que Trump evita condenar" [The Proud Boys, the men's only neo-fascist group that Trump failed to condemn.] https://www.lavanguardia.com/internacional/20200930/483765812156/proud-boys-trump-neofascista-hombres-debate.html 191.92.157.214 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Having only skimmed the above discussion, I thought I'd add some more corroborating articles from research journals and from published books:

• "Proud Boys... advance a fascist politic"
• "the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys"
• "The Proud Boys are a neo-fascist masculinist hate group."
• "neo-fascist gang Proud boys clashed with..."
• "The Proud Boys, an all-male neo-fascist group"
• "groups such as the protofascist Proud Boys"
• "Swiping Right: The Allure of Hyper Masculinity and Cryptofascism for Men Who Join the Proud Boys"

I'm pretty sure we can dismiss any questions about Proud Boys' fascist alignment. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Update - these sources have now been added to the article as improved referencing for this claim (thanks for your work, Davide King!). @SummerPhDv2.0, NorthBySouthBaranof, and Graywalls: are there any objections from you (I'll ping anons on their talk pages) against closing this discussion now? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"far-right[3][4][5][6] and neo-fascist[7][8][9][10][11][12]" This is unnecessary. These statements aren't really disputed other than those who have personal agenda. When you already have three reliable sources generally agreeing on it and no reliable sources disputing it, the WP:CITEBOMB is ridiculous. I don't see the need to reword, but no need for bombarding the heck out with sources like this. It looks ugly and not reader friendly. Graywalls (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I clearly misunderstand the nature of a citation. I could call Wikipedia "the deeply racist and violent Wikipedia" on multiple sites and by your rules you'd have to add that description to the Wikipedia page on itself, because we can cite multiple uses of the term. That's all I'm seeing here: citations of uses of the term. I'm not seeing any citations that support the use of the term. As I suggested above, it's still custard. I am however going to disengage from this topic at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.76.37 (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You clearly do misunderstand. If a New York Times article said "Bozo the Clown said the Proud Boys are a gardening club", it is not verifiable that the Proud Boys are a gardening club, only that Bozo said they are. If, as is the case, the New York Times (and a raft of other unquestionably reliable sources) describe the Proud Boys as fascist, it is verifiable that they are fascist. The sources, as quoted repeatedly on this talk page (and throughout the archives) regularly and repeatedly identify the Proud Boys as fascist. "The fascist Proud Boys" is a source saying it, no different than "actress Meryl Streep." The sources are under no obligation to defend, prove or backup either claim. Wikipedia reliably states the Proud Boys are fascist and Streep is an actress. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the other problem with having too many sources is that it makes it more time consuming to verify stuff like this. Yes people do sometimes cite and hide behind the cover of "properly cited look" to say things not said by the source and pray on people not checking the cited sources thoroughly. Graywalls (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

In response to the OP, I think Summer has made it perfectly clear that encyclopedia editing isn't about uncovering "the truth". Editors simply parrot what reliable independent sources (as sanctioned by Wiki criteria) have to say about a subject.

I also agree that the "bias" criticism sounds something like a high school lunch table argument. Every source is going to be 'biased', as anything written by a human is biased.

However, I do disagree with any argument that "Mother Jones" and "Slate" have a reputation for "fact checking and accuracy". No, they don't. These are highly partisan publications notorious for playing fast and loose with information. Note that there's a difference between "highly partisan" publications and those that simply lean right or left (or have 'biases').

Having said all that, I am satisfied with the current references supporting the "neo-fascist" wording. Most of them are academic publications. NY Times and Washington Post are perfectly legitimate sources as well. I have mixed feelings about "The Guardian", but generally agree that it's reliable for this topic. Same goes for Fox News. The Guardian would not, however, qualify as reliable for economic subjects, just as Fox News isn't an RS for science articles (as Summer mentioned).

I would just recommend that editors here try sticking to sources published by legit academic presses and try to limit journalist citations to a minimum.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Jonathan. We should say what the RSes say. As posted earlier we have a wide range or Reliable Sources from all over the world which without quotations or anything like that refer to the Proud Boys as a neo-fascist group. We have both Academic and News sources from the US, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the Kingdom of Spain all of which call them neo-fascist, so while political bias may be apparent in one country, it seems a stretch to say that the Republic of Ireland has an axe to grind against The Proud Boys and is thus slandering them in the Irish Times, haha. Past that, I also agree with Graywall that the amount of refs we have for each one of those assertions does make the lede a bit difficult to read. While I have seen efforts to delete the neo-fascist claims it doesn't seem like there's any sort of real will in the talk section to redefine them as a conservative gentlemen's club, so the amount of sources does seem almost peremptory. Alcibiades979 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an inaccurate weighting of the information at hand. The experts on the subject ADL, SLPC do not label this group fascist or neo fascist. The label was pejoratively attached by I do not like non experts from RS, put on WP and now being regurgitated by similar like minded we are not experts but do not like RS. By contrast the "I am antifa" killer is being omitted from the antifa page despite being labeled as such by RS because the like minded editors are drawing a distinction between an tifa and antifa. This is a disservice to the WP project as it is in no way weighting the RS information equitably. The SLPC and ADL omitting the label is of paramount importance and yet largely being ignored. Perhaps some sort of qualifier that some may consider them fascist or neo fascist but the ADL and SLPC as of now do not. Or it can go to the dispute board and ask what do when an RS is factually wrong.

Your suggestion is to call them a right-wing extremist hate group instead? https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/proud-boys-0 Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That, and/or anything the ADL uses would be much more in line with standard operating procedure on these type of WP. The detractors can go take their case to the SLPC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:F5BB:3B86:E159:625A (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. The ADL provides a critical overview of the group which is much more in-line with reality. The group is a far-right, nationalistic extremist group which encourages violence against opponents, but white Supremacy is disavowed on their website, by their local chapters and in all of the group promotional material. Additionally, the "neo-fascist" label flies in opposition to the stated values of the group (against totalitarian or powerful government) and an objective understanding of fascism and neo fascism.

It is getting to the point where; if Mother Jones and the Daily Beast called the GOP fascist white supremacists, moderators would add it to their wiki page... Does that logic carry? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Besides being factually wrong, besides being used as a political epithet, the standard is far higher than RS said therefore it belongs. WP has responsibility to accurately weight the WP based on the weighting of the RS-and in this case-even being factually wrong, even being used pejoratively-they are not being referred to as fascist or neo fascist in the vast majority of RS material. I heard CBS radio refer to them today numerous times as right wing extremists, yahoo referred o them today as a right wing hate group, WAPO today=the Proud Boys, a far-right organization linked with white supremacy and acts of violence. NJ.com-What is a proud boy? The simple answer is that they’re a racist right-wing organization started by Canadian hipster and one ... and on and on and on have to search high and low to find them labeled neo fascist so going with that in the lede besides the rest of the objections is clearly UNDUE and should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:5D45:CF9E:AA59:4786 (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Vitolo Hadad a white female grad student teacher was recently fired for profiting from claiming to be black. I would just recommend that editors here try sticking to sources that are not frauds and hyper partisan zealots to boot. As if some grad student teacher trumps the SLPC and ADL when it comes to labeling hate groups.

To which the inclusion as RS clearly shows the depths needed to find RS labeling them fascist whereas any search of the Proud Boys returns an endless litany of  RS without the fascism or neo fascism label. This is textbook undue weighting besides being obviously factually wrong.  . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:5D45:CF9E:AA59:4786 (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC) 

References

Adding to this Peter Daou should not be used as a source since he is about as reliable as Dinesh D'Souza or other extermely partistan activists.108.45.91.166 (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Enrique Tarrio discussing his and his organisation's political beliefs on Tim Pool's podcast v=Pj-WUk0c5wQ?t=2414 I linked to where I feel the natural start point of his response is, but 41:33 or 43:50 if you want to skip a bit further in. As the leader of an organisation, I feel it is acceptable for him to speak on the behalf of what the organisation represents. In the video he clearly denounces white supremacy, anti-semitism, facism, communism and antifa at the 41:33 mark. Where other peoples labels for the group do hold merit, at the very least the phrasing should be changed to being an "alleged ______ group". Karnowo (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Karnowo

Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say the Proud Boys are far-right, neo-fascist, male-only, promote and engage in political violence, officially reject racism, but are affiliated with white supremacy. Thus Wikipedia verifiably and neutrally says that. If independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly said they were "allegedly" all of those things, Wikipedia would say that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Karnowo: things that may apply to this, in no specific order: WP:YOUTUBE, WP:MANDY, WP:ABOUTSELF. Tarrio is free to make whatever (likely false) claims he wants to about the organization, but pro-forma denials mean little. The weight of the reliable sources is clear. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The BBC didn't find it necessary or helpful to use strident descriptions that strain credulity when briefly summarizing the proud boys less than 2 weeks ago.

"Founded in 2016 by Canadian-British right-wing activist Gavin McInnes, the Proud Boys is a far-right, anti-immigrant, all-male group with a history of street violence against its left-wing opponents"

Very few people would argue with the above summary.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54352635

It should be considered as there is so much good faith objection to the lede.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Evidence that PB are white supremacists?

Sounds like it's easy to come by. Not accusations, but evidence. Let's provide it here with quotes and refs and then we can add it to the article. Should be simple simon.Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: A really basic Google search shows an abundance of sources that support that claim:

1. "President Donald Trump has condemned all white supremacist groups, including the far-right 'Proud Boys,'"
2. "Days after President Donald Trump failed to condemn white supremacist groups,... denounced all such groups, including the Proud Boys and the Ku Klux Klan"
3. "as academics and advocates have warned the group has ties to white supremacy."
4. "Proud Boys are a dangerous 'white supremacist' group say US agencies"
5. "...Donald Trump has still refused to condemn white supremacist groups. During yesterday's debate he instructed one such group, the Proud Boys,..."
6. "CAIR Condemns Trump's Call for White Supremacist, Islamophobic Group Proud Boys to 'Stand By'"
7. "The far-right Proud Boys group, ... have been linked to... white supremacist organizing..."
8. "Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists"
9. "McInnes announced to the world Proud Boys as... focused on “anti-political correctness” and “anti-white guilt”"
10. "Proud Boys organised a pro-Trump rally in Portland. Kate Brown, the Oregon state governor, declared a state of emergency in anticipation of “white supremacist groups”"
11. "The Proud Boys, an extremist right-wing organization... with links to violence and white-supremacist activism"

Two of those sources need a bit of between-the-lines, but even without them, there's still nine sources explicitly calling Proud Boys white supremacist. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 13:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This standard of evidence is not good enough. Some of these sources are just quoting Donald Trump, who is not a reliable source. Other articles say there are "links" to supremacist organizing, but don't substantiate that the group actually is doing any such organizing. We should be guarded against slippery articles that are biased and use scandalizing language. A lot of bad evidence is not good evidence. Do we have any more reliable sources? It would be especially helpful if we had some primary source material to look at, to help understand the secondary sources. 2001:569:71B6:EB00:840C:304B:E05E:D408 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources are reliable for quoting Donald Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Would you be able to point out exactly which of these sources only describe the Proud Boys as white supremacist when explicitly quoting Trump? These articles have largely been spurred by Trump's comments, but these sources consistently describe the Proud Boys as white supremacists independently from quoting Trump (or with significant links to, which is what is in the article already). In terms of saying biased and scandalising language, that's innately going to happen - part of not being censored is that sometimes we use language that paints a less than favourable light simply because that's how the subject has been reported. Similarly, primary evidence isn't particularly great - while it might be appropriate and favourable to include some primary mentions in the article body, the lead probably doesn't need to be polluted with "sociologist Jane Doe has described the group as with ties to white supremacy" when there are is a significant repository of other independent and reliable sources that establish that. Also, exactly how is the standard of evidence not good enough? These are some of the most reputable news organisations in the world, and they all use the same range of descriptors, further corroborating the use of these terms. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: So, I briefly scanned the article and I see that it now shows this sentence, ". . .and they have been described by US intelligence organisations as "a dangerous white supremacist group'." The curious thing about this is that the only support I can see for it is source #4 on your list from The Guardian which quotes a leaked CIAC report that lumps them in with Neo-Nazi and Skinhead groups. However, I don't see any other news source having even reported on such a leak. Moreover, I can't find the actual leaked documents anywhere. I understand how WP:RS works and that, apparently, Wikipedia takes Reliable Sources' words at face value without needing to verify the source's information. But, doesn't it seem odd that such a link hasn't been shown in any officially released law enforcement document anywhere else? Is there any method for verifying this? Or is the stock answer that it is not Wikipedia's job to verify a Reliable Source? It just seems odd to me that there's no corroboration for this Guardian article anywhere else. Thanks, in advance, for your response. Please ping me back, as well. Krakaet (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Krakaet: On Wikipedia, the reliability of sources are generally dealt with at the publisher level - individual articles are not necessarily scrutinised or prevented, but rather the entire publication. For The Guardian (I think that's what you're referencing), there's already a very broad consensus (WP:RSPSOURCES#The_Guardian) that it is reliable (last consensus was 2019, so it's very recent). While I understand your concern about face value considerations, I'm afraid the consensus is already set - it's a bit of a thing where we have to assume good faith about off-Wiki sources. And in terms of the lack of corroborating sources, that is somewhat unusual, but I assume that the nature of a law enforcement counter-terrorism publication is that it's treated with some level of official protection - there might be a court injunction or another legal protection censoring the press from reporting. Nonetheless, that's one source of eleven - despite us not really being able to independently verify what the article claims (which isn't needed, and almost verges on WP:OR), the article supports the description of white supremacy. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: If this is based on just the CIAC report, wouldn't it be more accurate to use the singular construction, e.g., "... described by a US intelligence organisation..."? Or even better "... described in a leaked report by a US intelligence organisation..."? (I spit on you, Oxford comma.) Ottoump (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ottoump: That's just one source that describes them as white supremacists. Al Jazeers, Forbes, USA Today, 9News, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, The Guardian, SPLC, Insider all call them white supremacists independently of the CAIC report. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: I wouldn't describe Al Jazeera, Forbes, et al as "intelligence organizations;" they're news sources. I see, though, that the Guardian article's report about the leaked CIAC report makes reference to several state intelligence organizations, and that this is where the plurality comes in. However, in my opinion, this is all pretty weak: we have a news source (or sources, perhaps) that quote(s) a leaked report from the intelligence agency of a U.S. state (Colorado), in which are supporting references to the intelligence agencies of other U.S. states. "US intelligence organisation" sounds like the CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, ATF, etc., but in fact it seems that these are U.S.-based intelligence agencies, although this distinction is lost in the existing verbiage. So I have two problems, really: (1) the distance to the actual source from the citation, and (2) the level of the intelligence organisation. I'd think a quote from the Guardian is in order to clarify. Ottoump (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ottoump: Absolutely, I'm not saying that Al Jazeera etc are intelligence organisations - those sources are independent of the CAIC report, and are supplementary citations for the white supremacy description. As I'm sure you're aware, we always preference secondary coverage over primary sources, so it's actually more beneficial in terms of WP:V and WP:RS for us to use the Guardian's coverage, even if we had access to the actual report. US-based intelligence organization makes it sound almost like a commercial entity, which I think is more detrimental. If you'd prefer US state intelligence organizations, then that's fine with me, but I think that's quite a trivial issue - the organisation is still a US intelligence organisation, it's just not a federal US intelligence organisation. Even then, that makes no different to the reliability or validity of the organisation. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: In my reading of the Guardian article, the three entities that have labeled Proud Boys as a white supremacist organisation are the Colorado Information Analysis Center (CIAC), the Colorado Department of Public Safety, and a probation department in the Los Angeles area. My recommendation is to be specific; drawing larger conclusions probably runs afoul of WP:SYNTH. So something like, "The intelligence organisations of the Colorado Information Analysis Center (CIAC), the Colorado Department of Public Safety, and the probation department of Orange County, California have labeled Proud Boys a white supremacist organisation." (One might well question the gravitas of the latter, as we're getting into lemonade stand territory, in which case it should be omitted.) The sole footnote to this sentence, in my opinion, should be the Guardian article. Cheers. Ottoump (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to modify that. It's clear that other entities (e.g., CAIR) have labeled Proud Boys as white supremacist, but the only intelligence-related entity that I'm aware of is the CIAC. The Colorado DPS isn't tasked with intelligence, nor would one expect this of a county probation department. I'd leave it with just the CIAC (footnoting the Guardian article) in the intelligence category, unless I'm missing something. Ottoump (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ottoump: Referring to three intelligence organisations as such is not even marginally heading in the general direction of synthesis. Also, remember that we're talking about the lead - it's a summary of the important information, not an in-depth description of the reported organisational classifications of the Proud Boys. I have no qualms if you really absolutely thought it was so super important to clarify on this in the body, but not in the lead. All evidence supports the simple mention that several US intelligence agencies have described the group as a dangerous white supremacy organisation.

Secondary, how is a public security organisation not related to intelligence? If you really had such a substantial issue with the superficial implications, I'm not going to object to "US law enforcement agencies", but honestly, that's just a ridiculous specification if you ask me. Also, I would very strongly suggest that criminal intelligence relates pretty strongly to probation and monitoring - often, conditions of bail or probation include avoiding groups, so knowing who is what and believes what is perfectly aligned. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: It's risible to call a county probation department a "US intelligence organisation." I'm seriously questioning the NPOV obligations represented in this article. Ottoump (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ottoump: Risible? Not really. An organisation that is involved in the discovery, collection and use of criminal intelligence is an intelligence organisation. I could understand your point if you were trying to draw parallels between the alphabet soup that is the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS etc, but a department of the Colorado judiciary responsible for monitoring bail and probationary criminals is comfortably within the domain of intelligence. As for your NPOV concerns, please see the pink boxes at the top of this article, as well as the the FAQ. NPOV does not mean that we don't call a spade a spade. Trying to dismiss the entire neutrality of this article because you disagree with the description of one organisation for one description, even though that description is supported by numerous other sources, is not reasonable. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: The Colorado whatever-it's-called is the least risible of the organisations, but even then it's local and literally 1,000 miles away from the probation office you're confusing it with (you: "a department of the Colorado judiciary responsible for montioring bail and probationary criminals"). I said, "county." As in Orange County. Yes, the OC is a sizeable jurisdiction in Southern California, but I imagine it's a shadow of the LAPD, for example. It's like calling my local urology office a "World Health Organisation." Yes, it's of this World, and has to do with Health, and because it has a receptionist and everything it's a Organisation, but still.

I came into this discussion two days ago as a user trying to learn about Proud Boys, and the apparent assessment of "US intelligence organisations" was nigh on dispositive in supporting the white supremacist descriptor. But when I dig into the over-referenced, creatively-bulleted, Potemkinesque meat behind these claims I have to say that I've never been more disappointed in the credibility of a WP article. Ottoump (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ottoump: Apologies, I mistyped, it's a department of the Californian judiciary. The county is the sixth most populous in the US, and larger in population than 21 US states, so it isn't not notable. And how exactly is calling a cohort of US intelligence agencies such comparable with calling your local GP an international intergovernmental health organisation? I'm sorry to hear that you dislike this article's contents, but we simply cannot abide by WP:NPOV without using common descriptors. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Words that cause apoplexy

It's rather clear that a few terms cause sympathisers disproportionate anger. Example: "neo-fascist". That's stated unambiguously in several sources, but so is extremist, which is how the FBI classifies them according to the Grauniad [3]. Would extremist be a better word? I think it might be. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, "extremist" is well supported by RS. But as a reminder to those that insist we use their self-description, we could use their own words to describe them as a gang: McInness, on 22 Feburary, 2017 in an interview with Joe Rogan said: "I started this gang called the Proud Boys". It's at 50:32 in this video Vexations (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This is veering into heckler's veto territory. PB sympathizers and members don't like being called what they are, that's WP:MANDY. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes and no. Neo-fascist has a very definite and distinct meaning, and extremist encompasses that but also other extreme behaviours (like misogyny). Guy (help! - typo?) 20:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

How then do we account for the fact that they self-describe their "enemies" as "people against fascism or critics of Trump", and other reliable sources (4 solid reliable sources, including peer reviewed research, currently cited) place them in the neo-fascism category? I think the wording sits best as is, though I wouldn't object to adding extremist alongside neo-fascist with sourcing. https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/07/proud-boys-explained/ 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

We account for it very simply: they are part of the MAGA cult. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The intense feud over the first line more so than the rest of the contents suggests it maybe motivated by the way the opponents of PP and proponents of PP each want PP to appear in short description in Google. Graywalls (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

extremist would be much more appropriate as it is more consistent with a neutral take. Neo-fascist is an epithet, and implies things many organizational features which have not been alleged.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You may feel that "extremist" reflects what you see in the group, but Wikipedia does not report what we see. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. The sources regularly and repeatedly say the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. So, Wikipedia neutrally reports that the Proud Boys are verifiably neo-fascist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Threatening emails sent to voters

While it may be early, I believe this should at least be tracked for sourcing, especially depending on what is determined. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

1. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/20/politics/threatening-emails-sent-to-voters-florida-alaska/index.html
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/proud-boys-emails-florida/
3. https://www.wuft.org/news/2020/10/20/fbi-investigating-threatening-emails-sent-to-democrats-in-florida/
4. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-emails-alachua-county-proud-boys-trump-overseas-servers/
5. https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/news/2020/10/21/proud-boys-emails-in-brevard-county-demand-democrats-vote-for-trump--or--we-will-come-after-you-

 Done. Story has been added to article. NedFausa (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

no mention of the multiple sources (including the CBS one above) showing that the emails were spoofed from abroad?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Per CBS The IP addresses don't establish that the senders are based in those countries, since the messages could have been routed through the servers from nearly anywhere. NedFausa (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

that's verys elective editing as the article has "linked to overseas servers" and gets into it. The same guy youve quoted goes on to say -

"It could be that they are simply relaying through this infrastructure," Alperovitch told CBS News in an email. "In fact, given how this email was sent, using their web interface, that's most likely the case — that the people behind this found a vulnerable server in Saudi through which they can route lots of emails."

Alperovitch, who reviewed the source code from one of the emails, said that while the emails were sent through overseas servers, "there is no indication to suggest that it is a nation-state or otherwise foreign campaign."

"These types of email campaigns are unfortunately trivial to execute for anyone with an internet connection and a just modicum of technical ability," he said.

This Des Moines story is a usa today network story by multiple journalists for additional context. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/20/voters-florida-personalized-emails-vote-for-trump-election/6000096002/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please provide wording and specify source(s) for the change you recommend. NedFausa (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought I'd leave that to you, like the original poster did, due to the competence issues that have been alleged against me in talk. Some mention that "it is suggested that the emails were sent as a spoof and likely a scam." Using the CBS source reviewer and the local sheriff's department official statement in the USA today/des moines register article.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that we should add speculation that ultimately boils down to "Nobody knows where these emails originated." Let's wait for FBI to conclude their investigation. NedFausa (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you mention that there is at least a question, and not just from the leader of the org? Right now it reads like the proud boys sent them, in spite of obvious and reported 3rd party suggestions that they didn't.

As it has been said, the organization's denial isn't reliable, but perennial sources making the suggestion IS worth the mentionTuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline. We have included Tarrio's denial. There has been no official explanation of the emails' origin. NedFausa (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

How about now?https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/proud-boys-emails-florida/

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"U.S. government concludes Iran was behind threatening emails sent to Democrats" TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the update. NedFausa (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responseTuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"Aggravated assault" at Infobox

Graywalls has now twice removed aggravated assault from the infobox, citing redundancy and WP:COMMONSENSE. I just wanted to hear what other users think. We do say in the lead that "[i]n 2019, two Proud Boys were sentenced to four years in prison for attempted gang assault, attempted assault and other charges for a 2018 New York incident where they attacked individuals who prosecutors said were members of antifa." So I believe that is where aggravated assault comes from. Also, aggravated assault and harrassment or political violence are not exactly the same thing, so I am unsure whether redundancy really holds or is enough for removal. Davide King (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not think the removal is proper. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a vote number game. Also, I see that you have just created your account. Have you edited in Proud Boys/Antifa related pages prior to getting your account? It would be insightful if you could provide what you edited under previously if you have. Graywalls (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, IHateAccounts previously edited as this IP range, see [4]. Best, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

aggravated assault is a much more specific and more of a legal jargon while political violence is more general which is more appropriate. PS: the original insertion was fairly recent Special:Diff/981377600 Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)