Talk:Proud Boys: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proud Boys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 14 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: I'd like to suggest a change. Where should I start? A1: Great! The first thing you should do is check that no one else has already brought up your suggestion. You can check this by going through the current discussions below, or by searching the talk archives. Q2: Why does the article describe the Proud Boys as "far-right", "neo-fascist" or as having connections to white supremacists? A2: Wikipedia is built off reliable sources, and the significant and clear majority of sources use such descriptions. You can see a few selected sources for these determinations in the article's content, though many other sources have also been included in previous talk discussions: far-right discussion, neo-fascist discussion, white supremacy discussion. Discussion amongst editors around this happened in 2020, resulting in an editorial consensus to keep this three terms per all available evidence. Q3: I have a connection to the Proud Boys, but there's something wrong. A3: Neutrality is important to Wikipedia, so editors with conflicts of interests are generally discouraged from editing directly, and instead should request edits to be made to ensure their independence. This can be done by creating a new talk section, describing your request (including what needs changing and sources), and adding {{Request edit}} to the top of the section. If there is something wrong like spelling or grammar, feel free to change it yourself, but any meaningful changes are best to be discussed first. Q4: What sort of policies should I be aware of before I start editing? A4: If you're wanting to jump in and start editing, it's best that you're familiar with Wikipedia's neutrality, verifiability (referencing), and biography policies. We're all here to help build a better encyclopedia, so if you would like some help making sure your change is okay or would like a second pair of eyes to skim over it before you save it, just post a new message on the talk page!

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

The Proud Boys have a history of self-published claims that often contradict independent reliable sources. As per the fringe perspectives policy and self-description guidelines, these statements should be mentioned, but attributed in-text to the group and be within the context of coverage from reliable sources. Be careful not to give undue weight to the Proud Boys' statements, especially when they conflict with reliable sources.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Conservatism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Men's Issues C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: September 27 to October 3, 2020 October 4 to 10, 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proud Boys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 14 days

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- SPLC

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus was to remove per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proud_Boys/Archive_5#Website. See this edit by ItsPugle. [1] IHateAccounts (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://proudboysusa.com/

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

Their response is mentioned several times throughout the article, [2]. I don't think their description of themselves warrants mention in the lede; WP:MANDY was already noted above. VQuakr (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@TuffStuffMcG:, please indent your comments properly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

• (A) - No
• (B) - YES

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• what is the definition of editorial restraint?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

• No: no encyclopedic value. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Members and supporters wear tshirts stating 6WME (6 Million Wasn't Enough) which calls for another holocaust.^[1][2][3]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,^[1] attempted to join the Base, but was denied membership for being a "huge liability."^[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]