Talk:Proud Boys

URL

Should we link to or display the url the Proud Boys?

• (A) - No
• (B) - YES

Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - As stated previously, I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but we can also apply common sense on a case by case basis. Here we are talking about linking to the website of a violent extremist white supremecist organisation that is recruiting new members, encouraging, planning and perpetrating the most serious of crimes, political violence, terrorism, racialially motivated attacks etc. I think it is common sense to omit links to websites where extremists recruit and plan attacks. Wikipedia is not censored sure, but as always other considerations apply. Not linking to an active violent extremist site is just common sense, in my opinion. We don't include url's to the websites of groups like Atomwaffen Division, Ku Klux Klan, Ulster Defence Association, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant etc. At the Continuity Irish Republican Army page we have a screenshot of propaganda, rather than link directly to any recruitment/propaganda pages, this approach make a lot more sense, IMO. As per the external links guidelines and particularly handling disputes WP:ELBURDEN which states that "...the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard...Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." WP:NOTCENSORED is not a mandate for inclusion. Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• No - I support disincluding the URLs for sites of groups/organizations that are primarily engaged in violent behavior and similar, especially when those sites are used to promote violence or recruit for the organizations. Wikipedia "isn't censored" but there's no reason to WP:PROMO hate groups, especially violent/terrorist ones. The Proud Boys website clearly falls into this category, as the group's primary purposes are bigoted hatred and illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• No per my previous comment. It would be nice if there some easy pass/fail test for when to include links, but that cannot ever be the case. Even by their own admission, the Proud Boys are a social group, not a website, so this semi-official website is not a significant part of the group's notability. For this and other reasons, the website lacks encyclopedic value on its own. Inclusion of official websites is an optional courtesy to readers, but we are not hidebound to include links to websites out of some simplistic or warped sense of fairness. This URL is not useful to readers for various reasons, so it can and should be left-out. It would be misleading to readers to point them to such a flimsy resource, and we should not knowingly waste reader's time offering bad resources. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. No censorship on wikipedia. The site is official, and the ideology (true or not) is not presented in the article which is critical for understanding a political organization and why it exists.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - Addition of an external link to their official website in the infobox is not an endorsement of the group or their activities. If that were actually a thing, it could be argued that this article should not exist in general. Now a couple notes on the examples given of other websites that are not linked. Atomwaffen Division as far as I can tell does not have an official website. If you check the KKK's page it is not linked because there is not one unified site. Same goes for Ulster Defence Association, not even sure they are still around. Again same for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, no official website that I can tell. A more relevant example would be places like Westboro Baptist Church, 8chan, 4chan, Charlie Hebdo, and Stormfront (website). Places labeled as extremists that do have official websites and are listed as such. I know this has been said a lot here and at Village pump but WP:NOTCENSORED is a thing. We do not remove reliably sourced information because we like or dislike a particular group. No matter how horrible said group is. PackMecEng (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue what-so-ever with including links to Westboro Baptist Church, 8chan, 4chan, Charlie Hebdo...it's a blatant false equivalence. Stormfront is a fair comparison, that site is run by violent neo-Nazi extremists used to recruit and plan for murder and mass shootings etc. I really don't understand why you'd compare a violent Nazi extremist site to Charlie Hebdo a perfectly reasonable satirical magazine whose staff have been tragically murdered by violent extremists? That's a very strange comparison. Have you ever visited Stormfront? I suggest you do, see what we are actually talking about, just create a fake gmail account and sign up, it's actually a terrifying place to visit and see just how serious these sickos are. Bacondrum (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, you say WP:NOTCENSORED is a thing, well so is editorial discretion, we use it all the time...And also, wikipedia: Ignore all rules can just as easily be thrown around. Better to have a proper discussion than to simply go NOTCENSORED, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well Charlie Hebdo has also been called Islamophobia for some of their depictions of Islam, though I agree the weakest from the bunch. Also 8Chan & 4Chan are known for alt-right views and extremism as well. Westboro is self explanatory on their bigotry I think. No one is arguing that those places are not shitty place, I think you will find broad agreement that they in fact are. The issue is how that relates to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. PackMecEng (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

8Chan & 4Chan also have normal users discussing kitten memes and baby yoda, it's not the same. The explicit purpose of Stormfront to recruiting, propaganda and preparation for violent extremist acts including a number of real life mass shootings, many racist murders and a number or terror attacks - that sets it apart and warrants a frank and open discussion about an exceptionally horrific site - there are limits to everything. Sure Proud Boys aren't quite as extreme, but they're still actively involved in violent extremism. Sure most Jihadist groups don't have official websites, but if they did I don't think there'd be any question about not linking to places where they plan attacks and recruit etc. We provide all relevant information, I don't see how the url is particularly important to en encyclopedic entry, I don't see how it is useful for anything other than promoting the group and directing traffic there. I think there's a social and moral responsibility not to promote violent extremists in anyway, intentional or not. I'm sure we can all agree they are exceptional, it's not mainstream discourse, it's not merely a far-right YouTube conspiracy video. What is the purpose of including the url to such violent extremist groups that outweigh concerns and dangers surrounding violent extremism and terrorism? I can't see any. Bacondrum (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

8chan, 4chan, etc. are websites. All reliable sources about them are about them as websites. The Proud Boys are not a website, so this comparison is flawed. The Proud Boys are a real-life group with activities spread across both the real world and other websites. Reliable sources seldom mention the group's official URL, and as far as I can see, those sources do not treat the website as important or credible for information about the group. We do not remove reliably sourced information because we like or dislike a particular group. You are sadly mistaken if you think this is a reliable source for anything at all. Adding links to unreliable primary sources is not helpful. Calling this "censorship" is unhelpful. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a public square, and even public squares have limits. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - Per Bacondrum. Leaving the URL out is not "censorship"; it's "editorial restraint". I wish folk would learn the definitions of words before they use them.--Jorm (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• what is the definition of editorial restraint?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yup, seems most here do not understand the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. For example it starts out with Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. It then goes on to say Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive. Both of which seem to apply here. So what you refer to as "editorial restraint", in Wikipedia terms is straight out of NOTCENSORED. Since the only reasons given are that the link is objectionable. PackMecEng (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a misrepresentation (getting into Minimisation (psychology) territory) to claim "the only reasons given are that the link is objectionable" when the actual reasoning is that the Proud Boys' website is used for recruiting and the promotion of illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think my reasoning here is being massively oversimplified by a number of detractors. I also think simply going "NOTCENSORED" and not having a proper discussion is silly, I could just as easily turn around and say ignore all rules. Same with these tedious "malformed question" "improper rfc" type resposes that turn up and are ignored at nearly every RFC, I could just as easily turn around an say, "malformed response"...there's something deeply disingenuous about such responses, it's like a mindless refusal to engage discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps you are over complicating a simple and widely accepted practice on Wikipedia while fighting the same fight over and over across several pages. I get what you are trying to do, which from what I can tell, is trying to minimize peoples exposure to just terrible organizations. Which most of the time is the correct course of action. I just disagree with it from a Wikipedia point of view on how pages are written and content is presented to our readers. I really want to lean back into what I mentioned in my summary above which is essentially content on here is NOT an endorsement of whatever view or organization. We cannot pick and choose who is good enough to receive equal treatment under policy. PackMecEng (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope there's no hard feelings. All the best. Bacondrum (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, no hard feelings on my end. PackMecEng (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been an enjoyable discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the term Jorm was looking for was "editorial discretion", which doesn't lend to his point.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No: no encyclopedic value. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. This does not provide encyclopedic value, and it is proper for us to exercise editorial discretion to avoid directly linking here. Neutrality^talk 05:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• No: Per BaconDrum, the link conveys no educational or encyclopedic value, and the group uses it for recruitment towards their violent, racist organization. WP:NOTCENSORED is not an excuse to ignore the real-world damage such groups do, nor is it a straightjacket requiring us to provide such a convenience. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC
  • That seems more in line with a WP:RGW argument. Per WP:NOTCENSORED Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. So if the only argument for exclusion is that it is objectionable, which seems to be the only reason given in the opposition section, then it has no policy basis that I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Calling this an RGW argument is highly disingenuous. This isn't "being objectionable" it's "actively endorses white-supremacist violence". If you see no difference between the two, I don't know what you tell you. But as I said, there is no encyclopedic value to linking to a violent white-supremacist recruitment site, so... your argument this is just RGW has no merit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I am sorry but you are mistaken. Links on Wikipedia are not endorsements. It just does not work that way. I think you are misunderstanding both the policy notcensored and what it is to write and encyclopedia vs a new article or a blog. PackMecEng (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I did not say it was an endorsement, so you've completely misunderstood my argument. You also appear to have placed NOTCENSORED as some kind of bright-line rule, which is a complete misunderstanding of that policy. It is not a blanket "We must include everything." So, you're 0 for 2 today. I won't be responding further, as I feel my argument stands on its own merits. Make your argument stand on its own, instead of badgering everyone else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

          I dunno, I am the one listing policies and how they apply. You are listing personal feelings. Out of feelings or policy which do YOU think stands on its own merits better? Yeah I think I will stick with policy. PackMecEng (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC. I'm sure Bacondrum meant well, but they shouldn't have started dueling RfCs between this one and WP:VPP#RFC: active violent extremist websites (hate groups). They appear to be headed toward opposite consensus, in which case the broader VPP consensus controls. This is also starting to look like forum shopping. R2 (bleep) 19:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The way I see it this is a separate discussion. At Village Pump I'm asking if there's a level of extreme content that we should draw a line at and say these kinds of links should never be included. These are not dueling rfc's regardless of the outcome at Village Pump the external links guidelines are clear that inclusion of an external url on any particular page needs to achieve consensus for inclusion from editors and thus needs to be discussed, please see WP:ELBURDEN for where I take my ques here. Thanks for assuming that I mean well, I most certainly have no ill intent - if I really am doing the wrong thing I'm happy to be corrected. Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

RfCs are a form of dispute resolution to be used sparingly, and only when disputes arise. You started three RfCs nearly simultaneously that were all clearly intended to resolve the matter of whether we should link to the PBs' and Stormfronts' websites. Admins will almost certainly see that as disruptive, whatever your intentions. You need to cool off and focus on one discussion, letting that discussion run its course (which for RfCs, generally requires at least 30 days). If you're not going to close one or two of the pending RfCs, then at least please try to stop bludgeoning the process. R2 (bleep) 00:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Come on, that's a bit unfair. You mentioned me in your comment, surely I can respond. Bacondrum (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't referring to that specific reply. I was referring to your cumulative continuing involvement across all three RfCs. Best practice when you resort to the RfC process is to start one RfC and to basically leave it alone for 30 days. R2 (bleep) 20:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, provided consensus exists for which url is the website for the "movement". BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I only bring this up because previously, stormfront has been used as a precedent for including links to potentially unsavoury subjects. In the case of stormfront however, there is absolutely no ambiguity as per their official URL. Here however, given the fractured nature of their leadership, real confusion exists about who actually can be said to represent the proud boys. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Second comment I must say I'm starting to agree with @R2 - this is looking awfully like forum shopping after previous discussions did not result in consensus to remove links to unsavoury subjects BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

So report me at ANI, otherwise I ask you and R2 to stop with the false allegations which are a personal attack. Bacondrum (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa there, cowboy. No personal attacks here. You've been a bit disruptive, so you were politely asked to stop. That's all. R2 (bleep) 22:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like Bacondrum has been given multiple, contradictory instructions when trying to post this very real and important issue. Accusing them of being "disruptive" isn't cool. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that's exactly what's been going on. Bacondrum (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it's pretty clear that this is turning into an edit warring attraction. I'm not saying Bacondrum is being disruptive, I'm just saying that there is no consensus, and repeatedly bringing up this particular RFC (the 3rd one now) is probably not going to get anywhere. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes-Links should be included for the value of the information that they contain. This is not a terrorist group like ISIS. If it's best not to link to a group because it's a violent extremist organization, we should also remove the link to the official website of Black Lives Matter on that group's page. Display name 99 (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not a terrorist group like ISIS.
  • Given they organized a violent insurrection against the United States government, you might want to reconsider this stance. Comparing them to BLM is just asinine. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, the Proud Boys do not support insurrection. I compared them to BLM because BLM is way worse. The Proud Boys defend themselves and others from attack by BLM and other thugs. They keep peace. The Proud Boys helped storm the Capitol in response to an allegedly stolen election. BLM and antifa, in response to conservatives exercising their rights and black criminals getting killed, kill and assault countless numbers of innocent people and destroy enormous amounts of property, including both private and federal property, which makes the slight damage inflicted on the Capitol building look miniscule. BLM is a thousand times more violent than the Proud Boys. Display name 99 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

the Proud Boys do not support insurrection.

You're either lying, or not paying attention. They were instigators at the insurrection.

I compared them to BLM because BLM is way worse.

And at this point I can see there's no point discussing the matter with you. You're supporting a white supremacist group, while decrying minorities who oppose police brutality. You've shown your colors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Is it an official URL? User:BrxBrx says that given the fractured nature of their leadership, real confusion exists about who actually can be said to represent the proud boys. If that's right, then I think we're better off not choosing one of multiple competing websites to link to. If reliable sources are clear that this is the Proud Boys' official website, then yes, we should link to it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment When I came to this page to find out about the proud boys due to the recent events in the US I found that this page claimed that they were neo-fascist without discussing why or their ideology. I searched for their website to find out more and found that google weren't indexing them (and then found them by searching duckduckgo). I think this page should address their ideology and this might render much of this issue moot. I'd note that the website is not particularly useful as it doesn't have much content. Talpedia (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Talpedia: I'm not sure what you mean by "without discussing why or their ideology", the wording includes citations and their ideology - to the extent that there are WP:RS citations to what they actually believe - is covered in the lede and in the "History and organization" section. If you are suggesting that this page should have a WP:PROMOtional section that writes up claims from their website that are not covered, and/or are unduly self-serving WP:SELFPUBLISHed content that falls under WP:MANDY, that probably wouldn't be viable? IHateAccounts (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting directly quoting their material. I have reviewed the history section (I think I skimmed over it before). I guess it might be nice to separate out their ideology. I would probably like some more scholarly sources discussing their ideology rather than "the ADL" said such and such. I guess I also wanted to know *why* they were fascist rather than just have a citation. (See the section of nazism on this section) Talpedia (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - It does not fall to Wikipedia editors to determine whether an organisation is too violent or extremist for its official website to merit inclusion. If we know an organisation's official website as reported by RS, there is no reason to include it bar legal grounds. Readers don't need us to decide for them what is "too dangerous" to read. Caius G. (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• No I'm sure people are perfectly capable of finding it themselves. Apeholder (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Since an RfC (of considerably broader scope, which includes this issue in its purview) is currently running at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC:_active_violent_extremist_websites_(hate_groups) on this same subject, I think it would be prudent for people to comment there rather than here. jp×g 15:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. Unnecessary, adds nothing, and drives traffic to a violent hate site. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Adds value, even if to a controversial group. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  Emir of Wikipedia, have you seen the website lately? ATM it's just a gif of Donald Trump dancing. Vexations (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Value"

per Ahrtoodeetoo, this was definitely distracting from the topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
in the most recent talk thread, the editor Jorm used the official website to verify the organization's logo. This demonstrates in action, rather than words, that he believes there is a value to knowing what the website is and that it carries at least some academic value. I can't be sure which website he used, to be fair, but he can.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I apologize to Jorm, it was Baconundrum who used the URL as a source - the editor advocating that the website has no value to academic inquiry about the organization. I will move my comment to the other threat. Reading comprehension issues on my partTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I've taken the liberty of separating this into a sub-thread, since it's not a direct !vote or comment on the RfC. As a comment here, you're conflating encyclopedic value to the reader with our work as editors to evaluate information before adding it to the article. In other words, this seems more like you're trying to make a point rather than a serious argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Well, I was trying primarily to make a serious argument. A controversy came up, and editors immediately used the URL as a source to address that controversy in their favor. I've read arguments that the URL is unreliable as a source, but it clearly wasn't, for certain purposes. The idea that a certain elect should have access to information germain and vetted as official, but it must be censored from the reader's view is cynical and against the spirit of wikipedia - though I'm sure the notion wasnt intended to be.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "Taking a quick look to see if someone changed the logo on a webpage" is not reason to permalink the recruiting website of a hate group, especially one whose primary tactic is illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC) "Taking a quick look" sounds like a simple action, but not when the private advertising company, google, has buried the official link 7 pages in for 90% of international seach users. Google can, apparently, censor the internet in order to appease advertisers, but wikipedia shouldn't and doesnt (it is the first or second link by click volume if you use duckduckgo). It has an unusually high value for readers, as a result of mainstream censorship.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Calling that "censorship" is hyperbole, and I think I'm done with this tangent. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC) The suppression of information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive - is censorship. I'm not even the first in this thread to have suggested it. Perhaps it is hyperbole, although I mean it to be taken literally since it is part of the literal definition of censorship.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Word have meaning. Please stop using the word "Censor" until you know what it actually is.--Jorm (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I posted the words from Wikipedia's censorship lede. Please inform me what your definition of censorship is so we can better understand one another.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict)Ranting about the position of a link in Google search results versus another search engine is meaningless to this discussion. The facts regarding the URL remain, there is no encyclopedic value to a direct link from this article given the fact that the Proud Boys organization promotes and recruits for the purpose of illegal violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC) How does the controversial or even illegal activity of a group or publisher affect the encyclopedic value of that publisher's content?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Regardless of anyone's intentions, this sub-discussion was pointy and somewhat off-topic from the beginning, is getting rather nasty, and has zero chance of affecting anyone's !vote. If there's no objection I'm going to collapse it, if someone doesn't beat me to it first. R2 (bleep) 20:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION candidate

In this video (https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/01/17/extremist-groups-media-alex-stamos-rs-stelter-vpx.cnn) two experts, Alex Stamos and Chris Krebs, discuss the Proud Boys and indicate that they should be tracked and treated as similar to ISIS. Seems relevant as WP:RSOPINION though I would like some second opinions and suggestions on the wording if possible. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Have other reliable sources reported on this? That might make it notable. Vexations (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

These sources are hardly reliable, nor are they experts, they have well-known and proven political bias which should be noted if their opinions are used. DanBoomerman (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization that they aren't experts. According to his Wikipedia page, Krebs served as Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the United States Department of Homeland Security from November 2018 to November 2020. He seems to be a SME on cybersecurity policy, including as it pertains to terrorism. Stamos is a former Chief Security Officer at Facebook and is a current professor at Stanford and his Stanford University bio reveals a lot of additional qualifications that aren't on his Wikipedia page. I think he could reasonably qualify as a SME, given his intersectional work with tech and democracy. Given this, I think we can include their comments as they are relevant experts, and they absolutely be attributed per WP:RSOPINION because the twp are clearly opining in the linked clip. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Involvement in events at the Capitol should be at the end of the lead-in paragraph

The opening para outlines the various public events to have involved this group. The arrests of several members of the PB involved in the January 6 riot is now the most widely publicised event to have involved members of this group, so the details of the various members involved and arrested, like Joseph Biggs and others involved, should be at the top.

Independence1416 (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree. The capitol riot appears to be the thing they are most widely known for now. Bacondrum 23:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, although it should go into the lede of Joe Biggs, Nick Ochs and other notable proud boys who were charged with occupation of the building or premises.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect that the events at the Capitol were attended by "this group". The vast majority of the group did not attend or were instructed that, if they did attend, it would be as private citizens, not as members of the group. There were members of the military, law enforcement, various political parties and many corporations in attendance, even members of the government - can we claim that, because members of those groups were in attendance that the actual groups themselves with in attendance? I contend the answer is no. DanBoomerman (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of the group [...] were instructed that, if they did attend, it would be as private citizens, not as members of the group. Do we have a source for that? Vexations (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on this I withdraw my comment. DanBoomerman (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The WSJ investigation is damning and compelling. It should inform a large section of the article and some mention should probably be in the lede. Thanks for referring the link, Dan.- TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist?

the designation of this group as a "terrorist organisation" is factually incorrect. The cited article clearly states; "The motion now awaits consideration from leadership in Ottawa, which reportedly has the final say in the matter." DanBoomerman (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Vexations (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That will be the second step, and it would put Proud Boys on the list of internatioally-0recognized terrorist groups. Even if it is only one nation (for example the Iranian government lists the American Department of Defense as a terrorist group), any recognition qualifies. I would guess that Proud Boys are on the fast track to such infamy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs) 18:32, January 26, 2021 (UTC)

Only Canada lists the Proud Boys as a Terrorist entity. No other country currently recognizes the Proud boys as a terror organization. That is an important distinction that should be clearly made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F6:EF05:D13D:40F7:8024:F166:7ED3 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

White Nationalist?

I do not believe "white nationalist" is a factual representation of this organization. They have shown to have a multi-racial membership and indeed are a multi-national organization that includes chapters world-wide, including in Israel. I have found no factual citations that they promote a white "homeland" or advocate racial separatism. The fact that they are a "nationalist" group in their respective home countries is easily supported by facts, so why introduce non-factual adjectives? DanBoomerman (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The characterization as white nationalist is supported by sources in the article. Your own assessment of the group isn't relevant. VQuakr (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, no one wants to discuss it again. Bacondrum 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not sourced or mentioned elsewhere in the article. The SPLC categorizes them as general hate, rather than white nationalist. TFD (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I downloaded all the online references and searched them for white nationalist/ism. I found 409 matches. Vexations (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A search of the SPLC article on them shows 14 matches for the terms, but doesn't call them white nationalist.[1] While you may find it a subtle distinction, the group includes people with a variety of types of hate, including white nationalism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, etc. But unlike other hate groups, none of these types of hate are core to their ideology, hence they are listed under general hate, rather than white nationalist. TFD (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

From that same article: "Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions". They're probably not "primarily" anything, other than a street gang. Vexations (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There are no sources calling them white nationalists. The only source that comes close is the SPLC, which is not a reliable source due to their activitist nature and reputation for distorting the truth. Even the SPLC only says they share white nationalist memes. They don't call them white nationalists. Given that the vast majority of sources avoid using this term, none of them directly call them white nationalists, the fact that they never express any white nationalist beliefs, and due to the fact that it's absurd on its face, given how racially diverse the group is, they clearly should not be called white nationalists.

Anyone arguing otherwise needs to take a step back consider whether he is really looking at this objectively. It's easy to get emotional about politically charged topics. Not liking a group is not a good enough reason to comb through and ignore the vast majority of sources and use an exaggerated characterization drawn from the most biased and inflammatory sources that flies in the face of any reasonable assessment of the preponderance of evidence.

These types of articles tend to get babysat by radicals with too much free time who fake consensus by dogpiling the occasional person who notices the issue and goes to the talk page to discuss it. Then they delete the discussion so that no one notices they're in the distinct minority and have not successfuly defended their point-of-vew. I see my comments about the erroneous "neo-fascist" label are already gone, even though that was just a few months ago that I wrote that. This problem is getting worse, as we've now gone from "neo-fascist" to the even more absurd "white nationalist". If you cannot refrain from letting your politics influence the way you edit these articles, stop editing them. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the general consensus of reliable sources. It's not supposed to be used as a tool to advance a radical political agenda to label all conservatives you don't like as white nationalists and fascists.Rectipaedia (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why earlier participants in this conversation just said that sources exist when you Google them; that isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:V. I've gone ahead and added a few of these sources (which are indeed easily found) to hopefully put this issue to bed.

@Rectipaedia: Please comment on content rather than contributors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

All white group?

The chairman Tarrio is Afro Cuban so it is not an all white group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD40:6D00:7C2B:10CC:F7BE:1D26 (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No one said they were all white. VQuakr (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist political organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada. "White nationalist" FALSE Also There is no Source or Facts stated that accuses them of engaging in violence in US or Canada. Its a Opinion needs to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:6B40:DA:D140:3F8C:A961:9A73 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Leader an FBI informant

[2] and many other sources. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Question Should we include this info in the opening paragraph? It doesn't seem to be something that it core to describing the Proud Boys as a group, and MOS:LEAD states that "[t]he first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edit by Mikehawk10

I have reverted a substantial edit by Mikehawk10, which may contain some individual changes which are unobjectionable but on the whole, substantively makes the article worse.

For example, Mikehawk10's proposal introduces a number of points of attribution to uncontradicted factual statements, such as the fact that Proud Boys' members have been seen wearing group-affiliated apparel with the anti-Semitic slogan "6MWE". There is no reason to attribute this statement of fact - no reliable source contradicts it. Similarly, no reliable source contradicts the statement that Proud Boys members repeatedly appear at racist events. As per WP:YESPOV, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Changing the description of Rebel News from "far-right" to "conservative" is directly contradicted by the wide array of sources cited in our article on Rebel News, where we factually describe it as "far-right." There appears to be no valid reason not to do so in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll address the specific points made above, and I will try to re-institute the changes that I don't believe you are objecting to in an upcoming edit (though please feel free to revert if I'm misinterpreting your above statement.

First, regarding the "6MWE", the source given is Snopes, which per WP:SNOPES is a reliable source, though "attribution may be necessary." There have been quite a few discussions relating to their reliability, and it is consensus that they are generally reliable, with which I agree, though the article's phrasing itself is vague with the term "association" doing a lot of work. The more narrow claim that the article makes is that there were at least some Proud Boys who wore the shirts, and some of the shirts are marketed with the term "proud", so there is an association in that narrow sense. I believe that, in line with MOS:PMC, we should try to keep the rhetoric as close as possible to the Snopes piece, though as the term "association" is vague, it should be attributed. The addition of the second source (the ADL) renders this point about snopes moot, so I don't think there's any need to revisit it.

Second, regarding Rebel Media, that was my mistake; I had glanced at the headline and made the change. "Conservative" and "far-right" are not synonyms, but we should use the article's text when the two disagree. On a separate note (and this was not something I considered when I was making my edits) I would like to raise the point that previous discussions at WP:RSN (diffs:1, 2) indicate that Mediaite is only marginal reliable, so we may want to choose a different source for that sentence if we want to keep it.

Third, regarding the remaining statements, I don't see objection to them in your comment, so I will attempt to re-add the statements that were not objected to in your comment. Please feel free to remove anything that I have missed an objection to. Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Letting the defense speak for themselves

I had added a copy of the values from their website, then someone undid it. How can there be a fair court trial if the defendant is not even there to represent himself? Obviously, attitudes do not always match behaviors, but at least is what they claim. This is what was added:

---

The tenets listed by the organization themself are:

"Minimal Government

Maximum Freedom

Anti-Political Correctness

Anti-Drug War

Closed Borders

Anti-Racial Guilt

Anti-Racism

Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)

Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)

Glorifying the Entrepreneur

Venerating the Housewife

Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 22:11, January 31, 2021 (UTC)

If we can find RS that describe their beliefs in these ways, then something probably can be added to the article in wikitext. Otherwise, we would require attribution to the particular source you are referencing (it's a bit unclear since there isn't a link) to describe how they describe their own ideology. Where are you sourcing this from? Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.wpr.org/controversial-proud-boys-embrace-western-values-reject-feminism-and-political-correctness gives: McInnes and his followers believe there are 10 ways to "save America": Abolish prisons, give each American a gun, legalize drugs, end welfare, close borders to illegal immigrants, outlaw censorship, venerate the housewife, glorify the entrepreneur, shut down the government and declare "the West is the best." The article links to a video of McInnes, who lists the "10 ways to save America" as 1 Abolish Prison, 2 Give Everyone a Gun, 3 Legalize Drugs, 4 End Welfare, 5 Close the Borders, 6 Outlaw Censorship, 7 Venerate the Housewife, 8 Glorify the Entrepreneur, 9 Recognize "West is the Best", 10 Shut Down the Government. Some not-so subtle difference there. Vexations (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment We are not here to promote their ideas. Nor provide the "defense" a platform to "speak for themselves", this would be a blatant violation of multiple policies including WP:ADVOCATE WP:SOAPBOX WP:NPOV WP:PROMO WP:POVPUSHING and others. I think this discussion should be deleted as WP:NOTFORUM and because of the the above policy violations that Hippypink is advocating. Bacondrum 06:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think that the discussion should be deleted per se. The first comment in here might be off-topic, but I think that the comment from Vexations was substantive. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bacondrum 09:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethnicity/Race of Enrique Tarrio in the Opening Paragraph

Question: In the opening paragraph, Enrique Tarrio is currently described Cuban-American, which is true, though the ethnic descriptor present on his own page states that he is Afro-Cuban. Should we include the more specific ethnic/racial modifier of "Afro-Cuban", or keep "Cuban-American" as the modifier?

I'm seeing quite a few RS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) refer to Tarrio as Afro-Cuban or note that he identifies as such.

My initial thoughts are that if we are to include his ethnicity in the opening paragraph, we ought to use the more specific term of "Afro-Cuban", though I am wondering where consensus lies on this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with Afro-cuban, but don't make it into an WP:EASTEREGG as you previously did. Don't remove the informant part again without discussion, it's backed by three RS's. Bacondrum 09:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are we including his ethnicity in the opening paragraph of this page but not his own? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Doco on Proudboys leading capital attack

The ABC has released this powerful and compelling documentary that exposes the extent of the proudboys planning and leadership in the capitol attack. Amazing footage. Proud boys clearly lead the attack and use military tactics during the attack the capitol https://medium.com/four-corners-downfall-the-last-days-of-president/four-corners-downfall-the-last-days-of-president-trump-january-31-2021-abc-full-show-95184669a026 Bacondrum 20:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure that's a good link to post here? It seems to be a link to a Medium page that is serving to link users to an illegal streaming service . — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum, Is that the same as this: https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/downfall:-the-last-days-of-president-trump/13110382 Vexations (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, but I’m not sure if ABC is available out of Australia. Didn’t know Medium was dodgy. Bacondrum 23:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum, medium itself is fine (except as a reference, because WP:SPS), but the page links to an url shortner that redirects to sites that appear unsafe. The abc URL seems to work from where I am, on the other side of the world. Vexations (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks Vexations Bacondrum 08:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect date on daily beast reference?

I would fix it myself, but there are a lot of warnings on this page about editing.

I think found an error in this page. Under the section titled "Membership and doctrine" it says that "The Daily Beast reported in February 2018..." but the reference is from November 2018. I read the referenced article thinking that perhaps the bylaws were from February of 2018 but no mention is made of that in the Daily Beast article either. I then sought out the actual bylaws themselves. I also searched for other Daily Beast articles which could have been the intended reference, but found none. The article referenced seems to be the correct one other than the February date.

I tried to find outside sources which mentioned this date but could not find any which makes this claim. The adl website mentioned bylaws changes in Oct 2018 and quoted from them. Searching from this quote did not produce any documents from October, but I did find a copy of the November 24 bylaws (enacted 11/25/2018) from here and here (exhibit 1 at the end) which are identical. While the existence of these November documents does not preclude that other changes took place in Feb 2018, I just simply can find no evidence of this.

I think the correct change is just to swap "February" for "November" but I'll leave that to a pro who knows the rules better than me. Thanks for doing a great job making the infinitely-valuable resource that is wikipedia everyone! 2601:1C0:6E01:16D0:117C:5987:FDEC:1E91 (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls added that in [[3]] on 28 September 2020. Perhaps they remember why there is a discrepancy? Vexations (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethan Nordean Arrested related to Capitol Riot

"Ethan Nordean, sergeant at arms of the Seattle chapter, was charged with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, aiding and abetting, and knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building"

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-arrests-seattle-washington-courts-f128fa38d6ad2ca0561985a4138b83fe TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Terrorist" in intro sentence

Bringing over a discussion that started at Talk:Enrique Tarrio#terrorist designation to here, since this seems the proper place for it. I see the lead sentence has been changed to say "The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist terrorist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada." This seems to have been added today based on the choice by Canada to designate them a terrorist organization. I'm not sure if there is a wider standard for when a lead sentence can describe a group as a terrorist organization—is one country designating it as such sufficient, or should we omit it in favor of just leaving the sentence (also already in the lead) that Canada designated them as such? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You might want to look at Hezbollah. Many countries have called it a terrorist group over a long period of time, yet they had the sense not to shove that into the first sentence of the lead. We must remember MOS:TERRORIST applies even if some people do not like an organisation founded by a black man. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope you are not implying without evidence that a) editors are making editorial decisions based on their distaste for the group, and b) their distaste for the group is due to it being founded chaired by a black man. Your first two sentences are useful input; you might consider striking the third, since if you didn't intend it that way, that's how it reads. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As a point of fact, the Proud Boys was founded by Gavin McInnes who is of Scottish ancestry. Tarrio joined much later. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha, yeah Emir of Wikipedia don't let the facts stop you falsely accusing the rest of us of bad faith editing and racism. Bacondrum 23:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, Hezbollah is a political party. Proud Boys is a far right hate group. You might have a point if you were talking about Hezbollah's Jihad Council - sort of like the difference between Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Not only does LABEL apply but we are supposed to use reliable sources. Most sources restrict the term terrorist group to a group set up in order to carry out terrorist attacks, such as al Qaeda. They also define the term terrorist attack more narrowly. TFD (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, the Canada Gazette, as the official government gazette of the Government of Canada is as reliable and official as it comes. http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2021/2021-02-03-x2/html/sor-dors8-eng.html Vexations (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The source merely says that a government regulation has added the Proud Boys to a list of terrorist organizations. No one has questioned that. The issue is how important it is to this article. TFD (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you wrote we are supposed to use reliable sources. I gave you the most reliable source imaginable. It is widely reported on. Every major news source in Canada reported on it: The Globe and Mail the Star the National Post], the CBC Vexations (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the Hezbollah analogy is a red herring, of the highest order. Imagine Trump was connected to Hezbollah and urging them to storm the capitol? lol! I think Canada designating the PB's a terrorist organisation is a very big deal and should be mentioned in the first sentence. If the USA made such a designation there would be no question about putting it in the first sentence, would there? Even if the USA was the only country in the world to do so, we would include this fact...citisens of the USA often think only their view of the world matters, but that is not how the rest of us outside the US see things. Bacondrum 23:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be stated as currently is in the lede, but moved up to the first sentence. Having one of the two main countries they operate in designate them a terrorist organisation is a very big deal. The Canadian government is not some pissy little second rate cousin to the USA. Editors should not be saying things along the line of "Oh, it's only Canada". Bacondrum 23:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, I said that in order to call them terrorists we need a reliable source that calls them terrorists, not just a source that someone has called them that. Do you understand the difference? There are reliable sources that some Proud Boys believe in the QAnon conspiracy theory. That does not mean that the theory is true, just that reliable sources have quoted people who claim it is true. TFD (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. We have a seemingly interminable number of reliable sources that report Canada has designated the group a terrorist organisation. Are you saying Canada has not made the designation? That the Canadians are unreliable? or that the news oulets reporting on this are unreliable? I've got a copy of one of Australia's most respected papers, the The Age sitting in front of me right now, page 27 article title: "Proud Boys on Terrorist List" first para: "Canada has described the Proud Boys a terrorist entity, adding the far-right group to a list that includes al-Qaeda, ISIS and al-Shabab." Bacondrum 00:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read the disputed wording which was posted at the top of this discussion thread: "The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist terrorist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada." In order to call them terrorists we need a reliable source that calls them terrorists, not just sources that someone has called them that.

In answer to your second question, the Canadian government is not a reliable source for determining something is a terrorist group, any more than they are a reliable source for determining that cannabis and coca leaves are narcotics. (Cannabis and cocaine were added to the Schedule of the Narcotic Control Act by order in council just as the Proud Boys were added to a schedule of the Criminal Code of Canada by order in Council.) Note too that the definition of "terrorist group" in the Criminal Code applies to Part II of the Criminal Code only.[4]

TFD (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, thanks. I’m not completely sure about the reasoning there, weed and cocaine are narcotics. Though I do think we should say Canada has designated them as a terrorist organisation rather than calling them terrorists in wikivoice. Bacondrum 04:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum, It seems we're using an intensional definition and an extensional definition at the same time. If Canada makes a list of terrorists and add the Proud Boys, that's an extensional definition. If we have a scholarly source that puts forward a set of criteria for terrorism, and shows that the PBs meet all those criteria, that's an intensional definition. TFD appears to want the latter. What he's not taking into consideration is that Bill Blair (politician) has stated, after the house called on the government to make that designation, that the designation would be based on objective criteria. My view is that both definitions are met, but I can see that because those deliberations have not been made public, we'd require a published source. I'm fine with clarifying that it is a designation by public safety and emergency preparedness. Vexations (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

arrestee rosters

So from my understanding of WP:BLPCRIME, it's not proper to just rattle off so and so and so were arrested even with citations prior to convictions. Whether it's this one, or Antifa type articles. This can be entertained at BLP/N if needed. Graywalls (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, I suspect that presumption may be weakened in cases where those arrested openly advertised their actions on teh socials. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, Graywalls. Maybe we could summarize the list to simply mention name and arrests generally and then reference link the allegations without mentioning specific charges. If a conviction occurs, then we can expandTuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The relevant language is For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. "Seriously consider" does not mean that mentioning that certain people have been accused of criminal activity is forbidden by policy, and we routinely mention the names of people accused of high profile unusual crimes of long term significance. I believe that the January 6 events at the Capitol are of enormous importance and that it is justified to mention these arrests as long as the content is properly referenced and we do not include any language stating that the person is guilty unless they are convicted. These are not random people but members of a violent far right organization that seeks out public attention. I believe that this content is necessary to a complete encyclopedic understanding of the Proud Boys, and that the article is worse off without it. In the spirit of full disclosure, I added most of the content in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)