Talk:Proud Boys

References

I want to second the opinion below. This article is completely unhinged non-neutral POV far below Wikipedia standards. Calling this group "far right" is objectively wrong. The group's stated mission is to preserve western culture. THAT is not "far right." It is, by definition, "conservative." Clearly some utterly biased person/persons having a vendetta against the group have the last word on this as my edits have been undone - but this sort of bias makes Wikipedia a joke.

This article is shit and contains 3 shitty references that call proud boys far right so i guess they must be cause well we're calling them that, after all the sky is green because I say it's green. One of the 3 shit references contradicts this article by stating PB is a fight club but this article says FOAK is the fight club part of PB, which is it? I watched the video that reference 2 describes and the AP "reporter" is clearly writing from a partisan viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.132.63.125 (talk • contribs)

You could change the wording to "has been described as far-right". That's not biased and is an adequate way of dealing with your issue. --Aleccat 21:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Done. If anyone else has any comments on this, please use this page. --Aleccat 21:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Next time, consider just making the edit instead of ranting on the talk page and then making the edit. Muad (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

"has been described as far-right" are weasel words. The organization itself declares it is not Alt Right. Why try to insinuate it is? I will make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.183.41 (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

---

I've reverted. 38.132.63.125's comment about the AP journalist is disgusting and sexist. As for the subsequent edit, the downplaying of the group's far-right stances is a form of "improper distancing" - basically distancing ourselves from what the reliable sources say. Where we have multiple high-quality reliable sources that say "Group is X" - and no reliable sources that contradict this, then Wikipedia should also directly state that "Group is X" not this "Group has been described as X" weaseling. The idea that "the organization has never described itself directly as 'far-right' or 'alt-right', so we should not ascribe that tag" is not supported by policy. The fact that a group does or does not describes itself in a certain way is not a justification for ignoring how reliable outside observers describe them. They simply don't get a veto in this way. In addition, we already include in the lead section the group's own self-description. Neutrality^talk 16:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that it is controversial. Most of those sources are biased/unreliable. The "Village Voice" source even says "the group is mostly apolitical". I'm not going to revert, but what is your reasoning, in opposed to saying something like "[X source] has noted that the group's idealogy fits [X belief]? --Aleccat 19:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Your position is that the Associated Press is "biased/unreliable"? And the Seattle Times? And the Los Angeles Times? Neutrality^talk 19:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the first would be OR, but the other two, sure. You never answered my question though. Aleccat 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is the first OR? The link literally says it in the opening line: "NEW YORK (AP) — Fights broke out when the founder of a far-right men’s organization appeared at New York University, leading to 11 arrests — the second time this week that violence broke out at a controversial speech at a U.S. university. The speaker, Gavin McInnes, ... McInnes is the founder of a group called the “Proud Boys.'" Neutrality^talk 20:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Proud Boys at HWNDU

I think it should be included, maybe not in the lead, because it is relevant to an event that happened. Unless someone can explain how the group's presence at an art exhibit they allegedly "ruined", I'm including it. --Aleccat 02:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither source you included states that the organization was present at the event, only that there were individuals who personally supported Proud Boys there. One article simply stated that one guy had a Proud Boy tattoo. The other stated "The area ... became divided into two camps. There were the Trump supporters — a mix of 4chan trolls, Proud Boys and college Republicans, many wearing Make America Great Again hats." To me, that doesn't even come close to saying that the subject of this article, the Proud Boys organization, was present at the event. It would be like saying the Toronto Maple Leafs were present at the Grey Cup if a few of the players were in the stands. CrispyGlover (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

That directly states they were there, and the comparison used makes no sense, but ok, I'm not edit warring. Aleccat 17:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Good, I'm not looking for an edit war. I just think that a few guys saying "We're proud boys" isn't the same thing as an organized group stating that they're present at a rally/march/demonstration, whatever. The previous wording made it seem like that's what was going on, but the two sources are very weak, and barely even mention Proud Boys. CrispyGlover (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The name came from Aladdin?

I think it's interesting that a group championing the superiority of Western culture takes its name from a musical about the Middle East. Why is that? I think the history of that decision would be a nice addition to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.143.240.137 (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Sourced Political Terminology & Semi-Protection requested

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

Proud boys described as 'Far-right'

Can someone explain how they are 'far-right'? Gavin mcciness has recalled them from major alt-right rallies numerous times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:19B4:8701:C5F2:94BF:A61A:1B0A (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

They are described as far-right because reliable secondary sources describe them as far-right. See WP:RS for an explanation of the policy, and see the citations provided in the article for the sources. Rockypedia (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

not alt-right

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

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

Wikipedia can and does make claims based solely on reliable sources. Trying to use examples of their behavior to decide their 'real' ideology would be original research, which isn't permitted. That's how Wikipedia works, and is pretty much how it's always worked.

As the SPLC summarizes, "McInnes denies any connection between his group and the far right, dismissing the fact that they show up to the same events, take fashion cues from each other, read the same books, sympathize with each other's viewpoints — including, at times, anti-Semitism — and joust in the shadows of the same windmills."[1] Reliable sources, for the most part, treat McInnes' claims as empty spin or PR. If you know of reliable sources which instead support this perspective, let's see them. Grayfell (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The Proud Boys have issued a statement clarifying that they are not alt-right. I have made this clarification next to the claim that they are alt-right, clearly stating that they themselves reject the term alt-right (which they do. Yet that quite remarkable clarification keeps being reversed. It is disingenuous, as they clearly state in the article that The Proud Boys have nothing to do with the topic of race and the "Jewish Question", the defining difference between the alt-lite and the alt-right. To have in the main description the claim that they are alt-right without at the very least referencing their disavowal of that term and the groups that adhere to it is dishonest at best and outright defamation at worst. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanalbarran243 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Defamation implies legal action. Legal threats are not compatible with editing Wikipedia. Please clarify your intentions as soon as possible.

This could be more clearly explained lede, but that would first call for an expansion and explanation of aaaalllll these many sources calling them alt-right. Do you have any WP:SECONDARY sources for this? If many reliable sources link the Proud Boys to the alt-right, and the only source refuting this is McInnes himself, then this seems questionable regarding due weight. I did add that source, weak as it is. I added it to the section on the Unite the Right rally, which was, according to many reliable sources, organized by a Proud Boy. Proud Boys are required to follow McInnes's rules, but Wikipedia is not. We are obligated to report things in proportion to due weight. If sources are skeptical of McInnes's tight-rope walk regarding race (as discussed by many sources, such as the SPLC link above), than Wikipedia will naturally reflect that, since we reflect reliable sources. McInnes's blog isn't a reliable source for statements of general fact, and is only usable for relevant attributed opinions. Use of this source would have to account for this limitation.

Also, I know this is verging into WP:NOTFORUM, but how can they have a "Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights" and also claim to be totally unrelated to the alt-right? Is it supposed to be a joke name? Just a coincidence? If so, why would we take anything they say seriously? Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

References

8/11/17 Charlottesville rally

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

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

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

"Black PBs"

From the group's site: "There are no special rules for black Proud Boys (this overrides anything previously published about black PBs) or any other non-white PBs."[2] What is McInnis talking about, here? Did black members previously have special rules? If not, why would he need to spell that out for black members, but not for other non-white members? It's far too specific to be boilerplate. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017

Change far-right to alt-light

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

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