| Revision as of 20:45, 12 February 2018 editScbritton (talk | contribs)163 edits →NPOV-Lede← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:38, 2 January 2025 edit undoSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,366 edits →top: Place of publication |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{recruiting}} |
|
{{FAQ}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{WPBS|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism |class=Start |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C |collapsed=yes |1= |
|
{{WikiProject Men's issues |class=Start |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Organizations |class=Start |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Men's Issues |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics |class=Start |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |class=Start |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Organizations |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low |American=y |American-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=Mid |importance=Mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap}} |
|
|
{{Warning RS and OR}} |
|
|
{{Tmbox |
|
|
|type = speedy |
|
|
|text = The Proud Boys have a history of self-published claims that often contradict independent reliable sources. As per the ''']''' and ''']''', these statements should be mentioned, but attributed in-text to the group and be within the context of coverage from reliable sources. Be careful not to ] to the Proud Boys' statements, especially when they conflict with reliable sources. |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{stt}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 27 2020|Oct 4 2020}} |
|
|
{{Refideas |
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=Park |first1=Meadhbh |editor1-last=Carian |editor1-first=Emily K. |editor2-last=DiBranco |editor2-first=Alex |editor3-last=Ebin |editor3-first=Chelsea |title=Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |location=London |isbn=978-1-0005-7622-1 |doi=10.4324/9781003164722 |chapter=Fight Club: Gavin McInnes, the Proud Boys, and Male Supremacism}} |
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=Stern |first1=Alexandra Minna |author1-link=Alexandra Minna Stern |title=Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate: How the Alt-Right Is Warping the American Imagination |date=2019 |publisher=Beacon Press |location=Boston |isbn=978-0-8070-6336-1}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(20d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Proud Boys/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Proud Boys/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=90|units=days}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2024 == |
|
== Far right == |
|
|
{{hat|not forum - more soap boxing than editing going on here plus request has already been repeatedly answered ] (]) 09:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)}} |
|
|
I would like to make some edits to this page. Namely to remove “Far right” as an adjective for the Proud Boys. The Proud Boys are not Far right by Misplaced Pages’s own definition of Far right. They are not nationalists, even one of the sources supports this by talking about the Canadian proud boys. It is an international organization. Neither are they nativists as many chapters are in the US which is composed mostly of migrants. They also have members that are recent migrants. Lastly, they have nothing close to authoritarian tendencies. In fact they are by and large against authority to the point that all chapters are almost completely autonomous. |
|
|
The only thing that they are, are culturalists. Nowhere, that I could find, are culturalists defined as far right. |
|
|
Everything that Misplaced Pages describes the far right as being is in no way supported by the proud boys fraternity, and in some cases is completely oposite. |
|
|
Therefore, I would like to remove “far right” and the “sources” related to it. None of the sources used make a case or explain how the fraternity is far right, they simply refer to them as far right, and thus cannot be considered reliable sources that prove that the organization is in fact far right. As noted above, they are, by definition, not far right. |
|
|
There are other changes I would like to make and even content I would like to add, but seeing how the editing of this page is under such tight control, I will argue my case for each edit I want to make on a case by case basis. |
|
|
Thank you for your consideration. |
|
|
] (]) 05:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Proud Boys|answered=yes}} |
|
:What reliable source calls them "culturalist"? (For that matter, what does ]/] mean? If this is a neologism, I don't expect you to answer, by the way.) Attempting to determine whether or not they ''truly'' are far-right or not would be ], which isn't how Misplaced Pages works. Since reliable sources say they are far-right, that's enough. We don't attempt to compare and contrast definitions of far-right beyond how they are applied by sources. Likewise, we don't second-guess reliable sources without a specific reason, which you have not provided. Reliable sources say the Proud Boys are far-right, so we follow. ] (]) 05:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The Proud Boys was founded as a fraternity that supports the American Republic. Proud Boys support the American Capitalist ideology. Proud Boys have been deemed as Fascist, this is incorrect. ] (]) 18:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] ] 18:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::How does one provide a source contrary to an intangible and subjective viewpoint? ] (]) 18:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If you'd read that link to our reliable sources policy, that would clear it up. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Symbolism == |
|
So, if you had a reliable source that says they are not, would it be allowed to be removed? What is done when “reliable sources” contradict each other. For that matter, who determines what is a reliable source and what is biased slander or the mindless republishing of someone else’s biased slander? ] (]) 06:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Proud Boys often use a Rooster, sometimes painted red, white, and blue, as a ]. Can we add ] (]) 18:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
I forgot to answer your question. They call themselves culteralists, in that they require members to believe that the west is the best, but that is irrelevant. I only offered that as an “if anything”. |
|
|
So, is Misplaced Pages not a reliable source? Even wikipedia’s own definition of far right contradicts these “reliable sources”. ] (]) 06:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It's actually already cited in the article, using the original Independent link rather than Yahoo's wrapper around it. See cite 15. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Correct, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source within Misplaced Pages. Using other articles as sources would lead to ]s, among other problems (see ]). |
|
|
:As laid-out at ], reliable sources are those with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. In practice some indicators of a news source's reliability are that it has independent editorial oversight, issues retractions and corrections, has won significant awards (the Pulitzer Prize, for example), or has a history of breaking stories which are covered and directly cited by other reliable outlets. Academic sources have slightly different indicators, but you get the idea. |
|
|
:As has already been discussed on this talk page, the Proud Boys own site is not a reliable source, even for claims about the Proud Boys. ] material from the organization can only be used in limited cases either with attribution, or for non-controversial details (founding dates, addresses, that kind of thing). If reliable sources contradict each other, we evaluate on a case by case bases, but ] is a common starting point. ] (]) 06:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::What Grayfell said. Redbeard, your user talk comments suggest that you take issue with Misplaced Pages's community standards such as its ] and the corresponding ]. That's perfectly legitimate, but before you go down that path, please know that this is not the appropriate forum to discuss issues with our community standards. Better would be ], ], or ]. --] (]) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Unsure best way to integrate information == |
|
Greyfell, would the tenets of the group be any more controversial that the founding date? Per Misplaced Pages policy, self sources can be used as sources for information about themselves and their activities as long as it doesn’t speak for a third party, make an exceptional claim, and that the article isn’t solely based on such a source. So, per wikipedia’s Own standards, sources from the Proud Boys are acceptable sources. |
|
|
Dr. Fleischman, I do have an issue with Misplaced Pages’s standards and with it’s interpretation even moreso. But I am not going to make that argument here. I will formulate my argument within the current guidelines when I have a little more time. ] (]) 03:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all, I am reading a ]: which notes in the abstract "The misconception that alt-right gangs are domestic terrorist organizations, primarily driven by racist ideology, ignores just how unrefined and rudimentary the beliefs that connect members together actually are." I'm unsure where in the article this would fit. ] (]) 02:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Yes, the the organization's tenets are more controversial than the founding date by far, but that's '''not''' the only problem. The "tenets" listed on their website are not inherently the most significant aspect of the organization. We don't use a corporation's marketing materials or ] to define it, and this is similar. When reliable sources saying something about an organization, that organization's PR about itself is not automatically cancel-out those other sources. Labeling sources as biased or left-wing or whatever doesn't make them less reliable, either. Reporting or commenting on an organization in an way that doesn't align with that organization's desires has absolutely no effect on reliability at all. ] (]) 04:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Addition of a website URL == |
|
: You obviously care a lot about the subject of this article and the accuracy of what it says and I think that it might help to look at our policies from the perspective of an article whose subject you care nothing about. If it were allowed for Coca Cola to use their site to write about their company vision on our encyclopedia, we can easily imagine the problems, which would occur. ] (]) 04:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe we should add the Proud Boys' site's URL to the "Quick Facts" section. ] (]) 18:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Greyfell, please explain how a group’s tenets are controversial in relation to defining the group. The tenets may in themselves be controversial, however, there shouldn’t be any controversy about the tenets defining what the group is about and believes in. That’s quite the straw man. The tenets of a fraternity are nothing like a company’s PR. The tenets of an organization define what the organization is about and who they allow into the group and how they expect members to act. If you want to use a business as a straw man, a closer comparison would be to the employee handbook and HR policies. Sure you might have an asshole employee that hits on his coworker, but it is in violation of the companies anti harassment policies and if it is reported or becomes blatant enough that HR becomes aware of it, the employee will be punished or terminated. |
|
|
|
:Do you mean the template on the right? I don't think it makes sense; they're not primarily known for it and it wouldn't provide much useful information as a result. In fact, the only mention of the website of the article is an offhand quote saying that it hasn't been updated in over a year and a half. --] (]) 20:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
It would be foolish to say that a company’s employee handbook and HR policies are too controversial to be allowed as a source to support the policies of the company. The policies of the company and the actions of it’s employees do not necessarily always align, but the actions of an employee and any subsequent publishing of those actions do not negate the policies of the company. Only a continued open violation of the policies by multiple employees would make the company policies controversial and unreliable. |
|
|
And yes, reporting on an organization in direct contradiction of their own policies, tenets, and actions does reflect on the reliability of the source. There is such a thing as defamation. |
|
|
Edaham, if Misplaced Pages is talking about coca cola’s vision, it only makes sense that you would use coca cola’s vision statement as a reference. You might make an argument that the company is not following their vision statement and use sources to make that argument. It would be faulty however to use a third party as a source to define coke’s Vision statement when that third party is the complete opposite of Coke’s actual vision statement. |
|
|
That is the argument I am trying to make. |
|
|
It’s one thing to make an argument that the Proud Boys members act in a manner consistent with the definition of the far right, but to label them far right Simply because an article calls them far right is not intellectually honest. Not to mention it is against Misplaced Pages policy. |
|
|
Per Misplaced Pages policy |
|
|
“Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited.” |
|
|
Just because the author of the article calls them far right, does not verify that they are far right. |
|
|
“Article statements should not rely on passing comments.” Which is exactly what the current sources do. |
|
|
“Should reflect the conclusions of the source” the topic of the source was not about whether or not the Proud Boys are far right and thus did not come to that conclusion, but simply made a “passing comment” by using it as an adjective when referencing the fraternity. Therefore, “drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.” As I established before, the sources did not come to a conclusion that the Proud Boys were far right, therefore labeling them far right in the Misplaced Pages article is original research as defined by Misplaced Pages’s own policies. |
|
|
Not only that, but the sources cited cannot even be considered secondary sources, as wikipedia’s Definition of secondary sources is that “it contains an author’s analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts and ideas taken from primary sources.” These sources do none of that in regards to the fraternity being far right or not. There is not evaluation going on as to where the organization lands on the political spectrum, only a passing label. |
|
|
] (]) 07:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2024 == |
|
Regarding sources that contradict the current sources that label the group as far right. Here is a very non biased article that describes the group as libertarian |
|
|
|
{{hat|] request. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 22:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2017/11/27/controversial-proud-boys-embrace-western-values-reject-feminism-and-political-correctness/888519001/ ] (]) 07:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Proud Boys|answered=yes}} |
|
:Nice essay, wrong place for it. You’ve already had our policies explained to you regarding this matter. Now you are ]. This ]. Please take your disruptive talk page texts to the wall of a public toilet where they belong. If you even so much as mention defamation, or anything which sounds like a legal threat again I’ll make an ANI report. Cheers. ] (]) 07:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Change everything on this page to an accurate and factual description of the Proud Boys. |
|
:Holy cow Redbeard! The goal here is to obtain consensus to improve the article, not to overwhelm folks with ]! Please try to make your arguments a lot more concise, and if they must be long, the least you can do is to break them into digestible paragraphs. --] (]) 07:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the appropriate description of this group: |
|
What are you talking about NOTHERE? This is exactly the place for this. I want to make edits to factually incorrect information on a Misplaced Pages article and senior editors will not allow me to do that without significant explanation, therefore I am here to make my case in an attempt to convince the powers that be to allow me to make the edits without reverting them. I directly quoted the policies. This is not disruptive talk, this is a discussion of the merits of editing this page. So far this has been a relatively civil discussion, there is no need to become childish about it. |
|
|
I didn’t mention defamation in reference to you or Misplaced Pages, don’t take what i said out of context. |
|
|
So far this has been a discussion about the merits of editing this wiki, but your last comment is not in line with that discussion and is more NOTHERE than any post I have made so far. Please stay on topic and either agree with or dispute my points or let me continue this conversation with other editors who are interested in discussing how to make this page reliable and unbiased. ] (]) 07:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We are not a political group. |
|
Dr. Fleischman, I apologize. I agree, I hate walls of text too, but that was a long argument to make and I am trying to get to bed. I have to be up in a few hours for work. If I have time tomorrow I may try to edit the format if the conversation hasn’t continued further. ] (]) 07:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Then go to bed. ] --] (]) 07:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are a fraternal brotherhood like the Elk’s Lodge or the Shriners. We are multi-racial group with conservative and libertarian inclinations. We welcome men of all races, straight or gay, into our membership. The only non-negotiable rule is that you are a Western Chauvinist who refuses to apologize for creating the modern world. The majority of our members are politically right-wing, but this is not a requirement. We disavow communists, Nazis, racists and other violent extremists. We will allow weak, beta-male virgins to join as long they attempt to elevate their status. Our fraternity is about helping men improve their lives. That goes for all men. However, if a prospective Proud Boy refuses to step up to the plate; if he doesn’t heed our advice and try to improve his lot; if he doesn’t assimilate and engage with the group, he will be asked to leave. |
|
Don’t worry Dr. I’m just trying to get my thoughts down while they are still in my head, I’m not in a rush to create an article. ] (]) 07:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many Proud Boys engage in acts of service to their community. This is not a requirement, but highly encouraged. We have assisted churches, veterans organizations, business owners and many others. Men who seek to reinstate a spirit of western chauvinism know that it requires action. That action can take many forms. Some men are active, visibly in the community, others are setting the example with everything they do. Their family, business, and social lives as well as bonding within this brotherhood are their action. Proud Boys love, live and exemplify the phrase “The West is The Best”!" ] (]) 20:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Going to add my voice to this discussion as we work together on Misplaced Pages by consensus. I agree with ] and ] that what is written is reliable and is valid to be used in the article on Proud Boys. All I have seen from the lot of text written so far by ] is someone that is trying to manipulate the finder points to turn around something that has been consensus for a long time to instead fit their way of thinking. While I can understand they don't seem to agree with what is written, I do believe what Redbeard3006 is discussing here really would be a change of policy and long time consensus, then it really is ] and something that should be discussed elsewhere as it would completely change how Misplaced Pages articles have been written in the past. So my vote, information stays as it is and Proud Boys is Far Right because reliable sources say so. <span style="background-color: black">]</span>] 07:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] ] 20:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Here is the link for reference purposes. https://azproudboys.com/politics-social/ ] (]) 20:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
NZFC, I am not proposing a change in policy, in fact I have directly quoted policy. Do you care to dipue any of my points, or is deflection all that you have to contribute? Much earlier in the conversation it was made quite clear to me how important the Misplaced Pages policies are, but now that I have shown this article to be in violation of those policies, I am accused of NOTHERE. |
|
|
|
::That's not a reliable source (see ] and ]) ] ] 20:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
There is a clear bias to make sure the article supports an agenda, not that it is accurate and neutral. Sad. |
|
|
|
:::I guess we'll just name you as the main person in the upcoming defamation lawsuit. The current content on this page is defamatory and absolutely incorrect. We'll be in touch soon. ] (]) 20:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Edaham doesn’t even bother to hide his bias. ] (]) 09:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::NLT blocked. ] ] 21:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
:That's the thing though, you haven't stated any policy that shows that calling them Far right is wrong. Instead you're trying to use weasel words to imply that it's ok to use first person sources when it isn't. It's really about stuff that is not controversial, the fact that we are having this discussion again and again proves that it is controversial so we can't use what the organisation says about itself. If anyone is showing bias it is yourself in that you can't seem to stand that the sources are reliable and don't fit with your way of thinking. <span style="background-color: black">]</span>] 09:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I was willing to assume good faith until that wall of text, which I didn't really read. Redbeard3006, if you're not willing to treat others with enough respect to get to the point and make your text readable... guess what happens? |
|
|
::If reliable sources assess an organization by the actions and statements of its members and comes to a conclusion some editors personally don't agree with, so be it. A willingness to come to specific conclusions is part of what makes them reliable. The Green Bay Public Radio story is useful. It repeatedly emphasize that the Proud Boys "overlap" with the alt-right as a central theme. As the article points out, the extreme anti-feminism and anti-Islam of the Proud Boys, as well as their practice of rewarding violence at "free speech" rallies in support of racist/extremist ideas, are entirely consistent with the alt-right. This source helps "explain how the fraternity is far right", to answer Redbeard's original post, so I think we're done here. ] (]) 09:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2025 == |
|
Wow Greyfall, talk about not having respect for others... i mentioned that I would clean it up, but you didn’t have enough respect to actually bother to read it or wait for an edit before closing the conversation. So much for respect. ] (]) 19:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Fourth Degree == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think instead of going back and forth we should discuss here {{U|Darkness Shines}}, {{U|Grayfell}} and {{U|Tao2911}}. My understand is SPLC is a ] and we normally don't take ] when debating the opinion of the statement. <span style="background-color: black">]</span>] 00:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is my understanding as well. I do not think the organization's site is particularly useful, especially since the claim being added is not unambiguously a refutation of the SPLC source. "The cause" is so vague, and so open to interpretation, that it's essentially meaningless in this context, and Misplaced Pages shouldn't include this kind of evasive/euphemistic language without a better reason. The added by Tao2911 did not mention the fourth degree at all, making it worse than useless. ] (]) 00:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:SPLC, needs Hatewatch is their blog so newsblog applies also. Using a group's own website for information on the group is fine so long as we attributepov. Per the policy "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" This is not rocket science guys. ] (]) 10:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:DN is correct on the consensus and thanks for the link. It's not that this is opinion as NZFC said. It's that SPLC has unique characteristics that render its publications highly reputable but still questionable and therefore the RSN consensus is that it may be cited for facts but only with in-text attribution. At least that's my understanding. --] (]) 17:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Look, you guys are clearly biased. I am not. I was doing some research on the Proud boys (trying to find out why the heck they use the term "Uhuru", among other things.) I am not a supporter or fan. The SPLC ref. paints them as a "hate group." Whatever else they may be, they clearly are not a hate group, at least there is no consensus on that score, and they absolutely deny the label alt-right; their membership is widely mixed in race, religion, etc. Also, that SPLC information is clearly ''dated and inaccurate''. If you want to know what the rules of a group are, quote the group. There is precedent for this everywhere you look on WP. If a secondary or tertiary source is inaccurate or biased, don't use it. This is typical use of WP rules to maintain biased information, and its totally weaselly. You see it all the time. I'm out.] (]) 20:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I live in NZ and have nothing to do with any of the groups, I just came across this page because of vandalism. I have no bias but instead go with Misplaced Pages policy. You are using your own judgement about the SPLC source which as has been told many times is reliable, if you have an updated source that is reliable and external from the organisation then we can use that but we don't quote what organisations have to say about themselves but instead what others say about them, that is the core of what is happening here. <span style="background-color: black">]</span>] 20:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You almost lost me with your first two sentences, but I was barely able to read on. You are evidently misinformed about how we do things here. Where content doesn't comply with our community standards, the appropriate tack is to fix it, not to say, "oh, that must be how it ''really'' works at WP" and then copy that non-compliance across the encyclopedia. I guess what I'm saying is, perhaps it's time for you to familiarize yourself with what our community standards actually say. They're taken ''very seriously'' in contentious politics-related articles such as this one. --] (]) 22:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I do not see where in that RSN post consensus is that Hate Watch must be attributed, but I have no strong objection to attributing this point to them in this case. |
|
|
:::I do have a problem with the direct quote from the Proud Boys' site. Not only because it's unreliable (it is, since it's a blog post by Gavin Mcinnis) but because it's far, far too vague. What is this "{{tq|cause}}" that a Proud Boys member must endure conflict for? Mcinnis doesn't say, and the examples are not informative either. There is no contradiction between the Proud Boys' vague statement and the SPLC's, so I don't understand what is explained by this quote. |
|
|
:::As for Tao2911's comments, nowhere does this article say that the Proud Boys are a hate group. Nowhere does the SPLC ref say they are a hate group, either. The SPLC article quotes Chapman's statement that the Alt-Knights' function is to defend their "right wing brethren". In other words, he's saying that they are a militant right wing organization. Also of course, it's not exactly a stretch to say "Alt-Knights" + "right wing" = "alt-right", but we have plenty of other reliable sources to explicitly make that connection for us. The connection between the Proud Boys and the alt-right is clear and well-documented. |
|
|
:::If reliable sources conflict with this fraternity's website, that indicates the fraternity's site is not reliable. ] (]) 00:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Are you seriously saying this group's own words about itself are unreliable for a description of itself? Don't be daft ] (]) 02:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Who knew that orgs can lie about themselves? I.e. KKK does not hate anyone, it just loves ''white'' people. A Wiki example: : "...to collect and preserve the material for a truthful history of the ]..." Etc. Don't be daft. Cheers, ] (]) 02:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::All of these folks are trying to present themselves as this or that, most of it is strategic or just plain denial and has little to do with reality. Richard Spencer says he's identitarian, not white supremacist. Cernovich says he's new right, not alt-right. Trump says he's the least racist person he knows. And yet - we're daft to say their own words about themselves are unreliable for descriptions of themselves? --] (]) 03:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::For clarity, I am seriously saying that this groups own words, specifically McInnis's blog posts about his group, are not automatically reliable, nor are they automatically worth including in this article. In this case, it doesn't seem informative, so why even bother? ] (]) 06:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You know, I was going to say I agree with you, but I'm beginning to think that the website's description of the fourth degree add value in conjunction with the SLPC-sourced content. Look at what it's saying: when you scrape away all of the "pro-Western fraternal" bullshit, the organization's "cause" is beating up antifa activists. That's about one babystep away from acknowledging that the PBs are neo-Nazis. --] (]) 07:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I guess that's one way to look at it. ] (]) 08:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::So..... hat? ] (]) 08:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== NPOV-Lede == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've added the NPOV dispute heading to the lede because classifying any group as "far-left" or "far-right" is open to dispute based on the perception of the beholder. Socialist activists see anyone to the right of the Democrats as being "far right", while conservative republicans see anyone to the left of the Republicans as being far-left. |
|
|
|
|
|
The citations and references provided link to media articles which describe the group as "far right", but those articles themselves are not reliable ''for precisely the same reasons''. |
|
|
|
|
|
The proposed solution would be to remove the far-right designation and simply list the group's (undisputed) ideological standpoint as listed by the group themselves, and chronicle the groups activities. Things that have been '''done''' are not disputable, since it's a matter of historical record; but ideological descriptions of the group's various stances are very much matters that are open for debate and interpretation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Proud Boys|answered=yes}} |
|
Please do not revert the edit, as it does indeed conform with Misplaced Pages's editing policy. |
|
|
|
I think you should add that Donald Trump does not support them, they do, but Trump publicly said ‘The Proud Biys should back off!’ ] (]) 10:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:The only thing that matters is whether reliable sources make these descriptions.] (]) 20:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:'''Not done''' - This would require reliable sources, and seems irrelevant to the actual topic of the article. Further, him telling them to "back off" was just for optics. It's not enough to say he does/does not support them on its own. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:We have reliable sources which say they are far right so describing them as such in the article does not violate any policies ] (]) 20:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Opinion statements such as 'far-right' are not statements of fact. They are interpretations; which violate the principle of neutrality. Please do not revert until a suitable resolution has been achieved, which is precisely the reason for having the tag in the first place. |
|
The Proud Boys was founded as a fraternity that supports the American Republic. Proud Boys support the American Capitalist ideology. Proud Boys have been deemed as Fascist, this is incorrect. Noble hobbs (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The Proud Boys often use a Rooster, sometimes painted red, white, and blue, as a semiotic. Can we add
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: I'd like to suggest a change. Where should I start?
A1: Great! The first thing you should do is check that no one else has already brought up your suggestion. You can check this by going through the current discussions below, or by searching the talk archives.
Q2: Why does the article describe the Proud Boys as "far-right", "neo-fascist" or as having connections to white supremacists?
A2: Misplaced Pages is built off reliable sources, and the significant and clear majority of sources use such descriptions. You can see a few selected sources for these determinations in the article's content, though many other sources have also been included in previous talk discussions: far-right discussion, neo-fascist discussion, white supremacy discussion. Discussion amongst editors around this happened in 2020, resulting in an editorial consensus to keep this three terms per all available evidence.
Q3: I have a connection to the Proud Boys, but there's something wrong.
A3: Neutrality is important to Misplaced Pages, so editors with conflicts of interests are generally discouraged from editing directly, and instead should request edits to be made to ensure their independence. This can be done by creating a new talk section, describing your request (including what needs changing and sources), and adding {{Request edit}} to the top of the section. If there is something wrong like spelling or grammar, feel free to change it yourself, but any meaningful changes are best to be discussed first.
Q4: What sort of policies should I be aware of before I start editing?
A4: If you're wanting to jump in and start editing, it's best that you're familiar with Misplaced Pages's neutrality, verifiability (referencing), and biography policies. We're all here to help build a better encyclopedia, so if you would like some help making sure your change is okay or would like a second pair of eyes to skim over it before you save it, just post a new message on the talk page!
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide