| Revision as of 19:22, 21 December 2020 editTuffStuffMcG (talk | contribs)430 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:56, 10 January 2025 edit undoPyrrho the Skipper (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers3,965 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2025: ReplyTag: Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{FAQ}} |
|
{{FAQ}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C |collapsed=yes |1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Men's Issues |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{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}} |
|
{{Warning RS and OR}} |
|
{{Tmbox |
|
{{Tmbox |
| Line 6: |
Line 17: |
|
|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. |
|
|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}} |
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 27 2020|Oct 4 2020}} |
|
|
{{Refideas |
|
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}} |
|
|
|
| {{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}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
| {{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}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism |class=C |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Men's issues |class=C |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Organizations |class=C |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics |class=C |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Proud Boys/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Proud Boys/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
==Citation overkill== |
|
|
Hi, I think we should reduce the number of the citations in the lede as per ] and ]. It's looking like a dogs breakfast. What do others think? ] (]) 21:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Another user tried to do combination cites so that it limits the number of numbers in text, but as long as there are editors trying gambits to cherry pick one source off at a time to attack and misrepresent, and then claiming "well because of that the wording has to be removed", it's probably not a great thing. It'll just be even more headache. ] (]) 04:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for the feedback, I think there's an issue in ignoring guidelines and style manuals in order to appease POV pushers, though I understand wanting to avoid the endless argy bargy. Editors should not be cherrypicking and making endless lists of flimsy sources to push their POV in the first place, by compromising on this we are kind of condoning a dodgy way of citing claims, IMO. ] (]) 22:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:In my experience, the main reason for citation overkill is that no good sources can be found and we try to overcome quality with quantity of sources. Instead of searching for sources that say what we want, we should search relevant sources and report what they say. For example, ]'s book (], 2019) would be a great source since Mudde is one of the world's leading experts on political extremism and collaberated in 2004 with the fascism scholar ] to write a book about the modern extreme right. ]'s book (], 2019) would be another good source. Then there's (Springer, 2020) and (University of California Press, 2020.) I would rather use them than an editorial in an education journal where the writer mentions the Proud Boys in passing. ] (]) 12:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::In my experience, "citation overkill" happens because people keep moving the goalposts and demanding ever more citations for something that's blindingly obvious. ] (]) 17:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Since I begin by identifying the best sources for articles, and I have created or contributed to a lot of articles about the far right, I can't remember if I ever had that problem. I never look for sources to state what I want in articles and therefore don't come up with a passing reference in an op-ed about a different topic as a source. But if I were challenged I would be able to defend what I used. The main objection I find when I am on the defending side of someone else's source is people who think the source is biased. I then explain that there is a different between a fact and an opinion and that for example ''The Routledge Handbook to Fascism and the Far Right'' is published by an academic publisher, it is specifically about fascism and the far right and its facts are as reliable as one would expect. And I usually challenge sources even if I disagree with them if they go against policy. ] (]) 17:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Cute, and yet what I'm seeing here and on other pages is editors who want to attack one source at a time arguing that they're "biased" or "it's ], either way. And so then more sources are brought, to show that there is consistency over more than just one source. |
|
|
::::And then cue the goalpost moving with the "you're just bundling because the sources are weak" BS. It's a ] setup. ] (]) 21:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The reason I took them one at a time is that it is time-consuming. First determine what type of article it is and learn about the publication and its author(s). Then read the article. Determine if the statement is a fact or opinion, or how relative to the article it is. It's a lot harder than doing a google search for "Proud Boys"+"Fascist" and copying in the first dozen hits you get. I guess the logic is that they can't all be inappropriate, hence the argument based on number of sources. ] (]) 23:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Thanks TFD, I tend to agree. We should be selecting solid sources, like Cas Mudde and reflecting those, not googling piles of flimsy sources that fit our beliefs. As ] says, the main causes of citation overkill is edit warring. ] (]) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:People who are concerned about the readability of the article due to too many inline sources may want to consider ]. ] (]) 17:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree that a overhaul is needed for the sources, both for reading and for better sources. ] (]) 04:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks all for the feedback, I'd like to start by bundling the sources, as suggested by Vexations, so they at least comply with guidelines "Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but '''more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations.'''" Are there any objections to bundling excessive cites? ] (]) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Another suggestion I think could help is to ]. And I still think we should cull some, for example if we have a high quality academic paper written by a subject matter expert, there's not really any need to use lesser quality cites at all (ie: news sources are far lesser quality than academic sources). ] (]) 22:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*I just went to start bundling, and it's completely nuts. There's 13 cites in the opening sentence. I'm gonna need help with this job, or at least an assurance that I've got backing from other editors to put in the massive amount of work involved in fixing this cite overkill. I think something needs to be done about editors adding excessive cites, it's extremely disruptive. ] (]) 22:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*So, I smashed through a bunch of excess cites in the lede, thinned and bundled them. There's still around thirty cites which is obviously excessive...Anyone feel like giving me a hand thinning the remaining ones? I don't want to remove anymore unilaterally. ] (]) 00:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::I appreciate the effort to reduce citation clutter, but I think we've gone overboard here at the expense of ]. It used to be that we had separate footnotes for each part of the first sentence: one for far-right, one for all-male, etc. That was good, not bad. Those footnotes have now all been lumped into a single, bundled footnote, making it more difficult for readers to identify the backing sources for each part. Moreover, now we have two sources in the bundle purporting to support "extremism and racism." Why are those there, if the first sentence says nothing about extremism or racism? |
|
|
::In fact, citations like this: {{tq|"The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist and male-only political organization..."}} are ''not'' overkill. The overkill in the first sentence is at the end: {{tq|"that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada."}} We can probably thin and/or bundle those citations 7-11, but we shouldn't be throwing citations 1-6 into the bundle as well. |
|
|
::If the primary concern here is the overall clutter of the lead section rather than the number of citations supporting a particular point, then that's not citation overkill, that's a ] issue. The appropriate solution would be to move the citations to the body, rather than to bundle them. ] <small>(])</small> 17:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::Same problem for the last sentence of the second paragraph. Citations supporting different parts of a sentence shouldn't be lumped into a single footnote. ] <small>(])</small> 17:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't think it's reasonable and it clearly violates policy to have have 26 cites in a single sentence (that's how many the first sentence included). I agree, (and it is policy) to place most cites in the body, not in the lede. Regardless the insanely high number of cites that have been added to the lede is disruptive editing. We can create separate notes, if it is felt to be really necessary, but the number of cites in the lede and for quite a few claims in the body are out of step with policy, disruptive and need to be thinned significantly. How we get there and what we keep is up for discussion, of course. For example, if we have academic sources for a claim, there's no need to have a bunch of lesser quality news cites tacked on - most the claims included have some really solid academic citations (and/or very good news cites), the others should go. ] (]) 20:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Another option is ] (probably the best solution), but that looks like a really big job. ] (]) 20:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I for one do not think that news sources are inferior to academic sources in a current events context such as this. And I'm against short-form citations for non-academic articles. I agree that 26 citations for the first sentence is too much clutter. Of the various options, I'm in favor of moving the citations to the body. (As an aside, 26 citations violates no policy. Check LEADCITE, which isn't even a policy or guideline. In any case there seems to be consensus here to reduce the clutter.) ] <small>(])</small> 21:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
{{out}} |
|
|
|
|
|
At this point, I'd support moving most of the lead out into the article itself, including the cites. It was originally heavily cited because of all the people slamming the article for making statements in the lead without cites (although that's how it's supposed to work). Adding cites was just a way to stop those people complaining, but it has spiraled a bit out of control. We really should cut the lead down, moving most (if not all) of the citations into the body. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 14:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Excessive detail in lede== |
|
|
{{atop |
|
|
| status = |
|
|
| result = Seemingly resolved with the removal of in-text attribution for that assessment in the lead. ] <small>(please ] on reply)</small> 06:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does this even belong in the lede? |
|
|
"The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has said that "hile the group can be described as violent, nationalistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and misogynistic, its members represent a range of ethnic backgrounds, and its leaders vehemently protest any allegations of racism." Despite denying that they are a racist group, the Proud Boys tends to espouse racist ideologies and attract white supremacists as members, with founder McInnes having said, "I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of. I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life."" |
|
|
I think that level of detail belongs in the body, not the lede. ] (]) 22:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree with your assessment. ] (]) 23:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::I tend to take the default position that attributed opinion should go below the fold. And accordingly, concur that the statement attributed to the ADL should be in the body, not the lead. The editorialising part of the content doesn't belong in the article. - ] <sup>]</sup> |
|
|
:::Done. Thanks. ] (]) 00:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
{{abot}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== It should read ... == |
|
|
{{atop|Nothing to do here.--] (]) 21:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Proud Boys is a centralized political and social movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in PEACEFUL protest against incidents of political & racial brutality, all attempts to divide the American citizens plus all racially or politically motivated violence against the American people. ] (]) 20:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please find a ] for the changes you want to make. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 20:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
{{abot}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== name of group == |
|
|
|
|
|
do we have any sources regarding the choice of name for the group and why proud boys? |
|
|
KKK and similar large alt right pages have a history section explaining the choice for group name. |
|
|
seems lacking without similar here. |
|
|
the boys part makes logical sense being all men but curious what they are meant to be claiming pride in given nature of protests. |
|
|
] (]) 02:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:2nd sentence of the lead explains it. ] (]) 03:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yeah, as IHateAccounts points out, it's... not very deep, and explained in the History section of the article. The "pride" part is western chauvinism, the idea that white European males are responsible for everything valuable in our society, and they detest any criticism of that concept. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 14:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::"Western" only means "white" if you discount the non-white contributions to Western civilization, which the Proud Boys do not. That sound more like a personal belief than something supported by objective sources] (]) 17:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2024 == |
|
== Domestic terrorism == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Proud Boys|answered=yes}} |
|
{{u|Acroterion}}, where's the source for PB being a domestic terrorism organization ? ] <small>(])</small> 20:21, 16 December 2020 (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) |
|
:Why are you asking me? I'm not aware of such a designation. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 21:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ah, I see. Misclick, sorry about that, probably on an @#$%&! iPad. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' |
|
:] '''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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== URL deleted again == |
|
== Symbolism == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Proud Boys often use a Rooster, sometimes painted red, white, and blue, as a ]. Can we add ] (]) 18:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Proud Boys official URL has been deleted again. I'm not seeing a discussion of why in the talk, but there is extensive discussion of why it was there in the archives] (]) 17:35, 21 December 2020 (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) |
|
:likewise, any mention of the groups repeated assertion that they are against racism and authoritarianism has also been deleted from the lede] (]) 17:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Unsure best way to integrate information == |
|
::Consensus was to remove per https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Proud_Boys/Archive_5#Website. See this edit by ItsPugle. ] (]) 17:46, 21 December 2020 (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) |
|
::{{ec}}Likewise, the denials are in ] territory and are not ] for the lead, especially after the November 2020 leadership disagreements. They have coverage in the body. ] (]) 17:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Addition of a website URL == |
|
::{{re|TuffStuffMcG}} Was there a specific diff that removed PB's take on racism from the lede, or do you just feel like more discussion of that is warranted to accurately summarize the body of the article? ] (]) 17:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe we should add the Proud Boys' site's URL to the "Quick Facts" section. ] (]) 18:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::there were 2 votes to exclude the URL, yours being one of them. I disagree. If there is consensus that Enrique Tarrio is the Chairman, the website he promotes is the offiial URL. What about removal of any mention that they reject racism and white supremacy? ] (]) 17:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2024 == |
|
::::I didn't comment in that section. Again, can you provide a link to the before/after on what was removed? ] (]) 18:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{hat|] request. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 22:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Proud Boys|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Change everything on this page to an accurate and factual description of the Proud Boys. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the appropriate description of this group: |
|
:::sorry, I meant ihateaccounts, who mentioned that there was consensus, was one of the 2 voting on that consensus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We are not a political group. |
|
The terminology about the group officially rejecting racism and authoritarianism - I don't have a copy/paste of the exact wording. According to Reuters and the ADL, they "tend to reject overt white Supremacy". According to their own tenets which they recruit with - they adamantly reject those things which has been discussed in archives at length |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-extremists-explainer-idUSKBN26L3Q1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
https://proudboysusa.com/ |
|
|
|
:{{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) |
|
|
::That's not a reliable source (see ] and ]) ] ] 20:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::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) |
|
|
::::NLT blocked. ] ] 21:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2025 == |
|
] (]) 18:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Their response is mentioned several times throughout the article, . I don't think their description of themselves warrants mention in the lede; ] was already noted above. ] (]) 18:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Proud Boys|answered=yes}} |
|
::::The link I attached was a paraphrase by Reuters of what the ADL says] (]) 19:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
:'''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) |
|
|
::@] they support trump but trump never supported them, if you want sources look at the 2020 debate: "proud boys? Stand back and stand by "in response to the question: will you condemn white supremacist and militia groups and to say that they stand down and not add to violence to these cities...?" ] (]) 00:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The article does not say that Trump supports them as far as I can see. ] (]) 03:56, 10 January 2025 (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. 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