![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Per my edit summary – WP:SHORTDES & MOS:ORDER sd's are for mobile app reading & need't duplicate lede; keep below 40 characters; avoid POV – I've restored "my" version of the short. The reader using the mobile app wants to know if they got the right article so they can go on to open the article. Then they can read about the political leanings of the organization and its members. That is, they want to make sure they haven't stumbled onto Proud Mary by mistake. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Since Newsweek needs consensus, what do editors here think of this? A few alternate/supplement sources as well.
"One of their members, Nick Ochs, tweeted a selfie inside the building saying "Hello from the Capital lol". He also filmed a live stream inside...Mr Ochs' profile on the messaging app Telegram describes himself as a "Proud Boy Elder from Hawaii."" IHateAccounts ( talk) 23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The Proud Boys page on Parler has been posting constantly since the storming, celebrating and endorsing the riots. In addition, prominent members on their Telegram group have claimed responsibility, including calls for members to specifically wear black and cause mayhem during the protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlayercookie ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
During the recent riot there were Proud Boys wearing 6WME tshirts, I wanted to add something about what they mean to the article but got reverted. Please can you tell me if this is acceptable wording and references and if so add it into the article.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 16:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Members and supporters wear tshirts stating 6WME (6 Million Wasn't Enough) which calls for another holocaust. [1] [2] [3]
References
"During the recent riot there were Proud Boys wearing t-shirts bearing the new-Nazi phrase "6WME" ("6 Million Wasn't Enough") a phrase suggesting that not enough Jews were murdered during the Holocaust."Btw I think either your version or mine could be added now and tinkered with. There's no need to wait until we get the language exactly right here. R2 ( bleep) 16:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Contrary to what was seen on social media in the last couple of days, the photo probably was not taken at the Congress vandalizing, but at another event, the one mentioned in the Snopes article. Despite not being associated with the Congress event, this information is relevant to the topic of this article, and fits in the "Symbolism" section. The Snopes articles is an appropriate source: it says clearly that the meaning is "6 million wasn't enough" and that this slogan is specifically associated with the group that is the subject of this article. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 10:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I've read multiple sources on the Proud Boys that show a pattern of anti-Semitic rhetoric within their circles.
1st: "A Proud Boys leader is trying to rebrand the group as explicitly white supremacist and anti-Semitic" - Sun Sentinel, JPost, The Forward
Describes Proud Boys member, Kyle Chapman, claiming he has transformed the group into an explicitly white supremacist organization, though it's unclear whether he has a following.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-proud-boys-rebrand-20201111-kp4cr7l5pbdnxguwyb3xq4m63e-story.html https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/proud-boys-leader-trying-to-rebrand-the-group-as-explicitly-antisemitic-648831 https://forward.com/fast-forward/458399/a-proud-boys-leader-is-trying-to-rebrand-the-group-as-explicitly-white/
Though the extent to which the group adopted such beliefs was unclear at the time, recent developments seem to indicate that the organization at-large has embraced it in recent months. Which brings me to my second point.
2nd: "Neo-Nazi Shirts Worn by Proud Boys Supporters Sold on Amazon" - Newsweek
Details black-and-yellow (evidently, the colors of the Proud Boys) T-shirts (likely purchased via Amazon), hooded tops and cups with the phrase "6MWE"—a Neo-Nazi term that stands for "6 million wasn't enough." The items also had the Italian fascist symbol of an eagle spreading its wings that was used during World War II.
https://www.newsweek.com/nazi-amazon-proud-boys-holocaust-1555192
Fact checkers confirmed the meaning of the phrase "6MWE" as indeed signifying the phrase "6 million wasn't enough." - Snopes
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boy-6mwe/
In addition, multiple credible sources on Twitter have seemingly identified the slogan being worn by members of the Proud Boys during the pro-Trump terrorist attack inside the Capitol on January 6th, 2021.
I hope some of this information helps the admins of this page at least consider including anti-Semitism as part of the Proud Boys' ideology.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:C900:7440:F87E:9DBD:2DDE:E55A ( talk) 00:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I propose adding something along these lines to discuss why the group are neo-fascist, since calling a group neo-fascist and then not discussing it feels a little... odd.
Talpedia ( talk) 01:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The article was in a peer reviewed journal which has a focus on rhetorical studies, which includes communication studies. The article covers how demagoguery gives meaning to violence by providing a symbolic, expressive outlet...through a close reading of the Proud Boys, a multinational fraternal organization that uses an aesthetic of libertarianism to advance a fascist politic and has not been retracted. Your personal animosities or attacks towards the author are irrelevant. IHateAccounts ( talk) 16:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Jason Lee Van Dyke, the former lawyer and one-time leader of the Proud Boys, who was recently alleged to have tried to plot the assassination of a rival, [1] attempted to join the Base, but was denied membership for being a "huge liability." [2] In an effort to convince the group's leaders that he should be allowed to join the Base and would be a productive member, Van Dyke offered up his expertise in weapons training and his Texas town of Decatur for paramilitary camps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.167.204 ( talk) 04:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
References
See this. [1]. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it has to be noted, just in case, that in a discussion related to whether or not the article subject is a white supremacist, Distelfinck is misrepresenting policy to vexatiously remove comments from others simply stating that they believe based on the WP:RS coverage that he is. IHateAccounts ( talk) 15:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been looking for sources advising where prominent proud boys were during the rally. There are articles saying: Tarrio was 100 miles away in his hotel room due to court order. Nordean and Biggs were leading a group of proud boys near the speech site. Jeremy Bertino was home due to recent stabbing Others were spotted in orange hats associating with leadership
Does anyone have articles detailing proud boy timeline of events? I was hoping to see more articles by now. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 20:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This Vice article mentions some of the Proud Boys leaders who seemed to be coordinating things at the Capitol. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9160965/Proud-Boys-leader-Joe-Biggs-seen-entering-Capitol-saying-awesome.html TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 23:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
This is almost an entirely American thing.
Should Canada really be mentioned in the first line considering there are only a handful of people that are part of this group? There are probably a similar number in many other countries as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.167.100.219 ( talk) 07:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
The currently (2021-01-21) linked video "Who are the Proud Boys?" on YouTube (CBC News) July 5, 2017 is not available on YouTube anymore. At least not under this link. I suggest to either remove the link, link to a different video or directly include a video with clarified copyright situation. What do you suggest? Thanks. Ichbinder ( talk) 11:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The opening para outlines the various public events to have involved this group. The arrests of several members of the PB involved in the January 6 riot is now the most widely publicised event to have involved members of this group, so the details of the various members involved and arrested, like Joseph Biggs and others involved, should be at the top.
Independence1416 ( talk) 10:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It is factually incorrect that the events at the Capitol were attended by "this group". The vast majority of the group did not attend or were instructed that, if they did attend, it would be as private citizens, not as members of the group. There were members of the military, law enforcement, various political parties and many corporations in attendance, even members of the government - can we claim that, because members of those groups were in attendance that the actual groups themselves with in attendance? I contend the answer is no. DanBoomerman ( talk) 16:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The vast majority of the group [...] were instructed that, if they did attend, it would be as private citizens, not as members of the group. Do we have a source for that? Vexations ( talk) 16:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Based on this [1] I withdraw my comment. DanBoomerman ( talk) 13:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted a substantial edit by Mikehawk10, which may contain some individual changes which are unobjectionable but on the whole, substantively makes the article worse.
For example, Mikehawk10's proposal introduces a number of points of attribution to uncontradicted factual statements, such as the fact that Proud Boys' members have been seen wearing group-affiliated apparel with the anti-Semitic slogan "6MWE". There is no reason to attribute this statement of fact - no reliable source contradicts it. Similarly, no reliable source contradicts the statement that Proud Boys members repeatedly appear at racist events. As per
WP:YESPOV, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.
Changing the description of Rebel News from "far-right" to "conservative" is directly contradicted by the wide array of sources cited in our article on Rebel News, where we factually describe it as "far-right." There appears to be no valid reason not to do so in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 06:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
[3] and many other sources. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Question Should we include this info in the opening paragraph? It doesn't seem to be something that it core to describing the Proud Boys as a group, and
MOS:LEAD states that "[t]he first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.
" —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
06:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
In this video ( https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/01/17/extremist-groups-media-alex-stamos-rs-stelter-vpx.cnn) two experts, Alex Stamos and Chris Krebs, discuss the Proud Boys and indicate that they should be tracked and treated as similar to ISIS. Seems relevant as WP:RSOPINION though I would like some second opinions and suggestions on the wording if possible. IHateAccounts ( talk) 00:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Have other reliable sources reported on this? That might make it notable. Vexations ( talk) 00:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
These sources are hardly reliable, nor are they experts, they have well-known and proven political bias which should be noted if their opinions are used. DanBoomerman ( talk) 16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The ABC has released this powerful and compelling documentary that exposes the extent of the proudboys planning and leadership in the capitol attack. Amazing footage. Proud boys clearly lead the attack and use military tactics during the attack the capitol https://medium.com/four-corners-downfall-the-last-days-of-president/four-corners-downfall-the-last-days-of-president-trump-january-31-2021-abc-full-show-95184669a026 Bacon drum 20:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I would fix it myself, but there are a lot of warnings on this page about editing.
I think found an error in this page. Under the section titled "Membership and doctrine" it says that "The Daily Beast reported in February 2018..." but the reference is from November 2018. I read the referenced article thinking that perhaps the bylaws were from February of 2018 but no mention is made of that in the Daily Beast article either. I then sought out the actual bylaws themselves. I also searched for other Daily Beast articles which could have been the intended reference, but found none. The article referenced seems to be the correct one other than the February date.
I tried to find outside sources which mentioned this date but could not find any which makes this claim. The adl website mentioned bylaws changes in Oct 2018 and quoted from them. Searching from this quote did not produce any documents from October, but I did find a copy of the November 24 bylaws (enacted 11/25/2018) from here and here (exhibit 1 at the end) which are identical. While the existence of these November documents does not preclude that other changes took place in Feb 2018, I just simply can find no evidence of this.
I think the correct change is just to swap "February" for "November" but I'll leave that to a pro who knows the rules better than me. Thanks for doing a great job making the infinitely-valuable resource that is wikipedia everyone! 2601:1C0:6E01:16D0:117C:5987:FDEC:1E91 ( talk) 18:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
the designation of this group as a "terrorist organisation" is factually incorrect. The cited article [1] clearly states; "The motion now awaits consideration from leadership in Ottawa, which reportedly has the final say in the matter." DanBoomerman ( talk) 13:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
That will be the second step, and it would put Proud Boys on the list of internatioally-0recognized terrorist groups. Even if it is only one nation (for example the Iranian government lists the American Department of Defense as a terrorist group), any recognition qualifies. I would guess that Proud Boys are on the fast track to such infamy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a ( talk • contribs) 18:32, January 26, 2021 (UTC)
Only Canada lists the Proud Boys as a Terrorist entity. No other country currently recognizes the Proud boys as a terror organization. That is an important distinction that should be clearly made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F6:EF05:D13D:40F7:8024:F166:7ED3 ( talk) 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
"Ethan Nordean, sergeant at arms of the Seattle chapter, was charged with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, aiding and abetting, and knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building"
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-arrests-seattle-washington-courts-f128fa38d6ad2ca0561985a4138b83fe TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 01:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The chairman Tarrio is Afro Cuban so it is not an all white group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD40:6D00:7C2B:10CC:F7BE:1D26 ( talk) 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist political organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada. "White nationalist" FALSE Also There is no Source or Facts stated that accuses them of engaging in violence in US or Canada. Its a Opinion needs to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:6B40:DA:D140:3F8C:A961:9A73 ( talk) 05:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
So from my understanding of WP:BLPCRIME, it's not proper to just rattle off so and so and so were arrested even with citations prior to convictions. Whether it's this one, or Antifa type articles. This can be entertained at BLP/N if needed. Graywalls ( talk) 08:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."Seriously consider" does not mean that mentioning that certain people have been accused of criminal activity is forbidden by policy, and we routinely mention the names of people accused of high profile unusual crimes of long term significance. I believe that the January 6 events at the Capitol are of enormous importance and that it is justified to mention these arrests as long as the content is properly referenced and we do not include any language stating that the person is guilty unless they are convicted. These are not random people but members of a violent far right organization that seeks out public attention. I believe that this content is necessary to a complete encyclopedic understanding of the Proud Boys, and that the article is worse off without it. In the spirit of full disclosure, I added most of the content in question. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The proud boys and these arrests are pretty much daily front page news globally at the moment.See WP:NOTNEWS. The way it's justified by the person that first inserted it,
These are not random people but members of a violent far right organization that seeks out public attention.sounds rather biased. Some editors vigorously opposed to the inclusion of Eric Clanton and bike lock beating incident into Antifa article for example. Why shouldn't the inclusion/non inclusion on these political articles be somewhat similar? Graywalls ( talk) 08:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Proud_Boys_and_political_protest_type_articles_in_general Graywalls ( talk) 08:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Question: In the opening paragraph, Enrique Tarrio is currently described Cuban-American, which is true, though the ethnic descriptor present on his own page states that he is Afro-Cuban. Should we include the more specific ethnic/racial modifier of "Afro-Cuban", or keep "Cuban-American" as the modifier?
I'm seeing quite a few RS ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) refer to Tarrio as Afro-Cuban or note that he identifies as such.
My initial thoughts are that if we are to include his ethnicity in the opening paragraph, we ought to use the more specific term of "Afro-Cuban", though I am wondering where consensus lies on this. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 07:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 20:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Bringing over a discussion that started at Talk:Enrique Tarrio#terrorist designation to here, since this seems the proper place for it. I see the lead sentence has been changed to say "The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist terrorist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada." This seems to have been added today based on the choice by Canada to designate them a terrorist organization. I'm not sure if there is a wider standard for when a lead sentence can describe a group as a terrorist organization—is one country designating it as such sufficient, or should we omit it in favor of just leaving the sentence (also already in the lead) that Canada designated them as such? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
we are supposed to use reliable sources. I gave you the most reliable source imaginable. It is widely reported on. Every major news source in Canada reported on it: The Globe and Mail the Star the National Post], the CBC Vexations ( talk) 22:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: A lot of the discussion above is about whether or not a designation by a single government of a group as a “terrorist” organization is enough for us to include it in the lede. We don’t use, for example, New Jersey's declaration that Antifa is a domestic anarchist extremist organization in its opening, despite it being a government source. Similarly, we don’t label the Council on American–Islamic Relations as a terrorist group in the lede, even though it has been declared one by the UAE (a sub-section in the article is devoted to this instead) and the FBI believes they are connected to Hamas (which is included in another sub-section).
While it is true that Canada labels the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization, any inclusion of the government’s claim should be attributed as such. I can’t find RS that regularly describe them as a terrorist organization in their own voice (I.e. without attributing the claim to Canada itself). As such, it might be possible to make a subsection in the article dedicated to Canada’s designation, but it should be framed along the same ways as it is done for CAIR, with both Canada’s opinion and the opinion of those who disagree (either quotes from PB representatives, or from opinion writers that publish in major newspapers). — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 17:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
it might be possible to make a subsection in the article dedicated to Canada’s designation, but it should be framed along the same ways as it is done for CAIR, with both Canada’s opinion and the opinion of those who disagree (either quotes from PB representatives, or from opinion writers that publish in major newspapers)". We have two cases in which a government has officially declared a group to be a terrorist group. We don't have RS (as far as I have seen) that have described PB as a "terrorist" group in their own voice, so I'm struggling to see why we should include it simply because a government has asserted it. Per WP:V, "
[a]ll quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material," and we have seen plenty of reporting that Canada has designated the PB as terrorist. We can include Canada's designation, but it should be attributed to the relevant Canadian agency until RS report that the PB are terrorists. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not believe "white nationalist" is a factual representation of this organization. They have shown to have a multi-racial membership and indeed are a multi-national organization that includes chapters world-wide, including in Israel. I have found no factual citations that they promote a white "homeland" or advocate racial separatism. The fact that they are a "nationalist" group in their respective home countries is easily supported by facts, so why introduce non-factual adjectives? DanBoomerman ( talk) 19:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Please take a look at Ethan Nordean. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Many of these Proud Boys members who were arrested are limited interest public figures, defined in U.S. law as "a person who voluntarily and prominently participates in a public controversy for the purpose of influencing its outcome". WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures. They include former candidates for public office and other people considered celebrities on the far right who are frequently interviewed by the media and have podcasts and online shows devoted to discussing controversies for the public. Joe Biggs is just one example. I see no reason to exclude the names of public figures who have been arrested for serious offenses. Here are other examples of Proud Boys arrested at the Capitol who are public figures: Nicholas Ochs was a 2020 candidate for the Hawaii State Legislature, backed by Roger Stone. Gabriel Garcia was a 2020 candidate for the Florida House of Representatives. Nicholas DeCarlo runs a group called Murder the Media and has a YouTube channel called Thunderdome TV. Ethan Nordean AKA Rufio Panman was interviewed at length in 2018 by Alex Jones on Infowars and runs a political podcast called Rebel Talk with Rufio. I support mentioning these public figures in our coverage of the arrests of Proud Boys in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
[w]hen deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.” Implied in this quote is the principle that the brief appearance of names in news stories may not be enough to warrant inclusion, even if the event the article describes is notable.
I had added a copy of the values from their website, then someone undid it. How can there be a fair court trial if the defendant is not even there to represent himself? Obviously, attitudes do not always match behaviors, but at least is what they claim. This is what was added:
The tenets listed by the organization themself are:
"Minimal Government
Maximum Freedom
Anti-Political Correctness
Anti-Drug War
Closed Borders
Anti-Racial Guilt
Anti-Racism
Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)
Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)
Glorifying the Entrepreneur
Venerating the Housewife
Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism"
https://wbckfm.com/kalamazoo-michigan-proud-boys-antifa-counter-protesters-meet/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink ( talk • contribs) 22:11, January 31, 2021 (UTC)
1 Abolish Prison, 2 Give Everyone a Gun, 3 Legalize Drugs, 4 End Welfare, 5 Close the Borders, 6 Outlaw Censorship, 7 Venerate the Housewife, 8 Glorify the Entrepreneur, 9 Recognize "West is the Best", 10 Shut Down the Government.Some not-so subtle difference there. Vexations ( talk) 22:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Article addresses local chapter devolution due to the national brand controversies.
Some chapters seem to be clarifying their opposition to the unlawful violent acts allegedly perpetrated by national level figures.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/12/proud-boys-splintering-after-capitol-riot-revelations-leader/6709017002/ TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 16:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Some chapters seem to be clarifying their opposition, not does it say that the
unlawful violent actswere
allegedly perpetrated by national level figures. Vexations ( talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The spirit of the article appears to be;
3 local chapters have distanced themselves from national level leadership, due to the loss of the air of respectability resulting from the January 6th involvement.
I post it here because is catalogues the chapter rift (which should be included), the other information has already been included. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 21:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
the loss of the air of respectabilityis WP:OR, so we can't say that. Vexations ( talk) 22:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
their opposition to the unlawful violent acts. Vexations ( talk) 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Should we link to or display the url the Proud Boys?
Bacondrum ( talk) 22:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
We do not remove reliably sourced information because we like or dislike a particular group.You are sadly mistaken if you think this is a
reliable sourcefor anything at all. Adding links to unreliable primary sources is not helpful. Calling this "
censorship" is unhelpful. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a public square, and even public squares have limits. Grayfell ( talk) 07:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.It then goes on to say
Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.Both of which seem to apply here. So what you refer to as "editorial restraint", in Wikipedia terms is straight out of NOTCENSORED. Since the only reasons given are that the link is objectionable. PackMecEng ( talk) 00:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content.So if the only argument for exclusion is that it is objectionable, which seems to be the only reason given in the opposition section, then it has no policy basis that I can see. PackMecEng ( talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
This is not a terrorist group like ISIS.
the Proud Boys do not support insurrection.
I compared them to BLM because BLM is way worse.
given the fractured nature of their leadership, real confusion exists about who actually can be said to represent the proud boys.If that's right, then I think we're better off not choosing one of multiple competing websites to link to. If reliable sources are clear that this is the Proud Boys' official website, then yes, we should link to it. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 20:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
per Ahrtoodeetoo, this was definitely distracting from the topic. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
One of the sources cited is wrong. It should be removed.
McLaren, Peter (2020).
"Are those whiffs of fascism that I smell? Living behind the orange curtain". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 52 (10): 1011–1015.
doi:
10.1080/00131857.2019.1672854.
S2CID
210460061.
Archived from the original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2020 – via Taylor & Francis Online. [...] the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys.
Actual quote is "[...] other groups such as Identitarian Identity Evropa, the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys, and Hammerskin Nation, a neo-Nazi skinhead group."
It clearly calls IE a neo-facsist group, not Proud Boys. 86.57.209.56 ( talk) 13:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
"Identitarian Identity Evropa", b)
"the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys", and c)
"Hammerskin Nation, a neo-Nazi skinhead group". It wouldn't make sense for them to give the description both before and after naming IE, and would make much more sense if each of the three organisations were given a description. Volteer1 ( talk) 15:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Jason Lee Van Dyke, a former lawyer and one-time leader of the Proud Boys claims to have surrendered the trademark "PROUD BOYS". [12] I'm unable to confirm that by checking the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS). [13] (perhaps it takes a while to update) Van Dyke claimed to have one candidate for taking over the trademark, who "told me he was out" after the Canadian government made a determination of the Proud Boys as a terrorist group. Vexations ( talk) 20:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
In Antifa type articles, editors are generally very particular about sources that are listed in WP:RSP in non-green. I'm seeing some contents here that are only referenced to Splinter News which is a successor to Gawker Media. Gawker is red on RSP. Should Splinter News be allowed? Graywalls ( talk) 07:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
OP blocked, nothing else to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 17:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As a writer, you shouldn't take a stance on whether or not the Proud Boys are white nationalists or white supremacists. You should state the facts. The fact is that some media and some organizations refer to them as white nationalists or white supremacists, but their members are of mixed races and their leader, up until recently, was Afro-Cuban. It's just a matter of writing it like, "Some media and organizations refer to the Proud Boys as white supremacists or white nationalist, but their leader is Afro-Cuban and many of their members are of mixed races." Poor writing skills lead to misunderstandings. Burgs2016 ( talk) 13:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
How do you define "reliable secondary sources"? That's a very curious phrase. Any secondary source that labels black people as white supremacists is questionable to me. Any secondary source needs to provide primary sources as justification for their stance. Any secondary source that labels black people as white supremacists did not do any primary source investigation. Therefore, you cannot claim these secondary sources as "reliable." Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
You guys have a clear agenda here. I said that primary and secondary sources are both important. However, the writer clearly misused a secondary source to make an outright claim that can be easily dismissed through a simple primary source investigation. This has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. It's clearly a writing issue, because a misuse of a secondary source is a writing issue. This can be cleared up by simply stating that "some organizations and media refer to them as...." There are enough primary and secondary sources out there to show that the Proud Boys are not all white, which is a requirement to be a white supremacist or white nationalist organization. A simple google search of images would show you this fact, assuming you don't have time to actually look through video or actually meet some Proud Boys. Instead of repeating the personal insult that I don't understand the use of primary and secondary sources, which is hilarious, try to improve your own use of these tools. It's clear that writing standards have declined in the last few years, but this conversation is a disgrace. Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how you can keep going with this. First of all, it is true that primary sources are better than secondary sources, and secondary sources need to be balanced with primary sources. However, given Wikipedia's stance on secondary sources, the focus should then be put on writing and use of such sources. As I stated over and over again, the writer clearly misused a secondary source. You can't make an outright claim based on secondary sources alone. It's the most pure form of biased writing. Also, what is a "reliable" secondary source? If the secondary source doesn't do any primary source investigation, is it reliable? If there is not primary source investigation, the secondary source is far removed from fact. It's opinion. If a secondary source says that the Proud Boys, a group led by an Afro-Cuban and includes many non-white people, is a white supremacist organization, they clearly did not do any primary source investigation. This is not how you determine a reliable source. It's not an opinion that anyone who claims a black person is a white supremacists is not trustworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgs2016 ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, it's a clear case of biased writing. You can change the writing to "according to..." or "... refers to them as...", but you think it's not important because of your opinions. That makes it a biased article. A simple google search of the previous leader refutes your secondary sources. Do you not see your bias? Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Wait a second, I think I see why we disagree. I think you misunderstand what a primary source is. It's not what the Proud Boys say about themselves. A primary source is a first-hand account of a specific topic. For example, a primary source could be a video of a fight between the proud boys and Antifa if you are talking about the specific fight. A primary source is the Proud Boys website if you are talking about the website. However, a primary source is not the website if you are talking about the overall premise of an argument. All of your findings lead up to that premise. A primary source is not a journalist who only heard about a fight between the Proud Boys and Antifa, but they weren't actually there. Stating that the Proud Boys are white supremacists without any primary sources is biased writing, which is why you need the "according to..." or ".. refers to them as ...." Primary sources and secondary sources change depending on the topic. This is why I say the writer misused a secondary source. Also, the argument presented here that there are no secondary sources that refute the other secondary sources saying they are white supremacists is either lazy writing or biased writing if done on purpose. Like I said, a simple google search of the leader would refute any ridiculous secondary sources. Again, this is not about Wikipedia standards. This is about the writer's standards, or lack of standards. You guys would get ripped apart in any real academic setting. Either way, I'll just leave this conversation here and let people decide what they think. Personally I think it's dangerous to show left-wing leanings for Wikipedia (Yes, the writing is clearly left-leaning as evidenced by secondary source selection and presentation). Neutrality lasts longer. Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
So it is admitted that there is a clear attempt at bias writing here? "...it often serves to encourage newer editors who don't understand policy particularly well, who seem to think that articles ought to present a false balance." It is an easy google search to show that many members of the Proud Boys are not white. The omission here is on purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgs2016 ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
It's theory. In practice, this method created false statements. Burgs2016 ( talk) 16:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from person insults. I got into trouble for doing that same thing. I don't need to educate myself of white supremacy. I'm arguing that the source was misused, which created a biased article. You can still have the claim that they are white supremacists in the article, but the way it is written suggests the writer is the one who claims that. If I, an independent, questions your bias, you can bet that many readers are doing the same. The solution is as simple as saying "... refers to them as white supremacists; however, (other easily obtainable secondary sources) show that not all members are white." There is nothing wrong about this statement and it shows neutrality. The statement could then go on to say "... believes that white supremacy can, in fact, include members who are not white." Honestly, I'm trying to help you guys. I'm not one of these people arguing based on my own ideology. Personally, I think everyone is radical at this point, but that has nothing to do with the poor writing standards. Burgs2016 ( talk) 16:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia standards say that you should create false statement by misusing secondary sources? I think this is just your go-to excuse for supporting biased writing. Like I said, my proposal doesn't go against Wikipedia standards. Constantly saying I need to study them does not actually address the issue of biased writing and poor use of secondary sources. Burgs2016 ( talk) 17:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
|
1) Tarrio is no longer the chairman 2) The list of ideology is blatantly false as the group has very clear tenets that have been on their website for years.
Anti semitism..lmao they have Jewish members and AP had pics of them flying an israeli flag at a march recently
White nationalism....until a few weeks ago the chair was afro-cuban, they have done joint press conferences recently with BLM and black members.
Someone with a major agenda to smear these guys is obviously editing this page.
We need to:
1) edit the leader section to reflect tarrio being voted out, they are now led by a confederation of autonomous chapters. Each chapter is basically an independent club.
2) Post the groups actual tenets under ideology, which are:
-Minimal Government -Maximum Freedom -Anti-Political Correctness -Anti-Drug War -Closed Borders -Anti-Racial Guilt -Anti-Racism -Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment) -Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment) -Glorifying the Entrepreneur -Venerating the Housewife -Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism
3) Change the description to:
Far-right men's fraternal organization and drinking club. Ryantheviking ( talk) 17:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
If you cannot source the groups own manifesto and tenets published years ago to describe their ideology than what are we even doing here?
Give me a few I will get source on the leadership change Ryantheviking ( talk) 17:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
How can I upload a pdf here Ryantheviking ( talk) 17:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
These are the complete unedited bylaws of the group. The LLC currently being sued, this is very explicit in a number of areas.
1) Violence outside of self defense is prohibited.
2) The tenets and detailed explanation are clearly spelled out, they are not racist. They are open to all races as well as gay members.
3) Those with white nationalist beliefs are clearly banned from membership.
The vote on Enrique Tarrio being removed and the new structure is not on any public link yet I will have to follow up on that Ryantheviking ( talk) 18:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Look, for example, at the Nation of Islam entry:
The Nation of Islam (NOI) is an African-American political and new religious movement,[2][3][4] founded in Detroit, Michigan, United States, by Wallace Fard Muhammad on July 4, 1930.[4][5] Its stated goals are to improve the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of African Americans.[6] Its official newspaper is The Final Call. In 2007, the core membership was estimated to be between 20,000 and 50,000.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam
It lists the stated goals of the entity and lists its publication.
Why are we treating these guys different? Ryantheviking ( talk) 19:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Look at the citation [6], it cites the groups own website:
https://www.noi.org/noi-history/
I have to call BS on the idea we would refuse to note the organizations stated goals and beliefs because we do it everywhere else.
No qualms from me as far as citing press articles about legal trouble or incidents involving members but the ideology section should list those tenets Ryantheviking ( talk) 19:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
As far as the description as far right mens fraternity and drinking club that is widely known.
The place to list controversy or legal/criminal trouble is in the body of the entry Ryantheviking ( talk) 19:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Trying to post citation links for this Ryantheviking ( talk) 19:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I found a url for the content but it wont post Ryantheviking ( talk) 19:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
-I do not have those concerns with the article. It makes perfect sense to source the groups stated beliefs when writing an encyclopedia.
It also makes sense to note if they have done something documentable to the contrary.
That would be ethical and honest. The current entry is not, and the other talk section notes other problems.
I was able to find a web link of the Constitution and Bylaws, to document.
I also found a number of independent sources to the drinking club portion.
Unfortunately for some reason I cannot add them in here.
Ryantheviking ( talk) 22:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Secondary sources are not reliable sources. Burgs2016 ( talk) 13:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
That's the most anti-academic thing I've heard. You cannot have only secondary sources in your writings. You can, however, have only primary sources in your writing. If you only have secondary sources, basically you are just writing gossip. No academic paper would pass any kind of serious reviews without primary sources. With that being said, the use of primary and secondary sources by the author is very important. With this writing on the Proud Boys, the bias is shown very clearly in how they use secondary sources. Any serious writer wouldn't use a secondary source to make a definitive claim. They would say "according to" or "some organizations say" or something like that. Secondary sources are NEVER reliable sources of outright claims. They can only be given as counter to or in support of other claims. Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The poster above said reliable secondary sources. I simply stated a fact in response. Secondary sources are not reliable sources. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. It has everything to do with poor writing skills. Secondary sources are important sources for investigative writing, but they are difficult to use in actual writing. No need to change the requirements, but writers and editors need to improve their individual skills. This article on the Proud Boys is extremely biased due to poor writing. Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Burgs2016 and I agree that everyone should focus on content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
No, I'm not :) But ( Personal attack removed). Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack. You said I was mistaken. I'm not. I said you clearly prefer biased writing. This doesn't have anything to do with wikipedia's policies. This has everything to do with poor writing skills. Why change the subject unless you are the one getting frustrated here? Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
You are sensitive. It's not a personal attack. It's true. Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Instead of crying about a perceived insult, it would be nice if people actually discussed my main concern, which is writing standards. Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The way a writer presents a secondary source IS the content. Could you make a serious counter argument to me, or are you just that intent on closing down disagreement?
Also, "quoting is enough." That's not what happened here. This is purely just biased writing. I'm the one trying to get you guys to use proper writing methods and quoting standards. You either failed on purpose or failed due to not understanding how presentation of sources is more important than the source itself.
Burgs2016 (
talk)
15:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
If adapting to this style means creating false statement, like the Proud Boys as white supremacists, I think I'll just have to be a constant annoyance on an entrenched ideology here at Wikipedia. The Proud Boys are nationalists. They are violent. They hate Antifa. But I think the evidence, both primary and secondary sources, shows they are not white supremacists. Just like BLM and Antifa, there are fringe people who have all kinds of beliefs. I'm new, yes. But, it sounds like new perspectives are needed. What I'm proposing doesn't go against Wikipedia standards. I'm simple calling for presenting sources appropriately. An appropriate way to do that is to say that some believe they are white supremacists, but other easily obtainable secondary sources show not all members are white. This also gives the fringe idea that non-white people can be white supremacists a chance to be presented. You guys are arguing based on Wikipedia rules, but I'm arguing solely based on writing standards. Burgs2016 ( talk) 16:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
An appropriate way to do that is to say that some believe they are white supremacists, but other easily obtainable secondary sources show not all members are white.We could say that the Proud Boys are white nationalists, and they have some members who are not white. We cannot say the Proud Boys are white nationalists, but they have some members who are not white. As I have already pointed out: see MOS:EDITORIAL (
More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.) and WP:SYNTH (
If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.)
You guys are arguing based on Wikipedia rules, but I'm arguing solely based on writing standards.Okay, let's say I have a writing standard of my own that says I can only use sources by authors whose last names begin with the letter "E". I may believe wholeheartedly that only good writers follow this standard, and it is unacceptable for someone to write a Wikipedia article that does not follow it. But I can't impose this on other Wikipedians, because we write articles in the way the community has agreed they need to be written. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Your last point is a poor use of whataboutism. If your writing standards creates a false statement, which is what happened in this case, it is a poor writing standard. You are trying really hard to keep this as is when clearly it's a mistake. If needed, you can create two completely independent points: The Proud Boys are considered white supremacists. Many of their members include people who are not white. However, leaving out facts is bias. It's actually an easier way to be biased than lying. Burgs2016 ( talk) 16:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Obviously the point is to reflect the organization in an accurate way. That should be the goal of any writer, accuracy. Wikipedia does not have a standard that say you should create false statements by omitting facts. You can include any facts that exist if properly sourced. That's what I'm proposing. You are now proposing the exclusion of facts based solely on your opinion. Burgs2016 ( talk) 17:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
"The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, chauvinist, and exclusively male, multi-racial, white nationalist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada". That would clear things up. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 17:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, my concern stems from the fact that the “Proud Boys” are labeled a “white nationalist” group, yet the sitting Chairman is Cuban-American; by your sources. Seems a little political to label a group as such, and really just makes me not want to use the site. ✌️“Far-Right, Male only organization “ is just fine 2601:18D:8900:2210:202D:1D3C:5B55:BDD5 ( talk) 03:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The infobox has “designated as a terrorist organization by: Canada”. It doesn’t seem right to have this information in the infobox, because it is not really a property of the group, rather an action taken against them. Would it make more sense to add a sentence to the end of the first paragraph like “The group has been designated a terrorist organization by Canada”? Fwaff ( talk) 01:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Other articles are inconsistent on this, for example Al-Qaeda has it in the infobox but Hezbollah does not. Fwaff ( talk) 01:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
We have to bear in mind that the Criminal Code of Canada uses a definition of terrorism which may not be the same as, in fact is not the same as, any definition used in in reliable sources. Here is the relevant legislation:
Part II.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada: [14]
List of Entities
83.05 (1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish a list on which the Governor in Council may place any entity if, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity
Interpretation
terrorist activity means
b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,
(i) that is committed
(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
(ii) that intentionally
(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
(B) endangers a person’s life,
(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm....
So the attack on the Capitol represents a terrorist act, since it disrupted the count of the electoral votes, and since the Proud Boys participated they are a terrorist group. Of course that is only my guess, because the reasons for the decision are protected under the Official Secrets Act. And while the Proud Boys may challenge the finding in court, they have no right to see the evidence against them. None of this of course could happen in the U.S. where accused people have the right to see the evidence against them and due process. And it adds nothing we did not already know. We know that the Proud Boys disrupted Congress when it was counting the electoral votes. The fact that the Canadian government considers this to be an act of terrorism and the reason to call them a terrorist group is of less significance that the findings of the SPLC, which is not a random group but the most authoritative source on the U.S. far right.
Although Canada is not a banana republic, I do not welcome the day where we accept government assessments made in secret with no review. There is to me a certain fascist tone to that approach.
TFD ( talk) 05:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
{{outdent}The Canadian government has a specific standard for listing an organization as terrorist which differs from that used in reliable sources. Under its definition, the U.S. could be described as a terrorist organization since among other things it has funded terrorist organizations in third world countries such as the Nicaraguan Contras. In fact, Canada put the U.S. on a list of countries that torture folks. [15] I don't remember you hollering to add it to the United States info-box.
I see a problem when we assign greater reliability to executive orders from governments than we do expert opinion by respected sources such as the SPLC and academic publishers. In fact Attorney General William Barr called antifa a terrorist organization, but Trump could not issue an executive order because there was no enabling legislation. But had he done so, you would be arguing that the U.S. is not a banana republic and who the hell are the SPLC and so-called experts to question the President of the United States. Don't think that just because someone is president of the United States or prime minister of Canada that they know more about science, social sciences, geography, etc. than experts do. Let's not change the climate change and evolution articles if the Republicans take back the White House in 2024.
The evidence required to list a terrorist group in Canada is "reasonable grounds," which is below the standard of balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt which are required by courts. Its safeguards are weaker than the UK, Australia and NZ, which also keep lists. [16] In this case, a statement by U.S. intelligence that they suspect that at least one member of the Proud Boys engaged in terrorism would be sufficient to add the group to the list. The listing has been criticized by Canadian civil rights groups for abusing human rights and for factual errors in listing. [17] The Minister of Public Safety, Bill Blair, ordered kettling during the 2010 G20 summit, leading to charges against 45 Toronto police officers who carried out his orders. [18]
TFD ( talk) 18:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
In this case, a statement by U.S. intelligence that they suspect that at least one member of the Proud Boys engaged in terrorism would be sufficient to add the group to the list.
Federal prosecutors and the FBI have accused self-identified Proud Boys of leading some of the earliest, most destructive and critical efforts to overrun police lines and break into the Capitol building. Two have been charged with counts listed as federal crimes of terrorism, relating to destruction of government property to intimidate or coerce the government.
References
Yesterday the FBI said they do not classify the group as terrorists, repeating what they said after a controversy in 2018.
Canada did declare them one.
The assertion that the SPLC is authoritive is frightening though. The FBI quit using them as a resource. They are a special interest group stacking money in the cayman islands off a fear monger racket. If the PBs are terrorists because they inspired someone to riot at the capital.... then the splc are definitely a terror group..being at the root of the shooting at the family research council which actual terrorism charges were involved Ryantheviking ( talk) 23:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Soapboxing and unactionable demands |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi all, we've had a problem here recently with trolling - forum discussions and personal attacks. Comments about other editors being "left-wing fascists" and general, unactionable complaints should not be responded to as per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, instead these comments should be promptly removed. I urge everyone not to allow these kinds of disruptive editors to fill the talk page with garbage and nonsense. Bacon drum 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Per my edit summary – WP:SHORTDES & MOS:ORDER sd's are for mobile app reading & need't duplicate lede; keep below 40 characters; avoid POV – I've restored "my" version of the short. The reader using the mobile app wants to know if they got the right article so they can go on to open the article. Then they can read about the political leanings of the organization and its members. That is, they want to make sure they haven't stumbled onto Proud Mary by mistake. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Since Newsweek needs consensus, what do editors here think of this? A few alternate/supplement sources as well.
"One of their members, Nick Ochs, tweeted a selfie inside the building saying "Hello from the Capital lol". He also filmed a live stream inside...Mr Ochs' profile on the messaging app Telegram describes himself as a "Proud Boy Elder from Hawaii."" IHateAccounts ( talk) 23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The Proud Boys page on Parler has been posting constantly since the storming, celebrating and endorsing the riots. In addition, prominent members on their Telegram group have claimed responsibility, including calls for members to specifically wear black and cause mayhem during the protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlayercookie ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
During the recent riot there were Proud Boys wearing 6WME tshirts, I wanted to add something about what they mean to the article but got reverted. Please can you tell me if this is acceptable wording and references and if so add it into the article.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 16:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Members and supporters wear tshirts stating 6WME (6 Million Wasn't Enough) which calls for another holocaust. [1] [2] [3]
References
"During the recent riot there were Proud Boys wearing t-shirts bearing the new-Nazi phrase "6WME" ("6 Million Wasn't Enough") a phrase suggesting that not enough Jews were murdered during the Holocaust."Btw I think either your version or mine could be added now and tinkered with. There's no need to wait until we get the language exactly right here. R2 ( bleep) 16:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Contrary to what was seen on social media in the last couple of days, the photo probably was not taken at the Congress vandalizing, but at another event, the one mentioned in the Snopes article. Despite not being associated with the Congress event, this information is relevant to the topic of this article, and fits in the "Symbolism" section. The Snopes articles is an appropriate source: it says clearly that the meaning is "6 million wasn't enough" and that this slogan is specifically associated with the group that is the subject of this article. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 10:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I've read multiple sources on the Proud Boys that show a pattern of anti-Semitic rhetoric within their circles.
1st: "A Proud Boys leader is trying to rebrand the group as explicitly white supremacist and anti-Semitic" - Sun Sentinel, JPost, The Forward
Describes Proud Boys member, Kyle Chapman, claiming he has transformed the group into an explicitly white supremacist organization, though it's unclear whether he has a following.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-proud-boys-rebrand-20201111-kp4cr7l5pbdnxguwyb3xq4m63e-story.html https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/proud-boys-leader-trying-to-rebrand-the-group-as-explicitly-antisemitic-648831 https://forward.com/fast-forward/458399/a-proud-boys-leader-is-trying-to-rebrand-the-group-as-explicitly-white/
Though the extent to which the group adopted such beliefs was unclear at the time, recent developments seem to indicate that the organization at-large has embraced it in recent months. Which brings me to my second point.
2nd: "Neo-Nazi Shirts Worn by Proud Boys Supporters Sold on Amazon" - Newsweek
Details black-and-yellow (evidently, the colors of the Proud Boys) T-shirts (likely purchased via Amazon), hooded tops and cups with the phrase "6MWE"—a Neo-Nazi term that stands for "6 million wasn't enough." The items also had the Italian fascist symbol of an eagle spreading its wings that was used during World War II.
https://www.newsweek.com/nazi-amazon-proud-boys-holocaust-1555192
Fact checkers confirmed the meaning of the phrase "6MWE" as indeed signifying the phrase "6 million wasn't enough." - Snopes
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boy-6mwe/
In addition, multiple credible sources on Twitter have seemingly identified the slogan being worn by members of the Proud Boys during the pro-Trump terrorist attack inside the Capitol on January 6th, 2021.
I hope some of this information helps the admins of this page at least consider including anti-Semitism as part of the Proud Boys' ideology.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:C900:7440:F87E:9DBD:2DDE:E55A ( talk) 00:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I propose adding something along these lines to discuss why the group are neo-fascist, since calling a group neo-fascist and then not discussing it feels a little... odd.
Talpedia ( talk) 01:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The article was in a peer reviewed journal which has a focus on rhetorical studies, which includes communication studies. The article covers how demagoguery gives meaning to violence by providing a symbolic, expressive outlet...through a close reading of the Proud Boys, a multinational fraternal organization that uses an aesthetic of libertarianism to advance a fascist politic and has not been retracted. Your personal animosities or attacks towards the author are irrelevant. IHateAccounts ( talk) 16:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Jason Lee Van Dyke, the former lawyer and one-time leader of the Proud Boys, who was recently alleged to have tried to plot the assassination of a rival, [1] attempted to join the Base, but was denied membership for being a "huge liability." [2] In an effort to convince the group's leaders that he should be allowed to join the Base and would be a productive member, Van Dyke offered up his expertise in weapons training and his Texas town of Decatur for paramilitary camps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.167.204 ( talk) 04:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
References
See this. [1]. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it has to be noted, just in case, that in a discussion related to whether or not the article subject is a white supremacist, Distelfinck is misrepresenting policy to vexatiously remove comments from others simply stating that they believe based on the WP:RS coverage that he is. IHateAccounts ( talk) 15:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been looking for sources advising where prominent proud boys were during the rally. There are articles saying: Tarrio was 100 miles away in his hotel room due to court order. Nordean and Biggs were leading a group of proud boys near the speech site. Jeremy Bertino was home due to recent stabbing Others were spotted in orange hats associating with leadership
Does anyone have articles detailing proud boy timeline of events? I was hoping to see more articles by now. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 20:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This Vice article mentions some of the Proud Boys leaders who seemed to be coordinating things at the Capitol. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9160965/Proud-Boys-leader-Joe-Biggs-seen-entering-Capitol-saying-awesome.html TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 23:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
This is almost an entirely American thing.
Should Canada really be mentioned in the first line considering there are only a handful of people that are part of this group? There are probably a similar number in many other countries as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.167.100.219 ( talk) 07:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
The currently (2021-01-21) linked video "Who are the Proud Boys?" on YouTube (CBC News) July 5, 2017 is not available on YouTube anymore. At least not under this link. I suggest to either remove the link, link to a different video or directly include a video with clarified copyright situation. What do you suggest? Thanks. Ichbinder ( talk) 11:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The opening para outlines the various public events to have involved this group. The arrests of several members of the PB involved in the January 6 riot is now the most widely publicised event to have involved members of this group, so the details of the various members involved and arrested, like Joseph Biggs and others involved, should be at the top.
Independence1416 ( talk) 10:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It is factually incorrect that the events at the Capitol were attended by "this group". The vast majority of the group did not attend or were instructed that, if they did attend, it would be as private citizens, not as members of the group. There were members of the military, law enforcement, various political parties and many corporations in attendance, even members of the government - can we claim that, because members of those groups were in attendance that the actual groups themselves with in attendance? I contend the answer is no. DanBoomerman ( talk) 16:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The vast majority of the group [...] were instructed that, if they did attend, it would be as private citizens, not as members of the group. Do we have a source for that? Vexations ( talk) 16:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Based on this [1] I withdraw my comment. DanBoomerman ( talk) 13:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted a substantial edit by Mikehawk10, which may contain some individual changes which are unobjectionable but on the whole, substantively makes the article worse.
For example, Mikehawk10's proposal introduces a number of points of attribution to uncontradicted factual statements, such as the fact that Proud Boys' members have been seen wearing group-affiliated apparel with the anti-Semitic slogan "6MWE". There is no reason to attribute this statement of fact - no reliable source contradicts it. Similarly, no reliable source contradicts the statement that Proud Boys members repeatedly appear at racist events. As per
WP:YESPOV, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.
Changing the description of Rebel News from "far-right" to "conservative" is directly contradicted by the wide array of sources cited in our article on Rebel News, where we factually describe it as "far-right." There appears to be no valid reason not to do so in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 06:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
[3] and many other sources. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Question Should we include this info in the opening paragraph? It doesn't seem to be something that it core to describing the Proud Boys as a group, and
MOS:LEAD states that "[t]he first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.
" —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
06:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
In this video ( https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/01/17/extremist-groups-media-alex-stamos-rs-stelter-vpx.cnn) two experts, Alex Stamos and Chris Krebs, discuss the Proud Boys and indicate that they should be tracked and treated as similar to ISIS. Seems relevant as WP:RSOPINION though I would like some second opinions and suggestions on the wording if possible. IHateAccounts ( talk) 00:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Have other reliable sources reported on this? That might make it notable. Vexations ( talk) 00:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
These sources are hardly reliable, nor are they experts, they have well-known and proven political bias which should be noted if their opinions are used. DanBoomerman ( talk) 16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The ABC has released this powerful and compelling documentary that exposes the extent of the proudboys planning and leadership in the capitol attack. Amazing footage. Proud boys clearly lead the attack and use military tactics during the attack the capitol https://medium.com/four-corners-downfall-the-last-days-of-president/four-corners-downfall-the-last-days-of-president-trump-january-31-2021-abc-full-show-95184669a026 Bacon drum 20:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I would fix it myself, but there are a lot of warnings on this page about editing.
I think found an error in this page. Under the section titled "Membership and doctrine" it says that "The Daily Beast reported in February 2018..." but the reference is from November 2018. I read the referenced article thinking that perhaps the bylaws were from February of 2018 but no mention is made of that in the Daily Beast article either. I then sought out the actual bylaws themselves. I also searched for other Daily Beast articles which could have been the intended reference, but found none. The article referenced seems to be the correct one other than the February date.
I tried to find outside sources which mentioned this date but could not find any which makes this claim. The adl website mentioned bylaws changes in Oct 2018 and quoted from them. Searching from this quote did not produce any documents from October, but I did find a copy of the November 24 bylaws (enacted 11/25/2018) from here and here (exhibit 1 at the end) which are identical. While the existence of these November documents does not preclude that other changes took place in Feb 2018, I just simply can find no evidence of this.
I think the correct change is just to swap "February" for "November" but I'll leave that to a pro who knows the rules better than me. Thanks for doing a great job making the infinitely-valuable resource that is wikipedia everyone! 2601:1C0:6E01:16D0:117C:5987:FDEC:1E91 ( talk) 18:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
the designation of this group as a "terrorist organisation" is factually incorrect. The cited article [1] clearly states; "The motion now awaits consideration from leadership in Ottawa, which reportedly has the final say in the matter." DanBoomerman ( talk) 13:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
That will be the second step, and it would put Proud Boys on the list of internatioally-0recognized terrorist groups. Even if it is only one nation (for example the Iranian government lists the American Department of Defense as a terrorist group), any recognition qualifies. I would guess that Proud Boys are on the fast track to such infamy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a ( talk • contribs) 18:32, January 26, 2021 (UTC)
Only Canada lists the Proud Boys as a Terrorist entity. No other country currently recognizes the Proud boys as a terror organization. That is an important distinction that should be clearly made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F6:EF05:D13D:40F7:8024:F166:7ED3 ( talk) 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
"Ethan Nordean, sergeant at arms of the Seattle chapter, was charged with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, aiding and abetting, and knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building"
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-arrests-seattle-washington-courts-f128fa38d6ad2ca0561985a4138b83fe TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 01:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The chairman Tarrio is Afro Cuban so it is not an all white group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD40:6D00:7C2B:10CC:F7BE:1D26 ( talk) 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist political organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada. "White nationalist" FALSE Also There is no Source or Facts stated that accuses them of engaging in violence in US or Canada. Its a Opinion needs to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:6B40:DA:D140:3F8C:A961:9A73 ( talk) 05:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
So from my understanding of WP:BLPCRIME, it's not proper to just rattle off so and so and so were arrested even with citations prior to convictions. Whether it's this one, or Antifa type articles. This can be entertained at BLP/N if needed. Graywalls ( talk) 08:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."Seriously consider" does not mean that mentioning that certain people have been accused of criminal activity is forbidden by policy, and we routinely mention the names of people accused of high profile unusual crimes of long term significance. I believe that the January 6 events at the Capitol are of enormous importance and that it is justified to mention these arrests as long as the content is properly referenced and we do not include any language stating that the person is guilty unless they are convicted. These are not random people but members of a violent far right organization that seeks out public attention. I believe that this content is necessary to a complete encyclopedic understanding of the Proud Boys, and that the article is worse off without it. In the spirit of full disclosure, I added most of the content in question. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The proud boys and these arrests are pretty much daily front page news globally at the moment.See WP:NOTNEWS. The way it's justified by the person that first inserted it,
These are not random people but members of a violent far right organization that seeks out public attention.sounds rather biased. Some editors vigorously opposed to the inclusion of Eric Clanton and bike lock beating incident into Antifa article for example. Why shouldn't the inclusion/non inclusion on these political articles be somewhat similar? Graywalls ( talk) 08:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Proud_Boys_and_political_protest_type_articles_in_general Graywalls ( talk) 08:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Question: In the opening paragraph, Enrique Tarrio is currently described Cuban-American, which is true, though the ethnic descriptor present on his own page states that he is Afro-Cuban. Should we include the more specific ethnic/racial modifier of "Afro-Cuban", or keep "Cuban-American" as the modifier?
I'm seeing quite a few RS ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) refer to Tarrio as Afro-Cuban or note that he identifies as such.
My initial thoughts are that if we are to include his ethnicity in the opening paragraph, we ought to use the more specific term of "Afro-Cuban", though I am wondering where consensus lies on this. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 07:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 20:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Bringing over a discussion that started at Talk:Enrique Tarrio#terrorist designation to here, since this seems the proper place for it. I see the lead sentence has been changed to say "The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist terrorist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada." This seems to have been added today based on the choice by Canada to designate them a terrorist organization. I'm not sure if there is a wider standard for when a lead sentence can describe a group as a terrorist organization—is one country designating it as such sufficient, or should we omit it in favor of just leaving the sentence (also already in the lead) that Canada designated them as such? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
we are supposed to use reliable sources. I gave you the most reliable source imaginable. It is widely reported on. Every major news source in Canada reported on it: The Globe and Mail the Star the National Post], the CBC Vexations ( talk) 22:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: A lot of the discussion above is about whether or not a designation by a single government of a group as a “terrorist” organization is enough for us to include it in the lede. We don’t use, for example, New Jersey's declaration that Antifa is a domestic anarchist extremist organization in its opening, despite it being a government source. Similarly, we don’t label the Council on American–Islamic Relations as a terrorist group in the lede, even though it has been declared one by the UAE (a sub-section in the article is devoted to this instead) and the FBI believes they are connected to Hamas (which is included in another sub-section).
While it is true that Canada labels the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization, any inclusion of the government’s claim should be attributed as such. I can’t find RS that regularly describe them as a terrorist organization in their own voice (I.e. without attributing the claim to Canada itself). As such, it might be possible to make a subsection in the article dedicated to Canada’s designation, but it should be framed along the same ways as it is done for CAIR, with both Canada’s opinion and the opinion of those who disagree (either quotes from PB representatives, or from opinion writers that publish in major newspapers). — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 17:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
it might be possible to make a subsection in the article dedicated to Canada’s designation, but it should be framed along the same ways as it is done for CAIR, with both Canada’s opinion and the opinion of those who disagree (either quotes from PB representatives, or from opinion writers that publish in major newspapers)". We have two cases in which a government has officially declared a group to be a terrorist group. We don't have RS (as far as I have seen) that have described PB as a "terrorist" group in their own voice, so I'm struggling to see why we should include it simply because a government has asserted it. Per WP:V, "
[a]ll quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material," and we have seen plenty of reporting that Canada has designated the PB as terrorist. We can include Canada's designation, but it should be attributed to the relevant Canadian agency until RS report that the PB are terrorists. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not believe "white nationalist" is a factual representation of this organization. They have shown to have a multi-racial membership and indeed are a multi-national organization that includes chapters world-wide, including in Israel. I have found no factual citations that they promote a white "homeland" or advocate racial separatism. The fact that they are a "nationalist" group in their respective home countries is easily supported by facts, so why introduce non-factual adjectives? DanBoomerman ( talk) 19:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Please take a look at Ethan Nordean. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Many of these Proud Boys members who were arrested are limited interest public figures, defined in U.S. law as "a person who voluntarily and prominently participates in a public controversy for the purpose of influencing its outcome". WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures. They include former candidates for public office and other people considered celebrities on the far right who are frequently interviewed by the media and have podcasts and online shows devoted to discussing controversies for the public. Joe Biggs is just one example. I see no reason to exclude the names of public figures who have been arrested for serious offenses. Here are other examples of Proud Boys arrested at the Capitol who are public figures: Nicholas Ochs was a 2020 candidate for the Hawaii State Legislature, backed by Roger Stone. Gabriel Garcia was a 2020 candidate for the Florida House of Representatives. Nicholas DeCarlo runs a group called Murder the Media and has a YouTube channel called Thunderdome TV. Ethan Nordean AKA Rufio Panman was interviewed at length in 2018 by Alex Jones on Infowars and runs a political podcast called Rebel Talk with Rufio. I support mentioning these public figures in our coverage of the arrests of Proud Boys in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
[w]hen deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.” Implied in this quote is the principle that the brief appearance of names in news stories may not be enough to warrant inclusion, even if the event the article describes is notable.
I had added a copy of the values from their website, then someone undid it. How can there be a fair court trial if the defendant is not even there to represent himself? Obviously, attitudes do not always match behaviors, but at least is what they claim. This is what was added:
The tenets listed by the organization themself are:
"Minimal Government
Maximum Freedom
Anti-Political Correctness
Anti-Drug War
Closed Borders
Anti-Racial Guilt
Anti-Racism
Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)
Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)
Glorifying the Entrepreneur
Venerating the Housewife
Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism"
https://wbckfm.com/kalamazoo-michigan-proud-boys-antifa-counter-protesters-meet/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink ( talk • contribs) 22:11, January 31, 2021 (UTC)
1 Abolish Prison, 2 Give Everyone a Gun, 3 Legalize Drugs, 4 End Welfare, 5 Close the Borders, 6 Outlaw Censorship, 7 Venerate the Housewife, 8 Glorify the Entrepreneur, 9 Recognize "West is the Best", 10 Shut Down the Government.Some not-so subtle difference there. Vexations ( talk) 22:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Article addresses local chapter devolution due to the national brand controversies.
Some chapters seem to be clarifying their opposition to the unlawful violent acts allegedly perpetrated by national level figures.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/12/proud-boys-splintering-after-capitol-riot-revelations-leader/6709017002/ TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 16:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Some chapters seem to be clarifying their opposition, not does it say that the
unlawful violent actswere
allegedly perpetrated by national level figures. Vexations ( talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The spirit of the article appears to be;
3 local chapters have distanced themselves from national level leadership, due to the loss of the air of respectability resulting from the January 6th involvement.
I post it here because is catalogues the chapter rift (which should be included), the other information has already been included. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 21:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
the loss of the air of respectabilityis WP:OR, so we can't say that. Vexations ( talk) 22:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
their opposition to the unlawful violent acts. Vexations ( talk) 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Should we link to or display the url the Proud Boys?
Bacondrum ( talk) 22:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
We do not remove reliably sourced information because we like or dislike a particular group.You are sadly mistaken if you think this is a
reliable sourcefor anything at all. Adding links to unreliable primary sources is not helpful. Calling this "
censorship" is unhelpful. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a public square, and even public squares have limits. Grayfell ( talk) 07:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.It then goes on to say
Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.Both of which seem to apply here. So what you refer to as "editorial restraint", in Wikipedia terms is straight out of NOTCENSORED. Since the only reasons given are that the link is objectionable. PackMecEng ( talk) 00:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content.So if the only argument for exclusion is that it is objectionable, which seems to be the only reason given in the opposition section, then it has no policy basis that I can see. PackMecEng ( talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
This is not a terrorist group like ISIS.
the Proud Boys do not support insurrection.
I compared them to BLM because BLM is way worse.
given the fractured nature of their leadership, real confusion exists about who actually can be said to represent the proud boys.If that's right, then I think we're better off not choosing one of multiple competing websites to link to. If reliable sources are clear that this is the Proud Boys' official website, then yes, we should link to it. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 20:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
per Ahrtoodeetoo, this was definitely distracting from the topic. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
One of the sources cited is wrong. It should be removed.
McLaren, Peter (2020).
"Are those whiffs of fascism that I smell? Living behind the orange curtain". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 52 (10): 1011–1015.
doi:
10.1080/00131857.2019.1672854.
S2CID
210460061.
Archived from the original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved October 1, 2020 – via Taylor & Francis Online. [...] the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys.
Actual quote is "[...] other groups such as Identitarian Identity Evropa, the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys, and Hammerskin Nation, a neo-Nazi skinhead group."
It clearly calls IE a neo-facsist group, not Proud Boys. 86.57.209.56 ( talk) 13:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
"Identitarian Identity Evropa", b)
"the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys", and c)
"Hammerskin Nation, a neo-Nazi skinhead group". It wouldn't make sense for them to give the description both before and after naming IE, and would make much more sense if each of the three organisations were given a description. Volteer1 ( talk) 15:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Jason Lee Van Dyke, a former lawyer and one-time leader of the Proud Boys claims to have surrendered the trademark "PROUD BOYS". [12] I'm unable to confirm that by checking the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS). [13] (perhaps it takes a while to update) Van Dyke claimed to have one candidate for taking over the trademark, who "told me he was out" after the Canadian government made a determination of the Proud Boys as a terrorist group. Vexations ( talk) 20:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
In Antifa type articles, editors are generally very particular about sources that are listed in WP:RSP in non-green. I'm seeing some contents here that are only referenced to Splinter News which is a successor to Gawker Media. Gawker is red on RSP. Should Splinter News be allowed? Graywalls ( talk) 07:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
OP blocked, nothing else to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 17:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As a writer, you shouldn't take a stance on whether or not the Proud Boys are white nationalists or white supremacists. You should state the facts. The fact is that some media and some organizations refer to them as white nationalists or white supremacists, but their members are of mixed races and their leader, up until recently, was Afro-Cuban. It's just a matter of writing it like, "Some media and organizations refer to the Proud Boys as white supremacists or white nationalist, but their leader is Afro-Cuban and many of their members are of mixed races." Poor writing skills lead to misunderstandings. Burgs2016 ( talk) 13:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
How do you define "reliable secondary sources"? That's a very curious phrase. Any secondary source that labels black people as white supremacists is questionable to me. Any secondary source needs to provide primary sources as justification for their stance. Any secondary source that labels black people as white supremacists did not do any primary source investigation. Therefore, you cannot claim these secondary sources as "reliable." Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
You guys have a clear agenda here. I said that primary and secondary sources are both important. However, the writer clearly misused a secondary source to make an outright claim that can be easily dismissed through a simple primary source investigation. This has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. It's clearly a writing issue, because a misuse of a secondary source is a writing issue. This can be cleared up by simply stating that "some organizations and media refer to them as...." There are enough primary and secondary sources out there to show that the Proud Boys are not all white, which is a requirement to be a white supremacist or white nationalist organization. A simple google search of images would show you this fact, assuming you don't have time to actually look through video or actually meet some Proud Boys. Instead of repeating the personal insult that I don't understand the use of primary and secondary sources, which is hilarious, try to improve your own use of these tools. It's clear that writing standards have declined in the last few years, but this conversation is a disgrace. Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how you can keep going with this. First of all, it is true that primary sources are better than secondary sources, and secondary sources need to be balanced with primary sources. However, given Wikipedia's stance on secondary sources, the focus should then be put on writing and use of such sources. As I stated over and over again, the writer clearly misused a secondary source. You can't make an outright claim based on secondary sources alone. It's the most pure form of biased writing. Also, what is a "reliable" secondary source? If the secondary source doesn't do any primary source investigation, is it reliable? If there is not primary source investigation, the secondary source is far removed from fact. It's opinion. If a secondary source says that the Proud Boys, a group led by an Afro-Cuban and includes many non-white people, is a white supremacist organization, they clearly did not do any primary source investigation. This is not how you determine a reliable source. It's not an opinion that anyone who claims a black person is a white supremacists is not trustworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgs2016 ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, it's a clear case of biased writing. You can change the writing to "according to..." or "... refers to them as...", but you think it's not important because of your opinions. That makes it a biased article. A simple google search of the previous leader refutes your secondary sources. Do you not see your bias? Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Wait a second, I think I see why we disagree. I think you misunderstand what a primary source is. It's not what the Proud Boys say about themselves. A primary source is a first-hand account of a specific topic. For example, a primary source could be a video of a fight between the proud boys and Antifa if you are talking about the specific fight. A primary source is the Proud Boys website if you are talking about the website. However, a primary source is not the website if you are talking about the overall premise of an argument. All of your findings lead up to that premise. A primary source is not a journalist who only heard about a fight between the Proud Boys and Antifa, but they weren't actually there. Stating that the Proud Boys are white supremacists without any primary sources is biased writing, which is why you need the "according to..." or ".. refers to them as ...." Primary sources and secondary sources change depending on the topic. This is why I say the writer misused a secondary source. Also, the argument presented here that there are no secondary sources that refute the other secondary sources saying they are white supremacists is either lazy writing or biased writing if done on purpose. Like I said, a simple google search of the leader would refute any ridiculous secondary sources. Again, this is not about Wikipedia standards. This is about the writer's standards, or lack of standards. You guys would get ripped apart in any real academic setting. Either way, I'll just leave this conversation here and let people decide what they think. Personally I think it's dangerous to show left-wing leanings for Wikipedia (Yes, the writing is clearly left-leaning as evidenced by secondary source selection and presentation). Neutrality lasts longer. Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
So it is admitted that there is a clear attempt at bias writing here? "...it often serves to encourage newer editors who don't understand policy particularly well, who seem to think that articles ought to present a false balance." It is an easy google search to show that many members of the Proud Boys are not white. The omission here is on purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgs2016 ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
It's theory. In practice, this method created false statements. Burgs2016 ( talk) 16:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from person insults. I got into trouble for doing that same thing. I don't need to educate myself of white supremacy. I'm arguing that the source was misused, which created a biased article. You can still have the claim that they are white supremacists in the article, but the way it is written suggests the writer is the one who claims that. If I, an independent, questions your bias, you can bet that many readers are doing the same. The solution is as simple as saying "... refers to them as white supremacists; however, (other easily obtainable secondary sources) show that not all members are white." There is nothing wrong about this statement and it shows neutrality. The statement could then go on to say "... believes that white supremacy can, in fact, include members who are not white." Honestly, I'm trying to help you guys. I'm not one of these people arguing based on my own ideology. Personally, I think everyone is radical at this point, but that has nothing to do with the poor writing standards. Burgs2016 ( talk) 16:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia standards say that you should create false statement by misusing secondary sources? I think this is just your go-to excuse for supporting biased writing. Like I said, my proposal doesn't go against Wikipedia standards. Constantly saying I need to study them does not actually address the issue of biased writing and poor use of secondary sources. Burgs2016 ( talk) 17:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
|
1) Tarrio is no longer the chairman 2) The list of ideology is blatantly false as the group has very clear tenets that have been on their website for years.
Anti semitism..lmao they have Jewish members and AP had pics of them flying an israeli flag at a march recently
White nationalism....until a few weeks ago the chair was afro-cuban, they have done joint press conferences recently with BLM and black members.
Someone with a major agenda to smear these guys is obviously editing this page.
We need to:
1) edit the leader section to reflect tarrio being voted out, they are now led by a confederation of autonomous chapters. Each chapter is basically an independent club.
2) Post the groups actual tenets under ideology, which are:
-Minimal Government -Maximum Freedom -Anti-Political Correctness -Anti-Drug War -Closed Borders -Anti-Racial Guilt -Anti-Racism -Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment) -Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment) -Glorifying the Entrepreneur -Venerating the Housewife -Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism
3) Change the description to:
Far-right men's fraternal organization and drinking club. Ryantheviking ( talk) 17:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
If you cannot source the groups own manifesto and tenets published years ago to describe their ideology than what are we even doing here?
Give me a few I will get source on the leadership change Ryantheviking ( talk) 17:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
How can I upload a pdf here Ryantheviking ( talk) 17:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
These are the complete unedited bylaws of the group. The LLC currently being sued, this is very explicit in a number of areas.
1) Violence outside of self defense is prohibited.
2) The tenets and detailed explanation are clearly spelled out, they are not racist. They are open to all races as well as gay members.
3) Those with white nationalist beliefs are clearly banned from membership.
The vote on Enrique Tarrio being removed and the new structure is not on any public link yet I will have to follow up on that Ryantheviking ( talk) 18:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Look, for example, at the Nation of Islam entry:
The Nation of Islam (NOI) is an African-American political and new religious movement,[2][3][4] founded in Detroit, Michigan, United States, by Wallace Fard Muhammad on July 4, 1930.[4][5] Its stated goals are to improve the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of African Americans.[6] Its official newspaper is The Final Call. In 2007, the core membership was estimated to be between 20,000 and 50,000.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam
It lists the stated goals of the entity and lists its publication.
Why are we treating these guys different? Ryantheviking ( talk) 19:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Look at the citation [6], it cites the groups own website:
https://www.noi.org/noi-history/
I have to call BS on the idea we would refuse to note the organizations stated goals and beliefs because we do it everywhere else.
No qualms from me as far as citing press articles about legal trouble or incidents involving members but the ideology section should list those tenets Ryantheviking ( talk) 19:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
As far as the description as far right mens fraternity and drinking club that is widely known.
The place to list controversy or legal/criminal trouble is in the body of the entry Ryantheviking ( talk) 19:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Trying to post citation links for this Ryantheviking ( talk) 19:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I found a url for the content but it wont post Ryantheviking ( talk) 19:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
-I do not have those concerns with the article. It makes perfect sense to source the groups stated beliefs when writing an encyclopedia.
It also makes sense to note if they have done something documentable to the contrary.
That would be ethical and honest. The current entry is not, and the other talk section notes other problems.
I was able to find a web link of the Constitution and Bylaws, to document.
I also found a number of independent sources to the drinking club portion.
Unfortunately for some reason I cannot add them in here.
Ryantheviking ( talk) 22:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Secondary sources are not reliable sources. Burgs2016 ( talk) 13:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
That's the most anti-academic thing I've heard. You cannot have only secondary sources in your writings. You can, however, have only primary sources in your writing. If you only have secondary sources, basically you are just writing gossip. No academic paper would pass any kind of serious reviews without primary sources. With that being said, the use of primary and secondary sources by the author is very important. With this writing on the Proud Boys, the bias is shown very clearly in how they use secondary sources. Any serious writer wouldn't use a secondary source to make a definitive claim. They would say "according to" or "some organizations say" or something like that. Secondary sources are NEVER reliable sources of outright claims. They can only be given as counter to or in support of other claims. Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The poster above said reliable secondary sources. I simply stated a fact in response. Secondary sources are not reliable sources. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. It has everything to do with poor writing skills. Secondary sources are important sources for investigative writing, but they are difficult to use in actual writing. No need to change the requirements, but writers and editors need to improve their individual skills. This article on the Proud Boys is extremely biased due to poor writing. Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Burgs2016 and I agree that everyone should focus on content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
No, I'm not :) But ( Personal attack removed). Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack. You said I was mistaken. I'm not. I said you clearly prefer biased writing. This doesn't have anything to do with wikipedia's policies. This has everything to do with poor writing skills. Why change the subject unless you are the one getting frustrated here? Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
You are sensitive. It's not a personal attack. It's true. Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Instead of crying about a perceived insult, it would be nice if people actually discussed my main concern, which is writing standards. Burgs2016 ( talk) 14:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
|
The way a writer presents a secondary source IS the content. Could you make a serious counter argument to me, or are you just that intent on closing down disagreement?
Also, "quoting is enough." That's not what happened here. This is purely just biased writing. I'm the one trying to get you guys to use proper writing methods and quoting standards. You either failed on purpose or failed due to not understanding how presentation of sources is more important than the source itself.
Burgs2016 (
talk)
15:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
If adapting to this style means creating false statement, like the Proud Boys as white supremacists, I think I'll just have to be a constant annoyance on an entrenched ideology here at Wikipedia. The Proud Boys are nationalists. They are violent. They hate Antifa. But I think the evidence, both primary and secondary sources, shows they are not white supremacists. Just like BLM and Antifa, there are fringe people who have all kinds of beliefs. I'm new, yes. But, it sounds like new perspectives are needed. What I'm proposing doesn't go against Wikipedia standards. I'm simple calling for presenting sources appropriately. An appropriate way to do that is to say that some believe they are white supremacists, but other easily obtainable secondary sources show not all members are white. This also gives the fringe idea that non-white people can be white supremacists a chance to be presented. You guys are arguing based on Wikipedia rules, but I'm arguing solely based on writing standards. Burgs2016 ( talk) 16:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
An appropriate way to do that is to say that some believe they are white supremacists, but other easily obtainable secondary sources show not all members are white.We could say that the Proud Boys are white nationalists, and they have some members who are not white. We cannot say the Proud Boys are white nationalists, but they have some members who are not white. As I have already pointed out: see MOS:EDITORIAL (
More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.) and WP:SYNTH (
If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.)
You guys are arguing based on Wikipedia rules, but I'm arguing solely based on writing standards.Okay, let's say I have a writing standard of my own that says I can only use sources by authors whose last names begin with the letter "E". I may believe wholeheartedly that only good writers follow this standard, and it is unacceptable for someone to write a Wikipedia article that does not follow it. But I can't impose this on other Wikipedians, because we write articles in the way the community has agreed they need to be written. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Your last point is a poor use of whataboutism. If your writing standards creates a false statement, which is what happened in this case, it is a poor writing standard. You are trying really hard to keep this as is when clearly it's a mistake. If needed, you can create two completely independent points: The Proud Boys are considered white supremacists. Many of their members include people who are not white. However, leaving out facts is bias. It's actually an easier way to be biased than lying. Burgs2016 ( talk) 16:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Obviously the point is to reflect the organization in an accurate way. That should be the goal of any writer, accuracy. Wikipedia does not have a standard that say you should create false statements by omitting facts. You can include any facts that exist if properly sourced. That's what I'm proposing. You are now proposing the exclusion of facts based solely on your opinion. Burgs2016 ( talk) 17:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
"The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, chauvinist, and exclusively male, multi-racial, white nationalist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada". That would clear things up. TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 17:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, my concern stems from the fact that the “Proud Boys” are labeled a “white nationalist” group, yet the sitting Chairman is Cuban-American; by your sources. Seems a little political to label a group as such, and really just makes me not want to use the site. ✌️“Far-Right, Male only organization “ is just fine 2601:18D:8900:2210:202D:1D3C:5B55:BDD5 ( talk) 03:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The infobox has “designated as a terrorist organization by: Canada”. It doesn’t seem right to have this information in the infobox, because it is not really a property of the group, rather an action taken against them. Would it make more sense to add a sentence to the end of the first paragraph like “The group has been designated a terrorist organization by Canada”? Fwaff ( talk) 01:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Other articles are inconsistent on this, for example Al-Qaeda has it in the infobox but Hezbollah does not. Fwaff ( talk) 01:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
We have to bear in mind that the Criminal Code of Canada uses a definition of terrorism which may not be the same as, in fact is not the same as, any definition used in in reliable sources. Here is the relevant legislation:
Part II.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada: [14]
List of Entities
83.05 (1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish a list on which the Governor in Council may place any entity if, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity
Interpretation
terrorist activity means
b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,
(i) that is committed
(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
(ii) that intentionally
(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
(B) endangers a person’s life,
(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm....
So the attack on the Capitol represents a terrorist act, since it disrupted the count of the electoral votes, and since the Proud Boys participated they are a terrorist group. Of course that is only my guess, because the reasons for the decision are protected under the Official Secrets Act. And while the Proud Boys may challenge the finding in court, they have no right to see the evidence against them. None of this of course could happen in the U.S. where accused people have the right to see the evidence against them and due process. And it adds nothing we did not already know. We know that the Proud Boys disrupted Congress when it was counting the electoral votes. The fact that the Canadian government considers this to be an act of terrorism and the reason to call them a terrorist group is of less significance that the findings of the SPLC, which is not a random group but the most authoritative source on the U.S. far right.
Although Canada is not a banana republic, I do not welcome the day where we accept government assessments made in secret with no review. There is to me a certain fascist tone to that approach.
TFD ( talk) 05:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
{{outdent}The Canadian government has a specific standard for listing an organization as terrorist which differs from that used in reliable sources. Under its definition, the U.S. could be described as a terrorist organization since among other things it has funded terrorist organizations in third world countries such as the Nicaraguan Contras. In fact, Canada put the U.S. on a list of countries that torture folks. [15] I don't remember you hollering to add it to the United States info-box.
I see a problem when we assign greater reliability to executive orders from governments than we do expert opinion by respected sources such as the SPLC and academic publishers. In fact Attorney General William Barr called antifa a terrorist organization, but Trump could not issue an executive order because there was no enabling legislation. But had he done so, you would be arguing that the U.S. is not a banana republic and who the hell are the SPLC and so-called experts to question the President of the United States. Don't think that just because someone is president of the United States or prime minister of Canada that they know more about science, social sciences, geography, etc. than experts do. Let's not change the climate change and evolution articles if the Republicans take back the White House in 2024.
The evidence required to list a terrorist group in Canada is "reasonable grounds," which is below the standard of balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt which are required by courts. Its safeguards are weaker than the UK, Australia and NZ, which also keep lists. [16] In this case, a statement by U.S. intelligence that they suspect that at least one member of the Proud Boys engaged in terrorism would be sufficient to add the group to the list. The listing has been criticized by Canadian civil rights groups for abusing human rights and for factual errors in listing. [17] The Minister of Public Safety, Bill Blair, ordered kettling during the 2010 G20 summit, leading to charges against 45 Toronto police officers who carried out his orders. [18]
TFD ( talk) 18:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
In this case, a statement by U.S. intelligence that they suspect that at least one member of the Proud Boys engaged in terrorism would be sufficient to add the group to the list.
Federal prosecutors and the FBI have accused self-identified Proud Boys of leading some of the earliest, most destructive and critical efforts to overrun police lines and break into the Capitol building. Two have been charged with counts listed as federal crimes of terrorism, relating to destruction of government property to intimidate or coerce the government.
References
Yesterday the FBI said they do not classify the group as terrorists, repeating what they said after a controversy in 2018.
Canada did declare them one.
The assertion that the SPLC is authoritive is frightening though. The FBI quit using them as a resource. They are a special interest group stacking money in the cayman islands off a fear monger racket. If the PBs are terrorists because they inspired someone to riot at the capital.... then the splc are definitely a terror group..being at the root of the shooting at the family research council which actual terrorism charges were involved Ryantheviking ( talk) 23:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Soapboxing and unactionable demands |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi all, we've had a problem here recently with trolling - forum discussions and personal attacks. Comments about other editors being "left-wing fascists" and general, unactionable complaints should not be responded to as per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, instead these comments should be promptly removed. I urge everyone not to allow these kinds of disruptive editors to fill the talk page with garbage and nonsense. Bacon drum 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)