Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Short description

Per my edit summary – WP:SHORTDES & MOS:ORDER sd's are for mobile app reading & need't duplicate lede; keep below 40 characters; avoid POV – I've restored "my" version of the short. The reader using the mobile app wants to know if they got the right article so they can go on to open the article. Then they can read about the political leanings of the organization and its members. That is, they want to make sure they haven't stumbled onto Proud Mary by mistake. – S. Rich (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that they're far-right and neo-fascist is the most important thing to know about them, so that's staying in the short description, I'm afraid.--Jorm (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Srich32977: we are NPOV compliant. WP:SHORTDES, which you link above, also reminds readers that the content is subject to consensus so you're going to need to stop attempting to force through your preferred version. 40 "or so" characters is a suggestion not a limit. VQuakr (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with neutrality but I agree with Srich it's too long. At a minimum, why do we need "far-right?" Isn't that redundant with "neo-fascist?" I'd shorten to something like "North American neo-fascist organization." Don't forget we're writing for an international audience. R2 (bleep) 21:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Proud Boys coverage regarding 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

Since Newsweek needs consensus, what do editors here think of this? A few alternate/supplement sources as well.

1. https://www.newsweek.com/proudboys-washington-capitol-trump-protest-1559650
2. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/proud-boys-terror-capitol-riot-b1783996.html
3. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/07/proud-boys-neo-nazis-protesters-stormed-us-capitol/
4. https://www.bbc.com/news/55572805

"One of their members, Nick Ochs, tweeted a selfie inside the building saying "Hello from the Capital lol". He also filmed a live stream inside...Mr Ochs' profile on the messaging app Telegram describes himself as a "Proud Boy Elder from Hawaii."" IHateAccounts (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The Proud Boys page on Parler has been posting constantly since the storming, celebrating and endorsing the riots. In addition, prominent members on their Telegram group have claimed responsibility, including calls for members to specifically wear black and cause mayhem during the protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlayercookie (talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Nich Ochs might have breached notability threshold for his own article. Unsuccessful House candidate for HI, arrested for breaching the US Capitol building. https://ballotpedia.org/Nicholas_Ochs TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

6MWE slogan

Hi all

During the recent riot there were Proud Boys wearing 6WME tshirts, I wanted to add something about what they mean to the article but got reverted. Please can you tell me if this is acceptable wording and references and if so add it into the article.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Members and supporters wear tshirts stating 6WME (6 Million Wasn't Enough) which calls for another holocaust.

References

Though I can see the logical inference, the sources don't say that 6MWE "stands for another holocaust." I'd go with language that hews closer to the sources, e.g. "During the recent riot there were Proud Boys wearing t-shirts bearing the new-Nazi phrase "6WME" ("6 Million Wasn't Enough") a phrase suggesting that not enough Jews were murdered during the Holocaust." Btw I think either your version or mine could be added now and tinkered with. There's no need to wait until we get the language exactly right here. R2 (bleep) 16:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

1st article has a different headline than the question they are attempting to verify.

2nd article doesn't mention the proud boys

3rd article mentions that "logo has a resemblance to the Proud Boys logo, but it's unclear exactly who's behind this disgusting display."

The similarity appears to be the olive branches, but the eagle and fascist stick bundle are unrelated.

I don't believe these specific sources are appropriate here, we already mention the first instance with a better source.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes but the Snopes article does make it clear that the t-shirt was a proud boys t-shirt and there's even photographic evidence. Also, the wreath featured in many fascist emblems like the proud boys logo is not olive branches, it's a kotinos, or a wreath of laurel (bay leaves) used by ancient Greeks and Romans to symbolize victory or triumph. Bacondrum (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The Snopes.com source is sufficient. I don't understand your comment about the headline. Headlines have no bearing on reliability. R2 (bleep) 23:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

normally snopes is fine. I'm glad you see what I mean. Most people just look at the header, then down to see if it is true or not. The header and title asks a question in bold; "Is 6MWE an Anti-Semitic Proud Boys Slogan?" Then, in oddly, asks another question not in bold; "Claim; 6MWE" stands for "6 million wasn't enough" — a reference to the 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust." It verifies the claim, not the title. 2 totally different questions, but In a way that falsely looks like the first question has been answered in the affirmative. Very odd and unbecomingTuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to what was seen on social media in the last couple of days, the photo probably was not taken at the Congress vandalizing, but at another event, the one mentioned in the Snopes article. Despite not being associated with the Congress event, this information is relevant to the topic of this article, and fits in the "Symbolism" section. The Snopes articles is an appropriate source: it says clearly that the meaning is "6 million wasn't enough" and that this slogan is specifically associated with the group that is the subject of this article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The individual wearing the shirt was seen on camera in the capitol building wearing the shirt. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "There is no consensus on the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person." It seems that there are lots of reasons not to use this source. The statement that the apparel is "associated" with the Proud Boys is not actually supported. We don't know if it is or is not.

The reliable source we have ("Snopes") says that a member of PB wore the shirt at a Dec 12 2020 rally in Washington, that the eagle is taken from Mussolini's state and what 6MWE stands for. They don't mention the laurel leaf, which is not that uncommon. Per weight, I wouldn't put it in unless mainstream media had mentioned it. It raises more questions than it answers. Were the other members aware of the meaning and what action did they take? Who is the person who was wearing it?

TFD (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Putting anti-Semitism under Proud Boys ideology?

I've read multiple sources on the Proud Boys that show a pattern of anti-Semitic rhetoric within their circles.

1st: "A Proud Boys leader is trying to rebrand the group as explicitly white supremacist and anti-Semitic" - Sun Sentinel, JPost, The Forward

Describes Proud Boys member, Kyle Chapman, claiming he has transformed the group into an explicitly white supremacist organization, though it's unclear whether he has a following.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-proud-boys-rebrand-20201111-kp4cr7l5pbdnxguwyb3xq4m63e-story.html https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/proud-boys-leader-trying-to-rebrand-the-group-as-explicitly-antisemitic-648831 https://forward.com/fast-forward/458399/a-proud-boys-leader-is-trying-to-rebrand-the-group-as-explicitly-white/

Though the extent to which the group adopted such beliefs was unclear at the time, recent developments seem to indicate that the organization at-large has embraced it in recent months. Which brings me to my second point.

2nd: "Neo-Nazi Shirts Worn by Proud Boys Supporters Sold on Amazon" - Newsweek

Details black-and-yellow (evidently, the colors of the Proud Boys) T-shirts (likely purchased via Amazon), hooded tops and cups with the phrase "6MWE"—a Neo-Nazi term that stands for "6 million wasn't enough." The items also had the Italian fascist symbol of an eagle spreading its wings that was used during World War II.

https://www.newsweek.com/nazi-amazon-proud-boys-holocaust-1555192

Fact checkers confirmed the meaning of the phrase "6MWE" as indeed signifying the phrase "6 million wasn't enough." - Snopes

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boy-6mwe/

In addition, multiple credible sources on Twitter have seemingly identified the slogan being worn by members of the Proud Boys during the pro-Trump terrorist attack inside the Capitol on January 6th, 2021.

I hope some of this information helps the admins of this page at least consider including anti-Semitism as part of the Proud Boys' ideology.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:C900:7440:F87E:9DBD:2DDE:E55A (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism isn't an ideology. TFD (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Section discussing why they are fascist

Hey, I propose adding something along these lines to discuss why the group are neo-fascist, since calling a group neo-fascist and then not discussing it feels a little... odd.

Scholars who have studied the group have described it as fascist. Vitolo Haddad following Walter Benjamin's definition of fascism argues a focus on supposed traditional gender roles including violence from men, an attribution of societal failure to men not fulfilling a traditional role, the justification of state violence, the glorification of entrepreneurship, the view the family being the fundamental unit of society, and a culture of victimhood as evidence of fascism.

Talpedia (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't that is a good source. It's published in the Rhetoric Society Quarterly, which is not focused on political science or sociology. The author was a journalism and communications doctoral student and teaching assistant. She has since resigned her teaching position for pretending to be a person of color. ("University of Wisconsin-Madison grad student admits pretending to be a person of color" (CNN 17 September) It's not that I question the reliability of the facts she presents, but the degree of weight her opinions have among scholars of fascism and the far right. TFD (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any idea which source we should use? I don't really want to use news sources for this because they don't have enough depth. I looked at another "academicish" source in the first citation but it wasn't very good. I might have a look on google scholars, but if you have strong opinions... Talpedia (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The article was in a peer reviewed journal which has a focus on rhetorical studies, which includes communication studies. The article covers how demagoguery gives meaning to violence by providing a symbolic, expressive outlet...through a close reading of the Proud Boys, a multinational fraternal organization that uses an aesthetic of libertarianism to advance a fascist politic and has not been retracted. Your personal animosities or attacks towards the author are irrelevant. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What I am saying is that her opinion fails weight. WP:WEIGHT says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Peer review is no guarantee that the author's opinions are universally accepted. It means that the facts they are using are reliable. Scholars can hold different opinions on many things. You need to establish that her explanation of why the Proud Boys should be classified as fascist is a common view among scholars of fascism and the far right.

I have no animosity toward the author. I had never heard of her before coming to this article. I am merely saying that I would refer to standard textbooks or experts in the field. If I want to find an opinion about the recent signals from Proxima Centauri, I would be more likely to go to an article by an astronomer than one by a media expert. (And yes, it has relevance to media, so there might be such an article.)

Talpedia, I searched through literature on fascism and the far right and could not find any authors who referred to the group as fascist. Even the most comprehensive book about the Proud Boys, Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate (Alexandra Minna Stern Beacon Press Jul. 16, 2019), does not make that claim. So my suggestion is that we not add anything until it becomes available.

TFD (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Can someone please link to the Vitolo-Haddad source? I don't think we should be adding content from sources that don't specifically mention the PB. That's a sign that we're straying off-topic. R2 (bleep) 16:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• here. TFD (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: here's the abstract.

This article considers how demagoguery gives meaning to violence by providing a symbolic, expressive outlet for resentment resulting from real or felt precarity. This rhetorical process redirects frustrations away from the entities and sociopolitical structures responsible for creating precarity and toward a scapegoat. Rather than examining demagoguery as rhetoric produced by an individual rhetor or consumed by an audience of the masses, the author explores the “meso-level” of demagogic discourse: the organizations called into existence and motivated by individuals’ shared identification with a symbolic struggle against an imagined Other. This phenomenon is illustrated through a close reading of the Proud Boys, a multinational fraternal organization that uses an aesthetic of libertarianism to advance a fascist politic.

To intimate that this could be a "source that doesn't specifically mention the PB" is ridiculous. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Lol, did you see where I asked for the link? That's because I had nothing to go off of except what was posted here. Let's try to lower the temperature. Thank you TFD. R2 (bleep) 16:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Jason Lee Van Dyke

Jason Lee Van Dyke, the former lawyer and one-time leader of the Proud Boys, who was recently alleged to have tried to plot the assassination of a rival, attempted to join the Base, but was denied membership for being a "huge liability." In an effort to convince the group's leaders that he should be allowed to join the Base and would be a productive member, Van Dyke offered up his expertise in weapons training and his Texas town of Decatur for paramilitary camps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.167.204 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks for these links, interesting reads. "Van Dyke then accused McInnes of creating the group solely “to make money” while being “not willing to do anything” violent, and explained that this is why he gravitated towards the Base."TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Suspect in Kenosha unrest shooting and the Proud Boys

See this.[1]. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The White Power hand sign has to be made with the right hand I believe, so that your hand somewhat looks like a "WP". Rittenhouse uses his left hand making what looks like an OK sign in that photo in the WaPo article. The prosecutos nevertheless call this a White Power sign. That's far-fetched and I wouldn't trust anything those lawyers have to say. --Distelfinck (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

White supremacists have been seen making taunt photos using left hand, right hand, or both hands. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a tedious recurring discussion. It is a trolling move used by far-right groups generally for various purposes. It is unlikely that practitioners are deeply versed in symbolology, and their potential motives are so numerous that speculating outside of specific contexts is questionable. Even the ADL, for all of their hair-triggers, understands the nuance.

"Other, similar-seeming hand gestures have also been mistakenly assumed to have white supremacist connotations as a result of the “okay” hoax. One of these is the so-called “Circle Game,” in which people attempt to trick each other into looking at an okay-like hand gesture made somewhere below the waist. Another is the hand sign of the Three Percenter movement, a wing of the anti-government extremist militia movement. Three Percenters, who are right-wing extremists but are not typically white supremacists, often make a hand gesture to symbolize their movement that uses the outstretched middle, ring, and pinky fingers to represent a Roman numeral “3.” This gesture, from certain angles, can often resemble an “okay” hand gesture and has been misinterpreted by some as a white supremacist symbol." https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-hand-gesture TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Within the pattern of white supremacist groups co-opting other imagery so as to 'hide in plain sight', the presence of "plausible deniability" is a goal of such behavior. That doesn't change the realities of it when done by an (alleged) white-supremacist (alleged) murderer, hanging out with white supremacists from a known-violent/neo-fascist/white-supremacist group (in this case, the Proud Boys). I'm honestly surprised the terms of his release on bail didn't already include a prohibition on contact with white supremacist groups. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Your suggestion the person in question is a "white-supremacist" is baseless and against Wikipedia policy --Distelfinck (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Please be advised that WP:NOTFORUM, especially when making claims about BLP subjects. jp×g 18:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Please remove it, it's slander. It would be all over the news if it were true, I looke through like 3 Google News pages and there's nothing there, it's a baseless accusation and defamatory --Distelfinck (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I will not, but I've added a clarification above. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so you added "alleged". You are still not saying who alleges that he is a white supremacist though. I assume it's you? --Distelfinck (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't WP:CRYBLP. Just as convenient examples, NBC News, Fox News, and many, many other sources specifically use "white supremacist" and "white power" to explain this exact issue. Further, by actively refuting this claim across many media outlets, the shooter's own defense team are contributing to its encyclopedic significance. The talk page is the place to discuss how to summarize these reliable sources in the article. Dancing around unflattering terms ignores the letter and spirit of BLP. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

When you say "by actively refuting this claim", what claim are you referring to? The articles you cited don't talk about anybody calling K.R. a White Supremacist. The only person who made that claim that I'm aware of is IHateAccounts, in this thread --Distelfinck (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I just googled the guys name and I don't think there's any doubt the guy is a white supremacist. This complaint looks like a wee bit like sealioning to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) Don't remove my comment again, this is bullshit, I'm taking it to ANI, you need to be blocked for this. Bacondrum (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• [removed for violating the Biographies about living persons policy Distelfinck (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)]

These days, I would struggle to name a short list of people who wouldn't be considered "white supremacists" by the new catch-all standard. To better understand, here is an article about "multiracial whiteness" which seeks to explain how even black people can be white supremacists (pertains to proud boys) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/15/understand-trumps-support-we-must-think-terms-multiracial-whiteness/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, that comment shows a marked misunderstanding of both the opinion article and the phenomenon of Passing, of modern science's understanding that race and identity are social constructs, and the phenomenon of various "racial" groups or immigrant subgroups "becoming white" (e.g. "How the Irish Became White"[2]) by taking on and participating in the trappings and functions of white supremacist groups at various points in American history. More than that, though, it's completely inapplicable to Kyle Rittenhouse. Bottom line: making bad-faith accusations about those commenting in good faith having a "new catch-all standard" regarding the definition is pretty much sealioning, as Bacondrum said. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it has to be noted, just in case, that in a discussion related to whether or not the article subject is a white supremacist, Distelfinck is misrepresenting policy to vexatiously remove comments from others simply stating that they believe based on the WP:RS coverage that he is. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The comment I removed today didn't cite any sources, except that it said those can be found by performing a Google search, which is not citing sources according to our policies. WP:BLPREMOVE calls for the removal of contentious unsourced material. You can also read WP:V to learn more about sourcing --Distelfinck (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a discussion related to whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist. Your attempting to remove comments is simply uncivil, vexatious antagonism and has no real basis in policy- as shown as well by your trying to remove the whole comment, rather than just redacting the parts you (falsely, vexatiously, WP:POINTily) are WP:CRYBLPing about. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You are claiming that my removal has no basis in policy. Can you back that up? --Distelfinck (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"I don't think there's any doubt the guy is a white supremacist", in a discussion about whether or not the guy is a white supremacist, is absolutely not a BLP violation. Further, you removed the wording "This complaint looks like a wee bit like sealioning to me.", which has nothing to do with BLP at all. This is just as observed by others (Bacondrum and Grayfell) above: vexatious sealioning, WP:CRYBLP behavior designed to antagonize. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, Distelfinck please focus on improving the article. Vexations (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Prominent Proud Boys During Rally & Breach

I've been looking for sources advising where prominent proud boys were during the rally. There are articles saying: Tarrio was 100 miles away in his hotel room due to court order. Nordean and Biggs were leading a group of proud boys near the speech site. Jeremy Bertino was home due to recent stabbing Others were spotted in orange hats associating with leadership

Does anyone have articles detailing proud boy timeline of events? I was hoping to see more articles by now.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why the references are posted here, I don't see an option to removeTuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's because someone used Template:Reflist earlier in a comment. It just always puts the references at the bottom, which is why I hate it when people put that template on a Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks, I thought I messed something up.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorted, just add the template ref talk at the bottom of the subsection in which the refs were cited. Britishfinance (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Federal charges against prominent proud boys for conspiring to assault the capitol would undermine any credible claims that the organization stands for lawful defensive violence. There has to be some footage of members assaulting officers and destroying property by now, as these are the allegations being suggested. Any updates?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Federal charges don't prove anything. Policy says that we cannot consider people guilty until it is proved in court. TFD (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I know that nothing would have been "proven", but charges at least show probable cause officially backed up. It's important to show in wiki, right? We've done it for Tarrio's charges for burning the sign and for carrying 2 magazines. I'm not arguing, it would just be worth a mention for an informed readerTuffStuffMcG (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This Vice article mentions some of the Proud Boys leaders who seemed to be coordinating things at the Capitol. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

it appears that Joe Biggs may have entered the Capitol at some point, however briefly.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9160965/Proud-Boys-leader-Joe-Biggs-seen-entering-Capitol-saying-awesome.html TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Canada

This is almost an entirely American thing.

Should Canada really be mentioned in the first line considering there are only a handful of people that are part of this group? There are probably a similar number in many other countries as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.167.100.219 (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Linked Youtube video not available anymore

Hi,

The currently (2021-01-21) linked video "Who are the Proud Boys?" on YouTube (CBC News) July 5, 2017 is not available on YouTube anymore. At least not under this link. I suggest to either remove the link, link to a different video or directly include a video with clarified copyright situation. What do you suggest? Thanks. Ichbinder (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a direct CBC video link that may be usable here: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/984404035633 IHateAccounts (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Involvement in events at the Capitol should be at the end of the lead-in paragraph

The opening para outlines the various public events to have involved this group. The arrests of several members of the PB involved in the January 6 riot is now the most widely publicised event to have involved members of this group, so the details of the various members involved and arrested, like Joseph Biggs and others involved, should be at the top.

Independence1416 (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree. The capitol riot appears to be the thing they are most widely known for now. Bacondrum 23:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, although it should go into the lede of Joe Biggs, Nick Ochs and other notable proud boys who were charged with occupation of the building or premises.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect that the events at the Capitol were attended by "this group". The vast majority of the group did not attend or were instructed that, if they did attend, it would be as private citizens, not as members of the group. There were members of the military, law enforcement, various political parties and many corporations in attendance, even members of the government - can we claim that, because members of those groups were in attendance that the actual groups themselves with in attendance? I contend the answer is no. DanBoomerman (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of the group [...] were instructed that, if they did attend, it would be as private citizens, not as members of the group. Do we have a source for that? Vexations (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on this I withdraw my comment. DanBoomerman (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The WSJ investigation is damning and compelling. It should inform a large section of the article and some mention should probably be in the lede. Thanks for referring the link, Dan.- TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edit by Mikehawk10

I have reverted a substantial edit by Mikehawk10, which may contain some individual changes which are unobjectionable but on the whole, substantively makes the article worse.

For example, Mikehawk10's proposal introduces a number of points of attribution to uncontradicted factual statements, such as the fact that Proud Boys' members have been seen wearing group-affiliated apparel with the anti-Semitic slogan "6MWE". There is no reason to attribute this statement of fact - no reliable source contradicts it. Similarly, no reliable source contradicts the statement that Proud Boys members repeatedly appear at racist events. As per WP:YESPOV, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Changing the description of Rebel News from "far-right" to "conservative" is directly contradicted by the wide array of sources cited in our article on Rebel News, where we factually describe it as "far-right." There appears to be no valid reason not to do so in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll address the specific points made above, and I will try to re-institute the changes that I don't believe you are objecting to in an upcoming edit (though please feel free to revert if I'm misinterpreting your above statement.

First, regarding the "6MWE", the source given is Snopes, which per WP:SNOPES is a reliable source, though "attribution may be necessary." There have been quite a few discussions relating to their reliability, and it is consensus that they are generally reliable, with which I agree, though the article's phrasing itself is vague with the term "association" doing a lot of work. The more narrow claim that the article makes is that there were at least some Proud Boys who wore the shirts, and some of the shirts are marketed with the term "proud", so there is an association in that narrow sense. I believe that, in line with MOS:PMC, we should try to keep the rhetoric as close as possible to the Snopes piece, though as the term "association" is vague, it should be attributed. The addition of the second source (the ADL) renders this point about snopes moot, so I don't think there's any need to revisit it.

Second, regarding Rebel Media, that was my mistake; I had glanced at the headline and made the change. "Conservative" and "far-right" are not synonyms, but we should use the article's text when the two disagree. On a separate note (and this was not something I considered when I was making my edits) I would like to raise the point that previous discussions at WP:RSN (diffs:1, 2) indicate that Mediaite is only marginal reliable, so we may want to choose a different source for that sentence if we want to keep it.

Third, regarding the remaining statements, I don't see objection to them in your comment, so I will attempt to re-add the statements that were not objected to in your comment. Please feel free to remove anything that I have missed an objection to. Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Leader an FBI informant

[3] and many other sources. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Question Should we include this info in the opening paragraph? It doesn't seem to be something that it core to describing the Proud Boys as a group, and MOS:LEAD states that "[t]he first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION candidate

In this video (https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/01/17/extremist-groups-media-alex-stamos-rs-stelter-vpx.cnn) two experts, Alex Stamos and Chris Krebs, discuss the Proud Boys and indicate that they should be tracked and treated as similar to ISIS. Seems relevant as WP:RSOPINION though I would like some second opinions and suggestions on the wording if possible. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Have other reliable sources reported on this? That might make it notable. Vexations (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

These sources are hardly reliable, nor are they experts, they have well-known and proven political bias which should be noted if their opinions are used. DanBoomerman (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization that they aren't experts. According to his Wikipedia page, Krebs served as Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the United States Department of Homeland Security from November 2018 to November 2020. He seems to be a SME on cybersecurity policy, including as it pertains to terrorism. Stamos is a former Chief Security Officer at Facebook and is a current professor at Stanford and his Stanford University bio reveals a lot of additional qualifications that aren't on his Wikipedia page. I think he could reasonably qualify as a SME, given his intersectional work with tech and democracy. Given this, I think we can include their comments as they are relevant experts, and they absolutely be attributed per WP:RSOPINION because the twp are clearly opining in the linked clip. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Doco on Proudboys leading capital attack

The ABC has released this powerful and compelling documentary that exposes the extent of the proudboys planning and leadership in the capitol attack. Amazing footage. Proud boys clearly lead the attack and use military tactics during the attack the capitol https://medium.com/four-corners-downfall-the-last-days-of-president/four-corners-downfall-the-last-days-of-president-trump-january-31-2021-abc-full-show-95184669a026 Bacondrum 20:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure that's a good link to post here? It seems to be a link to a Medium page that is serving to link users to an illegal streaming service . — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum, Is that the same as this: https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/downfall:-the-last-days-of-president-trump/13110382 Vexations (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, but I’m not sure if ABC is available out of Australia. Didn’t know Medium was dodgy. Bacondrum 23:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum, medium itself is fine (except as a reference, because WP:SPS), but the page links to an url shortner that redirects to sites that appear unsafe. The abc URL seems to work from where I am, on the other side of the world. Vexations (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks Vexations Bacondrum 08:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect date on daily beast reference?

I would fix it myself, but there are a lot of warnings on this page about editing.

I think found an error in this page. Under the section titled "Membership and doctrine" it says that "The Daily Beast reported in February 2018..." but the reference is from November 2018. I read the referenced article thinking that perhaps the bylaws were from February of 2018 but no mention is made of that in the Daily Beast article either. I then sought out the actual bylaws themselves. I also searched for other Daily Beast articles which could have been the intended reference, but found none. The article referenced seems to be the correct one other than the February date.

I tried to find outside sources which mentioned this date but could not find any which makes this claim. The adl website mentioned bylaws changes in Oct 2018 and quoted from them. Searching from this quote did not produce any documents from October, but I did find a copy of the November 24 bylaws (enacted 11/25/2018) from here and here (exhibit 1 at the end) which are identical. While the existence of these November documents does not preclude that other changes took place in Feb 2018, I just simply can find no evidence of this.

I think the correct change is just to swap "February" for "November" but I'll leave that to a pro who knows the rules better than me. Thanks for doing a great job making the infinitely-valuable resource that is wikipedia everyone! 2601:1C0:6E01:16D0:117C:5987:FDEC:1E91 (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls added that in [[4]] on 28 September 2020. Perhaps they remember why there is a discrepancy? Vexations (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist?

the designation of this group as a "terrorist organisation" is factually incorrect. The cited article clearly states; "The motion now awaits consideration from leadership in Ottawa, which reportedly has the final say in the matter." DanBoomerman (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Vexations (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That will be the second step, and it would put Proud Boys on the list of internatioally-0recognized terrorist groups. Even if it is only one nation (for example the Iranian government lists the American Department of Defense as a terrorist group), any recognition qualifies. I would guess that Proud Boys are on the fast track to such infamy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs) 18:32, January 26, 2021 (UTC)

Only Canada lists the Proud Boys as a Terrorist entity. No other country currently recognizes the Proud boys as a terror organization. That is an important distinction that should be clearly made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F6:EF05:D13D:40F7:8024:F166:7ED3 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethan Nordean Arrested related to Capitol Riot

"Ethan Nordean, sergeant at arms of the Seattle chapter, was charged with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, aiding and abetting, and knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building"

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-arrests-seattle-washington-courts-f128fa38d6ad2ca0561985a4138b83fe TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

All white group?

The chairman Tarrio is Afro Cuban so it is not an all white group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD40:6D00:7C2B:10CC:F7BE:1D26 (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No one said they were all white. VQuakr (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist political organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada. "White nationalist" FALSE Also There is no Source or Facts stated that accuses them of engaging in violence in US or Canada. Its a Opinion needs to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:6B40:DA:D140:3F8C:A961:9A73 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

arrestee rosters

So from my understanding of WP:BLPCRIME, it's not proper to just rattle off so and so and so were arrested even with citations prior to convictions. Whether it's this one, or Antifa type articles. This can be entertained at BLP/N if needed. Graywalls (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, I suspect that presumption may be weakened in cases where those arrested openly advertised their actions on teh socials. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, Graywalls. Maybe we could summarize the list to simply mention name and arrests generally and then reference link the allegations without mentioning specific charges. If a conviction occurs, then we can expandTuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant language is For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. "Seriously consider" does not mean that mentioning that certain people have been accused of criminal activity is forbidden by policy, and we routinely mention the names of people accused of high profile unusual crimes of long term significance. I believe that the January 6 events at the Capitol are of enormous importance and that it is justified to mention these arrests as long as the content is properly referenced and we do not include any language stating that the person is guilty unless they are convicted. These are not random people but members of a violent far right organization that seeks out public attention. I believe that this content is necessary to a complete encyclopedic understanding of the Proud Boys, and that the article is worse off without it. In the spirit of full disclosure, I added most of the content in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Currently, the section "Storming of the Capitol Building" is gutted and a reader would have no idea that any Proud Boys entered the Capitol or were arrested for their actions that day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could take a simple tally, rather than stating the names and charges? Such as, "8 prominent officers in the PB organization have been arrested and charged with felony crimes related to the Capitol Riot". Then, we're being accurate without impugning specific people.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, are you sure you meant "impugning"? I don't think that anyone has been doing that. Vexations (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, "charging" and "impugning" are rather different, especially when the charges are basically founded on public confessions. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The gutting of the Storming of the Capitol Building section is concerning. It is well-supported by reliable sources that the Proud Boys played a central role in the storming of the capitol, or, as the Wall Street Journal puts it: they were key instigators. [5] Somehow that needs to be reflected in the article. Vexations (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I should have used another word. I thought the BLP rule was meant to avoid having a person's character called into question before the trial has started (is that impugnment of character?). I didn't assume that there was an issue listing charges associated with names, but it makes sense to do more than necessary to pressume innocence, in court or public opinion.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The proud boys and these arrests are pretty much daily front page news globally at the moment. I don't think WP:BLPCRIME applies here at all. The proud boys and these particular members are going down in historic infamy, of the highest order, there's no doubt about it. Also, as pointed out already "seriously consider not including" does not mean do not include. Once the scale and infamy/notoriety, weight of video evidence etc is taken into account there is no reason to exclude. I think the way some of the content has been rephrased is an improvement though. Bacondrum 23:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion/non inclusion should be consistent with Antifa type articles. So and so have been arrested/charged here doesn't seem necessary if such contents aren't regularly included on Antifa type articles. Graywalls (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The proud boys and these arrests are pretty much daily front page news globally at the moment. See WP:NOTNEWS. The way it's justified by the person that first inserted it, These are not random people but members of a violent far right organization that seeks out public attention. sounds rather biased. Some editors vigorously opposed to the inclusion of Eric Clanton and bike lock beating incident into Antifa article for example. Why shouldn't the inclusion/non inclusion on these political articles be somewhat similar? Graywalls (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS does not mean to censor things though if they are WP:DUE. If there is a problem with the Antifa article go and fix it there, don't complain here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, because the bike lock beating incident and the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol are not remotely similar? Vexations (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Proud_Boys_and_political_protest_type_articles_in_general Graywalls (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I was brought in from BLPN and believe that while not all of those arrested should be named due to BLPCRIME and BLPNAME, Joe Biggs is a WP:publicfigure so WP:BLPCRIME shouldn't apply to him. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also coming from BLPN, I agree that most of these individuals appear to be covered by WP:BLPCRIME and should not have their names included. Media figures and politicians are almost always going to be public figures, but individuals need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Simply being associated with a group or organization does not make a person a public figure, and I think there are many reasons why we take serious consideration of privacy issues and the possible harm we can cause. I'm also not sure how including the names of specific non-notable individuals is going to improve the article. I don't think anyone disagrees that the January 6 events are an incredibly important issue, but the issue here is specifically about why the names of particular individuals is important to include, and that does not seem to have been addressed yet by those who have said the names should be included. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, but those in leadership roles, and arguably those charged with the more serious offense of conspiracy, will pass BLPCRIME as public figures (the leaders) and people prominently involved in a crime of international impact (conspiracists). It's not a simple binary call here. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)\

JzG, whether or not an individual is a public figure is not determined by the severity of their alleged crime, but rather by the factors described in WP:LOWPROFILE. Ultimately, this is a binary call of whether or not to include names of particular individuals in the article as we either we include them or we don't. Would you agree that we should be evaluating whether to include individuals' names on a case-by-case basis based on those factors? (Also, I should note that legally, "conspiracy" isn't a more serious crime but rather is simply the agreement to commit a crime or other illegal act between two or more people). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, I disagree. It's our determination what constitutes public v. non-public in this specific context, because the names are in multiple reliable sources. BLPCRIME overrides V and RS only for private individuals; when people have deliberately inserted themselves into the public eye, we're not obligated to protect them from the consequences of their actions. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

JzG, the issue is exactly whether or not they are non-public figures. You seriously disagree with evaluating individuals on a case-by-case basis for whether they are public figures? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, I concur with Cullen328. We do not wave away the consensus of independent sources on what constitutes a public figure. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

JzG, what sources discuss whether these individuals are public figures? Being in news reports does not necessarily make one a public figure. The issue is whether a person voluntarily seeks out media attention or has a certain level of influence, and that is not the same as being arrested for participating in a high profile criminal event that involved hundreds of people. People who engaged in multiple interviews or who are being described as leaders or instigators of the event would be public figures, but I strongly disagree with your implication that we should not be looking at the individual names and instead should make a blanket exception here to WP:BLPCRIME even for non-public figures. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, you are arguing from a false premise. The concept of a public figure or a limited purpose public figure is an artifact from defamation law, triggering the threshold test of actual malice when a statement is false.

In this case, the statement is true: they have been charged, and usually as a result of gleefully posting images or video of them committing the crime. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Coming from BLPN, I could see merit to naming those who are notable especially if sources say they had some sort of leadership role. I don't see any reason to name non notable individuals, especially without a conviction baring some extraordinary circumstance. Since a week or so after the storming, I've seen some limited coverage of the Proud Boys in NZ, especially stuff like the Canadian designation, but I have not see daily coverage, let alone daily front page coverage. I suspect the coverage in Malaysia has been even less. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Some of the leaders are public figures or have publicly claimed leadership roles. Some the crimes they are accused of clearly rise above the level of "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." A complicating factor is that some of the rioters have been charged with fairly minor minor offences like trespassing, and prosecutors are still working to bring more serious charges like conspiracy. I don't think it's a good idea to simply list anyone charged with anything, nor is it worthwhile listing people who have so far only been charged with minor offences. People with leadership roles, who have already been charged with serious offences, should be mentioned. Nicholas Ochs for example, a one-time Republican candidate for the Hawaii State Legislature who claims to have founded a Honolulu chapter, has been charged with conspiracy.[6] That meets two important thresholds; he's a public figure AND he has been charged with (several) very serious offences. Vexations (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Which guideline are you relying on to argue that severity of allegation sways inclusion decision when it has not resulted in a conviction? Just for scholarly purpose, here's a discussion on the inclusion of bike lock assault that resulted in the assailant being sentenced Talk:Antifa_(United_States)/Archive_22#Bike_lock_assault_by_Eric_Clanton but for some reason not one bit of that was decided to be included. Accusation that a phone has been grabbed from someone's hand could range anywhere from a simple theft to robbery. Hypothetical example: Nothing in guidelines that I'm aware of suggests that if the cop was to charge the alleged perpetrator with robbery, we should lean towards inclusion than charged as a simple theft/harassment. Graywalls (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Take the 2019 El Paso shooting as an example. It was headline news across the country, the shooter had been named by multiple media outlets, and his name was on relevant wiki page the same day. There was discussion of whether his name should be posted, with some back and forth, and even a question of whether or not we should be practicing damnatio memoriae (here). The consensus was largely that regardless of what Wikipedia does, the cat's out of the bag already because his name is everywhere. Further, Wikipedia is not censored, so as long as he has at least been charged (not just arrested) and cited in multiple headline news articles, his name should be included as part of the NPOV documentation of the events.

Similar articles follow a similar pattern, e.g. Charleston church shooting, the 2020 boogaloo killings, the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, the Poway synagogue shooting, the Jeffersontown Kroger shooting, the Charlottesville car attack, the October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts, etc. Mass murders, bombings, assassinations, and attempts of those sort are usually high profile enough that someone who has been charged with the crime will forever be associated with that event regardless of what we do on Wikipedia. So, to simplify all that into an easy rule of thumb, here's the test to use for inclusion: If they were ultimately found not guilty, would we still include their name on the relevant wiki article for the event, even if only to cite the fact that they were initially charged and later found not guilty? If so, even if they've only been charged with the crime, we can recognize that whether or not they ultimately end up convicted is irrelevant because they will still be notable and end up included on the relevant page either way. -NorsemanII (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

NorsemanII, but let's not forget that those incidents are substantially less significant than the first ever storming of the Capitol with the intent of overturning a democratic election. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

JzG, I don't think anyone has said the event is not significant. The main issue is whether the individuals are public figures or WP:LOWPROFILE under WP:BLPCRIME. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert Right. The test for naming these individuals prior to being convicted is whether or not they have become so infamous that they would still be mentioned here even if they were ultimately found not guilty, even if just to say that they were charged but found not guilty. As JzG noted, rioters storming the Capitol Building with zip ties, beating a police officer to death, and having previously discussed plans to kill congressional representatives makes headline news that goes well beyond even something like the 2020 boogaloo killings or the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot. Leaders will certainly end up getting named here, even if just to say whether or not they were found guilty, and even followers will probably get named too, as long as the list is less than 20 or so people. -NorsemanII (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with including leaders and followers who had prominent roles, but not simply anyone arrested for a crime related to the January 6 riot. I think WP:BLPCRIME requires individual consideration. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethnicity/Race of Enrique Tarrio in the Opening Paragraph

Question: In the opening paragraph, Enrique Tarrio is currently described Cuban-American, which is true, though the ethnic descriptor present on his own page states that he is Afro-Cuban. Should we include the more specific ethnic/racial modifier of "Afro-Cuban", or keep "Cuban-American" as the modifier?

I'm seeing quite a few RS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) refer to Tarrio as Afro-Cuban or note that he identifies as such.

My initial thoughts are that if we are to include his ethnicity in the opening paragraph, we ought to use the more specific term of "Afro-Cuban", though I am wondering where consensus lies on this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with Afro-cuban, but don't make it into an WP:EASTEREGG as you previously did. Don't remove the informant part again without discussion, it's backed by three RS's. Bacondrum 09:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are we including his ethnicity in the opening paragraph of this page but not his own? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10 - Well since there's still discussion and I don't see a clear consensus, I'd like to give my thoughts. Sources may have described him as being "Afro-Cuban", but Tarrio was born, raised and most notable in America. He's an American of Cuban heritage, which is what the page for Cuban Americans states. Also technically, the proper term that should be linked is Afro-Latino Americans (describing Americans of Afro-Latino background) or maybe add "Cuban-American" but then link to both the aforementioned pages? I also agree with Emir of Wikipedia. Ultimately, I'm not sure if his ethnicity is relevant to the lede. People can always click the link his page if they want to see his background. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, you make a good point. I'd support changing to Cuban American or leaving off ethnicity all together...after all it only appears relevant to those trying to say "look, they're not racist, they have a Black member" which is a kinda weird racial/racist claim, IMO. Bacondrum 19:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Tarrio's ethnicity somehow relevant to his notability? MOS:ETHNICITY says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Terrorist" in intro sentence

Bringing over a discussion that started at Talk:Enrique Tarrio#terrorist designation to here, since this seems the proper place for it. I see the lead sentence has been changed to say "The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist terrorist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada." This seems to have been added today based on the choice by Canada to designate them a terrorist organization. I'm not sure if there is a wider standard for when a lead sentence can describe a group as a terrorist organization—is one country designating it as such sufficient, or should we omit it in favor of just leaving the sentence (also already in the lead) that Canada designated them as such? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You might want to look at Hezbollah. Many countries have called it a terrorist group over a long period of time, yet they had the sense not to shove that into the first sentence of the lead. We must remember MOS:TERRORIST applies even if some people do not like an organisation founded by a black man. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope you are not implying without evidence that a) editors are making editorial decisions based on their distaste for the group, and b) their distaste for the group is due to it being founded chaired by a black man. Your first two sentences are useful input; you might consider striking the third, since if you didn't intend it that way, that's how it reads. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As a point of fact, the Proud Boys was founded by Gavin McInnes who is of Scottish ancestry. Tarrio joined much later. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha, yeah Emir of Wikipedia don't let the facts stop you falsely accusing the rest of us of bad faith editing and racism. Bacondrum 23:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, Hezbollah is a political party. Proud Boys is a far right hate group. You might have a point if you were talking about Hezbollah's Jihad Council - sort of like the difference between Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Not only does LABEL apply but we are supposed to use reliable sources. Most sources restrict the term terrorist group to a group set up in order to carry out terrorist attacks, such as al Qaeda. They also define the term terrorist attack more narrowly. TFD (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, the Canada Gazette, as the official government gazette of the Government of Canada is as reliable and official as it comes. http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2021/2021-02-03-x2/html/sor-dors8-eng.html Vexations (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The source merely says that a government regulation has added the Proud Boys to a list of terrorist organizations. No one has questioned that. The issue is how important it is to this article. TFD (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you wrote we are supposed to use reliable sources. I gave you the most reliable source imaginable. It is widely reported on. Every major news source in Canada reported on it: The Globe and Mail the Star the National Post], the CBC Vexations (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the Hezbollah analogy is a red herring, of the highest order. Imagine Trump was connected to Hezbollah and urging them to storm the capitol? lol! I think Canada designating the PB's a terrorist organisation is a very big deal and should be mentioned in the first sentence. If the USA made such a designation there would be no question about putting it in the first sentence, would there? Even if the USA was the only country in the world to do so, we would include this fact...citisens of the USA often think only their view of the world matters, but that is not how the rest of us outside the US see things. Bacondrum 23:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be stated as currently is in the lede, but moved up to the first sentence. Having one of the two main countries they operate in designate them a terrorist organisation is a very big deal. The Canadian government is not some pissy little second rate cousin to the USA. Editors should not be saying things along the line of "Oh, it's only Canada". Bacondrum 23:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, I said that in order to call them terrorists we need a reliable source that calls them terrorists, not just a source that someone has called them that. Do you understand the difference? There are reliable sources that some Proud Boys believe in the QAnon conspiracy theory. That does not mean that the theory is true, just that reliable sources have quoted people who claim it is true. TFD (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. We have a seemingly interminable number of reliable sources that report Canada has designated the group a terrorist organisation. Are you saying Canada has not made the designation? That the Canadians are unreliable? or that the news oulets reporting on this are unreliable? I've got a copy of one of Australia's most respected papers, the The Age sitting in front of me right now, page 27 article title: "Proud Boys on Terrorist List" first para: "Canada has described the Proud Boys a terrorist entity, adding the far-right group to a list that includes al-Qaeda, ISIS and al-Shabab." Bacondrum 00:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read the disputed wording which was posted at the top of this discussion thread: "The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist terrorist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada." In order to call them terrorists we need a reliable source that calls them terrorists, not just sources that someone has called them that.

In answer to your second question, the Canadian government is not a reliable source for determining something is a terrorist group, any more than they are a reliable source for determining that cannabis and coca leaves are narcotics. (Cannabis and cocaine were added to the Schedule of the Narcotic Control Act by order in council just as the Proud Boys were added to a schedule of the Criminal Code of Canada by order in Council.) Note too that the definition of "terrorist group" in the Criminal Code applies to Part II of the Criminal Code only.[7]

TFD (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, thanks. I’m not completely sure about the reasoning there, weed and cocaine are narcotics. Though I do think we should say Canada has designated them as a terrorist organisation rather than calling them terrorists in wikivoice. Bacondrum 04:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum, It seems we're using an intensional definition and an extensional definition at the same time. If Canada makes a list of terrorists and add the Proud Boys, that's an extensional definition. If we have a scholarly source that puts forward a set of criteria for terrorism, and shows that the PBs meet all those criteria, that's an intensional definition. TFD appears to want the latter. What he's not taking into consideration is that Bill Blair (politician) has stated, after the house called on the government to make that designation, that the designation would be based on objective criteria. My view is that both definitions are met, but I can see that because those deliberations have not been made public, we'd require a published source. I'm fine with clarifying that it is a designation by public safety and emergency preparedness. Vexations (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: A lot of the discussion above is about whether or not a designation by a single government of a group as a “terrorist” organization is enough for us to include it in the lede. We don’t use, for example, New Jersey's declaration that Antifa is a domestic anarchist extremist organization in its opening, despite it being a government source. Similarly, we don’t label the Council on American–Islamic Relations as a terrorist group in the lede, even though it has been declared one by the UAE (a sub-section in the article is devoted to this instead) and the FBI believes they are connected to Hamas (which is included in another sub-section).

While it is true that Canada labels the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization, any inclusion of the government’s claim should be attributed as such. I can’t find RS that regularly describe them as a terrorist organization in their own voice (I.e. without attributing the claim to Canada itself). As such, it might be possible to make a subsection in the article dedicated to Canada’s designation, but it should be framed along the same ways as it is done for CAIR, with both Canada’s opinion and the opinion of those who disagree (either quotes from PB representatives, or from opinion writers that publish in major newspapers). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, your claim that New Jersey designated Antifa as a "domestic anarchist extremist organization" is not supported by your source. Vexations (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, these are poor comparisons, and we will not be adding any self serving denials by the PB's as per WP:MANDY. There's no issue stating that the Canadian government designates these guys a terror organisation, it's not in wikivoice, it's a statement of fact. Bacondrum 20:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations: The source literally is a New Jersey state government document that describes Antifa as anarchist extremists. Other sources issued by New Jersey have used the label of “anarchist extremists” and lumped them among domestic extremists in their analyses.

@Bacondrum: WP:MANDY is not a policy, nor a guideline, but an essay. Over at Uyghur genocide, another page that I have been heavily involved in editing, we include official Chinese denials of human rights abuses because we are supposed to maintain a neutral POV. Of course China (or any accused state) would deny human rights abuses, but it is appropriate to include it in the article. Likewise, we should include those statements that have been covered in news articles here, even if we don’t agree with the group’s rosy self-characterization. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, There is a difference between an amendment to the criminal code of a country (Canada) and a description by a government agency (the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness. The United States simply cannot designate something a "domestic terrorist organisation". You quoted "domestic anarchist extremist organization" , and when confronted about that changed it to “anarchist extremists”. I struggle to believe that your are editing in good faith. Vexations (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, NJ recognizes that Antifa is domestic (as opposed to international) and that it is a "anarchist extremist" group. I didn't put that in quotes, as if it were directly lifted from the source, but there's a basic syllogism there that would render my statement as a reasonable paraphrase of the source. I'm a bit confused as to why the implication is that I am editing in bad faith, especially since I'm willing to provide more sources (which I did, after you objected to my paraphrasing) and to engage with others on specific objections. What's more, Canada doesn't appear to have passed legislation to specifically designate the PB as terrorists, but rather a government agency seems to have made the designation, akin to that which NJ has done.

Separately, why does my analysis as it applies to the Council on American–Islamic Relations (the UAE has officially designated them as a terrorist group, but the article handles it with nuance in several sections) indicate bad faith? I stated in my comment that "it might be possible to make a subsection in the article dedicated to Canada’s designation, but it should be framed along the same ways as it is done for CAIR, with both Canada’s opinion and the opinion of those who disagree (either quotes from PB representatives, or from opinion writers that publish in major newspapers)". We have two cases in which a government has officially declared a group to be a terrorist group. We don't have RS (as far as I have seen) that have described PB as a "terrorist" group in their own voice, so I'm struggling to see why we should include it simply because a government has asserted it. Per WP:V, "[a]ll quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material," and we have seen plenty of reporting that Canada has designated the PB as terrorist. We can include Canada's designation, but it should be attributed to the relevant Canadian agency until RS report that the PB are terrorists. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, I think a section that explains how the designation came about and what it means would be helpful. This article might be usable: https://www.lawfareblog.com/complicated-consequences-canadas-proud-boys-terrorist-listing. Lawfare has been considered at WP:RS/N and consensus appears to be that while it calls itself a blog, it is a reliable source. Perhaps you can find more. Vexations (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, with [8] I have expanded the section of Canada with what I hope is a clear explanation of what the designation as a terrorist entity means. I hope this clarifies things for you too. Your insistence that " Canada doesn't appear to have passed legislation" is irrelevant, because that is not how the law works; you cannot legislate such a designation in Canada. It has to be done this way; it's the law. Vexations (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

White Nationalist?

I do not believe "white nationalist" is a factual representation of this organization. They have shown to have a multi-racial membership and indeed are a multi-national organization that includes chapters world-wide, including in Israel. I have found no factual citations that they promote a white "homeland" or advocate racial separatism. The fact that they are a "nationalist" group in their respective home countries is easily supported by facts, so why introduce non-factual adjectives? DanBoomerman (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The characterization as white nationalist is supported by sources in the article. Your own assessment of the group isn't relevant. VQuakr (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, no one wants to discuss it again. Bacondrum 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not sourced or mentioned elsewhere in the article. The SPLC categorizes them as general hate, rather than white nationalist. TFD (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I downloaded all the online references and searched them for white nationalist/ism. I found 409 matches. Vexations (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A search of the SPLC article on them shows 14 matches for the terms, but doesn't call them white nationalist.[9] While you may find it a subtle distinction, the group includes people with a variety of types of hate, including white nationalism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, etc. But unlike other hate groups, none of these types of hate are core to their ideology, hence they are listed under general hate, rather than white nationalist. TFD (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

From that same article: "Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions". They're probably not "primarily" anything, other than a street gang. Vexations (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There are no sources calling them white nationalists. The only source that comes close is the SPLC, which is not a reliable source due to their activitist nature and reputation for distorting the truth. Even the SPLC only says they share white nationalist memes. They don't call them white nationalists. Given that the vast majority of sources avoid using this term, none of them directly call them white nationalists, the fact that they never express any white nationalist beliefs, and due to the fact that it's absurd on its face, given how racially diverse the group is, they clearly should not be called white nationalists.

Anyone arguing otherwise needs to take a step back consider whether he is really looking at this objectively. It's easy to get emotional about politically charged topics. Not liking a group is not a good enough reason to comb through and ignore the vast majority of sources and use an exaggerated characterization drawn from the most biased and inflammatory sources that flies in the face of any reasonable assessment of the preponderance of evidence.

These types of articles tend to get babysat by radicals with too much free time who fake consensus by dogpiling the occasional person who notices the issue and goes to the talk page to discuss it. Then they delete the discussion so that no one notices they're in the distinct minority and have not successfuly defended their point-of-vew. I see my comments about the erroneous "neo-fascist" label are already gone, even though that was just a few months ago that I wrote that. This problem is getting worse, as we've now gone from "neo-fascist" to the even more absurd "white nationalist". If you cannot refrain from letting your politics influence the way you edit these articles, stop editing them. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the general consensus of reliable sources. It's not supposed to be used as a tool to advance a radical political agenda to label all conservatives you don't like as white nationalists and fascists.Rectipaedia (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why earlier participants in this conversation just said that sources exist when you Google them; that isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:V. I've gone ahead and added a few of these sources (which are indeed easily found) to hopefully put this issue to bed.

@Rectipaedia: Please comment on content rather than contributors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The correct approach is to summarize what expert sources say rather than search for sources that say what you want to see in the article. TFD (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. What is the argument for using obviously erroneous terms only used by left-wing sources like NPR when more neutral and objective sources never use the term? If there's a disagreement, it seems obvious to me that we should go with the commonly used descriptors. If Wikipedia is going to describe a racially diverse group that explicitly disavows white nationanlism as white nationalists, there needs to be a widespread majority view among reliable sources that they're lying.

From WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. 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." Whenever you see the Proud Boys described as white nationlists, it's opinion, not fact. Every supporting argument that one can find depends on the idea that they are secretly white nationalists, despite their disavowels of the ideology and racial diversity, and that their referrals to "Western chauvinism" are dog-whistles. There are no sources that make these accusations based on anything other than speculation. For example, the SPLC says "McInnes plays a duplicitous rhetorical game: claiming to reject white nationalism while espousing a laundered version of popular white nationalist tropes. He has ties to the racist right and has contributed to such hate sites as VDare.com and American Renaissance, which publish the work of white supremacists and so-called race realists." The idea that they're white nationalists is far from an established fact. It is speculation by a decidedly left-wing, activist organization, that has been forced, in the past, to retract similarly erroneous accusations (e.g. see Maajid Nawaz's case in particular, but there are many others)[10]. In all likelihood, those few news articles that use the term are relying on the SPLC's designation or even Wikipedia! We can't know because journalists don't use citations. From WP:R: "Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing." I suggest looking for a source that used the term before either Wikipedia or the SPLC did.

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." This clearly applies to a group that has repeatedly denied the accusation that they're white nationalists and which the FBI has explicitly said are not extremists. The idea that non-whites who denouce white nationalism are secretly white nationalists is inherently controversial and needs to be widely sourced before it can be nakedly asserted without attribution. The founder has even sued the SPLC for referring to them as a hate group.

"Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." The vast majority of sources do not refer to them as white nationalists. Rectipaedia (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

New Wikipedia article

Please take a look at Ethan Nordean. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Public figures

Many of these Proud Boys members who were arrested are limited interest public figures, defined in U.S. law as "a person who voluntarily and prominently participates in a public controversy for the purpose of influencing its outcome". WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures. They include former candidates for public office and other people considered celebrities on the far right who are frequently interviewed by the media and have podcasts and online shows devoted to discussing controversies for the public. Joe Biggs is just one example. I see no reason to exclude the names of public figures who have been arrested for serious offenses. Here are other examples of Proud Boys arrested at the Capitol who are public figures: Nicholas Ochs was a 2020 candidate for the Hawaii State Legislature, backed by Roger Stone. Gabriel Garcia was a 2020 candidate for the Florida House of Representatives. Nicholas DeCarlo runs a group called Murder the Media and has a YouTube channel called Thunderdome TV. Ethan Nordean AKA Rufio Panman was interviewed at length in 2018 by Alex Jones on Infowars and runs a political podcast called Rebel Talk with Rufio. I support mentioning these public figures in our coverage of the arrests of Proud Boys in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a good point, but we need to make sure that this article does not turn into a list of members who have been accused of a crime, unless of course that is what they become primarily known for. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Seems obvious to me that these are notable events, the arrests have made international news for weeks on end, these men and their actions are now infamous and historically they are highly significant/noteworthy. Bacondrum 23:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Cullen328. Yes, it's tricky - the difference between legal terms and Wikipedia policy. In the end, though, a limited purpose public figure is actually remarkably consistent with how Wikipedia views things. Someone who inserts themselves into public discourse in a specific area, may be considered to have forfeited the normal protections accorded to those who are dragged in against their will.

Proceed with caution, but there is certainly no prohibition here. The fact that they set out to be the heroes of the new Trump era and ended up being pathetic victims of their own incompetence, is really not our problem. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There is one person arrested who was wearing a Proud Boys hat in the Capitol but I have not been able to verify any other involvement with Proud Boys or previous public advocacy. I do not intend to add truly low profile people like him to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Each individual needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis before including their name based on the factors at WP:LOWPROFILE. I would likely support including the names of previous candidates for statewide offices. I think we should be careful with making broad statements, such as "frequently interviewed by the media" if that is not accurate, and I don't think we should be including names of individuals who are not public figures simply because some other Proud Boys members are public figures. Under U.S. law, one or two interviews would rarely be sufficient to establish a person as a "limited public figure". think it would also be helpful to discuss why particular names are relevant to the article, such as having a leadership role in the organization that is discussed in reliable sources or having actually "prominently participated" in the events, which usually means having some type of important or enduring role. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The question for whether a person is notable isn’t necessarily whether or not their face and name were published in an article alongside a notable crime, but whether the people have a high enough profile to be considered public figures. I’m struggling to see that, since I can’t find reporting from multiple RS on those who were arrested as individuals.

WP:BLPNAME states that "[w]hen deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.” Implied in this quote is the principle that the brief appearance of names in news stories may not be enough to warrant inclusion, even if the event the article describes is notable.

I also take issue with the analysis that all of those arrested “prominently” participated in the Capitol riots. Being arrested for trespassing, for example, might not bring some of these people up to the level of being limited-interest public figures, so we should use caution when placing names here.

The point of the article is to provide an encyclopedic description of the Proud Boys. As such, we should not name its rank-and-file members except where the omission of their names negatively impacts our ability to describe the Proud Boys itself. We need to use caution in choosing who to include—if the inclusion of a name does no more than simply adding another name to the article, it should be left out. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Red herring - hundreds of people have been arrested, no one is arguing to make an exhaustive list of all arrestees, just the prominent ones. Bacondrum 20:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum#s, your statement does not appear accurate given several of the arguments above (and below) where people have explicitly said that being a participant should be enough for inclusion and we should not be evaluating individuals on a case-by-case basis for whether they had a prominent role in the event or the Proud Boys. Mikehawk10 is saying that an arrest alone is not sufficient to determine the person is a public figure or had prominently participated in the January 6 riots, and I agree with that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the reason for mentioning members unless it improves the article. Joe Biggs was arrested in connection with the events of Jan. 6 (which is all the information his article includes) isn't very helpful. TFD (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual (linked from "Public figures" in WP:BLP). It tells that essentially any person who was "engaged in high-profile activity" should be treated as a public figure. Attacking the United States Capitol is an extremely "high-profile activity". My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • My very best wishes, that is not what WP:LOWPROFILE says, as determining what is "high profile activity" is based on the four examples (media attention, promotional activities, appearances and performances, and eminence). Which one of those do you believe applies to the participants in the January 6 riot who were arrested? For example, under "promotional activities", I think anyone who was giving interviews to the media or if anyone was hosting their own podcast or Youtube show when engaging in the riot, then they would be participating in an "attention-seeking manner" and they therefore no longer have the same privacy interest. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, these are just four examples. There are other high profile activities, and this is one of them. Also, #2 is very close: Has voluntarily ... participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee. Well, they certainly acted (a) "in an attention-seeking manner", (b) "for a cause" and (c) in relation to an election campaign. Yes, they did not act solely to seek attention, but to "change regime", but same can be said about any election-related activities. It does not matter if they were arrested or charged of anything. All of them, not only "Proud Boys", would qualify as public figures per this guideline, as soon as they are covered in RS. Sure, the WP:DUE still applies, but this is not a matter of BLP:CRIME. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
      • My very best wishes, engaging "in an attention-seeking manner" is not merely participating in a high-profile event (and certainly not under U.S. defamation law, which requires "prominent" participation for a person to be a limited public figure). Your reasoning would mean anyone who engages in a political demonstration would be a public figure, which is not true. Hence why I gave the example of individuals who had given interviews during the event or had been hosting their own podcast or Youtube show during it. Simply participating is not "attention-seeking" though, which is why individuals need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for their level of participation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
        • No, I am not saying that anyone who engages in a political demonstration would be a public figure. I am saying that anyone who was engaged in Storming of the United States Capitol AND covered in multiple RS should be treated as a "high-profile individual" (which I assume is the same as a "public figure" per this guideline). This is not just a political demonstration, but a unique and extremely high profile event in the history of USA, and the storming was a de facto "attention-seeking" activity which they did voluntarily, My very best wishes (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I disagree that storming the Capitol alone was a "de facto attention-seeking activity" (and that would also not be sufficient to establish an individual limited public figure under U.S. law, which requires an individual to have prominently participated in a controversy, regardless of how "high profile" the controversy), but I think we at least identified where we disagree. I don't think that WP:BLPCRIME no longer applies to hundreds of individuals solely from their participation in trespassing into the Capitol to overturn an election. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
            • And you are saying this guy is not seeking public attention? Look at him. Of course he does. He wants to make a political statement so that everyone knows. This is all a political performance, as usually during such events. That's why he dressed himself this way, just like the horn helmet-wearing "shaman". They have achieved their glory. My very best wishes (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
              • My very best wishes, I have already twice mentioned "individuals who had given interviews during the event or had been hosting their own podcast or Youtube show during it". That first article does not provide a lot of content for the Facebook livestream, such as whether it was public, and I would be interested in additional sources. As for Jacob Chansley, I do not believe anyone has argued that he is not a public figure, as he has repeatedly interacted with the media and that article also describes him as having a "leadership in the QAnon movement". However, Chansley being a public figure does not mean that everyone arrested for entering the Capitol was engaged in "a de facto attention-seeking activity" as you stated in your previous comment. I believe that the sources need to show that each person whose name is added was themselves engaged in activity that would make them a public figure. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                • No, my link was about another guy (not Chansley), one that you someone unilaterally removed from this page [11]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                  • My very best wishes, I think you need to check your diffs. You linked to two articles in your previous comment (including one about Chansley), and I have never edited this article at all. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                    • wallyfromdilbert Please don't WP:BLUDGEON the debate. You've said your piece. Bacondrum 05:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                      • Bacondrum#s, I don't know what you are talking about, but responding back to someone in a conversation is not bludgeoning the debate. Please take your advice elsewhere. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                        • please read the guideline and stop. Bludgeoning is disruptive and can lead to sanctions. Bacondrum 08:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                          • Bacondrum#s, your accusation is ridiculous. Please feel free to take me to ANI or else please stop yourself. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                            • A lot of them did broadcast their participation (hence the "attention-seeking"). That's why I gave this link as an example. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
                              • My very best wishes, yes, and I already responded to that link by asking if you had any others since that article provides little context and does not mention whether the stream was public (while also characterizing the livestreaming as an "accusation" from a "newly unsealed criminal complaint", which to me implies it may not have been public). You may want to reread my responses to you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Partial support: The former candidates for public office have certainly crossed the threshold of being a public figure (pretty much by definition), so Ochs and Garcia should definitely be mentioned by name. I don't think the other people mentioned are notable enough, their social media views appear to be in the hundreds and the fact that they're trying to be a social media figure doesn't actually make them a public figure.Shadybabs (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Letting the defense speak for themselves

I had added a copy of the values from their website, then someone undid it. How can there be a fair court trial if the defendant is not even there to represent himself? Obviously, attitudes do not always match behaviors, but at least is what they claim. This is what was added:

---

The tenets listed by the organization themself are:

"Minimal Government

Maximum Freedom

Anti-Political Correctness

Anti-Drug War

Closed Borders

Anti-Racial Guilt

Anti-Racism

Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)

Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)

Glorifying the Entrepreneur

Venerating the Housewife

Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism"

https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/wankers-disrupt-indigenous-ceremony-morning-file-tuesday-july-4-2017/

https://wbckfm.com/kalamazoo-michigan-proud-boys-antifa-counter-protesters-meet/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 22:11, January 31, 2021 (UTC)

If we can find RS that describe their beliefs in these ways, then something probably can be added to the article in wikitext. Otherwise, we would require attribution to the particular source you are referencing (it's a bit unclear since there isn't a link) to describe how they describe their own ideology. Where are you sourcing this from? Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.wpr.org/controversial-proud-boys-embrace-western-values-reject-feminism-and-political-correctness gives: McInnes and his followers believe there are 10 ways to "save America": Abolish prisons, give each American a gun, legalize drugs, end welfare, close borders to illegal immigrants, outlaw censorship, venerate the housewife, glorify the entrepreneur, shut down the government and declare "the West is the best." The article links to a video of McInnes, who lists the "10 ways to save America" as 1 Abolish Prison, 2 Give Everyone a Gun, 3 Legalize Drugs, 4 End Welfare, 5 Close the Borders, 6 Outlaw Censorship, 7 Venerate the Housewife, 8 Glorify the Entrepreneur, 9 Recognize "West is the Best", 10 Shut Down the Government. Some not-so subtle difference there. Vexations (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Those are pretty close. The news sources I just added are using quotes from citing te PB website directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 08:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment We are not here to promote their ideas. Nor provide the "defense" a platform to "speak for themselves", this would be a blatant violation of multiple policies including WP:ADVOCATE WP:SOAPBOX WP:NPOV WP:PROMO WP:POVPUSHING and others. I think this discussion should be deleted as WP:NOTFORUM and because of the the above policy violations that Hippypink is advocating. Bacondrum 06:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think that the discussion should be deleted per se. The first comment in here might be off-topic, but I think that the comment from Vexations was substantive. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bacondrum 09:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Two news sources added. Why didnt you just say something productive like "you need to include a link to a news source that quoted their values." instead of just trying to delete everything? Would have taken far fewer less words, and added value instead of subtracting it.

Update on local chapter controversy

Article addresses local chapter devolution due to the national brand controversies.

Some chapters seem to be clarifying their opposition to the unlawful violent acts allegedly perpetrated by national level figures.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/12/proud-boys-splintering-after-capitol-riot-revelations-leader/6709017002/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, If I had to summarize that article, I point out the following:

• The Proud Boys has long been a refuge for white supremacists, anti-Semites and assorted extremists seeking a veneer of legitimacy.
• state chapters disavow the group's chairman
• leaders bicker in public
• Tarrio was arrested days before the Capitol riot and charged with two federal weapons charges
• Tarrio was outed as a longtime FBI informant
• members of the group were arrested for their involvement in the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6
• on Feb. 3, Canada designated the Proud Boys as a domestic terrorist group
• three state chapters denounced Tarrio
• three state chapters proclaim their independence from central Proud Boy leadership
• experts are concerned about more radical factions of the Proud Boys emerging

Your summary suggests that the article says something it doesn't.The article does not say that Some chapters seem to be clarifying their opposition, not does it say that the unlawful violent acts were allegedly perpetrated by national level figures. Vexations (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The spirit of the article appears to be;

3 local chapters have distanced themselves from national level leadership, due to the loss of the air of respectability resulting from the January 6th involvement.

I post it here because is catalogues the chapter rift (which should be included), the other information has already been included. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, we probably should, if we had sources that say that say that the rift is due to the the national leadership supporting the storming of the capitol, and regional leadership opposing it. This is not such a source, because the article does not say why the three chapters distanced themselves. "The barrage of controversy, discord and betrayal seems to have been too much for at least three state chapters of the Proud Boys, who used the messaging app Telegram to denounce Tarrio and proclaim their independence from central Proud Boy leadership." That this is due to the loss of the air of respectability is WP:OR, so we can't say that. Vexations (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

the "air of respectability" part is listed in this very article, though, to be clear. They are insinuating that this is the reason for the distancingTuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree with TuffStuff, the article is clear as to why they are splitting: the loss of the any pretense to an "air of respectability" resulting from the January 6th involvement. That article was a good read, by-the-way, thanks. Bacondrum 23:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, We paraphrase what sources say, not what they insinuate. What we might say is that the Alabama, Indiana and Oklahoma chapters have temporarily disassociated themselves from Tarrio and "the Elders". The "Any air of respectability is gone" quote could be attributed to Daryle Lamont Jenkins, but not to the PBs themselves as the motivation for their move. If we're going to mention the stated desire to return to "brotherhood and beer", (which is the PBs POV) we should also mention that experts like Amarasingam and Jenkins consider their masquerade a ruse, "western chauvinism" a dogwhistle and the schism an attempt at whitewashing. Vexations (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Follow up: The Indiana chapter posted “We reject and disavow the proven federal informant, Enrique Tarrio, and any and all chapters that choose to associate with him,” according to the Daily Beast The Oklahoma chapter referred to “failure to take disciplinary measures [which] have jeopardized our brothers safety and the integrity of our brotherhood.” It would appear then that the rift is at least partially caused by the fact that Tarrio is an FBI informant, and it's not at all clear that it is motivated by their opposition to the unlawful violent acts. Vexations (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. It appears clear that the rift is at least partially caused by Tarrio's past informant history. We should continue to look for reliable sources to comfirm if the activity during the Capitol Riots was also causally related to the rift.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

URL

Should we link to or display the url the Proud Boys?

• (A) - No
• (B) - YES

Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - As stated previously, I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but we can also apply common sense on a case by case basis. Here we are talking about linking to the website of a violent extremist white supremecist organisation that is recruiting new members, encouraging, planning and perpetrating the most serious of crimes, political violence, terrorism, racialially motivated attacks etc. I think it is common sense to omit links to websites where extremists recruit and plan attacks. Wikipedia is not censored sure, but as always other considerations apply. Not linking to an active violent extremist site is just common sense, in my opinion. 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. As per the external links guidelines and particularly handling disputes WP:ELBURDEN which states that "...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) 22:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• No - I support disincluding the URLs for sites of groups/organizations that are primarily engaged in violent behavior and similar, especially when those sites are used to promote violence or recruit for the organizations. Wikipedia "isn't censored" but there's no reason to WP:PROMO hate groups, especially violent/terrorist ones. The Proud Boys website clearly falls into this category, as the group's primary purposes are bigoted hatred and illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC) — IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) has been blocked as a confirmed sock puppet of SkepticAnonymous (talk • contribs). jp×g 05:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• No per my previous comment. It would be nice if there some easy pass/fail test for when to include links, but that cannot ever be the case. Even by their own admission, the Proud Boys are a social group, not a website, so this semi-official website is not a significant part of the group's notability. For this and other reasons, the website lacks encyclopedic value on its own. Inclusion of official websites is an optional courtesy to readers, but we are not hidebound to include links to websites out of some simplistic or warped sense of fairness. This URL is not useful to readers for various reasons, so it can and should be left-out. It would be misleading to readers to point them to such a flimsy resource, and we should not knowingly waste reader's time offering bad resources. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. No censorship on wikipedia. The site is official, and the ideology (true or not) is not presented in the article which is critical for understanding a political organization and why it exists.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - Addition of an external link to their official website in the infobox is not an endorsement of the group or their activities. If that were actually a thing, it could be argued that this article should not exist in general. Now a couple notes on the examples given of other websites that are not linked. Atomwaffen Division as far as I can tell does not have an official website. If you check the KKK's page it is not linked because there is not one unified site. Same goes for Ulster Defence Association, not even sure they are still around. Again same for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, no official website that I can tell. A more relevant example would be places like Westboro Baptist Church, 8chan, 4chan, Charlie Hebdo, and Stormfront (website). Places labeled as extremists that do have official websites and are listed as such. I know this has been said a lot here and at Village pump but WP:NOTCENSORED is a thing. We do not remove reliably sourced information because we like or dislike a particular group. No matter how horrible said group is. PackMecEng (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue what-so-ever with including links to Westboro Baptist Church, 8chan, 4chan, Charlie Hebdo...it's a blatant false equivalence. Stormfront is a fair comparison, that site is run by violent neo-Nazi extremists used to recruit and plan for murder and mass shootings etc. I really don't understand why you'd compare a violent Nazi extremist site to Charlie Hebdo a perfectly reasonable satirical magazine whose staff have been tragically murdered by violent extremists? That's a very strange comparison. Have you ever visited Stormfront? I suggest you do, see what we are actually talking about, just create a fake gmail account and sign up, it's actually a terrifying place to visit and see just how serious these sickos are. Bacondrum (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, you say WP:NOTCENSORED is a thing, well so is editorial discretion, we use it all the time...And also, wikipedia: Ignore all rules can just as easily be thrown around. Better to have a proper discussion than to simply go NOTCENSORED, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well Charlie Hebdo has also been called Islamophobia for some of their depictions of Islam, though I agree the weakest from the bunch. Also 8Chan & 4Chan are known for alt-right views and extremism as well. Westboro is self explanatory on their bigotry I think. No one is arguing that those places are not shitty place, I think you will find broad agreement that they in fact are. The issue is how that relates to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. PackMecEng (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

8Chan & 4Chan also have normal users discussing kitten memes and baby yoda, it's not the same. The explicit purpose of Stormfront to recruiting, propaganda and preparation for violent extremist acts including a number of real life mass shootings, many racist murders and a number or terror attacks - that sets it apart and warrants a frank and open discussion about an exceptionally horrific site - there are limits to everything. Sure Proud Boys aren't quite as extreme, but they're still actively involved in violent extremism. Sure most Jihadist groups don't have official websites, but if they did I don't think there'd be any question about not linking to places where they plan attacks and recruit etc. We provide all relevant information, I don't see how the url is particularly important to en encyclopedic entry, I don't see how it is useful for anything other than promoting the group and directing traffic there. I think there's a social and moral responsibility not to promote violent extremists in anyway, intentional or not. I'm sure we can all agree they are exceptional, it's not mainstream discourse, it's not merely a far-right YouTube conspiracy video. What is the purpose of including the url to such violent extremist groups that outweigh concerns and dangers surrounding violent extremism and terrorism? I can't see any. Bacondrum (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

8chan, 4chan, etc. are websites. All reliable sources about them are about them as websites. The Proud Boys are not a website, so this comparison is flawed. The Proud Boys are a real-life group with activities spread across both the real world and other websites. Reliable sources seldom mention the group's official URL, and as far as I can see, those sources do not treat the website as important or credible for information about the group. We do not remove reliably sourced information because we like or dislike a particular group. You are sadly mistaken if you think this is a reliable source for anything at all. Adding links to unreliable primary sources is not helpful. Calling this "censorship" is unhelpful. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a public square, and even public squares have limits. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - Per Bacondrum. Leaving the URL out is not "censorship"; it's "editorial restraint". I wish folk would learn the definitions of words before they use them.--Jorm (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• what is the definition of editorial restraint?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yup, seems most here do not understand the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. For example it starts out with Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. It then goes on to say 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. Both of which seem to apply here. So what you refer to as "editorial restraint", in Wikipedia terms is straight out of NOTCENSORED. Since the only reasons given are that the link is objectionable. PackMecEng (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a misrepresentation (getting into Minimisation (psychology) territory) to claim "the only reasons given are that the link is objectionable" when the actual reasoning is that the Proud Boys' website is used for recruiting and the promotion of illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think my reasoning here is being massively oversimplified by a number of detractors. I also think simply going "NOTCENSORED" and not having a proper discussion is silly, I could just as easily turn around and say ignore all rules. Same with these tedious "malformed question" "improper rfc" type resposes that turn up and are ignored at nearly every RFC, I could just as easily turn around an say, "malformed response"...there's something deeply disingenuous about such responses, it's like a mindless refusal to engage discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps you are over complicating a simple and widely accepted practice on Wikipedia while fighting the same fight over and over across several pages. I get what you are trying to do, which from what I can tell, is trying to minimize peoples exposure to just terrible organizations. Which most of the time is the correct course of action. I just disagree with it from a Wikipedia point of view on how pages are written and content is presented to our readers. I really want to lean back into what I mentioned in my summary above which is essentially content on here is NOT an endorsement of whatever view or organization. We cannot pick and choose who is good enough to receive equal treatment under policy. PackMecEng (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope there's no hard feelings. All the best. Bacondrum (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, no hard feelings on my end. PackMecEng (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been an enjoyable discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the term Jorm was looking for was "editorial discretion", which doesn't lend to his point.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No: no encyclopedic value. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. This does not provide encyclopedic value, and it is proper for us to exercise editorial discretion to avoid directly linking here. Neutrality^talk 05:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• No: Per BaconDrum, the link conveys no educational or encyclopedic value, and the group uses it for recruitment towards their violent, racist organization. WP:NOTCENSORED is not an excuse to ignore the real-world damage such groups do, nor is it a straightjacket requiring us to provide such a convenience. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC
  • That seems more in line with a WP:RGW argument. Per WP:NOTCENSORED Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. So if the only argument for exclusion is that it is objectionable, which seems to be the only reason given in the opposition section, then it has no policy basis that I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Calling this an RGW argument is highly disingenuous. This isn't "being objectionable" it's "actively endorses white-supremacist violence". If you see no difference between the two, I don't know what you tell you. But as I said, there is no encyclopedic value to linking to a violent white-supremacist recruitment site, so... your argument this is just RGW has no merit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I am sorry but you are mistaken. Links on Wikipedia are not endorsements. It just does not work that way. I think you are misunderstanding both the policy notcensored and what it is to write and encyclopedia vs a new article or a blog. PackMecEng (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I did not say it was an endorsement, so you've completely misunderstood my argument. You also appear to have placed NOTCENSORED as some kind of bright-line rule, which is a complete misunderstanding of that policy. It is not a blanket "We must include everything." So, you're 0 for 2 today. I won't be responding further, as I feel my argument stands on its own merits. Make your argument stand on its own, instead of badgering everyone else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

          I dunno, I am the one listing policies and how they apply. You are listing personal feelings. Out of feelings or policy which do YOU think stands on its own merits better? Yeah I think I will stick with policy. PackMecEng (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC. I'm sure Bacondrum meant well, but they shouldn't have started dueling RfCs between this one and WP:VPP#RFC: active violent extremist websites (hate groups). They appear to be headed toward opposite consensus, in which case the broader VPP consensus controls. This is also starting to look like forum shopping. R2 (bleep) 19:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The way I see it this is a separate discussion. At Village Pump I'm asking if there's a level of extreme content that we should draw a line at and say these kinds of links should never be included. These are not dueling rfc's regardless of the outcome at Village Pump the external links guidelines are clear that inclusion of an external url on any particular page needs to achieve consensus for inclusion from editors and thus needs to be discussed, please see WP:ELBURDEN for where I take my ques here. Thanks for assuming that I mean well, I most certainly have no ill intent - if I really am doing the wrong thing I'm happy to be corrected. Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

RfCs are a form of dispute resolution to be used sparingly, and only when disputes arise. You started three RfCs nearly simultaneously that were all clearly intended to resolve the matter of whether we should link to the PBs' and Stormfronts' websites. Admins will almost certainly see that as disruptive, whatever your intentions. You need to cool off and focus on one discussion, letting that discussion run its course (which for RfCs, generally requires at least 30 days). If you're not going to close one or two of the pending RfCs, then at least please try to stop bludgeoning the process. R2 (bleep) 00:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Come on, that's a bit unfair. You mentioned me in your comment, surely I can respond. Bacondrum (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't referring to that specific reply. I was referring to your cumulative continuing involvement across all three RfCs. Best practice when you resort to the RfC process is to start one RfC and to basically leave it alone for 30 days. R2 (bleep) 20:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, provided consensus exists for which url is the website for the "movement". BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I only bring this up because previously, stormfront has been used as a precedent for including links to potentially unsavoury subjects. In the case of stormfront however, there is absolutely no ambiguity as per their official URL. Here however, given the fractured nature of their leadership, real confusion exists about who actually can be said to represent the proud boys. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Second comment I must say I'm starting to agree with @R2 - this is looking awfully like forum shopping after previous discussions did not result in consensus to remove links to unsavoury subjects BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

So report me at ANI, otherwise I ask you and R2 to stop with the false allegations which are a personal attack. Bacondrum (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa there, cowboy. No personal attacks here. You've been a bit disruptive, so you were politely asked to stop. That's all. R2 (bleep) 22:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like Bacondrum has been given multiple, contradictory instructions when trying to post this very real and important issue. Accusing them of being "disruptive" isn't cool. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that's exactly what's been going on. Bacondrum (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it's pretty clear that this is turning into an edit warring attraction. I'm not saying Bacondrum is being disruptive, I'm just saying that there is no consensus, and repeatedly bringing up this particular RFC (the 3rd one now) is probably not going to get anywhere. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes-Links should be included for the value of the information that they contain. This is not a terrorist group like ISIS. If it's best not to link to a group because it's a violent extremist organization, we should also remove the link to the official website of Black Lives Matter on that group's page. Display name 99 (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not a terrorist group like ISIS.
  • Given they organized a violent insurrection against the United States government, you might want to reconsider this stance. Comparing them to BLM is just asinine. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, the Proud Boys do not support insurrection. I compared them to BLM because BLM is way worse. The Proud Boys defend themselves and others from attack by BLM and other thugs. They keep peace. The Proud Boys helped storm the Capitol in response to an allegedly stolen election. BLM and antifa, in response to conservatives exercising their rights and black criminals getting killed, kill and assault countless numbers of innocent people and destroy enormous amounts of property, including both private and federal property, which makes the slight damage inflicted on the Capitol building look miniscule. BLM is a thousand times more violent than the Proud Boys. Display name 99 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

the Proud Boys do not support insurrection.

You're either lying, or not paying attention. They were instigators at the insurrection.

I compared them to BLM because BLM is way worse.

And at this point I can see there's no point discussing the matter with you. You're supporting a white supremacist group, while decrying minorities who oppose police brutality. You've shown your colors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Is it an official URL? User:BrxBrx says that given the fractured nature of their leadership, real confusion exists about who actually can be said to represent the proud boys. If that's right, then I think we're better off not choosing one of multiple competing websites to link to. If reliable sources are clear that this is the Proud Boys' official website, then yes, we should link to it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment When I came to this page to find out about the proud boys due to the recent events in the US I found that this page claimed that they were neo-fascist without discussing why or their ideology. I searched for their website to find out more and found that google weren't indexing them (and then found them by searching duckduckgo). I think this page should address their ideology and this might render much of this issue moot. I'd note that the website is not particularly useful as it doesn't have much content. Talpedia (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Talpedia: I'm not sure what you mean by "without discussing why or their ideology", the wording includes citations and their ideology - to the extent that there are WP:RS citations to what they actually believe - is covered in the lede and in the "History and organization" section. If you are suggesting that this page should have a WP:PROMOtional section that writes up claims from their website that are not covered, and/or are unduly self-serving WP:SELFPUBLISHed content that falls under WP:MANDY, that probably wouldn't be viable? IHateAccounts (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting directly quoting their material. I have reviewed the history section (I think I skimmed over it before). I guess it might be nice to separate out their ideology. I would probably like some more scholarly sources discussing their ideology rather than "the ADL" said such and such. I guess I also wanted to know *why* they were fascist rather than just have a citation. (See the section of nazism on this section) Talpedia (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - It does not fall to Wikipedia editors to determine whether an organisation is too violent or extremist for its official website to merit inclusion. If we know an organisation's official website as reported by RS, there is no reason to include it bar legal grounds. Readers don't need us to decide for them what is "too dangerous" to read. Caius G. (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• No I'm sure people are perfectly capable of finding it themselves. Apeholder (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Since an RfC (of considerably broader scope, which includes this issue in its purview) is currently running at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC:_active_violent_extremist_websites_(hate_groups) on this same subject, I think it would be prudent for people to comment there rather than here. jp×g 15:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. Unnecessary, adds nothing, and drives traffic to a violent hate site. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Adds value, even if to a controversial group. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  Emir of Wikipedia, have you seen the website lately? ATM it's just a gif of Donald Trump dancing. Vexations (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Value"

per Ahrtoodeetoo, this was definitely distracting from the topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
in the most recent talk thread, the editor Jorm used the official website to verify the organization's logo. This demonstrates in action, rather than words, that he believes there is a value to knowing what the website is and that it carries at least some academic value. I can't be sure which website he used, to be fair, but he can.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I apologize to Jorm, it was Baconundrum who used the URL as a source - the editor advocating that the website has no value to academic inquiry about the organization. I will move my comment to the other threat. Reading comprehension issues on my partTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I've taken the liberty of separating this into a sub-thread, since it's not a direct !vote or comment on the RfC. As a comment here, you're conflating encyclopedic value to the reader with our work as editors to evaluate information before adding it to the article. In other words, this seems more like you're trying to make a point rather than a serious argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Well, I was trying primarily to make a serious argument. A controversy came up, and editors immediately used the URL as a source to address that controversy in their favor. I've read arguments that the URL is unreliable as a source, but it clearly wasn't, for certain purposes. The idea that a certain elect should have access to information germain and vetted as official, but it must be censored from the reader's view is cynical and against the spirit of wikipedia - though I'm sure the notion wasnt intended to be.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "Taking a quick look to see if someone changed the logo on a webpage" is not reason to permalink the recruiting website of a hate group, especially one whose primary tactic is illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "Taking a quick look" sounds like a simple action, but not when the private advertising company, google, has buried the official link 7 pages in for 90% of international seach users. Google can, apparently, censor the internet in order to appease advertisers, but wikipedia shouldn't and doesnt (it is the first or second link by click volume if you use duckduckgo). It has an unusually high value for readers, as a result of mainstream censorship.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Calling that "censorship" is hyperbole, and I think I'm done with this tangent. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC) The suppression of information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive - is censorship. I'm not even the first in this thread to have suggested it. Perhaps it is hyperbole, although I mean it to be taken literally since it is part of the literal definition of censorship.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Word have meaning. Please stop using the word "Censor" until you know what it actually is.--Jorm (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I posted the words from Wikipedia's censorship lede. Please inform me what your definition of censorship is so we can better understand one another.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict)Ranting about the position of a link in Google search results versus another search engine is meaningless to this discussion. The facts regarding the URL remain, there is no encyclopedic value to a direct link from this article given the fact that the Proud Boys organization promotes and recruits for the purpose of illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC) How does the controversial or even illegal activity of a group or publisher affect the encyclopedic value of that publisher's content?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Regardless of anyone's intentions, this sub-discussion was pointy and somewhat off-topic from the beginning, is getting rather nasty, and has zero chance of affecting anyone's !vote. If there's no objection I'm going to collapse it, if someone doesn't beat me to it first. R2 (bleep) 20:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021 - Remove incorrect source

One of the sources cited is wrong. It should be removed.

McLaren, Peter (2020). "Are those whiffs of fascism that I smell? Living behind the orange curtain". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 52 (10): 1011–1015. doi:10.1080/00131857.2019.1672854. S2CID 210460061. Archived from the original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2020 – via Taylor & Francis Online. [...] the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys.

Actual quote is "[...] other groups such as Identitarian Identity Evropa, the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys, and Hammerskin Nation, a neo-Nazi skinhead group."

It clearly calls IE a neo-facsist group, not Proud Boys. 86.57.209.56 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm pretty sure your reading of that sentence is incorrect here. It lists three groups and describes them: a) "Identitarian Identity Evropa", b) "the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys", and c) "Hammerskin Nation, a neo-Nazi skinhead group". It wouldn't make sense for them to give the description both before and after naming IE, and would make much more sense if each of the three organisations were given a description. Volteer1 (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

trademark

Jason Lee Van Dyke, a former lawyer and one-time leader of the Proud Boys claims to have surrendered the trademark "PROUD BOYS". [12] I'm unable to confirm that by checking the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS). [13] (perhaps it takes a while to update) Van Dyke claimed to have one candidate for taking over the trademark, who "told me he was out" after the Canadian government made a determination of the Proud Boys as a terrorist group. Vexations (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

More coverage and an interview with JLVD at https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/governmentpolicy/proud-boys-trademark-owner-surrenders-registration-weeks-after-capitol-riot Vexations (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Splinternews

In Antifa type articles, editors are generally very particular about sources that are listed in WP:RSP in non-green. I'm seeing some contents here that are only referenced to Splinter News which is a successor to Gawker Media. Gawker is red on RSP. Should Splinter News be allowed? Graywalls (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is purely a personal observation, but I used to read them before they got canned by the herb and the writers there made a point of saying they were a blog, not an actual news site. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Writing

OP blocked, nothing else to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As a writer, you shouldn't take a stance on whether or not the Proud Boys are white nationalists or white supremacists. You should state the facts. The fact is that some media and some organizations refer to them as white nationalists or white supremacists, but their members are of mixed races and their leader, up until recently, was Afro-Cuban. It's just a matter of writing it like, "Some media and organizations refer to the Proud Boys as white supremacists or white nationalist, but their leader is Afro-Cuban and many of their members are of mixed races." Poor writing skills lead to misunderstandings. Burgs2016 (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC) @Burgs2016: If reliable sources are largely in agreement that the Proud Boys are a white nationalist group, we say so without attribution. If there was disagreement among reliable sources, we might word it more along the lines of what you are suggesting (see WP:BALANCE), but so far no one has produced much in the way of usable sources that contradict. As for your suggestion that we add something like "but their leader is Afro-Cuban and many of their members are of mixed races", please see WP:SYNTH. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC) How do you define "reliable secondary sources"? That's a very curious phrase. Any secondary source that labels black people as white supremacists is questionable to me. Any secondary source needs to provide primary sources as justification for their stance. Any secondary source that labels black people as white supremacists did not do any primary source investigation. Therefore, you cannot claim these secondary sources as "reliable." Burgs2016 (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Burgs2016, please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY to understand how wikipedia uses these. another quote from the wikipedia guidelines: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them". and "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources ... rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." Mvbaron (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC) @Burgs2016: You might do well to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's basic policies before engaging here. I left a list of them on your talk page already. WP:RS is a key one, and it is quite clear that Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources (that same "curious phrase" I've just used). As for what is reliable, that's also defined in that policy, and you can peruse WP:RSP for a summary of community consensus on some commonly used (or suggested) sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC) You guys have a clear agenda here. I said that primary and secondary sources are both important. However, the writer clearly misused a secondary source to make an outright claim that can be easily dismissed through a simple primary source investigation. This has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. It's clearly a writing issue, because a misuse of a secondary source is a writing issue. This can be cleared up by simply stating that "some organizations and media refer to them as...." There are enough primary and secondary sources out there to show that the Proud Boys are not all white, which is a requirement to be a white supremacist or white nationalist organization. A simple google search of images would show you this fact, assuming you don't have time to actually look through video or actually meet some Proud Boys. Instead of repeating the personal insult that I don't understand the use of primary and secondary sources, which is hilarious, try to improve your own use of these tools. It's clear that writing standards have declined in the last few years, but this conversation is a disgrace. Burgs2016 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC) @Burgs2016: You are free to have your own opinions on the value of primary and secondary sources, but what we are trying to make clear to you is that Wikipedia policy is quite clear on which kinds of sources must be preferred, and Wikipedia policy is what dictates how Wikipedia articles are written. If you would like to write about the Proud Boys using primary sources and your interpretation of images and your personal interactions with members of the group, please feel free to do so somewhere that is not here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC) I don't know how you can keep going with this. First of all, it is true that primary sources are better than secondary sources, and secondary sources need to be balanced with primary sources. However, given Wikipedia's stance on secondary sources, the focus should then be put on writing and use of such sources. As I stated over and over again, the writer clearly misused a secondary source. You can't make an outright claim based on secondary sources alone. It's the most pure form of biased writing. Also, what is a "reliable" secondary source? If the secondary source doesn't do any primary source investigation, is it reliable? If there is not primary source investigation, the secondary source is far removed from fact. It's opinion. If a secondary source says that the Proud Boys, a group led by an Afro-Cuban and includes many non-white people, is a white supremacist organization, they clearly did not do any primary source investigation. This is not how you determine a reliable source. It's not an opinion that anyone who claims a black person is a white supremacists is not trustworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgs2016 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC) @Burgs2016: I have already linked you to the reliable sources policy, which outlines what makes a source reliable, and I will not continue to repeat myself here. If you would like to change how reliable sources are determined, feel free to suggest a change to policy, but until then we will go with what policy says. And no, it is not misusing a source to state unequivocally what reliable sources agree upon--it would be misuse to couch the statement in terms such as "some sources say" when there has been no disagreement in RS. We do not write that "some sources say the Earth is round". GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Again, it's a clear case of biased writing. You can change the writing to "according to..." or "... refers to them as...", but you think it's not important because of your opinions. That makes it a biased article. A simple google search of the previous leader refutes your secondary sources. Do you not see your bias? Burgs2016 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC) WP:NPOV is quite clear that we must represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. That is what this article does. It does not say we should perform primary research, or tailor this article around what the group and its members say about themselves. In fact there is a box at the very top of the page explaining why we don't do that (ctrl-f "The Proud Boys have a history of self-published") GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Wait a second, I think I see why we disagree. I think you misunderstand what a primary source is. It's not what the Proud Boys say about themselves. A primary source is a first-hand account of a specific topic. For example, a primary source could be a video of a fight between the proud boys and Antifa if you are talking about the specific fight. A primary source is the Proud Boys website if you are talking about the website. However, a primary source is not the website if you are talking about the overall premise of an argument. All of your findings lead up to that premise. A primary source is not a journalist who only heard about a fight between the Proud Boys and Antifa, but they weren't actually there. Stating that the Proud Boys are white supremacists without any primary sources is biased writing, which is why you need the "according to..." or ".. refers to them as ...." Primary sources and secondary sources change depending on the topic. This is why I say the writer misused a secondary source. Also, the argument presented here that there are no secondary sources that refute the other secondary sources saying they are white supremacists is either lazy writing or biased writing if done on purpose. Like I said, a simple google search of the leader would refute any ridiculous secondary sources. Again, this is not about Wikipedia standards. This is about the writer's standards, or lack of standards. You guys would get ripped apart in any real academic setting. Either way, I'll just leave this conversation here and let people decide what they think. Personally I think it's dangerous to show left-wing leanings for Wikipedia (Yes, the writing is clearly left-leaning as evidenced by secondary source selection and presentation). Neutrality lasts longer. Burgs2016 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC) There is a fringe notion called "multi-racial whiteness" that is apparently accepted as consensus on Wikipedia. The notion that even an all-black conservative group which stands for equal protections and a traditional understanding of limited government could be considered "white nationalist"; if an article is published about them on in one or more "reliable source" that they support any of the structure that was initially built to benefit whites. The messaging as well as the ethnic composition of the group is irrelevant when compared with reliable sources who have an agenda to discredit them. Does it sound crazy and not at all consensus to you? I agree with that assessment. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/24/960060957/understanding-multiracial-whiteness-and-trump-supporters TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC) @TuffStuffMcG: Please explain how it is "not at all consensus". You have in the past expressed chagrin (at this article and related topics) that the sources do not support your point of view, and seem to understand that as a result your point of view can't be reflected in articles, but it seems you are now saying that there is an actual disparity between this article and sourcing? Or am I misunderstanding? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Here is an article from another eastern seaboard professor I've never heard of. East Stroudsburg University is no NYU, though - so be careful believing the sensible but unreliable article at the expense of the nonsensical reliable article. https://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-opi-historically-speaking-seventeen-brooks-20210220-igxf6rduvrg4tgycr2jsryeyfy-story.html TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC) It's an op-ed. So I was indeed misunderstanding you, then? I have to admit I am becoming frustrated with you continuously using talk pages to opine on how the sources don't reflect your personal point of view, as it often serves to encourage newer editors who don't understand policy particularly well, who seem to think that articles ought to present a false balance. It also is often unclear to me whether you are just musing on how you think things ought to be, or actually trying to make a policy-based point that editors ought to respond to. This case is a good example. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC) I don't accept that a hypothetical all-black conservative organization which explicitly condemned racism could realistically be considered white supremacist/nationalist (although it would be inconceivably possible). I don't accept that such a notion is the academic consensus just because it appears in a few op-eds. I'm explaining that this theory underpins the description of Proud Boys as white nationalist, and is accepted due to the rules of wikipedia regarding reliable sources. I'm sorry if I've made that unclear in any way. My advice to the poster is; read the rules and do better, dont just criticize editorsTuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC) I don't think such a hypothetical is useful here; for one because the Proud Boys are majority white. A more useful question would be "do the Proud Boys, a group widely described as white nationalist, suddenly become not so because they have some members who are people of color?" So far the answer appears to be no, and I've yet to see you or other people present reliable sources (academic or otherwise) taking a different view. Your op-ed appears to be Brooks objecting to a different scholar who has said that people of color who hold white supremacist views can be described as "multiracially white". So far as I'm aware such a descriptor is not being used anywhere on Wikipedia–the only descriptor I've seen of Tarrio's race on Wikipedia is "Afro-Cuban". I don't think you are mistaken, but just to be extremely clear, calling someone a "white nationalist" means they hold white nationalist views, not that they are white, and also a nationalist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC) So it is admitted that there is a clear attempt at bias writing here? "...it often serves to encourage newer editors who don't understand policy particularly well, who seem to think that articles ought to present a false balance." It is an easy google search to show that many members of the Proud Boys are not white. The omission here is on purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgs2016 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Attempting to avoid false balance is an attempt to avoid bias. WP:FALSEBALANCE. Perhaps you missed the word "false" in my statement, in which case I could understand your mistaken interpretation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC) It's theory. In practice, this method created false statements. Burgs2016 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC) If your argument is that "there are non-white members, therefore the Proud Boys cannot be white supremacists," you need to actually educate yourself about white supremacist organizations. You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of this subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC) WP:TRUTH. We are not going to throw out sourcing and policy to present what one editor believes to be true. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Please refrain from person insults. I got into trouble for doing that same thing. I don't need to educate myself of white supremacy. I'm arguing that the source was misused, which created a biased article. You can still have the claim that they are white supremacists in the article, but the way it is written suggests the writer is the one who claims that. If I, an independent, questions your bias, you can bet that many readers are doing the same. The solution is as simple as saying "... refers to them as white supremacists; however, (other easily obtainable secondary sources) show that not all members are white." There is nothing wrong about this statement and it shows neutrality. The statement could then go on to say "... believes that white supremacy can, in fact, include members who are not white." Honestly, I'm trying to help you guys. I'm not one of these people arguing based on my own ideology. Personally, I think everyone is radical at this point, but that has nothing to do with the poor writing standards. Burgs2016 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Again, you need to read and understand Wikipedia's writing standards. They clearly are not what you prefer, but we are conforming to Wikipedia's established style. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia standards say that you should create false statement by misusing secondary sources? I think this is just your go-to excuse for supporting biased writing. Like I said, my proposal doesn't go against Wikipedia standards. Constantly saying I need to study them does not actually address the issue of biased writing and poor use of secondary sources. Burgs2016 (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC) So you're just going to repeatedly accuse us of making false statements. There's no point in replying to you further, since you are unwilling to learn. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit, Tarrio was voted out as chairman, and the description and listed beliefs are absurd

1) Tarrio is no longer the chairman 2) The list of ideology is blatantly false as the group has very clear tenets that have been on their website for years.

Anti semitism..lmao they have Jewish members and AP had pics of them flying an israeli flag at a march recently

White nationalism....until a few weeks ago the chair was afro-cuban, they have done joint press conferences recently with BLM and black members.

Someone with a major agenda to smear these guys is obviously editing this page.

We need to:

1) edit the leader section to reflect tarrio being voted out, they are now led by a confederation of autonomous chapters. Each chapter is basically an independent club.

2) Post the groups actual tenets under ideology, which are:

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

3) Change the description to:

Far-right men's fraternal organization and drinking club. Ryantheviking (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ryantheviking, please post some sources (WP:RS) to which we can attribute these changes. Note that their own website isn't enough to change otherwise sourced content. EDIT: Also if I may add, it's pretty ridiculous to descrive the PB as merely a "Far-right men's fraternal organization and drinking club", when even Fox news describes them as "far-right, male chauvinist extremist group known for engaging in violent clashes"... Besides wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not meant to parrot everyone's self-description. Mvbaron (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

We describe subjects in the way they are described by reliable, independent sources, not the way they describe themselves. There is absolutely no way this article is going to suggest in wikivoice that the Proud Boys' ideology is "anti-racial guilt" or "reinstating the spirit of Western chauvinism"–they can do their own PR on their own website, but Wikipedia is not a place for fluff pieces. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If you cannot source the groups own manifesto and tenets published years ago to describe their ideology than what are we even doing here?

Give me a few I will get source on the leadership change Ryantheviking (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"what are we even doing here?" Well, how would you write an encyclopedia? First and foremost, an encyclopedia collects reliable information. We can get this information from from reliable sources. We can't use North Korea's self-description as a "democratic people's Republic" either when they are obviously neither a democracy, nor a republic or of the people's... At best we can describe the contradiction between how an entity describes itself and how it is written about by everyone else basically. --Mvbaron (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: "what are we even doing here": As I said, we are writing an encyclopedia based on coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources. Thank you for finding a source on Tarrio's departure. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

How can I upload a pdf here Ryantheviking (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You should be able to link to a PDF hosted online as you would link to anything else. If the PDF is not hosted online, can you give me some more information about what it is? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

These are the complete unedited bylaws of the group. The LLC currently being sued, this is very explicit in a number of areas.

1) Violence outside of self defense is prohibited.

2) The tenets and detailed explanation are clearly spelled out, they are not racist. They are open to all races as well as gay members.

3) Those with white nationalist beliefs are clearly banned from membership.

The vote on Enrique Tarrio being removed and the new structure is not on any public link yet I will have to follow up on that Ryantheviking (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Look, for example, at the Nation of Islam entry:

The Nation of Islam (NOI) is an African-American political and new religious movement,[2][3][4] founded in Detroit, Michigan, United States, by Wallace Fard Muhammad on July 4, 1930.[4][5] Its stated goals are to improve the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of African Americans.[6] Its official newspaper is The Final Call. In 2007, the core membership was estimated to be between 20,000 and 50,000.[1]

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

It lists the stated goals of the entity and lists its publication.

Why are we treating these guys different? Ryantheviking (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Look at the citation [6], it cites the groups own website:

https://www.noi.org/noi-history/

I have to call BS on the idea we would refuse to note the organizations stated goals and beliefs because we do it everywhere else.

No qualms from me as far as citing press articles about legal trouble or incidents involving members but the ideology section should list those tenets Ryantheviking (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as the description as far right mens fraternity and drinking club that is widely known.

The place to list controversy or legal/criminal trouble is in the body of the entry Ryantheviking (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Trying to post citation links for this Ryantheviking (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I found a url for the content but it wont post Ryantheviking (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ryantheviking: Please stop copypasting the entire bylaws here, as it's a copyright violation. Please see WP:OTHERCONTENT -- I suspect many of the editors of this article have not edited Nation of Islam (I know I haven't) and it may be that that article has issues that need to be rectified (in which case you should raise your concerns at Talk:Nation of Islam) -- that does not mean we can introduce the same issues here. We can only use statements that an organization makes about themselves if they are "neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim", and trying to paint the PB as just a "drinking club" is both of those things. Find reliable, independent sources. Multiple editors have explained to you already what is needed in terms of sourcing, and continuing to insist upon using their bylaws instead of reliable sources is not going to get you anywhere as it directly contravenes this project's goals as an encyclopedia. If they would like to evangelize themselves, they can do so on their own web properties. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

-I do not have those concerns with the article. It makes perfect sense to source the groups stated beliefs when writing an encyclopedia.

It also makes sense to note if they have done something documentable to the contrary.

That would be ethical and honest. The current entry is not, and the other talk section notes other problems.

I was able to find a web link of the Constitution and Bylaws, to document.

I also found a number of independent sources to the drinking club portion.

Unfortunately for some reason I cannot add them in here.

Ryantheviking (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ryantheviking: If you are having trouble posting the links it is likely because they are on the spam disallowlist. Can you state (without linking) the domains the links are from? That may shed some light. I see you have said that you think you personally have been prevented from posting links by "vandal admins". Admins are not able to do such a thing; the link disallowlist applies to everyone.

Regarding the bylaws, I think you are not understanding me. No one is doubting that the text you posted earlier is the group's bylaws; we are saying that the bylaws are not what we will base this article around.

I will note that finding a few links that describe the PB as a drinking club might be enough to add a statement to the article, but will not be sufficient to replace the existing description unless you can show that that is the primary descriptor used among independent reliable sources. As someone who has read a fair number of RS that describe the PB, I think you will have a hard time doing that.

I would strongly recommend toning down the rhetoric about "slander" and "calculated and malicious attempts" to malign the group, and calling editors antifa. That is the kind of thing that will quite quickly earn you a topic ban from the American politics topic area. Comment on content, not contributors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ryantheviking The problem with all this is that we don't include self serving claims by a group that are contradicted by an inexhaustible number of reliable sources. You say we need to "Post the groups actual tenets under ideology" well that's not how encyclopedias work, we don't promote their ideals, we refelct what reliable secondary sources say about them. You say they are simply a "Far-right men's fraternal organization and drinking club" but that's demonstrably false, reliable sources tell us they are much more than just a drinking club for rednecks. You talk about other editors and the Nation of Islam, nothing to do with this article. And you say that they say the club prohibits violence, they are not racist, they are open to all races as well as gay members and prohibit white nationalist beliefs...but an inexhaustible list of reliable secondary sources say otherwise, so Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. We don't publish self serving claims. Bacondrum 20:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources are not reliable sources. Burgs2016 (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Burgs2016, that would be completely wrong. In fact, secondary sources are in general the most reliable ones. Mvbaron (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That's the most anti-academic thing I've heard. You cannot have only secondary sources in your writings. You can, however, have only primary sources in your writing. If you only have secondary sources, basically you are just writing gossip. No academic paper would pass any kind of serious reviews without primary sources. With that being said, the use of primary and secondary sources by the author is very important. With this writing on the Proud Boys, the bias is shown very clearly in how they use secondary sources. Any serious writer wouldn't use a secondary source to make a definitive claim. They would say "according to" or "some organizations say" or something like that. Secondary sources are NEVER reliable sources of outright claims. They can only be given as counter to or in support of other claims. Burgs2016 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Burgs2016: If you would like to suggest Wikipedia change its entire approach to sourcing, this is not the place. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The poster above said reliable secondary sources. I simply stated a fact in response. Secondary sources are not reliable sources. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. It has everything to do with poor writing skills. Secondary sources are important sources for investigative writing, but they are difficult to use in actual writing. No need to change the requirements, but writers and editors need to improve their individual skills. This article on the Proud Boys is extremely biased due to poor writing. Burgs2016 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Burgs2016, (1) you are completely mistaken about academic writing and the use of secondary sources. They are used all the time and you do not always have to attribute them. (quoting is enough). And secondly, (2) and you seem to be mistaken about wikipedia as an encyclopedia, please review this wikipedia policy: WP:SECONDARY: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."--Mvbaron (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Burgs2016 and I agree that everyone should focus on content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, I'm not :) But (Personal attack removed). Burgs2016 (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC) scratches head* please do not make personal attacks, and have a look at the link I gave you above: it gives a nice overview of how reliable sourcing (and secondary sourcing) works on wikipedia. cheers Mvbaron (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC) It's not a personal attack. You said I was mistaken. I'm not. I said you clearly prefer biased writing. This doesn't have anything to do with wikipedia's policies. This has everything to do with poor writing skills. Why change the subject unless you are the one getting frustrated here? Burgs2016 (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC) It is a personal attack, and please do not repeat it. This has everything to do with Wikipedia policies, which are quite explicit about using primary and secondary sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC) You are sensitive. It's not a personal attack. It's true. Burgs2016 (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC) If you would like to continue insulting editors, that's your prerogative, but I suspect outside editors will agree you are being incivil here. I think it would be more productive to focus on the article content and finding the sourcing to support your arguments rather than attempting to provoke editors here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Instead of crying about a perceived insult, it would be nice if people actually discussed my main concern, which is writing standards. Burgs2016 (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Instead of continuing to insult editors, it would be nice if we focused on the content. I think we agree here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The way a writer presents a secondary source IS the content. Could you make a serious counter argument to me, or are you just that intent on closing down disagreement? Also, "quoting is enough." That's not what happened here. This is purely just biased writing. I'm the one trying to get you guys to use proper writing methods and quoting standards. You either failed on purpose or failed due to not understanding how presentation of sources is more important than the source itself. Burgs2016 (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Burgs, it sounds like you're coming from an academic background. You need to understand that Wikipedia does not work like academic writing, and does not want to be like academic writing. Our style is very, very different. You'll have to adapt to this community's style. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If adapting to this style means creating false statement, like the Proud Boys as white supremacists, I think I'll just have to be a constant annoyance on an entrenched ideology here at Wikipedia. The Proud Boys are nationalists. They are violent. They hate Antifa. But I think the evidence, both primary and secondary sources, shows they are not white supremacists. Just like BLM and Antifa, there are fringe people who have all kinds of beliefs. I'm new, yes. But, it sounds like new perspectives are needed. What I'm proposing doesn't go against Wikipedia standards. I'm simple calling for presenting sources appropriately. An appropriate way to do that is to say that some believe they are white supremacists, but other easily obtainable secondary sources show not all members are white. This also gives the fringe idea that non-white people can be white supremacists a chance to be presented. You guys are arguing based on Wikipedia rules, but I'm arguing solely based on writing standards. Burgs2016 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to present these secondary reliable sources that contradict that the Proud Boys are white nationalists.

An appropriate way to do that is to say that some believe they are white supremacists, but other easily obtainable secondary sources show not all members are white. We could say that the Proud Boys are white nationalists, and they have some members who are not white. We cannot say the Proud Boys are white nationalists, but they have some members who are not white. As I have already pointed out: see MOS:EDITORIAL (More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.) and WP:SYNTH (If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.)

You guys are arguing based on Wikipedia rules, but I'm arguing solely based on writing standards. Okay, let's say I have a writing standard of my own that says I can only use sources by authors whose last names begin with the letter "E". I may believe wholeheartedly that only good writers follow this standard, and it is unacceptable for someone to write a Wikipedia article that does not follow it. But I can't impose this on other Wikipedians, because we write articles in the way the community has agreed they need to be written. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Your last point is a poor use of whataboutism. If your writing standards creates a false statement, which is what happened in this case, it is a poor writing standard. You are trying really hard to keep this as is when clearly it's a mistake. If needed, you can create two completely independent points: The Proud Boys are considered white supremacists. Many of their members include people who are not white. However, leaving out facts is bias. It's actually an easier way to be biased than lying. Burgs2016 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the purpose of stating that they have non-white members? Please be specific. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Obviously the point is to reflect the organization in an accurate way. That should be the goal of any writer, accuracy. Wikipedia does not have a standard that say you should create false statements by omitting facts. You can include any facts that exist if properly sourced. That's what I'm proposing. You are now proposing the exclusion of facts based solely on your opinion. Burgs2016 (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You've clearly exposed your bias, thank you. You would not hold the same standard to other articles about organizations, only to try and drive your narrative "They have non-white members, therefore they cannot be white supremacist." I'll not reply further, since I expect you will be blocked shortly as WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This article already says that there are members of the Proud Boys who are not white, and I don't think anyone's suggesting it be removed (unless I am misunderstanding HandThatFeeds). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a shame that we can't synthesize related information from reliable sources:

"The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, chauvinist, and exclusively male, multi-racial, white nationalist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada". That would clear things up.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

We do already mention that the Proud Boys have non-white members. The issue of including "multi-racial" in the lead sentence is not one of synthesis, it's that as far as I've seen no reliable sources describe the PB as a "multi-racial organization", or comment on the race of its members much at all (certainly not to first-sentence-of-lead levels of weight). It seems to be mentioned more as a curiosity than anything, or in articles about the phenomenon of PoC in white nationalist groups. IMO its current inclusion in Proud Boys#History and organization seems properly weighted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I respect not adding it to the lede for those reasons, but it seems that the multi-racial nature of this white nationalist organization is at least a notable distinguishing factor of the organization.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, if any reliable sources agree with you and decide to publish significant coverage of it, you know where to find us. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Calling the group "multi-racial" when the overwhelming majority of its members are white seems... inappropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

Hello, my concern stems from the fact that the “Proud Boys” are labeled a “white nationalist” group, yet the sitting Chairman is Cuban-American; by your sources. Seems a little political to label a group as such, and really just makes me not want to use the site. ✌️“Far-Right, Male only organization “ is just fine 2601:18D:8900:2210:202D:1D3C:5B55:BDD5 (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

See above, this is currently being discussed. You're welcome to add to that discussion if you'd like, though it looks it's concluding in agreement with removing the label. Volteer1 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I see only two editors agreeing, further discussion is warranted. Bacondrum 05:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Designated as terrorist organization

The infobox has “designated as a terrorist organization by: Canada”. It doesn’t seem right to have this information in the infobox, because it is not really a property of the group, rather an action taken against them. Would it make more sense to add a sentence to the end of the first paragraph like “The group has been designated a terrorist organization by Canada”? Fwaff (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Other articles are inconsistent on this, for example Al-Qaeda has it in the infobox but Hezbollah does not. Fwaff (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the info-box. Al Qaeda, unlike the Proud Boys was set up with the objective of carrying out terrorist attacks. Their founders believed that these attacks would motivate the people to overthrow the ungodly and establish an Islamic state. But the Proud Boys and Hezbollah do not have terrorism as their major objective. The fact that countries classify them as terrorist is irrelevant. The Canadian government could probably be considered terrorist under U.S. law for not following the Cuba embargo. TFD (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If you don't believe terrorism is a founding aspect of the Proud Boys, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Their entire existence is predicated on threatening minority groups and their rhetoric is entirely built around preparing to fight others. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't a founding aspect, I said it was not their major objective. Do you have statistics about how many Proud Boys have been accused of terrorist offenses? TFD (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you not notice all the Proud Boys being arrested for their actions in the Jan 6 assault on Capitol Hill? And that PB chatrooms were used to organize said violence? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

are the Proud Boys designated as a terrorist organization by Canada? If so there's nothing really to discuss. If the Proud boys are designated as a terrorist organization by Canada then there's obviously no issue what-so-ever with including that fact, in-fact it would be a balatant case of non-NPOV to exclude this information. There's a lot of red-herrings and opinion in these debates. Reliable sources claim that the Proud Boys designated as a terrorist organization by Canada, we reflect that...there's no reason to be talking about Cuba and Hezbollah here. Bacondrum 21:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There's discussion at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 15#Calls to define Antifa as a terrorist organization and other places where some editors think we should call it a terrorist group because the U.S. attorney general has done so. I don't know if Nazi Germany had such a list but I bet they would have added the original antifa. Your argument is that we should do so because his counterpart in Canada has done so, albeit by executive order. TFD (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the article should state that fact, but whether it belongs in the info-box. We don't even use Southern Poverty Law Center descriptions in the info-box. The SPLC incidentally have designated the Proud Boys as a general hate group. TFD (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I get into the same discussions with right-wing editors who want to classify antifa as a terrorist group. I haven't seen any actual experts weigh in on this but similar groups in the past have not been described that way. TFD (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thing is no state has classified antifa as a terror group - we don't give any regard to unsourced and tendentious claims, so that's a moot point. The fact remains that Canada has designated the PB's a terrorist organisation, it's not merely a claim by the SPLC or a random news outlet. I think a large stable democratic state like Canada declaring a group as a terrorist organisation is non-controversial in terms of inclusion, I think it's unexceptionably and highly notable and can certainly be included in the info box. That doesn't mean it has to be included, but I can see no policy based reason not to include...unless it's not true that Canada has declared them to be terrorist, but I just googled the claim and it's easily verifiable. Bacondrum 23:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• For the record, the way we put it in the info box is the right way to treat this. It's a plain statement of fact. It's certainly no small thing that Canada has made this designation, it's not like Canada is a banana republic with a hyperbolic dictator making politically driven declarations willy-nilly. Looking at the info box help page and policy guidelines the inclusion of such a significant designation by a nation like Canada is definitely due in the infobox, IMO. Bacondrum 23:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

We have to bear in mind that the Criminal Code of Canada uses a definition of terrorism which may not be the same as, in fact is not the same as, any definition used in in reliable sources. Here is the relevant legislation:

Part II.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada:[14]

List of Entities

83.05 (1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish a list on which the Governor in Council may place any entity if, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that

(a) the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity

Interpretation

terrorist activity means

b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

(ii) that intentionally

(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) endangers a person’s life,

(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or

(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm....

So the attack on the Capitol represents a terrorist act, since it disrupted the count of the electoral votes, and since the Proud Boys participated they are a terrorist group. Of course that is only my guess, because the reasons for the decision are protected under the Official Secrets Act. And while the Proud Boys may challenge the finding in court, they have no right to see the evidence against them. None of this of course could happen in the U.S. where accused people have the right to see the evidence against them and due process. And it adds nothing we did not already know. We know that the Proud Boys disrupted Congress when it was counting the electoral votes. The fact that the Canadian government considers this to be an act of terrorism and the reason to call them a terrorist group is of less significance that the findings of the SPLC, which is not a random group but the most authoritative source on the U.S. far right.

Although Canada is not a banana republic, I do not welcome the day where we accept government assessments made in secret with no review. There is to me a certain fascist tone to that approach.

TFD (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested in wikilawyering claims, and this "Although Canada is not a banana republic, I do not welcome the day where we accept government assessments made in secret with no review. There is to me a certain fascist tone to that approach." You can't be serious? "certain fascist tone" Really? Come on, you're usually more reasonable than that. The fact remains that Canada has designated them a terror group and we reflect that, rightfully so. Bacondrum 05:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think we've reached an impasse if we are discussing the fascist tone of the Canadian government. Do you wanna create an RfC? Bacondrum 05:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

{{outdent}The Canadian government has a specific standard for listing an organization as terrorist which differs from that used in reliable sources. Under its definition, the U.S. could be described as a terrorist organization since among other things it has funded terrorist organizations in third world countries such as the Nicaraguan Contras. In fact, Canada put the U.S. on a list of countries that torture folks.[15] I don't remember you hollering to add it to the United States info-box.

I see a problem when we assign greater reliability to executive orders from governments than we do expert opinion by respected sources such as the SPLC and academic publishers. In fact Attorney General William Barr called antifa a terrorist organization, but Trump could not issue an executive order because there was no enabling legislation. But had he done so, you would be arguing that the U.S. is not a banana republic and who the hell are the SPLC and so-called experts to question the President of the United States. Don't think that just because someone is president of the United States or prime minister of Canada that they know more about science, social sciences, geography, etc. than experts do. Let's not change the climate change and evolution articles if the Republicans take back the White House in 2024.

The evidence required to list a terrorist group in Canada is "reasonable grounds," which is below the standard of balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt which are required by courts. Its safeguards are weaker than the UK, Australia and NZ, which also keep lists.[16] In this case, a statement by U.S. intelligence that they suspect that at least one member of the Proud Boys engaged in terrorism would be sufficient to add the group to the list. The listing has been criticized by Canadian civil rights groups for abusing human rights and for factual errors in listing.[17] The Minister of Public Safety, Bill Blair, ordered kettling during the 2010 G20 summit, leading to charges against 45 Toronto police officers who carried out his orders.[18]

TFD (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

In this case, a statement by U.S. intelligence that they suspect that at least one member of the Proud Boys engaged in terrorism would be sufficient to add the group to the list.

Again, multiple Proud Boys & their chat rooms either assisted in organizing the Jan 6 attack on the capital or participated in it.

Federal prosecutors and the FBI have accused self-identified Proud Boys of leading some of the earliest, most destructive and critical efforts to overrun police lines and break into the Capitol building. Two have been charged with counts listed as federal crimes of terrorism, relating to destruction of government property to intimidate or coerce the government.

References

Is that sufficient? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course not. Reliable sources do not classify a group as a terrorist organization because two of its members have been charged under U.S. anti-terrorism legislation. The French government blew up a Greenpeace ship, the U.S., Russian, North Korean and Saudi governments have ordered assassinations. But none of these governments are considered terrorist organizations even by the U.S. government. Per no synthesis, we report the conclusions of reliable sources, we don't make those determinations ourselves.

Again, under modern thinking, governments are no longer considered infallible and we place our trust in experts. Otherwise, we would have to change our articles on climate change, evolution and many other topics every time Americans elected a new president.

TFD (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I had no idea that Canada put the U.S. on a list of countries that torture folks. They do torture people and that;'s a shameful fact. I don't know what else you want me to say. This conversations getting way off track - fascism and US torture? Lets get back on topic and get comments from other editors, I'll start an RfC. Cheers.Bacondrum 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As I fully expected, you went back on your word, TFD. You asked for government intelligence agencies accusing any Proud Boy member of terrorism, and I supplied that. You then turned around and moved the goalposts. I'm done engaging with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find any of the supposed charges against Dominic Pezzola and William Pepe for terrorism. It's not mentioned in the DOJ press release[19] or in the indictment.[20] All the charges are under Title 18 of the United States Code, which is the U.S. criminal code. While Chapter 113b of the code includes terrorism, they were not charged under any of its sections. And contrary to the WP article, the "destruction of government property to intimidate, coerce, or retaliate against government action" is not a crime of terrorism under Title 18.

Incidentally, under political pressure the U.S. was removed from the list. The purpose of the list had been informational for Canadian diplomats and intelligence, not intended to discredit other countries.

Also, you are misunderstood my statement about government intelligence agencies accusing any Proud Boy member of terrorism. I wrote that."In this case, a statement by U.S. intelligence that they suspect that at least one member of the Proud Boys engaged in terrorism would be sufficient to add the group to the list." You even repeated it. I was referring to the criteria used by the Canadian government to list a group, not whether we should add it to the info-box.

TFD (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday the FBI said they do not classify the group as terrorists, repeating what they said after a controversy in 2018.

Canada did declare them one.

The assertion that the SPLC is authoritive is frightening though. The FBI quit using them as a resource. They are a special interest group stacking money in the cayman islands off a fear monger racket. If the PBs are terrorists because they inspired someone to riot at the capital.... then the splc are definitely a terror group..being at the root of the shooting at the family research council which actual terrorism charges were involved Ryantheviking (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The story that the FBI stopped using the SPLC turned out to be false. Their opinions are routinely cited by news media and were used by the British government. Academic sources on the far right routinely use their research. I don't see why you are arguing about them though because they do not classify the Proud Boys as neofascist, white supremacist or terrorist. TFD (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Soapboxing and unactionable demands

Soapboxing and unactionable demands
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To be fair though it is clear that the people who have the edit control of this page started with the goal of slandering the Proud Boys and cherry picked articles to support their claims. They are not working in good faith to provide alternative view points from conservative outlets, and they have locked the page for editing. They have been provided with countless sources that do not describe the Proud Boys as white nationalists and refuse to include these view points in the article, in violation of Wikipedia's standards for issues like this.67.243.144.101 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Please don't make baseless accusations. For example, the page was protected in accordance with policy, not by anyone involved in editing the page, a fact which is easily proven by looking at the (public) protection log and searching edit history. As for your comment about "countless sources that do not describe the Proud Boys as white nationalists"—I can find countless sources that do not mention that the earth is round. That does not mean I can use them to say the earth is flat. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Yeah but the white nationalist thing is certainly a point of contention, even among left-wing outlets. https://www.mediamatters.org/white-nationalism/cnns-new-day-downplays-proud-boys-links-white-nationalists Yet you willingly apply the white nationalist label without qualification. Why won't you say in the article that some news outlets call them white nationalists and some don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Because, as I've said repeatedly, the discussion to determine how we treat the claim is still underway and has not yet been closed with a result. You are welcome to join it and present your suggestions for how the article ought to approach it; just please note that it's not a vote. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Our side has presented sufficient evidence to show that conservative news sources do not call the Proud Boys white nationalists. I'm sure if someone called you a "white nationalist" you would consider that a contentious label. In accordance with Wikipedia's own standards, the contentious label must be removed immediately and without discussion. Specifically, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Believe it or not, I am familiar with Wikipedia's basic policies. You'll note that WP:BLP is talking about removing "unsourced or poorly sourced" material (this is not), not material that is not sourced to conservative publications. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Taking some passing lines from left-leaning publications and using that to paint the Proud Boys as white nationalist, without any moderating effect from mentioning how they are portrayed in conservative sources, is certainly poorly sourced contentious material. So what is the hold up now to making the correction now? Will the editors act in good faith to Wikipedia's own standards or stall some more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC) That's enough, you've been warned about accusations of bad faith. Acroterion (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Who are you Acroterion?67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC) I'm the administrator who's about to block you for disruptive editing. Acroterion (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Well you are certainly not contributing to the discussion. I just established why the white nationalist contentious label has to be removed or explicitly sourced to the left wing sources it comes from while adding the conservative view point as well to balance the article. This must be done immediately and without discussion per Wikipedia's own guidelines. Now you want to block me?67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Forum discussions

Hi all, we've had a problem here recently with trolling - forum discussions and personal attacks. Comments about other editors being "left-wing fascists" and general, unactionable complaints should not be responded to as per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, instead these comments should be promptly removed. I urge everyone not to allow these kinds of disruptive editors to fill the talk page with garbage and nonsense. Bacondrum 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)