Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 1

Proud Boys at HWNDU
I think it should be included, maybe not in the lead, because it is relevant to an event that happened. Unless someone can explain how the group's presence at an art exhibit they allegedly "ruined", I'm including it. -- Aleccat  02:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither source you included states that the organization was present at the event, only that there were individuals who personally supported Proud Boys there. One article simply stated that one guy had a Proud Boy tattoo. The other stated "The area ... became divided into two camps. There were the Trump supporters — a mix of 4chan trolls, Proud Boys and college Republicans, many wearing Make America Great Again hats." To me, that doesn't even come close to saying that the subject of this article, the Proud Boys organization, was present at the event. It would be like saying the Toronto Maple Leafs were present at the Grey Cup if a few of the players were in the stands. CrispyGlover (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

That directly states they were there, and the comparison used makes no sense, but ok, I'm not edit warring.  Aleccat  17:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm not looking for an edit war. I just think that a few guys saying "We're proud boys" isn't the same thing as an organized group stating that they're present at a rally/march/demonstration, whatever. The previous wording made it seem like that's what was going on, but the two sources are very weak, and barely even mention Proud Boys. CrispyGlover (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Sourced Political Terminology & Semi-Protection requested
Here is the thread where you you can discuss sources relating to the political terminology and alignment of the proud boys for inclusion in the article. Due to lots of reverts and unsourced attempts to edit the article, I've requested semi-protection for this page. Hopefully this will generate more discussion about accurate sources here. If you wish to change the political alignment of the proud boys without sources, this can be done (but not on Wikipedia) by leaving the computer terminal at which you are currently stationed and going to talk to them directly. Cheers Edaham (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The name came from Aladdin?
I think it's interesting that a group championing the superiority of Western culture takes its name from a musical about the Middle East. Why is that? I think the history of that decision would be a nice addition to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.143.240.137 (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

8/11/17 Charlottesville rally
Members of the group showed up in large numbers at the Charlottesville Unite The Right alt-right rally, FWIW

2601:147:8400:D575:0:0:0:B4F2 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added a section on this. Do you have a source for the 'large numbers' claim? I am finding many sources that they were there, but nothing that concrete. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017
Change far-right to alt-light

Gavin McInness has used the term alt-light when referring to the Proud Boys not far-right or alt-right, the alt-light share similar views to the alt-right when it comes to nationalism however they do not share the same white supremacists views HGeneAnthony (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Wikipedia favors reliable sources. McInnes's stance, such as it is, is already mentioned. If you have reliable, secondary specifically discussing the Proud Boys and the difference between alt-right, far-right, alt alt-lite, please post them here for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits by 184.68.34.142
184.68.34.142, please do not add/replace content to the article unless it's supported by reliable sources, as you did with these two edits. Do you have reliable sources for those changes? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Protection has expired — please don't edit war
I applied full protection to Proud Boys three days ago, because of the "far-right"/"right-wing" edit warring, with a note pointing to discussion at the section "'Proud boys described as 'Far-right'" above. The protection has just expired. Only two users, who supported using "far-right", weighed in at the relevant section after I protected the page, and only those two out of all who have posted in the section (including before the protection), have had anything to say about reliable sources. Therefore, please don't edit war to change again to "right-wing" or to remove the whole thing, as was done here (with a misleading edit summary). If you want to make any changes along those sorts of lines, you need to first start a new discussion at the bottom of this page. Thank you. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

Personally horrified
Rockypedia, a minor point here, but who used the words "personally horrified"? Can we infer that it was Newton himself? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it didn't even occur to me that it was possible that someone else said it - I don't think a reputable news writer would put it in quotes if it wasn't a direct quote, two words away from his name. Especially with the word "personally" in it, I think it's reasonable inference. Rockypedia (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Fred Perry
Regarding Fred Perry: That brand is worn by antiracist skinheads as well as by racist skinheads. And skinheads in Germany, France etc also wear it, still today! To only mention the National Front, and only the seventies, is therefore wrong --87.177.114.247 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this edit address your valid concern regarding neutrality? The GQ source does draw a connection beteween Proud Boys and the British National Front, so I think it's appropriate to note it, though I agree we shouldn't be implying that among skinheads Fred Perry was worn exclusively by that group. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, thanks for fixing it! --87.179.33.125 (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ramos
I removed the section on Alex Ramos because of inadequate sourcing. Only one of the cited sources, this Atlanta Journal Constitution article ties him to the Proud boys. The specific text is:
 * Ramos was once associated with the Georgia Security Force III%, a metro Atlanta-based, right-wing militia. But the leader of that group said Ramos had severed ties and was now affiliated with the Proud Boys, a “pro-West fraternal organization,” according to founder Gavin McInnes.

Note that they attribute to McInnes the claim that Proud Boys is a “pro-West fraternal organization.” They attribute to the (unnamed) leader of Georgia Security Force III% the claim that Ramos was associated with Proud Boys. I could not find other sources that link Ramos with Proud Boys or reference the claim in the AJC article. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Raw Story source added here (which is not RS) links to the AJC but removes attribution of the claim. It is not citable unattributed. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hang on. Either the AJC is a reliable source or it isn't. There's no reason to doubt that the info in the AJC is inaccurate. There's no requirement that we need more than one reliable source to include information. What, then, is the basis for removal? Rockypedia (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I could be mistaken, but I believe James is saying that the AJC source doesn't say Ramos is a Proud Boy in its own voice, it merely reports what the leader of the Georgia Security Force III% said. I agree with him that the AJC is insufficient to make the Ramos-Proud Boys link. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the best solution is to add more detail about what the article said, such as "Ramos has been identified by a white nationalist leader in his home state of Georgia as a member of the Proud Boys," citing the AJC. Determining who is and who is not a member of a hate group is a tricky business, similar to determining who is and who is not a member of a street gang.  Journalists and law enforcement have their own criteria for determining membership in these groups and it differs by jurisdiction.  I don't think it our place to decide.  The person being charged will likely deny affiliations after the fact because it could contribute to a crime being designated a hate crime or gang-related, which can carry extra punishment.  We should follow the language used by valid secondary sources, in this case the ACJ.The steno pool (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think it would be a BLP violation to even suggest that Ramos might be a Proud Boy based on a statement by an individual that was clearly not fact-checked by any reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't know that the ACJ did not follow its fact checking process. The assumption has to be that they did because they printed it and it has not been retracted. The steno pool (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They printed it but not in their own voice. That means that for our purposes the leader of the Georgia Security Force III% really did say it. But that doesn't mean ACJ fact-checked what he said. I believe this concept is what is meant by WP:BLPGOSSIP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I meant to say, thank you. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, we do not know what the fact checking process was. The AJC is not a gossip publication. It is not as simple as calling the the registrar for attributing membership to these kinds of groups. They had their primary source, which they cite.  They may have also looked at Ramos's Facebook page where he declares himself a "proud Western Chauvinist..." which is what you have to do to be a part of the group. His profile picture also shows him at a Proud Boy event and he "Likes" the FOAK. And he was charged with beating up a counter protester at a rally, which is what one has to do to earn the 4th degree in the Proud Boys. Could be a combination of things that made the ACJ comfortable with publishing it.  We don't know their process. The steno pool (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to say that The steno pool makes a convincing case, and I always maintained that the AJC was a reliable enough source. Adding more detail about what the article said seems like a reasonable solution, to me, that should eliminate the possibility of BLP issues. Rockypedia (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , just clarifying here, are you sure you read the AJC source? It doesn't say that Ramos was a Proud Boy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that the AJC was quoting the leader of the Georgia Security Force III%, yes. That's why I agree that the rewrite with more detail would be a good thing, and I also think AJC as a source combined with everything The steno pool pointed out makes a convincing case for inclusion in the article. Rockypedia (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The AJC does say this in its own voice: "The Fraternal Order of Alt Knights (FOAK), which Ramos allegedly joined, is the “tactical defensive arm” of the Proud Boys." Alternatively, we could say "Ramos, an alleged member of the Fraternal Order of Alt Knights . . ." The steno pool (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe "alleged" refers to their earlier attributed claim. Both claims (Proud Boys and FOAK membership) appear to come from the same unnamed source. If this were Ramos' biography I would be more inclined to include the claim (with attribution) but I don't think it's appropriate to include Ramos in the article of a group with which his connection is only alleged. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything regarding Ramos is alleged at this point in the criminal proceedings. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia if it comes from a reputable source, which this does. It just means that we need to be precise when we talk about allegations, charges, and convictions. You are making an assumption about how the AJC reached its decision to include Ramos's alleged affiliation with the FOAK in their reporting.  Honestly, in addition to the claim from a leader of a semi-aligned group, there is plenty to go off on Ramos's own Facebook page for a editor to make the decision to include it. Additionally, they may have done other fact checking that is not referred to in the article.    Clearly, they felt they had enough proof of the affiliation. But that is beside the point, the AJC is a reputable source and they are reporting the alleged connection.  I am not aware of a rule that says allegations cannot be included in Wikipedia, especially when criminal charges have been filed.  They just need to be referenced as such. The steno pool (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Requests_for_page_protection
Thanks to the editors who have been making daily reverts of poorly summarized/sourced IP edits to this page. I've requested semi-protection at RfPP, which will hopefully lighten the work load. Edaham (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"Black PBs"
From the group's site: "There are no special rules for black Proud Boys (this overrides anything previously published about black PBs) or any other non-white PBs." What is McInnis talking about, here? Did black members previously have special rules? If not, why would he need to spell that out for black members, but not for other non-white members? It's far too specific to be boilerplate. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Unsurprising. The NYT mentions that a member was recorded telling new initiates to "announce yourself as a white, proud Western chauvinist, make sure everyone knows it, and don’t be ashamed". This suggests that nonwhites would be held to different standards. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Where in the video is this? I just listened repeatedly & I can't find that. It is a decent vid, the producer doesn't seem to be pushing any particular view, more seeking ground truth. Near the beginning he interviews a slightly drunk guy (they're pretty much all slightly buzzed) who paraphrases the "1st degree oath" or whatever you call it like that, but that is not GM, nor is it a recording of an actual initiation. At about 2m 40s in there is an actual initiation recorded and the word "white" is NOT used. GM is interviewed. He doesn't say anything to support the NYT reporter's claim. Although there is plenty of evidence of non-white PBs, it wouldn't surprise me terribly if the oath may have originally included the word "white", but still, the NYT reporter misrepresented this video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. No, actually, I misrepresented the video, the NYT got it right and quoted a member, I simply misread the article. The reliability of the independent journalist who made the recording, Tim Pool, is controversial, so for various reasons, it would be better to rely on established journalist with editing/fact-checking etc. to fill in details like this. It would also be better to, um, read those sources correctly, obviously, which I didn't do. Grayfell (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you are not at fault & you are being too charitable. You read it right the first time.

Against the possibility I was seeing what I expected rather than what was there (I've had my own brushes with media & don't regard either their competence or integrity as axiomatic), I went back and studied the sentence & I can't parse it any other way. She EITHER worded the sentence poorly OR tried to leave herself an I-didn't-mean-it-that-way excuse with the string "and explained by a member" while deliberately lying.

Whether the reporter is careless, has a poor grasp of verbal logic, or doesn't mind improving stories for the sake of drama, I can't say. All of those are distressingly common in mass media.

Diagram the sentence. The core claim is clearly "The first ritual, as captured on video . . . was to 'announce yourself as a white, proud Western chauvinist . . .'". The weasel string begins with "and", not "or", and it doesn't alter the basic claim - it adds a second claim, that, in addition to the falsely alleged recording of an initiation oath containing the word "white", a member ALSO explained it. The truth of the second claim (because that WAS true - a member DID explain it, even if he was drunk & the explanation appears to be less than accurate) doesn't alter the falsity of the basic claim.

In a TV reporter (after all, we don't expect them to have brains - look who their customers are) speaking ad lib this level of imprecision would be excusable, but in a print journalist, it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't what you're making it out to be. You can hear him say white very clearly in the video, and trying to spin this as an anti-MSM conspiracy theory is not appropriate. The only real issue I see is that the video captured a "second degree initiation" (good lord), not a first degree one as stated by the NYT. This is a relatively minor error which changes nothing substantial about the claim itself.
 * The quote in the NYT is The first ritual, as captured on video and explained by a member, was to “announce yourself as a white, proud Western chauvinist, make sure everyone knows it, and don’t be ashamed.” The linked video does include that line, at around the :45 mark. If there is a problem with what the member said, that's not the fault of the NYT or Tim Pool, as they captured/transcribed the quote correctly. He is speaking very rapidly, but the member clearly says "first degree you just announce yourself [as] a white proud western chauvinist..." When transcribing an interview, minor tweaks for ambiguous audio or to remove filler words are entirely acceptable (both in journalism and in Wikipedia), so this transcription is accurate. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Good catch on the 2nd vs 1st level initiation. I had noted the presence of the 2nd degree earmarks, but I had assumed for some reason they were doing 1st & 2nd together as one step for some reason. More likely, as you seem to assume, that the 2nd degree initiation includes, in addition to its unique elements, another repetition of the oath.

But for the rest, I disagree. Both the early part where a chap describes a ritual, and the later part where an actual ritual is recorded are quite clear & there is no difficulty in distinguishing what is said. What the reporter wrote was "The first ritual, as captured on video . . . was" and then proceded to quote, NOT from a ritual captured on video, which he COULD have, but from a drunken 3rd party DESCRIPTION of a first ritual. That's a substantial difference as any lawyer or responsible old school responsible journalist would agree.

Upon consideration, I must add there is one realistic thing that can be said in his defense that didn't occur to me earlier: it IS very easy for people to hear what they EXPECT to hear & if he didn't listen to his own tape very carefully it's quite possible that he honestly didn't notice that the oath he actually recorded didn't quite match what the earlier indirect quotation had led him to expect. That's the kind of honest mistake an editor is traditionally supposed to catch. If it was that kind of mistake, then he is a victim of declining editorial standards which are an unfortunate reality, and has my sympathy. Still, it clearly is error.

One more thing - dismissing any observation of facts you don't care for with the buzz phrase "conspiracy theory" isn't chic & doesn't mark you as a penetrating intellectual. It's merely childish & calls into question if you actually know what "conspiracy" means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It was a first-person account, not a third person account. This second-degree initiate unambiguously said "white proud Western chauvinist". The person being quoted was specifically describing a 'ritual' he himself had gone through. This was not the exact same ritual that had been captured, but he was still recounting his own experiences from less than two weeks prior. It's possible he was drunk but that's speculation, he also plausibly was coming down from an adrenaline rush, or was just that kind of guy, who knows. It's also speculation to say that his account must have been inaccurate because it wasn't exactly the same as the later example. It's not really up to us to speculate on whether or not he was impaired or knew what he was talking about. For Wikipedia, it's up to reliable sources. The NYT journalist quoting him was a third person account, and Wikipedia strongly favors third-person summaries of such things, per WP:PRIMARY etc.
 * So let's go back to my original point. Gavin McInnis published something implying that policy had changed ("...this overrides anything previously published about black PBs..."). That's why I posted any of this in the first place. There were first-degree initiations also captured on the video which did not use "white", but that's not necessarily the same ritual this guy went through, and that's what I want clarified. The video also has McInnis saying hyperbolically that racists "don't exist", so he knows full well this is something people are confused by. We know that in this particular video, McInnis knew that a journalist was recording, and he didn't say "white" for the one instance where he was recorded. That doesn't cancel out what the one member said, and no good journalist, even a painfully sympathetic one like Tim Pool, would assume that knowingly being recorded doesn't influence someone's behavior.
 * I assumed that they were repeating the pledge prior to the second-degree initiation. I don't know that these people were or were not members prior to that theatrical hazing ritual. Pool's unusual editing doesn't clarify this, either. I don't think it necessarily matters that much. The account we have still stands. The event was recorded, and was described by a member as ___. That's... slightly misleading, but it still does nothing at all to answer my initial question.
 * As for "conspiracy theories", broadly dismissing mainstream journalism, as you did through citing your personal experiences, and casting aspersions about the basic competence or integrity of the journalist, are both entirely consistent with the many conspiracy theories coming from the alt-right. If you would like to know why this is, indeed, a conspiracy theory, I would be willing to explain it to you elsewhere. Conspiracy theory or not, Wikipedia, by design, has a mainstream bias, and brushing-off mainstream sources because you've had a bad experience is totally unpersuasive. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2017
Please change "Alt Right" to "Traditionalist Conservative"

Alt-Right is a white supremacist movement that is not associated with the proudboys in any way, and to infer such is misleading and false.

Thank you! Njsinko (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2017
Any mention of the group being "far right" when they aren't, is slander and legal actions will be taken 160.147.39.121 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for 31 hours for making legal threats. Doug Weller  talk 13:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, editing from the Headquarters of the U.S. Army Information Systems Command. Doug Weller  talk 13:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * good to know those tax dollars are being well put to use. Edaham (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * this article By the BBC calls them an alt-right group. Edaham (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The Tenets
I see that something about "ten tenets" is mentioned from a "news" article at the Toronto Sun. In that article they seem to invent various tenets that according to the Proud Boys website don't exist. The Toronto Sun reports: "The Proud Boys’ libertarian code also includes: advocating for the closure of all prisons; giving everyone a gun; legalizing drugs; ending welfare; closing the borders to immigrants; outlawing censorship; glorifying entrepreneurs; recognizing “the West is the best”; and “shutting down the government”." Whereas the BP website states: "Our values center on the following tenets: Minimal Government, Maximum Freedom, Anti-Political Correctness, Anti-Drug War, Closed Borders, Anti-Racial Guilt, Anti-Racism, Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment), Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment), Glorifying the Entrepreneur, Venerating the Housewife, Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism" Clearly the Sun simply made up points like "close all prisons" or "giving everyone a gun"... If nobody objects I will correct it. 201.214.95.221 (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do object. As far as I can tell the Toronto Sun article is a reliable independent source. We generally prefer those over what organizations say on their own websites. Plus, two sources are actually not contradictory. The tenets you quote from the PBs' website don't claim to be an exhaustive list of all aspects of the PBs' code. You either need to find a source saying that the PBs do not believe in closing all prisons or giving everyone a gun, or you need to establish a consensus that the Sun article isn't reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it looks like the Toronto Sun reporter's own interpretation of the tenets. But, as DrFleischman says, the Toronto Sun is a WP:RS. It is however contradicted by a number of other sources like    and a number of less reliable sources. In contrast the phrases “the West is the best” and “shutting down the government” show up in the Toronto Sun article and republications of it. I'd say that the Proud Boys' own description is WP:DUE and the Toronto Sun's isn't. Sjö (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do question the Toronto Sun's editorial judgment, as in my own research I could no evidence at all that the PBs want to close down all prisons. That's a pretty crazy claim. But, the Toronto Sun is generally considered reliable, and original research is prohibited, so I'm not aware of any basis for excluding this content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What about the Toronto Sun having to provide a source for their claim? (They don't) I mean, so far it's just some guy at the Toronto Sun making up a claim without giving evidence and then Wikipedia accepting it as truth. Isn't verifiability one of Wikipedia's core tenets? 201.239.163.7 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an understandable misconception about how verifiability works. Would the Sun's source also have to provide a source? How about their source's source's source? If an outlet is generally reliable, we generally accept what they have to say. We tentatively grant them the benefit of the doubt, if we accept they are reputable journalists, that they know how to perform research and handle and protect their sources as appropriate. So the question is whether or not Toronto Sun is reputable. With no prior knowledge, my cursory reading of the Wikipedia article about the paper leads me to say "no". Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a "misconception". That's exactly how verifiability works. That's what the word "source" means: Origin. How else would you be able to tell the veracity of a given claim? There's a reason they're called the "Media" and not "Fontes". What you are talking about is trust, not verifiability. The two are antithetical. 201.214.161.142 (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 201.239.163.7, reputable media outlets routinely engage in behind-the-scenes fact checking as part of the editorial process; we readers are generally not privy to it all. This is why our reliable sources guideline requires that sources merely have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. There is no requirement that anyone prove that a specific item found in a source be publicly verified. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "reputation for accuracy". Because we all know the media never publish anything but the truth. Except then, then, then and then. And then and then and then and then. And many many more... 201.214.161.142 (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to take issue with community standards such as our reliable sources guideline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the toronto sun qualifies as a reliable source, but the exact wording is contradicted by this surprisingly even-handed huffpo article, which has 12 values that the group believes in rather than 10 tenets. Language is different and sometimes less drastic (i.e. minimal government as opposed to shutting down the government), but generally follows the same quirks exhibited in the sun article and corresponds nearly one to one on the "ten tenets" ("venerating businessmen" AND "venerating housewives"). I think for now, the article is ok, although I would include the huffpo article somewhere in there detailing their list of values since it's WP:VERIFIABLE and therefore deserves at least a small mention. Given how I've seen this group operate, they are less cohesive in specific beliefs than most reporters like to admit (since it invariably makes their jobs harder, as it does ours), with significant variations state to state. This may be the reason why you see proud boys in charlottesville that Gavin disowns immediately. There may very well be 10 tenets that this reporter and editorial board at the sun verified (and as you have pointed out correctly WP:RS requires us to believe this re: page editing), but imho they are probably based on a video out of hundreds that Gavin has made and there is probably a differing but generally similar version of "the 10 tenets" for each chapter. That being said, this is all mostly original research and speculation, but I think it should inform the future research of this article -- there will probably be an article out there in the future (or buried in the almighty google) that might detail why you see this discrepancy or that will add to this headache further. TL:DR -- article is certainly fine for now, suggest including the huffpo article's "values" as well if nobody else objects, original research and attendance at proudboys rallies suggests to this editor that maybe these ten tenets aren't actually that solid chapter by chapter and this is going to be a continuing issue once proud boys are more featured in reliable sources Rejewskifan (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's a discrepancy among the reliable sources then it must be reflected. Want to take a stab at it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Quotation marks
Hey, this is nitpicky as fuck and an aside, but currently the ten tenets read as: "1) “venerating the housewife,” 2) closing all prisons, 3) arming the citizenry with guns, 4) legalizing drugs, 5) ending welfare, 6) ending immigration, 7) banning censorship, 8) glorifying entrepreneurs, 9) recognizing “the West is the Best,” and 10) “shutting down the government.”" I almost understand the quotes in 9 since I hear it shouted constantly at rallies, but do not understand why we need quotes on 1 and 10 since we are quoting the whole tenet and they are not de facto mottos like "the West is the Best" is. Just looks and sounds funny to me. If you all decide to keep this in, can you edit that to at least look less strange? Rejewskifan (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree about "shutting down the government," I see no reason why that needs to have quotes. However I think "venerating the housewife" should be quoted because it's vague and notable language. I mean from an uninformed reader's perspective, what on earth do that mean? Hence the quotes. Just my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it was a bit of a nitpick. See (soon-to-be)talk entry above for views on specific wording on another reason why the individual quotes might not make much senseRejewskifan (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

not alt-right
you can't make a claim that a group is alt-right based solely on the reports of journalists. what actions has the group taken which show it to be alt-right? what published words? if the people leading the group denounce the alt-right repeatedly, give some evidence that they are lying.

the more wikipedia becomes an ideological bubble chamber, the less credibility it will have. it can be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.215.149 (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can and does make claims based solely on reliable sources. Trying to use examples of their behavior to decide their 'real' ideology would be original research, which isn't permitted. That's how Wikipedia works, and is pretty much how it's always worked.
 * As the SPLC summarizes, "McInnes denies any connection between his group and the far right, dismissing the fact that they show up to the same events, take fashion cues from each other, read the same books, sympathize with each other's viewpoints — including, at times, anti-Semitism — and joust in the shadows of the same windmills." Reliable sources, for the most part, treat McInnes' claims as empty spin or PR. If you know of reliable sources which instead support this perspective, let's see them. Grayfell (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The Proud Boys have issued a statement clarifying that they are not alt-right. I have made this clarification next to the claim that they are alt-right, clearly stating that they themselves reject the term alt-right (which they do. Yet that quite remarkable clarification keeps being reversed. It is disingenuous, as they clearly state in the article that The Proud Boys have nothing to do with the topic of race and the "Jewish Question", the defining difference between the alt-lite and the alt-right. To have in the main description the claim that they are alt-right without at the very least referencing their disavowal of that term and the groups that adhere to it is dishonest at best and outright defamation at worst. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanished user 7364084 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Defamation implies legal action. Legal threats are not compatible with editing Wikipedia. Please clarify your intentions as soon as possible.
 * This could be more clearly explained lede, but that would first call for an expansion and explanation of aaaalllll these many sources calling them alt-right. Do you have any WP:SECONDARY sources for this? If many reliable sources link the Proud Boys to the alt-right, and the only source refuting this is McInnes himself, then this seems questionable regarding due weight. I did add that source, weak as it is. I added it to the section on the Unite the Right rally, which was, according to many reliable sources, organized by a Proud Boy. Proud Boys are required to follow McInnes's rules, but Wikipedia is not. We are obligated to report things in proportion to due weight. If sources are skeptical of McInnes's tight-rope walk regarding race (as discussed by many sources, such as the SPLC link above), than Wikipedia will naturally reflect that, since we reflect reliable sources. McInnes's blog isn't a reliable source for statements of general fact, and is only usable for relevant attributed opinions. Use of this source would have to account for this limitation.
 * Also, I know this is verging into WP:NOTFORUM, but how can they have a "Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights" and also claim to be totally unrelated to the alt-right? Is it supposed to be a joke name? Just a coincidence? If so, why would we take anything they say seriously? Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this report by the Southern Poverty Law Center is worth reading. It includes a transcript of Alt-right White Nationalists discussing their views on the Proud Boys' place in their movement. Quick summary: They see the Proud Boys as a "farm team" for recruiting new people into the movement. They say they pluck all of the good white Proud Boys and move them on more extreme groups when they are ready. The Proud Boys remain a good place for those who have some kind of "personal issue" or "hang-up," such as they are only "half-white" or they have a girl friend who is non-white, etc. These characteristics will prevent them from ever being truly accepted in the more extreme elements of the white nationalist movement. They predict that soon the Proud Boys will only be people with these "personal issues." Still they see value in having a group of people with these "hangups" in an aligned group like the Proud Boys. They also say that "western chauvinism" and white supremacy are the same thing. Not sure if this helps resolve the "alt-right" vs. "alt-lite" debate, but it did help me understand the Proud Boys place in the white nationalist movement. The steno pool (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Southern Poverty Law Center is known Hate Group, and anything but a "reliable source". EyePhoenix (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The only place it is 'known' as a hate group is among far-right and alt-right fringe detractors, so this is wrong. If it weren't wrong, it still wouldn't mean that the Proud Boys aren't alt-right. Grayfell (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Statements like this make it very hard for editors to take your future comments on a case by case basis. I realize it's a shame for you that Stormfront isn't around any more, but you might be well advised to distinguish between a bulletin board (or public house where you get to tell like minded people your views about how nasty lobbyists are trying to make it so that it's OK for differing levels of ultraviolet radiation to cause people's melanocytes to express different variations over time) - and a collective scholarly effort to assemble knowledge about the world. Repeated manifestations of this confusion on your part will result in a string of warnings, followed by your editing privileges being limited or cut off. I realize that parts of this post this might come off as a piece of effrontery, but if you don't like my jokes, please, don't be them. Edaham (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your assessment is incorrect, I will forgive your attempt to be rude and re-iterate for your benefit, Southern Poverty Law Center is a known Hate Group, and anything but a "reliable source". EyePhoenix (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The only place it is 'known' as a hate group is among far-right and alt-right fringe detractors, so this is wrong. If it weren't wrong, it still wouldn't mean that the Proud Boys aren't alt-right. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just going to point out that is pretty clearly trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for political advocacy, a pattern involving multiple users annd IP editors that I have pointed out in the talk pages of numerous articles.  I don't think editors should treat these users' contributions as anything other than the vandalism it is. 184.151.37.144 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just going to point out that mystery editor 184.151.37.144 is clearly trying to derail any rational conversation that might take place on the talk page. The characterization of "multiple users and IP editors" is baseless and, of course unverifiable. For those who aren't here in a trollish capacity and actually interested in improving the quality of the article, I will reorient: the Southern Poverty Law Center is a known HATE GROUP, and not a "reliable source". EyePhoenix (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do reorient, right now your orientation is backwards. The SPLC is a hate group as much as Hitler was a pacifist humanitarian. Repeating your attack over and over sounds trollish. Doug Weller  talk 19:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Try as you might to equate "rightwing" with "hate" there remains no shortage of information showing the leftwing SPLC to be a politically motivated HATE GROUP used by Democrat operatives as a means of attack on those who expose their corruption. You're not in much of a position to be labeling anyone else "troll", thanks for revealing yourself so clearly. EyePhoenix (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking perhaps, but I didn't "label" you or call you a troll. Doug Weller  talk 09:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no "shortage of information" that the moon landing was a hoax or that all world leaders are lizard people, but that doesn't make these claims true, does it? We need accurate information, which means it comes from reliable sources. You have failed to provide this. Again, even if it were a "hate group" according to some, that wouldn't actually make this social fraternity of prideful young men any less alt-right. Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion has devolved into a substance-free back-and-forth about whether the SPLC is a hate group shows that it's time to move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The Root
Don't see this as an unreliable source, nor do I see the assertion that it's a gossip site as true. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how a gossip website is RS for a BLP. Why keep restoring it? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I do love the 'take it to talk' comment in your edit summary when I've already started a section, ... PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't see it as a BLP when on an organisation page even if it does mention a person but the argument is about if it is a reliable source. Not sure the source is a gossip site myself. NZFC  (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to add about BLP comment it kind of doesn't matter in the fact it's just backing up a second source anyway so hardly a violation. NZFC  (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

, after suggesting it be taken to the talk page and creating a second section here, has created a discussion at RSN per my initial suggestion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think it was good form to take it to RSN without engaging in discussion here. But whatever. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was a burning need to remove the source, as it is backed up by the SPLC. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I view The Root as a perfectly acceptable source - it's not a gossip site, it's a general interest news and culture magazine aimed at African-American audiences. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Root is fine. This particular article is flippant, but so what? If the the Proud Boys expect to be treated with unearned deference and respect, they will remain frustrated. A dismissive tone doesn't make the source any less reliable. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Kyle Chapman
Having a section on Chapman is UNDUE, and what do his previous convictions have to do with Proud Boys? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The ten however many tenets
I just removed this paragraph. The fact that it is sketchily sourced is less relevant than the fact that the paragraph was unattributed and clearly comes direct from some.... whatever.... I want to say, manifesto...? I'm all for removing this paragraph from the lead based on primary, undue and soap. This inclusion seems like an advertisement for them. Edaham (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

poll

 * remove per the above. This special interest group (and their opponents) don't get to enthuse to people about ideologies in wikipedia's voice. (Nominating editor) Edaham (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * don't remove, at least not for the reason stated. As I've said in the other section about the tenets, the problem is sourcing and accuracy, not promotion. Wikipedia does and should report the views and ideology of the organizations it covers, but of course in a neutral way. There is no soapboxing by just reporting what a reliable source has said, but if you think that it needs to be attributed it's very easy to add "According to....". Sjö (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * it's not written like a bulleted list in the source stated. Putting them in numerical order is complete synth. So is the level of inclusivity. The source didn't present them all as "tenets", didn't suggest any hierarchy to them and merely glossed over some of them in passing. I went to the subject's site, spent as much time as I could be bothered to spend and found little more than a garble of sound bytes and reactions to them from all over the web, so I'm guessing if they were there that they aren't now. It's not a simple case of attributing by adding "according to....", when as far as I can tell from the previous sourcing, an editor simply made up an order for these bizarre commandments and used wikivoice to present them. Edaham (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Do not remove and there are 13 tenets not ten. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW I agree with it not being in the lede, I'm opposing removing it from the article Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd reword it as prose (as in the secondary source) and take away the appearance of numerical ordering at the least. I'd tentatively support reinclusion in a sentence like, "reporting in the Toronto sun (or hopefully a better source), their core tenets included ideas such as... blah blah blah. Edaham (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards remove. It's propaganda. Love the fact that they say they are anti-racist, closed borders and anti-racist guilt. And of course Western chauvinists however, I'd probably go along with Edaham's suggestion. Doug Weller  talk 16:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not remove. An organization's purpose, beliefs, etc. are extremely important and should not be removed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

McInnes and the alt-right
Hey, I couldn't find his denial in the two sources immediately prior,. Where exactly are they- in which article and what are the words he uses? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Citation added Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Where in the source you added does McInnes say the things you claim? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could have tried reading it " McInnes’s insistence that the Proud Boys have nothing to do with the “alt-right” grew even more adamant after the violence in Charlottesville." Darkness Shines (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Proud boys described as 'Far-right'
Can someone explain how they are 'far-right'? Gavin mcciness has recalled them from major alt-right rallies numerous times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:19B4:8701:C5F2:94BF:A61A:1B0A (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They are described as far-right because reliable secondary sources describe them as far-right. See WP:RS for an explanation of the policy, and see the citations provided in the article for the sources. Rockypedia (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Proud Boys are not a far-right group, they do not espouse or claim any "far right" positions, be it factual or commonly misconceived. The citations are merely media outlets and authors asserting such claims out of hand without any argumentation or evidence. Wiki sources surely cannot use mere assertions as "evidence", nor are these sources reliable and at any rate facts and the proof of the claim is what is required, not the mere claim that X is "reliable". I can provide an expose which goes over the Proud Boys stances (such as non-masturbation) and how websites like the Daily Stormer attack the Proud Boy's founder for refusing to peddle Antisemitism narratives, if you like? If Proud Boys are FAR right wing then you should be able to offer multiple far right positions they hold (being proud of western culture etc is not far right please note) MKPOOSH 16:10 London 10/9/2017 —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources. Again, I suggest you read WP:RS for an explanation of how to add sourced information to articles, and how to avoid making unsourced changes. Once you've read and understood that page, we can proceed. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliable secondary sources are calling the Proud Boys far-right and alt-right and that is really all that matters for how it is referred to in Wikipedia. I'll take it a step further though and say that I think that is a reasonable conclusion.  If you consider the U.S. Republican Party's 2016 Platform to be "right wing," nearly everything in the Proud Boys 10 tenets (their platform?) is pretty far to the right of that or just much more extreme. Mainstream conservatives are not calling for the closure of all prisons, for example.  The steno pool (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * We describe the Proud Boys as far right because they are described that way by the Seattle Times, the AP, CBC, and the LA Times. The only "evidence" that we would count against this would be reliable secondary sources that say that the Proud Boys are not far-right. This is just how Wikipedia works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Quoting untruths from deceptive leftist sources doesn't make them any more true. Senior Wikipedia editors could take a few lessons in "truth"- it appears to be a concept that gets in the way of their political agenda. Something doesn't smell too good here and I don't think it's Proudboys. EyePhoenix (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If the Seattle Times, the AP, CBC, and the LA Times are all "deceptive leftist sources" than so is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tertiary reflection on what sources like those ones say. If a broad range of journalists, and the group's own platform, all point to a conclusion you disagree with, than the problem lies somewhere other than Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The "far right" designation, despite being cited and described in media sources, is not a neutral point of view. It is an opinion and inference based upon the opinions of those writing the cited articles to begin with.  As always, when it comes to matters of ideology and characterization of the ideology of others, wikipedia, and those who edit/manage its content, appear to be inherently biased -- and aggressively so -- to the left. Scbritton (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say, they say far right. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those aren't "reliable sources" as they're still written with the author's own biases and ideology in place. Scbritton (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They are according to our policies on sourcing Darkness Shines (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BIASED --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Then wikipedia’s policies are clearly geared towards pushing a political agenda rather than providing information. This is fundamentally wrong, and makes this site a fraud. Scbritton (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Your personal opinions on which bias/ideology is the correct one is irrelevant. Wikipedia's policies are geared towards reflecting information provided by reliable sources. If you want to know what the Proud Boys have to say about themselves, you can find that on their own website, as I'm sure you already know. Grayfell (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to complain about community guidelines. You're free to propose changes to them at WP:VPP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No point. It would accomplish -- just like trying to improve the lack of neutrality in this article and others -- nothing.  The far left is too entrenched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scbritton (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then it's time to move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Far right
I would like to make some edits to this page. Namely to remove “Far right” as an adjective for the Proud Boys. The Proud Boys are not Far right by Wikipedia’s own definition of Far right. They are not nationalists, even one of the sources supports this by talking about the Canadian proud boys. It is an international organization. Neither are they nativists as many chapters are in the US which is composed mostly of migrants. They also have members that are recent migrants. Lastly, they have nothing close to authoritarian tendencies. In fact they are by and large against authority to the point that all chapters are almost completely autonomous. The only thing that they are, are culturalists. Nowhere, that I could find, are culturalists defined as far right. Everything that Wikipedia describes the far right as being is in no way supported by the proud boys fraternity, and in some cases is completely oposite. Therefore, I would like to remove “far right” and the “sources” related to it. None of the sources used make a case or explain how the fraternity is far right, they simply refer to them as far right, and thus cannot be considered reliable sources that prove that the organization is in fact far right. As noted above, they are, by definition, not far right. There are other changes I would like to make and even content I would like to add, but seeing how the editing of this page is under such tight control, I will argue my case for each edit I want to make on a case by case basis. Thank you for your consideration. Redbeard3006 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What reliable source calls them "culturalist"? (For that matter, what does culturalist/culturalism mean? If this is a neologism, I don't expect you to answer, by the way.) Attempting to determine whether or not they truly are far-right or not would be original research, which isn't how Wikipedia works. Since reliable sources say they are far-right, that's enough. We don't attempt to compare and contrast definitions of far-right beyond how they are applied by sources. Likewise, we don't second-guess reliable sources without a specific reason, which you have not provided. Reliable sources say the Proud Boys are far-right, so we follow. Grayfell (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

So, if you had a reliable source that says they are not, would it be allowed to be removed? What is done when “reliable sources” contradict each other. For that matter, who determines what is a reliable source and what is biased slander or the mindless republishing of someone else’s biased slander? Redbeard3006 (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to answer your question. They call themselves culteralists, in that they require members to believe that the west is the best, but that is irrelevant. I only offered that as an “if anything”. So, is Wikipedia not a reliable source? Even wikipedia’s own definition of far right contradicts these “reliable sources”. Redbeard3006 (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Correct, Wikipedia is not a reliable source within Wikipedia. Using other articles as sources would lead to circular references, among other problems (see WP:CIRC).
 * As laid-out at WP:RS, reliable sources are those with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. In practice some indicators of a news source's reliability are that it has independent editorial oversight, issues retractions and corrections, has won significant awards (the Pulitzer Prize, for example), or has a history of breaking stories which are covered and directly cited by other reliable outlets. Academic sources have slightly different indicators, but you get the idea.
 * As has already been discussed on this talk page, the Proud Boys own site is not a reliable source, even for claims about the Proud Boys. WP:PRIMARY material from the organization can only be used in limited cases either with attribution, or for non-controversial details (founding dates, addresses, that kind of thing). If reliable sources contradict each other, we evaluate on a case by case bases, but WP:DUE is a common starting point. Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What Grayfell said. Redbeard, your user talk comments suggest that you take issue with Wikipedia's community standards such as its verifiability policy and the corresponding guideline for identifying reliable sources. That's perfectly legitimate, but before you go down that path, please know that this is not the appropriate forum to discuss issues with our community standards. Better would be WT:V, WP:VPP, or WP:TEA. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Greyfell, would the tenets of the group be any more controversial that the founding date? Per Wikipedia policy, self sources can be used as sources for information about themselves and their activities as long as it doesn’t speak for a third party, make an exceptional claim, and that the article isn’t solely based on such a source. So, per wikipedia’s Own standards, sources from the Proud Boys are acceptable sources. Dr. Fleischman, I do have an issue with Wikipedia’s standards and with it’s interpretation even moreso. But I am not going to make that argument here. I will formulate my argument within the current guidelines when I have a little more time. Redbeard3006 (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, the the organization's tenets are more controversial than the founding date by far, but that's not the only problem. The "tenets" listed on their website are not inherently the most significant aspect of the organization. We don't use a corporation's marketing materials or mission statement to define it, and this is similar. When reliable sources saying something about an organization, that organization's PR about itself is not automatically cancel-out those other sources. Labeling sources as biased or left-wing or whatever doesn't make them less reliable, either. Reporting or commenting on an organization in an way that doesn't align with that organization's desires has absolutely no effect on reliability at all. Grayfell (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You obviously care a lot about the subject of this article and the accuracy of what it says and I think that it might help to look at our policies from the perspective of an article whose subject you care nothing about. If it were allowed for Coca Cola to use their site to write about their company vision on our encyclopedia, we can easily imagine the problems, which would occur. Edaham (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Greyfell, please explain how a group’s tenets are controversial in relation to defining the group. The tenets may in themselves be controversial, however, there shouldn’t be any controversy about the tenets defining what the group is about and believes in. That’s quite the straw man. The tenets of a fraternity are nothing like a company’s PR. The tenets of an organization define what the organization is about and who they allow into the group and how they expect members to act. If you want to use a business as a straw man, a closer comparison would be to the employee handbook and HR policies. Sure you might have an asshole employee that hits on his coworker, but it is in violation of the companies anti harassment policies and if it is reported or becomes blatant enough that HR becomes aware of it, the employee will be punished or terminated. It would be foolish to say that a company’s employee handbook and HR policies are too controversial to be allowed as a source to support the policies of the company. The policies of the company and the actions of it’s employees do not necessarily always align, but the actions of an employee and any subsequent publishing of those actions do not negate the policies of the company. Only a continued open violation of the policies by multiple employees would make the company policies controversial and unreliable. And yes, reporting on an organization in direct contradiction of their own policies, tenets, and actions does reflect on the reliability of the source. There is such a thing as defamation. Edaham, if Wikipedia is talking about coca cola’s vision, it only makes sense that you would use coca cola’s vision statement as a reference. You might make an argument that the company is not following their vision statement and use sources to make that argument. It would be faulty however to use a third party as a source to define coke’s Vision statement when that third party is the complete opposite of Coke’s actual vision statement. That is the argument I am trying to make. It’s one thing to make an argument that the Proud Boys members act in a manner consistent with the definition of the far right, but to label them far right Simply because an article calls them far right is not intellectually honest. Not to mention it is against Wikipedia policy. Per Wikipedia policy “Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited.” Just because the author of the article calls them far right, does not verify that they are far right. “Article statements should not rely on passing comments.” Which is exactly what the current sources do. “Should reflect the conclusions of the source” the topic of the source was not about whether or not the Proud Boys are far right and thus did not come to that conclusion, but simply made a “passing comment” by using it as an adjective when referencing the fraternity. Therefore, “drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.” As I established before, the sources did not come to a conclusion that the Proud Boys were far right, therefore labeling them far right in the Wikipedia article is original research as defined by Wikipedia’s own policies. Not only that, but the sources cited cannot even be considered secondary sources, as wikipedia’s Definition of secondary sources is that “it contains an author’s analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts and ideas taken from primary sources.” These sources do none of that in regards to the fraternity being far right or not. There is not evaluation going on as to where the organization lands on the political spectrum, only a passing label. Redbeard3006 (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding sources that contradict the current sources that label the group as far right. Here is a very non biased article that describes the group as libertarian http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2017/11/27/controversial-proud-boys-embrace-western-values-reject-feminism-and-political-correctness/888519001/ Redbeard3006 (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice essay, wrong place for it. You’ve already had our policies explained to you regarding this matter. Now you are WP:NOTHERE. This isn’t a forum. Please take your disruptive talk page texts to the wall of a public toilet where they belong. If you even so much as mention defamation, or anything which sounds like a legal threat again I’ll make an ANI report. Cheers. Edaham (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Holy cow Redbeard! The goal here is to obtain consensus to improve the article, not to overwhelm folks with walls of text! Please try to make your arguments a lot more concise, and if they must be long, the least you can do is to break them into digestible paragraphs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about NOTHERE? This is exactly the place for this. I want to make edits to factually incorrect information on a Wikipedia article and senior editors will not allow me to do that without significant explanation, therefore I am here to make my case in an attempt to convince the powers that be to allow me to make the edits without reverting them. I directly quoted the policies. This is not disruptive talk, this is a discussion of the merits of editing this page. So far this has been a relatively civil discussion, there is no need to become childish about it. I didn’t mention defamation in reference to you or Wikipedia, don’t take what i said out of context. So far this has been a discussion about the merits of editing this wiki, but your last comment is not in line with that discussion and is more NOTHERE than any post I have made so far. Please stay on topic and either agree with or dispute my points or let me continue this conversation with other editors who are interested in discussing how to make this page reliable and unbiased. Redbeard3006 (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I apologize. I agree, I hate walls of text too, but that was a long argument to make and I am trying to get to bed. I have to be up in a few hours for work. If I have time tomorrow I may try to edit the format if the conversation hasn’t continued further. Redbeard3006 (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then go to bed. There is no deadline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Don’t worry Dr. I’m just trying to get my thoughts down while they are still in my head, I’m not in a rush to create an article. Redbeard3006 (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Going to add my voice to this discussion as we work together on Wikipedia by consensus. I agree with Dr. Fleischman and Edaham that what is written is reliable and is valid to be used in the article on Proud Boys. All I have seen from the lot of text written so far by Redbeard3006 is someone that is trying to manipulate the finder points to turn around something that has been consensus for a long time to instead fit their way of thinking. While I can understand they don't seem to agree with what is written, I do believe what Redbeard3006 is discussing here really would be a change of policy and long time consensus, then it really is WP:NOTHERE and something that should be discussed elsewhere as it would completely change how Wikipedia articles have been written in the past. So my vote, information stays as it is and Proud Boys is Far Right because reliable sources say so. NZFC  (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

NZFC, I am not proposing a change in policy, in fact I have directly quoted policy. Do you care to dipue any of my points, or is deflection all that you have to contribute? Much earlier in the conversation it was made quite clear to me how important the Wikipedia policies are, but now that I have shown this article to be in violation of those policies, I am accused of NOTHERE. There is a clear bias to make sure the article supports an agenda, not that it is accurate and neutral. Sad. Edaham doesn’t even bother to hide his bias. Redbeard3006 (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That's the thing though, you haven't stated any policy that shows that calling them Far right is wrong. Instead you're trying to use weasel words to imply that it's ok to use first person sources when it isn't. It's really about stuff that is not controversial, the fact that we are having this discussion again and again proves that it is controversial so we can't use what the organisation says about itself. If anyone is showing bias it is yourself in that you can't seem to stand that the sources are reliable and don't fit with your way of thinking. NZFC  (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I was willing to assume good faith until that wall of text, which I didn't really read. Redbeard3006, if you're not willing to treat others with enough respect to get to the point and make your text readable... guess what happens?
 * If reliable sources assess an organization by the actions and statements of its members and comes to a conclusion some editors personally don't agree with, so be it. A willingness to come to specific conclusions is part of what makes them reliable. The Green Bay Public Radio story is useful. It repeatedly emphasize that the Proud Boys "overlap" with the alt-right as a central theme. As the article points out, the extreme anti-feminism and anti-Islam of the Proud Boys, as well as their practice of rewarding violence at "free speech" rallies in support of racist/extremist ideas, are entirely consistent with the alt-right. This source helps "explain how the fraternity is far right", to answer Redbeard's original post, so I think we're done here. Grayfell (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow Greyfall, talk about not having respect for others... i mentioned that I would clean it up, but you didn’t have enough respect to actually bother to read it or wait for an edit before closing the conversation. So much for respect. Redbeard3006 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Fourth Degree
I think instead of going back and forth we should discuss here, and. My understand is SPLC is a reliable source and we normally don't take WP:PRIMARY when debating the opinion of the statement. NZFC (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This is my understanding as well. I do not think the organization's site is particularly useful, especially since the claim being added is not unambiguously a refutation of the SPLC source. "The cause" is so vague, and so open to interpretation, that it's essentially meaningless in this context, and Wikipedia shouldn't include this kind of evasive/euphemistic language without a better reason. The secondary source added by Tao2911 did not mention the fourth degree at all, making it worse than useless. Grayfell (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * SPLC, needs attribution Hatewatch is their blog so newsblog applies also. Using a group's own website for information on the group is fine so long as we attributepov. Per the policy "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" This is not rocket science guys. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * DN is correct on the consensus and thanks for the link. It's not that this is opinion as NZFC said. It's that SPLC has unique characteristics that render its publications highly reputable but still questionable and therefore the RSN consensus is that it may be cited for facts but only with in-text attribution. At least that's my understanding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Look, you guys are clearly biased. I am not. I was doing some research on the Proud boys (trying to find out why the heck they use the term "Uhuru", among other things.) I am not a supporter or fan. The SPLC ref. paints them as a "hate group." Whatever else they may be, they clearly are not a hate group, at least there is no consensus on that score, and they absolutely deny the label alt-right; their membership is widely mixed in race, religion, etc. Also, that SPLC information is clearly dated and inaccurate. If you want to know what the rules of a group are, quote the group. There is precedent for this everywhere you look on WP. If a secondary or tertiary source is inaccurate or biased, don't use it. This is typical use of WP rules to maintain biased information, and its totally weaselly. You see it all the time. I'm out.Tao2911 (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I live in NZ and have nothing to do with any of the groups, I just came across this page because of vandalism. I have no bias but instead go with Wikipedia policy. You are using your own judgement about the SPLC source which as has been told many times is reliable, if you have an updated source that is reliable and external from the organisation then we can use that but we don't quote what organisations have to say about themselves but instead what others say about them, that is the core of what is happening here. NZFC  (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You almost lost me with your first two sentences, but I was barely able to read on. You are evidently misinformed about how we do things here. Where content doesn't comply with our community standards, the appropriate tack is to fix it, not to say, "oh, that must be how it really works at WP" and then copy that non-compliance across the encyclopedia. I guess what I'm saying is, perhaps it's time for you to familiarize yourself with what our community standards actually say. They're taken very seriously in contentious politics-related articles such as this one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not see where in that RSN post consensus is that Hate Watch must be attributed, but I have no strong objection to attributing this point to them in this case.
 * I do have a problem with the direct quote from the Proud Boys' site. Not only because it's unreliable (it is, since it's a blog post by Gavin Mcinnis) but because it's far, far too vague. What is this "cause" that a Proud Boys member must endure conflict for? Mcinnis doesn't say, and the examples are not informative either. There is no contradiction between the Proud Boys' vague statement and the SPLC's, so I don't understand what is explained by this quote.
 * As for Tao2911's comments, nowhere does this article say that the Proud Boys are a hate group. Nowhere does the SPLC ref say they are a hate group, either. The SPLC article quotes Chapman's statement that the Alt-Knights' function is to defend their "right wing brethren". In other words, he's saying that they are a militant right wing organization. Also of course, it's not exactly a stretch to say "Alt-Knights" + "right wing" = "alt-right", but we have plenty of other reliable sources to explicitly make that connection for us. The connection between the Proud Boys and the alt-right is clear and well-documented.
 * If reliable sources conflict with this fraternity's website, that indicates the fraternity's site is not reliable. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously saying this group's own words about itself are unreliable for a description of itself? Don't be daft Darkness Shines (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Who knew that orgs can lie about themselves? I.e. KKK does not hate anyone, it just loves white people. A Wiki example: : "...to collect and preserve the material for a truthful history of the War Between the States..." Etc. Don't be daft. Cheers, K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All of these folks are trying to present themselves as this or that, most of it is strategic or just plain denial and has little to do with reality. Richard Spencer says he's identitarian, not white supremacist. Cernovich says he's new right, not alt-right. Trump says he's the least racist person he knows. And yet - we're daft to say their own words about themselves are unreliable for descriptions of themselves? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I am seriously saying that this groups own words, specifically McInnis's blog posts about his group, are not automatically reliable, nor are they automatically worth including in this article. In this case, it doesn't seem informative, so why even bother? Grayfell (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You know, I was going to say I agree with you, but I'm beginning to think that the website's description of the fourth degree add value in conjunction with the SLPC-sourced content. Look at what it's saying: when you scrape away all of the "pro-Western fraternal" bullshit, the organization's "cause" is beating up antifa activists. That's about one babystep away from acknowledging that the PBs are neo-Nazis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that's one way to look at it. Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So..... hat? Edaham (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV-Lede
I've added the NPOV dispute heading to the lede because classifying any group as "far-left" or "far-right" is open to dispute based on the perception of the beholder. Socialist activists see anyone to the right of the Democrats as being "far right", while conservative republicans see anyone to the left of the Republicans as being far-left.

The citations and references provided link to media articles which describe the group as "far right", but those articles themselves are not reliable for precisely the same reasons.

The proposed solution would be to remove the far-right designation and simply list the group's (undisputed) ideological standpoint as listed by the group themselves, and chronicle the groups activities. Things that have been done are not disputable, since it's a matter of historical record; but ideological descriptions of the group's various stances are very much matters that are open for debate and interpretation.

Please do not revert the edit, as it does indeed conform with Wikipedia's editing policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scbritton (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing that matters is whether reliable sources make these descriptions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We have reliable sources which say they are far right so describing them as such in the article does not violate any policies Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Opinion statements such as 'far-right' are not statements of fact. They are interpretations; which violate the principle of neutrality.  Please do not revert until a suitable resolution has been achieved, which is precisely the reason for having the tag in the first place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scbritton (talk • contribs) 20:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a statement of fact when four sources call them far-right. The only one that seems to want to change it is you, the tag is inappropriate as it tries to call into question the sources. NZFC  (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You tag is inappropriate and should be removed. Three people here disagree with you and it is all sourced. I agree it should be removed and will take it to dispute if you want to keep putting it back. NZFC  (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so mainstream professional news sources calling them far-right is "opinion" and yet the group's claims about itself are their (undisputed) ideological standpoint. So we're supposed to just take PB's word for it as to what their stance is, as opposed to assessments by professional outside analysts? Another !vote for removing the POV tag. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the consensus here. This was also already resolved at Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 1. The tag violates our consensus policy --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yup. Perhaps a decent argument could be made for including more of the Proud Boys organization's website, but this isn't it. We have multiple reliable sources saying one thing, and their own site sort-of disagreeing. The bar for this kind of PR is set pretty low, and they still trip over it. It's perfectly reasonable that reliable sources would challenge public relations, because that's what good journalists are supposed to do. "A Western chauvinist who refuses to apologize for creating the modern world." For the record, let me just say that I refuse to apologize for laying the first transatlantic telegraph cable in 1858. No matter how many times ya'll ask me to apologize for that, I won't do it! Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Need for inclusion of criticism of the group in the name of neutrality
Reading through this article, I do not believe it fits into Wikipedias standards for a Neutral Point of View. There is almost no talk of the criticisms of the group, even though there is language about how the group presents and interprets itself. Without dissenting opinions on the group's meaning or activities, the page is in danger of merely being propaganda for the group, which is out of line with Wikipedia's standards.

When I added information on how the SPLC considers this group to be engaged in behaviors sympathetic and supportive of White Nationalists, it was removed with the reasoning that such information did not belong in the lead paragraph. I propose, if that is the case, that an entire section of the article be dedicated to criticisms of the group in order to bring it into Wikipedias neutrality standards. If there are no discussions on this thread in the next couple weeks, I will work to add such a section and tag the article for a neutrality review with the appropriate templates. Ninjkabat (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how the group doesn't have criticisms, it quite clearly says on different sections where the group causes trouble "endured a major conflict related to the cause." The SPLC has said this requires the recruit to get into a physical fight with an Antifa activist at a public rally." or "One member of the Proud Boys encouraged others to fight the "faggots wearing black that won’t let us in", and was later arrested for punching a reporter from DNAinfo." That is just some of the posts in each bit, so is hardly propaganda for the group. What you wanted to add to the lead would have seriously changed it and I think in itself would have been WP:UNDUE. NZFC  (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping as they reverted your change.  NZFC  (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not think we should include a criticism ghetto as Ninjkabat is proposing - see WP:CRITICISM. However I am not opposed to adding additional criticisms to the article in appropriate places as long as we adhere to our neutrality standard (e.g. no cherry-picking). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Although it is true, as has pointed out, that criticism is woven into some of the sections, the weaving is way too clumsy. It bounces back and forth between how the group presents itself and how it is received by others, creating a pinball effect that affects the flow for the reader. It is difficult to tell what is neutral information, what is the way the group wants to be understood, and what the criticisms are. To fix this would require an almost complete restructuring of the article, but I believe that if the article were to have three broad sections, covering topics such as "the group according to itself," "objectively citable actions and activities," and "the group according to critics," (these are not my actual proposed section headings) this would create a much better flow for new readers who are unfamiliar with the group - for the general audience that wikipedia strives to be for. Such an undertaking would not be hard to do, as it would just require mainly splicing the current section of "Events" into each of those three categories. No information currently on the page would need to be lost, and it wouldn't create a so-called "criticism ghetto," as  fears, because it would be composed of the information already in the article.
 * I am ammending my recommendation to undertake this form of editing. Ninjkabat (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's exactly how articles are not supposed to be written. The "pinball effect" is most informative as it allows readers who want to know about an aspect of Proud Boys to get the facts, the criticisms, and Proud Boys' responses all in the same place, then form their own opinion without having to hunt for this information across three separate sections. If it's unclear "what is neutral information, what is the way the group wants to be understood, and what the criticisms are" then the solution is to use more in-text attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I will take a "pinball effect article" over this proposed restructuring hands-down. Placing critical information in a subsection is a bad idea if the goal is a neutral overview, for many reasons. One I'll point out is that readers do not always read entire articles, nor do they spend equal attention on each section. Having two opposed sections is subtly inviting readers to pick which perspective they want to prioritize. We're not trying to guide readers into picking one of only two sides, we're trying to summarize the entire topic. Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

and hit the nail on the head. Dividing the article up is not the way to neutrally inform the reader, it's a way to create "competing" sections to be read or ignored. If there is any clumsiness in the current "pinballing" it can be addressed through clearer writing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't really need to add anything more apart from to say I agree that it is fine as it. NZFC  (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Far right
As it stands, the first adjective to describe the Proud Boys is 'far-right'. Given that the founder has stated that the Proud Boys are not far-right, and that 'far-right' can and is used as a slur to demonize groups, it doesn't look neutral. Now, we can mention that they've been described as 'far-right', that's no issue. However, I suggest replacing 'far-right' with 'fraternal'. That is an indisputable characteristic of the Proud Boys while 'far-right' is not. 'Far-right' should be secondary. Provable self-identification should come before labels and characterizations by other groups and outlets. --2001:56A:F900:E600:9D2A:C9D4:51F:7B13 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi IP, please see the archives here. This has been discussed before and it isn't a slur and it's not a matter of how the group describe themselves but how reliable secondary sources do which is why it was decided previously to keep far-right in the lede. NZFC  (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if McInnes lies about his group's orientation or not. The group is far right compared to the rest of world politics. It's time to drop the victim narrative and grow up, snowflake. Reality doesn't care about your feelings. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Their lawyer could use his own article
See. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Far right
According to what reputable source is this group `far right?` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.204.134.54 (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi IP, I suggest you read the archives where this topic has been discussed a number of times. The group is far-right as per the sources referenced. Also just for your information because it also keeps coming up, it doesn't matter what the group considers itself, it is what these, , , sources say.  NZFC  (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Four degrees
Hi, I heard from a Proud Boy that only the first degree is mandatary, the others are optional. This should go in the article --87.177.115.33 (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Some guy's say-so isn't enough. We need a reliable, published source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2018
The Proud boys are NOT far right .. You better adjust that statement .. 5.53.167.146 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See above and archive questions, this has been asked and answered before. Reliable sources describe the group as far right. NZFC  (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it that someone from Bulgaria claims to be an expert in the Proud Boys and far-right U.S. politics? This appears to be a pattern. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2018
Its time to change all naming of "far-right" to "conservative". A while ago I donated $50 to wikipedia because growing up I used it a lot and was thankful for it. Some time later you guys emailed me asking for more, I declined due to the fact I believed the site had become biased. You responded by saying there are thousands of volunteers within wikipedia and editing was open to all. So why cant these people be allowed to define themselves? The only sources for far right were pieces by random journalists with an obviuous bias. So how about you let these men define themselves and prove you arent the biased organisation I fear you've become. TChintz (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Answered previously. Realisable sources state that they are far-right. Only people who think they are bias are people that's don't like the source and Wikipedia doesn't allow primary sources so we don't let people define what they are themselves. Finally your donation doesn't change these facts. NZFC  (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't rule out "random journalists" from leading newsrooms like the Seattle Times, the AP, CBC, and the LA Times because we disagree with them. And not to worry, not a penny of your $50 WMF donation went to us volunteer editors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2018
Proud Boys are not alt right. As you can see in the article, they have kicked out alt right people once discovered. Please remove the alt right tag from the page as this is not accurate and false. 152.133.14.8 (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Western chauvinist
I keep seeing PB describe itself as "Western chauvinist." However the word "chauvinist" doesn't appear anywhere in our article. Should be added to the lead section, perhaps replacing the "pro-Western fraternal organization" quote which I believe is less cited by the secondary sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Is "Medium" a reliable source?
Medium is just a blogging platform, like WordPress. It does not seem like a reliable source to me. Anyone can get a blog on Medium in 5 minutes and post whatever they want, just like twitter.

I notice that "https://medium.com/@willsommer/the-fratty-proud-boys-are-the-alt-rights-weirdest-new-phenomenon-7572b31e50f2" is cited as a reference. It pushes up very hard against the guidelines for Reliable Sources, specifically it is a form of self-publishing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_published

In my opinion this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

To say "far-right" is defamatory by WIKI definition.
The group is NOT "far-right" by WIKI′s own definition.

Within the Proud Boys′ values clearly listed on their website they are; Anti-Racism, Minimal Government, and promote Nobility ("Spirit of Western Chauvinism"). They DO NOT promote; Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism, extreme nationalism, chauvinism, xenophobia, nor other like ideologies. The concept of "Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism" is to be noble which is not to be confused with WIKI′s definition Male chauvinism.

This group is "Centre-right" under WIKI's definition. Within the Proud Boys‘ values clearly listed on their website we see the connections; Pro-Free Speech, Nobility ("Spirit of Western Chauvinism" – "Western world of social class"), antifascist ("Minimal Government"), and without getting into constitutional many other correlations.

To compare this group to the Nazi Party or the KKK is defamatory — by WIKI′s own definitions.

This hurts the credibility Wikipedia

YouMockMe (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC) — YouMockMe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * it doesn't matter what the organisation says about itself or considers itself, it is what reliable sources say that it is. We don't even use other Wikipedia pages as sources but instead secondary sources. So unless you have other sources that state that they aren't far-right, then it won't be updated. NZFC  (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "Defamation" is Wikipedia's article on the topic, including laws in various jurisdictions around the world. WP:LIBEL covers our policy on the subject. Please do not confuse the two.
 * Numerous independent reliable sources call the organization far right (four of them are cited in the first sentence of the article). That coves WP:LIBEL. The article does not compare the group to the Nazi Party or KKK. Yes, all three are far right organizations. I just had lunch. I did not just compare myself to Adolf Hitler, who likely also ate lunch on a regular basis.
 * To say the group does not promote chauvinism but does promote Western chauvinism is an interesting word game to discuss on another forum. I'm sure there's room for discussion about the whole "honoring the housewife" bit as well. Whether or not they promote "extreme nationalism" or merely "nationalism" would depend on your scale as well. There's plenty of fodder for discussion on numerous other topics you hit on, but the main idea is this: Independent reliable sources say the Proud Boys are far right, so Wikipedia says they are far right. If independent reliable sources said they are a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say the same.
 * If you feel that independent reliable sources do not say Proud Boys are a far right group, say so and we can discuss that: either whether the sources cited are reliable or whether or not they say "far right". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

YouMockMe (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, thus the independent source we should support is The Washington Post who's article calls them out as Right-Wing, in recognition of a lack of *evidence* otherwise.

We can all agree; Evidence > Hearsay/Accusations

All existing references are baseless accusations, only one of which provides any supporting criteria to the claim, which lacks *evidence*. The only reference that does support the claim links to their source, SPLC, clearly identifying a subdivision called ″Fraternal Order of Alt Knights″ (FOAK) citing that ″Others describe it as the military arm of the Alt-Right.″ Which is still hearsay, where is the *evidence*? Even if that is the case, according to the SPLC the focus of FOAK as the "tactical defensive arm" and therefore not authoritative (fascism). With this many media outlets it shouldn't be hard to find *evidence* of far/alt-right activities in lieu of accusations.

Perhaps it is the understanding or definitions? A review of Webster; Right Wing seems to apply as they are a "rightist division of a group or party" in lieu of Far-Right "to a considerable distance in space", "to a great extent", or "by a broad interval". The "right" under both criteria links back to Right, but I think we're all set there.

Lastly, Wikipedia (as a group of intellectuals) is not the outlet to lump conservatives with Mussolini, the Nazis or KKK, right? There are black, Hispanic, Asian/Indian, and Jewish conservatives and some confirmed Proud Boys members and supporters. Let us be the intellectuals the world needs us to be and ignore the hearsay and propaganda to look at the evidence, most importantly without bias. — IMHO — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouMockMe (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:SIGNATURE.
 * This is a sloppy mess of original research, and as has already been mentions, Wikipedia is not interested in your original research. Merriam Webster doesn't define "Proud Boys", so applying haphazard definition to this group would be WP:OR. The "evidence" is the reliable sources, and multiple reliable sources describe the Proud Boys as far-right. Calling this a "baseless accusation" is not persuasive, since it's based on the organization's actions and behaviors, which many sources document. Trying to use minorities as a deflection against accusations of extremism is both absurd and offensive. Far-right adherents come from many backgrounds, and if you don't know this, you are not well-informed enough to discuss the definition of far-right. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * YouMockMe (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The prior comment does not reflect actually reading, but badly skimming the thread. I understand what "has already been mentions" in the original feedback hence the follow-up for clarifications, considerations and adaptations.


 * I've not stated nor implied that Merriam-Webster defines ″Proud Boys″. I am trying to understand the definitions acceptable by Wikipedia if "We don't even use other Wikipedia pages as sources" for definitions. Merriam-Webster was my suggested alternative. How is Wikipedia defining the terms it uses if not it's own descriptions nor Merriam-Webster? This is clear ambiguity - the irony here is not lost.


 * Stated priorly, this was "based on the organization′s actions and behaviors, which many sources document." - Where? We see article selling headlines, but no *evidence*. The only source cited by outlets was the SPLC which even recognizes a separate group (Proud Boys => FOAK -> i.e. Christianity => Knights Templar; Islam => Hamas), even recognizing this is based on hearsay not *evidence*, as stated in their article.


 * Lastly the SPLC's notations have been accepted and incorporated within the ″Proud Boys″ WIKI description identifying a separate group. Logically this means you agree with everything I have written and provided - the irony here is not lost either.


 * Disappointed in Wikipedia's editors. It has become evident this will be based on an agenda and accusations rather than facts or evidence. These comments exclude SummerPhD, who has provided intellectual feedback. Thank you and I hope they contribute more to the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouMockMe (talk • contribs) 15:47, August 8, 2018 (UTC)


 * The "agenda" here is verifiability. A dictionary's definition of anything in this article is moot. Your explanations of how you feel various terms do not fit the Proud Boys are similarly moot.


 * Going back to my earlier explanation, check the first sentence of the article. The four superscripts at the end link to the sources being cited for "far-right": Seattle Times, Associated Press, CBC and Los Angeles Times all refer to the group as far-right. If those sources meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS, what they have to say is verifiable. They say the Proud Boys are far-right, so Wikipedia says they are far-right. If they said the Proud Boys are a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say they are a cheese sandwich. Dictionary definitions of "cheese", "sandwich", "bread" or anything else would be a moot point. You could provide iron-clad evidence that the group is not a sandwich and dairy-free, but the article would still say the group is a cheese sandwich.


 * Reliable sources do not need to provide facts, arguments or sources for anything they say.


 * (In addition to meeting WP:IRS, please note that all sources must be discussing the "Proud Boys" directly -- no dictionary that I am aware of discusses them. Also, the source must directly and individually support the information provided, we cannot combine information from two or more sources to create a new idea not directly supported by either one (source A says they're a sandwich and source B says they are made of bread and cheese, we can't combine that to say they're a cheese sandwich).


 * Long story short (too late!): Multiple independent reliable sources say the proud boys are far-right, so Wikipedia says it as well. That is "Verifiability", one of Wikipedia's core polices. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

→ That was correct until today, but I'm sure the agenda/bias will prevail.

First off, again, **The Seattle Times** cites SPLC as their source, the SPLC called out FOAK not the Proud Boys as far-right. Additionally below The Seattle Times calls out the Proud Boys as right-wing (on a later date) so there is a conflict within that organization. This extends to the **Associated Press** in another more recent post also below. The AP claim of Right-Wing was echoed by OTHER OUTLETS.

Understood the concept of the ″cheese″, which is why I provided another example previously. I just wanted to be clear on the term before finding sources (BELOW) for you. So for the 4 (technically 2) I have easily found 13 recognized outlets claiming ″Right-Wing″.

Sources that call out Proud Boys as ″Right-Wing″:


 * US:
 * 1) ″The Proud Boys, a right-wing men’s group, is claiming a higher profile role in the region″ - Seattle Times
 * 2) ″Proud Boys, a right-wing fraternal group″ - Associated Press
 * 3) Calling out Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys ″Portland, Oregon, deployed ′flash bang′ devices and other means to disperse hundreds of right-wing and self-described anti-fascist protesters″ - both The Morning Sun a Michigan Newspaper confirm an AP post claiming them to be Right-Wing.
 * 4) Followed by The Tampa Bay Times Florida News outlet confirm an AP post claiming them to be Right-Wing.
 * 5) Headline with details below reads, ″Demonstrators arrested as right-wing rally, counter-protesters clash in Portland″, referencing Proud Boys/Antifa clash - Chicago Times
 * 6) ″confront the right-wing Proud Boys″ - Washington Post
 * 7) ″to confront the Proud Boys, a controversial right-wing men’s group″ - Fox News
 * 8) This calls the FOAK as Right-Wing, contradicts the SPLC claim, ″a group of right-wing vigilantes called the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights″ - The New York Times Company
 * UK:
 * 1) ″The five men identify as members of the ′Proud Boys′, a right-wing group with chapters in the US and Canada.″ - BBC
 * 2) ″Meet the Proud Boys: Right-wing men's group″ - The Daily Mail
 * CANADA:
 * 1) ″right-wing men’s group, the Proud Boys″ - Vancouver Sun
 * 2) Looping back on validating the Proud Boys as Right-Wing clashing with Antifa, ″disperse hundreds of right-wing and self-described anti-Fascist protesters″ - The Star
 * AUSTRALIA:
 * 1) ″Proud Boys cross the line from chauvinism to misogyny, but it’s their presence at right-wing rallies″ - SBS World News (Special Broadcasting Service of Austrailia)

Bottom line is there is inconsistency between the outlets, but what we know for a *FACT* and the *EVIDENCE* on hand is that they are Right-Wing. The only question here is if they are ″far″ at which there is no EVIDENCE and at this time it is an accusation or hearsay. Again the outlets are inconsistent across the board, other than them being Right-Wing.

YouMockMe (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no inconsistency. Far-right is a subset of right-wing, which is obvious. If sources from the same outlet calls them both at different times, that's a sign that they treat them as overlapping, which is perfectly reasonable. Copying slightly different Google searches over and over is unpersuasive. I quickly found many reliable sources which use the phrase "far-right", but I will not waste time by copying them here, since I'm sure everyone reading this also has access to the Internet. Saying that "right-wing" is supported but "far-right" is not supported (by EVIDENCE) is selective. We are not interested in your personal research on the definition of "far-right" as applied to the Proud Boys. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The independent reliable sources cites call the Proud Boys "far-right". I do not care who their sources are, what their named sources say elsewhere or what you think is "correct". Verifiability is about what independent reliable sources say: "a particular far-right group — the 'Proud Boys'" (from the very first cite in the article) is absolutely unambiguous.


 * Yes, the sources sometimes say "right wing" and other times say "far right". Reliable sources seem to be equally confused as to whether Tom Cruise is an a "man" or a "person". "Far right" is the right side of the "right wing", where you will find the Proud Boys. Note that our infobox on "Party politics" (found, for example, at Right-wing politics) is clear on this, showing the right wing as being composed of the "centre-right" and the "far-right". Saying they are "far-right" includes that they are "right wing", much as "man" is also a "person". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Minor Errors
Could someone with authority to edit a protected article please make the following corrections in this line:

Members of the Proud Boys are men who support the tenant that "the West is the Best," which the group defines with the term 'Western chauvinism'.

Please change to the following:

Members of the Proud Boys are men who support the tenet that "the West is the Best," which the group defines using the term "Western chauvinism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.118.158.20 (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2018‎


 * Yes check.svg Done Grayfell (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2018
I humbly request the Proud Boys be labeled as a center-right organization, not far-right. As a member, and one of the leaders in my state, I would like to state we accept all races, ethnicities, religions, etc... We have no reason to be deemed a far-right organization, as we disavow fascism and any far-right organizations or members. 68.50.174.2 (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide Independent reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NZFC  (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a Wikipedia article on "Far Right", which describes characteristics of the "far right"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics


 * Specifically "The term is often associated with Nazism,[4] neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views.[5] These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group,[6][7] nation, state[8] or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.[9]"


 * Taking the Proud Boy's claims at face value they are chauvinist ("Western chauvinist") and reactionary (views of women). They claim not to be racist, boasting of members from all races. The group is super-national, so is not a classic nationalist group.  It's certainly not outside the bounds of this definition to describe them as "far right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Referencing the Proud Boys values as follows:


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

As an openly gay member of the Proud Boys I will admit that we are seen as controversial, but we are most decidedly NOT far-right or alt-right. The vast majority of our members are politically Libertarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYGuy315 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * this has been answered a number of times before. We don't use the organisation itself as a source for where it considers itself on the political spectrum. It doesn't matter what the organisation says about itself or considers itself, it is what reliable independent sources say that it is. NZFC  (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I will add that Wikipedia isn't interested in, or capable of, verifying your sexuality, politics, or membership in this organization. Wikipedia only cares about reliable sources. Those reliable sources say that the Proud Boys is a far-right organization. If, as a Proud Boy, you're not into "political correctness", you should be happy Wikipedia is using simple, straightforward language instead of inoffensive euphemisms. Grayfell (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Article uninformative waste of space - Please add some actual content
Heard about proud boys on the radio had no idea what they are so came to wikipedia to find out, this article is useless probably because the editors don't allow people from the organisation to explain what the organisation is and instead rely on media hit pieces to construct some sort of facade. Wikipedia seems to have serious problems accurately portraying anything even remotely political and due to the predominance of left wing ideology in journalism ends up slanting left.

Why is it so hard for you idiot editors to just allow the page to be informative, why do I have to go to the damn talk section to find what is supposed to be in the article. You guys should be ashamed, the goal is to present accurate information, if the organisation is political I expect to see what they are about on the wikipedia page direct quotes of the organisation are more insightful than the completely useless label "far right" which apparently covers every organisation to the right of the teletubbies. No one cares that you guys have fleshed out the meaningless term to the point you can smack it on things I want to know what the thing is, I don't want to have to get involved in wikipedia edit wars just to find basic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.23 (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to read that your breakfast cereal is part of a nutritious breakfast and a great way to start your day, go to their website. Yes, every actor is the award-winning voice of his generation, according to his publicist. Every car is stylish, has an impressive safety record and is easy on the wallet, according to brochures available from the dealer. None of that means anything.
 * Proud Boys is a far-right men's organization. They describe themselves as a "pro-Western fraternal organization" for men who "refuse to apologize for creating the modern world." They are usually described as alt-right but say they aren't. Yes, they go on to say they are accepting of everyone and would like to get everyone together in a sunny field to join hands and sing happy songs together in peace and harmony. However, no one else says that about them.
 * If you would like to see an article about how wonderful they are, I am sure that Metapedia and/or Conservapedia have such articles. If not, they'd likely love for you to write one. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You just proved my point, I know nothing about this organisation so there is no way I could write an article about it, but all you editors have provided is "the proud boys are far right" since far right apparently covers everything from the NAZIs to internet blogs it means nothing. Are the proud boys a blog? are they some sort of gang? Do they have objectives? is this a troll group? What are they? The article does nothing to solve the problem the user would come to the article to resolve, they want to know what the proud boys are. All I came away with was knowing nothing more about them and believing wikipedia is incapable of properly documenting political organisations that the editors personally disagree with.

So again the article is a uninformative waste of space, please add some content. Thank you for deleting the criticism about the lack of content on a locked wikipedia article, while leaving a previous comment which does nothing but reiterate ALL THE CURRENT CONTENT in under 2 paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.23 (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell's reversion of my edit is petty and inappropriate.
It appears that Grayfell does not like two facts presented and sourced in this article, and so has inappropriately requested secondary sources to cast aspersion on them. He has rejected out of hand my explanation (i.e. my edit summary) that secondary sources are needed to establish the scholarly nature of analysis (i.e. to distinguish it from some random Wikipedian's own opinion), not merely to establish a fact claim, as primary sources succeed in doing. (Actually, I haven't checked the primary sources: If they don't support the fact claims, then I suppose the statements can simply be deleted rather than requesting a secondary citation.) Someone please overrule his reversion of my edit and put an end to his petty quibble with this article: His edits appear politically-motivated, that he wants to believe the opposite of those cited statements. I don't care enough about this matter to continue it further, but his reversion is degrading the quality of this article through inappropriate Wikipedia tags. I bring this to your attention merely for the quality of Wikipedia to be maintained. -- Newagelink (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Grayfell isn’t quibbling, pettily or otherwise. The tags validly called for needed improvements. I personally think that a brief statement based on what is written on their site accompanied by attribution is reasonable. I’ve added the attribution and removed the tags accordingly. I’ve also removed a sentence sourced from Twitter. That is going over the top. User generated sources are an awful choice for verifying and sourcing this kind of material reliably. Going back to your interaction with your fellow editor, Grayfell’s request was highly appropriate. If you can find better secondary sources to further support the article text, please add them. While primary sources may verify/validate the existence of a piece of info, they don’t confer notability, which is one of Wikipedia’s core policies. Edaham (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yup. I've adjusted current sources to support McInnes's rebuttal. Since they were kicked-off twitter, the number of potentially reliable sources directly calling them "alt-right" seems like it's become overwhelming, so perhaps this should be explained in more detail. I'll take a closer look later if nobody beats me to it. Grayfell (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Kyle Chapman - mentioned under Berkeley protests but without antecedents or explanation of who he is.
If someone with editing rights would do something like:

"At the 2017 March 4 Trump rally in Berkeley, California, Kyle Chapman (a political activist from New Zealand with White Nationalist ties) was recorded hitting a counter-protester..."

This would help readability of the article because as I read the article I had no clue who he was or how (or if) he was related to this "Proud Boy" group. Also it appears Mr. Chapman has a wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Chapman), so his name could be hyperlinked.

Many thanks!

8.7.228.252 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can do the Kyle Chapman (as could you) link but you need to supply a source or reference for the other stuff. Carptrash (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Careful! It appears that there are two Kyle Chapmans, and both are far-right.  One is based in New Zealand (the one wikilinked), leader of a white nationalist political party, and the other is an American Trump supporter who wasn't deeply into politics before Trump's involvement.  The latter shows up in memes as "Based Stickman."  This latter one is apparently the one who founded the FOAK.  Source--MattMauler (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)