Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 2

Far-right
The term being used to describe the Proud Boys is 'Far-right'. However this is an opinion and not based on solid facts Reference 1: the Seattle times links to the SPLC that does not mention far-right but Alt-right. Furthermore, the article mentions "Social-media postings by its self-proclaimed members espouse racist and sexist ideals." but does not quantify or link to these statements and therefore should be dismissed as opinion/subjective.

Reference 2: The AP dub Proud boys as "far-right" based on association to McInnes and state "He dubs himself a “western chauvinist,” uses racial epithets in his essays and has argued that women make less money because they are less ambitious than men" There is no direct reference to the essay of "racial epithets" and the other is about the wage gap which is a political topic. All I could find was article that some may find subjectively funny, others may find it subjectively appalling. More conjecture and opinion.

Reference 3: CBC actually does not state the proud boys are 'far-right' but rather associated with it not a part of the far-right, "Proud Boys, a so-called "Western chauvinist" organization that is associated with the far right, were later revealed to be part of the Armed Forces." Guild by association fallacy. Further there is talk of Gavin's "anti-semetic" tirade, a comedy sketch. If you are going to use primary sources from a secondary competitor source (CBC is a direct Competitor to Rebel Media) you should probably insert his opinion on Jewish people I would use a secondary source but competitive news networks wouldn't cover this; blood for the sharks.

Reference 4 Just because many different media groups repeat "far-right" proud boys or "far-right" Gavin McInnes does not make the statement true; there must be actual evidence or facts to corroborate these accusations.

Summary: The references 1-3 are opinion and 4 is just repeating and move to change "far-right" to 'alleged far-right' or 'right wing.' D3bug l0gic (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem to be laboring under the mistaken understanding that Wikipedia analyses its sources sources to see if we accept their conclusions. We do not. If a source is reliable, what it says is verifiable.


 * The Seattle Times article cited directly states the Proud Boys are far right several times. Ditto the AP and Los Angeles times articles.


 * To the best of my knowledge, CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) is a reliable source. If you disagree, please take the issue to Reliable sources/Noticeboard.


 * "Thought Catalogue" shows no indication of being anything more than an open blog; it's of no help here.


 * "The Rebel Media"'s youtube link is of no help. The far-right organization is not an independent reliable source. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Funny how a far-right source is not a reliable source, because its labelled far-right. circular logic. D3bug l0gic (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I said the far-right organization is not reliable source. I did not say the organization is not reliable because it is far-right.


 * If you believe it is a reliable source, please take the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and explain how you feel it fulfills the criteria outlines are WP:IRS. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: CBS News calls them far-right: NYPD to pursue charges against 9 members of far-right group Proud Boys for violent brawl. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I deleted "far-right" as weasel words. The use of this weasel phrase followed by a declaration by the article supporting that they are not white-supremacist is inconsistent. It is a pejorative opinionated statement which discredits any source it may have. (PeacePeace (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC))


 * It said "far-right" not "white supremacist". If you look at the Wikipedia definition of far-right, it says an ideology that has chauvinist views. This group meets that criteria. They are not alt-right, or white supremacist, or Neo-Nazis, but they are far-right. Every major news source calls them far-right. PaintballRat (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete Neg statements by Southern Poverty org
Delete references to the opinions of the Southern Poverty org as opinion from a biased organization. (PeacePeace (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC))
 * Its been brought up many times at WP:RSN; it is fine when attributed. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018
Removed the First Sentence of the second paragraph of "The Organization" section of the page.

The ProudBoys had NO Involvement or connection to TakisMag in 2016 other than an article written by Mr. McInnes published on the site.

Replace "The Proud Boys organization was launched in September 2016, on the website of Taki’s Magazine, a far-right publication for which Richard Spencer was executive editor.[13] "

With "The Proud Boys organization was launched on 2.26.2016 in episode 153 of TheGavinMcInnesShow on AnthonyCumia's CompoundMediaNetwork." 64.128.105.1 (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article reflects what the source says. WP content is based on high quality, independent sources.Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018
Change: "Nine Proud Boys and three Antifa members were arrested the next day after the police were criticized for their inaction.[13][27]"

To: "Three Antifa members were arrested on the scene and 9 ProudBoys were "persons of interest" the next day, following a social Media backlash, featuring Tweets by NewYork government officials." 64.128.105.1 (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * fixed Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Victimhood
User:D.Creish the globe and mail piece is framed by notions of victimhood in what McInnes says and does. The changes you made were not good summaries of the source. This is actually one of the best mainstream pieces I have seen that get to the core of "not apologizing" Proud Boys thing -- namely, who "gets" to be a victim and have that cultural cache. I am not picky about the exact words but this core thing needs to be there if we are summarizing that source. And it is a very high quality ref. The quote about "There is an incentive to be a victim. It is cool to be a victim." is right at the top; the "victim blaming" thing is right at the bottom; and in the middle is a discussion of his attacks on jews and his claim that women who come forward about sexual harassment are doing it to become celebrities (which is where the quote comes from). I've re-edited, staying closer to the exact words in the source. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * btw, here is his discussion of the holocaust. ‘Well, they never said it didn’t happen. What they’re saying is that it was much less than six million and that they starved to death and they weren’t gassed.'” On the Holodomor: “That was by Jews. That was by Marxist, Stalinist, left-wing, commie, socialist Jews.”  Jews in general: “God, they’re so obsessed with the Holocaust. … I don’t know if it’s healthy to dwell.” Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The current wording seems to suggest he thinks women and anyone who remembers the Holocaust or Holodomor subscribe to victim mentality: I don't think that's a good summary of his views in the article but I don't want to edit war. Something like "says it's unhealthy for women and other historically oppressed groups to subscribe to victim mentality" would be closer to the substance of the source. D.Creish (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am fine with that. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * done Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I do find it somewhat ironic that the NYT reports, "“We’re the victims here,” (says) Deborah Coughlin, president of the Metropolitan Republican Club. Carptrash (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Commentary from the Federalist
I added the following in this diff (the first sentence was already in the article, and just moved up from the Membership section):

The Proud Boys discourages its members from masturbating and watching pornography so as to motivate them to get "off the couch" and meet women. Joy Pullmann, executive editor of The Federalist, wrote of the organization, commenting on a profile of it on This American Life: "In 'This American Life', Nero makes an insightful comment about how the Proud Boys’ obsession with boasting about the West, and therefore themselves merely for being born into it, is kind of like social masturbation. Just as physical masturbation is lonely, shameful, selfish, and impotent, so is social and political masturbation. A culture is not revived by cucked men standing up to beat on their chests and yell in pain and anger. It’s revived by those men taking effective, strategic action to serve and protect something far greater and more worthwhile than themselves."

Which was reverted in this diff with edit note "Social masturbation"? Seems like type of commentary not warranted in a straightforward description of the organization and its activities: Crucial Qs such as: is Pullman an expert? Is the Federalist RS? I'm leaning no, but asking honestly.)

So, The Federalist is a relevant source for this topic (advocates for the Proud Boys cannot claim it is some "libtard" source), and Pullmann is indeed the executive editor for that publication. It is attributed per WP:RSOPINION; in my view this content is fine. We write articles using independent, reliable sources, attributing where we should do.

What do others think? Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * btw the "Nero" there is a Dante Nero, who introduced no-fap to McInnes who adopted it, and made it part of the Proud Boy thing, and Nero became kind of the "pope" of no-fap within the Proud Boys. It is Nero's comment, on which that Pullmann is elaborating. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification as I was wondering who Nero was as well. I generally don't consider the Federalist reliable (I'll defer to the community consensus, though), but I agree that the fact that it comes from the same supposed side of the political spectrum makes it stand out a bit from other critiques.  My concern is still that it's introducing a critique that sounds pretty theoretical, but it comes from a journalistic-type outlet (web-based even).  Are there other sources calling this phenomenon a kind of masturbatory self-absorption?  Like maybe the quote could be shortened and included alongside other sources making the same/similar critique?  Otherwise, I still wonder about her qualifications.  It's not like Alan Dundes or some sociologist making this claim; it sounds like a writer wading into an area they're generally unfamiliar with.  Even if this was placed alongside other articles talking about the group in the context of an anti-feminist backlash or speculating about deeper insecurities, that would strengthen the section (What I mean is that it wouldn't have to use the same provocative wording to be called a "similar critique").  In sum, if the quote was shortened and reinforced by other sources, I'd feel better about including it.  I'm also curious to hear other editors' thoughts. --MattMauler (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am seeing the other sources, btw (TAM and WPR), but it's unclear which info comes from the Alexandra Hall piece, for instance. Also, does TAM have an interpretation that differs at all?  Probably, right?  Maybe foregrounding those two in the article itself would make it better (I haven't listened to the segments), but still public intellectuals, politicians, etc., would all be better sources for speculating about cultural causes or motivations.  No books have been written yet, obvs, but there are plenty of qualified people who comment on movements like this.--MattMauler (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018
Replace: "Following the 2017 Unite the Right rally McInnes began distancing himself and the organization from the alt-right and tried to find different branding, such as alt-lite.[7][8]"

With: "Previous to the 2017 Unite the Right rally McInnes began distancing himself and the organization from the alt-right, stating "NO PROUDBOY should attend the Unite the Right Rally" and tried to find different branding, such as alt-lite." 64.128.105.1 (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't need the quote; it adds no value. Again the sources make it clear that the unite the right rally was a PR disaster that the organization has scrambled to recover from, with different branding. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Partially done. From the New Yorker article:
 * That was months before the Unite the Right rally in August 2017 so saying it only happened "following the 2017 Unite the Right rally" is misleading. D.Creish (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this clarifying edit is good although rebranding isn't the best. They have different ideas, not the same ideas with different branding. Jytdog: can you add it to the body? D.Creish (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Am glad you are OK with that. That diff has changes to the lead and the body. It is unclear if the ideas are actually different; what is for sure very different is what people say publicly. The PR. The New Yorker piece specifically talks about this as "branding". Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I missed that, thanks. I'd say distinguishing between "racists" like Spencer (quoted in deference to BLP) and Proud Boys, who seem to be racially diverse, is more than a branding exercise. I'll see what what I can find in sources. D.Creish (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I missed that, thanks. I'd say distinguishing between "racists" like Spencer (quoted in deference to BLP) and Proud Boys, who seem to be racially diverse, is more than a branding exercise. I'll see what what I can find in sources. D.Creish (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

PULLED A PLASTIC SWORD?
Was not the sword pulled a plastic sword? Article leads one to think it was a real samurai sword. I saw the YouTube interview of the leader who says he had a plastic toy sword. If indeed it was a plastic sword, that discredits the source & implies it is unreliable; so everything that was written depending on that source should be deleted. (PeacePeace (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC))
 * The source was, I believe, the New York Times. Good luck getting it deleted as a source.  But check it out yourself.  Also we do not know it the sword looked real or not.  If you rob a bank with a toy gun it is still armed robbery. Also all cap writing is considered to be shouting, not a good way to start in a thread. Carptrash (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 Metropolitan Republican Club
The description refers to the "Anti-fascists" as "counter-protestors". The event they were protesting was not a protest, it was a talk at a private club. They should just be called protesters, not counter-protesters.

Change "pulled a samurai sword" to "pulled a plastic samurai sword" or "toy samurai sword". I think that's an important distinction, because as currently written it sounds like he was armed, and he was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:880:5EC:1582:B9F6:BC53:A121 (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times wrote "Between 60 and 80 people showed up to see Mr. McInnes perform a comedic routine that included a re-enactment of the murder of a Japanese socialist with a plastic sword, according to the police and organizers. By the time it was over, a similar number of anti-fascist protesters, known as antifa, had gathered outside, some in masks." 2A02:810A:880:5EC:1582:B9F6:BC53:A121 (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It should remain as-is. If the sword was plastic or a toy (which there's no proof it was), it should not be included in the article as it would insinuate that he was not dangerous. OnceASpy (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also the NYT article used as the source says,"and he is later seen on video getting out of a car and drawing a sword from its sheath above his head before the police forced him back inside." No mention of plastic. Carptrash (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Proud boys
Proud boys are a group that does not encore violence, but promotes allowing one to defend themself from groups like Antifa. They have been smeared by leftist as Alt-right when in fact they are a group with members from US, Japan, Africa, Australia and numerous others. Their founder Gavin McGinnis describes the Proud Boys as a group that allows Men to be proud to be a man and to marry those their in a relationship with, have children, and love their country. Jslove0987 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTFORUM. And while we're at it, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Brad  v  20:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, responding to NOTAFORUM trolling such as this is counter-productive. I'd suggest just deleting such comments per WP:DNFTT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2018
Proud Boys is a Center-right organization that admits only men as members,  with a presence in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. It was started in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder and former commentator Gavin McInnes. Proud Boys emerged as part of the alt-right, but in early 2017 McInnes began distancing himself from the alt-right, saying their focus is race and his focus is Western values, a view which has been termed alt-lite; the rebranding effort intensified after the Unite the Right Rally. The organization has been described as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and NPR's The Takeaway. While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often appear at racist rallies and events. The organization allegedly glorifies violence, and members participate in violence at events it attends; it has been called an "alt-right fight club".

Benpl0x (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. "Far right" is very well documented, and their glorification of violence is not "alleged" but rather well sourced.  You brought no sources to support those changes.  If you want to pose another request, please focus it so people don't have to waste time trying to figure out what you are changing. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Getting into a fight as the 4th stage
Is in many many many sources. I overcited it for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The current text is "getting into a fight with someone from the political left"
 * Wired doesn't support it
 * Globeandmail doesn't support it
 * Toronto Sun says "getting into a major fight for the cause”
 * The Daily Dot is low quality
 * WPR says "endures a major conflict related to the cause"
 * I've changed it to "getting into a major fight 'for the cause'" to match sources. D.Creish (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not parroting their marketing. Not acceptable.
 * The sources in order:
 * SPLC "Since then, a fourth-degree has been added to the initiation ritual – brawling with antifascists at public rallies." Does not need attribution.
 * Wired: I guess you are objecting to Wired's chatty "And if the rumors are true" *followed by, "their initiation proceedings include getting a tattoo and abstaining from masturbation, getting jumped in in a ritual that looks a lot like a pile of puppies, and beating up an antifascist."
 * Globeandmail isn't cited there. ?
 * Toronto sun says, as you quote.
 * DailyDot is sort of low quality yes and supports this clearly "The fourth and final degree was added much later by McInnes and is a clear step away from the prankishness of the other rites. It hints at the right-wing bent that the hyperpartisan culture in Trump’s America has served to amplify. The fourth initiation requires that a prospective Proud Boy serve the “cause,” as McInnes suggested, by engaging in a physical brawl with members of “antifa,” the loose-knit far-left and anarchist anti-fascist movement."
 * WPR says as you say.
 * Those add up to "getting into a fight with someone from the political left.
 * Other sources already in the article:
 * Guardian" "In early 2017, McInnes stated that to become a “fourth degree” Proud Boy, recruits had to “get beat up, kick the crap out of an antifa”. In July last year, in the Proud Boys magazine, he issued a “clarification”, saying Proud Boys should only “[defend] themselves after getting fucked with”. (links from the original)
 * vox "But it’s the fourth and newest level that is getting the most attention in the wake of Friday’s events: get into a physical altercation for the 'cause.' 'You get beat up, kick the crap out of an antifa,' McInnes explained in 2017. And he added, 'People say if someone’s fighting, go get a teacher. No, if someone’s f---ing up your sister, put them in the hospital.'" .... It’s that violence that the Proud Boys have become best known for, with the group even boasting of a “tactical defensive arm” known as the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights (or “FOAK”) reportedly with McInnes’s backing. McInnes made a video praising the use of violence ....In parades and rallies across the country, from Berkeley, California, to New York City, members of the Proud Boys have fought with counterprotesters, Antifa, and anyone who gets in their way. Jared Holt, of Right Wing Watch, told me that the group 'acts as a violent pack of enforcers for the far-right.'   And at events for conservative commentator Ann Coulter and right-leaning speaker Milo Yiannopoulos, members of the Proud Boys have even attempted to act as 'security,”' but those efforts have descended into chaotic violence (although they spun it as a victory)" (added that last bit, related to the larger discussion about "political violence" - they aren't known for going to football matches and picking random fights, or beating up old ladies at coffee shops. Their violence is political.)
 * So not the "cause". "be involved in political violence" or the like would be OK, if you are not going to say the obvious, "against people on the political left".  Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Is "getting into a fight with an antifa" a good compromise? We can cite it to The Guardian, Metro and McInnes. My problem with the original wording ("getting into a fight with someone from the political left") is that starting a fight with Senator Sanders fits that description, which is silly. D.Creish (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To run with your hypothetical. If a Proud Boy punched Sanders in the face, how do you reckon that would go down with the gang?
 * At NYU they punched a reporter.
 * "We will kill you. That's the Proud Boys in a nutshell. We will kill you. We look nice, we seem soft, we have "boys" in our name, but like Bill the Butcher in the Bowery Boys, we will assassinate you. (btw "Bill the Butcher = William Poole)
 * "fight with an antifa" is too narrow. Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Youtube isn't RS. Going by your sources "fight with antifa" is better sourced than the what we have. Re: the reporter, is Gothamist (which is apparently now owned by the company the "reporter" works for) the only source for that? If so that's pretty weak for a BLP. The other source, Village Voice, mentions punching a "demonstrator" but nothing about a reporter. Did I miss it?
 * That same Village Voice article says "Both sides arrived primed for a fight", "McInnes was sniped with pepper spray by a demonstrator", "people — representing both sides of the conflict — were arrested." We don't mention any of that which gives the impression we're cherrypicking to frame a narrative.
 * We can discuss that more but on the reporter question I'd really like an answer - is Gothamist the only source? D.Creish (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that we use that sizzle reel as a source. The refs that we already use discuss McInnes' advocacy for violence over and over. I thought audiovideo might be useful for you to understand what the Proud Boys are up.
 * The daily beast ref already cited in the page says "Proud Boy Salvatore Cipolla, who attacked a journalist covering the (NYU) event....". He apparently attacked two journalists at the event (ref). Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added the DB ref to the NYU section. D.Creish (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Political violence
I undid which added the claim the Proud Boys "promote political violence" to the lede and the infobox which I don't think is justified. The new source was an NR opinion piece. Question: Should we incorporate the NR opinion some other way? D.Creish (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That ref was not needed for the edit. The whole article is about their violence and we were very much in error by not pushing that higher up before. I will restore using the other sources already in the page. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I put this NR piece, and the Federalist piece and this american life piece, in further reading. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Political violence is a special subset of violence (as self defense is a subset of violence.) If we're going to include "political violence" in the first sentence of the lede and in the infobox we need strong sources and at least some discussion. The further reading links are fine, I think (I really don't know FR requirements.) D.Creish (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please rethink.   Their violence is political. Your editing here is against what WP:LEAD calls for (summarizing the article) and the sources. If needed I will throw an RfC and the stance you are taking here is unsupportable. If that is what you want, I will do it. Let me know. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Unsupportable" is pretty strong. The lede still includes "glorifies violence" and "members participate in violence" which I didn't remove. I'm open minded. If you list the sources and sections that you think support it I could be persuaded. I'd prefer we tried that before an RFC but I have no real objection to one if that's your preference. D.Creish (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * yes it is strong. Please rethink your edit. (I fixed the header btw) I will give you some time. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Appropriate header change. I'm waiting on your justification, see above. But no rush. D.Creish (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha! "intentional aggression was not common among far-right groups in the past" according to SPLC. It's attributed so that's fine but claims like that is why many don't take them seriously. D.Creish (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not here to be your little servant. You have not addressed the main issue which is LEAD. I guess to "prove" to you what the page says I would need to read the article out loud to you, perhaps while placing grapes in your mouth one by one.  I will not be replying to you further on this topic, nor again on this page where you demonstrate this kind of laziness. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's textbook uncollaborative and a 180 reading of WP:BURDEN. I can't force you to reply but policy exists and whether or not you like it you have to follow it. D.Creish (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand how you could frame it that way. But laziness is not collaborative either. I can't force you to not be lazy but I don't have to put up with it either. I appreciated you walking through the refs below. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "You said 'I will not be replying to you further on this topic' - our lie detectors determined that was a lie bad prediction" lol. But in all honesty I'd much rather you reply and we reach some agreement or we'll have to go through the RFC process. D.Creish (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The on-going pissing match doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

Focusing on descriptions of the group, rather than a rundown of their extensive list of violent acts, from the three sources currently cited, I get:
 * (nothing particularly relevant to these items)
 * "...involved in political violence...“been open and very consistent about using violence as a tool”...McInnes claims his group does not promote violence at all... “Like Gavin McInnes says, violence isn’t great, but justified violence is amazing.”...McInnes has claimed repeatedly that “fighting solves everything”. In a podcast last May, he said: “You’re not a man until you’ve had the crap beaten out of you [and] beaten the crap out of someone.”...“We’re the only ones fighting these guys, and I want you to fight them too. It’s fun.”...to become a “fourth degree” Proud Boy, recruits had to “get beat up, kick the crap out of an antifa”...Asked if sharing video of Nordean’s punch amounted to the promotion of violence, McInnes called the Guardian a “fucking weak human being”, a “vile little pussy” and a “tepid cunt”. He then ranted about “the media class”, who he said “sit there picking fights, call everyone a Nazi, and then when someone dares defend themselves, and someone else says ‘Yay’, you say: ‘Well you’re promoting violence.’”"
 * "The Proud Boys are a violent, ultra-nationalist group that promotes anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and anti-woman views...The group rallies around anti-left violence...""
 * "...Proud Boys, another group that shows up at pro-Trump rallies looking to rumble with counter-protesters. 'We don’t fear the fight. We are the fight,'...a fourth-degree has been added to the initiation ritual – brawling with antifascists at public rallies..."
 * "The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the Proud Boys as an alt-right “fight club.”"

Currently, we have that summarized as "promotes political violence...glorifies violence, and members participate in violence at events it attends." IMO, there is no credible way to argue against "promotes political violence". Independent reliable sources say as much repeatedly.

"Glorifies violence" seems rather reductive and after the fact. Yes, they seem to be rather proud of the violence, but it seems the organization itself actively promotes violence. It's the difference between giving a film an award and producing a film. "Glorifies" seems to miss that. "Promotes and glorifies" seems a better fit.

That "members participate in violence" is a "sky is blue" claim. I can see no rational argument against it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with SummerPhD's assessment and "Promotes and glorifies". Jim1138 (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Each of those sources, except for the last which uses "alt-right fight club" is decidedly left of center.


 * Do we include McInnis' rebuttal as the NYT does
 * or mention as they do that according to police it was a "leftist" who started the fight
 * or as the Washington Post does that
 * We don't. And it can't be that we want to avoid quotes because we have plenty. No, we ignore all of the higher quality sources to say unequivocally "promote political violence." The implication being they show up to peaceable gatherings and start hitting people. That isn't supported even by the worse sources.
 * or as the Washington Post does that
 * We don't. And it can't be that we want to avoid quotes because we have plenty. No, we ignore all of the higher quality sources to say unequivocally "promote political violence." The implication being they show up to peaceable gatherings and start hitting people. That isn't supported even by the worse sources.
 * We don't. And it can't be that we want to avoid quotes because we have plenty. No, we ignore all of the higher quality sources to say unequivocally "promote political violence." The implication being they show up to peaceable gatherings and start hitting people. That isn't supported even by the worse sources.


 * Look, when the Proud Boys info box has "promotes political violence" and the Sturmabteilung's doesn't, and this is a BLP with supposedly extra protections, something's very, very wrong. D.Creish (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "is decidedly left of center" - is that a Wikipedia policy or something? And this isn't a BLP.  Volunteer Marek   04:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've incorporated these sources in the article. D.Creish (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I deliberately stayed away from the actions of individual members. You've taken actions by individuals in separate incidents to argue that reliable sources' descriptions are wrong.


 * No, this article is not mostly a BLP. Yes, there are sections that make specific claims about living individuals. Saying "The Fighting Hatemongers is a violent, racist organization" is not a BLP issue. Saying "Joe Hatemonger is a violent racist" is a BLP issue. If you have BLP concerns, please explain.


 * Yes, other articles exist. We're here to discuss this article. If you have concerns about another article, discuss that issue there. Sources say different things about different topics. A detail might find coverage in reliable sources for one topic (SNL ' s coverage of Gerald Ford, Mel Gibson's kidneys) while not saying anything about another (SNL ' s coverage of Richard Nixon, Tom Cruise's kidneys). - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The brownshirts article is fine. I assume you're not saying RS consider the Proud Boys more violent than the Nazi brownshirts because that's easily disproven. So if you're not, and our article implies they are, and our article should be based on RS, then that's a problem. Essays can be ignored when they contradict common sense.
 * WP:BLPGROUP is the policy and it applies to McInnis, so yes, claims about the group are concerning. I've opened an RFC. D.Creish (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2018
The info box on the top right corner states: "Far-right men's organization that promotes political violence" and gives two articles as citation. Neither of those articles corroborate the statement that the Proud Boys promote political violence. One article mentions that others committed violence AGAINST the Proud Boys and the other suggests they promote violence but includes no evidence of such and admits that their founder had stated they do not promote violence. Therefore, this particular statement saying they promote political violence within the box for basic info about the group seems grossly unfair and rather biased. Let's keep Wikipedia as objective as possible! 66.64.100.220 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See above. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

See above. Glad to see someone got to it before me. DukeOfMarshall (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

FBI Reference Is Unsubstantiated
This references that the FBI classifies the PBs as an extremist group, but the source listed is just a media article. There's no reference to actual FBI documentation. Media articles can, and often are, biased with misleading information. Please remove this section until actual evidence from the FBI is presented. It shouldn't be that difficult if it actually exists. DukeOfMarshall (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The source indicated is a reliable one, so it is acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the Guardian source links to an official IA report from the Clark County Sheriff's Office which makes the claim. The Guardian attributes it to them so I made that correction. I'd like direct confirmation from the FBI before saying anything beyond that. It could be a field office designation, potential miscommunication between the sheriff and FBI, etc. and better safe than sorry. D.Creish (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Any FBI statement would be a primary source, the Guardian is a secondary source (actually tertiary in this case), so it's actually preferable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is The Guardian is reporting something the Sheriff's Office said the FBI said. Notice how The Guardian attributes it to the Sheriff but we didn't before I fixed it. What we need before declaring this officially is The Guardian reporting what the FBI said officially. D.Creish (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We aren't 'declaring it officially' - we're simply echoing reliable sources. There is no reason to remove the information. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not require "official documentation"; it requires reliable sources and the Guardian is plenty reliable. You can challenge this at WP:RSN if you like but it will be a waste of time; as there is no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to question its reliability on this point.  Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonresponsive. I've restored the attribution per the Guardian. If you like you can challenge it at BLPN. D.Creish (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Since it wasn't clear the first two times, the cited Guardian article attributes the claim to the Washington State police so our article should attribute the claim to the Washington State police. Does anyone see a policy problem with that (because I see a policy problem with not doing that.) D.Creish (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the policy issue with not doing that? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Attribution is necessary for things which are either contested, or opinions. It is not necessary here, so this appears to be whitewashing. It is inappropriate to use distancing language to subtly imply the Washington State Police are wrong about this. Do we want readers to think this is subjective? Is it merely the police's opinion that the FBI classified them as extremist? We do not preemptively assume that sources are wrong, and Wikipedia specifically prefers WP:SECONDARY sources to primary documents. Grayfell (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ....and this is why no university finds Wikipedia to be credible..."This appears to be whitewashing?" Um..No. The FBI has NEVER said that the Proud Boys are an extremist group in any way, shape or form.  The FBI has not said this orally, they have not written this down nor issued it in a report, either internally nor to the public that is known.  There is no FBI official who has taken credit or responsiblity for naming the Proud Boys as an extremist group, either....just to be clear. What has been said, according to the Clark County, Washington Deputy Sheriff, is that the FBI has so named the Proud Boys.  That is the only thing verifiable in this story. 172.58.201.47 (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Philadelphia: What is your source for saying that the FBI has never said that? We have a reliable source that says they did. Game, set, match. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a WAPO link with a limk to the report. Doug Weller  talk 20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can;t read it because of the pay wall. Someone with a WaPo sub add the ref to the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The link in the WaPo piece is the same as the link in the Guardian piece - it is to the Clark County Sheriff's Memo. The Guardian reporter followed up the sherrif's department and verified the memo -- the author of the memo was communicating the results of an FBI briefing he attended.  The Guardian also followed up with the FBI, which refused to confirm or deny, which is their standard practice.  The WaPo reporter quotes the Guardian on what the sheriff said, and also reports its own efforts to follow up with the FBI, which again refused to confirm or deny again per their standard practice.  There is nothing new in the WaPo piece but we can cite it, sure. There will be no primary-source confirmation from the FBI forthcoming. The demand for that was not appropriate based on the policies and guidelines and is not a real world expectation in any case. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Laredo Morning Times reprinted the WaPa article without a paywall. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look a little later in the day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So, as Jytdog says, we could add it as a ref, but there's really no reason to as it doesn't provide anything substantial that's not in the Guardian, already cited. The Guardian and WaPo are equally reliable as sources, so there's no advantage to replacing the former with the latter, especially since the Post cites the Guardian. I agree with Jytdog that a confirmation by the FBI is extremely unlikely to be forthcoming, and that there's no "real world" purpose in waiting for one. The people asking for such seem to want to discredit the report to the advantage of the Proud Boys. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure many things are Beyond Your Ken, including what game, set and match means...nice of you to declare yourself the "winner"...as well as the referee. It should not matter a whit if the report or lack thereof works to the advantage of, or the disadvantage of the Proud Boys...reality is what it is. In this case, every "source" cited refers to the Clark County, WA Sheriff's Office making a claim and nothing else. The FBI is silent on the topic of whether or not the Proud Boys are extreme or not extreme, but they certainly have issued no report nor made any statement to that conclusion. What you seem to be concluding here is the lack of verifablity is in and of itself verifiablity...since the FBI will not verify it made such a statement, then it must be placed in the article as verififed, because the Clark County Sheriff said so. This is ridiculous.


 * Here is the official statement from the FBI Portland Field Office, regarding the standing of the Proud Boys, as released 11/21/2018. No mention of the Proud Boys being categorized as an extremist group...story debunked.


 * "When it comes to domestic terrorism, our investigations focus solely on criminal activity of individuals—regardless of group membership—which appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion. The FBI does not and will not police ideology.


 * The various levels of intelligence analysis and investigative activity that the FBI can undertake—as well as the thresholds required to reach them—are laid out in our Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG). In addition to reading through that, we would encourage you to keep in mind that there is no federal, domestic terrorism criminal statute."


 * 50.241.115.219 (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)50.241.115.219 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Don;t be ridiculous, that debunks nothing at all, it's exactly what one would expect from the FBI, "no comment". This is precisely what was said above.  You guys are going to have to work a lot harder, because we're not idiots, you know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources are not "sources" they are sources. They say quite clearly what they say. That you have an official statement that does not say it does not in any way indicate what the report in question does or does not say. The material is from reliable sources. It is verifiable. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "They are best known for violence against others". --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Proud Boys respond to violence to protect other people. At rallies where there are no attacks by Antifa or others, there is no violence.  Why does this entire page not cite the Proud Boys themselves?  Their views are plainly laid out at www.proudboysusa.com .  Wikipedia is supposed to be about accurate information not libelous propaganda.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambiorex (talk • contribs) 20:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We have no obligation to honor self-promoting fig-leaves. And claiming PB did no violence indicates that you might not be here to build an encyclopedia. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your rationale has nothing to do with your actual edit. I AGF you weren't canvassed but that's strange. D.Creish (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure I'm following: "edit just seems to be reverting all my changes, edit summary not related to actual edit". Of course it related to recent changes; for example, "alt-right fight club" was a long time ago, before their members got arrested en mass on felony charges. The edit also replaced "What’s the matter with fighting? Fighting solves everything. The war on fighting is the same as the war on masculinity." with this: ""We don’t start fights [...] but we will finish them."
 * There's no need to reproduce the group's humblebrags here. That's why I said in my edit summary: "They are best known for violence against others". Now that I've explained my rationale, would you please self-revert? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not following. Your rationale They are best known for violence against others makes sense if you can explain how removing has been called an "alt-right fight club" and We don’t start fights [...] but we will finish them makes them look less violent (against others.) D.Creish (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be happy to explain further. "We don’t start fights..." presents PBs as sort of peaceniks, who are just defending themselves (?). The "fight club" was better explained by VM in this edit summary: "this is misleading and undue for the lede (in a fight club members fight each other 1 on 1, not jump on outsiders 20 on 1)", which I noticed and agreed with. Does this help clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They only sound like peacenicks if you leave off half the quote which I didn't. OR but I'm asking for my own information, are there examples of Proud Boys getting violent when antifa wasn't involved? The only example in our article is the Islamberg caravan and that was apparently peaceful.
 * Fight club is sourced so this disagreement is necessarily about editors' interpretation of weight. The book and movie were about intra-group violence (Proud Boys' "second degree") but also extra-group violence ("The first assignment: get into a fight with a stranger") and general mayhem - so it really is a good comparison. And clever, it hadn't occurred to me and I wonder whether it influenced McInnis. D.Creish (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Proud Boys accidentally release documents with names improperly redacted
Heads up, editors. Apparently some of the Proud Boys released an updated copy of their by-laws without properly redacting the names of their leaders. Expect to see a lot of articles like this one over the next while. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We probably cannot include individual names per BLP unless they have individual pages. That said, their supreme intelligence never cease to amaze me. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Key people in infobox
The following was added today, in "key people"

key_people = Jason Lee Van Dyke Elders Chapter: Harry Fox, Heath Hair, Enrique Tarrio, Patrick William Roberts, Joshua Hall, Timothy Kelly, Luke Rothling, Rufio Panman

I'm objecting to this on two levels. Not a great source, but more importantly, I am not sure what this even means, in the real world. I don't believe there is an actual legal entity here; this is more like a loosely affiliated group. I don't know if these "elders" are going to be recognized widely within the group or have any actual authority within the group.... This is not like "CEO" etc that we put in this field, in actual nonprofit or for-profit organizations. Other folks may view this differently... Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If the source is the problem, the actual document is available here. Yes, it's primary, but primary sources are acceptable for what an organization says about itself.  As to the status of the "Elder Chapter" within the Proud Boys, that's really not our problem: they listed them as key people in the organization (no matter how loosely connected that is), not anyone else, so they are clearly fair game for listing in the infobox. What the Elders do is spelled out in the by-laws. I support restoring the information as legitimate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * These clowns have little notability to be put in the infobox. That said, I added the following to the Metropolitan Book Club section, in regards with their latest infight and botched document redaction:


 * After McInnes nominally left the group, the "Elder Chapter" of the group reportedly assumed control, with Jason Lee Van Dyke, the group's lawyer, appointed as the chapter's chairman. Van Dyke was previously known for suing news media and anti-fascist activists for reporting on the group, and for making violent online threats with racist language.  The group then publicly released its new bylaw, with the names of its "Elder Chapter" members listed and redacted. It was later discovered that the redaction was botched, as the list of names can be accessed by selecting over the black bar of the released document.


 * Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Putting it there makes sense enough to me. Again it is unclear if these "elders" are going to have any actual authority. It is unclear to what extent McInnes has actually "quit"... Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree re:McInnis, but it's not our place to speculate in Wikipedia's voice, it's our place to report what's happening according to reliable sources. Right now, the Proud Boys say about themselves that they're re-organizing, with new by-laws and a new leadership structure.  This may turn out to be nothing (especially since organizations such as theirs really need a strong individual at the helm if they're not going to break down and wither away), but, again, that's speculation on our part.  We should report what they report as their leadership, and if it turns out to be inconsequential, the names can be removed.  It is, however, the state of play at this moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you remember this? Just because someone says "I am the leader" doesn't mean they are. If this turns out to real (which will reveal itself with time) nobody will have a problem with treating it that way. Things are in flux; let's wait and see. Lagging indicator, not-news, etc... Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course I remember that, and if it happened today we wouldn't write that he was "acting President", we would write that he said he was "in control at the White House", or whatever his exact words were. (I was no fan of the man or his boss, but I thought the media blew that incident up way out of proportion; it was very clear to me that he was saying "I'm holding down the fort", which is a legitimate statement to make.)Now, things may or may not be "in flux" at Proud Boys, but they have announced their new bylaws, they have released (albeit without intending to) their new "elders", and we should be reporting that.  (Remember, the entity in control of the radio station and the treasury is the one that's got the upper hand in any revolution - and these guys have control of the Internet accounts, and presumably the checkbook as well.)  If things shake out differently, if someone pulls a coup and takes over the organization, or Van Dyke reduces the "Elder Chapter" to a rubber-stamping non-entity (as Hitler did with the Reichstag), we report that and change the infobox.  I simply don't see what the objection to that is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would just be repeating myself. Let's see what others say.... Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you Ok with the page now? there is a leadership section and a reduced key people infbox line. I can sort of live with that... Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's good for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2018
Change "Proud Boys is a far-right white nationalist extremist organization that admits only men as members and promotes political violence." to "Proud Boys is a multi-racial fraternal organization made up of men who proclaim their support for Western Culture, and who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world."

Change "The group sees men, especially white men, and Western culture as under siege; their views have elements of white genocide conspiracy theory." to "The group sees men, and Western culture as under siege."

Add "But those members who appear at those rallies are swiftly disavowed, and removed from the organization." after "While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often appear at racist rallies and events."

Change "In 2018, the FBI classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group with ties to white nationalism." to " In 2018, a police commander in the Vancouver Police Department claimed the FBI referred the the Proud Boys as "an extremist group with ties to white nationalism," yet the Proud Boys deny the characteristic, saying it is a "third party [claim] coming from a police department known to be hostile to [the organization] in the past." 2606:A000:1127:2073:FD96:6119:737C:8845 (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not done as the proposed changes are not neutral but express a decidedly positive POV about the Proud Boys, and in any case are not supported by citations from reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The proposed changes relay the organization in a way that fits the statements made by the organization itself. Calling them "white nationalist" is not neutral, but rather decidedly being negative about the organization in a very unfair way. They don't advocate white nationalism, and have, and explicitly allow non-white members. By definition you can't allow non-whites while being white nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1127:2073:FD96:6119:737C:8845 (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant, we don't report what organizations say about themselves, we report what reliable sources say about them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Additionally, using third party sources saying that the FBI says they have "ties to white nationalists" to make the claim made in the first paragraph is beyond disingenuous. Even if the claim from the third party source is true, the FBI isn't saying they are white nationalists, but rather having ties to them. Either way, using a third party source to directly tie an organization to white nationalism is not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1127:2073:FD96:6119:737C:8845 (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, the sources you speak of may be "third party" but they are, in our terms, "secondary sources", which is the kind of source we use the vast majority of the time, because it's the kind our policies prefer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If reliable sources says they quack like white nationalists, then they are white nationalists. Having token minority doesn't change that. We have no obligation to honor first-party self-promoting fig leaves. And "refuse to apologize for creating the modern world" is unapologetically racist. Are you here to troll? Tsumikiria (T/C) 08:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever they're here for, they're not going to get the edits they want. We're not here to help promote Proud Boys, are they apparently are, and there are many editors who watch over this article and will prevent their kind of POV editing. The IP's copmments above just show that the don;t understand how we work, orwhat sources we use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The page is incorrect. Superkpill (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "white nationalist" was added to the first sentence here. I removed it here.  I think that needs further discussion especially in the first sentence.  The body (as summarized in the lead) already unambiguously puts them right on the edge of that for sure... it is unclear to me if we can put them unambiguously in that bucket. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal. Describing an organization in wikivoice as straight up white nationalist in the lead sentence would require multiple sources (and certainly boingboing, a blog, doesn't count for that) clearly stating they are white nationalist which I don't see; mostly I see that sources attribute to the SPLC that many of its leaders spread white nationalist memes and that the FBI says they have ties to white nationalism; and they call the organization far-right/alt-right. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Promotes Political Violence
introduced the phrase promotes political violence into the description of Proud Boys in first sentence of the lede, and into the infobox under 'type'.

This RFC does not contest the following lede text which was present in both versions:
 * The organization glorifies violence, and members participate in violence at events it attends

Two questions:


 * 1) Should promotes political violence be included in the infobox
 * 2) Should promotes political violence be included in the lede. If so, where.

D.Creish (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

!Votes

 * If you read the whole article, their participation in political violence and embrace of it is what marks them out, right down to adopting the White power skinhead fred perry shirt. They show up at rallies to fight, and they do fight.  If they were just "a men’s club that meets about once a month to drink beer” as their leader likes to say sometimes, we wouldn't have an article about them. As the Guardian source for that quote notes, what is remarkable about them is their engagement in political violence.  Not just any violence -- they don't beat up old ladies at coffee shops. As McInnes says " “I want violence, I want punching in the face. I’m disappointed in Trump supporters for not punching enough." (ref)  So "political violence" should be in the first sentence of the lead and the infobox. (For those who might criticize the Guardian as left-wingish, see this piece from the National Review called "The Poisonous Allure of Right Wing Violence" and this piece from The Federalist (mostly focused on their no-fap ideas, but mentioning "...he and his Proud Boys are still known for crudity, provoking fights, and general chest-beating, online and off. It may indeed be a step up to be looking for real women to screw and promising to end fights rather than start them, but in a less puerile society these men would have gotten most of that out of their systems by age 20, not 29 and beyond.")Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - in the lead somewhere, maybe not necessarily the first sentence, but somewhere definitely in the lead. I'm not to keen on the word "promotes", prefer engages in or involved in, but I defer to consensus on that point. I'm not a big fan of infoboxes, don't look at them or read them, so have at it if you so choose. Nothing wrong with The Guardian either being used as a source, here's another source from the NW region - known for its white nationalist rhetoric and frequent appearances in the middle of political violence locally and nationwide. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - As discussed above, the organization promotes and celebrates political violence. Moreover, it's not just something they do, like a club organized for one reason that also holds potluck lunches every month. As sourced, it is who they are and what they are about. We've determined the sky is blue, it's time to hear that. Further arguments that all of the sources are biased, the other side starts it, etc. are not constructive. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support both. This seems like a fair summary of existing sources. It is obviously not a coincidence that violence happens when they show up, and it's obviously very political. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fails verification, at least based on the cited sources. None of them say the Proud Boys promotes political violence. Also undue to put in the first sentence and the infobox. R2 (bleep) 04:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support both. Seems like a reasonable paraphrase of what the sources say; this is what they're most well-known for, so it definitely belongs in the lead and seems reasonable for the infobox.  I'm unsure how anyone can read the linked sources and not come away with "promotes political violence" as a broad summary of what makes them noteworthy. --Aquillion (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , maybe we're looking at different sources? I looked at these sources, since they were cited:  I don't see where either of them says PB promoted political violence (or a paraphrase). If we're relying on other sources then those would need to be added; we can't just rely on "the sources." The Lowry and Federalist sources mentioned by Jytdog look like unreliable opinion sources to me. Lowry's is an editorial, and I'd be highly skeptical of anything the Federalist Society publishes being considered reliable. R2 (bleep) 06:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. This is the lead. Please read WP:LEAD and please read this whole article and its sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As discussed above. The support votes mostly argue the wording is a reasonable interpretation of sources, not that "promotes political violence" is directly sourced. For a claim like that where BLP is in effect I'm uncomfortable with that level of interpretation. D.Creish (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - As discussed above, this is not a BLP. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support both, as per WP:DUE; that's what the group is primarily known for. However, I would say incites..., as more specific. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the infobox, but support including in the lead (isn't it quite obvious? The organization promotes violence, so it should be in the lead). Although "promotes political violence" is slightly POV as it doesn't include violence against women. The lead is too bad for me to determine where exactly it should be put. Probably not the lead sentence. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  10:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both and "glorifies violence" would be closer to accuracy. The Seattle Times, already cited in the story, has a good summary that I propose we quote in the header: "The group describes itself on a Facebook page as “pro-Western fraternal organization” for men who “refuse to apologize for creating the modern world.” Social-media postings by its self-proclaimed members espouse racist and sexist ideals. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the Proud Boys as an alt-right “fight club.”" Wikipedia should follow RS, not provide our own SYNTH wording, especially in the header. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are clearly not looking at the sources in the article; i have summarized just the first batch of them below. And now we have the FBI classification of them as an extemist group and sending warnings to law enforcement that they escalate violence... (ref) Jytdog (talk)


 * Support both - Proud Boy's use of violence is overwhelmingly and extensively documented, including the exact term "political violence" so this is not merely an intrepretation. Not including them would be undue. "Glorifying violence" may be a bit subjective but it is included in sources verbatim, so it deserves a place in lead too, although not necessarily using the exact words. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should not state it in Wikipedia's voice. Besides, it fails verification based on the sources provided. Also, not so sure, but it seems a bit undue and unbalanced to put in the first sentence and the infobox. 49.195.72.88 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Striking vote by blocked user.  Brad  v  01:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose both: HouseOfChange is right to say that "glorifies violence" is more accurate. Saying "promotes political violence" gives the impression that Proud Boys organize violent attacks or destruction to advance political aims. Rather, the violence seems to revolve around defense against Antifa, who do those things. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * rather prescient bit from the National Review piece: "Needless to say, this is all poisonous. You can oppose antifa without brawling with it—one mob does not justify another. Violence outside the law is always wrong. We have democratic politics exactly so political and cultural disputes can be settled without resort to fisticuffs—or firearms and bombs. If conservatism is to represent law and order, it must anathematize and exclude advocates of, and practitioners, of violence."
 * User:D.Creish do you really want to keep this going? Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Replace "conservatism" with any -ism and I hope no editors disagree, for sure not me. But my feelings really shouldn't affect my editing. If I were Jimmy Wales I'd make a rule, for every X edits you have to find an article about a person or thing you disagree with and add something positive. Some sort of tapering function would be necessary to prevent skewing. D.Creish (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really on point. When I came across this page it was a laden with marketing, parroting the PB line on what they do. I have been slowly moving this toward something that reflects what RS from across the political spectrum say about these folks. We don't do "balance" here -- see WP:GEVAL. Please stop seeking that; it is the wrong mission. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nothing good comes from suggesting, even indirectly, that this organization must have hidden redeeming qualities. Perhaps the only noteworthy aspect of a topic is how wrong it is. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No I don't think we should balance positive and negative equally. I meant it's rare to find a bad thing without any redeeming qualities or a good thing without any faults (all sourced to RS of course.) If you find yourself often editing articles on subjects you see as either entirely good or entirely bad IMHO you shouldn't be editing them.
 * That's still minor and besides the point as you (Jytdog) said. Your initial comment looked like an appeal to my personal views, and my point was that personal views should never affect editing. I hope we can agree on that. D.Creish (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Its true but WEIGHT is not driven by a desire for balance. My OP was more of an appeal to your common sense and grasp of P&G than anything emotional.Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh then I misunderstood. I assumed "prescient" was a reference to the bomb scare. No worries then. D.Creish (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I said the National Review writer was prescient. I asked you if you wanted to keep the RfC going -- that is what "keep this going" meant. "this" = "this RfC". Perhaps you are not aware, but the person who opens an RfC can withdraw it early.  See WP:RFCEND. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That part I understood. I could see future editors objecting so I think it's worthwhile to settle definitively either way. D.Creish (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - For the record, National Review is not "decidedly left of center". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2019
As an actual member of Proud Boys, I am disappointed to see a page that is so factually incorrect that cannot be edited by those of us who are in the best position to make the require corrections. I request permission to have the protections removed from this page at least for myself and other editors who are actual members of Proud Boys. Anything less makes this page a blatant propaganda/disinformation source. DanChimo (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ That is not going to happen. If you want specific changes to be made, please say what they are in the form "Please change X to Y". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: For several reasons. Wikipedia's policies strongly discourage editors with a conflict of interest from directly editing articles. See Plain and simple conflict of interest guide as a starting point. Even if the page were not protected, you should still not be editing it yourself. Grayfell (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done. Unless you can provide reliable sources that say otherwise with sufficient weight, nothing will happen with this.--Jorm (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Correction
It says "The organization glorifies violence, and members participate in violence at events it attends; SPLC has called it an "alt-right fight club." However this is inaccurate, yes they were violent after being attacked and antagonized by antifa Lincolnkaub (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Relaible sources say otherwise, as per the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd just remove it per WP:DENY. Low level trolling with no content suggestions and nothing of value to offer. Tsumikiria/🌹🌉 05:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to Edit Semi Protected; FBI reference is unfounded, and now, discredited.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2018/12/head-of-oregons-fbi-bureau-doesnt-designate-proud-boys-as-extremist-group.html

I quote:

"Cannon said in relation to the Proud Boys, the FBI 'tried to characterize the potential threat from individuals within that group.' The bureau doesn’t designate groups but does investigate violent conspiracies, he said.

'We do not intend and did not intend to designate the group as extremist,' he said."

The original claim came from a Clark's County Sheriff's memo that stated the FBI had warned said Sheriff's office of inflammatory behaviors the Proud Boys exhibit. The author of the memo, however, makes the editorial leap and decides to characterize those actions as extremist. Thus, generally speaking, the FBI had warned the Proud Boys are an extremist group. However the FBI itself never made this classification.

A first-person resource in a senior FBI agent is a far more credible source than a Guardian article that references a misleading Sheriff's memo. The sentence claiming the Proud Boys have been classified as extremist by the FBI needs to be removed from Wikipedia.Larousse1995 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Larousse1995 12/04/2018


 * Not done - The argument has been repeatedly debunked on this page. If I see this request again I will be deleting it on sight as trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Noting - all but one of this editor's previous "contributions" have been outright vandalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know we've rehashed this a number of times now, but this looks like it's actually new information. If the source above is correct, all the other articles were based on an erroneous sheriff's report, and we would need to update the article to reflect this. However, I would like to see this reported in more sources before making a decision. Brad  v 🍁 00:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, OK. Let's see where this leads. I'm especially interested in seeing if the Guardian or the Sheriff's Office backs down from their claims. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, since the national office of the FBI wouldn't confirm or deny, we need to know if this is that local agent's personal opinion, or if it represent's the Bureau's opinion. Is he doing damage control? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding anything else on this. On the one hand, we have an official report, released under FOIA, and cited by dozens of newspapers. On the other hand, we have a single local newspaper reporting that an FBI employee told them the report was inaccurate. Until the FBI officially confirms or denies this classification (which they've so-far declined to do), I think we need to continue to rely on the consensus among the sources. I vote we leave it as is for now. Brad  v 🍁 00:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Even though The Oregonian is a reliable source, I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The Federal Government does not have mechanisms for designating domestic groups as terrorist. Doug Weller  talk 05:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, interesting, but, given the circumstances of the past two years, with the White House releasing proven falsehoods, I'm not terribly inclined to accept the assurances of the White House about this matter. I'd rather wait until the media sorts it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "I think we need to continue to rely on the consensus among the sources." There is ONE source, that source is the Sheriff's released memo. This consensus you speak of is merely multiple credible outlets all reporting on the one source. This new, credible source is a first-person account from a Senior FBI agent in the area. Clark County is immediately adjacent to Portland, making this agent and his comments absolutely relevant. The nature of the agent's comments does not suggest it is his private opinion, in fact he very pointedly states that the FBI does not make these kind of classifications. This fantasy that the FBI classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group is just that- a fantasy. It is now been clearly and objectively denied by the FBI and the article MUST reflect this. The article states as fact that the Proud Boys have been labeled extremist by the FBI, when there exists clear, objective, and credible truth that this is not the case. "However, I would like to see this reported in more sources before making a decision.". Below are three more credible sources all confirming the same comments. Ignoring an FBI statement because it alleviates some condemnation from an otherwise unlikable group is not a wise decision.


 * t appears that there is now a SECOND FBI agent denying ever classifying the Proud Boys as extremist. My OP referenced an article where a Senior Agent Cannon made the statement. The agent that made these new comments is agent Beth Anne Steele. According to her LinkedIn, she is the public affairs officer for the region. A public affairs officer releasing a statement to the press is speaking on behalf of the FBI and is not sharing a personal opinion. Now the Public Affairs Officer for the Oregon region has come out with further denial, as well as this statement:


 * "When it comes to domestic terrorism, our investigations focus solely on criminal activity of individuals—regardless of group membership—which appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion. The FBI does not and will not police ideology."


 * Two senior FBI officials, both speaking on behalf of the FBI, both denying the FBI ever classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group, both denying the FBI even partakes in classifying groups as extremist to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larousse1995 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-fbi-proud-boys-clarifies-statement/
 * https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/5/fbi-denies-designating-proud-boys-extremist-group/
 * https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/head-oregon-fbi-denies-bureau-considers-proud-boys-extremist
 * https://katu.com/news/local/proud-boys-respond-to-report-saying-fbi-calls-group-extremist-linked-to-white-nationalism
 * Larousse1995 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Larousse1995

So we now have dozens of reliable sources citing a Sherrif's report that claimed one thing, and several other sources citing an FBI employee claiming the opposite. I think this needs to be fully explained in the article. Right now the article claims the original statement 4 times. It's not wrong, it's just outdated, assuming the above reports are accurate. Any suggestions on how to best reflect this in the article? Brad v 🍁 20:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My reply was to the original comment, here. edited it further after I replied.  Brad  v 🍁 21:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When we have dueling reliable sources, we generally report what both groups say -- however, I will point out that of the sources provided above, only OPB is actually reliable, the rest are not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2 FBI agents made separate press statements that classify the report to be false, or at the very least misleading. Who should we believe more, what the Clark County Sheriff said the FBI does, or what the FBI says the FBI does? And in response to Beyond My Ken, is the Washington Times not credible? Is CBS affiliate KGW8 not credible (https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/proud-boys-not-designated-as-extremist-group-fbi-spokeswoman-says/283-620948085)? I believe the article should say something along the lines of: "Clark County Sheriff's Department released a memo that appeared to show the FBI classifying the Proud Boys as an extremist group, however the FBI quickly denied this, stating that it is not within their standard operating procedure to classify groups as extremist, or to police ideologies of groups." This is a fair, neutral statement, that respects information obtained from your secondary sources and my primary sources. Larousse1995 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the Washington Times is not credible. Like Fox News, it was founded specifically to be a conservative news outlet, and regularly skews its articles in that direction.{{parabr}And no, your version of what the article should say is incorrect.  The Sheriff's memo didn't "seem to show" it "showed"  They may have been incorrect, but there is no doubt that they made the claim that they made.I have rewritten the sections of the article to reflect the current status in an impartial and accurate manner.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to know how many left-skewing news outlets you personally view as not credible. But that's neither here nor there. In regards to your edit, I appreciate you yielding to the truth. It is an accurate manner, albeit leaving out several things that are also accurate and relevant (such as both FBI employees stating it is never within SOP to label any group as extremist). This is objectively a more powerful truth than merely stating "it wasn't our intention" which is a understatement, to say the least. It also omits the fact that two separate FBI officials made the same statement. Larousse1995 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Talking Points Memo is a "left-leaning" outlet, and I said right above that it's not reliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) BTW Beth Ann Seele is not any kind of high official in the FBI, she's just the head PR flack for the Oregon FBI office. She repeats what she's told, so there's still only ONE source, not TWO. I've used Cannon's statement as reported by the Oregonian as the source. It still isn't clear, however, if the Sheriff's Office internal memo correctly reported what the FBI said, and the Oregon FBI office is now tap-dancing backwards to get itself out of hot water, or if the Sheriffs misunderstood in the manner described by Cannon.  Either is believable -- and even if you accept Cannon's explanation, the fact that the FBI in its slide show presented the designation of the SPLC is significant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Daily Beast is hardly reliable either, and yet that is cited within this article as a source. I thought your role here is to determine what is factual based off of reliable sources? It seems you also are privy to the organizational schemes of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It also seems you take it upon yourself to determine what ulterior motives are. The facts are the facts. Sheriffs Office said one thing, THEIR source, Clark County's source for the memo they released, denied that was their intention, and denied it could even possibly be their intention on the grounds of their SOP. Those are the facts. It isn't up to me or you to determine who really meant what, or who really is who's boss at the FBI.


 * Omitting the fact that there were two separate FBI officials who denied the memo because you personally don't think a PR Officer is senior or important is a subjective decision, not a factual one. Larousse1995 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think The Daily Beast is not a reliable source, I suggest you start a discussion at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Good luck. As to your other point, nope.  He don;t generally say "Joe Blow, Secretary of State, said such and so, and his Press Agent said the same thing." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm completely new to the Wikipedia community, I didn't realize there was an accessible blacklist of discredited conservative sources. I'll reference that from here on. To quote you, "Whatever they're here for, they're not going to get the edits they want." I'm at least glad in this case the truth had a small win. Take care, Merry Christmas. Larousse1995 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, we don't service "The Truth" here, we service WP:Verifiability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That just sounds like the truth, with more steps. Lol. Larousse1995 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, "The Truth" always knows in advance what the end result will be, and strives to get there whatever the verifiable evidence may say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So, kinda like adamantly believing that The Proud Boys are a horrible, Neo-Nazi organization, and fastidiously protecting a slanted hit piece masquerading as neutral article? Ref: "They won't get the edits they want". Glad we are both on the same page as to the definition of the word "truth". (: Larousse1995 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not -- and should not -- try to give balance to each side. We do not, for example treat the flat Earth theory particularly kindly, because the reliable sources do not. The independent reliable sources are, in your words "slanted hit piece(s)" that adamantly believe "that The Proud Boys are a horrible, Neo-Nazi organization". As a result, Wikipedia should state that The Proud Boys are a horrible, Neo-Nazi organization. If you have independent reliable sources that report they are a misunderstood bridge club, working to raise funds for homeless vets, please present them here for discussion. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Slanted hit piece" does not refer to the sources cited. It refers to the edits that are being defended. An overwhelming amount of reliable sources discredited the FBI bit, and yet the first reaction was threatening to "delete on sight as trolling". I believe this discussion is opened and closed, however, as my suggestions for accurate and appropriate edits were ratified. Not a forum, no need for further discussion. Larousse1995 (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018
Most statements on this page are clearly not factual. They are derived from various news outlets so the legitimacy is questionable and almost 100% inaccurate. Given the fact that Gavin Mcinnes produces the majority of his work as comical satire, the quotes portraying the group as inciting violence is also false. Putting up information without context is basically an attack at someones credibility, but, like in many cases and this one, is also false. I think Wikipedia needs to be a source of truly objective information. I don't care what political views someone carries, but manipulating content for a particular agenda is extremely reprehensible and it should be avoided at all costs. Let's make Wikipedia a source of truth and objectivity, not lies and subjectivity. Thanks. 24.244.23.252 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Objections
Does anyone have specific objections to these edits (rationale provided in edit summaries) and if so, which? D.Creish (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * to men's group
 * to white men, and Western culture as under attack from the left
 * (Brock)
 * (Redundant)
 * I agree with none of them. They amount to distortions of the facts in what appears to an attempted whitewashing of the article in favor of the subject group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How so? For example, how did removing the redundant Blogtown source (without changing any content) "whitewash" the article? D.Creish (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For a controversial subject, having only a single source cited makes it easier for those who wish to illegitimately remove information to do so. For subjects such as those, it is not unusual to cite multiple sources so that source bias cannot be claimed, as you indeed are doing in one of your edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed it from two spots, one cited 3 sources and the other cited 4, so nothing was left "with a single source" like you claim. We're approaching WP:CIR territory so please be careful. Let's tackle another point - do you think Portland Mercury Blogtown and Media Matters are RS, and are you prepared to defend them at RSN? D.Creish (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "We're approaching CIR territory"? Nice one. I'm tackling no more points.  Until you get a consensus for your edits on this talk page, please do not restore them to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If the only rationales for these edits you're willing to give are those in the edit summaries you've provided: I do not see these edits as positive. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I support #1, #2, and #4. To reiterate:
 * "Men's group" is more neutral, ""
 * "Under attack from the left" is more accurate, as "".
 * The Blogtown citation has an "".
 * However, I object to #3, as the source is not treated as reliable, and it is rightfully used only for a neutral description of that source's point of view.
 * SamHiggle (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the only policy response and the other editor's bowed out so it looks like we're getting there. On Media Matters I'd say their opinion is notable only if real RS noted it. Have they? I'll search through RSN and see if there's a clear take on them. D.Creish (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Media Matter is a "real" RS. If you think it is not, open a discussion at WP:RSN - you don;t goet to decide on your own that it isn't.  Oh, and BYW, we're not "getting there", you still don't have a consensus for your changes, and the only support you have is from a non-extended confirmed editor who couldn;t edit the article if they wanted to. Doesn't really count for much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Both Media Matters and Portland Mercury are fine sources providing pertinent information in this case, removing them, which only serves to remove their preceding sentences, is revisionist, unless better sources for the same information can be given. "Men's group" alters meaning to implicitly confirm the group's PR fig-leaf as a "fraternity", and have no significant source support than the current version. And we are not going to honor and put McInnes' counter-narrative that a RS call "Orwellian inversion of truth" onto the lead either. Referring immigration and white women seeking abortion as threats can indeed be summarized with source support as elements of white genocide conspiracy theory. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * BMK, the only opinions that count are ones based in policy so if there's policy against the changes I'm happy to listen. On Media Matters, are you basing that on a specific post and if so can you point to it? I'm working my way through the previous posts and it's not positive.
 * Tsumikiria, Portland Mercury is RS, Portland Mercury Blogtown (the actual source) has no 'reputation for fact checking' so it's not. D.Creish (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Blogtown" is, like every blog connected to a reliable source, considered to be a reliable source. Go to WP:RSN to argue otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and consider this a warning: if you attempt to make these changes without a positive consensus to so -- "consensus" as defined by the community, not according to your personal definition -- I 'will report you for editing against consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The first two edits are not neutral (Proud Boys is not simply a "men's group" or a fraternity, and they don't see white people as only under attack from "the left"). The sources removed in the next two edits are sufficient for their purpose, as they are being used to support and explain statements made in more reliable sources. In short, I agree with BMK and Tsumikiria, and see no need for any of these proposed changes. Brad  v 🍁 06:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Many reliable sources call it exactly a "men's group":
 * Slate
 * Rolling Stone
 * Vancouver Sun
 * National Post
 * Seattle Times
 * Washington Post
 * Politico
 * NBC News
 * The only reference for being supposedly under attack is explicit about the left: "With his remarkable talent for flogging the idea that white people (men in particular) are under assault by an unhinged and immoral left, McInnes has certainly earned his spot in the right-wing 'mainstream,' along with his new cohorts Malkin and Levin, right alongside Fox News, Breitbart, and InfoWars."
 * Does anyone have a good reason for the absurd verbosity of the opening sentence or the misleading vagueness about the so-called "siege"?
 * SamHiggle (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And then there are other sources referenced right in the article that does not simply say it as a "men's group". That is not a overwhelming support. And sources often use the term "self-described men's group/fraternity" when describing the group. "under siege" is a summary from the body referenced by this source. Per Bradv, the group not only see a purportedly "unhinged and immoral left" as a threat, but also white women seeking abortion, feminism and immigrants. With sources stating this, it is certainly not a good idea to write otherwise:
 * ""After Charlottesville laid bare the violent consequences of all their blather about “white genocide” and the “death of the West,” the counter-narrative of a murderously intolerant “alt-left” took flight—and was soon being used by alt-liters to characterize the whole liberal movement. Nobody was more invested in that Orwellian inversion of truth than McInnes""


 * Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. My above sources show "men's group" is perfect to replace that awkwardly wordy opening line. 7/8 use "men's group" without qualifiers like "self-described". Overwhelming support of an exact phrase would be a silly requirement, which the existing phrasing fails even more. If you take direct synonyms such as "men's organization" and phrases such as "men's club" and "fraternity", there actually is overwhelming support for "men's group" anyway.
 * Additionally, your block quote, as far as it concerns McInnes, is explicitly about liberals. That Globe and Mail article does not mention men being supposedly under siege and isn't even cited for that content. What are you talking about?
 * SamHiggle (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The category of White nationalism in the United States is unfounded
The rest of the article takes a neutral tone in regards to the proud boys and White nationalism but then the category "White nationalism in the United States" is assigned to the article which directly implies that this is a white nationalist organization which is totally untrue based on all available evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.172.86 (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus on this talk page, based on the evidecne of reliable source, disagrees with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. The category is misleading. SamHiggle (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The category is based on reliable sources. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It still is misleading, as it suggests Proud Boys are white nationalists.
 * The only mentions of white nationalism on the page are the FBI's admitted mistake of labelling them as even having ties to it and the founder's denial of them (or anyone) being white nationalist. They do not warrant the category.
 * SamHiggle (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * FBI's 'admitted mistake' Sorry, how do you mean? PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As the page says (with my added emphasis):
 * "In late November 2018, a news story which attracted national attention reported that the FBI classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group with ties to white nationalism; however, two weeks later, an FBI official denied that it was their intent to classify the group in this manner, and ascribed the mistake to a misunderstanding."
 * SamHiggle (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually can't find that in the sources provided, just the wiki article, and I've tagged the issue accordingly. Could you link to the exact source with this wording? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because D.Creish removed the actual source of that information from the article, and then adjusted the references apparently without having read their content. I've restored the reference, which is from a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like they only admitted the "extremist" label was a mistake. I misunderstood based on the quote above.
 * However, it is unclear whether the FBI meant the whole group has white nationalist ties, and the category label still gives the impression Proud Boys are white nationalists, which could be seen as a smear. We should be careful about this, especially since we are dealing with living people, and especially since the group has threatened legal action for this kind of association.
 * SamHiggle (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To be very blunt & clear, there is very low tolerance for legal threats at Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly: "A polite report of a legal problem, such as defamation or copyright infringement, is not a threat and will be acted on quickly." SamHiggle (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Neo Fascist
Really? Even after McInnes condemned fascism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d19GeUCHYUM Seems a little politically charged to me. Seems also worth noting that McInnes is suing the SPLC for defamation of both himself and his group. https://defendgavin.com/

I get the whole "reputable sources" thing, and I agree with it, but isn't it worth noting that after the accusations of "far right fascism" in the intro that the group themselves has condemned "far right fascism" on several occasions? Marshan3q (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you're clearly not getting it. There are any number of reason why MacInnes and the Proud Boys would condemn fascism: P.R. being a prime one, that's why we do not go by the self-description of the organization, but what reliable sources say about them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't think there might be a political reason for the SPLC and the Huffington Post to call a growing right wing men's group "fascist" when those two organizations have committed themselves to intersectionality? Proud Boys are clearly against intersectionality but that doesn't make them neo-fascists. The description of what a neo-fascist is doesn't exactly fit their groups ideological mission. Of course PR plays a factor in what an individual says, why wouldn't it? We take Antifa at their word as being an "anti-fascist" group, despite video examples of fascistic behavior at rallies. Fox News hosts called Obama "anti-white" and "socialist" in 2008, but Obama denied and condemned such accusations, rightfully so. Glenn Beck has been lumped in with anti-semitism by The Atlantic and the Washington Post, but the man held a rally in Israel and called Israelis the "bravest nation." Why wouldn't the personal rhetoric of an individual, especially a political commentator who talks politics for a living, and says, even before the accusations of neo-fascism, nazism, alt-rightism, etc., that he's none of those things and talks in favor of legal immigration? No, I don't think you get it. "Reliable", we can go back and forth but HuffPo and SPLC are clearly defaming... but I'm not even asking for that, I'm just saying on an article about a political commentator, maybe include what that political commentator has said about the accusations labeled against him moreso than just in a passing phrase. Seems pretty important, lest we mistakenly misattribute less than good principles and values onto somebody's character. The HuffPo piece, which is the piece that brings up fascism, doesn't bring up examples of fascistic behavior... it's an opinion piece to boot. The opinion writer compared them to "nazi skinheads", but that doesn't make sense, they let in non-whites. Can you really not see the bias in this article or the sources we're using? Marshan3q (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Having just one source to describe the group as neo fascist is obviously undue. It is the opinion of one person after all. Random Redshirt (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Typo
Since the page is locked, typo fixes aren't allowed:

- the Southern Poverty Law Center is abbreviated at least once as "SLPC" instead of the correct "SPLC" triplepoint (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The locking of this page
With something as divisive as politics, it seems wrong to state opinions as facts (poorly cited ones, at that) in this, and then locking the page "to prevent vandalism".

I've got well cited (and factual) sources that I'd like to contribute, but if the admin doesn't loosen this up a little, it will be done for them. I'm not a fan of this group "the proud boys" myself, but it's clear the admin has used this page as a sounding board for their politics.

Remember what this site is for. Pickingausernamethatsnotinuseishard (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "it will be done for them"? You're not an admin so you can't change page protection settings, and if you're threatening some kind of hacking attempt... lol good luck and enjoy the permanent site ban. If, on the other hand, you'd like to suggest changes and sources, well, feel free to do that here and if they gain consensus, they'll be implemented by someone who can edit the page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"Neo-fascist"
There was a thread here questioning the new use of the descriptor "neo-fascist" in the intro, but it was quickly closed. The most visible explanation given for shutting it down was the claim that no source was given, which is clearly false (see the video link) and not even required to have a conversation. Hidden in the history was a second explanation: the claim that "similar" discussions had already occurred, even though no discussion of this new usage of the term exists in this talk page's archives. Something is seriously amiss here, and this discussion is clearly worth having, so I am going to comment on the original subject here.

I agree that the current usage of "neo-fascist" is undue. I see three total sources given that call Proud Boys neo-fascist, but they are questionable. Weighing this against the libertarian, small-government views of Proud Boys, this rules out the authoritarian label of "neo-fascist". Thus, this descriptor should not be included in the intro, especially without also giving evidence to the contrary. More reasonable would be to say that some sources call them neo-fascist though they actually have anti-authoritarian, anti-racist views, moving this out of the intro.

The only sources I see calling Proud Boys neo-fascist are Daily Beast, HuffPost, and left-wing politician Letitia James. The bias of the politician is clear, making her unreliable here, especially given that she called Proud Boys the common smear of "white supremacist" in the same breath. As for Daily Beast and HuffPost, their reliability is dubious. They cannot be blindly relied upon, and given the weight of contrary evidence and the fact that the Proud Boys founder is actively litigating against accusations like this, I think Wikipedia should try to stay neutral and not outright call them neo-fascist without qualification.

This page also cites Law & Crime, but all they do is say that they previously described Proud Boys as neo-fascist and link to quotes of that politician. Notice that they do not link to where they actually called Proud Boys neo-fascist, and ask why yourself they would not do that or just say they are neo-fascist in the article. A likely explanation is that they got legal threats and had to stop. Either way, the source is not valid – saying that one previously said something is not the same as saying that thing.

Finally, if anyone wants some sources for their views that are incompatible with fascism, here you go (with my added emphases):


 * The Guardian: "Their Fred Perry shirts have a history in subcultures including football hooliganism; black and gold are the colors of anarcho-capitalism, a libertarian ideology which seeks to abolish government in the interest of free markets. / The group’s magazine has published a list of its political commitments, which echo talk-radio style constitutional conservatism and add libertarian touches such as opposition to the war on drugs and an antifeminist veneration of traditional gender roles."


 * Southern Poverty Law Center: "They adhere to a list of libertarian-leaning principles, including opposition to the drug war, racial guilt, and political correctness, and support for small government, closed borders, and 'Venerating the Housewife.'"


 * Toronto Sun: "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.'"

--SamHiggle (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is better than the previous attempt using a YouTube video and campaign website, but nevertheless faulty. Using the group's purported, fig leaf libertarian claims to suggest that they're inherently incompatible with fascism is your own original research inappropriate for the article, as this article, and all sources provided, indicate and emphasize on the group's violent attacks against left wing organizations and anti-fascist activists. The Daily Beast is generally reliable for their history of editorial oversight and nonpartisan stance and only require special handling in biographies of living persons. HuffPost is reliable for its coverage on far-right politics. Letitia James was the elected public advocate of NYC and now AG of NY State. And "white supremacist" is by no means a smear. We don't remove content in fear of legal threats, nor do we respect PR moves. Oppose removal. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You make the common mistake of confusing (1) criteria for statements to make in an article with (2) criteria for deciding how to phrase statements and weigh them with others. I am not saying we should write in the article that Proud Boys' libertarianism is incompatible with fascism, so your point about original research is irrelevant. What I am saying is that we should use our reason and not smear them as "neo-fascist" in the same way we do not call them "white supremacist" on this page.
 * Also, literally the first sentence of the biographies of living persons policy you just linked is – with the original emphases:
 * "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."
 * In other words, yes, special care must very clearly be used here, by your own cited policy. Also read that page about how this is explicitly a legal concern.
 * Lastly, if you could stop insinuating conspiracy theories about Proud Boys' true intentions or that I am part of a PR move, we could have a more productive discussion.
 * --SamHiggle (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you adding the bold yourself? Why? It doesn't appear to help illustrate why you are quoting the sources given. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * --SamHiggle (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you adding the bold yourself? Why? It doesn't appear to help illustrate why you are quoting the sources given. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you adding the bold yourself? Why? It doesn't appear to help illustrate why you are quoting the sources given. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your attempts at fostering dialogue Sam, but the majority of Wikipedians anymore, unfortunately, aren't interested in doing so, hence why you saw the dialogue we were having a few days ago locked and archived within a couple hours, despite the initial post just being a question on the one sided nature of the article. It is what it is. The powers that be have already made their decision on the character of a man based on self selected "reliable" sources like HuffPo Opinion pieces. This idea that "white supremacist" isn't a smear is laughable.... Wikipedia articles themselves list White supremacy as a racist ideology, rightfully so, but don't list Black Supremacy as racist, and it is a smear when it's misattributed towards individuals who throughout their career have denied believing in racial supremacy. You can say it's not a smear, but when it's misattributed it is... Gavin McInnes and his Proud Boys fit the criteria of white supremacists despite Gavin marrying somebody outside of his racial group and the chairman of Proud Boys being a Hispanic/Cuban-American.. yes, that makes perfect sense. Their ideology is in line with a civic form of nationalism and traditionalist chauvinism, but does not mesh with white supremacism/nationalism, and my point, as well as Sam's, is that it is questionable that an opinion piece from HuffPo, an opinion piece from Daily Beast, who in their mission statement even says they "aren't neutral", and again, another opinion piece from a self described left wing political activist as the criteria for "reliable" in labeling an entire men's group and their founder as white supremacist and/or neo-fascist. It'd be like taking Rush Limbaugh (political activist) saying that Barack Obama was anti-white in 2008 in a column on Fox News (opinion piece), and running with that as a reliable source... we wouldn't do that. - Marshan3q (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit other people's posts on the talk page. Talk page guidelines instructs Wikipedia editors to "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." There is absolutely nothing in the above post that violates talk page standards. It's lengthier than normal, yes, but it's presenting multiple arguments as to the problem and biases found within the article, and as somebody who is a believer in the mission of Wikipedia of establishing a free and neutral online database for information, dialogue is necessary and dialogue cannot be fostered when one editor decides to edit another editors post based on their own opinion that the post isn't on topic... it is. There's a lot of framing, but seeing as everyone's viewpoints seem to be getting misattributed lately, and seeing as everyone is framing their arguments, this shouldn't be an issue.- Marshan3q (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's describe Proud Boys more fairly.
I propose that we take the unqualified descriptor "neo-fascist" out of the introduction of this article and add a more fair description of Proud Boys views to the body like this:


 * Proud Boys espouse libertarian views, though they have been accused of neo-fascism.

Currently, the only sources for the "neo-fascist" label are dubious, and we should take extra care when describing living people. In particular, the page's current references for the term only cite an obviously biased left-wing politician, two sources (Daily Beast and HuffPost) known to be potentially unreliable for describing living people, and a page that does not state that Proud Boys are neo-fascist. Thus, noting the accusations of neo-fascism is better than simply calling Proud Boys neo-fascist.

On the other hand, I have added here multiple reliable sources that spell out the libertarianism of the Proud Boys, which is worth mentioning if we want to be accurate and fair about their political views. (Libertarianism is anti-authoritarian and thus arguably anti-fascist.)

What do you think?

(Note: this is discussion about the Proud Boys page and not a proposal to add original research to the page. More discussion that was erroneously hidden can be found here and here.)

– SamHiggle (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's just fine as it is. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)