Talk:Gavin McInnes/Archive 4

"noted for his promotion of violence"?
I've removed some statements from the lead for violating WP:LEADCITE and WP:BLP. The article only has one quote where he appears to promote violence, and I couldn't find any others after a quick search; also this isn't the reason he's notable. He was banned from Facebook and Twitter for being the leader of the Proud Boys, a "violent extremist group", and his YouTube channel was banned for violating copyright. FallingGravity 04:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As much as I personally think a guy who brandished a sword to rally his troops in the midst of a riot is probably noted for promoting violence, the source provided failed verification. You are correct as far as that goes. Anyone have better sources for re-inclusion?Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There are numerous citations throughout the article which quote McInnes as calling for violence. Per WP:CITELEAD, the lede does not need to be cited if the material is cited int he body of the article.  I have restored the material that was deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CITELEAD: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." Since McInnes is a living person, this obviously applies to him. As I mentioned before, we only have one quote where he appears to promote violence, and this isn't the reason he's notable. FallingGravity 05:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Why, exactly, is this likely to be challenged, and on what grounds? To prevent WP:CRYBLP, please explain why this is a specific concern for this trait in this article. Are you disputing that this is accurate? This behavior is overwhelmingly supported by many sources, spanning several years of public activity, and these sources are either already cited or easily Googlable. Here are some sources which are not already cited in the article:
 * - This quote and others were cited as useful for explaining his worldview by The Independent in October 2018.
 * There are plenty besides this. I would hazard that most sources about him since the string of arrests last October mention how frequently he is associated with violence. Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You just reinserted misinformation about why he was banned from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and you wonder why it's likely to be challenged? As for "promoting violence", McInnes himself says he's promoting self-defense, though whether that's actually the case is up to the reader to decide. FallingGravity 09:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How about we just include some inline citations from the sources Grayfell provided and that kind of solves that. I don't care if MacInnes thinks his antics are just "promoting self-defense" WP:DUCK. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You may not care if he thinks his antics are in self-defense, but WP:PUBLICFIGURE says we should include his response to allegations. It's funny how we're willing to throw BLP out the window just because we don't like the guy. FallingGravity 18:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you've reverted my edit adding Salon as a reliable reference for his own response, could you explain why this is contested and WP:PUBLICFIGURE doesn't apply here? FallingGravity 18:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * His statements aren't being sufficiently contextualized within the version you produced. Frankly we have no reason to trust MacInnes, a man who delights in playing the troll. So just saying, "he says nuh uh" is not actually an accurate neutral report of the circumstances. Again, this is a man who once stood in the middle of a riot instigated by his club brandishing a sword. Self defense? Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If his response is being reported by a reliable source (in this case Salon), then it should be included per WP:PUBLICFIGURE; whether or not we personally trust the guy doesn't matter. My edit didn't remove any context, it actually added more by providing another source. FallingGravity 18:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * His statements aren't being sufficiently contextualized within the version you produced. Frankly we have no reason to trust MacInnes, a man who delights in playing the troll. So just saying, "he says nuh uh" is not actually an accurate neutral report of the circumstances. Again, this is a man who once stood in the middle of a riot instigated by his club brandishing a sword. Self defense? Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If his response is being reported by a reliable source (in this case Salon), then it should be included per WP:PUBLICFIGURE; whether or not we personally trust the guy doesn't matter. My edit didn't remove any context, it actually added more by providing another source. FallingGravity 18:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

as per very frequent recent guidance on the WP:ABOUTSELF statements of untrustworthy figures, those statements must be contextualized. Simply presenting them as a counter-point may be giving them WP:UNDUE weight, and introducing WP:FRINGE statements into the article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Salon article isn't a self-published or questionable source. A New York Times article also includes McInnes saying he "only ever advocated self-defense". If you believe Salon or The New York Times aren't reliable sources, take it to WP:RSN. FallingGravity 19:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The reliability of Salon and the NYT is not what's in question here. I believe that GM said what they reported him to say.  What's in question is the reliability of  McInnes himself in accurately reporting what he has or has not done in the past.  GM has every reason to downplay his calls for violence as he seeks to portray himself in as uncontroversial a manner as possible.  Furthermore, he has a reputation for dissembling.  We cannot take his words at face value, and must examine them in the light of WP:DUE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look at my recent edit, I didn't take his statements at face value; I wrote that "he claims such violence is only in self-defense." Generally I try to stay away from WP:CLAIM, but in some cases it may be warranted, especially if you look at how these statements are treated in the articles. The same tactic is employed in the previous sentence, which has GM's dubious claim that the Proud Boys has not ties to white supremacy. Just because we include his statements doesn't mean that's a wholesale endorsement. Once again, we can let the reader decide. FallingGravity 06:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fringe views such as those of McInnes must be placed into context for inclusion. This is true even about WP:ABOUTSELF statements. Especially WP:ABOUTSELF statements that could be deemed controversial, such as whether McInnes advocates for his violent gang that he founded and leads to be violent. While it's true that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be scarlet letters, they should also not mislead the reader into believing there is a legitimate difference of opinion among reliable sources where there are not. And in this case it is not the reliable sources saying McInnes is not advocating violence - they are merely reporting that he says that. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So we should cite Reliable Sources when stating what GM claims, in the context of that being what he said? It seems like we're in agreement. FallingGravity 16:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear that McInnes is denying that he calls for violence. He's attempting to cast these many, many calls for violence in a slightly more positive light. Even in a BLP we're not obligated to give a platform to spin. The article says he is known for his calls to violence, and this is still accurate. His particular, dubious brand of "self-defense" is still violence ("put them in the hospital", "we will kill you", etc.). There is no contradiction here, and he and his unreliable allies are the only ones implying one exists ("only self defense").  Do reliable sources indicate why this would matter? Respecting BLP means context and due weight, and this appears to be pretty light-weight. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's a significant number of sources that describe him promoting violence, so I wouldn't describe this as a BLP violation. I do think his direct involvement in a violent political organization might be more significant than his general philosophical defense of political violence, so I might modify to say that McInnes is known for founding the Proud Boys - a far right political group that promotes violence against opponents, but that's a question of emphasis, not verifiability. Nblund talk 19:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The word "noted" in MOS:FIRST generally indicates that's why he's notable. He isn't notable because of his lectures on the benefits of beating up your political opponents and sending those who mess with your sister to the hospital. He's notable because he's a co-founder of Vice and founder of the Proud Boys. And yes, that the Proud Boys often resort to violence can also be included. FallingGravity 08:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Reason for being banned from Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
, thank you for adding reliably sourced information to the article. It boggles my mind that so many Wikipedia editors want to preserve false and unreferenced information in this article. FallingGravity 02:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I think we're all on the same page regarding the reasons for his social media bans. Please refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS here. It doesn't help anyone. Nblund talk 19:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I generally try to avoid doing so, but after it got to the point where three different editors kept on reinserting the same unreferenced sentence (in violation of WP:LEADCITE) I was genuinely confused. FallingGravity 08:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2019
The proud boys is not a neo fascist group. it is no more then a drinking club. 89.160.152.82 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Care to provide a source for that? You also did not at all follow the template above.Beach drifter (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/08/fbi-says-proud-boys-are-not-an-extremist-group-after-all/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.143.67.185 (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing uncredible citations
Please remove content where huffpost is the citing entity. This is not a credible source and is an anti conservative outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.143.67.185 (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That is not a valid change request. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Oxford comma
Could someone please add an Oxford comma to this sentence:
 * In 2018, McInnes was banned from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram for violating terms of use related to promoting violent extremist groups and hate speech. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Terrible Lede
A mess of subjunctive and subordinate clauses and passive sentences, like "he followed Vice which he also founded." Gonna try to fix and appreciate the help. --FeldBum (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixing the grammar is great, but please don't lose any facts or references when you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Major whitewashing attempt
An editor is attempting to make major changes to the article which have the effect of whitewashing it, contrary to the reliably sourced material currently there. For instance, the "far-right" descriptor is removed, and the Proud Boys are described as a "fraternal organization". The edit is also edit warring (against three editors, two of whom are admins) to keep the material in the article. This section has been opened so that the editor can make their argument as to why these POV edits should be accepted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide evidence for your wild accusations. Not in the spirit of collaboration whatsoever. Which user are you referring to? The Proud Boy definition is from their website, which is more reliable source than an opinion piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Staines (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I see that editor will be away for a week. Doug Weller  talk 18:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * When they return, perhaps they'll be willing to listen to various policies and such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , A dollar says not. Guy (help!) 22:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * you're right. I've reverted, told them a topic ban might be in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 05:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Biased editing?
I'm curious as to why this page continues to be reverted back to a version in which Gavin's political description is based off of op-eds and other opinion pieces, when he himself states otherwise. Shouldn't this page apply to the same guidelines as others? It comes off at an admin/editor bias, so I feel that we should all discuss this. ACtheAvantGarde (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , we call these things sources. Guy (help!) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you're not reading these sources. Op-eds do not trump actual statements and personal claims. There's a lot of "far-right" talk, when in fact, he's done nothing but disassociate himself with the alt-right. What are other admin's opinions on this matter? Obviously the offender is doing to defend themselves, so what do other think? I'm my opinion, this doesn't exactly follow Wiki's guidelines in terms of being fair and factual. ACtheAvantGarde (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not exclusively op-eds which describe him this way. Per sources, he's done plenty to earn this label, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations or spin. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed "far right" reference as it is incompatible with McInnes having mixed race children. How can you be far right and also be married to an ethnic minority? Ridiculous accusation. S.Staines (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Replaced it because we go by what the sources say, not the opinion of editors. Doug Weller  talk 14:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * What sources? There is no reference beside that statement. You must provide a source in order to claim "we go by what the sources say". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.254.39 (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep this in mind when providing the reference too: Wikipedia:Verifiability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.254.39 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If the lack of references are your primary concern I can probably help out with that. Any issues with these?   Grey joy talk 09:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I do, they don't comply with the NPOV principle. Please provide non opinion piece references. S.Staines (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These are all considered reliable sources by Wikipedia.  Grey joy talk 10:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. If you read WP:NPOV it doesn't say that sources have to be neutral so your argument isn't supported by the policy. 2. These are mainstream sources, I have no idea what their bias should be unless you consider them biased because they don't agree with McInnes. 3. The sources don't look like opinion pieces to me. Not everything with a byline to it is an opinion piece. Sjö (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * They are not compliant with the NPOV policy, please provide NPOV compliant references or they will be removed in line with Wikipedia's policy.S.Staines
 * If a consensus is reached that these references are not adequate I will be happy for them to be removed, or to remove them myself.  Grey joy talk 10:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is clearly a Attack page. You also need to consult Biographies of living persons Well I will say to you what you said to me: get consensus and then make your change, not the other way around - it can't be one rule for you and another for me. So the page will revert until consensus is reached S.Staines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.254.39 (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2020
Gavin McInnes is a member of the Knights of Columbus. This seems to be relevant information, due to his Catholic beliefs and the fact that he formed his own male fraternity, and both of them confer 4 degrees for their members. Proud Boys degree levels being modeled after the KoC degrees. 68.198.4.72 (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be "racist"?
In the section Race and ethnicity, it states "in 2018, [McInnes] said there was significant "black violence" in the United States, with 8,000 cases a year of black-on-black murder". Is this statistic wildly wrong or why is this statement quoted in this section? It's implied the statement is racist or at least somehow significant. Without additional context it just sounds like a man quoting a statistic. Is that a noteworthy fact? Also, as far as I've read, the numbers are at least in the ballpark. 46.109.77.155 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2020
Change "the son of James McInnes, who later became the Vice-President of Operations at Gallium Visual Systems Inc. – a Canadian defence company now known as Kongsberg Geospatial Ltd.[22] – and Loraine McInnes, a retired business teacher.[23]" to "the son of James McInnes and Loraine McInnes, a retired business teacher.[23]". Source 22 should be removed as it makes no mention of the person referenced whatsoever (James McInnes) or the subject of the article itself (Gavin McInnes). Mazesmerak (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Basic grammar change in intro paragraph
From the intro paragraph: "McInnes is known for his controversial promotion of violence against political opponents, and has been described as and far-right, although he denies this label."

The "and" should be removed.


 * Yes check.svg Done  Grey joy talk 05:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"started this gang"
The introduction states He has rejected this classification, claiming that the group is "not an extremist group and [does] not have ties with white nationalists". and provides a citation, yet in an interview with with Joel Rogan he stated "I started this gang called the Proud Boys" and elsewhere describes other violent acts he encourages it to commit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G95qjjQaNho - should this be added as a counterpoint? Probably with an original source not a supercut video. LamontCranston (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The Proud Boys are not extremists or a gang. They are a social group that has gotten involved with protests to both support the current President and counter protest both Antifa and BLM. If you listen to Gavin, you will know most of what he says is meant in humor and he doesn’t choose his words carefully. JudeTheDude2014 (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

SPLC lawsuit
Hello, the article doesn't mention that the SPLC lawsuit was dismissed (ref). --190.134.223.76 (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Added.  Grey joy talk 02:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead's initial description of subject
It seems inappropriate to suggest that the subject is better known for "promoting violence against his political opponents" than he is for co-founding Vice Magazine, the far-right group Proud Boys, or his polemical political commentary. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * is an editor who is good at focusing on WP:NPOV. Perhaps they would have some views on this. I am not agree or disagreeing with OP though, if McInnes is most notable for that then that is what we must include in the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

His founding of Vice and Proud Boys should be top of the list, and you can make the argument that he is far-right, but not an extremist and his rhetoric doesn’t help his “calls to violence.” All the incidents of him or the Proud Boys being violent has been a result of them being attacked first. JudeTheDude2014 (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't like Gavin McInnes because I'm the opposite of him with regard to views but I don't think it's fair to just label people who have views you may find extreme the same as someone who incites violence. 2A02:C7F:4E0B:F400:A180:B24B:A77D:5811 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm absolutely against McInnes' hateful views, but I don't think this lead successfully achieves Wikipedia's core value of neutrality. Simply "Gavin McInnes is a Canadian writer and political commentator" would be far better. The violence McInnes has promoted against political opponents is amply discussed in the article itself. Putting an unsourced and negative claim in the lead over far more relevant information like his founding of Vice and the Proud Boys is poor practice (and by getting Wikipedia to weaken its neutrality standards against him, it only gives the provocateur McInnes what he wants). Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C140:259:857B:5809:314D:B87D (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Right of center humorist?
In a brief last year I see "Opposition to defendant SPLC's motion by dismiss the lawsuit by controversial right-of-center humorist Gavin McInnes seeking relief for deplatforming and defunding campaign by the Southern Poverty Law Center based on various legal theories of recovery". I don't think we'll be adding that as part of his description! -- Doug Weller talk 12:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
In Personal life, please add that he converted to Catholicism after being atheist. https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/blogs/gavin-mcinnes-i-was-a-pro-choice-atheist-then-i-had-kids.-now-im-a-god-fear https://www.patrickcoffin.media/the-banning-of-gavin-mcinnes/
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 15:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021
Gavin McInnes is NOT known for asking for violence... You guys are Liars. Antifa IS known for violence.... 69.165.215.37 (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 22:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * unfortunately, he literally called for violence in more than one public address, although it isn't clear if he called for unlawful violence. "In one speech he gave at New York University last year after a clash with Antifa, in he said, "Violence doesn't feel good, justified violence feels great, and fighting solves everything.” In another speech he gave in Feb. 2017, he said, “I want violence. I want punching in the face.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/proud-boys-founder-denies-inciting-violence-responds-feels/story?id=59758209 TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Proud Boys, a neo-fascist political group.[1][2]
The third sentence into Gavin McInnes Wikipedia bio refers to the group the "Proud Boys" as "neo-fascist" using two footnotes as substantiation of the label. See:

he has drawn attention for his far-right political activism and his role as the founder of the Proud Boys, a neo-fascist political group.[1][2]

[1] "Founder of Proud Boys hate group shows up at hospital rally to support Trump". The Independent. 4 October 2020. Retrieved 12 October 2020. [2] "Swiping Right: The Allure of Hyper Masculinity and Cryptofascism for Men Who Join the Proud Boys". ResearchGate. Retrieved 12 October 2020.

The first footnote engages in ad hominem attacks on the group calling it "anti-Muslin" and "white nationalistic."

The second footnote relies on an academia paper that calls McInnes a "racist" after making the comment (in the fifth paragraph) that 25% of Muslims thought that suicide bombing was "sometimes or often justified." The source of the statistic wasn't mentioned but nonetheless the author labels McInnes as a racist for that alone.

None of the above are substantial evidence that the Proud Boys are a "neo-facist" group and the description should be qualified as being mere opinion of two individuals.

Nicki_Toretto (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Pitz


 * This has already been discussed in tedious detail at Talk:Proud Boys. Per that article, here are just some sources describing the Proud Boys as fascist or neo-fascist:
 * There are many more where that came from. Reliable sources are not obligated to provide "evidence" to your individual satisfaction. Reliable sources do not treat this as a mere opinion, and Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, what you said is the opposite of the truth: a reliable source would treat this assertion as purely opinion. Wikipedia most certainly does not reflect reliable sources. 2603:7000:B23E:3056:4022:ADB5:8B5A:2D3C (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many more where that came from. Reliable sources are not obligated to provide "evidence" to your individual satisfaction. Reliable sources do not treat this as a mere opinion, and Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, what you said is the opposite of the truth: a reliable source would treat this assertion as purely opinion. Wikipedia most certainly does not reflect reliable sources. 2603:7000:B23E:3056:4022:ADB5:8B5A:2D3C (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many more where that came from. Reliable sources are not obligated to provide "evidence" to your individual satisfaction. Reliable sources do not treat this as a mere opinion, and Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, what you said is the opposite of the truth: a reliable source would treat this assertion as purely opinion. Wikipedia most certainly does not reflect reliable sources. 2603:7000:B23E:3056:4022:ADB5:8B5A:2D3C (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, what you said is the opposite of the truth: a reliable source would treat this assertion as purely opinion. Wikipedia most certainly does not reflect reliable sources. 2603:7000:B23E:3056:4022:ADB5:8B5A:2D3C (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021
Gavin is not a neo-fascist. The words “neo-fascist” and “terrorist” are not factually correct.

He is pro democracy and pro capitalism. The proud boys are a patriotic group that includes all races. There is not a single instance of Gavin being a literal terrorist. 71.75.144.221 (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * See here, just above. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. --Calton &#124; Talk 12:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Italicized name
Why is McInnes' name italicized in the main article itself? I can't find any italicization header template to remove. Love of Corey (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Page at risk for becoming a political firestorm
Gavin McInnes is a very controversial figure at least in my home country (the US). Can someone make this article an extended-confirm protection for a little while? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caustic3 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You can request page protection here.  Grey joy talk 14:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Far-Right
As a liberal, I can't take seriously wikipedia's use of the "far right" label. You can't use mainstream media as a legit source of information for these kinds of characterizations. If wikipedia wants to be a serious encyclopedia, it can't at the same time default to corporate media esp. for political characterizations and commentary, as they are, for the most part, unable to be objective. You have to do the due-diligence and take the primary datum/data (and there's plenty out of there) of Gavin and make a determination based on that information if he qualifies as such or not. The reasonable conclusion would be the he does not, albeit being well on the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.4.126 (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Gavin_McInnes <-- plenty of primary quotes there for you to draw your own conclusions. (also, "being well on the right" just is being far right). Mvbaron (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

White supremacist sources
We should not be primary sourcing involvement with white supremacists. There's no source for him writing in VDARE (so it either needs one or needs removed) and the source for him writing in American Renaissance is a link to American renaissance, which is both primary (and thus OR) and also a white supremacist website which we should not use as a source for obvious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2022
Change "designated as a terrorist group in Canada.[4][5]" to " designated as a terrorist group in Canada and New Zealand". Bpbillie (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021
The claim that Gavin Mclnnes is actually incorrect. Mclnnes has never participated in the Fascist party of America. Carter Houston (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Sirdog9002 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Proud boys are listed as a far-right neo-fascist group. It should read as just a far-right group, or a far-right group that some have claimed is neo-fascistic. They would not consider themselves neo-fascists although some on the left might make it a disputable argument. In the article, it's listed as a fact and that is incorrect. Jnorwalt (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Jnorwalt


 * I agree that they do not seem to be fascist, and seem to not identify with fascism either. Fascism was a big government nationalistic socialist movement that fused corporations and government, and usually involved a singular decision maker dictator. Aussiewikilady (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But they aren't called fascist but neo-fascist. I hope you aren't suggesting that Fascism wasn't a far right ideology. In any case we go by sources. Get it changed at Proud Boys first. User:Jnorwalt if you are ever going to edit again (I see this is your only edit) go there.  Doug Weller  talk 12:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is in dire straights and needs reform. Nevertheless, I encourage you to read about fascism on wikipedia, or even better perhaps Brittanica and in history books. And also don't read anything into my words that I didn't say. Don't ask me questions about words I didn't even use. Also do not post anything on my talk page in an effort to wield power. Aussiewikilady (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

McInnes is now an American citizen
Gavin announced on his Jan 24, 2022 episode of Get Off My Lawn that he has been granted American citizenship. Bio should be updated to label him as Canadian-American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tummler123 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This is correct. Edit should be made 2600:6C60:5C00:BC04:75F7:2F93:336D:1C3B (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I will address and edit this in the near future. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

New article Censored.TV has too much self-sourcing and some pov
Eg "His show covers topics such as Atheism, propaganda within mainstream media, and ethnic conflict.", courtesy of the same editor that added the comment about mainstream media here. At best we need to say something like "alleged". Doug Weller talk 13:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Gavin McInnes in 2011.jpg

Judaism
In the "Judaism" section of the article, the following line appears: "In March 2017, during a trip to Israel with The Rebel Media, McInnes was accused of defending Holocaust deniers, holding Jews as being responsible for the Holodomor and the Treaty of Versailles, saying he was "becoming anti-Semitic". He later said his comments were taken out of context."

The Youtube video used a source does not feature McInnes accusing the Jews of committing the Holodomor or of orchestrating the treaty of Versailles, nor does it depict any accusation towards McInnes that he believes such. Rather, the video depicts McInnes himself, stating that he believes the Holodomor and the Treaty of Versailles were not orchestrated by Jews. Therefore, I suggest removing all reference to Versailles and the Holodomor, as I do not think it is relevant that McInnes does not believe that the Jews were responsible for the Holodomor.

Furthermore, I find it misleading that the section on "Judaism" begins with allegations of antisemitism, when in fact McInnes is a vocal Zionist and philo-semite, and was employed by a pro-Israel media-organization, headed by a Jewish man (Ezra Levant) when he made these comments (the video used as a source for the Versailles/Holodomor claim were produced by this company.) In the video that is used as a source for the "becoming antisemitic" comment, McInnes also makes the claim that he was not paid by the state of Israel to visit the country, or to make positive comments about it, which is also a common accusation levelled at McInnes. I find this just as relevant a detail regarding McInnes' position on "Judaism" as the many accusations and denials of antisemitism.

Furthermore, I think the entire section title, "Judaism", is somewhat inappropriate, as it suggests that the section pertains to the religion, while it mainly refers to McInnes' remarks on Zionism and Jews as a people. I would suggest changing the title of the section to something along the lines of "Jews and Zionism". Harry Sibelius (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The Youtube video is a primary source at best and unreliable because it's user-submitted. It shouldn't be used as a source at all. Instead, a reliable secondary source should be used. I agree with you that "Judaism" is the wrong title for the section, but I'm not sure "Jews and Zionism" is the right header either. Probably "Allegations of antisemitism." Also, we don't decide ourselves whether the allegations are true or not. If RS describe them in volume as true will do so as well, even if that is not the case according to your read. And being "philo-semitic" or working for a Jewish man does not prevent antisemitism or show that it is not present at all. There are quite a few philo-semitic antisemites who think Jewish people are magical chosen beings from god who run the world economy, that is a form of antisemitism as well. Andre🚐 21:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

racist views
There's a good bit talking about how Gavin potentially harbors white supremacist views. I think it might be worthwhile to mention in this section of the article, in the context of these racist quotes, that he has been married to someone who isn't white for nearly 20 years, which is definitely relevant to these quotes and shouldn't be relegated to the very bottom of the article. There's also the fact his co-host of many years is an Asian American, which is relevant because there's quite a few quotes here that were said at the expense of Asians. Binglederry (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023
Why is there no citation for the 2 times you are claiming he concerted to catholicism and is a member of the knights of Columbus? I get that it fits a particular narrative that wikipedia promotes, but it seems weird to make such a specific claim and then not be able to substantiate it. 96.8.248.37 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Going to gloss over the whole narrative promoting conspiracy nonsense, but have removed the section due to lack of sources in a BLP. Best I can tell, the lines were added here by a now indeffed user who cited the WP:DAILYCALLER (here)and another non-RS that itself cited the caller. Neither source ever mentioned the Knight of Columbus. A short google search for ' "catholic" Gavin McInnes ' does not return many hits and I did not see any that confirmed that he said he was catholic. Removing for now unless a source is found. Cannolis (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * don't ask me how I managed to find this but here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r25H04o8iE, at 3:45 he says "we" in the context of Knights of Columbus, implying he is a member. Not sure if youtube is a good source, but there it is, out of his own mouth Binglederry (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)