Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 7

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RFC - designated as a terrorist organization

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is an evenly split discussion, with 10 editors opining for inclusion and the same number against. Editors agree that the information is verifiable, but verifiability is not the only reason to include content in an infobox (notably, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:DUE apply). On these points, editors were in disagreement. Primarily, editors opposing were in doubt whether one country designating a group as a terrorist organisation is a 'key fact' for the infobox. It cannot really be said that there's any sort of consensus in this discussion, and there is no substantial policy-based reason to discount the views of those arguing either side. Accordingly, the result is no consensus and the label should be removed from the infobox. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Recently Canada designated the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization. The article currently states this fact in the info box. Should this information be included in the info box? Is it due?

(A) - Yes
(B) - No

Thanks Bacondrum 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(A) Yes - We are not stating in Wikivoice that they are terrorists. Canada has designated them a terror organisation, that is highly notable and it is a verifiable fact. Canada is a major liberal democracy and shares a large land border with the USA. These are the kinds of important facts and statistics that should be included in an infobox. Bacondrum 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
(A) Yes - The fact is that they are a designated terrorist group in Canada. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
(B) No. The Canadian terrorism list lacks sufficient noteworthiness for inclusion in the info-box, although it should be included in the article. There are are also major concerns expressed by Canadian legal experts about its accuracy. TFD (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, do you have a source for those "major concerns"? I am well aware that the decision to classify them has been questioned as unwise or counterproductive, but nobody has, to my knowledge, questioned the legality of the designation. Vexations (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Kent Roach and Craig Forcese, who are experts, wrote "Listing has also been used with respect to individuals, but such listings in Canada have already produced false positives, perhaps because of the due process deﬁcits of listing by the executive."[1] While they didn't specifically question any of the existing listing of groups, they questioned its methodology. It's a decision made by a politician with no external review. TFD (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That all sounds awfully tangential and like original research to me. Doesn't change the fact that a major liberal democracy has in-fact listed them as a terror group. Bacondrum 08:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, That article was published 28 Feb 2018. Vexations (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and it was cited in a 29 January 2021 letter sent by the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations, which includes the ACLU and Canada's equivalent to the Canadian government.[2] Incidentally, as these sources show, the legality of the listings cannot be challenged. We're talking about Canada, not the U.S. or Europe. Bacondrum, living in a liberal democracy means taking the word of experts over some former police officer who's been appointed to the cabinet. Incidentally you should read about about Mohamedou Ould Salahi, whose story The Mauritanian just won several Golden Globe awards. He was wrongfully imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for fourteen years as a terrorism suspect and blames Canadian intelligence for providing the U.S. with the false information that led to his arrest.[3] TFD (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, if I understand you correctly then, we should never follow how a government designates an organization, but in stead rely on academic sources. Is that a fair summary?
Now, if we follow the people who wrote the letter you cite, can we then describe the Proud Boys as a " violent white nationalist organization", because THEY do. Vexations (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces thanks for the recommendation, what a horrible story, I'll check the film out for sure. We had a similar story here is Australia with David Hicks. Americas vile camp at Guantanamo really has no relationship to far-right extremists being designated a terror group by Canada though, that's a bit of a red herring - if it turned out Al Qaeda was merely an islamic men's shed group that would be more akin to what we are talking about. Stories of abuse like Mohamedou Ould Salahi's and David Hicks' pull at the heart strings, but the horrors of state agencies torturing and jailing innocent people people has little or nothing to do with the subject of this article. Bacondrum 20:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The relevance is that intelligence organizations are unreliable. I mentioned Guantanamo Bay because it is one of the few cases where there was some form of external fact checking. Ultimately, intelligence had to show persuasive evidence. The vast majority of these suspected terrorists were released without charge. Hicks plead guilty in return for immediate release, otherwise he would still be there. I don't think it is a mark of liberal democracy that we would accept the opinions of intelligence officers over expert opinion.

We should never accept a government designation of a group as authoritative. In addition to their lack of accuracy, governments frequently add and delete groups for political reasons. U.S. backed insurgents are called freedom-fighters, otherwise they are terrorists.

I wouldn't call the Proud Boys white supremacist on the basis of a letter by Canadian civil rights activists, per "Context matter." I would look for a source that specifically addresses the issue of whether they are a white supremacist group. A geology textbook for example might mention in passing biographical detail about Rick Perry, the former governor of Texas. But that wouldn't be my go to source if I was editing his article. Presumably they got their information from somewhere else. Since it's not particularly significant to the writers what he majored in at college, their statement would be less reliable that a biography written about him.

17:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

intelligence organizations are unreliable - this entire line of argumentation is absurd, as though "terrorist organization" has an objective, concrete definition that can be neatly applied in every case, completely outside the national agencies which make the designations. The question isn't whether the Proud Boys are objectively (?) a terrorist organization, but whether a country has designated them as such. In this case, they have. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

(B) No - What TFD said, also one country making the claim is no where near enough for it to be considered universal. Especially a less significant country like Canada. PackMecEng (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

"Especially a less significant country like Canada." Terrance and Phillip will be furious! Poor old Canada. :D Bacondrum 21:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing personal against Canada! Heck I used to live about 30 minutes south of there and would visit all the time. Lovely place. PackMecEng (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, just kidding. Bacondrum 08:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Who's saying it should be considered universal? My understanding is that we're talking about the infobox, which specifically mentions it's a designation by Canada. Loki (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(B) No – Per TFD's note of legal scholars disagreement/doubts, the notability of Canada's designation, and consistency for how the infobox template is used across Wikipedia. For a good comparison, the PKK is designated a terrorist organization by the EU, the US, Turkey, Japan and Australia. That's not included in the infobox because its designation as a terrorist organization is disputed, despite it being far more widely recognised and by far more notable countries than the Proud Boys are. It's not in the infobox for Hezbollah either, for largely the same reasons. The field in the infobox is meant for groups like Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram, groups that are widely recognised as terrorist organizations, which the Proud Boys is most certainly not. Volteer1 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I think those articles should have the countries that list them as terror organizations in their info box, that is highly pertinent information. A glaring absence, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)

Yes. Proud Boys has sufficient activity in Canada that this designation is within their jurisdiction, and the US has no official designation for domestic terrorism but is clearly pursuing similar theories due to their role in the insurrection. It's time to stop pussyfooting around this. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"A country the organization is active in has designated it as a terrorist organisation" is not the standard for inclusion, it also needs to be WP:DUE. Again, see PKK and Hezbollah as compared to Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram for an understanding of how this field is used. Volteer1 (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This sounds more like weighted voting than due weight. If a domestic terror organisation operates in two (and only two) countries, the smaller one so designates it, and the larger one has no system of such designations, then ipso facto the 'electoral college' determines that they're not to be so described? But if the larger one did, and the smaller not, then they should? Or is your argument, or construal from a couple of fairly ad hoc seeming examples something else? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting populations and voting from, I'm just saying that it seems the existing consensus (i.e. the conclusion other editors have come to regarding the field across Wikipedia) for how WP:DUE applies to this field in the infobox is that it should be added for groups widely recognized as terrorist organizations, which is not true of the Proud Boys. Volteer1 (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

From a lack of clarity as to what sort of 'weight' criteria you had in mind, and your "the notability of Canada's designation" comment. Especially in the context of another editor's comment about 'a less significant country' -- which I'm still trying to work out if was a poor argument, or a poor joke -- and the opaque 'per others' concurrences elsewhere. Glad you're not applying that standard, then. So even if it were designated as a domestic terror organisation by both countries it operates in as such, the infobox shouldn't contain that, due to that not being 'wide' recognition? That doesn't seem to be the existing pattern at all, unless one is construing 'widely' in a manner that's presently still unclear to me. Indeed, it seems counter the entire logic of that markup and format: if a particular group is so-designated by a large number of countries, it gets entirely unmanageable in that format, and ends up being moved into a separate table in the body of the article, with or without a link from the infobox. And for further clarity: are you here distinguishing sharply between inclusion in Category:organizations designated as terrorist by Canada and "designated_as_terror_group_by: Canada"? Or is the former also to be excluded on the basis of your concerns about "legal scholars disagreement/doubts", etc? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sooo, looking at the list of transclusions of the template, first one I clicked on was Ulster Defence Association: "|designated_as_terror_group_by =

United Kingdom". So does this shed light on our "understanding of how this field is used", or is this wildly inappropriate? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

But the U.S. does have a designation for international terrorism and apparently the Proud Boys operate in both the U.S. and Canada, which makes it international. Perhaps the reason they have not listed it as a terrorist group is that it would not pass judicial review. TFD (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a very big perhaps - we have no idea...unless you are work for the US government and know something we don't (just kidding) :D Bacondrum 20:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I think maybe more like two very big perhapses strung end-to-end. The designation is 'Foreign Terrorist Organizations', and it's made by the State Department. Does that seem like a logical fit here, on any level? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

International means "of, relating to, or affecting two or more nations." (Websters)[4] Our friends in U.S. intelligence can call them international terrorists. TFD (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No as per the reasons given by others. I thought I had already discuss this before, but I can't find what I wrote here or in the archives. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: Found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proud_Boys/Archive_6#%22Terrorist%22_in_intro_sentence. - 祝好，Sinoam^(聊天) 18:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Sinoam, thanks that was it. My same views still apply. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes: I don't see why a country isn't a reliable source or why its legal determinations wouldn't be WP:DUE. Loki (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
(B) - No adding "terrorist organization" to any group labeled as such by a single State is not a scalable idea. Canada's population is roughly the size of California, with just over half of its GDP. Should it be in the article? Definitely. Should it be in the infobox if there is a consensus among sovereign states? SureTuffStuffMcG (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
No Per the reasons given above.Sea Ane (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Leaning toward yes. According to infobox, this is a terrorist organization "as designated by Canada". This is correct information. Simply placing "a terrorist organization" would be incorrect. But should such info be included to the infobox at all? This is less certain and more subjective. Would we like to include to the infobox such info for all organizations designated as "terrorist" by countries like Turkey or Russia? Probably not. However, in this specific case, not only Canada, but the US law enforcement organizations also say about their involvement to the recent "domestic terrorism" act. My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
No per reasons of Volteer1. Mention that it's designated as a terrorist organization by Canada in the description, but not in the lead or in the infobox. - 祝好，Sinoam^(聊天) 00:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
No per reasons of Volteer1. Eccekevin (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
No per TFD's reasons. Idealigic (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes. It is a fact, and Canada’s decision to make such a designation is no small feat. The relevance of such a designation is further backed up by the fact that there is an active chapter of the Proud Boys in Canada. Including this in the info box is also consistent with other articles across Wikipedia. Fwaff (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes of course. The Template:Infobox_militant_organization includes the designated_as_terror_group_by label, which conveniently links to the List_of_designated_terrorist_groups which gives a good overview of who designates who as terrorist group. I don't see a convincing arguemnt presented why it should not be included in the infobox, especially since there is a field there with exactly this purpose. I also find the claim that Canada is somehow not noteworthy pretty absurd - since when is that a criterium? "The field in the infobox is meant for groups like Al-Qaeda" is also unconvincing, that is definitely not written anywhere. --Mvbaron (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
(A) - Yes: there's no dispute in reliable sources about this designation, so it's suitable for inclusion in the infobox. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes - How is this even a question? We have a field in the infobox for terrorist designations, we have a terrorist designation that has received a massive amount of coverage, and the manner of inclusion in the infobox does not extend beyond an attributed designation by a particular country/agency. There is no "objective" measure we must weigh the designation against so that we can determine whether it is Truly and Rightly a terrorist organization. That people disagree with the designation, or with terrorist designations in general is perfectly relevant in the body of the article, but the infobox is just for whether the designation exists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
(B) - No. Only because this is an editorial decision we are making to decide what gets included in the infobox. I browsed through List of designated terrorist groups and Organizations designated as terrorist by Canada, and I saw a significant amount of organizations that didn't have their designation as a terrorists included in their infobox: FLQ, Combat 18, PKK, Tamil Tigers, PLF; even Liwa al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar and FARC (the latter two being the only ones not designated by Canada). I don't say this because I think that if the designation is included for the article on the Proud Boys that I think it needs to be added for the others.. far from it! I think this infobox field should be used extremely lightly since it gives so much prominence. Like gosh, I would be pretty devastated to see this infobox field widely used since it's such a black mark with no room for nuance or context.
The other reason I have for placing myself in this option is because something TFD said that didn't sit well with me. There does not seem to be a lot of oversight for Canada's terrorist designation process that pretty much leaves it to a handful of politicians to make the call and/or verify an organization's inclusion. It reminds me of that time Dan Malloy (governor of my state) called the NRA "in essence a terrorist organization" (source). You can also compare this to the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA) writing a training guide that says to treat BLM activists as terrorists ([5][6]). If either ILEETA or Malloy had the ability to officially designate groups as terrorists, I wouldn't feel comfortable making their pronouncements so prominent on Wikipedia. Let's just leave it in the lead (with prose!) where it belongs. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment is there any evidence that Canada has not designated them a terror organisation? Bacondrum 21:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
How do you prove a negative like that? And has anyone even made that claim? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, with no evidence to the contrary, it's a verifiable claim. Canada has designated the Proud Boys a terror organization - it's not a contested claim, and it's verifiable - I just wanted to be clear on that. Bacondrum 02:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I meant has anyone claimed that Canada has not designated them a terror organisation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, and if that's the case there is no policy based reason to ommit this fact, the Template:Infobox militant organization has the field Designated as a terrorist group by. Bacondrum 06:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment regarding Volteer1's argument about consistency: The PKK and Hezbollah Hezbollah articles do not include terror designations because they use the Template:Infobox political party infobox which does not provide for a terrorist designation section, it's a different user box to the one we are using here. Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram do have these sections in their info box as they use the Template:Infobox militant organization infobox and that infobox has the option, same as the proud boys article infobox which uses the Template:Infobox militant organization so the consistency argument is moot due to the different format infobox used by PKK and Hezbollah (I should have checked this earlier). Bacondrum 02:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
(A) - Yes: The fact is that they are a designated terrorist group in Canada and should be listed as such in the infobox (Using the Designated as a terrorist group by formatting) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
(A) - Yes per clear evidence of said designation by Canadian government and various well reasoned positions presented above. Acousmana (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questioning the sourcing on "white nationalist"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this discussion, the community considers how to describe the Proud Boys in the lead of the article. The community fails to reach a consensus, so by our rules, the status quo ante is restored for the time being. In this case the status quo ante is for the Proud Boys to be described as a White Nationalist organization in the lead, and they are so described now. This means that in practice, the outcome of this RfC is not to change the article. Revised close following AN discussion: The community finds that the status quo ante is for the Proud Boys not to be described as a White Nationalist organization in the lead, and I shall remove this description with my next edit.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Overarching note here: the people who want to label the Proud Boys with the contentious label of white nationalist have only cited Canadian sources, and two articles (from NPR and NBC) that say the Proud Boys are white nationalist in passing without any evidence cited in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk • contribs)

There are three sources used to justify the label, and only one of the three actually claim that the proud boys are a white nationalist organisation.

The first, The New York Times, doesn't really come close. It's describing the Canadian government's designation of them as a terrorist group, and quotes the Canadian government's opinion that some ("and/or") of the members espouse white supremacist views and have links to other white supremacist groups: In its designation, the Canadian government said members of the Proud Boys “espouse misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, and/or white supremacist ideologies and associate with white supremacist groups.” The New York Times doesn't describe them as a white supremacist organisation, it's just quoting what the Canadian government said. They instead chose to describe them as the "Proud Boys, a far-right, all-male organization".

The second, NBC, comes a little closer, but still no cigar. It describes them as the Proud Boys, the far-right extremist group, and then goes onto say that they are a key player in the U.S. white supremacist movement. This is describing in vague terms their broader relation to "the white supremacist movement", it is again not describing the Proud Boys as a white nationalist organisation, and is clear in their designation of them as a "far-right extremist group".

The third, NPR, does, with a quote a little way down the article: "The Proud Boys is a white nationalist organization with multiple U.S. chapters."

I don't think a single line in an NPR piece is enough to justify the label. Reliable sources discuss the Proud Boys a lot, and all (bar that one sentence in NPR) seem to only go as far as to describe them as something like "far-right extremists" or "neo-fascists" at the most. Wikipedia should describe the Proud Boys as reliable sources do and not create our own spin. Volteer1 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1, I don't quite see why the Canadian government's "opinion" (is that really what it is, mere opinion?) should be disregarded, but this article may be a better source for the claim : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/proud-boys-white-supremacist-group-law-enforcement-agencies It's almost exclusively about how US government agencies assess the group. Vexations (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The word "opinion" there wasn't doing any work for my argument, feel free to ignore it. To be clear, they are not even quoting the Canadian government calling them a white supremacist group, they are quoting the Canadian government saying that some(!) of its members are white supremacists. Your source is closer to what we're looking for here, but still only says that some US agencies label them as white supremacists, and some don't: "the Proud Boys, who some of the US agencies label as “white supremacists” and “extremists”, and others as a “gang”". That seems worth mentioning and shouldn't just be "disregarded", but is not something that supports flatly stating in the opening sentence that it is true of them if reliable sources don't claim it to be so. Volteer1 (talk)

Volteer1, fascist gets more hits than white nationalist, and white supremacist gets over twice as many hits as either, but white nationalist seems the most anodyne. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If that's the way they are widely described by reliable sources it should be very easy to find a source, just stating that they obviously exist isn't enough. Volteer1 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian article says that several law enforcement officers have referred to them as a white supremacist group, according to leaked correspondence. Not a strong source. It seems to me that instead of identifying the best sources, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League and academic literature on the far right and using their descriptions, we have decided to call them white supremacist and look for sources to validate our opinions. That's why we use a throw away line from NPR. TFD (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that does seem do be what has happened here, which is unfortunate. I think unless someone can provide sources for it, it should probably be removed for now. Volteer1 (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I just did a very quick check on google and there's plenty of reliable sources that describe them explicitly as White nationalist. See below:

I have contacted the writers at both NPR and NBC to explain why they, in passing, labeled the Proud Boys as white nationalists or white supremacists. Still no reply. There is no source mentioned in the articles or explanation of the reasoning. Meanwhile, many other mainstream sources characterize the Proud Boys as right-wing, conservative or nationalist, in closer accordance with how the Proud Boys as a group or as individual members describe themselves.

A better written article: https://censored.tv/news/trump-questioned-on-telling-proud-boys-to-stand-back-and-stand-by/

"The Proud Boys, a fraternal order of “Western chauvinists” who position themselves as opposed to far-left violence and often act as security detail against Antifa violence for right-wing figures at events, have been ceaselessly maligned in media and by the extreme left as allegedly endorsing white supremacist and misogynistic views.

The group has repeatedly gone on record to denounce white nationalist rhetoric and has always been accepting of all races in its membership. They have gone viral on social media over the years for being physically attacked by left-wing militants throughout the country, usually coming out on the winning side of such altercations in decisive fashion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you hear from them and they publish a retraction or modify their articles, you can let us know.

CENSORED.TV is not a reliable source. Even if it was, the section you quoted is explaining how the Proud Boys describe themselves. I'm sure I could find you a reliable source that also supports that the Proud Boys describe themselves as "western chauvinists" (and the article mentions the phrase a few times already)–that does not mean this article will describe them in wikivoice as "Western chauvinists". When the two are in conflict, the description given in wikivoice must reflect how RS describe the group, not how RS report the group describes itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment - A number of organisations monitoring them have noted the connection:

The SPLC “Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions: rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists,” “Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions: rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists,”
The FBI has described them as an "extremist group with ties to white nationalism" https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/20/fbi-says-proud-boys-have-white-nationalist-ties-law-enforcement-officials-say/
This claim is the strongest, an article by academic subject matter expert Candyce Kelshall - Adjunct Professor, Buckingham Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, University of Buckingham in The Conversation "The Proud Boys are a far-right white nationalist organization" https://theconversation.com/designating-the-proud-boys-a-terrorist-organization-wont-stop-hate-fuelled-violence-154709
The Independent "The FBI says its warning law enforcement across the country about the white nationalist, all-male group"

Again, this was a very quick look, I'm not convinced that it's an unverifiable claim, it's verifiable...also, NPR is a reliable source. I see no reason to remove on verifiability grounds - numerous reliable sources describe them as such. Their leader being Afro Cuban is irrelevant, people do all kinds of crazy stupid shit all then time, who knows why they do it. Bacondrum 05:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I reckon a proper RfC is probably the best course of action here, allow people to present sourcing and debate merits of claim, there's certainly enough evidence at a cursory glance to leave the status quo for now. Bacondrum 05:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The SPLC and FBI noting their ties to white nationalism/nationalists should be written about, but it is not a source for the label. The Independent source can't be used as per WP:HEADLINE given it only goes onto say The FBI has described the Proud Boys as an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism” in the body of the article, which is again the same as the previous two you mentioned. To sum up, we now have two sources for the label:

1: A throwaway line a fair way down an NPR article

2: A statement from Professor Candyce Kelshall, published in The Conversation.

We should use the terminology widely used by reliable sources, not decide ourselves what we think applies and go digging for rare exceptions in the (vast!) coverage of the group by reliable sources to justify our own views. It still does not make sense to describe them using a contentious label almost never used by reliable sources in the first sentence, clearly in flagrant violation of MOS:LABEL. I wouldn't be opposed to an RfC, but it's been almost a week now and we still haven't been able to properly source a contentious claim in the first sentence of the article, so I'm still uncomfortable with it remaining at present. Volteer1 (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Far right for sure but I don't think white nationalists are a proper description. Where in any of their official literature is there word one about white nationalism?

Im not a Proud Boy myself but lean conservative and I've met many Proud Boys that aren't white.

Can't help but feel there is some serious spin goin on here. Iscream22 (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As I argued above, all we have are a few passing references to them as white nationalist for example in the NPR artcle. What we require is expert opinion that says this is a generally accepted description, per Exceptional claims. The Proud Boys are best seen as a catch all group for the far right, uniting racists, Islamophobes, anti-Semites, misogynists, QAnon conspiracy theorists, sovereign citizens and other groups. It's wrong to say that the Proud Boys have positions on each and every one of these issues, in the way that older far right groups do. Hence the SPLC, which is the most authoritative source for current information about the far right, lists them as a general hate group rather than a white nationalist hate group. Its members can and do have contradictory views on white supremacy. While it's tempting to name 'em and shame 'em as white supremacists, I think that dishonesty is ultimately counter-productive. There is a public benefit in providing an honest description of the group, based on expert opinion, rather than hope to discredit them by making false claims. TFD (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop accusing others of being dishonest and making false claims. You want an "honest description of the group, based on expert opinion" here's an article by academic subject matter expert, Adjunct Professor, Buckingham Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, University of Buckingham, Candyce Kelshall - in The Conversation, a top tier reliable source that publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. "The Proud Boys are a far-right white nationalist organization" that's pretty explicit. seeing we are decending into personal attacks I'm gonna start an rfc, get more feedback. Bacondrum 21:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That's the first expert I have seen describe it that way. But coming to a conclusion and searching for sources to support your opinion is not the correct approach to articles. In this case, the article was written after you formed your opinion. REDFLAG applies.

What I look for in a source about this type of claim is one that is about the Proud Boys or white supremacist groups that explains why it should be labelled as such and tells us how accepted that description is. I can find lots of such sources about the Liberal Party of Canada calling it a liberal party, although that is hardly a REFLAG claim.

04:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Stop using Canadian sources to justify a contentious label about a bypredominantly American group and Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

We have no such policy about using sources published in other countries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." Even the left wing SLPC would be scared to call them white nationalists. They would be sued. Whoever is enjoying this power trip controlling this article, hang it up and remove the contentious label immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Also no conservative sources are cited which would balance the article. You would find that the term white nationalist is only used by left-wing sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/References — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to add that vote with that rationale to the RfC below, if you like, but no one is going to "remove the contentious label immediately" as you have ordered while there is an active RfC underway. Also, please note WP:NPA. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Also no conservative sources are cited which would balance the article.

WP:FALSEBALANCE. Neutrality does not mean "both sides" get coverage, it means we reflect what the majority of reliable sources say. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I found that the New York Post has called the Proud Boys a white nationalist group. The NYP is considered conservative-leaning, but it's not generally considered a reliable source here, so I didn't think it pertinent to mention in my list of source mentions I found. But as long as you're saying only left-wing sources are claiming this, there you have it. --Chillabit (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, so has Reason ([7]), though WP:HEADLINE probably applies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Also no conservative sources are cited which would balance the article That is not true. We cite The Wall Street Journal for example, which our own article says has a "conservative political editorial line", the Toronto Sun "a conservative broadsheet", the National Post "has retained a conservative editorial stance", the Chicago Tribune "typically conservative" and the National Review a "conservative editorial magazine". Vexations (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean the article applies the contentious label of white nationalist but doesn't cite any conservative sources to give balance to how the left-wing categorizes the proud boys.

National Review calls the Proud Boys, "a fringe men’s group that frequently instigates confrontations with left-wing protesters." I am okay if you add that to balance the white nationalist categorization NPR adds in passing.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/multiple-people-stabbed-23-arrested-during-election-protest-in-washington-d-c/

Chicago Tribune calls them "Far right"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-capitol-attack-proud-boys-charged-20210319-abd3poiuazd2zmycb5p5wrb67m-story.html

The guy looking to cherry pick an instance where a "conservative outlet" like the New York Post calls them white nationalist makes it appear that you are indeed starting from a desired outcome ie. making the Proud Boys look bad and then working towards that goal by cherry picking articles rather than working to describe the Proud Boys in a neutral manner by looking at both sides. That is a blatant violation of Wikipedia standards.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/multiple-people-stabbed-23-arrested-during-election-protest-in-washington-d-c/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP#National Review. I believe Vexations was saying we use various right-leaning sources elsewhere in the article, but I don't believe any of their listed sources support the "white nationalist" label. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, that's what I was saying. We use a wide variety of sources, including conservative ones, but exclide some that are sympathetic to the Proud Boys, such as Infowars, because they are not reliable. See WP:INFOWARS and WP:BREITBART

As for right-wing sources not calling the Proud Boys white nationalist; that we provide biased sources is a requirement that is not supported by any policy, but it still can be met. For example, the

Toronto Sun writes "The storming of Capitol Hill in Washington last month spurred calls for Canada to add the Proud Boys and other prominent white nationalist organizations to the list." Vexations (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The "balance" you are expecting would be false balance. We don't arbitrarily add "conservative" sources to balance out "left-wing" ones. Nowhere does the NR article challenge the idea that this is a white nationalist group. It's very possible to be both "a fringe men’s group that frequently instigates confrontations with left-wing protesters" and "white nationalist". Why wouldn't it be? Arguably, the NR source supports "white nationalist", since the overlap is pretty clear. The Chicago Tribune article calls them "far-right" and also "neo-fascist" which even more directly supports white nationalism, as the overlap is even more obvious. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC - White Nationalist

Is the claim labeling the Proud Boys "White nationalist" verifiable and due?

(A) - Yes
(B) - No

Thanks Bacondrum 21:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(A) Yes - At a cursory glance many sources describe them as such including:

* academic subject matter expert, Adjunct Professor, Buckingham Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, University of Buckingham, Candyce Kelshall - in The Conversation: "The Proud Boys are a far-right white nationalist organization" https://theconversation.com/designating-the-proud-boys-a-terrorist-organization-wont-stop-hate-fuelled-violence-154709

* Another reliable source, NPR says: "The Proud Boys is a white nationalist organization with multiple U.S. chapters." https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/19/958240531/members-of-right-wing-militias-extremist-groups-are-latest-charged-in-capitol-si

* The SPLC doesn't label them explicitly White nationalist, but does say this: “Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions: rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists,”

* The FBI has described them as an "extremist group with ties to white nationalism" https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/20/fbi-says-proud-boys-have-white-nationalist-ties-law-enforcement-officials-say/

* The Independent "The FBI says its warning law enforcement across the country about the white nationalist, all-male group"

That was just a quick google search - I reckon that's a verifiable claim. Bacondrum 21:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(B) - No: per MOS:LABEL. As said above, The Independent source can't be used per WP:HEADLINE (the body of the article only goes onto say "the FBI has described the Proud Boys as an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism") and the SPLC and FBI denoting their ties to white nationalism/white nationalists are relevant information but not a source for the label. This means we have just two sources:

1: A throwaway line from an NPR article

2: A statement from Professor Candyce Kelshall, published in The Conversation (who I'll note for some reason thought the Proud Boys are just based in Canada)

From MOS:LABEL: contentious labels "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". What's happened here is we've decided ourselves what label we think applies and gone digging for rare exceptions in the vast coverage of the group by reliable sources to justify our own views. This is why all we've got is a throwaway line in an NPR piece tangentially related to the proud boys and a professor's statement published by The Conversation, despite the hundreds of reliable sources covering the Proud Boys. We cannot describe them using a contentious label almost never used by reliable sources in the first sentence, this should be an extremely simple choice. Volteer1 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes: I think ~~Bilorv's~~ Bacondrum's sources are sufficient to say the term "white nationalist" is "widely used by reliable sources" to refer to the Proud Boys. By my interpretation of MOS:LABEL, a term is "widely used by reliable sources" if a wide variety of reliable sources use it. Some other reliable sources not using it is not counter-evidence for the term. Otherwise one could use military histories of World War II to argue that the Nazis weren't white nationalists, since there are a ton of works about them that don't directly talk about their ideology at all. Loki (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC) (Brain fart corrected by Loki (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC))

We currently have two usable reliable sources. What are the sources (Bilorv?) you're referring to that support the label? Volteer1 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There aren't two, there are five. The distinction between "The Proud Boys are white nationalist", "the Proud Boys have ties to white nationalism", and "the Proud Boys say white nationalist things" is a nitpick. (Also, what's this Independent source? Nobody has linked it and neither of the Independent articles used as sources in the main article has the lines you quoted.) Loki (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither "rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremist" and being an "extremist group with ties to white nationalism" are the same as a white nationalist label, that's not a nitpick. I don't know why you'd think having ties to something and being something are the same thing, and having members who are white nationalists is not the same as being a white nationalist organization (e.g. is it fair to say that the Republican Party is a "white nationalist organization" because of Steve King?). This a distinction the SPLC clearly recognises otherwise they would've just called them a white nationalist group like they do for groups who are indeed white nationalist groups, but they chose not to. This is the source Bacondrum was referring to, is that who you meant? Volteer1 (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes Per Bacondrum.--Jorm (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
(B) - No Having ties to white nationalists is not the same things as saying the group is white nationalist. While they draw support from them, they also draw support from other elements of the far right that are not white nationalists. Otherwise all we have are passing references to them as white nationalist and no evidence that most sources describe them that way. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which is the most authoritative source for current information about the American far right, does not include them in their list of white nationalist hate groups. I note too that the one source that called them white nationalist also said they were based in Canada, which is incorrect. TFD (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
(B) - No, but also (A) - Yes. Definitely should not be the first thing in the lead, but could be included in the body with attribution. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Up until a few weeks ago they had an afro-cuban chairman. They specifically list anti racism as a core tenet. Calling them white nationalists is absurd. It is a disgrace to this project and obviously put in there for spurious motove Ryantheviking (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
(B) - No: per Volteer1. The organization is referred to as having links to white nationalist people and groups - as a result of their far-right extremist associations, and even notably includes members who hold such views (in spite of tenets which oppose and reject them). The idea that a belief in "western values" makes a person or group "white nationalist" is a criticism of most fraternal organizations throughout the western world and is not unique to the proud boys, except for the ideologically driven charges that recur in "reliable sources", however vaguely alleged. The group is clearly a bunch of insensitive, polemecist, bigots (I don't think they would disagree) - but the only consistent messaging against 'others" could be toward illegal hispanic immigrants; primarily considered white and culturally western/christian - and Muslims; a significant portion of which are also considered white according to standard legal demographic measuresTuffStuffMcG (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment I dug into it. The description by sources is varied. Here's some I found.

Describe the Proud Boys as "white nationalist": Politico, LA Times, Variety, and The News & Observer (Or C-SPAN? I can't tell who wrote that video description.)

Describe the Proud Boys as having "ties", "overlap with", or "connections to" white nationalist figures or rhetoric: The FBI, the SPLC, The Washington Post, CNN, NBC, USA Today, and Snopes

Curiously, I found an NPR article that describes the Proud Boys as "neo-Nazi".

Doesn't seem super clear-cut to me, but there it is for your consideration. If I had to pick a side I'd go with where the bulk of sourcing is here: "ties" or "overlap" with white nationalism. --Chillabit (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: The video caption describing the Proud Boys as "white nationalist" on The News & Observer appears to have been written by that website, or somebody affiliated with it, not by C-SPAN. Inferred from the fact that the same caption is not on C-SPAN's page for the video which that clip appears to have been pulled from. --Chillabit (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be an interest in the alternative "white supremacist" or "white supremacy" term, so.

Describe the Proud Boys as "white supremacist": CNN, CNBC, US law enforcement agencies, and NBC.

Describe the Proud Boys as having "ties", "overlap with", "connections to", etc. white supremacist figures or rhetoric: This study, NYT, USA Today, ADL, SPLC, ABC, and The Sun-Sentinel.

Some of these are more open to interpretation than the last list. I left out definite WP:HEADLINES disqualifers, but the CNN & CNBC ones might fall under that, they are video titles. If they do then discount those completely. --Chillabit (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(A) Yes per Bacondrum FiduciaryAkita (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
(A) Yes - The preponderance of reliable sources ties them directly other white supremacist organizations and point out their own actions as supporting that worldview. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
(B) No per Volteer1. The article should mention their ties to white nationalism, but based on the sources provided, we shouldn't call the organization "white nationalist" in Wikipedia's voice in the lead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
(B) No - Certainly OK to say something like "many sources and organization have described the Proud Boys as white nationalists", but not OK to say it in Wikipedia voice. NickCT (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is a more recent article from NPR that doesn't say white nationalist but rather far-right extremist. So this cancels out the NPR article you are currently using? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A group can be both white nationalist and far-right extremist, so no. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Is your goal to collect every label that was ever applied to the Proud Boys by a website from your list? Or is the goal to

"when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance."

It is clear NPR itself does not have a consistent view on the Proud Boys yet you are 100% certain to go with the contentious white nationalist label, even going so far as to lock the page so people can't edit it... and censor anyone who wants to moderate your defamatory writing or provide an alternate viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If editors were "100% certain to go with the contentious white nationalist label" there would not be a currently active RfC on the topic to establish what the article should say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with this RFC. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(A) Yes - per many sources, although "white supremacist" would be preferable. "White nationalism" is a euphemism coined by white supremacists. To the extent that there is a distinction between white nationalism and white supremacism, it doesn't really applying to the Proud Boys per any sources I have seen. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
That would not fit with how Wikipedia currently has articles about them. They have two separate articles. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said, to the extent that there is a distinction, that distinction doesn't apply to the Proud Boys. We have separate articles on many closely overlapping things. Collateral damage and civilian casualties come to mind, but there are thousands more pairs and sets like this. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize, and since sources only treat this distinction as meaningful in some cases, we should use direct language instead of euphemisms. Grayfell (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't really agree that 'white nationalist' is a euphemism for 'white supremacist'. In my mind 'white nationalist' = white supremacist + nationalist, and would therefore be a more virulent combination than either alone. (nationalism, for the record, has large overlaps with fascism and Nazism, which could be thought of as nationalism in its most extreme forms). Firejuggler86 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think your definition is the usual one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you think is the usual one then? That they are the same and one is just a euphemism for the other, or that are linked but distinct like how our articles portray them right now? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think they are linked but distinct. But I'm mostly responding to the fact that Firejuggler86 interprets "white nationalist" to be a more "virulent" term than white supremacist; I've almost always seen "white nationalist" used as the softer term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying I disagree with you but I can see where they are coming from. They are saying white supremacist is believing whites are supreme, and white nationalist is believing that a nation should be formed on this idea. Personally I think they are linked but distinct, and that PB can be one or both. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Per white nationalism, as a phrase it was coined as a euphemism for "white supremacy" relatively recently. The difference between the two, such as it is, came later. Any supposed ideology of "white nationalism" was back-filled based on the words themselves. Someone came up with the phrase based on white supremacist ideas, and then they tried to figure out how to describe it so it would seem different. It would be a mistake to assume that two words must always mean what each word means by itself in isolation. as a phrase, "white nationalism" is not treated by sources as being the same as nationalism + white people. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

(B) No per Volteer1 and MOS:LABEL. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that MOS:LABEL is really the breach. Degrading and contentious buzzwords should be avoided in principle, because they appear to be used more as badges of shorthand dishonor than serious attempts to elucidate for the reader. They really suggest a reader should "go no further". As a result, they are overused as a rhetorical style to kill nuance. They are less offensive in the body than in the ledeTuffStuffMcG (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

"White nationalism" is a euphemism for "white supremacy". Neither one of these terms can be accurately dismissed as "buzzwords". There is extensive academic work covering the meaning of both of these terms in exhausting detail. The fact that they are supposedly contentious makes no difference, because our goal isn't to help the Proud Boys with their PR, which should be obvious. Our goals is to accurately describe the group as an encyclopedia topic. If that can be done with direct language, all the better. Grayfell (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL is specifically about contentious labels. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I think "buzzword" status depends on how a particular term is being used in a context, rather than being intrinsic to the term itself. These terms can certainly be used as buzzwords, and that does not mean that the terms themselves are, or ought be considered so in all use cases. Grayfell, I don't think anyone ever suggested that we ought to be helping the Proud Boys with their PR; don't assume, either, that taking up the negative position on this RFC question is done so out of motivation to not tarnish the Proud Boys. or even that the affirmative position would reflect poorly on the proud boys. My main reasoning for wanting to avoid using buzzword labels in wikivoice is that it makes us look like trashy tabloid journalists trying to sell a story and tarnishes our credibility as an encyclopaedia. Everyone must keep in mind, here, that at the end of the day, all of these so-called reliable sources that are doing this, are for-profit privately owned newspapers whose goal is to sell a paper and make a profit. And that's FINE - that's what news agencies DO. But we are not here to do that, but to write an encyclopaedia. Media outlets are sources for factual information; they are not models for how we should write our articles. :) Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:AGF never means we must ignore what people do and say, and directly saying we should avoid unflattering terms because they are "labels" would be helping them with their PR. That's not our goal, and that's not even what WP:LABEL says. In that sense, both of you are suggesting we help the Proud Boys with their PR.

Avoiding an accurate term because you think it's "trashy" or a "buzzword" is euphemistic and PR-minded. Any accurate, neutral language we use will necessarily seem "trashy" because we are describing a pro-violence white supremacist drinking club/street gang that uses memes to make themselves look harmless. Any language which doesn't convey this will be inaccurate or euphemistic. The problem here, as with other white supremacist groups, is that any accurate description will be unflattering, and from that someone will come along and insinuate that it is therefore biased, as though being accurate were now suddenly a bad thing.

Your dismissive comments about "for profit" newspapers are completely at-odds with WP:RS and Wikipedia's goals as a tertiary source. We summarize reliable sources, and you do not personally get to pick-and-choose which are reliable based on your vague preferences. Grayfell (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

NoPer Fizzbuzz306 et al. We need to redirect the gap between associated with and actually. Springee (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes Plenty of sources directly make that claim including the New York Post ([8],[9]), NPR ([10]), The Guardian ([11]), Politico ([12]), LA Times([13]), and plenty of others listed above. That's enough though things like the police report push it well over the line for me. Hobit (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
(B) - No per Volteer's citation of MOS:LABEL. schetm (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ya all keep saying "per Volteer" but he claimed there were only 2 week sources. I've cited half a dozen (including conservative ones...), and there are plenty more, many since mentioned in this discussion. Hobit (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  - According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics." The claim that they are a go to source for ideological classifications is absurd. Instead of mining for sources to support your beliefs, you should identify the best sources and summarize what they say. And before you say, "Well what about my other sources?" I suggest you re-check your list first and remove unreliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    - Eh. It's one of a list. It's there only to show that the use includes conservative media because others, in this discussion, have raised that issue. If you want to argue about the rest (NPR, LA Times, Poltico, etc.) you are free to do so. The point is that MOS:LABEL isn't a great argument when the term is, in fact, commonly used. Even unreliable sources are fine for showing that something is commonly used... Hobit (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
      - Going down your list, I discussed the NPR and Guardian sources at 23:55, 23 February 2021.[14] A throwaway line in a news update from NPR isn't persuasive. the authors are "breaking news reporters" with no academic qualifications in political or social sciences. The Guardian article does not even say they are white supremacists but quotes people who claim they are. If there was consensus in reliable sources that they were white nationalists, then they should be on the SPLC or ADL lists of white nationalist hate groups or included in a list in a standard textbook on white nationalism or the description should be discussed in a journal article. TFD (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just noting for talk page watchers that this is now at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review request for Proud Boys RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Post-RfC comment

The context of this post is that I've just closed the long RfC above.

Taking off my closer hat, and speaking as an uninvolved non-American who has read the above discussion and the whole article carefully from top to bottom, I would encourage the community to consider whether it really is absolutely necessary to use all five-or-so labels for the Proud Boys that we currently employ in sentence one. Where we can truthfully say that an organization is neo-fascist, it does seem tautological to call it white nationalist and far right as well. Equally, where we can truthfully say that it's white nationalist, it seems rather redundant to call it far right and neo-fascist. I do feel that the current first sentence whiffs more of a thesaurus than an encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 16:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

yes, that makes perfect sense. It is tautological. Many modern American politics articles like this suffer from these kinds of over descriptions, IMO. Bacondrum 03:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

From past discussions on Wikipedia this issue comes up a lot. If we only say one, a vocal minority will insist that it cannot also mean the others. We see this kind argument here on this talk page, also. Of course it should be obvious that categories can overlap or imply each other, but the line between "obvious" and WP:OR is blurry enough to prompt arguments. It's a time-sink regardless of motives. Instead of getting bogged-down in this kind of thing, it's often better to be a bit redundant for the sake of clarity. This is similar to how some contentious points in articles will have a large number of citations. It's better to be technically accurate than to look pretty. Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal - White Nationalism

Since the RFC has been closed as no consensus, here is a proposal. There are multiple RS that describe the PB as white nationalist, but the highest quality RS do not make the association routinely, rather making claims of association and ties of the PB with white nationalism and white supremacism (e.g. the SPLC). So:

(A) remove the LABEL white nationalism from the first lead sentence.
(B) add a weaker explanatory sentence describing the association and ties to white nationalism as it occurs in the RS

Proposal - The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada. The group also has been associated with and members routinely maintain ties to white nationalist and white supremacist extremists.

Things to discuss:

(1) Position - (a) keep it in the second sentence in the lead or (b) move it further down to where it is described that the PB try to make it appear as if they distance themselves from the extreme right and white nationalism.
(2) Wording - The PB have been associated with white nationalism or less indirect Members of the PB have ties to white nationalism

Mvbaron (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the FBI's opinion on the matter is already expressed lower in the article, here and here.

I think a condensed source-stack in the lead (similar to what we have already for other descriptors) is appropriate with something along the lines of what you posted, and perhaps incorporating in some way the sources which were more happy to LABEL the PB — seems a poor omission to discard them entirely. Characterizing the Proud Boys in general as having this association is probably warranted. I think sources reflect that, along with their general history (e.g. the origin at Taki's Magazine) --Chillabit (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the RFC above shows that there is no consensus to LABEL the PB as white nationalist, so we can't do that - with or without stacked sources. I suggest we add the ties/association claim to the lead in a separate sentence, and work in the rest of the sources in the body? Mvbaron (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(A)remove the label from the lead and summarize the nuance in the sub-lead.

(Wording) "The Proud Boys is a far-right and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada."

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the RFC above shows that there is no consensus to LABEL the PB as white nationalist, so we can't do that - with or without stacked sources. Huh? If there was consensus not to label the PB as white nationalist, this would be true, but there was no consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

~~Chillabit's~~ Mvbaron's proposal seems like a reasonable path forward to me. Minor note, but some commas might improve the readability of that second sentence: The group also has been associated with, and members routinely maintain ties to, white nationalist and white supremacist extremists.. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

+1 for commas :) And sure, but is the proposal now to include 'white nationalist' in the lead sentence or not? I suggest not, I don't quite know if Chillabit does... Mvbaron (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

~~As I understand it, Chillabit's proposal (in green text) is for the first two sentences of the lead.~~ GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

hmmm. Chillabit didn't post any green text. I posted the proposal above. I'll edit it to make it more clear I guess Mvbaron (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh! I just realized I missed your signature in the middle there. It's apparently your proposal that I am supporting

Facepalm GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I support B here, but note that the way the closure review of the above RfC at WP:AN is going, I imagine A will probably be disallowed as an option anyway unless there's a new RfC/new consensus. Regarding wording, I'm a bit perplexed by what is meant by "ties to white nationalist and white supremacist extremists". It seems like this is saying they have ties to the extremist brand of "white nationalism and white supremacy" as opposed to the moderate brand, whatever the hell that means. It should probably just say white nationalist organizations or white nationalists, like sources do – the word "extremist" was just pulled out of a hat anyway. No opinion thus far on the position until I get a better view of what we're going to use to source that statement, whether it goes in the second sentence or in another paragraph would be a matter of what is due. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that "white supremacist extremists" and "white supremacists" are synonymous, and the latter is probably clearer since it avoids people wondering exactly what you were. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not think we need to soften our language here. The Proud Boys have made it clear they support & encourage white nationalism. The RfC did not say there is no consensus for the label, it found there was no consensus to change it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Above I mentioned that white nationalism is a euphemism, and I mentioned that specifically because of this issue. We are already softening this by using a euphemistic term (which was coined by white supremacists precisely to soften their image) LABEL only applies if there is some more neutral way to describe this -but there really isn't. It's not some unforgivable LABEL-crime to mention a fact about them. The most appropriate and neutral way to explain that the Proud Boys are a white nationalist gang is to explain directly that they are a white nationalist gang. Grayfell (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but the sourcing on the label white nationalist was indeed thin enough to result in a no-consensus RFC. The SLPC does not use the label, and we generally don't have many RS routinely using it either. On the other hand, the RS do make the connection of the PB member's ties. I tried to make a compromise by splitting the first lead sentence to reflect this. Mvbaron (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I figured there is a serious distinction between labeling the PB as white nationalist and labeling people they associate with as white nationalist or white supremacist. Or, otherwise, labeling part of their membership as overlapping with white nationalism/supremacism. Labeling the whole group as white nationalist would entail that as basically a goal of the group in general, where mentioning overlap or ties with this ideology would be different (in perhaps the same way that Italian fascists weren't the Nazis, to give a comparison that immediately jumps to mind). Regardless I think sourcing is heavily on the side of this position and not on either omitting it or full-on labeling, and this distinction means this is a unique proposal rather than just a reopening of the RfC, as well. --Chillabit (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

If we imply (directly or indirectly) that only some members are associated with white nationalism, we are also implying that some are not associated with white nationalism. This is not strictly accurate. The organization is, per sources, associated with white nationalism, so all of its members are associated with white nationalism, regardless of what they believe in their heart of hearts. I think we should say it plainly and trust that readers understand that people are complicated beings. To the extent that reliable sources discuss any western chauvinist modern world creators who are not actually racist, we can discuss them proportionately. Grayfell (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The RfC did not say there is no consensus for the label, it found there was no consensus to change it. Not sure if you're following the AN discussion, but there is ongoing discussion there about this particular part of the close. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the change as it is consistent with how the group is described in expert sources. They basically draw in a wide range of extremists. While white nationalist groups sometimes recruit non-whites as tokenism, it's unusual for their leaders to be black. TFD (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

whoever made this did not actaully do any research and 2/3 of the references are incorrect, Arkadisevyan (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done. "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add homophobia 198.255.141.110 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Proud Boys are not what Wikipedia says they are. Someone is trying to label a bunch of GOOD MEN as a bunch of terrorists. Absolutely pathetic. All the Proud Boys are, are a group of patriotic men, who are PROUD of their country. They are PROUD to be men. And they are PROUD to defend their country against terrorists. Basket-Head (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Chinese-American support for the Proud Boys is high

"The surprising answer to this question is that the Proud Boys enjoy significant support from a slice of the Chinese American community and the broader Chinese diaspora."

Their gifts made up more than 80% of the $106,107 raised for medical costs for members of the Proud Boys who were stabbed during violent clashes in Washington in mid-December.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/04/proud-boys-chinese-americans-community-support-donations/7343111002/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk page archive speed

@Newslinger, Emir of Wikipedia, and Volteer1: Proposing to bump the talk page archiving to something like 90 days. Newslinger, can you explain your concerns with slowing down the archiving of this talk page? I see you and Emir have each undone changes to slow the archive speed (Newslinger undid Emir's, Emir undid Volteer's, though Emir's appears to have just been based on Newslinger's). There was a period where this talk page was so active that 14-day archiving made sense, but bumping it to 90 days would seem to make sense now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't contentious; the purpose of archival is to prevent a page from becoming unmanageably long. It currently has the opposite problem; it is being archived too aggressively. VQuakr (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Not much to discuss. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I changed the time to 140 days, Volteer1 changed it to 30 days. We do have to keep in mind the activity changes over time. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Extreme right (conservative) & Fascists are polar opposites, as Fascism is a form of socialism. Please correct the opening description. 64.19.79.34 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done for obvious reasons, being that this request assumes that words no longer have meanings.--Jorm (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2021

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Needs a proper citation for declaring the group a terrorist organization. The link is to a New York Times article declaring them as such an organization. The group hasn't been formally declared a terrorist organization by law enforcement. Skeszler92 (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Not done: "Canada adds Proud Boys to terror list". This article is cited. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also states the group has "folded" while saying it's status is "active". This is clearly a contradiction. Skeszler92 (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Skeszler92: The Canadian chapter folded, not the entire organization. Perhaps the wording needs to be clarified. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

👍🏻 Skeszler92 (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2021

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Category:2021 disestablishments in Canada since the organization is dissolved in Canada. 2603:6010:D307:98CA:65F1:5975:317C:B2BF (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Done Article added to Category:2021 disestablishments in Ontario per WP:CATSPECIFIC. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This article appears to be written with an obvious political bias and slanderous position

Absolutely nothing of value will come from this discussion.--Jorm (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The description of this organization starts with "The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States.[1]" which impugns this group of people from the very beginning. There is no evidence of any kind that support the claim that they are fascist in any form or manner. As fascism is actually a political ideology based upon the idea of an authoritarian form of government, which this group has never professed to support.

Furthermore, as this article progresses, it continues to make outlandish claims that are not supported by any facts, just opinions, of well documented biased editors and opinion pundits in the news media.

My suggestion for this article is that it be completely wiped and the article re-written from scratch by independent, fact-based content so that people who may not know who or what a proud boy is can make up their own minds instead of being hammered with an obviously negative OPINION of who or what they are without any factual or formal basis for such opinion.

This would be no different than a conservative writing an extremely negative wikipedia article about Antifa in the same fashion. It's unacceptable.

73.53.59.159 (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Content reflects prevailing sources in reliable independent media already. If you've found something different,please present your sources. Please read the FAQ at the top of this page first. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USA Today article

They joined the Wisconsin Proud Boys looking for brotherhood. They found racism, bullying and antisemitism. Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And [15] [16] Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Support and Donations section

I came across this article from USAToday that talks about how the Proud Boys enjoy strong support from the Chinese-American community and saw a wave of donations starting in December. Might be worthwhile to include some information about the racial demographics of Proud Boys membership and supporters, given that they're widely viewed as a white nationalist/white supremacist organization. Some media outlets have also accused the Proud Boys of using minorities (including Tarrio) as cover to hide its alleged bigotry[17], though I don't pay enough attention to these people to make a judgment either way. Incerto501 (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Change of strategy?

[18] and [19]. Of course we'd want more and better sources. We can't use Kos and there's no consensus on Vice. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

August 22nd Portland Clashes

Yesterdays clashes with far left "anti fascist" terrorists in Portland should be included in the article as they were notable and well publicized, and at least two Proud Boys were involved as organizers in the event who later participated in the violence. History Man1812 (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

Sources? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's coverage in the Washington Post. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

They engage in violent protests/clash with counter protestors every other week. Is there anything noteworthy about August 22nd in Portland in particular? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, there's probably been enough Proud Boys activity in Portland by now to justify Proud Boys activities in Portland, Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the article include both "Neo-Fascism" and "Chauvinism"?

It appears very redundant because both ideologies are very similar. Additionally, I did not want to get into an edit-war with the other contributors, so I would ask that here to better know. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

How are these similar ideologies?--Jorm (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There are similarities, though I don't know if I would say they are so similar as to be redundant. That said, I could support removing "chauvinist" from the lead sentence simply because although it's a term that the Proud Boys often use for themselves, it's not widely used in reliable independent sources (except when quoting the Proud Boys). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The term "Chauvinist" is objectively descriptive and helpful in distinguishing the organization from other nationalist movements. "Western Chauvinism" describes the focus on a pan-"western" alternative to nationalism. The group mythologizes western cultural advancements in a way similar to historical fascist movements, but disconnected from race - that "culture" is key and all races are welcome to contribute to it - in a unique way that isn't present in eastern cultures (which focus on ethno-nationalism). In this way it distances itself from racialist pseudoscience and focuses on the ideological environment unique to "the west".

Unfortunately, many tenets are opposed to the multiculturalism that has, to an extent, made western culture great - which leads to cognitive dissonance.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you got sourcing to resolve the concern about this currently only being a self-descriptive term? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

ADL mentions their extreme focus on western culture, combined with the terms we are describing.It is helpful and undisputed though, wouldnt you agree? It isn't like the controversy behind claims of "anti-racist" or "pro-liberty" as the group claims - but which claims are directly disputed by RS. I'll dig a bit deeper.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Anon the group its self condemns Fascism, it does not feel right putting neo fascists there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.224.56.242 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

We describe subjects in the way they are widely described by reliable sources. In some cases, that includes using labels that the group does not use for itself, or even rejects. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

They are an overtly anti fascist group which can be verified by their charter and multiple other sources. Much of this entry is verifiably false the fact that many of its "sources" are opinion pieces by far left activist groups is enough to make one lose faith in the collective integrity of Wikipedia altogether. Savatage2k (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It's common for controversial groups to officially deny things they support, to deflect criticism. Wikipedia has enough integrity to ask around instead. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The term "fascism" should be removed, or at least revised

Absolutely nothing is going to happen here, b/c words have actual meanings and trying to say "water is not wet, I swear it" isn't actionable.--Jorm (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The recommendation for a rewriting of the introduction was addressed briefly above, I don't see this exact question addressed: Why are the Proud Boys considered a "fascist" organization.

The response to one objection to its use above, from "Jorm", proves its own point by using words that have no meaning, and uses them to ostensibly respond to the request.

I can see why that request had problems since it does not provide for the possibility of a right-wing socialism. The political term "fascism" usually denotes a political movement or organization of some kind to the right, even though it has socialist elements. This seems obvious since Nazis are usually considered fascists and the name itself includes the word: National Socialism. The Proud Boys don't seem to advocate any socialist positions, in fact quite the opposite. That they should be classified to the right seems hard to dispute, but the description of the group as "fascist" is very questionable. It is so for at least one reason: The term "fascism" has proved very difficult to define with any specificity despite nearly 100 years of trying, since Mussolini established his first "Fasci Italiani di Combattimento" around this time a century ago.

This topic shows how the traditional right/left spectrum has been breaking down for well over a century, with some graphs showing the extremes of both left and right meeting to form "totalitarian" systems of government. This is not the place for an extended political discussion, but it think Wikipedia has a large systemic problem when it comes to treatment of groups that are identified on the right, from the mildly conservative all the way to the extreme right. They fall into the trap of the progressive/left of using the most extreme adjectives to characterize certain groups, with the clear purpose of pushing them into the the extremist category. The "they" here are the uber-editors and those making the decisions at the Wiki administrator level. I tend to the think calling the Proud Boys "fascist" is more pejorative than explanatory. It is another example of the broad breakdown of the term, a process described by Orwell in 1944. He said that the word has ceased to mean much other than "something not desirable". (See "What is Fascism?", George Orwell; https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39403-the-word-fascism-has-now-no-meaning-except-in-so)

I would be happy to attempt a discussion of whether the Proud Boys qualify as fascist from what I know on the subject, but something tells me it would be instantly reverted were I to try. So, I leave it as a topic worth discussing since it seems any group deserves to be accurately characterized and not have adjectives repeated from sources once deemed reputable that have degraded in quality. Sych (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs)

You don't help your argument by presenting fringe views on fascism. We cannot in any case use arguments to determine whether the Proud Boys are fascist, we can only report what reliable sources say. Whether or not they are fascist was previously discussed and you can find the discussion in the talk page archives. My objection was that none of the sources used were written by experts in fascism, the far right, politics or sociology. The SPLC, whose opinions are routinely reported in Wikipedia articles for extremist groups, refers to their ideology as "General Hate," rather than fascist.[20]

Incidentally, could you please sign your posts.

TFD (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place for an extended political discussion Yes. soibangla (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The Proud Boys are an avowed anti-fascist group which is verifiable through their charter. Saying that there are "reliable sources" that say otherwise only makes those sources verifiable unreliable. Furthermore, they are an all inclusive group which is expressly stated at many points in their application process where they expressly warn against "hate" or racism in any way. Much of this article cites far left sources including the Anti Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center which are widely known for their efforts to smear and misinform Savatage2k (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

No true Scotsman —Mvbaron (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with this one. The neofascism article itself links to the fact that fascist is often used as an insult against political groups.

Fascism, while developing from socialism, and having socialistic (more accurately, corporatist) elements, is primarily ultranationalist and anti communist, and thus belongs on the far right. However, not all far right ideologies are fascist. Theocracies, absolute monarchies, etc.

While the Proud Boys qualify for some aspects of fascism (ultranationalist, populist, nativist, etc.) I haven't seen much evidence of them supporting opposition to democracy as a government form, or a corporatist economic structure (a tripartite system with government, business, and unions making decisions together). Owlblocks (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Your personal opinion as to whether they meet the definition is WP:OR and not useful here. We go by how reliable sources describe the group. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phrasing in lead

I might suggest a couple of tweaks to the lead. The fist one is the redundant back-to-back repetition of "multiple racist events". And the second tweak is to fit MOS a bit better:

According to The Daily Beast, though the group officially rejects white supremacy, "members have nonetheless appeared at multiple racist events". Members have also engaged in ~~multiple racist events and~~ events centered around fascist, anti-left, and anti-socialist violence; and events centered around ... ~~The Proud Boys glorifies violence~~ The group is frequently accused of glorifying violence,

Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a policy-based reason as to why we should use weasel words to white wash the organization? Jorm (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I absolutely do not want to "whitewash" this organization. They are a terrible, racist group as far as I'm concerned. But explaining this to the reader will be more effective without awkward phrasing, would you not agree? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing "They glorify violence" (fact) to "some people say they glorify violence" (opinion) white-washes it. We are not going to do that. Jorm (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what you mean. So why does this sentence say, "The organization has been described as a hate group by NPR's The Takeaway"? Isn't that also whitewashing, if they are, in fact, a hate group? Please know I'm not trying to argue here, just trying to see what you mean. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You didn't quote the whole sentence. 'Hate group' is a designation used by specific organizations, and it has a quasi-official status. SPLC designated them as a hate group, that's the key part. Saying how "SPLC designated x as a hate group" as opposed "x is a hate group" is whitewashing is like saying "FBI designated x as a domestic terrorist" as opposed to "x is a domestic terrorist" is whitewashing... Which is clearly... not... correct. Now, someone apparently thought that it's a good idea to squeeze in a media organization, NPR, to pad the claim that they are a hate group. NPR is a trusted news org, but they're not expected to make such a designation, it would have to be seen as an opinion. However, an organization glorifying violence is certainly something any competent observer can state as fact, which would make this claim verifiable for our purposes.

In short: the difference is in the specific character of the hate group designation, it's traditionally tied to certain organizations. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

They aren't "frequently" "accused" of glorifying violence. A select number of reliable observers made this statement of fact which makes the claim verifiable. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. What about the other point. The repetition of the phrase? Seems almost like a typo. I'd just fix it, but I thought I'd bring it here, first. I'm not on any kind of mission here, just looking for copy edit opportunities to make the article stronger. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

How about:

Though the group officially rejects white supremacy, members have participated in many racist events and events centered around fascist, anti-left, and anti-socialist violence.

This trims out the quote and attribution to Daily Beast, which doesn't seem necessary, and the bit about Jason Kessler, which introduces more questions than it answers. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that reads a lot better, in my opinion. I wonder if others agree? Thanks for jumping in. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Neo-Nazi ‘active clubs’ spring up around country as handiwork of notorious fascist living abroad"

See [21]. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

complaining, not an actual request

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Proud boys in not far right or extremists. They are traditional and patriotic. 2001:569:5109:8000:4058:4842:3F02:5245 (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources for neo-fascism label

There are only four sources cited for labelling the Proud Boys network as neo-fascist, two of which actually do not use the word neo-fascist but protofascist and cryptofascist. Out of the two remaining sources, one is an editorial piece by Peter McLaren, who is not a political scientist, and is not in the least trying to be neutral (boasting about punching a life-size picture of Donald Trump). I do not think that article qualifies as a neutral source. The only remaining source, the New York Times, does call the group neo-fascist, but does not explain why, and which definition of neo-fascism they used.

I think this article's neutrality would be greatly helped if more sources were added justifying the neo-fascist label, and if those sources also clarified why the group meets a specific definition of neo-fascism. As an example, I would look at the wikipedia page on the Rise Above Movement, where the labels used to describe the group are much more well-defined in the sources referred to. The ADL and the SPLC are generally good sources for these kinds of subjects.

--82.169.68.56 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful input. I will remove McLaren's piece and add two British reliable sources that explicitly call PB "neo-fascist." soibangla (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The SPLC and ADL do not call them neo-fascist, nor do any experts on fascism or the far right. These are the best sources we could find. TFD (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

SPLC: "organized fascist street gangs such as the Proud Boys", "the proto-fascist group", and "The greatest threat to the country comes from a fascistic right-wing political bloc that includes groups like the Proud Boys." Maybe more in this search. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

They make no reference to fascism in their main entry for the group.[22] i don't think that the listing of a search for ""proud boys" fascist" is helpful because it includes terms such as anti-fascist or "far right and fascist." Proto-fascist btw means "tending toward or imitating fascism." (Merrian-Webster)[23] TFD (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's helpful as a quick link for editors who want to research further. If you mean "not helpful as evidence by itself" then I agree. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Proscribed?

Given that Proud Boys attempted an insurrection, is it a proscribed organisation? If not, why not? Other organisations which wish to overturn the democratic basis of government are disallowed from their members joining public/civil service/government organisations. What efforts have been made to stop Proud Boys from infiltrating government agencies? 2.28.151.187 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Are the Proud Boys Neo-Nazi? and what's the difference between Ne0-Nazi and Neo-Fascist in the 21st century?

I ask because they've been removed from List of neo-Nazi organizations by User:Sjö as unsourced in the article. They are in the Neo-Nazism template but in List of neo-fascist groups. And is it realistic now to distinguish? My experience is that these terms are used interchangeably. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that fascism and nazism are related but still different enough that they should be distinguished, and that per WP:V we need a source that specifically says they are a nazi or neo-nazi organisation. Please note that they were added to the list only yesterday. Sjö (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sjö: in the modern political context, what's the difference? And this says "On Aug. 9, Tarrio posted an illustration “from a very talented individual” depicting Proud Boys engaged in combat in front of a burning U.S. Capitol building. The illustration contains a number of pieces of white supremacist and Nazi imagery, including the number 88 – a white supremacist code for the phrase “Heil Hitler.” In a follow-up post, Tarrio wrote, “Zoom in and you’ll enjoy it more.” But what we probably need is a List of neo-fascist groups - I presume you'd agree to that? Doug Weller talk 17:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea, but I think we would have to accept some overlap if different RSs describe a group as both neo-nazi and neo-fascist. My main point and the reason for my original edit is that I think that we must be very careful with the sourcing, especially when it comes to political labels that might be considered derogatory. Sjö (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The terms were invented to decribe successor groups to Nazis and Fascists. In the UK for example, the origin of modern far right groups such as the BNP can be traced to the British Union of Fascists. Neo-Nazi groups, such as the American Nazi Party conciously modelled themselve on the German Nazi Party.

There has long been a debate about the connection between the far right in Europe and America. Following writers such as Adorno who saw fascism as a type of psychopathology, many social scientists classified the U.S. far right as fascist, while others saw it as having developed separately out of America's history. That's partly why the term far right is more often used.

TFD (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The other part is that "far-right" was a term these groups used to soften their image, because Neo-Nazi and fascist were (understandably) something that set most people on edge. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen any examples of that and would be appreciative if you could provide one or at least a reliable source that makes that conclusion. I have seen members of the far right claim they are right-wing or moderate or that the political spectrum is meaningless or try to distance themselves from historical fascism by claiming it was left-wing. TFD (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This is from a long time ago, so I'll have to go digging on a day off to find it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember that coming up. AFAIK, the term was used in European politics to describe right-wing extremists and was adopted by American social scientists. Sara Diamond says that social scientists in the 1950s began to apply the terms "extremist" and "radical right" to U.S. politics in the 1950s, but she sees that as derogatory. They described themselves as "conservatives," which is how she describes them.[24] But I have seen no evidence that they adopted the term far right to distance themselves from fascism. If you have any source that says that, I would be very interested to see it. TFD (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Going local

[25] "Proud Boys Regroup, Focusing on School Boards and Town Councils The far-right nationalist group has become increasingly active at school board meetings and town council gatherings across the country." If you can't read it and want to see a copy, email me. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

False claims

this isn’t anything productive, just NOTFORUM complaining

Tge Proud Boys are not racist or fascist. This is a totally false label put on them by the left. Their leader is a person of color. Their crime is being the enemy of ANTIFA. Which is a communist anti capitalist organization. 75.115.34.92 (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ. Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What does Tario's work as a federal informant have to do with anything

If you want to communicate who this organization is perhaps you should not focus on the personal life of its high profile members and focus on their beliefs. It reads as a personal smear, not an explanation of who these people are. All you have done here is give credit to their claim that they are unfairly represented in the media. The truth is the truth and attempting to colour the truth with irrelevant factoids only works to cloud the truth. This is supposed to be a place where we share the truth, free of spin. 2607:FEA8:545F:87B0:1C5:E97:7CF2:C148 (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

How is it a smear? The Proud Boys of Alabama chapter disavowed him because of that, which seems very relevant to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Being a federal informant is not just about someone's "personal life." It needs to be viewed in the overall context along with his other government related activities. Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Proud Boys Leader Yells Racist Slurs Before Attacking Black Woman

This has video of a Proud Boys leader brutally attacking an innocent black woman and yelling racial slurs at her. Since he's a leader of the Proud Boys, I think this info could be especially useful in the article:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/andrew-walls-proud-boys-assault-video_n_621c87a3e4b0afc668c2eda2

Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

He's a local chapter VP, not a Proud Boys leader. I don't know if it's significant enough to the org in general to merit mention. VQuakr (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy in Capitol riot"

https://www.opb.org/article/2022/06/06/proud-boys-charged-with-seditious-conspiracy-in-capitol-riot/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2022

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the first sentence ending...FROM "American Organization" TO an "Anti-American Organization" 2600:387:C:6F12:0:0:0:9 (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it is an American organization, just a terrible one, so

Not done. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Clear bias and false information

What about the proud boys actually is fascist, not the fake definition but the actual real fact definition of fascism, I see no fascist idea's (nationalism is not fascism) and clearly 0 "white supremercy", Miriam Webster defines fascism as such, "often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition", proud boys stand for decentralization (states retaining independent rights and privileges over the central us government) and the continuing of the current American political system (elected officials otherwise known as democracy), what you describe with the "fascist" label is what Antifa stand for but you haven't labeled Antifa as "neo-fascist", when did Wikipedia(an information platform) become so politically charged. 101.100.148.250 (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It might've been that whole thing where they stormed the Capitol and demanded the Vice President be hanged and that the peaceful transfer of power from a free and fair election be stopped so that their preferred guy be installed as a dictator. Either way, see if the reliable sources describe them that way, if they don't, then we'll change it. Andrevan@ 03:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

PYOB as an alias

The redirect POYB is referring to something added to the infobox in this edit citing the ADL. I have confirmed that to the ADL as claimed, but almost nowhere else reliable (if the ADL can be considered reliable on this topic, I don't know as I don't edit this topic) backs the claim up. Is this a true alias of the Proud Boys? Sennecaster (Chat) 00:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove neo-fascism from opening sentance

It is not on the ideology page Option 1 have neo fascism in both Option 2 have cryptofascism in both 176.72.43.90 (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It’s not clear what you’re suggesting. Acroterion (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

New Findings after the First Day of the January 6th Committee Hearings

New information about the role of the Proud Boys came out after the start of the January 6th Hearings on June 9th, 2022:

Caroline Edwards and Nick Quested testified as to what they experienced on Jan. 6th.
Nick Quested provided new video on the Proud Boys from the documentary that he was shooting at the time.
On June 17th, after the Hearings started, the New York Times completed an investigative video tracking the movements and roles of several key members of the Proud Boys during the insurrection.

Taken together the new information shows:

The Proud Boys played a key tactical role.
- They had a special command structure for Jan. 6th.
- They formed into teams.
- The NYT video shows the leaders falling back when progress stalls and then redirecting Proud Boys to different attack points.
Evidence suggests the attack was well-planned.
- They marched directly to the Capitol, not to Trump's speech.
- The statement of the Proud Boy called Milkshake "...let's go storm the Capitol with Nordean"
- The statement by the woman in front of the Capitol with the Proud Boys, “I’m not allowed to say what is going to happen today, because everyone’s just going to have to watch for themselves, but it’s going to happen, something’s gonna happen one way or the other."
The size of the Proud Boys contingent was considerable, about 300.
The Capitol Police were outnumbered at least 50 to 1.
According to an informant, the Proud Boys would have killed Pence.

Key Citations

If you have not watched the New York Times investigative video in the first article, I strongly recommend it. I have put much of these new findings together. There are multiple references to the NYT video, each providing different times in the video for the events or text cited, but the difference in times does not seem to show up unless you try to go to the YouTube video of the NYT investigative report.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The plan was, according to prosecutors, that the Proud Boys would be attacked by antifa and Trump would be forced to declare martial law. The Proud Boys would then retrieve their weapons and serve as auxiliaries to the armed forces and Capitol police. The vote would then be suspended and Trump would remain president after Jan. 20 by default. There's no evidence there was any plan to enter the building before the mob (illegally) entered the grounds. TFD (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory information on chairman

The lead refers to Enrique Tarrio both as "chairman" and as "former chairman". The latter is cited from this press release about his indictment. A lot of news articles also refer to him as the former chairman, but I can't find anything about a change of leadership or a new leader. Perhaps the group is considered to no longer have a recognized chairman due to the statement from the Alabama, Indiana and Oklahoma chapters (quoted in the article) that they don't recognize his authority. Someone with more insight into these issues should resolve this inconsistency; in case he is no longer considered chairman, the article on Enrique Tarrio himself would also need to be updated. Joriki (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Joriki this is a sources issue, not one we could use an expert for so I’ve removed your template. Opinions even of an expert would be of no help. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

In case anyone missed "Proud Boys memo reveals meticulous planning for ‘street-level violence" in the Guardian

It's here.[26] Doug Weller talk 14:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The opening sentence should be changed to this:

"The Proud Boys is an American far-right, neo-fascist, white nationalist, street gang that is exclusively a male organization that engages in a range of street-level violence and promotes and participates in political violence in the United States.[1][7][8]

additional cites:

Campbell, A. (2022). We are Proud Boys: How a right-wing street gang ushered in a new era of American extremism. Hachette Books ISBN 9780306827464
Reid, S. E., & Valasik, M. (2020). Alt-right gangs: A hazy shade of white. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520300453
Valasik, M. & Reid, S. E. (2021) “Why Law Enforcement Needs to Classify Far-right Groups as Gangs?” Contexts, 20(4): 70-71.

The second sentence should be changed to this:

"Despite the Proud Boys penchant for violence and street gang characteristics[Campbell, 2022; Reid & Valasik, 2020] the group is designated as a terrorist group in Canada[9][10] and New Zealand,[6] in the United States the group is regularly Mavalasik (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Curious what others think of the label "street gang" because there are several outlets (such as this one), and others that define them this way. I believe the founder called them a gang in an interview, too. Certainly not how they are typically described, though. Perhaps we can say "which has been called a street gang" or something. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

“Which have been called” sounds good Dronebogus (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

What about as an addition to the second sentence of the lead in bold below. One possible way to phrase it:

The Proud Boys is an American far-right, neo-fascist, white nationalist, and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States. Among various definitions, it has been called a street gang and was designated as a terrorist group in Canada and New Zealand. The Proud Boys are known for their opposition to left-wing and progressive groups and their support for former U.S. President Donald Trump. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I've added ISBNs and a link for these sources, to make verification easier (archive.org for the contexts one, which isn't loading for me). Page numbers would be nice.

I have not checked the books, but the contexts.org opinion is interesting. As a source, it could potentially supplement other academic sourcess, but probably shouldn't stand on its own for this.

Do any reliable sources dispute that this group is a gang or street gang specifically? Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think they have. But I don't think it's the most common label, either. Seems fine to include the term, in my opinion, based on the RS that does exist. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I can provide you any cites that you need. Mavalasik (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: I'm closing the request while it's under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Their description as a street gang is figurative. They don't actually have a street they operate from and in fact operate across the U.S. and perhaps other countries. Also, they don't engage in typical street gang behavior, such as pickpocketing and burglary. TFD (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That's true, Mr. Dickens. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I assumed street fighting was more the intention of the term, which does fit the Proud Boys, but it's up to reliable sources, regardless. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The most robust description in academia that someone is member of a street gang is self nomination, which Gavin McInnes has articulated numerous times. Also, street gangs are not always territorial, and do not need to be spatially bound to a specific street. That being said, Proud Boys routinely hangout in public locations, specific bars for example, and defend these spaces from outsiders. Proud Boys also engage in cafeteria-style offending with lots of different types of crime, no different than traditional street gangs. Mavalasik (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

These are myths about gangs that you are talking about. Street gangs are not always territorial, and do not need to be spatially bound to a specific street. That being said, Proud Boys routinely hangout in public locations, specific bars for example, and defend these spaces from outsiders. Proud Boys also engage in cafeteria-style offending with lots of different types of crime, no different than traditional street gangs Mavalasik (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Partly done: Added the gist of it, with edits based on discussion. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you did not include the other cite by Reid & Valasik, which is actual academic research vs. Campbell’s journalist piece? They are the only two substantive pieces that are sea with this issue, and Reid & Valasik came out first. Can you have both listed? Mavalasik (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The Politico link that you included with the Campbell cite, is just referencing his book. It is not an independent supporting cite, like Reid & Valasik would be. Mavalasik (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

For Reid & Valasik, do you have page numbers? That would make it easier to summarize this.

The Politico source does cite the book, but the author also calls the Proud Boys a "street gang" for context. Specifically, the source is using this phrase as context for the interview, not just as part of the interview itself. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Proud boys are discussed at length by Reid & Valasik as a street gang, but there is an entire subsection focused on the group as one on pages 24-29. Does this help? Mavalasik (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mavalasik We don't want to overcite, either. An academic source is not necessarily needed to back up how the group is defined by media, general public, etc. In short, unless someone is disputing the fact itself, I think the two sources there now are fine. Good to have more options if needed, though. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely understand about not overciting. My point is that by having a variety of sources, academic and journalistic, provides more support to the claim that they are a street gang, instead of readers seeing that the cites are just from the "liberal media." I always feel that a diversity of cites supporting an argument is stronger than just one voice, in this case a book by Andy Campbell and a interview with him. 130.160.126.3 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely understand about not overciting. My point is that by having a variety of sources, academic and journalistic, provides more support to the claim that they are a street gang, instead of readers seeing that the cites are just from the "liberal media." I always feel that a diversity of cites supporting an argument is stronger than just one voice, in this case a book by Andy Campbell and an interview with him. Mavalasik (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mavalasik It seems clear by your username that you may be, or be associated with Matthew Valasik, in which case you should state you have a conflict of interest in getting that source included in the article. 15:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am the author of the book and an expert is street gangs. I did not try to hide my identity in calling out the improper identifying of Proud Boys as a gang. I apologize for not making it more clear. The book is the only modern academic monograph that accurately looks at far-right group through the lens of street gangs. You can look at my CV and clearly see that I am not a hack. I just want the group to be labeled accurately and people and the criminal justice system to start thinking about them in that way. A throughly researched academic book that connects across disciplines will carry more weight for some audiences than a a journalists expose. Again that is the point I am trying to make. Wikipedia is not just todays hot takes but is a modern day encyclopedia and should be sourced as such. Mavalasik (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Simply put, Wikipedia has strict rules about promoting your own work. Please see WP:COI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am new to suggesting edits to wikipedia. That being said, can on e of the other editors tell me that the book I am suggesting, published by UC Press, is not more appropriate than an interview puff piece by Politico? One of the editors can make look at both pieces and see which cite is more valued to people trying to learn the truth about Proud Boys. Mavalasik (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The Proud Boys have been called many things, and there is no formal, scientific definition of a street gang in the U.S. that I'm aware of. So, the sources for the label should be sufficient to say that they've been "called" a street gang. In this case, by an editor at a major publication, and by a journalist who covers that topic extensively. In short, the sources there now are reliable and independent, and suitable, in my opinion. I do think there should be additional explanation in the body of the article (since the lead is meant to summarize the body) and it could be that additional sources would help, depending on the context, in that area. But that's a separate edit. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There are formal, scientific definitions of a street gangs that have consensus in the field of criminology. The Eurogang definition, which we use in our book is the most robust in academia. Under the Eurogang definition, “any durable, street-oriented youth group whose own identity includes involvement in illegal activity” is considered a street gang. As I state earlier, I have a PhD in Criminology and an expert in street gangs, I am not sure why there is so much pushback against the expert in the field of of study being discussed. Why are my credentials dismissed compared to journalists? While I may not know all of the ins and outs of editing on Wikipedia, I do know the research on street gangs extensively.

Would it be beneficial for me to writeup a whole section about why Proud Boys are a street gang in the body of the document?Mavalasik (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Your research already appears to be cited in the first sentence of the lead, actually. See here. You're welcome to expand on the gang definition in the History and Organization section and suggest a sentence or two here on the Talk Page, this time explicitly mentioning who you are, but since you're already cited in the article, it's going to look like unnecessary promotion. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible then to switch that source cited in the first sentence to Reid, S. E., & Valasik, M. (2020). Alt-right gangs: A hazy shade of white. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520300453, instead. The chapter that is cited in the first sentence was derived from the book. Then I will also be able to cite the book appropriately in the gang section and I am not "unnecessarily promoting" myself.Mavalasik (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggested addition!

In the second paragraph of the History and Organization section there needs to be more discussion about Proud Boys being a street gang first and foremost. The material I am suggesting can be added at the beginning of the second paragraph. From Proud Boys inception McInnes has publicly labeled the group as being a gang (Rogan 2017). Self-nomination is consistently shown as being one of the most robust predictors of gang involvement (Esbensen et al., 2001). Despite there being no universal academic or legal definition of street gang, Proud Boys clearly meet the Eurogang definition, which has a strong consensus among gang scholars, “any durable, street-oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is part of their group identity” (Decker, Pyrooz, & Densley, 2022). Proud Boys actively appeal to marginalized men, who yearn for a nostalgic past of hegemonic masculinity where the bestowed privilege of being male were not questioned, sharing a collective identity (DeCook, 2018; Reid & Valasik, 2020). That identity is a hipster persona that deploys humor and irony to facilitate far-right arguments attacking the political, social, and cultural status quo, opposing feminism, immigration, political correctness, and establishment politics (DeCook, 2018). Proud Boys routine behaviors and characteristics are also analogous with street gangs, primarily hanging out together, drinking beer, and participating in a variety of criminal acts, primarily violence ([10]; Reid & Valasik, 2020; Rogan 2017). Additionally, Proud Boys adopted a specific set of colors, yellow and black, along with a mascot, a cockerel, frequently worn on Fred Perry polo shirts in public as a uniform to clearly display group affiliation [274][275][276]. Proud Boys also use violent initiation ceremonies to “jump in” new members, along with a variety of other identifiers, such as getting a Proud Boy tattoo, that further indicate group loyalty and reinforce collective identity [10].

Cites:

Rogan, J. (2017). Joe Rogan Experience #920—Gavin McInnes [Video]. https://www.bitchute.com/video/lrRL5PzeOxu6/

Esbensen, F.-A., Winfree, L. T., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gangs and definitional issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime & Delinquency, 47(1), 105-130.

Decker, S. H., Pyrooz, D.C., & Densley, J. A. (2022) On Gangs. Temple University Press.

DeCook, J. R. (2018). Memes and symbolic violence: #Proudboys and the use of memes for propaganda and the construction of collective identity. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(4), 485-504.

Reid, S. E., & Valasik, M. (2020). Alt-right gangs: A hazy shade of white. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520300453

I will note that I am a tenured professor of criminology and criminal justice, an expert in street gangs, and one of the few academics that are treating Proud Boys with the concern that they warrant. I am citing my own work, along with Andy Campbell's brand-new book, because they are the most appropriate pieces of research that clearly articulate the rational for why Proud Boys are a street gang. Mavalasik (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I would summarize it like this: McInnes has publicly labeled the group as a gang, and criminologists have pointed to the Proud Boys initiation ceremonies, involvement in criminal and violent behavior, identifying apparel and tattoos, and other characteristics as consistent with street gangs.[1][2][3]

But I would really like some other editors input on this, as it's been only you and me discussing this, and you have a COI. Anyone? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This looks good, but I do have a couple of concerns:

Outside of the Proud Boys, McInnes is mainly known for his supposed use of "hipster irony", which makes a quote taken from a podcast hosted on Bitchute especially flimsy as a primary source.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a journal, so we don't use sources to make conclusions. Instead, we summarize existing conclusions.

Esbensen et al., 2001 is WP:SYNTH here, since that source obviously doesn't mention the Proud Boys. Likewise, Decker, Pyrooz, & Densley should not be cited in this article unless it mentions the Proud Boys directly. Either could be cited if they clarify some disputed point, and the sources are explicitly contextualized as relevant by another reliable source on the Proud Boys. That is the kind of thing which would typically be explained in a footnote instead of in the article itself, but it's probably not necessary.

Otherwise, if the sources support this, go for it. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Good points. I agree, and think the McInnes line should go, and only sources mentioning the Proud Boys as consistent with these characteristics should be used. Which brings us back to using the Valasik and Campbell books, which I'll have to review to make sure they mention those characteristics. @Mavalasik You're welcome to chime in and point me in the right direction to the pages that would support the sentence in green. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The pages in Reid & Valasik, 2020 that directly support the sentence in green are on pages 24-29. Chapter 2 of Campbell's book supports this also. I do not have the book in front of me to look up the pages.

Also, the cite on Bitchute is the video of the Joe Rogan Experience. The direct link to the episode has the video hidden, that is why I included the bit chute one instead. Here is the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast link (https://www.jrepodcast.com/episode/joe-rogan-experience-920-gavin-mcinnes/).

Does this help? Mavalasik (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If a reliable source (which also means independent source in this case) mentions that McInnes has called them a gang, than we should just use that source. If the only source we have for this is WP:PRIMARY, in my opinion it's probably not worth including in this article. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Here is a independent story from Rolling Stone that you can cite instead of the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast.

Dickson, E.J. (2021). The Rise and Fall of Proud Boys. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/proud-boys-far-right-group-1183966/

Mavalasik (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I've made the addition and added the two book sources. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Categorization

Regarding recent categorization discussion, the article already exists in Category:Fascism in the United States and Category:Proud Boys, both of which are diffusing subcategories in the Category:Far-right politics in the United States tree. Please refer to WP:CATSPECIFIC. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. My knee jerked a bit. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2022

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

requesting more substantive changes, if they are justified with reference to reliable sources, and not the subject of ongoing discussion Coomer 3 (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Grammar

What kind of grammar fuckery is this?

"The '''Proud Boys''' are...an organization"

"It" is an organization. It, it, it.

That edit was made by User:Recobben. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think both "are" and "is" would be OK in the first sentence – "are" would match "boys", "is" would match "organization". The rest of the article always uses plural verbs with "Proud Boys" (but of course singular with "organization" or "group"). Other Wikipedia articles aren't quite consistent either: Articles about musical groups and sport teams almost always use "are", e.g. "the Green Bay Packers are a ... team", but articles about political groups seem to prefer "is", even if the name of the group is a plural term. It's complicated. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I certainly prefer "is" - among other things we can use it to distinguish between the organisation, "is", and members of the group acting togather, "are".. Although it would be better to say "organization" when that's what the article is discussing. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. The confusion comes from the fact that "Proud Boys" both refers to the members and to the organization as a whole. In this particular sentence, it's referring to the overall organization, so "is" would be the appropriate word. If we were referring to the members as a collective, then "are" would be correct. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the type of situation where we should be consistent and remove all ambiguity. We can do that by always referring to the people as "members" and their organization as some synonym of "organization." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be needlessly clunky to always say "the Proud Boys members" whenever we're talking about them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I am suggesting we only write "members." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that makes the most sense I think. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There may be spots that won't work, but the idea is to prevent ambiguity by using common sense. Just make it work. Be creative when necessary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no need to change anything.

In the first sentence, we say "the Proud Boys is an [...] organization". That's fine. ("the Proud Boys are an [...] organization" would be fine as well – just like "the Green Bay Packers are a [...] team" is perfectly fine.)

In the third sentence, we say "the Proud Boys are known for [...]". That's fine as well. Changing this sentence to "the Proud Boys is known for [...]" or "members of the Proud Boys are known for [...]" would not be an improvement. Maybe one of these forms would be grammatically more correct according to some rules, but both would make the sentence less readable. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Proud Boys vs Antifa Page

Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈænti(ˌ)fə/) is a left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement in the United States. It consists of a highly decentralized array of autonomous groups that use both nonviolent direct action and violence to achieve their aims.[1][2][3] Most antifa political activism is nonviolent, involving poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, and community organizing.

The Proud Boys is an American far-right, neo-fascist, and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States.[1][11][12] It has been called a street gang[13][14] and was designated as a terrorist group in Canada[15][16] and New Zealand.

Why are Proud Boys declared a far right strictly violent street gang terrorist group, while ANTIFA is declared a highly decentralized left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement that is mostly non-violent?

This page clearly paints proud boys in a strictly highly exaggerated negative light. Proud Boys are not strictly violent, and not strictly neo facist and in most cases are peaceful. This gets a mention in the antifa first paragraph, yet proud boys don't get that same favorable courtesy? Please adjust the sentence to mention that they engage in both violent AND non violent activity, just like ANTIFA. Please also remove the neofascist mention, this is not factual. 2601:243:702:4D50:3EFA:6492:1103:95FC (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Those things in the brackets represent reliable sources that support the statements made. That's why the leads are the ways that they are. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The two groups are described differently because they are not mirror images of each other.Police organizations and criminal gangs for example are opponents, but they are organized differently and have different cultures, despite many points of similarity, such as a tendency to authoritarian views. TFD (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Justify the use of "Fascism"

It's not really clear what could objectively be meant by "fascist" in this article, if anything, other than perhaps nationalism and civilian political violence, which is not enough to define someone as fascist: by this definition, the Koumintang, the Vietcong, the French resistance, and the Hong Kong independence movement are all "fascist." Also, in defense of the claim that McInnes is far-right, you cite that his organization is designated as a terrorist group in Canada. So is the Communist Party of Peru. Does that make them far-right?

Of course, anyone who were to read this article would realize that "fascist" is being used in a purely juveinle, pejorative, subjective sense. The organization does not describe itself as such and has excommunicated members who promote it. It is nearly as absurd to describe the Proud Boys as fascist as it is to describe Antifa as fascist; both of them share vague cosmetic similarities with fascism, as well as in tactics, but clearly neither are fascist. Harry Sibelius (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

We describe the Proud Boys as the reliable sources describe them. We'll describe the Communist Party of Peru as the sources do as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@MuboshguAlright. Also, please excuse my liberal use of the word "you" to describe Wikipedia and its users generally. Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

White supremacy has been a common denominator of neo-fascism for most of its history. I think you see Biden trying out a new term like “semi-fascist” because this is a bit different. There are many references calling the Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990) neo-fascist, but I think Wikipedia is correct not to include it in the neo-fascism series. There is no good word for the ideology of the Pinochet government or the Proud Boys, but I think the two are very similar. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The good sources describing Pinochet as fascist use the Marxist definition, that is, when capitalist regimes replace constitutional government with dictatorship. However, since social scientists began studying fascism, there is no support for this definition among fascism scholars.

Equating white supremacy with fascism is problematic, because it would classify all European powers prior to the end of the Second World War as fascist. TFD (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

By "common denominator", I don't mean white supremacy alone would equate to fascism. The "Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, racial supremacy, populism, authoritarianism, nativism, xenophobia, and anti-immigration sentiment, as well as opposition to liberal democracy, social democracy, parliamentarianism, liberalism, Marxism, neoliberalism, communism, and socialism" definition is pretty good. I am saying the racial supremacy element is missing. You can watch videos of Proud boys arguing with white supremacists that remind me of the way Biden Democrats argue with the defund-the-police crowd over police reform. The Biden Democrats disagree with the defund-the-police strategy but want to keep the defund-the-policers in the party. Similarly, the Proud Boy leadership disagree with the white supremacists, but want to keep them in their Trumpism party. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Suffice to say, white supremacy is not the sole purview of fascist governments/organizations, but fascist governments/organizations have a marked tendency to adopt white supremacy as a foundation of their movement.

Either way, this is a bit of a tangent. The article has reliable sources describing the Proud Boys. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

They aren't Neo-Fascist

Don't feed these kinds of posts. They are not constructive attempts to improve the article, and thus fail WP:FORUM. I'll HAT instead of deleting, since we've got replies already. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Proud Boys aren't Neo-Fascist. They are definitely Nationalist but aren't Facists. They wish to protect the Constitution in it's original form and insure that the process isn't hijacked by radicalized Leftist elements. 184.55.99.169 (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

LOL!...."protect the Constitution in it's original form and insure that the process isn't hijacked by radicalized Leftist elements." Ummm, a history lesson is in order. The Constitution and the Founding Fathers were leftists, anti-fascists, anti-royalists, and closely allied with the very-radicAL and very left-wing French revolutionaries. That's what made America different from most European countries of the time. European countries were ruled by the right-wing, IOW the royals and wealthy classes. They were class societies. By contrast, America had this radically new "we are all equal", down with class society, idea, IOW it was ruled by the common people, the left-wing, and the people held the power through the vote and democracy. At the time, America was the only country ruled by left-wing, democratic, ideals. No kings, dictators, or titles of nobility, and because of regularly scheduled voting, no sense of need for violent revolution. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly a far-right neo-fascist hate group, but "white nationalist" doesn't really fit

Enough. This has devolved into throwing accusations at other editors. If you have a specific edit you wish to suggest for the article, make a new section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The group is led by Enrique Tarrio, an Afro-Cuban, who says "I'm pretty brown, I'm Cuban. There's nothing white supremacist about me." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

See Self-hating Jew and EXPLORING WHAT IS BEHIND THE RARE PHENOMENON OF JEWISH ANTI-SEMITES. Doug Weller talk 21:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Certainly that is one theory of why Tarrio is in bed with so many white nationalists. Another is that he willing to join forces with white nationalists (with whom he disagrees) in what he views as a more important fight against socialism. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I think I saw something about Proud Boys saying they think Tarrio is just a front to make them look better. Dronebogus (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The article should describe them the way reliable sources do. For example, the ADL says, "The Proud Boys are a right-wing extremist group with a violent agenda. They are primarily misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration. Some members espouse white supremacist and antisemitic ideologies and/or engage with white supremacist groups."[27] The SPLC calls them a "General Hate" group, not easily categorized. IOW, they attempt to bring together various strands of the far right and deliberately do not have a core ideology. TFD (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. "Some members" espouse white supremist views, but not all members and not the leader. I have been to several BLM marches where some marchers wore communist party shirts and carried communist party signs, but if someone made the the claim that BLM was a communist movement in the led of the BLM article, it would properly be reverted. We do a disservice to our readers when we do not hold articles about despicable groups to the same high NPOV standards as normal articles.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, I do think the Proud Boy have a core ideology, which is pretty well summarized in their slogan “Pinochet did nothing wrong!”. Tarrio sells a t-shirt stating this on his own web site, and Tusitala Toese is often photographed wearing it. Their ideology is that bringing about a violent dictatorship where torture is commonplace is the best way to fight socialism in the US and elsewhere. See https://archive.thinkprogress.org/amazon-shirts-pinochet-far-right-aed4d58ccb0a/ and https://www.splcenter.org/files/proudboyssellingpinochetjpeg . As this ideology is not a cause celeb like white supremacy, you see far more of an issued made about one unknown Proud Boy at one rally wearing a 6MWE t-shirt, a shirt not sold on any Proud Boy web site and which no one in Proud Boy leadership has ever been photographed wearing. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Proud Boys are a white nationalist group who tries to excuse their behavior as being anti-socialist (where "socialist" is used to mean "things we don't like"). Their rhetoric belies the idea that they are just against socialism, since they lump in anything they consider "woke" to be socialist. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The idea this hate group is open about being pro-Pinochet, pro-dictatorship, pro-torture and murder of socialists, anti-immigration, anti-feminist, anti-LGBT+ rights, and islamophobic, but is hiding their white nationalist agenda is an interesting theory. I don’t see much evidence for it, but I see a lot of evidence against it. Tarrio is Afro-Cuban, Gibson is Japanese American, and Toese is Samoan. McInnes, whose wife is the daughter of Native American activist Christine Whiterabbit Jendrisak, once said "I've made my views on Indians very clear. I like them. I actually like them so much, I made three." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Being pro-Pinochet is not an ideology. Pinochet supporters included liberals, conservatives and far right. Many of them of course were also white nationalists.

I think it is very short-sighted to claim that the Proud Boys as a group have a white nationalist agenda. It's basically saying we've seen this before so they must be the same. But the American far right also originally had a virulent anti-Catholic agenda. They now however accept Irish and Italians as those groups became absorbed into American society. Six of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are now Catholics - that's not just tokenism. Now they seem to be attracting Hispanics, who are also (slowly) moving into U.S. Society. No doubt they would also like to attract more blacks. Also, while many members are anti-Semitic, they also attract members from the Jewish far right. TFD (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is short sighted. It may dangerously underestimate the Proud Boys as well to assume they are white nationalist, I think their appeal is far broader than that. I watched some of McInnes's attempted intervention with Kenya West, trying to convince him being anti-Semitic is a mistake and that many of the Orthodox Jews are Trump allies. It sounds like anyone of any race who is a Trump ally is considered a Proud Boy ally.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Here^[1] is a fairly good academic paper on the Proud Boys' white nationalism. The first sentence of its abstract is The Proud Boys are an opportunistic hate group whose message of white male chauvinism is infused with religious and nationalist symbols. It says in the body that However, the ideology of the Proud Boys seems to be ever fluctuating, as are its targets. It has been pointed out that founder McInnes plays a duplicitous rhetorical game in rejecting the label of white nationalist and alt-right while espousing many tenets associated therewith. This paper says much the same thing (see especially the section Denial & Shifting Blame: DARVO as a Discursive Tactic, which focuses on how they obscure their white nationalist ties.) Other good sources include "Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate: How the Alt-Right Is Warping the American Imagination"^[2], an entire book from an academic publisher exploring modern white nationalism via the Proud Boys. In terms of news coverage, Politico calls them a "white nationalist fight club"^[3], a characterization that another academic paper has cited approvingly. So while they deny that they are white nationalist, I don't think that this is treated seriously in academia - they're frequently covered in-depth as a white nationalist group, and are often used as an example of what a modern white nationalist group looks like. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this research is pretty out-of-date and weak. There is no mention of Tarrio, who took over in 2018, in either the Kitts or the Kutner paper. These papers make the assumption you can't prove the group is despicable unless you can uncover some hidden ties to white nationalism greater than the fact a significant subset of the membership is involved with white nationalism. I think this is unnecessary, there is plenty of despicable stuff out in the open. The thing Kitts gets right is the stuff about Trump being their hero, I wish the article would expand on that. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. The ICCT paper is incredibly duplicitous. I quote the following from the article:

“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for our white children”. The latter is referred to as “the fourteen words”. The Proud Boy’s slogan is thematically linked to the fourteen words, as both emphasize the need to secure or preserve western or white culture. To provide further evidence of the linguistic bridge between western and white nationalism, it is important to reference an episode of the Gavin McInnes show, where his guest, Emily Youcis, a vocal supporter of white nationalism, implored him to say the fourteen words to prove he was at the crux of “this movement.” Gavin McInnes, in response, recited the 14 words, replacing “white” with western."

Somehow, the fact that McInnes declines to make pro-White statements is used as evidence that he is a white supremacist.

It seems that the main evidence that the Proud Boys is a "White Nationalist" organization is that they frequently insist that they are not. If this is true, then Antifa must be Fascist, Mumia Abu-Jamal must be a cop-killer, and Jews must be the clandestine rulers of the Earth, because they all protest so much that they are not.

Also, Tarrio is mentioned in the Hague paper, though just as an "Afro-Cuban." Harry Sibelius (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean Why did you delete @Drowlord's post here? Harry Sibelius (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that deletion was awkwardly done on my cellphone and not ideal. I somehow missed the chance to leave an edit summary, so I went to his talk page and left a warning. We don't allow editors to come here and push their own conspiracy theories. Otherwise, the source and info about Tarrio being an informant is very old news and already in the article, right in the lead with multiple sources. We lost nothing, but I'll have to figure out this mobile editing thing. It doesn't always work well for me, and now, on my phone, I see that talk pages are without a TOC. I don't like it and will have to figure out what's going on. It comes and goes, so I suspect I may be unwittingly triggering some setting. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

There has been plenty of "conspiracy-theorizing" on this talk-page, such as that Enrique Tarrio is a "self-hating" black latino, or that "I think I saw something about Proud Boys saying they think Tarrio is just a front to make them look better." Drowlord at least supported his claim with a somewhat relevant source, unlike others on this thread. You clearly are acting in bad faith, and do not actually have any problem with conspiracy theories, or else you would've deleted the other comments. Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

That makes no sense. I didn't read the thread, just his comment. What was there (provide an exact quote) in that source that "supported his claim"? You should read my warning on his talk page. You must AGF or stop editing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are you deleting random comments on threads that you haven't read? You are obviously familiar with the subject, as you say that you are familiar with Tarrio's status as an FBI asset. All you wrote on his page was "Conspiracy theories. Don't spread them here." What am I supposed to learn from that? Drowlord wrote was that Tarrio is an FBI asset, with a reliable source backing up his claim. Did you take issue with his claim that PB is itself a creation of intelligence? If so, you must justify why you take issue with this conspiracy theory, but not baseless, unsourced claims of "self-hating" blacks conspiring with Nazis in this same thread. Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have to take issue with or correct other issues because I take issue with one problem. If I see a problem, I'm allowed to focus on that problem.

I took issue with this part of their comment: "The organization is a puppet hate group run by the FBI to justify their domestic terrorism work." Pushing such conspiracy theories is not allowed here. It is forbidden advocacy of fringe opinions. The link Drowlord provided is already used in the article and the issue is a very old one we have already dealt with, so nothing was lost by deleting the comment. We have documented that Tarrio was an FBI asset for a long time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Kitts, Margo. [b "Proud Boys, Nationalism, and Religion"]. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Stern, Alexandra Minna (16 July 2019). Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate: How the Alt-Right Is Warping the American Imagination. Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0-8070-6336-1 – via Google Books.
^ Magazine, Politico. "What Charlottesville Changed". POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved 2022-12-18.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we add anti Zionism to the Ideology list?

The founder, Gavin Mclnnes once wrote a list about the things he hates about Israel, one of the Proud Boys leaders said Zionists are criminals who are trying destroy our civilization. Bradenmeddleton (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources we can cite for those statements? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.jta.org/2020/11/11/united-states/a-leader-of-the-proud-boys-says-it-is-now-a-fully-white-supremacist-group-called-the-proud-goys Bradenmeddleton (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this source is sufficient to identify this as part of the group's overall ideology. The source notes It is unclear how Chapman’s call has been received by others in the group. Other Proud Boys channels on Telegram have not reflected the changes he wants to institute, and a message from the administrator of one said, “No, we are not the Proud Goys. No, Kyle didn’t stage a coup,” and then referred to him with an ableist slur. If this change were broadly accepted, I would expect additional sources would have reported on it in the intervening two plus years. VQuakr (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2023

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The word "always" needs to be changed in the sentence

"The Proud Boys are known for their opposition to left-wing and progressive groups and for their support for former U.S. President Donald Trump,[1][10] who has always denounced such groups, including the Proud Boys.[15][16]"

because it simply isn't true, as later described in the article.

I suggest the following

"The Proud Boys are known for their opposition to left-wing and progressive groups and for their support for former U.S. President Donald Trump,[1][10] who sometimes denounced and sometimes offered acknowledgement of such groups, including the Proud Boys.[15][16]" Chuckjonesbabygorilla (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Partly done: I'm going to change "has always" to "has". "Offered acknowledgement" doesn't appear in the article and needs consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ideology

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

So i looked through the PDF linked in Reference No. 1. The word "Chauvinism" are mentioned two times, "Authoritarianism" are mentioned one time, "islamophobia" are mentioned 0 times and none of those are in relation to the subject of the article.

Does the reference really support the statements or am i missing something?

Overall it might be a good idea to diversify the references for the ideology section of the infobox Trade (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Callme mirela 🍁 19:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Trying to get some consensus here @Callmemirela:--Trade (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Then the edit request template is inappropriate to establish consensus. Callme mirela 🍁 21:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll make the change myself if i dont get any responses within a week Trade (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trade @Callmemirela Authoritarianism is not an ideology, but a political system; it should be removed.

Anti-immigration, anti-feminism and anti-LGBT rights can be summarized with the term social conservatism.

What do you think of the following ideologies (as internal factions)?

Pinochetism

"The Proud Boys have increasingly embraced Pinochet as a sort of mascot. “Helicopter ride” memes and the phrase “Make Rotary Aircraft Great Again” – references to the dictator’s practice of dropping political enemies from helicopters – are common on Proud Boys’ social media posts. At one point, the group also sold merchandise and gear featuring a crest associated with Pinochet."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys

Occidentalism

"but welcome non-white members as long as these members acknowledge that Western civilization is superior to all others"

https://www.populismstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ECPS-Organisation-Profile-Series-1.pdf

Right-wing libertarianism

"Despite purporting to oppose government tyranny, the Proud Boys’ values exemplify the slippage between right-libertarianism and fascism (Vitolo-Haddad, 2019), working toward what Michael Orth (1990) described as a “libertarian Utopia which combines violence, repression of women, and a dictatorial state into an all-American Utopia which emits strong fascist resonances.” Similarly, political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr. (2013) argues that this contradiction is inevitable in right-wing libertarianism, and the Proud Boys adopt a libertarian “aesthetic” of freedom to promote a politics that is often authoritarian"

https://www.populismstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ECPS-Organisation-Profile-Series-1.pdf 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds excellent to me Trade (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Participation in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (2017)

The episode should be added to the proud boys history section.

References:

"In March 2017, a Proud Boys member named Brandon Vaughan of the Ottawa, Canada, chapter assaulted a Palestinian-American community college professor. Videos of the assault show Proud Boys members fighting alongside the Jewish Defense League, a right-wing militant organization." https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/proud-boys

"Vaughan is a prominent member of the Ottawa Proud Boys, a right-wing group that describes itself as “Western chauvinists.” He is also a regular at far right protests in Ottawa, Toronto and elsewhere in Canada." https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/warrant-issued-after-ottawa-man-skips-u-s-arraignment-on-assault-hate-crime-charges https://canoe.com/news/local-news/warrant-issued-after-ottawa-man-skips-u-s-arraignment-on-assault-hate-crime-charges/wcm/5b97e2c2-4875-47c4-a5e9-730ae5a8e916 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Symbolism

I propose to add the following:

RWDS - Right Wing Death Squad https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/05/09/what-to-know-about-right-wing-death-squad-phrase-linked-to-texas-shooter-proud-boys/

Hoppean snake https://theintercept.com/2021/02/04/pinochet-far-right-hoppean-snake/

If you know of anything else please say. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

p.s. POYB - Proud Of Your Boy

https://extremismterms.adl.org/glossary/proud-your-boy-poyb 93.45.229.98 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Issues (June, 2023)

The neo-fascism template is "open" and takes up much of the page. In the other Wikipedia articles it is "closed" (see show/hide).

There is also a neo-Nazi template that I am not quite sure what it is for. The group is not listed in that template. Also, why in the major action (in the militant organization template) is there not the January 6 Capitol attack instead of "terrorism" which is much more vague?

The organization, formerly registered as Proud Boys International LLC, is now decentralized; the groups are semi-autonomous:

"The Proud Boys is a decentralized organization with semi-autonomous chapters in several U.S. states."

https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/proud-boys

From the way it is written on the ADL website, the organization appears to be international:

"Proud Boys have international chapters in Canada, Britain, Ireland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Australia and the Philippines."

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/proud-boys-0

Kyle Chapman's expulsion is missing.

https://www.insider.com/ousted-proud-boys-underling-attempts-white-supremacist-coup-2020-11

Libertarian Party candidates and Proud Boys members:

Alex Furman

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/he-was-a-drug-smuggler-now-hes-a-proud-boy-and-running-against-cori-bush-34136115

Augustus Sol Invictus before being expelled from the Proud Boys

https://reason.com/2016/11/07/florida-senate-candidate-struggles-bears/

While affiliation with the GOP is present, affiliations with the Libertarian Party have been omitted. In my opinion they are to be incorporated into the article.

93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent label

The article on Augusto Pinochet states, "However, he and his government are generally excluded from academic typologies of fascism." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#Accusations_of_fascism); the sources would all seem to be reliable.

The argument made by Samantha Kutner starts with the premise that Pinochet is fascist, ergo the Proud Boys who glorify him are fascists. (see Proud Boys as a Fascist Organisation pp. 10-11)

It is not objective to write Proud Boys is a fascist organization (with this argument) and such a position falls under WP:FRINGE and WP:WIKIVOICE.

It should then be pointed out that not all sources describe Proud Boys simply as a neo-fascist group, but with other ideologies so quoting only one label at the beginning of the article is POV-pushing. N.B. Both CTC Sentinel and ICC are based on Kutner's position.

Additionally, it would be better to write: is considered neo-fascist by some scholars for supporting Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Instead of trying to make the article incomprehensible to a general audience as it is done now. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Ideology

The article should have a section about "ideology" and specific positions. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a sub-section called "Membership and doctrine", which still omits many positions and enhances the analysis of a small number of scholars. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2023

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Considering that: academic sources use "crypto-fascist" and "proto-fascist"; that the Proud Boys are not inspired by a classical fascist regime, but by Pinochet's Chile (which is not described as neo-fascist by most scholars, but is described as semi-fascist and/or neoliberal (see Pinochetism)). I suggest changing "neo-fascist" (X) to "crypto-fascist/protofascist" (Y). Alternatively, I suggest adding more context. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Rant, not an actual suggestion for improving the article. Closing per WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The entire writen statement about this organization seems heavily prejudiced. Fascism literally can not be people who believe in the us constitution. This group is a Pro American, Anti-Facist group! Stop your treasonous and hate-filled lies! Wikipedia Doublespeak is obviously in full effect here. 2601:601:1100:5EE0:56F2:5803:8647:3735 (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The German Nazi party believed in the German constitution too and were able to obtain power and establish an effective dictatorship through a mix of constitutional and violent means. Hopefully those like the Proud Boys will never have that sort of power or traction. In any case perhaps you should stop with the bile and insults TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You've made a common misunderstanding about the nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedians aren't calling the group fascist, we're just summarizing what the sources say. If you look at the end of the sentence, you can see the list of sources that say this. I'm no expert, but I think you're deeply mistaken when you describe the PBs as Antifascist -- in point of fact that's PB's term for their group's enemies. Feoffer (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Date of Trump quote in lede

Donald Trump said "stand back and stand by" in September, not October. Atubofsilverware (talk) 1:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

[1] Kitts, Margo. [b "Proud Boys, Nationalism, and Religion"]. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[2] Stern, Alexandra Minna (16 July 2019). Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate: How the Alt-Right Is Warping the American Imagination. Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0-8070-6336-1 – via Google Books.

[3] Magazine, Politico. "What Charlottesville Changed". POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved 2022-12-18.

[1]

[2]

[3]