Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

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. Redbeard3006 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What reliable source calls them "culturalist"? (For that matter, what does culturalist/culturalism 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 original research, 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. Grayfell (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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? Redbeard3006 (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2018 (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”. Redbeard3006 (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source within Misplaced Pages. Using other articles as sources would lead to circular references, among other problems (see WP:CIRC).

As laid-out at WP:RS, 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. WP:PRIMARY 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 WP:DUE is a common starting point. Grayfell (talk) 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 verifiability policy and the corresponding guideline for identifying reliable sources. 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 WT:V, WP:VPP, or WP:TEA. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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. Redbeard3006 (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2018 (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 mission statement 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. Grayfell (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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. Edaham (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2018 (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. 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.

Redbeard3006 (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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 http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2017/11/27/controversial-proud-boys-embrace-western-values-reject-feminism-and-political-correctness/888519001/ Redbeard3006 (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice essay, wrong place for it. You’ve already had our policies explained to you regarding this matter. Now you are WP:NOTHERE. This isn’t a forum. 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. Edaham (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Holy cow Redbeard! The goal here is to obtain consensus to improve the article, not to overwhelm folks with walls of text! 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. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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. Redbeard3006 (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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. Redbeard3006 (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Then go to bed. There is no deadline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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. Redbeard3006 (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Going to add my voice to this discussion as we work together on Misplaced Pages by consensus. I agree with Dr. Fleischman and Edaham 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 Redbeard3006 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 WP:NOTHERE 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. NZFC 07:56, 1 February 2018 (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. There is a clear bias to make sure the article supports an agenda, not that it is accurate and neutral. Sad. Edaham doesn’t even bother to hide his bias. Redbeard3006 (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2018 (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. NZFC 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. Grayfell (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)