Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Note on The Daily Beast

It was recently demoted from "genreally reliable" to "no consensus" on WP:RSP. Worth a mention since it is used extensively in this article. Graywalls (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

And that has been reversed (not by me), because the change was made without consensus. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

well, that was short lived. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Most if not all sources are left leaning.

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.

---

Even though many the sources provided are independent and reliable, they are still all left wing sources. This results in the entire article being incredibly biased. There are two sides to the Proud Boys story and yet people have spent countless hours intentionally focusing on only one side of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KartoKartofel (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

KartoKartofel, Please feel free to bring up reliable sources that support your "unbiased" point of view. You can also learn what "bias" actually is and means; that may help with your frustration. I suggest you go to the reliable sources noticeboard if you wish to question the reliability of a source.

You've provided nothing actionable, so I'm going to close this.--Jorm (talk) 17:19, 30 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 for Edit

The article starts: "The Proud Boys are a far-right[1][2] and neo-fascist[3] male-only organization[4] that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada." The name of the organization is Proud Boys, thus since it's a singular name ("the name of the organization IS Proud Boys. Confusingly Proud Boys HAS members who ARE referred to as Proud Boys.") it should have a singular verb. So the sentence should read: "The Proud Boys is a far-right[1][2] and neo-fascist[3] male-only organization...". This only happened with the first verb as the other two in the opening sentence are both singular and thus correct ie: "engages", "promotes". 191.92.157.214 (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

That appears to have been introduced in this edit: [1]. That edit should have been reverted. Vexations (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Vexations (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This page has a good run down on singular versus plural for subject agreement, specifically see #7: "7. Titles of single entities (books, organizations, countries, etc.) are always singular." This issue is recurrent throughout the page, ie using plural verbs to refer to the organization. A plural verb however would refer to the members but not the organization. https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/sub-verb.htm 191.92.157.214 (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In your link, this would fall under #8, "Plural form subjects with a plural meaning". In American English, we would generally say, "The Proud Boys are...", much as we would say "The Beach Boys are an American rock band ..." and "The Boston Celtics are an American professional basketball team...". - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"The Proud Boys, a far-right group with a history of violent confrontations, is gaining increased national scrutiny as academics and advocates have warned the group has ties to white supremacy." Singular verb according to USA Today. Same idea as politics, economics or even "The Sound and the Fury". https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/30/who-proud-boys-group-mentioned-debate-has-violent-history/5868406002/ 191.92.157.214 (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"How big is Proud Boys?" && "The Proud Boys was formed in 2016..." https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-are-the-proud-boys-trump-tells-far-right-group-to-stand-back-and-stand-by-11601485755 191.92.157.214 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything as clear cut as that. Imagining someone saying "The Philadelphia Eagles is playing..." or "The Beach Boys is releasing..." sets off a big, red X in my American English-raised mind.

"The Proud Boys are..." - Barron's

"The Proud Boys is..." but also "The Proud Boys were..." - USA Today

"The Proud Boys have...", "...the Proud Boys were...", "The Proud Boys describe...", "...the Proud Boys are...", "...the Proud Boys claim...", etc. - The New York Times

There are plenty more sources on both sides and straddling the line. As a result, it seems to be more a matter of the source's MOS than prescriptive grammar. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The question is if it refers to the group or to the individual members of said group. When the USA Today article is referring to members of the group it calls the members Proud Boys and uses the plural, but when it refers to the group The Proud Boys it uses the singular. The sentence failed in either scenario anyhow. If it is singular then the first verb was misconjugated, if it's not singular and Proud Boys does in fact always refer to members then the proper relative pronoun would've been who, and the following verbs would've been plural. So the sentence was just plain wrong because it was trying to have it both ways. There are plenty of things that sound right in English but are infact incorrect: "The majority of English speakers does not speak English as a first language." Most native english speakers would've used do instead of does, and the majority would also have been wrong. 191.92.157.214 (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This is something that I did not always get and that confuses me. I thought that an organisation, even if in plural name, is singular, yet we say "The Liberal Democrats are" or "The Beatles were" in their first sentences. Davide King (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: It's confusing because the English language isn't consistent either. The official band name of The Beatles is that, so theoretically the page should say "was" rather than "were", except that the members are ofttimes referred to as a "Beatle" in the singular, and prior band members or entourage members sometimes referred to as the "fifth beatle". In the case of the Proud Boys for the wikipedia page, I personally think the plural forms make more linguistic sense. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I went through and switched a couple more verbs to singular, just so that the lede has uniformity, and it seems like generally speaking there's support for proud boys being singular when referring to the group as a whole. If it's alright a bit later I'll go through the rest of the article so that it's the same throughout when referring to the group. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: I reverted your changes. Please do not make additional such edits without clear consensus here. For the time being, I believe we should follow the example of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a source we cite 12 times in the article and which treats Proud Boys as a collective noun, requiring a plural verb. NedFausa (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Seemed to me as if there were consensus here in fact until your revert it seems that other than a comment from SummerPhDv2.0 there were no complaints with the request, so you can forgive a man for being slightly mystified and also slightly taken a back for the tone, something such as "Hey Alki, I think we should get some more consensus before we make these changes" would be far preferable to, "I reverted your edits, please do not make additional edits without clear consensus here" which can come off as slightly off putting, as I'm sure you can well understand. I also received thanks for the edits that I made from other editors. What's more is that as the IP User pointed out, both the Wall Street Journal and the USA Today use singular verbs with the Proud Boys as subject. Both of these are examples of American English and of excellent editorial integrity, they're out shined only by the New Yorker in this regard and alas the New Yorker hasn't any articles mentioning the Proud Boys, I already checked. So unless we're doubting the editorial capacity of the Wall Street Journal and USA Today the American English part doesn't make sense. Alcibiades979 (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: Wikipedia describes the AP Stylebook as an English grammar style and usage guide created by American journalists working for or connected with the Associated Press. Although it is sold as a guide for reporters, it has become the leading reference for most forms of public-facing corporate communication over the last half-century.

Here are links to recent stories in which the AP has treated the Proud Boys as a plural noun. (Emphasis added.)

• September 26, 2020: "The Proud Boys are self-described…"
• September 29, 2020: "…the Proud Boys, a male-only group of neo-fascists who describe themselves as 'western chauvinists' and have been known to incite street violence…"
• September 30, 2020: "The Proud Boys have visited the city several times…"
• September 30, 2020: "Trump on Wednesday said, 'I don’t know who the Proud Boys are.'"
• October 1, 2020: "The Proud Boys have held several rallies… The Proud Boys call themselves… The Proud Boys have distanced themselves…"
• October 8, 2020: "…the Proud Boys, a group known for inciting street violence at rallies in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, appear to be emboldened…"

I do not believe we have achieved unambiguous consensus at this page on the usage in dispute. Please let other editors weigh in. NedFausa (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

New York Times "The Proud Boys has strongly condemned Mayor..."

CNBC "The Proud Boys is a far-right organization deemed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center."

Forbes "Since then, Proud Boys has been one of a handful of..."

ABC "The Proud Boys is a far-right extremist group tied to acts of violence..."

LA Times "The Proud Boys has become a dangerous element on the streets of Portland, Ore...."

USA Today "The Proud Boys... is gaining increased national scrutiny..."

Wall Street Journal "The Proud Boys was formed in 2016..."

I'm saying the American English comment is strange because American sources so thoroughly use singular verbs when Proud Boys is the subject of the sentence. I mean essentially that's every single major news organization in the US using singular verbs. I think I'm only missing Fox. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Alcibiades979, Isn't it that we ought to use singular when we could write "the (organization) Proud Boys" and plural when we can write "(members of the) Proud Boys"? as in the examples above? Vexations (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, hey yeah sorry about that. That's absolutely right. I was bouncing back and forth between a couple of things and left that off. But yeah, so as SummerPHD was pointing out with the USAToday article, articles often can and do go back and forth between singular and plurals. So like you were saying when The Proud Boys refers to the organization then it's coupled with singular verbs where as when it's referring to the members then it goes with plural verbs. "Although the Proud Boys states that organization is against racism, at events such as Unite the Right Proud Boys have been known to associate with racist elements of the alt-right." Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Proud Boys member flashing white supremacist hand sign at rally?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/white-power-hand-sign-gesture-trump-rally-villages-florida.html

"Slate is considered generally reliable for its areas of expertise" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. This may or may not be notable enough to include related to the Proud Boys and their white supremacist connections. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Slate reports that many on social media were quick to point out that the man who was flashing the hand signs appeared to be wearing a hat of the Proud Boys. … Some even pointed out that he appeared to look like one of the members of the Proud Boys who provided security for a political rally in Florida that was attended by Rep. Matt Gaetz. This is mighty slim stuff. It should not be included unless it can be shown to represent the Proud Boys organization, and not just the showboating of some guy who "appeared to be wearing" their cap. NedFausa (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The same Slate article claims that this person is an asian American Proud Boy. While this likely establishes the case that he is known by or affiliated with the Proud Boys, it undercuts the argument that it was intended to suggest "white supremacy" on its face. The "OK" or "zero", or "Old Kinderhook" symbol has been in standard use unrelated to White Supremacy. It is also an innocuous symbol used by right wing trolls against those who believe it can only mean "white power", even when the meaning is absurd in a given contextTuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Website

I've commented out the website section in the infobox as it appears there are several "official" websites proclaiming themselves to be the official proud boys website. I believe that there should be consensus on which (if any) website should fill that section, or if it should be a list of prominent websites affiliated with the movement/group.

The previously linked page was "proudboysusa.com" - which was evidently a regionally focused website, although had support from the self-declared chair of the movement. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 02:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably a good thing to do at this point. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Please revert to the new URL verified by Nedfausa, who has verified. Enrique Tarrio is not simply the "self declared" chair, but is the actual chairman as described on the ADL website.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proud_Boys#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_21_October_2020 TuffStuffMcG (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I saw that edit request but I have my reservations about it as a wp:RS - it's a youtube stream for one, the ADL is not neccesarily the best informed on the amorphous and splintery nature of the group, and I don't believe (though I could be wrong) that any major media source has picked up on this website as being the "official" one for the movement.

Nevertheless, this should be a consensus thing, and you're more than welcome to rebut me. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 15:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pending consensus to the contrary, I've restored the proudboysusa.com URL in the infobox, adding a reference to WP:RS and a {Disputed inline} tag. As long as Wikipedia recognizes Enrique Tarrio as the Proud Boys' current chairman (see below), this discussion is spurious. NedFausa (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That seems like an appropriate move2607:9880:1A38:138:D5AA:63A4:2DDC:EA74 (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Temperature taking for the website

1. proudboysusa.com - the "official" site as declared by Mr. Enrique Tarrio, who is the partially recognized "chair" of the movement
2. No website, until it becomes clear that the movement has an unambigous leader
3. A list of websites, claiming to be the official website, without regard for whether or not it has unanimous support from the proudboys.

Comments

I personally am in favour of 2. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 15:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's BLP Enrique Tarrio describes him in its first sentence as an American businessman and chairman of the far-right, neo-fascist organization Proud Boys. Wikipedia's page Proud Boys states: Since early 2019, Enrique Tarrio, who identifies as Afro-Cuban, has been the chairman of the Proud Boys. Tarrio is also mentioned variously throughout as:

• the group's chairman
• designated as chairman
• the new chairman
• the group's new chairman
• the chairman of the Proud Boys
• the chairman of Proud Boys
• The Proud Boys' chairman
• Proud Boys chairman

All of these identifications, at both Wikipedia pages, are supported by references to WP:RS. Nowhere at either page is he referred to as "the partially recognized 'chair' of the movement." Please explain what you mean by that phrase, and why you put "chair" in scare quotes. NedFausa (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I vote for 1. Unless there is a viable dispute, or reliable source contesting the official site.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2. Especially since McInnes's "quitting" came with the statement that it was a legal fiction, to give the portrayal to jurors in a trial of some PB members that "they are not dealing with a gang and there is no head of operations" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/22/proud-boys-founder-gavin-mcinnes-quits-far-right-group We have plenty of time to let the group sort out who they are, who their actual leader is, and figure out what website they're using. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  IHateAccounts, hey, welcome back! Guy (help! - typo?) 22:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts: Please cite WP:RS reporting that since Gavin McInnes's resignation two years ago and succession within a week by Enrique Tarrio, there has been an internal dispute among members as to who is their chairman. NedFausa (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: I just cited a reliable source showing that the "McInnes quit" claim is a legal fiction... IHateAccounts (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts: I take it then that you can cite no WP:RS reporting an internal dispute among Proud Boys as to Enrique Tarrio being their chairman since November 2018. Thank you for confirming the absence of evidence to question his de facto leadership. NedFausa (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that the various "local" chapters appear to operate autonomously, it's still a question. Especially with Tarrio (supposedly voluntarily at least he claims after the host dropped them https://www.thewrap.com/proud-boys-website-online-store-dropped-by-web-host/) moving away from the old "official" domain to take over one previously used by a regional. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• 2 seems reasonable. We include official accounts, but exclude hate sites unless there is a compelling reason to include, so that suggests we should not have a link until one authoritative owner of the brand is identified. Or we could use the site that most reliable sources say is the official one - unless most reliable sources don't link to any site, which would also be an indication that we should hold off. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• 4 archive.org version of the one that got taken down for historical viewing purposes. Graywalls (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls: Please, is there Wikipedia precedent for populating an organization's infobox website parameter with a defunct URL when there is a new, functional website that the group's chairman has announced? I suggest a link solely for historical viewing purposes belongs in the External links section—which this article does not yet have but could be easily created. NedFausa (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa:, that would work. The concern at the moment in other sites popping up following the closure of this one is verifiable authenticity. controversial political groups are especially suspicious to fake websites. Does the group even have the proper, single official websites or is it just different members in different areas trying to assert dominance? I would say omit all websites, except the archived version of the now defunct site until question of authenticity is affirmatively resolved. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls: Thanks for your reply but I don't understand. Have you seen WP:RS reports of "other sites popping up" claiming to be the official Proud Boys website? So far as I know, a "question of authenticity" has arisen only here among Wikipedia editors anxious to suppress the new website that, according to a reliable published source, Chairman Tarrio has announced. NedFausa (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proud_Boys&action=edit&section=15

I put up the "official website" template before I saw this discussion and that there was an issue. So I just undid it. But may I suggest that the discussion for a single official website belongs on wikidata, but that a dispute over official websites should be a labeled subtopic in the article. DougHill (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Where are these other competing "official websites"? Anything other than https://proudboysusa.com/ in the article is either defunct or (in 1 case) a suspicious "under-construction" which would need a source claiming this site. So I will restore the {official website} template in the external links, but include the {Disputed inline} template for now. But if there really are competing official websites, they all should be listed at wikidata (d:Q29096457) and we should continue this discussion there. DougHill (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, usually when I come across a site in the external links that's already in the infobox, I remove the external link as redundant. Didn't want to do that here without checking because they already both have disputed tags, maybe that's already been discussed? —valereee (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: The only other "official website" at d:Q29096457 is still only a dead link, so I think we can removed "disputed". We should not list a historical site at EL without listing the current site. And we should list an official site in the infobox if there is one. DougHill (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

DougHill, sorry, are you saying you don't object to my removing the redundant link in the EL? —valereee (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, I don't object as long as we also remove the old link too. (But we might want to cite it in the article.) But other editors might object to that. As these are now the only 2 ELs, this would mean removing the section. DougHill (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I support removing the {Disputed inline} template from both the infobox and external links section, and likewise removing the {official website} template from the latter section. However, I oppose removing the external links section in its entirety. Linking to the archived version of the defunct official Proud Boys website is useful for historical viewing and especially for comparison with the group's current official website. NedFausa (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, I have no opinion on including the defunct site. My only concern is the redundancy of listing the 'official' website, whether disputed or not, in both places. —valereee (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Listing only the defunct site in the EL makes it look like there is no current site. We should list neither or both. The page is long; I don't see any problem in having the official site in the infobox and EL. DougHill (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I plan on narrating this wiki page

If you have any concern or questions then please tell me so — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grun4a (talk • contribs) 22:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Grun4a:I'm not sure what you mean by this post. Can you please explain further? IHateAccounts (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I am talking about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoken_articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grun4a (talk • contribs) 02:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Statements in 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.

---

Should the Proud Boys be characterised, in wiki-voice, as:

1. Far-right;
2. Neo-fascist;
3. White supremacist;
4. A fraternal organization.

Responses may include one or more, or none. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 as it is unduly self-serving. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 4 but not 2, 3 TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 as it is unduly self-serving.--Jorm (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 as it is unduly self-serving. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yes 1) far-right in wikivoice, as well supported by the sources that we use. Not 2) neo-fascist in wikivoice with the sources currently referenced, but include generally or specifically attributed; this isn't as well supported as far-right by the sources referenced - might be better supported with better sources; happy to reassess if so. Not 3) white supremacist in wikivoice - per my comment at NPOVN, Either the sources attribute ... (to various agencies & advocacy groups), or they couch it as "with ties to" <or "members with ties to"> or they're passing mentions, or they require interpretation to get there., but include generally or specifically attributed and/or with phrasing better aligned to the sources. Not 4) fraternal organization, as it's a localised US term, with elements of political spin to it, and not commonly found unattributed in the sources we reference; possibly include attributed to McInnes, Tarrio or the organisation itself, if sufficient secondary sourcing exists; prefer mens' organization as a more international, less spin noun for the first sentence. - Ryk72 ^talk 22:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4. Cedar777 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4. NightHeron (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4. - 1, 2, and 3 are regularly and repeatedly used by independent reliable sources as defining descriptors. 4 is their unduly self-serving (and vague) wording. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• *1 It's an encyclopedic article, not a rapsheet. 2 and 3 require clarification (for example they have no connection with historical fascism and do not have overtly white supremacist rhetoric). 4 is self-serving and doesn't belong. We can explain in the body why they are neo-fascist and white supremacist. While some editors may believe that a long list of negative descriptions helps to disparage the group to readers, it actually comes across as strident (and hence biased) and has the opposite effect. Also, three terms is redundant. Who ever heard of centrist or left-wing neo-fascists? TFD (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1,2, and 3, with no preference for 4. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 — as discussed by SummerPhD, coverage has focused on the former three titles, I don't see why we wouldn't follow suit. 4 is unduly self-serving as mentioned a number of times here. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• *1 Far right extremist hate group or whatever the SLPC used. It is the most commonly used RS description. The rest are extremely weak and will be challenged often. These right wing hate group pages stick to the SLPC as the lede as anyone opposed can take it up with SLPC.2601:46:C801:B1F0:1C62:B9D7:AE9A:BEB0 (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3, not 4: Sources support #1-3; as for #4 - "fraternal" suggests "companionship [or] brotherhood dedicated to the religious, intellectual, academic, physical, or social pursuits of its members"; this organization doesn't seem to promote any sort of fraternal activity beyond their infantile college-style "hazing". François Robere (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• I think that the sourcing is strongest for 1. Oppose the rest: 2 (considering the usage fascist (insult), I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to support inclusion in the first sentence), 3 (the first sentence should say that they have ties to white supremacy or something like that, this phrasing is more common in RS). I am also happy with not mentioning white supremacy in the first sentence and keeping the current second sentence as it accurately and NPOV describes the connections. Prefer "male-only association" as it is more clear than "fraternal association." (t · c) buidhe 13:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1 and 2. The facts behind 3 need more nuance and appear to have insufficient sourcing to merit mention in the first sentence, and 4 is problematic for the reasons discussed at WP:MISSION. "Male only" could be an acceptable, more factual, description. VQuakr (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  @VQuakr: Just to double-check, did you see my comment below to Hipal which linked to this discussion which includes 11 different sources for white supremacy? I'm not objecting if you did see it all, I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that there's many many many more sources out there to support statements than the few that are included in the article :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Attributed description as white supremacist in the lead is warranted. I'm struggling to think of a first sentence structure where it work work along with 1 and 2 though. VQuakr (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1, 2, and 3, which are extensively-sourced to high-quality, neutral sources and reflect what makes the organization notable. Oppose 4 as it has basically nonexistent coverage compared to the other three and is largely a self-serving self-description, which violates WP:ABOUTSELF. I strenuously disagree with the argument, above, that we can disregard high-quality reliable sources stating facts about an organization as facts, or can minimize them to mere opinions, simply because some editors feel that those descriptors are controversial. White supremacy and neo-fascism are well-defined academic terms with clear, factual meanings; while they require high-quality sourcing, that standard is met here. The idea that they must always be treated as opinions even when reliable sources overwhelmingly describe them as fact is absurd, not grounded in policy, and effectively allows editors to substitute their own opinions for the facts as determined by reliable sources by selectively choosing what academic political descriptors they consider beyond the pale. We can be cautious when citing wording from lesser sources, but it is completely absurd and untenable to argue that descriptors widely used in high-quality academic sources are somehow inappropriate - we ultimately must look to the sources to make that decision. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1 only. Support 1 - it seems non-controversial among all reliable sources that they are far-right; even sources that dislike the term agree they are very much aligned with the extreme conservative movement. Oppose 2 - while the term seems accurate based on the wiki page, it is too much a pejorative to include in the lede sentence. Oppose 3 - while they have membership alignment with white supremacist groups, most sources suggest that pro-"Western" is a better descriptor than a purely racial sense. Oppose 4 - the comparison with college fraternities and groups such as the Freemasons aren't helpful; the valuable part is "male-only", which is better stated directly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1 and 4 in the first sentence... 2 and 3 in the lead, but not in first sentence. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 but not 4 per arguments already gave above, especially Aquillion's. Basically the current lead, so 1 and 2 in first sentence and 3 as it is currently worded. "The Proud Boys are a far-right[1][2] and neo-fascist[3] male-only organization[4] that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada.[5][6][7][8][9] While the group officially rejects racism, several members have been affiliated with white supremacy and the Proud Boys have been described by United States intelligence organisations as 'a dangerous white supremacist group'.[10][11][12][13]" Davide King (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Summation Currently 10/18/2020

To sum up current views above as of this edit following 8 days of RFC discussion here and previous discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard, there appears to be a clear consensus regarding the words' supportability (or in the case of option 4 / "fraternal organization" lack thereof):

• Support 1: 19/19
• Support 2: 13/19
• Support 3: 13/19
• Support 4: 2/19

For "Support 2" and "Support 3" I am counting the comments of VQuakr and Blueboar who indicate that they support the words being in the lead ("Attributed description as white supremacist in the lead is warranted." - VQuakr) but have questions about the specific wording/phrasing. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:1415:FAD2:6664:3C80 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Updated above to reflect contribution by Davide King. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:1415:FAD2:6664:3C80 (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2: 13/36 I am counting the 17 unique IP editors that have explicitly objected.2600:1002:B00E:2487:8973:D27D:22B5:3850 (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

An attempt to distil consensus from the NPOVN thread. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:, Have you started an RFC through Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment in order to bring input outside the involve crowd? Graywalls (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, partly, and also because the other discussion was straying away form anything that might result in consensus around the content. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If that is done, I suggest that it clearly state that it is about the wording of the first sentence of the lead. TFD (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: doesn't need to, read WP:RFCBEFORE. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm a little bit concerned about the calls to use only one source, particularly the SPLC sources. The suggestion to exclude content because "will be challenged often" is veering very close to censorship, and excluding descriptions that show up in several sources because one specific source doesn't include it seems like quite a blatant NPOV and balance issue to me. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That comment seems to have been made by someone who has a very weird take, some wording makes me suspect not here for good purposes. Rants about "MSM" and so on.

1. "Although it is of the we won't cover this therefore it didn't happen MSM material", "Don't notice that a supposedly mysoginist group attracts female social scientists detractors inventing terms, definitions and claims of secret motives." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=982920139
2. "but for example New Mexico Highlands University is not Harvard", "You continue to repeat this charade as if they authored the Oxford dictionary", "I do not like to cast doubt, but I highly doubt anyone else bothered to read anything but the buzzwords if even that much", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=982929780

Particularly troubling are this person's attacks on Samantha Kutner, a highly respected academic currently working for the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism https://icct.nl/people/samantha-kutner/. I would suspect the existing Gender bias on Wikipedia is probably why she doesn't have a wikipedia page yet. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:19B:99A3:485C:7505 (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Particularly troubling is Kutner neither leads with calling them fascist nor concludes with calling them fascist and yet that is being perpetually pushed as the lede here. Also, troubling, a psychology and communications academic citing 17 interviews with what are largely uneducated, disaffected men but neither making the questions or answers public. She doesn't have a page because she only became notable at all with the release of the paper cited- if he is even notable at all. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:125:F8EB:C6FA:6525 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the purposeful misquotation of what was posted either. Wilfred Reilly despite being a notable expert in quantifying political claims' material cannot be used because it conflicts with the MSM narrative, not carried by the MSM despite being topical here and a notable expert, he not only does have his own page, his historical findings have stood up to intense scrutiny. It is relevant here since Kutner responded to his findings of 10-20 percent of the group being members of color with their being victims identifying with their attackers-a very dubious claim based solely on her opinion.

I also don't appreciate the misstating of my position. The SLPC should be the exclusive source for the lede. Followed by their denials, followed in the body by the rest of these extremely weak hardly substantiated claims. There is no risk of censorship or any other WP policy that you care to cite in yet another effort to push the hardly used by an RS even Kutner in her initial description fascist to be anywhere close to the top of the page. Looking for censorship? Look how Reilly's material on this group cannot be used despite being a topical and notable expert. In the real world, that is textbook censorship.(maybe I should cast doubt on good faith and say his material can't be included because he is an African American being discriminated against by the MSM and subsequently WP?)2601:46:C801:B1F0:125:F8EB:C6FA:6525 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you have a major issue in understanding here. Wilfred Reilly is a WP:FRINGE individual who seems to only be able to get coverage by unreliable outlets and publishes on the Regnery imprint, a print-mill without editorial or factual standards from which any 'book' should be considered WP:SELFPUBLISHed. And until you brought him up, he had not been mentioned in regards to the topic here.

After doing some google searching to see what you're even ranting about, it appears you are trying to source something to a couple of his tweets that the Washington Times, i.e. the Moonie Times, very briefly covered. This faces the following problems:

1. The Moonie Times has Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources reliability issues.
2. The fact that the Moonie Times chose to cover what he said, does not lend it any legitimacy.
3. Twitter posts are considered WP:SELFPUBLISHed.
4. He is not, in fact, an expert in analyzing hate groups. Rather, his field of (supposed) research claims to be "empirical testing of political claims" but he steadfastly refuses to publish in peer-reviewed journals, which may well be a result of his "research" designs not standing up to scrutiny under peer review.

Humorously, Reilly's thesis claimed to debunk the idea of privilege by asking people if they would change their gender or race, and then declaring that individuals not simply wishing to change their gender or skin color - rather than wishing to eliminate the negative prejudices in society and the institutional barriers they faced - was evidence that they weren't "really" discriminated against. I will leave to the reader to determine if this is merely insane, or batshit insane, illogic. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:19B:99A3:485C:7505 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@2601:2C0:C300:B7:19B:99A3:485C:7505: Regenery is a publisher, they've published the memoirs of presidential candidates, such as Mitt Romney. Here is a C-Span special detailing their printing process -https://www.c-span.org/video/?436827-2/tour-regnery-publishing

They are not equivalent to "self-publishing" as you've suggested.

Wilfred Reilly is a published Phd (multiple) from a historically black college and posesses a law degree, notable enough for a cultivated wiki page. He has engaged in a public debate at KSU against white supremacists, and criticised Trump for dog whistle behavior. Washington times is a sometimes reliable source that I wouldn't use if I could avoid it, but it is not on an unreliable blacklist. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Wilfred Reilly is a notable expert with multiple books in all kinds of media including WAPO, USA Today, CBC et al dealing with empirically analyzing political claims or exactly the matter of the majority of this talk page. Furthermore the Proud Boys Whisperer, Kutner whom is trying to build a cottage industry out of tracking the Proud Boys thought highly enough of his work to respond. His information has been vigorously tested since it runs counter narrative unlike most of the sources thus far presented here whom my testing may be the first. Anything less and his page on this site would reflect it. Mr. Reilly said that about 10% to 20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color, a diverse racial composition that is “extremely well-known in law enforcement,” based on his research. (this should be in the article) He works closely with law enforcement, guess whom else works closely with law enforcement? Oh the language specific notable hate group experts ADL and SLPC work extremely closely with law enforcement? Voila, no wonder why domain experts explicitly excluded white supremacist as a label and the ADL explicitly used members of varying ethnicity. Furthermore, our beloved Snopes issued a report recently and of course no any kind of fascist to be found and their first descriptor is close to the SLPC. To sum this up on the assumption that page numbers are never coming for the books with the content inaccessible to the vast majority of visitors to the page. Most of the RS use the SLPC description as their first sentence or something close to it. The academic press sources although interesting to some degree use: neo fascist, proto fascist, crypto fascist and approach fascist or there isn't agreement among any random two of them. The ones that are accessible do not lead with any kind of fascist. Sorry Dauo is never, ever counting as a RS. The rest, McLaren the marxism human studies expert and the New Mexico Highlands first book, the non notable crew of which I think exactly one has their own page here etc....are dubious as best, but Daou is not an RS and Vitolo Hadid was sufficiently disgraced. The status quo of the first sentence and paragraph: does not reflect the majority of the RS, does not reflect best sources, does not reflect what the academic press uses in their introductions, does not reflect the majority of editors who have posted on this talk page-what it does reflect? "Look ye upon the giant, barren field of the fucks I give about your thoughts on the SPLC" "The Proud Boys are Neo-Nazis" etc...... For my 16 contributions here pushing to merely use the SLPC as the first paragraph-which is harsher than calling them neo fascists since SLPC hate group label means limited access to institutions like social media, banking etc....while calling them neo fascists merely means being factually wrong, I was personally attacked nine times, accused of being associated with the group etc...I was warned of actually reading the sources as OR, I was accused of censorship for pushing the domain experts and may or may not have been accused of wrong formatting on purpose. While calling for the harsher introduction. Ridiculous.2601:46:C801:B1F0:A9F6:4516:F04B:3ABE (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

While those are all certainly words, nothing in that wall of rambling word salad seems to cohere into a rational thought. What comes closest is the claim that Kutner "thought highly enough of his work to respond", which is certainly not the case if you read her actual Medium post at https://medium.com/@ashkenaz89/but-how-can-proud-boys-be-white-supremacists-when-they-have-black-members-6cf269b42bc3, which was not directly in response to him in any case but was a response to someone having emailed a copy of the Moonie Times article and being asked what she thought. That being said, her analysis as an actual expert in this field (as opposed to Reilly, who is in a different field of research) might be usable even though a Medium post under WP:USESPS, as an expert citation in-her-name demonstrating the fact that the PB's can both be white supremacist, and attract a token amount of minorities to use them as rhetorical shields.

Stepping back to Reilly, however, it appears that the Moonie Times may have been engaged in fabrication or misrepresentation again. The tweet in question appears to be here. https://twitter.com/wil_da_beast630/status/1311326969754255361

Note the differences in text. The numbering he writes is "~15%" versus the Moonie Times's "10% to 20%", and he does not state "based on his research" anywhere in the tweet. That ought to certainly disqualify the Moonie Times for trying to cite something to his research when his own tweet doesn't, and is one of the reasons it has such a bad reputation as a source.

Oh, and no source has been provided for the claim that Reilly "works closely with law enforcement", either. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:46B:2511:8AAE:C97B (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please make sure that you're replying to the correct thread, not just the absolutely bottom of the section, everyone. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone else wondering if Wall-O-Text-Loon is actually Reilly trying desperately to boost his own profile?

In any case, I've been trying to identify what the loon is actually referring to and the "Snopes" they reference seems to be this. https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/07/proud-boys-explained/

In keeping with loon's inability to correctly represent what sources say, however, the title/subtitle are "Who Are the Proud Boys Trump Told To ‘Stand Back and Stand By’? Members of the fringe club turned volunteer "security" force have openly advocated violence and white supremacy" and the article mentions fascism thrice, in the context of the group considering their enemies to be "people against fascism or critics of Trump". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A4D2:15CF:D346:FCFD (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Could someone identify references for each option? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: Here are a few sources for each of these descriptors:

• Neo-fascism:
• Far right: (pretty undisputed, so I'm not going to go to the trouble to find more sources)
• White supremacist: see here
• Fraternal: they call themselves that, so really, the fact of the matter isn't disputed here, but just for good measure

• I would like to see "street gang" added as an option. per [2] Vexations (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That is an opinion column, so as I understand it WP:RSOPINION restrictions would apply unless more sources begin to use the terminology in general news or academic coverage. 76.31.177.30 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WOW more personal attacks, very surprising! If one could actually properly address the material, one would have no use for personal attacks. 1)Exactly one of the academic press sources quoted (the marxist humanist expert) calls this group neo fascist. 2)Is anyone familiar with WP/UNDUE? 3)Is anyone familiar with WP/BEST SOURCES as the SLPC and ADL are drowned out by non notable academic press and hyper partisan zealots. 3)This is never a reliable source ever on any planet-White grad student apologizes for falsely claiming to be person of color-https://www.foxnews.com/us/white-grad-student-admits-to-tells-others-they-are-black-resigns-from-ta-position if the position wasn't so weak, these sort of obviously unreliable sources wouldn't appear. 4)If these allegations weren't so weak the page wouldn't be relying on the citations of non notable academic press such as gender studies, anthropologists and outright political hacks. 5)Why no pic of the black cuban leader? Why no mention of the notable expert estimate of 10-20percent people of color. 6)Wilfred Reilly himself said he works closely with law enforcement. The SLPC and ADL have both said exactly same or similar. The non notable, non expert academic press does not mention working with law enforcement once. 7)I've asked for the page citations three now four times for the inaccessible sources. Is anyone else also doubting that these references exist? 8)Snopes like the vast majority of sources including all of the non notable academic press do not lead with any kind of fascist, yet WP does lead with neo fascist for some odd reason? Does WP/UNDUE just not exist any longer? 9)How many personal attacks are permitted before the warning and subsequent block appears?2601:46:C801:B1F0:B990:D6F0:8035:28E3 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you feel is a personal attack. You will need to be more specific.

The editor immediately before this gave ten sources. You seem to be dismissing many of them at once as "obviously" unreliable, "non notable academic press and hyper partisan zealots", etc. That's not how it works. Pick a (one) source, clearly identify which source you are referring to and describe how you feel it does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS for what it is cited for. If you can establish a consensus, we'll remove it and you can move on to the next one. (That a publication is not "notable" is immaterial. InfoWars, Stormfront, The Epoch Times and numerous others are not reliable sources for much of anything, though they are notable.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

To break down Wall-Of-Text-Person's stuff here a bit more:

• 1)"the marxist humanist expert" - pejoratives like this are pretty good to establish that the writer is WP:NOTHERE in good faith.
• " 2)Is anyone familiar with WP/UNDUE?" - looking above in this discussion and in the discussion in the NPOV Noticeboard, it appears that many editors are quite aware of it, which is precisely why WP:FRINGE and WP:MANDY stuff isn't being treated as if it were the overwhelming "truth" here.
• "3)Is anyone familiar with WP/BEST SOURCES as the SLPC and ADL are drowned out by non notable academic press and hyper partisan zealots." - this sentence makes no sense, and if I am guessing at what the writer means correctly, it appears they have not actually read the article.
• some kind of skippable fox news link/rant, not sure what they're going on about there
• "4)If these allegations weren't so weak the page wouldn't be relying on the citations of non notable academic press such as gender studies, anthropologists and outright political hacks." - the writer appears to not understand the sources involved, and believes that the fields of anthropology and gender studies are somehow illegitimate?
• "5)Why no pic of the black cuban leader?" - not standard practice to put the photo up but whatever
• "Why no mention of the notable expert estimate of 10-20percent people of color." - Wilfred Reilly is not a notable expert in this field. It further turned out, after checking the source of this false claim, the claim of "10-20 percent people of color" was not even a correct citation by a non-reliable source (Moonie Times) of his tweet, which wouldn't be usable anyways since it is merely the assertion of a non-expert in this field from his personal twitter account.
• "6)Wilfred Reilly himself said he works closely with law enforcement." - And if you could provide reliable sourcing to whether or not he actually has, you'd be getting somewhere, but I can't even find a record of him making that claim in his twitter account. The fact remains, however, that he is not an expert in this field.
• "The SLPC and ADL have both said exactly same or similar." - While it is true the SPLC and ADL state that they work with law enforcement, more importantly, it is widely reported and confirmed in reliable sources of record that they do so. The same is not true of Reilly.
• "The non notable, non expert academic press does not mention working with law enforcement once." - "working with law enforcement" is not a requirement for being an expert in this field. Also, word salad.
• "7)I've asked for the page citations three now four times for the inaccessible sources. Is anyone else also doubting that these references exist?" - And it has been explained multiple times that page numbers are not required for the citation. Perhaps if we move the box of straws closer to you, you might grasp at them better?
• "8)Snopes like the vast majority of sources including all of the non notable academic press do not lead with any kind of fascist" - Weren't you just claiming that other sources were the "BEST"? Why are you on about Snopes now? And for the record, the Snopes link above references Fascism directly and includes notation that the PBs consider their enemies, per McInnes, to be "people against fascism or critics of Trump."
• "Does WP/UNDUE just not exist any longer?" - It does, which is why Wall-O-Text-Person is not getting any traction when they try to scream and throw tantrums because their WP:FRINGE stuff isn't being put front and center into the article.

At this point I am suspecting that Wall-Of-Text-Person suffers from WP:COMPETENCE issues, both in media literacy and source evaluation senses. Possibly also in the baseline ability to read and understand the policies themselves. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:1415:FAD2:6664:3C80 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

More persona attacks. If I used same description generally reserved for Marx and Einstein to describe graduate assistants and New Mexico Highlands University gender studies teachers, I might have to resort to personal attacks too.

This is WP/IGNOREALLRULES to WP/RIGHTALLWRONGS.

• "1)It is obviously not NPOV(the editors pointing this out were accused of whitewashing)
• "2)It is obviously not compliant with WP/BLP with the unsubstantiated negative hyperbole and libel.
• "3)It is obviously not WP/BALANCE excluding the black notable topical expert Reilly in favor of the no blacks, non notable, non topical academic press. Plus no inclusion of a pic of the black leader. Subverting Reilly's work in favor of a collection of no black work on a topic heavily involved in race is also bias. Hardly any source incl Snopes leads with neo fascist but WP does.
• "4)It is obviously WP/UNDUE ascribing so much esteem to a political blogger, gender studies teacher, graduate assistant et al as Freud, Marx, etc......via the phrases being used to describe the academic press-"highly respected academic scholar" etc,,,,,just shows the weakness, that adjectives normally reserved for Nobel laureates field changers and pillars of human knowledge like a Freud, Einstein is so interchangeable with a first time published New Mexico Highlands assistant sociology professor, a political blogger etc....
• "5)WP/BESTSOURCES is also largely being subverted, minimalizing the domain experts ADL and SLPC in favor of academic press.
• "6)I've been editing here since WMD in Iraq, often on hate group pages from the outset of them, this is the single weakest article that I have ever come across

Proud Boys 1 Wikipedia 0. (Books are to be accompanied by page numbers, no one should have to ask five times)2601:46:C801:B1F0:2927:3097:A2C0:1CAF (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"Proud Boys 1 Wikipedia 0"??? - I believe this has now confirmed that Wall-Of-Text troll here is WP:NOTHERE for legitimate reasons. The continued insistence that Reilly is somehow a topic expert (he isn't) while attacking and misrepresenting the reliable sources in the article is just icing on the cake. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Also wow, this Proud Boy really has an obsession with "Marx". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

- I don't contribute here often and I'd rather not jump into a hot arguement, but I just want to say anecdotally that both their website (should be the most primary of primary sources, no?) and their local recruitment officer made it seem more like #4 (a "frat") than any of them. They touted brotherhood above all else. They have mixed race members and don't discriminate based on race (group pics and leadership for proof). Their goal seems to be sternly glorifying western chauvinism, which could come across as far-right to somebody who doesn't understand the differences. Labeling them far-right would be peddling disinformation, or at least intentionally skewed information. I would highly advise prefacing the introductory sentence of this article to say "alleged far-right, white supremacist, etc...". Most news sites copy each other, so posting 8 or 9 sources from the same media parent company saying the same thing is not acceptable, especially in this unprecedented time of disinformation. Find better sources for this wiki, please. And those in here who are clearly left or right, check your bias; I shouldn't be able to tell on a website like this. 18:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• As exciting as that original research is, I am going to put my trust in the cited reliable sources. You can complain all you want ("news sites copy each other", "intentionally skewed information", "someone who doesn't understand the differences"), but for now you are not, as far as I know, an author whose conclusions about what this organization really is have been published by reliable sources. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

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.

Intellectually Challenged man blames proud boys for his bomb threat

"Diskinson Police Sgt. Joe Cianni described Raymond as an "intellectually challenged Dickinson resident" who is not believed to have any affiliation with the Proud Boys."

https://www.newsweek.com/self-professed-proud-boy-arrested-after-allegedly-threatening-blow-north-dakota-voting-location-1543696

https://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/crime-and-courts/6739859-Self-professed-Dickinson-%E2%80%9CProud-Boy%E2%80%9D-arrested-following-bomb-threat

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you proposing an edit? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, maybe to a section titled "false allegations of voter intimidation" if any more pertinent and reliable sources document new activity. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG and Muboshgu: A few other more reliable sources:

• Vox Recode: "What we know about Iran and the threatening “Proud Boys” emails"
• Miami Herald: "FBI investigates ‘Proud Boys’ emails that hint at voter intimidation campaign"
• Washington Post: "U.S. government concludes Iran was behind threatening emails sent to Democrats"
• NBC New York: "‘This is a Voter Intimidation Campaign': Explaining Iran's Threatening ‘Proud Boys' Emails" ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding recently closed RfC

@ProcrastinatingReader: could I ask you to clarify something on your closure of the RfC above? As I understand the discussion and various points made, consensus was against changing the wording from "male-only" to instead call the Proud Boys a "fraternal organization", the RFC developing from discussions currently archived to Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 4. I believe this is also why several editors in the RFC left comments such as "Prefer "male-only association" as it is more clear than "fraternal association"" (buidhe) and "the comparison with college fraternities and groups such as the Freemasons aren't helpful; the valuable part is "male-only", which is better stated directly" (power~enwiki). Since the prior discussions to the RFC providing this context were archived off before your closure I'm not sure you read them but I think the clarification would be helpful to prevent mistaken removals. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

By my reading, the "male-only" term was not part of the RfC and no editors explicitly stated their opposition to it, so I wouldn't say the RfC explicitly provides either support or opposition to the statement "male-only political organization". However, much of the opposition to 4 mentioned their preference for the existing statement, and all discussion of the statement in the RfC was in favour of it. So I'd say it can reasonably be presumed that the statement enjoys consensus, with no prejudice against a future discussion to change that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This is abdolutely ridiculous

Talk:Otoya Yamaguchi sent me here after I noticed great most(!) of the discussion about a subject of Japan is about almost entirely unrelated trivia from America.

The extremist far-right public murderer (all undisputed facts) who is subject of Otoya Yamaguchi is described in natural terms, as merely an "ultranationalist" (quote from talk page about it by someone else: "not POV nor necessarily negative" and rightly so) and in the categories he's categorised just as one of "Japanese nationalists". This is written in a detached and encyclopedic tone, as it should be. But then it goes into American trivia and enter the evil "Proud Boys (a neo-fascist hate group founded by McInnes)". Why is Yamaguchi "not POV nor necessarily negative" then, if something like that is allowed there? Surely he too could be described something similarly silly like a "a neo-fascist hate man" and much more as it is with the separate double standards for American politics.

Just look at this article here, what are you doing. Then compare with let's say the Bolsheviks that merely goes in avwey dry and non-senationalist and no-nonsense and maybe even a bit whitwashing as,

>The Bolsheviks (Russian: Большевики, from большинство bolshinstvo, 'majority'), also known in English as the Bolshevists, were a radical, far-left, and revolutionary Marxist faction founded by Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Bogdanov that split from the Menshevik faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP), a revolutionary socialist political party formed in 1898, at its Second Party Congress in 1903.[4] After forming their own party in 1912, the Bolsheviks took power during the October Revolution in the Russian Republic in November 1917, overthrowing the Provisional Government of Alexander Kerensky, and became the only ruling party in the subsequent Soviet Russia and its successor state, the Soviet Union. They considered themselves the leaders of the revolutionary proletariat of Russia. Their beliefs and practices were often referred to as Bolshevism.

That's the entire lead summary as cited. (The "considered themselves the leaders of the revolutionary proletariat of Russia" especially sounds like puff.) Instead of starting with how they "were a gang of communist terrorists led by Lenin, who at the height of World War I seized totalitarian power in Russia and then killed millions through war, famine, and terror while plotting to conquer the entire world until they settled with just creating and running the Soviet Union for a time being," and this would be even completely factual and undisputed (they even very proudly used the term Red Terror). But also unencylopedic! While this article here is such a total sham to only serve as a propaganda hit piece, elsewhere in the encyclopedia with supposedly same standards. This practice is totally wrong and should end. And anywhere else where you also do it, too.

Oh, and the lead for Bolsheviks is far shorter than that of Proud Boys, the more important politics subject apparently. Far shorter overall too, and with only 36 sources for the people who killed many millions in their bid to take over the world, and have been extensively studied for over 100 years, vs over 200 sources here for some rowdy un-PC bunch who were formed few years ago as a joke. This is ridicalous too. I hope at least some of you can see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.112.150 (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies including WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OTHERSTUFF, and WP:NOTFORUM. There is almost nothing actionable in your poorly spelled rant, and ranting about an article on a different topic is essentially meaningless to this one. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikilawyering appeals to authority to shut discussion, okay. I suggest you familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV (tl;dr: Avoid stating opinions as facts, Prefer nonjudgmental language') and also WP:BLP because McCGinnes and others are "living persons'. And to stop pushing these other standards used for only the modern American politics by littering the previously properly written articles like Otoya Yamaguchi with blunt propaganda garbage just because of a trivia incident in America and then specifically ask people to come here to discuss this crap as you do in Talk:Otoya Yamaguchi because it can't be properly challenged there for some reason (no reason). And where (Talk:Otoya Yamaguchi) the discussion about a very extreme and very controversial famous figure in Japan is in effect absolutely overwhelmed by the arguing about completely unrelated politics in America because of how the PBs just have to be always demonized everywhere with this very WP:TERRORIST style, extremely judgmental language in this casual matter-of-fact way all across Wikipedia whenever mentioned. No matter how other articles that you come to do it have been otherwise written up to this point, and then won't even allow anyone to fix that and standardize it with the article (the political assassin Yamaguchi is both "ultranationalist" and "nationalist" there, which is also noted as "not POV nor necessarily negative" and rightly so, and so the PBs should also be "nationalist group" there at most by the very same standard, without creating the mess you did and then insisting to keep that mess against the rules of how to write encyclopedic content).

So let me tell you about these rules of how to write encyclopedic content:

Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

"American politics" is not an excuse for some altogether different set of standards than in the articles about Russian politics (Bolsheviks) or Japanese politics (Otoya Yamaguchi, before the littering). Actually American modern politics should have even stricter adhernace to the normal standards of NPOV, as noted above requiring special sensitivity, instead of uniliteraly breaking them as you do.

And now as for actions I give the formal request to fix Otoya Yamaguchi to the state from before the article suddenly became about American politics, so any future discussion on his page will be about him and not any obsessive disparaging attacks on them. Make it just dry and noncontroversially factual "an American group" to get over it entirely (because contentious opinions should be just best avoided), or "an American nationalist group" if you really want. And don't expand anymore on this trivia from modern America in the article that is supposed to be about a "Japanese nationalist" dead for over half century. This or just remove all the American trivia altogether, that's also an option. And then unlock his article for because during the lock probably won't be needed anymore once be the article Otoya Yamaguchi will be again about Otoya Yamaguchi. His talk page specifically asks people to come here over for that and so I did.

Than you can fix this article here too, make it more like the description of the Bolsheviks (etc.) with minimal if any use of judgemental language, presenting any opinions by anyone only as clearly attributed ("according to") to in a disinterested tone and also adding their own description of themselves prominently (as with like the Bolsheviks "considered themselves the leaders of the revolutionary proletariat of Russia"), and so on. If not you, someone else reading it. I said everything and leave with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.112.150 (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Chapman/Alt-Knight Proud Boys Coup

Kyle Chapman proclaimed himself leader of the Proud Boys after Enrique Tarrio was stabbed. the "Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights" was rebranded into the "Proud Goys." Not exactly sure if this should be added into the article or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebeedruf22 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This would need a reliable source. At one point, Tarrio said the injuries were serious, but not life-threatening, but other sources cast doubt on the Proud Boy's account. Per this source, the injuries were minor. I cannot find any sources mentioning Chapman's new role. It is unlikely this would belong in the article without significantly better sources, and WP:NOTNEWS applies also. Grayfell (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry! Yes, a bit new to wikipedia-type stuff. At the time I posted this, I saw it posted by Berkley Antifa, however, then it was reported on by Newsweek and The Sun Sentinel --Bumblebeedruf22 (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC) ; edited 07:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Proud Boys Infighting

It appears the organization is splitting, and Kyle Chapman is trying to assert control. This may be relevant both to the website question, and to other questions and coverage about the organization.

1. https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-based-stickman-enrique-tarrio-goys-1546597
2. https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/civil-war-brewing-inside-proud-boys-as-top-leader-says-hes-done-pretending-he-isnt-a-nazi/
3. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-proud-boys-rebrand-20201111-kp4cr7l5pbdnxguwyb3xq4m63e-story.html
4. https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/proud-boys-leader-trying-to-rebrand-the-group-as-explicitly-antisemitic-648831
5. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/far-right-infighting-trump-defeat/
6. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-post-election-proud-boys-meltdown-is-here-and-its-ugly

"“Due to the recent failure of Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio to conduct himself with honor and courage on the battlefield, it has been decided that I Kyle Chapman reassume my post as President of Proud Boys effective immediately,” Chapman wrote. “We will no longer cuck to the left by appointing token negroes as our leaders. We will no longer allow homosexuals or other ‘undesirables’ into our ranks. We will confront the Zionist criminals who wish to destroy our civilization.” He also made clear that he believed talk of defending “Western Civilization” was really just a racist dog whistle all along. “We recognize that the West was built by the White Race alone and we owe nothing to any other race,” he wrote."

If anyone can help work on wording and keep an eye on sources it would be helpful. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Added to Proud Boys#Leadership. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Kutner is not a reliable source

she calls them crypto fascist or fascist in secret(the bar for this dubious claim is very high as it is axiomatically false to call them crypto fascist and then find material to justify this label). She only uses the social factors common among fascists to describe how the Proud Boys use fascist recruiting methods. Her description of any kind of fascist including her completely made up fascist 2.0, does not include any dictatorial or authoritarian control of governance or military. It focuses solely on the common social attributes. She is a Psych and Communications graduate; she based the cited piece on her interviews with 17 as she describes them largely uneducated and disaffected former members without making the questions or answers publicly available. She concluded that the subjugation of women was their largest draw. That is beyond FRINGE, they're not enslaving anyone and no one else confirms this opinion. She self-acclaims as The Proud Boys Whisperer, charges $200/hr or $1000/day for consulting on specifically The Proud Boys-this is linked to the cited piece. She is clearly COI and not a reliable source on this group. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Good lord this is flimsy. All of this is WP:OR. Leave the interpretations to reliable sources. None of this has anything to do with WP:RS or with conflicts of interest. Topic experts charge money for consulting, just like doctors, mechanics, and accountants charge money for their services. Big whoop. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There appears to be no concrete point here by the returned-WP:NOTHERE commenter; this is solely an attempt to attack the author, a respected expert and researcher with the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism [3], on unsound grounds. Attempts to attack an expert for their speaking or consulting rates are ridiculous, and clearly the commenter doesn't understand what "COI" means. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh heavens. Conflict of interest does not exclusively mean an editor is conflicted. "Beneath their libertarian exterior lies the redpill. Proud Boys don’t want freedom in the libertarian sense they have co-opted. They want the freedom to subjugate women" No one is enslaving anyone here despite Kutner's hysterical claims to the contrary. Beyond fringe, completely unreliable and zero credibility.2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"Proud Boys as a Fascist Organisation-Before continuing, it is important to provide a few working definitions of fascism in the context of this group.56Fascism may be defined as a form of political behaviour marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional beliefs, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal constraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Kutner's definition of fascism completely lacking dictatorial or authoritarian control or the single biggest tenet of fascism. Beyond fringe a self serving definition little different than the fantastical claims of enslaving women.2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Editors here are using the term fascism exactly as you've described; unconnected to the historical definition of fascism.

You must simply be upset by modern society, advocate even lawful violence, and be more patriotic than average and you qualify.

Advocacy of totalitarian government is no longer required, and claims of egalitarian belief are a smokescreennhiding true intent for recruitment purposes.

The term has been rendered meaningless but is being applied consistently as per the "reliable sources" available.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: your comment appears to be a combination of WP:NOTFORUM content and WP:OR. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm explaining to the OP that the editors are correct here. The source has been deemed "reliable", and the term fascist is being consistently used to describe other organizations who meet this minimum criteria all over wikipediaTuffStuffMcG (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Neo-Fascism sources

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 know this is beating a dead horse at this point, but the Neofascism label should be removed, they are no doubt far-right, but there is no compelling evidence presented here. Of the four sources given, none are by historians or experts of fascism. Samantha Kutner, I can't find any academic background on and CV Vitolo-Haddad is a graduate student who recently was fired for lying about her race. Unless someone can provide statements from historians of high caliber like Ian Kershaw. Richard J. Evans, Roger Griffin, Paul Gottfried, Robert Gerwarth, Peter Longerich, Volker Ullrich, etc, I don't believe that the label should be included especially in the heading. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:27, 20 November 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.

How many members do the Proud Boys have?

Do we have an estimated number? I tried to find a source in order to add that information to the article, but so far with no success. Alcaios (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Alcaios, " A Rewire survey of private Facebook groups that claim to be affiliated with Proud Boys chapters showed that there were about 6,000 members of those groups within the United States in mid-July, with the largest chapters in California." https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2017/08/28/hate-goes-mainstream-gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys/ Vexations (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alcaios and Vexations: Hm, I'm not really sure if we'd be able to use Facebook group membership as evidence for actual group membership. The ADL's page on the Proud Boys suggests "likely several hundred" members, so I would personally be in favour of something along those lines, maybe mentioning Facebook group membership: The Proud Boys likely has several hundred members (ADL citation), however a private Facebook group claiming to be affiliated with the group had around 6,000 members in late 2017 (Rewire citation). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, It varies a great deal. I don't think we should cite any number as definitive. "Kutner estimated in her research that the group has 3,000 members worldwide." https://www.insider.com/proud-boys-trump-debate-who-what-comments-hate-group-2020-9. But Kutner, in https://icct.nl/app/uploads/2020/05/Swiping-Right-The-Allure-of-Hyper-Masculinity-and-Cryptofascism-for-Men-Who-Join-the-Proud-Boys.pdf cites the splc, which, in turn, cites rewire. Vexations (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations: Sorry, you're right. Giving a specific number probably isn't best. How about something like It is unknown how many member are part of the Proud Boys, but reports estimate membership between several hundred up to six thousand.? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Added to the article, thanks. Alcaios (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

CV Vitollo Hadad is not a reliable source

Recently hired CSU professor admits pretending to be a person of color https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/18/recently-hired-csu-professor-admits-pretending-to-be-a-person-of-color/ 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The journal has not retracted the paper, and this constitutes an attack on the author without merit. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

reliable, consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hosang is being misattributed

HoSang-calls them proto fascist(largely the subtextual opposite of neo fascist). He is being misattributed. The reference is in passing with no explanation or clarification. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears that there is a Wikipedia:Competence is required issue here, as having pulled the book from library access, the word "protofascist" is used, in the sense of "a political movement or program tending toward or imitating fascism" [4], similar to neofascism "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" [5]. They use the term neofascism as a similar descriptor to describe the Murder of Heather Heyer by "neofascist" James Alex Fields Jr., on page 105. Protofascist, as used in the book, is definitely not "the subtextual opposite" of neofascist. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears Hosang is still being misquoted. Proto and neo are still not synonymous.2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read, and understand the term definitions. You cannot simply try to pull the prefixes off and declare them "the subtextual opposite". I also suspect that you didn't really read the source; perhaps you got the bit about the term from a review somewhere? IHateAccounts (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest a halt to misquoting Hosang. Neo and proto are still not synonymous2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC).

Having sat down and read the book, I suggest the issue here is one of Wikipedia:Competence is required; are you a native english speaker, and do you understand that you cannot simply attempt to strip the prefixes from compound words with specific definitions? IHateAccounts (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancies between SPLC/ADL and other sources

Section renamed from "If it cannot be corroborated by and/or conflicts with the SLPC and/or the ADL involving right wing hate groups it is not credible and unreliable" to a more reasonable length and neutral title. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The SLPC and ADL are the language specific domain experts used by think tanks, government agencies, law enforcement et al. Their descriptions are the ones most commonly used by RS. Anything that cannot be corroborated and/or conflicts with their descriptions is prima facie not credible and unreliable. That would specifically include: white supremacist, racist and fascist. We don't subjugate Einstein on The Theory of Relativity page in favor of Math Weekly and non notable academics. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with everything you posted above, hopefully an actual discussion is allowed as opposed to just closing down topics saying it is settled. It is clear that the works cited are of low quality and should be revised. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Spamming [6] is probably not the best way to go about it, but also, you are grossly misreading both Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:WEIGHT policies. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Also @3Kingdoms: it appears this is a previously blocked person returning [7] who was engaged in similar behavior [8] [9].

19:36, 19 October 2020 Bradv talk contribs blocked 2601:46:c801:b1f0::/64 talk with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: spreading disinformation / POV-pushing)

Given that they spammed this page and repeated the behavior, pinging @Bradv: who was the blocking admin, if this continues I will request admin advice on next steps. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay. However, I don't consider anything the user posted here to be disinformation. The sources for the Neo-fascism claim are weak and should be replaced with ones of high caliber and if there are no better the claim should be removed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Based on the other spammy sections posted by the IP, the implication here is that the SPLC and ADL don't use "neo-Fascist", therefore neither should Wikipedia. This is incorrect for so many reasons it would be a waste of time to explain them all individually. Presenting this as a conflict from sources is WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely the same one that was blocked as "(Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: spreading disinformation / POV-pushing)". They started ranting stuff about Reilly again at Vexations's talk page [10], then about "a marxist humanist academic" and "Einstein" and "Math Rhetoric Weekly" at ItsPugle's [11]. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I make no excuses for what the IP did if it went afoul of the rules. However, the point about the sources stands. The IP and myself both voiced issues with the sources provided, they are poor. The burden of proof is now for someone to argue that they are good. It is not much to ask for someone to provide a reasonable and detailed defense of the sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms: You have an odd idea about burden of proof. The consensus, from RFC, is that the sourcing is proper. It is YOUR job to prove your arguments, the sources have already been defended quite thoroughly. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I did. I explained that none of the sources are by experts of fascism, one has no academic background I could find, one was found to have lied about her race, one uses proto-fascism as opposed to neo, etc. So again please explain, what is credible about them. Not the what RFC says, not that there is a consensus, but why do you think they are credible. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the RFC, where the things you bring up were already discussed, and your claims such as "none of the sources are by experts of fascism" were debunked. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidently, it appears you have not read it. No one there actually mentions it or responses to the claims. So again I ask you, to defend these sources. Please explain how four people are expert on fascism when none of their bios on their schools list them as such. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It is too much as they haven't been able to do it for six months. They have been called out for the incredible weakness a dozen times without an iota of credible response. I have RS to back up every single thing that I have posted on this site over the past 15yrs. Unlike IHateAccounts whom posted disinformation that Proud Boys social media urged members to come and edit here. Claims that the black cuban leader is tokenism, that I am a Proud Boy, that I am promoting Wilfred Reilly, that I am here promoting the SLPC etc....that editor nor any other editor here has yet been able to address the factually incorrect fascist label.2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The gish gallop is a bit much, but I will note that your first edit upon return from block was a wall of text on the talk page of user Vexations [12] in which you returned to your ranting about Reilly and mentioned him no less than five times.

As for the term Neo-Fascism, while the current citation lists four sources, no less than ten were provided to the RFC in discussion. And, interestingly, the Proud Boys have recently had their own infighting over who is leader, with one Kyle Chapman having... revealing... choices of language regarding the question of tokenism [13]. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Please explain Grayfell. Reconcile credibility and reliability without being corroborated by or conflicting with the unquestionable topical experts. Forget that most RS use the SLPC and ADL descriptions making any contradiction or lack of corroboration on WP ludicrous. No need for explanation on how the Proud Boys are portrayed worse than Hitler and the Nazis on WP2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms: It's getting silly watching you repeat things that have already been discussed in the RFC or otherwise above.

1. Your personal attacks against CV Vitolo-Haddad are meaningless. The journal has not recalled or rescinded the paper, which passed peer review and is a Wikipedia:Reliable Source as published in a reputable journal.
2. Samantha Kutner is a researcher with the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism [14] with particular expertise in this field. Your claim that you could not find any background would only be proof that you didn't bother looking, especially as it was directly pointed out in responses to your partner in the RFC.
3. Just to be sure, I checked out the Hosang book through library access, and those responses are above. Read the responses for yourself above, I'm not going to waste time and energy further on repetition.
4. You continually attempt to attack three sources with illegitimate arguments, while ignoring that TEN sources were provided in the RFC above in ItsPugle's response to Hipal. Further, McLaren (2020) is also listed in the page sources for the term currently and I note neither you nor your partner address that source at all.

Again: there was a rather long RFC above. If you believe you have something to add, it is your responsibility to provide sourced arguments, not the responsibility of others to waste time and emotional effort continually debunking BS that's already been answered in the RFC and in other discussions above. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I did look that up on Kutner, all I saw was that one link, it list her majors as psychology and communication, not history not fascism. Its not a personal attack on CV Vitolo-Haddad, she lied about her race and is a Journalism and mass communications major, not history or fascism. Being in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make the source right read about the Tantura affair in Israel. Hosang focus is on Ethnicity, Race & Migration and American Studies, not fascism. McLaren focus is critical studies not fascism. These are not very hard concepts, if you don't make a background on fascism and you call people you don't like fascist, your not credible. Might as well call Obama, the Democrats, and anyone to the left of Ted Cruz a fascist cause Dinesh D'Souza, says so. I am not a "partner" with IP, but a bad source is a bad source. The ten previous sources you mention were not discussed because they are even worse. One was by Peter Daou, a Clinton partisan who is regularly considered to be a grifter in left-wing circles. Others were just sources that called them Fascist with no analysis of the claim. I did not provide a source, because there is no need the Proud boys are not fascist; far-right, inclined towards violence, offensive, correct... does not make you fascist. If you can provide a source from someone like Ian Kershaw. Richard J. Evans, Roger Griffin, Paul Gottfried, Robert Gerwarth, Peter Longerich, Volker Ullrich, etc then you might have a case, but you don't. You seem to be unable to have a reasonable debate on the merits and instead prefer to get angry and insult, that is unfortunate. I suggest you calm down, before you proceed with angry messages. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you need to re-read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You don't get to arbitrarily demand a tiny list of names that are the only ones you will accept, and likewise, it is completely inappropriate to describe Peter Daou as "a Clinton partisan who is regularly considered to be a grifter in left-wing circles."

I definitely don't see where you get off declaring that the majors of people who have studied the Proud Boys in detail don't count, since I am not aware of any university that offers degrees in "fascism". With regards to Samantha Kutner, an expert with degrees in psychology and communications studying "violent extremism, and the gender dynamics of radicalization" by focusing on the messaging and recruitment tactics of groups like the Proud Boys is entirely appropriate. She is very much an expert on the Proud Boys and what their messaging contains.

Similarly, attempting to dismiss McLaren by stating "McLaren[sic] focus is critical studies not fascism" betrays a deep, Wikipedia:Competence is required-level problem with your understandings of what critical theory is and of McLaren's research and expertise.

You make the same mistake in your attacks on virtually every source, along with crossing the lines of WP:FRINGE numerous times and offering an absolutely ludicrous false equivalence gambit with regard to far-right conspiracy theorist Dinesh D'Souza. Once again, since you are the one(s) demanding change after a very thorough RFC: the onus is on you to provide sourced backings for your claims, not merely to shout wild nonsense and then demand that others "disprove" it. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you noticed, I said "history" as the expert topic. Also I listed etc, since there are many respectable historians of fascism that can be used. Quite frankly I could care less what a "communication, critical studies, etc" person thinks of them. Fascism is an ideology where complete worldview, history, and beliefs, someone who understands that such as the men above are able to see if a group is or is not. as opposed to what whatever nonsense these people spew. You still have not defended these sources to any great degree.

It is also completely fair to describe Daou, as such he attacked sanders supporters for years, created a pro-Clinton site that was compared to North Korean propaganda and then rolled around 2019 starts going all in on sanders, which a lot of his supporters didn't buy. He produces the same low-quality hackery as D'Souza, who cares what he thinks.

Citing Wiki rules does not help your case everyone interprets the rules differently, you think these sources are good, I think they are low-quality.

Also there is nothing Fringe about what I am saying, your just projecting, cause you are upset that I dispute the claim and you can not provide an answer without using a logical fallacy.

Once again calm down, stop with the insults, and use some deductive reasoning. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It is your job to make a case, and provide citations to support your argument, and you have not done so. It is your job to describe your objections in the context of wikipedia rules and policies, and when you say "Citing Wiki rules does not help your case everyone interprets the rules differently", that indicates a lack of understanding - or a rejection - of the rules and policies.

The misrepresentation of and personal attacks against Daou don't need answering, they're simply ridiculous and I note you didn't provide any citations in that case either. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Since this page is not about Daou I'm not posting sources about him. I don't see why you care about him so much, he produces low-rate hackery just like D'Souza, do you really dispute that? Finally I don't need to provide a source, because my argument is that they are not fascist, hence said label should be removed. You argue that they are because of sources, to which I pointed out said sources are poor. The IP noted that the SPLC and ADFL don't label them that, so there are two sources. If you dispute find a source by a reputable historian of fascism, such as the ones listed, that they are, of course the likely answer is that they would answer in the negative. Finally please stop making this personal this very unbecoming.3Kingdoms (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have made nothing personal, but your attempts to claim otherwise are somewhat revealing.

As for Daou, I can find nothing on Peter Daou to corroborate the claims you have made, which would definitely need sourcing.

Likewise, for your "argument" (if it can at this point be called that): No less than ten sources were provided backing up the wording in the RFC. You have shown no actual evidence regarding the sources you claim are "poor", only some WP:OR, and now you are defaulting back to the same argument that Special:Contribs/2601:46:C801:B1F0:0:0:0:0/64 makes ad-nauseum despite its having absolutely no basis in policy. There is no requirement in policy that only the SPLC and ADL can indicate a group is of neo-fascist typology, nor is there a requirement in policy that only "historians of fascism" can make that determination. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It is personal when your going through my edit history, to report me. https://theoutline.com/post/2207/the-strange-life-of-peter-daou?zd=1&zi=itppwg4d Finally I am not saying it needs to be the sources I mentioned, but said sources posted are Bad. So get better ones. I have already pointed out why said sources are bad, none have any understanding of fascism and ironically most use the term in passing not actually explaining why it is. One of the few that does, is by a discredit liar. So no I don't put much weight in it. I also have to ask can you actually provide a detailed summary of the articles in question to prove their claim. I am sorry I prefer the works of professional historians as opposed to discredited grad students and marxist critical theorist. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Without going too much in detail, the objective of fascism is an ethnically pure country. If one believes that their country should be made ethnically pure, he/she is a fascist, regardless of being economically leftist or rightist, regardless of being for or against hierarchy and/or authoritarianism. Yup, there is a thing called national-anarchism.

Scholar Brian Reynolds Myers views North Korea's actual ideology as a Korean ethnic nationalism similar to statism in Shōwa Japan and European fascism.

Copy/paste from North Korea. It is an example of ethnically pure country=fascism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing Against Myers himself, but I disagree with his conclusion, also it should be noted that his book got a very divided response among scholars of North Korea and Fascism. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms: That's exactly the issue here. You disagree with a source so you feel as though the source is therefore universally incorrect. WP:VNT is a pretty good essay to summarise the issue with that stance - we are here to share existing knowledge, not to create our own knowledge or reinterpret evidence in a way that we prefer. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree because framing the definition is based on poor sources. Read below for more as others have said more or less the same thing. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no dog in that fight: it was only an example that any modern dream of ethnic purity could be construed as fascism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why we have to be careful in calling something fascist. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It's beyond ridiculous to claim that editors who went through an entire RFC and had at least 10 sources, and came to agreement on the WP:RS status of the citation, weren't "being careful". IHateAccounts (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

They clearly were not given how poor the sources are. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Mother Jones, Vox, and the Daily Beast have said they are fascist.

Mother Jones, Vox, and the Daily Beast have been accepted as reliable sources by wikipedia

Therefore they are listed as fascist. Arguments about the term "fascist" being effectively meaningless are irrelevant to this article.

You need multiple "reliable sources" to specifically state that Proud Boys are not Fascist in order to undermine the preponderance of current sources.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

To my understanding wiki rules but the onus on the person adding, not removing. I'm not saying that the article, should call them not fascist, just that the fascist label should be removed. If you want evidence there is the fact that head of the group when he ran for congress, his platform was pretty much conventional right-libertarian ideas, they support the current President, who is more or less a conventional republican, neither the SPLC or ADFL call them such, they don't call for a one-party state, etc. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

it goes for removal as well. The trouble is, if 3 people deemed "scholars" redefined the word "potato" and wrote that the proud boys were potatoes, it would be added here. You wouldn't be able to remove it unless scholars published articles or books of equal weight to bring the assertion into question.

Bad faith scholarship is an argument for the area in wikipedia where we build or undermine a source's reliability... Using sources.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally believe that I have provide sources and shown that these are bad faith scholarship. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Categorizing far right groups has always been difficult. Where available, I think it is best to use textbooks about the far right. Failing that we can look at what experts on the far right say. Failing that we can look at what the SPLC and similar watchdog groups say, since they are usually the first to identify and classify new groups.

It's usually a sign of poor quality of sources when lots are provided, as if strength in quantity compensates for lack of quality. For brevity, I will address one source, Samantha Kutner's "Swiping Right: The Allure of Hyper Masculinity and Cryptofascism for Men Who Join the Proud Boys" Kutner has a master's degree in communications and her article is about the communication style of the Proud Boys, a group that she has studied closely. The article was published by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism.

In the article she compares the Proud Boys with fascism, using Lawrence Britt's "The 14 Characteristics of Fascism" (Spring 2003) which was originally published in the humanist magazine Free Inquiry. There are several problems with this. First, Britt is not an expert, he's a novelist and his list is not used by experts in the field. Secondly, the states he used to develop his list include Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’ Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. But experts generally only classify the first two and sometimes the third as fascist. it's mostly in Communist writing that all these states would be considered fascist. However, Communists were first to interpret of fascism, and many non-Communist laymen have adopted their classification of all right-wing dictatorships as fascist. Finally, his list was about the characteristics of fascist regimes, not fascist movements.

The main topic of the article is the Proud Boys' communication style. That's Kutner's area of expertise and the real value of her article. Also, I disagree with googling for sources for statements we want to add to articles, rather than ensuring that articles reflect what the best and most relevant sources say.

TFD (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Took the words right out of my mouth. Agree with everything you posted. That is crux of my issue with use of the term. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a heck of a lot of WP:OR there, given that nothing TFD says is cited to anything. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

OR applies to article content not talk page discussions. Obviously editors are not expected to provide footnotes but must support their statements when asked. What do you want sourcing for? The introduction to The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right says that Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal had "a form of right-wing politics that looks like fascism but is not really all that fascist beneath the surface." (p. 3). While Papadopolous, Pinochet and Suharto have entries in the book, none are described as fascist. As for the definition of fascism, the book explains the various attempts to define fascism on pages 42 following. There is no mention of Lawrence Britt or his definition in the entire book. Why should we use his definition (written by someone with no academic qualifications and not published in an academic book or article) over those of renowned experts? TFD (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I would be more likely to believe you'd read sources if you could properly spell Laurence Britt's name. It's amazing how much time you want to spend attacking him; further, on actually reading Kutner I find she cites not just Britt but Robert Paxton in her footnote regarding definition of the term fascism, and further she provides a detailed analysis comparing the Proud Boys to other fascist groups. I find her scholarship compelling and justified. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Paxton is cited in one footnote and no statement is given of his work, the bulk is on Britt, who is not a good source. Upon reading the article, it is even worse than I thought it blantly misleads/lies about Pat Buchanan and Jordan Peterson, that this is considered one of the better articles, is not a good sign. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

that was a personal insult and was uncalled for.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(For readers who do not have access to Paxton's book, his definition is shown at Definitions of fascism#Robert Paxton or read his book here.) Sure, she references Paxton's definition, but uses Britt's 14 characteristics for her analysis. Unlike Britt, Paxton rules out fascist regimes outside Europe, hence ruling out Suharto and specifically says that Pinochet was not fascist. He doesn't mention Papadopoulos' Greece at all. Anyway, the most you can say is that Kutner is expressing an opinion. She's analyzed the Proud Boys and come to the conclusion that they are fascist. But I am not seeing that as having been established in the literature on fascism or the far right. TFD (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

So the entirety of the argument is "since we couldn't impugn Kutner with sexist language and make false accusations of a lack of credentials stick, we're going to cherrypick one of many sources from her paper and attack that." WP:OR and entirely unconvincing. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing sexist with what was posted nor were there false accusations, as noted the bulk of the "fascist claim" is built around Britt who has a very flawed understanding of the topic. You seem to have a very hard time understanding sources and other people's arguments. If your only answer is personal attacks then you should just stop now and say your sorry. If you keep leveling personal attacks on people it will lead to a report. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not forgotten the IP attacking her for being "female" [15], and I am more than well aware of the nature of downplaying or misrepresenting the accomplishments and credentials of fully qualified women. Particularly odious to me is the sexism involved in denigrating a woman for her level of pay in her career [16]. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Well since neither of us are the IP, who cares? Second even then calling IP's attack on her is reaching pretty far. Third there is nothing sexist about mentioning her pay, it was clearly framed in that context as describing her as making money off of the Proud boy by making it sound as if they are serious threat to America and since she is a self described expert on them, people will presumably pay her to "explain" them. Finally claiming the whole "downplaying" thing is a worthless complaint. You have been provided with numerous reasons, why she is a poor source. She is not an expert in history or present day far-right groups, she is focused in communication. The fact that her "peer-reviewed" paper, contains only one source by an actual respected scholar of fascism, Robert Paxton who is mentioned in only one footnote with no actual commentary or statement on his ideas, is more than enough to question this as a source for the claim. If she was a male I would say the same thing, in fact I have already mentioned the problems with the two male sources. So once again please provide an actual argument as opposed to name-calling people you disagree. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

And you're back to the nonsensical demands. She does not need to be "an expert in history". She IS very much an expert regarding the Proud Boys. The fact that you WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an actual argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Its not nonsensical, it is completely resonable to have a group, that was mentioned in a Presidential debate, be accurately described by sources of merit. The sources given do not support this. As mentioned before, she can call herself an expert all she wants, but given that in her article she used Britt as her main source, lied about two important public figures, and the citing of Paxton is so small to the point that it might as well not been there there is little reason to consider this a good source. The fact of the matter is during this whole debate you have been unable to defend your view. I and other provide reason why source is bad and you can't give any good defense says enough. Then getting in to you calling people you disagree with sexist and then going through my history to fight with me on other pages just makes this even more absurd, so please stop with this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is WP:OR which has almost nothing at all to do with WP:RS. It is up to sources to make conclusions. It is not up to editors to challenge those conclusions based on their own flawed interpretations of the facts. Further, it is not realistic or expected for sources to endlessly include their own sources for every statement. I have not seen any credible, policy-based argument that this source is unreliable. Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The issues have been clearly explained. By the logic used here, there would be no point in having an sort of RS. To be RS it must be debated and here there has been strong evidence, that the use of the term fascist here is not backed by good sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

All I've seen is a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, special-pleadings trying to create an arbitrarily high set of goalposts (doubtless to be moved as soon as they were met) that are not supported anywhere in policy by claiming that only an "expert in history" can assess whether or not the Proud Boys are fascist even if the expert has impressive and clear expertise on the subject of the Proud Boys, and arguments that because you disagree with the assessment of the sources they can't be reliable, which is WP:OR. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the same standard editors apply to all articles about far right groups and individuals. Many far right groups pose a threat to society and it is important that we describe them correctly with reliable sources in order for people to have an accurate understanding of them. Following those procedures ensures that readers can consider these articles to be credible. I have posted the issue to RSN. TFD (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I notice that Horse Eye's Back, IHateAccounts and VQuakr have already replied at RSN. IHateAccounts makes the false claims that I said Kutner was not an expert on the Proud Boys and "switched gears" or that I demand an "imaginary high bar." I would point out to them that I created or provided most of the text for a number of articles about right-wing extremism: Right-wing terrorism, Radical right (United States), Right-wing populism, Willi Schlamm and Kenneth Goff. In all cases I used academic sources because I felt that accuracy rather than name and shame would better serve readers. I have also defended articles such as the SPLC against the constant barrage of supporters of hate groups who have tried to challenge their reputation.

I suggest that rather than getting in a drawn out discussion with IHateAccounts at RSN, it would be more productive to see if there is more discussion. Arguments at RSN tend to discourage uninvolved editors.

TFD (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Passive-aggressive behavior. Sad. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

His post was clearly not passive-aggressive. What is sad, is the childish behavior you have displayed to people who disagree with you. You clearly are not mature enough to debate with people. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Fascist characterization is under-covered in the body

As noted by @Masem: at the RSN, we should have expanded discussion of the group's characterization as fascist in the body to give more depth to the coverage in the lead sentence. The lead should summarize the body. VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I would also check the same for "far-right". Just originating in a far-right source does not necessary mean it is far-right. Just use the lede sources to expand that in the body, where now you can give the rationales given by those sources. This stuff probably goes around the same place where the SPLC characterization of the group is brought up in the body. (second para of History). --Masem (t) 00:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to work on specific subsections. I believe these should go under "History and organization" since it already covers the "male-only" item with the "Gender and sexuality" subsection on membership. Giving it a day or so for responses just in case someone has other ideas of where these subsections should be, or if they should be full sections (and if so where in the body they should be placed). IHateAccounts (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Proto-fascism

The first source used for the neo-fascism label says, "extra security was often provided by groups such as the protofascist Proud Boys." (Producers, Parasites, Patriots: Race and the New Right-Wing Politics of Precarity It later says that the Proud Boys "share many of the defining characterists of fascist or protofascist formations," although it doesn't say what they are.

Wiktionary defines a protofascist as "An individual whose opinions or policies show the beginnings of fascism."[17] That seems to fall short of calling them fascist. I suggest therefore that we remove this source because it contradicts the text it is supposed to support.

TFD (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider reading the discussions above before repeating the same stuff again and again. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Also I'm not going to rely on Wiktionary. Let's check a real dictionary like Merriam-Webster: "a political movement or program tending toward or imitating fascism" [18], similar to neofascism "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" [19]. They seem very similar to me. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

He has and is correct protofascist even by dictionary used above is different from neofascism.3Kingdoms (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content and is therefore not a Wikipedia:Reliable source. Merriam-Webster is. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about your dictionary. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I think not everyone is using the term fascist in the same way. For some, fascism includes proto- and neo-fascism, for others, fascism refers to approximately the policies of the National Fascist Party, and is distinct from other all other forms. I'll call these the wide and narrow definitions of fascism. I we use the narrow definition, then the PBs are not fascists, because nobody has called them that. If we use the wide definition, people should stop complaining that we call them fascists, because that use of the term includes the subset of fascist-like characteristics that the PBs exhibit. There's a third version; the slur that's used for anyone one disagrees with. None of the sources we use employs the term in that sense. Let's not confuse the three please. Vexations (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the wide version as you call it, is that it call be used the same as the third idea. Theodor W. Adorno compared student protestors in the 1960s to the Brownshirts, should we call them fascist? Modern day Antifa also use fascist moves, but they clearly are not fascist in an ideological sense. The same applies to the proud boys, they might use fascist moves, but that does not make them actually fascist. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

'"Theodor W. Adorno compared student protestors in the 1960s to the Brownshirts" First of all, --citation needed--, second of all, did he "compare" them to, if so in what way, or did he actually write that they were a form of fascism? Your "analogy" makes no sense and resembles a Ship of Theseus [20] argument.

Source: Siemens, Daniel "Stormtroopers: A New History of Hitler's Brownshirts" pg 327. Yale University Press, 2017. Direct Quote was "Brownshirts in Jeans" They would sit-in during his class. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You'd be more compelling if you could get the citation right. "The former emigrant of German-Jewish descent was shocked with the tumultuous 'teach-ins' at West German universities in the late 1960s. He regarded the most radical students not as members of a new political avant-garde but as 'storm-troopers in jeans.' Similarly, the political scientist Ernst Fraenkel, who in The Dual State (1941) had offered a pioneering analysis of National Socialism, warned members of the left-wing Socialist German Student League (Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentbund, or SDS) to abstain from 'exactly the same methods as the raiding squads of the SA'.

The section at hand, on full reading, is not "calling them fascists" (or stormtroopers, or brownshirts) but rather a collection of warnings against protest methods that caused remembrance in the older generations, specific to Germany. Not at all as you tried to misrepresent it. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you really going to be this disingenuous? He regarded the most radical students not as members of a new political avant-garde but as 'storm-troopers in jeans.' Regard is the same as call. Does he mean it literally? Most likely not, but the point is anyone can call someone something, does not make it true. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, in this case, there are at least ten Wikipedia:Reliable sources that specifically determine the Proud Boys are some flavor of fascist. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

We've been over this before only 4 have actually made it to page and all have been questioned. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Well no, we just picked 4 to avoid WP:OVERCITE. Honestly at this point you are pushing WP:TE. VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

So Presumably, it was the best four selected. I find the claim of WP:TE odd, it talks about how partistan articles should be avoid on wikipedia, which it just so happens that these four sources are. I have provided my issues with the sources, while some have, others have not provided a good response and instead prefer to insult. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No, WP:TE is about behavior not articles or sources. In this case, we have a recently closed and well-attended RfC yet rather than moving on you are belaboring a closed issue while demanding an absurdly high standard of sourcing. VQuakr (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll have not demanded a high level of sources also I think there is a lively debate going on right now, so I see no problem.3Kingdoms (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, I think Hosang uses proto-fascist in the sense of "entry-level fascism" or "fascism for beginners", or "tending toward or imitating fascism", not in the way we define it in Proto-fascism. Vexations (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I can see that view, but I still feel unconvinced by the source. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, tending toward or imitating fascism (protofascism) is not the same thing as incorporating its basic principles (neofascism.) Kutner after all deemed them fascist because they met all 14 characteristics. Protofascism is only part-way there. It has some but not all of the essential elements. TFD (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

And of course, even then the 14 points are of a dubious merit.3Kingdoms (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, is there a source that you think we CAN use, for anything, on this subject that meets all your requirements? Then we can ditch all the content and rewrite it from that. That would be faster than arguing every single source that is used by another source, like dismissing Kutner because she cites Britt. Vexations (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think so. I don't want to come across as being rude or dismissve of your view, but for me to call them such would require either a blant statement by the Proud boys in favor of fascism/ a old-party dicatorship or an in-depth look by a historian of fascism such as Ian Kershaw. Richard J. Evans, Roger Griffin, Paul Gottfried, Robert Gerwarth, Peter Longerich, Volker Ullrich, etc/ experts of far-right classifactions that says that they are. However, thank-you for giving a measured response, it might not seem like much, but it is nice to have an actual discussion as opposed to constant fighting. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, you don't expect any of those people to write a scholarly article about the Proud Boys though, if I understand you correctly. Then perhaps we can use Reid and Valasik, who I proposed earlier, they seem to come the closest. Vexations (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's a list clearly designed to be meaningless. Kershaw is retired. Evans writes on time periods of the first half of the 20th century. Gottfried self-identifies as a "paleoconservative" and claims to have "co-created" the term "alternative right" [21]. Gewarth specializes in European and even more specifically German history. Ullrich is retired and, again, wrote about things from the early half of the 20th century, not current events. The purpose of such a list is only meant to stymie, because none of them can reasonably be expected to make comment; illegitimately restricting the list of people who may make determinations of whether or not a group is fascist to those whose area of focus isn't current is just a ploy. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Given that both Kershaw and Ullrich both have published books in the last few years, in fact Ullrich's came out this year, calling them retired is at best a strech. Evans regulary writes in the Guardian. What you published about Gottfried is meaningless, he is a respected historian, Evans is on the left, but he is considered a respectable historian. You seem obsessed with getting my points wrong, so let me be clear. This list does not mean these are only people who can say yes or no, however if we are going to label a group fascist or not it should be by someone who is of high caliber like the men list, if not a direct quote by them. Finally them being focused on early 20th century, which you think is important means either you have no idea what your talking about or being down right dishonest. They have written works on fascism, fascism was big in the first half of the 20th centuryso yes that is their focus. Historians don't live in a void, if they see something that reminds them, they will write on it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the moving goalposts again. Kutner is a recognized expert on the Proud Boys, a researcher with a highly respected international institution, but she's not in your mind a part of the arbitrarily assigned "high caliber like the men list" club... apparently because you WP:IDONTLIKEIT her conclusions and she has boobs. I'll note that the RFC was overwhelming [22], well before Special:Contribs/2601:46:C801:B1F0:0:0:0:0/64 came back for another round of trying to disparage her with the sexist cracks about her speaking and consultancy rates. (Accusing women of being "hysterical" has... bad history that way as well [23].) IHateAccounts (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah Nope. It is hilarious that you didn't even bother addressing, the fact that you were both comepltely wrong about the historians in question such as Kershaw and Ulrich bein retired and not knowing why their opinion matters. What is the point of this debate if you can't even do the most basic of research on what is being discussed. Your desire to accuse anyone you disagree with as sexist is just sad and pathetic. You my friend are the only one who has brought up her gender. There are plently of great female Historians, I just happened to bring these people up. As TFD and myself pointed out this source is bad, we have provided evidence of such, while you can't be bothered to do any sort of research to defend your point. As I said before you are clearly not mature enough to have a resonable debate, I haven't insulted you are accused you of anything, but I guess you feel that you don't have to do that with others. Also I did not talk in the RFC, cause I had no idea it was going on. Ironically you were pretty much the only one to give a full on endorsement, while others who said reliable were more qualified, so why should I care? Disappointing.3Kingdoms (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah most likely they would not except maybe Gottfried or Evans. However I do think that Reid and Valasik are good sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, alright, I'm building a list of every source ever used in this article. I'll post that in a sandbox somewhere and then perhaps we can have a look to see if there are any other sources you find usable, or we'd have to delete the article for lack of sources. Vexations (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, I have created a list of all the online sources that were ever used in the article. [24]. Can you identify the sources that you think are acceptable? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow great job man. Reading through these almost all label them far-right with ties to extremism. Neo-fascist in contrast is brought up much less and in some articles, experts say that they have publicly tried to disassociate from Neo-Nazis, how honest of course is up for debate. Overall, I think neo-fascist should be removed and at best it should be put below with people asscusing them of fascism. Ultimately there is just not enough to prove that they are fascist as opposed to just a standard far-right group. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

There are ten sources in the RFC at the top of the page with consensus, and you've provided no evidence for your "arguments" trying to claim that Kutner somehow lacks expertise on the Proud Boys. Hell, half the time you don't even take the care to spell your responses correctly, while you insult people repeatedly and make personal attacks like "You clearly are not mature enough to debate with people", "As I said before you are clearly not mature enough to have a resonable[sic] debate" above, and screaming about how you think other people haven't defended their views despite a 31-day RFC and rigorous debate. Meanwhile one of your partners fired up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and then hastily closed his own topic[25] when it was an apparent Wikipedia:Snowball clause situation.

You have made artificial demands that a tiny, selected-by-you group of individuals (who have to have a very particular set of degrees, and who are by the nature of their fields of study statistically unlikely to write about the Proud Boys in particular, and all we need do to confirm that is look at their pattern of published works) be the only experts who can pronounce judgements on categorizing the Proud Boys' status, methods and beliefs. That's a beyond absurd position that has absolutely no basis in WP:RS policy. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed there are ten sources. But we cannot defend each and every one of them by referring to the nine other sources. Each source must stand on its own. TFD (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

And yet the line of attack by dishonest people has been to use slurs and misrepresentations against Kutner and then demand, on the basis of their baseless attacks on Kutner alone, to remove the wording... IHateAccounts (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not screaming. You do seem pretty angry however. You seem to have trouble understanding this so let me be clear.

1. I DID NOT say they are only source that can be used. I said they are the type of Sources we should use.

2. I have not insulted people, you however have decided to call anyone who disagree with you as sexist.

3. You saying I provided no evidence is either laziness on your part or you just Lying. I explained that Kuther is not an expert in history or political science. Her arguement for fascism is based off of an old sources from 2003 by some novelist that didn't know fascism. The one actual source listed on fascism is not mentioned out side of a footnote.

4. No one cares about the 9 Sources you bring up. This is about 1 just 1. I have already talked about those, but you are determined to fight a battle of honor for Kuther, whatever if that's what you want fine, but quit whining when we don't talk about the other sources, this is not what this is about and I don't care what you think of the others right now.

Your levels of dishonesty is pretty amazing. You seem unable to have any idea of how to conduct a debate, argument your point, or read sources. Either you just don't know or you just don't care. Until you can actually argue debate stop replying, cause it is just embarrassing. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

There's only one editor I could see that wrote anything that might be interpreted as a slur.

It's always going to be difficult to prove that a group that originated in recent years in the U.S. that is clearly within the U.S. far right tradition has the same ideology as a party founded in Italy a century ago, unless they deliberately modeled themselves on them. That explains why we don't have any sources from experts on fascism or the far right as sources. It seems anyway a tad xenophobic. Anything bad in the U.S. must derive from foreigners, as if the U.S. was not perfectly capable of developing its own anti-social ideologies. In fact the original Ku Klux Klan was founded decades before the creation of fascism.

TFD (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much yeah, the Proud boys fit into a rather long tradition of far-right groups here in the US, which tend to have a more liberatiran/ reactionary viewpoint compared with the more revolutionary fascism. Now of course the Proud boys do show connections to other far-right extremist around the world, Otoya Yamaguchi, but even then ultra-right wingism does not make on fascist and I would argue that the Japanese for the most part was not fascist, but that is a different discussion. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I find unconvincing any definition of fascism that could be easily written as "it's only fascism if it comes from the fasces region of italy, otherwise it's just sparkling violent ethno-nationalism". IHateAccounts (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Well since that is not what were saying no problem. Fascism is a totalitarian revolutionary ideology, that is nationalist, anti-communist, anti-capitalist, anti-liberal, etc, secularist, far-right, and so forth. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Facsism is a totalitarian revolutionary ideology"??? Aside from being a WP:OR representation, that doesn't match well with Fascism#Definitions for starters. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

It does but I am not going to argue about this.3Kingdoms (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

But we do that with other political groups. We examine "origins and sociology, transnational links, policy and ideology, and party name."[26] The Communist Party of the United States of America for example arose following a split within the Socialist Party of America over the Russian Communist Revolution, they were linked to other Communist parties in the Communist International, they believe in ideas advanced by communist writers such as Marx, Engels and Lenin, and they call themselves Communists. Of course, it's harder with far right groups, because there is lack of continuity and they disguise their ideologies. TFD (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Op-ed

Although used as a source for the description of the Proud Boys as neo-fascist, "Are those whiffs of fascism that I smell? Living behind the orange curtain" (Peter McLaren Educational Philosophy and Theory Volume 52, 2020 - Issue 10) is clearly labelled as an editorial, hence fails reliablity per Statements of opinion: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact.... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable."

Also the source is not about the Proud Boys or a related topic, but the author merely mentions them in passing. Per Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable...."

I read McLaren's biography and he seems like a very interesting person. His political ideology, which another editor mentioned, is totally irrelevant to the reliability of the facts in his writing. My one proviso is that he may be using a Marxist definition of fascism, which would have to be explained in the article. In Marxist theory, fascism is a reactionary dictatorship by the capitalist class. As such it includes a great number of regimes that would not be classified as fascist in mainstream fascism literature. As I mentioned before, this would include most if not all military dictatorships.

TFD (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, as with the last one, this is a RS and can be used with attribution. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes we can meet rs objections by using In-text attribution, but that would make for clumsy writing, especially considering it would be in the first sentence of the article. TFD (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

There's three more academic papers there. Bacondrum (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

So we don't need this one then? - Ryk72 ^talk 22:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If a source is in question and we have others, why not just ditch the questionable one? The lede is overcited anyways. Bacondrum (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly sources

Has anyone read Alt-right gangs: A hazy Shade of White, by Reid and Valasik, especially pages 24–29? If may offer a way out of the seemingly endless back-and-forth about whether we should call them neo-fascist. Spoiler alert: They don't. If we follow their lead, we describe them as a gang. Vexations (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not, who are Reid and Valasik? To see if they are qualified. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe when the scholarly articles tell us that they are in the same league as the Crips, Yakuza, Triads, and Italian Mafia, the article can list them as a neo-fascist gang.

Why settle for one baseless denigration when you can have all of them. Reliable sources provided, of course.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Shannon E. Reid, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of North Carolina. Matthew Valasik, Ph.D. is Associate Professsor of Sociology at Louisiana State University. Their book is published by the University of California Press. They provide a definition of what an alt-right gang is and explain in detail how the PBs meet the criteria. No, they are not compared to the Yakuza and the Mafia, but to the Aryan Brotherhood for example. They're quite cautious about stating a political position for the PBs and describe them as more as alt-lite than alt-right. Vexations (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable I have no issue with the source. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

the key is that gangs are organized crime groups. Even the Hells Angels are accused of many murders, prostitution and weapons/drug operations.

Proud Boys would have to be the lamest gang ever.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Traditionally, scholars of the far right in the United States have seen it as home grown rather than as imports from Europe and avoided use of the term fascist except for obvious copies particularly those before the defeat of fascism in 1945. TFD (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we have never used Stern, Alexandra Minna. Proud boys and the white ethnostate : how the alt-right is warping the American imagination. Boston. ISBN 978-08070-6336-1. as a source for this article. Stern is Stern the Carroll Smith-Rosenberg Collegiate Professor of History, American Culture and Women's and Gender Studies; Associate Dean for the Humanities at the University of Michigan.Vexations (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The Proud Boys as a gang

See https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-47214-6_6#Sec7. This article is similar to Proud Boys: A prototypical Alt-Right gang from Alt-right gangs: A Hazy Shade of White. I have re-created all the references since 2017 that Reid and Valasik use in that chapter in this version of my sandbox if anyone is interested in those. I chose 2017 as the cut off date because earlier citations don't mention the Proud Boys. I think it would be appropriate for us to mention in the article that at some scholars who are experts on gangs consider the Proud Boys a gang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 14:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep, they're clearly considered a gang by many experts. Bacondrum (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I tend to concur. Do we have any other sources which we could cite? - Ryk72 ^talk 00:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Neo- fascist

After some cursory review of the sources for the neo-facist label we display I noticed the only source that directly claims this is an editorial or opinion I don't think this meets Wikipedia standards with a label with such implications. However, instead of just unilaterally removing it I was going to make this addition to the talk page to see if anyone can properly source it. In addition this article needs a serious overhaul. I noticed quotes which were supposed to be from intelligence agencies that were not present in the sources cited as well as basic words misspelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidgarcia84 (talk • contribs)

Looking at wider reporting in general the claim seems uncontroversial, they are clearly a neo-fascist group. Looking at current sources:

• I can't access Producers, Parasites, Patriots: Race and the New Right-Wing Politics of Precarity at all
• I can't access The Blood of Patriots: Symbolic Violence and “The West", but the abstract states that "the Proud Boys, a multi-national fraternal organization that uses an aesthetic of libertarianism to advance a fascist politic". I'd like to see what the body of the article says if any editors have it.
• Again, can't access Are those whiffs of fascism that I smell? Living behind the orange curtain but the abstract specifically calls the "neo Fascist" "far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys"
• I can access this one Swiping Right: The Allure of Hyper Masculinity and Cryptofascism for Men Who Join the Proud Boys and that refers to them as fascists more times than I can count, even has a chapter entitled "Proud Boys as a Fascist Organisation".

So, even a cursory look over the abstracts of the articles demonstrates all but one of these academic sources calling them fascist explicitly and a look through the fourth paper the label is used extensively to describe them. Bacondrum (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, have a read of the FAQ at the top of this page. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, the quote was wrong, I've adjusted that to reflect the source. The misspellings are not misspellings per se, they reflect the differences between American English and most other English speaking cultures - I make the same mistake all the time with Americans and the use of Z rather than S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the quote, which I assume you were referring to this change, I believe the reason for that wording was discussed here, that it is discussed in the body it is not just the FBI, hence why that wording, but I hope ItsPugle and others can comment on this. Davide King (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Davide, I'm happy to change it back if you can find the source. I changed it to reflect the citation that's currently used as it was a quote and not reflected in the sourcing. I looked through that discussion but I found no source that uses the previous quote. Bacondrum (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, I think we used that wording because in the body we discuss several US intelligence agency that reported it, so the given refs were simply used to support. Again, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and there is no need to have refs there as a result (although I think it is still helpful, especially for controversial articles), hence why more refs were added while the wording was supported more in the body. In short, the wording was supported by the body but we added more refs to the lead for good measure. I hope ItsPugle can comment because perhaps I may be wrong or missed something. Davide King (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Realise that this is a bit off topic for the section header, but... the text ... the Proud Boys has been described by the FBI as an "extremist group". is problematic because the sources don't support that as an unattributed statement. The Guardian source that it comes from attributes the statement to "Washington state law enforcement", specifically the Clark county sheriffs dept.; and makes use of a sheriffs dept. internal affairs memo to back the statement; not a public statement by the FBI. See: [27]. Information that is attributed in the source needs to be attributed in our text. The statement was also later refuted by the head of the FBI in Oregon. See: [28]. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy to change it, my issue really comes down to having quotes when none of the cited material contains said quote. Whatever we go with needs to reflect the cited material. Bacondrum (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, Ryk72, I believe that is exactly why we used the previous wording. I do not know whether it stated "extremist group" and whether it was in quote marks, but we spoke of "US intelligence agencies", not the FBI. In the body, there are more reports from other US intelligence agencies. Davide King (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree that they are in fact a "a dangerous white supremacist group", but it was in quote marks and the quote wasn't in any of the cites, I changed it to the only similar quote I could find in the cites. Where does the quote come from? If it is a real quote we can use it and attribute it to the person or organisation who said it, we just need to add the relevant cite (perhaps it got lost in some content dispute or some such) if it's not in any RS's then it doesn't belong on wikipedia Bacondrum (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Entirely agree that anything that looks like a quote should be found in a referenced source. Is the content on other agencies all in the Counter-terrorism and extremism intelligence reports subsection, or scattered around the article? If the former, we might be able to better align the wording to what's in that section. If the latter, I'm not sure I'm finding it on a cursory look. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey. I've seen that I've been mentioned a few times here (sorry for the delay, been a busy two months!). Since I'm jumping on the band-wagon quite late, what exactly is up for discussion here? Just lightly skimming over this discussion so far, it just looks like some general discussion about the strength of sources cited in the section? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It should read ...

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 is a centralized political and social movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in PEACEFUL protest against incidents of political & racial brutality, all attempts to divide the American citizens plus all racially or politically motivated violence against the American people. PissedOffMeMa (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source for the changes you want to make. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:34, 7 December 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.

Excessive detail in lede

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.

---

Does this even belong in the lede? "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has said 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." Despite denying that they are a racist group, the Proud Boys tends to espouse racist ideologies and attract white supremacists as members, with founder McInnes having said, "I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of. I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life."" I think that level of detail belongs in the body, not the lede. Bacondrum (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I tend to take the default position that attributed opinion should go below the fold. And accordingly, concur that the statement attributed to the ADL should be in the body, not the lead. The editorialising part of the content doesn't belong in the article. - Ryk72 ^talk

Done. Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 00:29, 6 December 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.

False claims made by biased left wingers

hatted per WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia’s definition of the Proud Boys “IF” fact checked thoroughly and honestly will prove the page is highly biased and untrustworthy if this page is not to be corrected it should be deleted Wikipedia shouldn’t even bother to give info on the group Usernamealreadyinuse2020 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)  Not done Please specifically state the changes you believe should be made, and cite reliable sources to support those changes. Personal attacks such as declaring editors to be "biased left wingers" will get you nothing here. We don't care what you think of us. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Hi, I think we should reduce the number of the citations in the lede as per WP:TOOMANYREFS and MOS:CITELEAD. It's looking like a dogs breakfast. What do others think? Bacondrum (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Another user tried to do combination cites so that it limits the number of numbers in text, but as long as there are editors trying gambits to cherry pick one source off at a time to attack and misrepresent, and then claiming "well because of that the wording has to be removed", it's probably not a great thing. It'll just be even more headache. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I think there's an issue in ignoring guidelines and style manuals in order to appease POV pushers, though I understand wanting to avoid the endless argy bargy. Editors should not be cherrypicking and making endless lists of flimsy sources to push their POV in the first place, by compromising on this we are kind of condoning a dodgy way of citing claims, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, the main reason for citation overkill is that no good sources can be found and we try to overcome quality with quantity of sources. Instead of searching for sources that say what we want, we should search relevant sources and report what they say. For example, Cas Mudde's book The Far Right Today (John Wiley & Sons, 2019) would be a great source since Mudde is one of the world's leading experts on political extremism and collaberated in 2004 with the fascism scholar Roger Eatwell to write a book about the modern extreme right. Alexandra Minna Stern's book Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate: How the Alt-Right Is Warping the American Imagination (Beacon Press, 2019) would be another good source. Then there's Gangs in the Era of Internet and Social Media (Springer, 2020) and Alt-Right Gangs (University of California Press, 2020.) I would rather use them than an editorial in an education journal where the writer mentions the Proud Boys in passing. TFD (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, "citation overkill" happens because people keep moving the goalposts and demanding ever more citations for something that's blindingly obvious. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Since I begin by identifying the best sources for articles, and I have created or contributed to a lot of articles about the far right, I can't remember if I ever had that problem. I never look for sources to state what I want in articles and therefore don't come up with a passing reference in an op-ed about a different topic as a source. But if I were challenged I would be able to defend what I used. The main objection I find when I am on the defending side of someone else's source is people who think the source is biased. I then explain that there is a different between a fact and an opinion and that for example The Routledge Handbook to Fascism and the Far Right is published by an academic publisher, it is specifically about fascism and the far right and its facts are as reliable as one would expect. And I usually challenge sources even if I disagree with them if they go against policy. TFD (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Cute, and yet what I'm seeing here and on other pages is editors who want to attack one source at a time arguing that they're "biased" or "it's WP:UNDUE, either way. And so then more sources are brought, to show that there is consistency over more than just one source.

And then cue the goalpost moving with the "you're just bundling because the sources are weak" BS. It's a Catch-22 setup. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason I took them one at a time is that it is time-consuming. First determine what type of article it is and learn about the publication and its author(s). Then read the article. Determine if the statement is a fact or opinion, or how relative to the article it is. It's a lot harder than doing a google search for "Proud Boys"+"Fascist" and copying in the first dozen hits you get. I guess the logic is that they can't all be inappropriate, hence the argument based on number of sources. TFD (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks TFD, I tend to agree. We should be selecting solid sources, like Cas Mudde and reflecting those, not googling piles of flimsy sources that fit our beliefs. As Wikipedia:Citation overkill says, the main causes of citation overkill is edit warring. Bacondrum (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

People who are concerned about the readability of the article due to too many inline sources may want to consider WP:CITEBUNDLE. Vexations (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a overhaul is needed for the sources, both for reading and for better sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for the feedback, I'd like to start by bundling the sources, as suggested by Vexations, so they at least comply with guidelines "Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations." Are there any objections to bundling excessive cites? Bacondrum (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Another suggestion I think could help is to WP:CITESHORT. And I still think we should cull some, for example if we have a high quality academic paper written by a subject matter expert, there's not really any need to use lesser quality cites at all (ie: news sources are far lesser quality than academic sources). Bacondrum (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• I just went to start bundling, and it's completely nuts. There's 13 cites in the opening sentence. I'm gonna need help with this job, or at least an assurance that I've got backing from other editors to put in the massive amount of work involved in fixing this cite overkill. I think something needs to be done about editors adding excessive cites, it's extremely disruptive. Bacondrum (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• So, I smashed through a bunch of excess cites in the lede, thinned and bundled them. There's still around thirty cites which is obviously excessive...Anyone feel like giving me a hand thinning the remaining ones? I don't want to remove anymore unilaterally. Bacondrum (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to reduce citation clutter, but I think we've gone overboard here at the expense of text-source integrity. It used to be that we had separate footnotes for each part of the first sentence: one for far-right, one for all-male, etc. That was good, not bad. Those footnotes have now all been lumped into a single, bundled footnote, making it more difficult for readers to identify the backing sources for each part. Moreover, now we have two sources in the bundle purporting to support "extremism and racism." Why are those there, if the first sentence says nothing about extremism or racism?

In fact, citations like this: "The Proud Boys is a far-right,[2][3] neo-fascist[4] and male-only[5] political organization[6]..." are not overkill. The overkill in the first sentence is at the end: "that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada.[7][8][9][10][11]" We can probably thin and/or bundle those citations 7-11, but we shouldn't be throwing citations 1-6 into the bundle as well.

If the primary concern here is the overall clutter of the lead section rather than the number of citations supporting a particular point, then that's not citation overkill, that's a MOS:LEADCITE issue. The appropriate solution would be to move the citations to the body, rather than to bundle them. R2 (bleep) 17:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Same problem for the last sentence of the second paragraph. Citations supporting different parts of a sentence shouldn't be lumped into a single footnote. R2 (bleep) 17:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable and it clearly violates policy to have have 26 cites in a single sentence (that's how many the first sentence included). I agree, (and it is policy) to place most cites in the body, not in the lede. Regardless the insanely high number of cites that have been added to the lede is disruptive editing. We can create separate notes, if it is felt to be really necessary, but the number of cites in the lede and for quite a few claims in the body are out of step with policy, disruptive and need to be thinned significantly. How we get there and what we keep is up for discussion, of course. For example, if we have academic sources for a claim, there's no need to have a bunch of lesser quality news cites tacked on - most the claims included have some really solid academic citations (and/or very good news cites), the others should go. Bacondrum (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Another option is WP:CITESHORT (probably the best solution), but that looks like a really big job. Bacondrum (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I for one do not think that news sources are inferior to academic sources in a current events context such as this. And I'm against short-form citations for non-academic articles. I agree that 26 citations for the first sentence is too much clutter. Of the various options, I'm in favor of moving the citations to the body. (As an aside, 26 citations violates no policy. Check LEADCITE, which isn't even a policy or guideline. In any case there seems to be consensus here to reduce the clutter.) R2 (bleep) 21:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I'd support moving most of the lead out into the article itself, including the cites. It was originally heavily cited because of all the people slamming the article for making statements in the lead without cites (although that's how it's supposed to work). Adding cites was just a way to stop those people complaining, but it has spiraled a bit out of control. We really should cut the lead down, moving most (if not all) of the citations into the body. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Domestic terrorism

Acroterion, where's the source for PB being a domestic terrorism organization [29]? R2 (bleep) 20:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I'm not aware of such a designation. Acroterion (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Misclick, sorry about that, probably on an @#$%&! iPad. Acroterion (talk)

Page is uneditable yet contains false information

It is clear by reading this group’s tenants (the most reliable source on information that can possibly exist), that the definitions here are false. This is not any sort of far right or white supremacist organization. By publishing false information, Wikipedia becomes liable for defamation. Can we get this unlocked so information can be updated without pulling from biased sources? Asdfjkl7926 (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

name of group

do we have any sources regarding the choice of name for the group and why proud boys? KKK and similar large alt right pages have a history section explaining the choice for group name. seems lacking without similar here. the boys part makes logical sense being all men but curious what they are meant to be claiming pride in given nature of protests. 101.167.226.91 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

2nd sentence of the lead explains it. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, as IHateAccounts points out, it's... not very deep, and explained in the History section of the article. The "pride" part is western chauvinism, the idea that white European males are responsible for everything valuable in our society, and they detest any criticism of that concept. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"Western" only means "white" if you discount the non-white contributions to Western civilization, which the Proud Boys do not. That sound more like a personal belief than something supported by objective sourcesTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

"Western" only means "white" if you discount the non-white contributions to Western civilization

That's explicitly what western chauvinism does. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Says who? Who says that Western Chauvanism rejects the contributions of non-white people to Western culture?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Other hardcore members of the so-called "alt-right" have argued that the “western chauvinist” label is just a “PR c--- term” McInnes crafted to gain mainstream acceptance. “Let’s not bullshit,” Brian Brathovd, aka Caeralus Rex, told his co-hosts on the antisemitic The Daily Shoah — one of the most popular alt-right podcasts. If the Proud Boys “were pressed on the issue, I guarantee you that like 90% of them would tell you something along the lines of ‘Hitler was right. Gas the Jews.’”

- SPLC

So, other alt-right groups would be one answer to that. The other is that the Proud Boys espouse white-nationalist views. But we're off topic now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

wow, Brian Brathovd sounds like a reliable source for what thousands of people secretly believe.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

having no clue who that person was, it turns out Brathovd is an insane Nazi who said those things on a holocaust denial podcast where guests are out of their mind racists and anti-semites... That sounds credible enough for you to use it to establish secret motives to an unrelated organization?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Updated ADL position

The ADL have updated their position about the Proud Boys as of 24 December 2020, noting multiple instances of the group's association with white supremacists. https://www.adl.org/blog/proud-boys-bigotry-is-on-full-display

The position of the Anti-Defamation League regarding the Proud Boys group's denials: "It has become glaringly obvious that despite their loud and persistent denials, the Proud Boys are all too willing to embrace racists, antisemites and bigots of all kinds as long as they subscribe to the superiority of “western” civilization. The Proud Boys powerfully illustrate that an organization with a Latino leader and Jewish members is quite capable of racism and antisemitism."

I'm bringing this here to request assistance in working out the best way to update the page coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

that appears to be a blog entry on their site, not an update to the organization's entry on the Proud Boys. It could be used as a source for an edit. Have you found the coded shirt in question for sale on the 1776 or other PB affiliated web store? https://www.adl.org/proudboys TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to "find the coded shirt in question for sale" on PB-associated web stores. Please apprise yourself of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. The facts are that the shirt in question was present, and worn by an apparent member. See: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boy-6mwe/ IHateAccounts (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for updating this info in the text (which in-text attribution, as normal practice for the ADL), but why is it buried in a footnote? The added text suggests that it supports the "alt-lite" label, but it says nothing about "alt-lite." In addition is the ADL really all we've got for the alt-lite label? I'm skeptical. I think we've somehow munged our citations. They really are a mess. R2 (bleep) 23:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: I tried to split out the ADL sources from the others because it was in a bundled citation and the updated information was solely ADL. I've tried to readjust it, please take a look now? IHateAccounts (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

In terms of text-source integrity it's a big step in the right direction, thank you, though ideally each quotation should have the appropriate citation immediately following it. Substantively, we now have too much direct quotation of the ADL in the lead section. I think we should move all those quotes to the body and perhaps have a short sentence in the lead summarizing them. After all, the ADL isn't a reliable source like NPR, nor is it the primary authority on hate groups like the SPLC, so it shouldn't be given more real estate than those sources. R2 (bleep) 01:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: I think part of the thing with the ADL is that an editor in discussion above was dead-set on including ADL's position as being different from the SPLC to push the narrative that the PBs supposedly reject racism/etc. I'm happy to try to pare it down.

Regarding the ADL's position as an expert group, I think you are mistaken there, the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources entry says "There is consensus that ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S." IHateAccounts (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that consensus on ADL has changed since I was more active on Wikipedia. In any case, the ADL shouldn't receive more real estate in the lead section than the SPLC or NPR just because it's said more about the PBs. In additions, quotations in the lead section should generally be avoided. And the whole thing about larding up the lead section to counter PB's position is hogwash. I don't give a flip what PB says about itself when it's flatly contradicted by reliable sources and patently self-serving. Best would be to put all that stuff in the body and summarize in the lead by saying that leading civil rights groups have described the PBs as as an extremist group that advances ethnocentric ideologies. Brevity is the soul of wit. Or something like that. R2 (bleep) 02:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I certainly agree that "we should move all those quotes to the body and perhaps have a short sentence in the lead summarizing them". I also think cites could be thinned in the lede substantially. I did all that bundling, it was needed with the excessive number of cites and I wasn't willing to cull the cites unilaterally. Any thoughts on bundling/thinning the number of cites in the lede? Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Extremist group websites

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.

---

Should Wikipedia link to or display the url of websites used by extremist groups to plan violent crimes and recruit members?

• (A) - No
• (B) - YES

Bacondrum (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• No - I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but when we are talking about linking to the websites of violent criminal organisations that are actively involved in recruiting new members, planning and perpetrating the most serious of crimes, political violence, terrorism, racial or sectarian motivated murder etc. then common sense would be to omit links to websites where extremists recruit and plan attacks (there's also an exception in WP:NOTCENSORED for criminal activity in the USA). Wikipedia is not censored, but as always other considerations apply. Not linking to violent extremist sites is just common sense, in my opinion. I don't think we should link to websites of active extremist groups like white supremacists, Islamic extremists etc. We don't include url's to the websites of groups like Atomwaffen Division, Ku Klux Klan, Ulster Defence Association, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant etc. At the Continuity Irish Republican Army page we have a screenshot of propaganda, rather than link directly to any recruitment/propaganda pages, this approach make a lot more sense, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not necessarily saying that the Proud Boys are an extremist group, that's another discussion. I want to establish in a general sense if other editors think Wikipedia should link to or display the url of websites used by extremist groups to plan violent crimes and recruit members.

• YES - Beyond the absurdly loaded question, you imply that wikipedia ought to be censored. If you are concerned about terrorism and violent crimes being planned on a website, you should contact the FBI or ATF.

Wikipedia's own rules suggest:

"Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive."TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I want to establish in a general sense if other editors think Wikipedia should link to or display the url of websites used by extremist groups to plan violent crimes and recruit members. Not necessarily the proud boys, we can get back to the specifics (as to whether the PB's are in-fact a violent extremist group) once we see what other editors think of linking to violent extremist groups generally. Please keep in mind that guidelines are not set in stone as per WP:FIVEPILLARS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars#WP:5P5 Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• No, per Bacondrum. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• No, per Bacondrum.--Jorm (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This is a loaded question that obfuscates what you're actually trying to achieve. It might have been better phrased as "If we have an article about a website used by extremist groups, should we redact the URL of that website from the article?" Of course we shouldn't for all sorts of reasons starting with WP:V. It might be better to think of the provision of the URL in an article about an extremist website as an exception to a general inclination not to link to such sites.--Pontificalibus 06:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)'

We don't need to visit the site to know it exists, we have reliable sources for that. When you say " a general inclination not to link to such sites" are you saying there's already a general agreement that we not link to extremist sites? Bacondrum (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC. This RfC appears intended to create some sort of a cross-wiki rule. It doesn't even mention the Proud Boys. It belongs at WP:VPP or WT:TERRORISM, not here. R2 (bleep) 07:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to create some kind of rule, just want to know if we should be linking to violent extremist sites, it's relevant to this article and an ongoing debate here. Is there an existing consensus that you know of? Be great to know. Bacondrum (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

even stormfront, which actually is all of the things the Proud Boys are accused of, is URL linked. Coupled with the "wiki is not censored" rule, it suggests that censorship of reliable and pertinent links is inappropriate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website) TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

If you go to the talk at stormfront, there's a similar ongoing rfc. Stormfront is actually more justifiable as the article subject is the website, but it still should not be there. Not linking to violent extremist sites is just plain common sense, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

there is a similar discussion because you went there and deleted the URL and a bunch of editors put it back... You are asking a question to further the censorship of wikipedia and delete verified pertinent information. If a nation wants to restrict a URL from it's citizens, they can go ahead and do so.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm arguing for removal of links to violent extremist sites via the correct process, a perfectly reasonable position to take. Please don't attack other editors, read WP:AVOIDYOU and you need to learn how to WP:INDENT properly. Bacondrum (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• No - This URL lacks enough encyclopedic value to justify inclusion. Inclusion of official websites is optional, when it is a courtesy to readers. It is not a requirement. The purpose of this article is not to promote the group, it is to summarize the topic per reliable sources. Countering misinformation is also part of this purpose.

Specifically for the Proud Boys, the group is very open in its use of "irony" and jokes. In other words, it cannot be treated as a reliable primary source, and reliable sources do not treat these websites as especially significant or authoritative. Further, it's a bad website of limited use to most readers. It's short, annoyingly vague, poorly organized, infrequently updated, and self-contradictory. It would be misleading to readers to point them to such a flimsy resource, and our goal should not be to waste reader's time with bad sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, also, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot be used to set a precedent. This is a useful discussion to have, but this talk page cannot decide links on another article. Grayfell (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – This would need a clear definition of what is considered to be a hate group according to the Wikipedia community. In general, a distinction should be made between radical and extremist groups. In particular, if they "plan violent crimes", then they can be regarded as criminal organizations or terrorist groups, which is a different matter. In the context of the Proud Boys, the issue is that the US has no clear laws regarding "hate speech", so we cannot base our reasoning on court decisions. Alcaios (talk)

Per many, many reliable sources, the Proud Boys are an extremist group. Your comment is the first use of the phrases "hate group" or "hate speech" in this RFC. The legality of hate speech is only tangentially related to this discussion. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That's because I didn't read this RfC. I clicked on a link from a Stormfront-related RfC, where it was defined as a website "whose sole purpose is the promotion of race hate and violence". And I have never said that the Proud Boys are not extremists – I have added a scholarly source that says so to the PB's article before writing this comment. Alcaios (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• No, per Bacondrum. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, but as I previously said, only if a reliable, consensus based source can provide a definitive address to link to. It doesn't make sense to link to every website that purports to be the official Proud Boys website. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 02:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment - to further expand on my point, as there is no policy to not link to such sites, and other groups that have well-defined web presences do have a link to them, it makes sense to provide a link to the Proud Boys site if such a site can indeed be identified. Otherwise, my objections would be per Ahrtoodeetoo. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 02:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

One more comment For what it's worth, I went back and looked up the previous discussion regarding their website. To be clear: are we still suggesting that proudboysusa.com is indeed the authoritative website for this group? BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 02:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

what if the official URL was listed, but merely as text, not hyperlinked? This would satisfy the academic value without providing an easy link; avoiding censorship without promotingTuffStuffMcG (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That's what I did for Stormfront (website) although other editors added the hyperlink back. I think it's a good solution because it involves doing the bare minimum to provide the required information. ----Pontificalibus 06:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a good compromise idea, but I do prefer the hyperlink. The information available here should be as robust, accurate, and consistent as possible. I understand that many editors are from outside the United States, but I'd hate to see wikipedia become a lowest common denominator platform; with controversial words, links and ideas scrubbed to match the patchwork of arbitrary laws and cultural sensibilities of ~200 countries, as that's a recipe for an insert and inaccurate repository. This is a trend worth pushing against.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• No, per BaconDrum and Greyfell. Linking the site serves no scholarly purpose, and we have no obligation to provide a link to their site. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, we should link. It's like a cross between a zoo and a Holocaust museum. I wholly endorse our readers browsing these zoo animals. The link is useful educational material, and per WP:NOTCENSORED we do not delete useful educational material just because someone finds it objectionable. Alsee (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. This sort of WP:ELOFFICIAL link is no different from any other official website. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and such links violate neither WP:ELNEVER nor WP:ELNO. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:ELOFFICIAL such link should only be included if "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." - The official website does not directly discuss the reasons this group is notable according to WP:IS (political violence, neo-fascism, etc.). Perhaps the site indirectly discussing these things, or conspicuously avoids mentioning them. This is not sufficient. Our goal is not to humor PR-minded evasion, it is to summarize in direct language per reliable sources. The website interferes with this goal and is otherwise useless as a reference. Grayfell (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

From WP:EXT in particular WP:ELBURDEN

"This guideline describes the most common reasons for including and excluding links. However, the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard.

Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them."

WP:NOTCENSORED is not a mandate for inclusion. Bacondrum (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• comment - I do not see how omitting a link to an extremist site used to promote and plan violent extremist attacks is censorship, we omit things all the time. wp:notcensored is not a mandate to include everything without consideration, is it? Thanks for the links, one thing I really wanted to know is if there’s any convention to follow here - WP:ELBURDEN “...the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard.

Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.”Bacondrum (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• No: no encyclopedic value in including the web site. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Invalid RfC. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Severe organisational issues. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we please close this RFC if one has now been started at the village pump? The URL is still removed from the page improperly while the discussion is in limbo.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - Per the various guidelines and policies cited above. From what I can tell the other argument against inclusion, like we would for any other org, is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So lacking a compelling reason not to, in my opinion, it should be included. PackMecEng (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2021 (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.

URL deleted again

Proud Boys official URL has been deleted again. I'm not seeing a discussion of why in the talk, but there is extensive discussion of why it was there in the archivesTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

likewise, any mention of the groups repeated assertion that they are against racism and authoritarianism has also been deleted from the ledeTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was to remove per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proud_Boys/Archive_5#Website. See this edit by ItsPugle. [30] IHateAccounts (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Likewise, the denials are in WP:MANDY territory and are not WP:DUE for the lead, especially after the November 2020 leadership disagreements. They have coverage in the body. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: Was there a specific diff that removed PB's take on racism from the lede, or do you just feel like more discussion of that is warranted to accurately summarize the body of the article? VQuakr (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

there were 2 votes to exclude the URL, yours being one of them. I disagree. If there is consensus that Enrique Tarrio is the Chairman, the website he promotes is the offiial URL. What about removal of any mention that they reject racism and white supremacy? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't comment in that section. Again, can you provide a link to the before/after on what was removed? VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

sorry, I meant ihateaccounts, who mentioned that there was consensus, was one of the 2 voting on that consensus.

The terminology about the group officially rejecting racism and authoritarianism - I don't have a copy/paste of the exact wording. According to Reuters and the ADL, they "tend to reject overt white Supremacy". According to their own tenets which they recruit with - they adamantly reject those things which has been discussed in archives at length

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-extremists-explainer-idUSKBN26L3Q1

https://proudboysusa.com/

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Their response is mentioned several times throughout the article, [31]. I don't think their description of themselves warrants mention in the lede; WP:MANDY was already noted above. VQuakr (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The link I attached was a paraphrase by Reuters of what the ADL saysTuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

What specific edit are you proposing? The Reuters article also quotes the governor of Oregon calling them White supremacists and the SPLC calling them a hate group. Why are you singling out the one sentence in it that summarizes the ADL characterization? VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The governor of Oregon is a politician opposed to their political aims.

You had said that it was their description of themselves, but the reuters article reported it as a fact backed up by the ADL; that they tend to reject white supremacy. If reuters said they tend to claim to reject white supremacy that would be a self description.

Since google has buried their website many pages in, and their official page has been erased from the wiki article, there would be no way for a reader to understand that the organization claims to stand against most of the epithets against them, which I expect is the point of all of the edits. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The Reuters article summarizes the viewpoints of multiple people and organizations; we can't just cherry pick the one you want to add. But the reader of our article will see the org's view on themselves multiple times throughout the article, since we do already mention that in several places. What specific edit are you proposing?

ETA: no, Reuters does not report it as fact; in reality they just note the ADL's characterization: "Group members tend to adhere to an ideology that rejects overt white supremacy but embraces chauvinism, according to the ADL." VQuakr (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Far-right groups always deny they are far-right, if third party reliable sources contest the claim then that can be considered in context of due weight, but I've seen no serious dispute of this label other than the self serving claims of the group itself. This is not a BLP article so the denial is not required to be included. It's mentioned in the body and receives the weight an WP:ABOUTSELF claim deserves, as has already been pointed out Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?. If antifa claimed "we are not left wing" we wouldn't give that claim much weight either. Bacondrum (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• we are not here to promote far-right groups by linking to their websites. Particularly violent chauvinist groups. This is WP:NONAZIS territory. We are here to reflect what reliable third party sources say about the subject, not to attack or promote the subject. If the weight of sourcing observes that a group is far right or far left stating such is not an attack on said group, it’s a statement of fact. Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't denied that they are far right. They clearly are, so I don't know where you are coming from with that.

My concern is the other assertions. Where reliable third party consensus disputes a fact, the win should go to reliable third party consensus.

However, when the organization has stated tenets those should at least be mentioned, and those tenets which are not in dispute should help to characterize the organization in at least some way. If they are opposed to authoritarianism, racism, and in favor of free expression - this should be mentioned beyond "they disagree with the charges of fascism".

Something like "while the organization's official and published tenets claim to it be a defender of free expression, equal protections and limited government, reliable sources believe this to be a smokescreen for it's violent, far right, and bigoted extremism".

I know that you need to use specific text from a source - not a compilation or hodgepodge of original research - but please be on the lookout for something like this as it is more neutral and informative to the reader. Wikipedia should be neutral and informative - not "anti-racist" and willing to compromise truth to secure that objective.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

We are not linking to their page as that would serve to promote the group. This is a common sense case, they are a violent extremist group, not just any old website. We should not be linking to groups that engage in illegal street violence.

No third party source I've seen contests their ideological position (no third party reliable source has stated that "they are opposed to authoritarianism, racism, and in favor of free expression" - in cases like this we don't publish what they say about themselves - we publish what third party reliable sources say about them. Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

well that's new. You are intentionally censoring their url because you don't like the group's message. The URL was always up, until the site changed due to hacking and ISP issues. Then, purported "confusion" about group leadership led to a decision to omit the URL until leadership was re-confirmed by objective sources.

But now it is removed because the organization is bad. Wikipedia should be using reliable sources to better inform, not omit and censor to protect people from a clear understanding of things for their own protectionTuffStuffMcG (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Their website is not a reliable source, so.... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

it is a reliable source for the organizations stated tenets. Is that a reliable source for what the organization actually encourages or does? No - but the organization defines it's goals. Reality tells us if they are successful or honestly pursuing those goalsTuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Remember to add an extra : when indenting, so we can tell who you're responding to.

We don't publish an organizations own PR, as that's not a reliable source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I want to make my reason clear. Myself and other editors object to the inclusion on the grounds that the group is involved in, and their website is used for organising serious violent crimes - it's fair to say that this kind of ideologically driven violence is universally perceived as among the most serious of crimes. We wouldn't link to sites where Islamic extremists were recruiting new memebers, publishing violent ideological rants and planning violent attacks, would we? Of course not. Wikipedia is not censored, but as always other considerations apply. Not linking to violent extremist sites is just common sense. We can start an RFC to settle the issue if you'd like? Bacondrum (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

you are accusing the organization of commiting the "most serious crimes" as relationale for it's admited censorship. It sounds like we need to really build on the existing text supporting these violent crimes, because that assertion seems to be comically over-inflated when compared with the current article and record of crimes committed.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources not only state as fact that they commit the most serious crimes, they brag about it publicly...shall I put an RFC together? Get wider feedback? Bacondrum (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources confirming their perpetration of "most serious crimes", why wouldn't that be listed in the article?

Extensive criminal convictions and reliably sourced summaries are listed for the Hells Angels article (along with their URL).TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I've no issue with articles discussing the activities of these groups, I just don't think we need to or should link to violent extremist websites where recruitment and planning for serious violent crime takes place. I may be wrong, but it's certainly not an unreasonable position to take/question to ask. The Hells Angels is an outlaw motorcycle club, the official site promotes no criminal activity, they do not organise political violence or terrorist attacks nor espouse extremist ideology of any kind. It's almost exclusively photos of people riding bikes, wedding pics, some club history - not a relevant analogy. Bacondrum (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

don't forget the public guestbook on the Hells Angels siteTuffStuffMcG (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is an example of a well written, moderate, & balanced summary of an organization: leading with reliable sources and consensus of government agency opinions - balanced with the consensus of repeated assertions by the organization itself. The criminal accusations are much more overt, longstanding and serious than anything the Proudboys are accused of - and yet neutral opinion and the URL is maintained, without the need for oppressive, knee-jeek censorship and derogatory adjectives throughout the article.

"Some United States agencies classify the Hells Angels as one of the "big four" motorcycle clubs, along with the Pagans, Outlaws, and Bandidos, and contend that members carry out widespread violent crime and organized crime, including drug dealing, trafficking in stolen goods, and extortion, and are involved in prostitution.[22][23] Members of the organization have continuously asserted that they are only a group of motorcycle enthusiasts who have joined to ride motorcycles together, to organize social events such as group road trips, fundraisers, parties, and motorcycle rallies, and that any crimes are the responsibility of the individuals who carried them out and not the club as a whole.[24][25]TuffStuffMcG (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hells_Angels_MC_criminal_allegations_and_incidents

They make the Proud Boys look like the tiger cubs. Still get a neutral article and a URL.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Nation of Islam, New Black Panthers - these organizations are extremist, have criminal and hate allegations against them - yet also have an official URL displayed, as they should.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

While these organizations have these things, that is not the totality of their existence (as opposed to the Proud Boys, whose entire purpose is violence).

1. Nation of Islam - while having batshit insane racist beliefs, definite anti-semitic teachings, and so on - is a religious movement.
2. New Black Panther Party - that URL probably shouldn't be on wikipedia, and you've provided a reasonably compelling argument for its removal there.

Regardless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument to make here. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

the entire purpose of the proud boys is not violence, but your admission to this belief is telling. If you have such a glaring and biased belief about this organization, it is unclear how you can effectively moderate content here.

The organization is definitely questionable and too prone to thuggish rhetoric and actions, but the "entire purpose" is clearly not violence.

My intention isn't to drive further censorship.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I follow the reliable sources coverage here. Saying things like "If you have such a glaring and biased belief about this organization, it is unclear how you can effectively moderate content here" is untoward and uncivil.

As for the purpose of the PB organization: the fourth part of initiation is literally engaging in illegal violence. The organization specifically glorifies assassinations and directed violence, and their founder said "I want violence, I want punching in the face. I'm disappointed in Trump supporters for not punching enough" as quoted in the article. They've been banned from all reputable social media platforms; in the case of Twitter, specifically for repeated promotion of violence by their members. Denying that the purpose of the group is violence, as covered well in the article, is not making an argument on sound logical footing. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"as opposed to the Proud Boys, whose entire purpose is violence". -IHateAccounts

My reply was both toward, and civil, in the context. Even if you were to say that self-defensive violence, possibly unlawful violence - is "A" purpose of the organization, it wouldn't be reasonable to say it was the entire purpose of the organization. Presumably groups of people don't come together solely to perpetrate violence for its own sake. There are other sakesTuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"Even if you were to say that self-defensive violence...Presumably groups of people don't come together solely to perpetrate violence for its own sake"... WP:MANDY stuff. The purpose of the Proud Boys is politically motivated and terroristic violence against the groups they harbor (racist, anti-semitic, anti-LGBT, etc) hatred for, the perpetration of hate crimes such as recently against Ashbury Methodist. We don't include a URL for the Ku Klux Klan or subgroups thereof either. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

that is an absolutely incorrect assessment of the group from a read of reliable sources. They pulled down and burned a political sign from a church. The people responsible should be prosecuted to the average extent of the law.

This event is presented as evidence that the organization exists to violently terrorize people and is on equal footing with he KKK? I respect your right to contribute your thoughts in good faith, but at a certain point a good faith judge would recuse themselves from mediating or arbitrating a topic if their bias became overwhelming and precluded them from doing so fairlyTuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG:, please indent your comments properly.

As for the rest, it is a completely accurate assessment of the group as represented by numerous reliable sources, such as . Demanding that I "recuse" because you are attempting to WP:POVPUSH against consensus, and because you accuse me of "bias" is... amusing but ridiculous. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

This is 8 colons. I have to count them for each line break. Is there an easier way to reply to a specific post on a pc? Or do I need to count colons each time?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

also, ridiculing someone is uncivilTuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, accusing others of bias is also uncivil. Stick to the content, we can disagree without getting nasty. Bacondrum (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

As for the purpose argument, I agree with IHateAccounts 100%, they exist solely to perpetrate political violence, through street fights and inflammatory racist gatherings, they're a violent fascist group who invest a lot in window dressing to look more mainstream. Reliable sources don't really seem to discuss much else about them. Even their website is pretty much just a catalogue of street brawling. Bacondrum (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Violence is not illegal. Unlawful violence is illegal. There are many types of violence that are legal. In many situations, if an organization is promoting a speech, simply providing the muscle to ensure that the speech goes on uninterrupted by those who would forcibly censor it is not unlawful. An organization that was careful to avoid illegal retaliation or unlawful incitement could be violent - but within the confines of law. Very similarly to how the NRA promotes it's interests. Should we remove their URL?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The types of violence, and threats of violence, promoted and practiced by the Proud Boys organization are definitively illegal in nature. There is ample coverage in WP:RS of this. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn the rfc below as I've been informed by more experienced editors that the rfc is too broad. However, that does not mean the link should now be included autamatically. Consensus is needed for inclusion as per WP:ELBURDEN: "...the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard.

Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them". Bacondrum (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Tarrio Arrested

Per WaPo for destruction of property and possession of high-capacity ammunition drums. --Jorm (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added what I think is relevant text and tried to provide some relevant linking. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Political Organization needs an "ideology" section

Some attempt should be made to summarize the specific & reliably verified ideology of this organization, as is standard for other political organizations.

Where there is disagreement between official tenets and reliable sources regarding those tenets, the reliable sources should take precedence - but absent reliable controversy, official tenets should be stated in some way.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, ideally from a third party, we need to be careful not to promote them. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

really, once you get past the concerns, it is about getting to the truth of the organization. Nobody reasonable wants people to visit a Nazi propaganda website. Failing to fairly adjudicate claims, however, causes readers to feel the need to do their own research and distrust wikipedia censors. Instead, if wikipedia can fairly balance claims without arbitrary restraint, readers can feel satisfied without getting into the details.

If the organization is what it claims to be, then great and they don't deserve censorship. If not, the reader can stop right there and proceed no further into the abyss.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

As per WP:ABOUTSELF I think sourcing directly to such a group would be unduly self-serving, and they are well known to be dishonest about their intent, obfuscate known facts and tell blatant lies about events they've been involved in - they are an unreliable primary source, thus cannot be used to cite such claims. In this case I'd support adding details about ideology, but only if sourced from a reliable secondary source, as per guidelines. Bacondrum (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Surely some of the high quality academic sources we have in the article discuss ideology. For example some of these might discuss ideology:

• https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep25259.pdf
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2019.1672854
• https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=ISBN+9781452960340
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02773945.2019.1610641

Maybe SPLC covers Ideology also: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys

Hope that helps Bacondrum (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Update the Proud Boys logo at the top of the page?

Proud Boys "PB and Wreath" logo on a T-shirt

Nearly all Proud Boys wear gear with yellow-on-black graphics (though some wear black-on-yellow). Their imagery very frequently incorporates a wreath. The rooster is much less often seen in 2020, though it can be spotted occasionally. For reference, here's a photo album of several of them in Raleigh in late 2020.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/acrider/albums/72157717088462322

Would it make sense to switch the header logo for this page to match their current visual identity such that people unfamiliar with them will recognize them? The current white rooster with a ring of white stars seems outdated. While lots of objects get put inside the yellow wreath (e.g., a rooster, Bill the Butcher) perhaps the "PB" with the yellow wreath would be the most appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrider (talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I just went and looked at their website and didn't see this logo anywhere, unless we have a reliable source to demonstrate that this is their official logo, I don't see a reason to prioritise this one over the other. Bacondrum (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The wreath is a Fred Perry thing. It's not a Proud Boy thing. It's not their logo.--Jorm (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Especially not since Fred Perry specifically disavows the PBs and have taken steps to try to prevent them from getting the shirts. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the wreath *was* derived from Fred Perry. However, they are making their own gear and incorporating the wreath (which alludes to Western/Greek culture) into their own new gear. Sometimes they copy the FP wreath; sometimes they alter it. That wreath currently is on the PB site. The stylized "PB" is also much more prevalent than the rooster. (Do we have a source for the white rooster with stars as their official logo?) At a minimum, their logo should be yellow and black since this is clearly their choice of colors both on their website and at real events as seen in late 2020 (in the album above) and in early 2020 (in this album). acrider (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/acrider/49415700288/in/album-72157712757349667/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrider (talk • contribs) 14:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Flickr galleries aren't a WP:RS. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Jorm, you used their website to verify facts about the organization? Why, and which website was that?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't re-hash an ongoing debate from another section in this one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, it was Baconundrum - the editor advocating that the website has no value to academic inquiry about the organization. I will move my comment to the other thread. Reading comprehension issuesTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Making false and pointy claims is not going to help the discussion. Looking at that page verified nothing, and it can't as per WP:ABOUTSELF. Bacondrum (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)