Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:24, 20 November 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proud Boys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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 Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Men's Issues Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proud Boys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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 Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Proud Boys is a Center-right organization that admits only men as members, with a presence in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. It was started in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder and former commentator Gavin McInnes. Proud Boys emerged as part of the alt-right, but in early 2017 McInnes began distancing himself from the alt-right, saying their focus is race and his focus is Western values, a view which has been termed alt-lite; the rebranding effort intensified after the Unite the Right Rally. The organization has been described as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and NPR's The Takeaway. While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often appear at racist rallies and events. The organization allegedly glorifies violence, and members participate in violence at events it attends; it has been called an "alt-right fight club".

References

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Carter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference Long was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference CBC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Paige St. John & Veronica Rocha, Conservative and alt-right groups gather for 'free speech' rally in Berkeley, Los Angeles Times (April 27, 2017): "far right group Proud Boys..."
5. "'Proud Boys' back in Canada military after crashing indigenous ceremony". BBC News. 31 August 2017.
6. Gilbert, Simon (30 July 2017). "Right wing activist warns people to avoid "immigrant city" Coventry which he claims is "awful"". Coventry Telegraph. Retrieved 8 February 2018.
7. Cite error: The named reference Marantz was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. Woodhouse, Leighton Akio (21 September 2017). "After Charlottesville, the American Far Right is Tearing Itself Apart". The Intercept. Retrieved 10 January 2018.
9. Cite error: The named reference SPLC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. Cite error: The named reference Takeaway was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. ^ Weill, Kelly; Shallwani, Pervaiz (15 October 2018). "NYPD Looks to Charge 9 Proud Boys With Assault for Manhattan Fight". The Daily Beast.
12. Cite error: The named reference SPLC2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Benpl0x (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No. "Far right" is very well documented, and their glorification of violence is not "alleged" but rather well sourced. You brought no sources to support those changes. If you want to pose another request, please focus it so people don't have to waste time trying to figure out what you are changing. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Political violence

I undid this edit which added the claim the Proud Boys "promote political violence" to the lede and the infobox which I don't think is justified. The new source was an NR opinion piece . Question: Should we incorporate the NR opinion some other way? D.Creish (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That ref was not needed for the edit. The whole article is about their violence and we were very much in error by not pushing that higher up before. I will restore using the other sources already in the page. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I put this NR piece, and the Federalist piece and this american life piece, in further reading. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Political violence is a special subset of violence (as self defense is a subset of violence.) If we're going to include "political violence" in the first sentence of the lede and in the infobox we need strong sources and at least some discussion. The further reading links are fine, I think (I really don't know FR requirements.) D.Creish (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please rethink. Their violence is political. Your editing here is against what WP:LEAD calls for (summarizing the article) and the sources. If needed I will throw an RfC and the stance you are taking here is unsupportable. If that is what you want, I will do it. Let me know. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"Unsupportable" is pretty strong. The lede still includes "glorifies violence" and "members participate in violence" which I didn't remove. I'm open minded. If you list the sources and sections that you think support it I could be persuaded. I'd prefer we tried that before an RFC but I have no real objection to one if that's your preference. D.Creish (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

yes it is strong. Please rethink your edit. (I fixed the header btw) I will give you some time. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Appropriate header change. I'm waiting on your justification, see above. But no rush. D.Creish (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha! "intentional aggression was not common among far-right groups in the past" according to SPLC. It's attributed so that's fine but claims like that is why many don't take them seriously. D.Creish (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not here to be your little servant. You have not addressed the main issue which is LEAD. I guess to "prove" to you what the page says I would need to read the article out loud to you, perhaps while placing grapes in your mouth one by one. I will not be replying to you further on this topic, nor again on this page where you demonstrate this kind of laziness. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

That's textbook uncollaborative and a 180 reading of WP:BURDEN. I can't force you to reply but policy exists and whether or not you like it you have to follow it. D.Creish (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand how you could frame it that way. But laziness is not collaborative either. I can't force you to not be lazy but I don't have to put up with it either. I appreciated you walking through the refs below. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"You said 'I will not be replying to you further on this topic' - our lie detectors determined that was a lie bad prediction" lol. But in all honesty I'd much rather you reply and we reach some agreement or we'll have to go through the RFC process. D.Creish (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The on-going pissing match doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

Focusing on descriptions of the group, rather than a rundown of their extensive list of violent acts, from the three sources currently cited, I get:

• (nothing particularly relevant to these items)
• "...involved in political violence...“been open and very consistent about using violence as a tool”...McInnes claims his group does not promote violence at all... “Like Gavin McInnes says, violence isn’t great, but justified violence is amazing.”...McInnes has claimed repeatedly that “fighting solves everything”. In a podcast last May, he said: “You’re not a man until you’ve had the crap beaten out of you beaten the crap out of someone.”...“We’re the only ones fighting these guys, and I want you to fight them too. It’s fun.”...to become a “fourth degree” Proud Boy, recruits had to “get beat up, kick the crap out of an antifa”...Asked if sharing video of Nordean’s punch amounted to the promotion of violence, McInnes called the Guardian a “fucking weak human being”, a “vile little pussy” and a “tepid cunt”. He then ranted about “the media class”, who he said “sit there picking fights, call everyone a Nazi, and then when someone dares defend themselves, and someone else says ‘Yay’, you say: ‘Well you’re promoting violence.’”"
• "The Proud Boys are a violent, ultra-nationalist group that promotes anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and anti-woman views...The group rallies around anti-left violence...""
• "...Proud Boys, another group that shows up at pro-Trump rallies looking to rumble with counter-protesters. 'We don’t fear the fight. We are the fight,'...a fourth-degree has been added to the initiation ritual – brawling with antifascists at public rallies..."
• "The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the Proud Boys as an alt-right “fight club.”"

Currently, we have that summarized as "promotes political violence...glorifies violence, and members participate in violence at events it attends." IMO, there is no credible way to argue against "promotes political violence". Independent reliable sources say as much repeatedly.

"Glorifies violence" seems rather reductive and after the fact. Yes, they seem to be rather proud of the violence, but it seems the organization itself actively promotes violence. It's the difference between giving a film an award and producing a film. "Glorifies" seems to miss that. "Promotes and glorifies" seems a better fit.

That "members participate in violence" is a "sky is blue" claim. I can see no rational argument against it. - SummerPhD 20:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with SummerPhD's assessment and "Promotes and glorifies". Jim1138 (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Each of those sources, except for the last which uses "alt-right fight club" is decidedly left of center.

Do we include McInnis' rebuttal as the NYT does

“We don’t start fights,” he wrote in an article last year, “but we will finish them.”

or mention as they do that according to police it was a "leftist" who started the fight

"the violence started after one of the leftist protesters threw a plastic bottle at the Proud Boys"

or as the Washington Post does that

an "antifascist then doused the entire group with pepper spray "

We don't. And it can't be that we want to avoid quotes because we have plenty. No, we ignore all of the higher quality sources to say unequivocally "promote political violence." The implication being they show up to peaceable gatherings and start hitting people. That isn't supported even by the worse sources.

Look, when the Proud Boys info box has "promotes political violence" and the Sturmabteilung's doesn't, and this is a BLP with supposedly extra protections, something's very, very wrong. D.Creish (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"is decidedly left of center" - is that a Misplaced Pages policy or something? And this isn't a BLP. Volunteer Marek 04:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I've incorporated these sources in the article. D.Creish (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I deliberately stayed away from the actions of individual members. You've taken actions by individuals in separate incidents to argue that reliable sources' descriptions are wrong.

No, this article is not mostly a BLP. Yes, there are sections that make specific claims about living individuals. Saying "The Fighting Hatemongers is a violent, racist organization" is not a BLP issue. Saying "Joe Hatemonger is a violent racist" is a BLP issue. If you have BLP concerns, please explain.

Yes, other articles exist. We're here to discuss this article. If you have concerns about another article, discuss that issue there. Sources say different things about different topics. A detail might find coverage in reliable sources for one topic (SNL's coverage of Gerald Ford, Mel Gibson's kidneys) while not saying anything about another (SNL's coverage of Richard Nixon, Tom Cruise's kidneys). - SummerPhD 02:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The brownshirts article is fine. I assume you're not saying RS consider the Proud Boys more violent than the Nazi brownshirts because that's easily disproven. So if you're not, and our article implies they are, and our article should be based on RS, then that's a problem. Essays can be ignored when they contradict common sense.

WP:BLPGROUP is the policy and it applies to McInnis, so yes, claims about the group are concerning. I've opened an RFC. D.Creish (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Getting into a fight as the 4th stage

Is in many many many sources. I overcited it for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The current text is "getting into a fight with someone from the political left"

• Wired doesn't support it
• Globeandmail doesn't support it
• Toronto Sun says "getting into a major fight for the cause”
• The Daily Dot is low quality
• WPR says "endures a major conflict related to the cause" 

I've changed it to "getting into a major fight 'for the cause'" to match sources. D.Creish (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

We are not parroting their marketing. Not acceptable.

The sources in order:

SPLC "Since then, a fourth-degree has been added to the initiation ritual – brawling with antifascists at public rallies." Does not need attribution.

Wired: I guess you are objecting to Wired's chatty "And if the rumors are true" *followed by, "their initiation proceedings include getting a tattoo and abstaining from masturbation, getting jumped in in a ritual that looks a lot like a pile of puppies, and beating up an antifascist."

Globeandmail isn't cited there.  ?

Toronto sun says, as you quote.

DailyDot is sort of low quality yes and supports this clearly "The fourth and final degree was added much later by McInnes and is a clear step away from the prankishness of the other rites. It hints at the right-wing bent that the hyperpartisan culture in Trump’s America has served to amplify. The fourth initiation requires that a prospective Proud Boy serve the “cause,” as McInnes suggested, by engaging in a physical brawl with members of “antifa,” the loose-knit far-left and anarchist anti-fascist movement."

WPR says as you say.

Those add up to "getting into a fight with someone from the political left.

Other sources already in the article:

Guardian" "In early 2017, McInnes stated that to become a “fourth degree” Proud Boy, recruits had to “get beat up, kick the crap out of an antifa”. In July last year, in the Proud Boys magazine, he issued a “clarification”, saying Proud Boys should only “ themselves after getting fucked with”. (links from the original)

vox "But it’s the fourth and newest level that is getting the most attention in the wake of Friday’s events: get into a physical altercation for the 'cause.' 'You get beat up, kick the crap out of an antifa,' McInnes explained in 2017. And he added, 'People say if someone’s fighting, go get a teacher. No, if someone’s f---ing up your sister, put them in the hospital.'" .... It’s that violence that the Proud Boys have become best known for, with the group even boasting of a “tactical defensive arm” known as the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights (or “FOAK”) reportedly with McInnes’s backing. McInnes made a video praising the use of violence ....In parades and rallies across the country, from Berkeley, California, to New York City, members of the Proud Boys have fought with counterprotesters, Antifa, and anyone who gets in their way. Jared Holt, of Right Wing Watch, told me that the group 'acts as a violent pack of enforcers for the far-right.' And at events for conservative commentator Ann Coulter and right-leaning speaker Milo Yiannopoulos, members of the Proud Boys have even attempted to act as 'security,”' but those efforts have descended into chaotic violence (although they spun it as a victory)" (added that last bit, related to the larger discussion about "political violence" - they aren't known for going to football matches and picking random fights, or beating up old ladies at coffee shops. Their violence is political.)

So not the "cause". "be involved in political violence" or the like would be OK, if you are not going to say the obvious, "against people on the political left". Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Is "getting into a fight with an antifa" a good compromise? We can cite it to The Guardian, Metro and McInnes. My problem with the original wording ("getting into a fight with someone from the political left") is that starting a fight with Senator Sanders fits that description, which is silly. D.Creish (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

To run with your hypothetical. If a Proud Boy punched Sanders in the face, how do you reckon that would go down with the gang?

At NYU they punched a reporter.

"We will kill you. That's the Proud Boys in a nutshell. We will kill you. We look nice, we seem soft, we have "boys" in our name, but like Bill the Butcher in the Bowery Boys, we will assassinate you. (btw "Bill the Butcher = William Poole)

"fight with an antifa" is too narrow. Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Youtube isn't RS. Going by your sources "fight with antifa" is better sourced than the what we have. Re: the reporter, is Gothamist (which is apparently now owned by the company the "reporter" works for) the only source for that? If so that's pretty weak for a BLP. The other source, Village Voice, mentions punching a "demonstrator" but nothing about a reporter. Did I miss it?

That same Village Voice article says "Both sides arrived primed for a fight", "McInnes was sniped with pepper spray by a demonstrator", "people — representing both sides of the conflict — were arrested." We don't mention any of that which gives the impression we're cherrypicking to frame a narrative.

We can discuss that more but on the reporter question I'd really like an answer - is Gothamist the only source? D.Creish (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we use that sizzle reel as a source. The refs that we already use discuss McInnes' advocacy for violence over and over. I thought audiovideo might be useful for you to understand what the Proud Boys are up.

The daily beast ref already cited in the page says "Proud Boy Salvatore Cipolla, who attacked a journalist covering the (NYU) event....". He apparently attacked two journalists at the event (ref). Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the DB ref to the NYU section. D.Creish (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "They are best known for violence against others". --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Your rationale has nothing to do with your actual edit. I AGF you weren't canvassed but that's strange. D.Creish (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@D.Creish:, I'm not sure I'm following: "edit just seems to be reverting all my changes, edit summary not related to actual edit". Of course it related to recent changes; for example, "alt-right fight club" was a long time ago, before their members got arrested en mass on felony charges. The edit also replaced "What’s the matter with fighting? Fighting solves everything. The war on fighting is the same as the war on masculinity." with this: ""We don’t start fights but we will finish them."

There's no need to reproduce the group's humblebrags here. That's why I said in my edit summary: "They are best known for violence against others". Now that I've explained my rationale, would you please self-revert? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not following. Your rationale They are best known for violence against others makes sense if you can explain how removing has been called an "alt-right fight club" and We don’t start fights but we will finish them makes them look less violent (against others.) D.Creish (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@D.Creish: Sure, I'd be happy to explain further. "We don’t start fights..." presents PBs as sort of peaceniks, who are just defending themselves (?). The "fight club" was better explained by VM in this edit summary: "this is misleading and undue for the lede (in a fight club members fight each other 1 on 1, not jump on outsiders 20 on 1)", which I noticed and agreed with. Does this help clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

They only sound like peacenicks if you leave off half the quote which I didn't. OR but I'm asking for my own information, are there examples of Proud Boys getting violent when antifa wasn't involved? The only example in our article is the Islamberg caravan and that was apparently peaceful.

Fight club is sourced so this disagreement is necessarily about editors' interpretation of weight. The book and movie were about intra-group violence (Proud Boys' "second degree") but also extra-group violence ("The first assignment: get into a fight with a stranger") and general mayhem - so it really is a good comparison. And clever, it hadn't occurred to me and I wonder whether it influenced McInnis. D.Creish (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Promotes Political Violence

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This edit introduced the phrase promotes political violence into the description of Proud Boys in first sentence of the lede, and into the infobox under 'type'.

This RFC does not contest the following lede text which was present in both versions:

The organization glorifies violence, and members participate in violence at events it attends

Two questions:

1. Should promotes political violence be included in the infobox
2. Should promotes political violence be included in the lede. If so, where.

D.Creish (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

!Votes

• If you read the whole article, their participation in political violence and embrace of it is what marks them out, right down to adopting the White power skinhead fred perry shirt. They show up at rallies to fight, and they do fight. If they were just "a men’s club that meets about once a month to drink beer” as their leader likes to say sometimes, we wouldn't have an article about them. As the Guardian source for that quote notes, what is remarkable about them is their engagement in political violence. Not just any violence -- they don't beat up old ladies at coffee shops. As McInnes says " “I want violence, I want punching in the face. I’m disappointed in Trump supporters for not punching enough." (ref) So "political violence" should be in the first sentence of the lead and the infobox. (For those who might criticize the Guardian as left-wingish, see this piece from the National Review called "The Poisonous Allure of Right Wing Violence" and this piece from The Federalist (mostly focused on their no-fap ideas, but mentioning "...he and his Proud Boys are still known for crudity, provoking fights, and general chest-beating, online and off. It may indeed be a step up to be looking for real women to screw and promising to end fights rather than start them, but in a less puerile society these men would have gotten most of that out of their systems by age 20, not 29 and beyond.")Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support - in the lead somewhere, maybe not necessarily the first sentence, but somewhere definitely in the lead. I'm not to keen on the word "promotes", prefer engages in or involved in, but I defer to consensus on that point. I'm not a big fan of infoboxes, don't look at them or read them, so have at it if you so choose. Nothing wrong with The Guardian either being used as a source, here's another source from the NW region - known for its white nationalist rhetoric and frequent appearances in the middle of political violence locally and nationwide. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support - As discussed above, the organization promotes and celebrates political violence. Moreover, it's not just something they do, like a club organized for one reason that also holds potluck lunches every month. As sourced, it is who they are and what they are about. We've determined the sky is blue, it's time to hear that. Further arguments that all of the sources are biased, the other side starts it, etc. are not constructive. - SummerPhD 22:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support both. This seems like a fair summary of existing sources. It is obviously not a coincidence that violence happens when they show up, and it's obviously very political. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Fails verification, at least based on the cited sources. None of them say the Proud Boys promotes political violence. Also undue to put in the first sentence and the infobox. R2 (bleep) 04:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support both. Seems like a reasonable paraphrase of what the sources say; this is what they're most well-known for, so it definitely belongs in the lead and seems reasonable for the infobox. I'm unsure how anyone can read the linked sources and not come away with "promotes political violence" as a broad summary of what makes them noteworthy. --Aquillion (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Aquillion, maybe we're looking at different sources? I looked at these sources, since they were cited: I don't see where either of them says PB promoted political violence (or a paraphrase). If we're relying on other sources then those would need to be added; we can't just rely on "the sources." The Lowry and Federalist sources mentioned by Jytdog look like unreliable opinion sources to me. Lowry's is an editorial, and I'd be highly skeptical of anything the Federalist Society publishes being considered reliable. R2 (bleep) 06:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope. This is the lead. Please read WP:LEAD and please read this whole article and its sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - As discussed above. The support votes mostly argue the wording is a reasonable interpretation of sources, not that "promotes political violence" is directly sourced. For a claim like that where BLP is in effect I'm uncomfortable with that level of interpretation. D.Creish (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment - As discussed above, this is not a BLP. - SummerPhD 23:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support both, as per WP:DUE; that's what the group is primarily known for. However, I would say incites..., as more specific. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• I don't care about the infobox, but support including in the lead (isn't it quite obvious? The organization promotes violence, so it should be in the lead). Although "promotes political violence" is slightly POV as it doesn't include violence against women. The lead is too bad for me to determine where exactly it should be put. Probably not the lead sentence. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 10:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose both and "glorifies violence" would be closer to accuracy. The Seattle Times, already cited in the story, has a good summary that I propose we quote in the header:

  The group describes itself on a Facebook page as “pro-Western fraternal organization” for men who “refuse to apologize for creating the modern world.” Social-media postings by its self-proclaimed members espouse racist and sexist ideals. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the Proud Boys as an alt-right “fight club.”

  Misplaced Pages should follow RS, not provide our own SYNTH wording, especially in the header. {{{sbb}}} HouseOfChange (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• rather prescient bit from the National Review piece: "Needless to say, this is all poisonous. You can oppose antifa without brawling with it—one mob does not justify another. Violence outside the law is always wrong. We have democratic politics exactly so political and cultural disputes can be settled without resort to fisticuffs—or firearms and bombs. If conservatism is to represent law and order, it must anathematize and exclude advocates of, and practitioners, of violence."

User:D.Creish do you really want to keep this going? Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Replace "conservatism" with any -ism and I hope no editors disagree, for sure not me. But my feelings really shouldn't affect my editing. If I were Jimmy Wales I'd make a rule, for every X edits you have to find an article about a person or thing you disagree with and add something positive. Some sort of tapering function would be necessary to prevent skewing. D.Creish (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really on point. When I came across this page it was a laden with marketing, parroting the PB line on what they do. I have been slowly moving this toward something that reflects what RS from across the political spectrum say about these folks. We don't do "balance" here -- see WP:GEVAL. Please stop seeking that; it is the wrong mission. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing good comes from suggesting, even indirectly, that this organization must have hidden redeeming qualities. Perhaps the only noteworthy aspect of a topic is how wrong it is. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

No I don't think we should balance positive and negative equally. I meant it's rare to find a bad thing without any redeeming qualities or a good thing without any faults (all sourced to RS of course.) If you find yourself often editing articles on subjects you see as either entirely good or entirely bad IMHO you shouldn't be editing them.

That's still minor and besides the point as you (Jytdog) said. Your initial comment looked like an appeal to my personal views, and my point was that personal views should never affect editing. I hope we can agree on that. D.Creish (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Its true but WEIGHT is not driven by a desire for balance. My OP was more of an appeal to your common sense and grasp of P&G than anything emotional.Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh then I misunderstood. I assumed "prescient" was a reference to the bomb scare. No worries then. D.Creish (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I said the National Review writer was prescient. I asked you if you wanted to keep the RfC going -- that is what "keep this going" meant. "this" = "this RfC". Perhaps you are not aware, but the person who opens an RfC can withdraw it early. See WP:RFCEND. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That part I understood. I could see future editors objecting so I think it's worthwhile to settle definitively either way. D.Creish (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment - For the record, National Review is not "decidedly left of center". - SummerPhD 01:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

sources

going through the refs in order..

• 1st ref from AP about NYU is aboutpolitical violence in which they were involved
• 2nd ref, Guardian, has "political violence" in the headline and it entirely focused on their political violence and includes McInnes "justified violence is amazing" quote. It is about their actually committing political violence and promoting it.
• BBC ref about their "crashing" the indigenous people's protest in Canada. The protestors were "marking Canada's history of atrocities against indigenous people." according to the BBC. The article says that the PBs came with flags from that era and that one of the PBs said: ""You are recognising your heritage and so are we,". That is promoting political violence. (not actually doing)
• Coventry telegraph says "The 30-minute show also saw McInnes launch a foul-mouthed tirade where he branded Syrian refugees as rapists and labelled Brits as cowards who “want to be eradicated”. Mr McInnes also acknowledged the organisation’s association with violence and later cut away to a video of Proud Boys members firing handguns and semi-automatic weapons at a firing range."
• The Intercept piece notes that "on his show, McInnes has lauded Chapman for being such an inspirational figure on the right, promoting his tough-guy image" (chapman is the guy who became famous for hitting counter-protestors with a lead-filled stick)
• the main SPLC ref has a significant discussion of their political violence "violence is firmly entrenched in Proud Boy dogma. McInnes was filmed punching a counter-protestor outside of the Deploraball in January 2017, and after a speaking engagement at New York University the next month turned violent, he wryly declared, 'I cannot recommend violence enough. It’s a really effective way to solve problems.'"
• Takeaway describes how he intended to "reenact the 1960 assassination of Japanese socialist Inejiro Asanuma, posing in photos depicting ugly Asian caricatures" and notes "several cell phone videos show groups of uniformed Proud Boys bragging about the assaults, "
• DailyBest ref about the Manhattan violence says "The Proud Boys have been involved in a number of bloody brawls over the past two years, often with anti-fascists who oppose their events." and "The Proud Boys are a violent, ultra-nationalist group that promotes anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and anti-woman views. Although the group officially rejects white supremacy, members have nonetheless appeared at multiple racist events, with a former Proud Boy organizing the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. The group rallies around anti-left violence, and members of Proud Boy chapters in the Pacific Northwest have participated in public marches while wearing shirts that glorify the murders of leftists by Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet." and "Previous McInnes speeches in New York have been marked by violence" and "McInnes frequently champions violence, particularly against the left. 'I want violence, I want punching in the face. I’m disappointed in Trump supporters for not punching enough,' McInnes said on his webshow. On another occasion, he called for an attack on a woman."
• SPLC alt-right fight club ref is clearly all about their violence
• seattle times ref say s"The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the Proud Boys as an alt-right “fight club.” Police in the Bay Area blamed its members for the violence that rocked an anti-Trump rally in Berkeley last month."
• bedfordbowery ref says discusses the brawl at the 1st proud boys meeting which mcinnes called a "smashing success".
• wired ref notes that " if the rumors are true" level 4 in their initiation is "beating up an antifascist."
• globe and mail "McInnes often invokes images of barbarians at the gates, and he likely would have done so again this Saturday afternoon, as one of the featured speakers at a free-speech rally in Boston Common. But on Monday, after a protester had been killed by a car in Charlottesville, Va., during a weekend of white-supremacist demonstrations, rumours began to swirl that Boston would be cancelling the permit; McInnes admitted he didn't want to go, after all. 'The unfortunate position that Charlottesville put us in … now we're speaking on behalf of Alex Fields Jr., who murdered a woman,' he explained that afternoon, over the phone from New York. 'We're now his ambassadors, and we're fighting these kids, physically fighting, on behalf of white nationalists who purposely threw dynamite into a wasp's nest. And that's not my cause. I don't want to fight on their behalf!'"
• Vox PB explained "the Proud Boys are a strange amalgamation of a men’s rights organization, a fight club and what some may see as a hate group — one that loves Donald Trump, hates Muslims (and Jews and trans people), but permits nonwhite membership. The group has a magazine where members who win fights are celebrated with the slogan, “They fucked around. They found out.” And in the age of concerns about “civility” and worries about political violence surrounding the upcoming midterms, the Proud Boys — and McInnes, who believes violence is “a really effective way to solve problems” — are more interested in punching “faggots.”" and "he has written extensively on how women want to be “downright abused” and that he had to stop “playing nice” and begin “totally defiling the women I slept with” to get more women to have sex with him)." and "But it’s the fourth and newest level that is getting the most attention in the wake of Friday’s events: get into a physical altercation for the “cause.” “You get beat up, kick the crap out of an antifa,” McInnes explained in 2017. And he added, “People say if someone’s fighting, go get a teacher. No, if someone’s f---ing up your sister, put them in the hospital.”" and It’s that violence that the Proud Boys have become best known for, with the group even boasting of a “tactical defensive arm” known as the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights (or “FOAK”) reportedly with McInnes’s backing. McInnes made a video praising the use of violence this June, saying, “What’s the matter with fighting? Fighting solves everything. The war on fighting is the same as the war on masculinity.”' and "In parades and rallies across the country, from Berkeley, California, to New York City, members of the Proud Boys have fought with counterprotesters, Antifa, and anyone who gets in their way. Jared Holt, of Right Wing Watch, told me that the group “acts as a violent pack of enforcers for the far-right.” And at events for conservative commentator Ann Coulter and right-leaning speaker Milo Yiannopoulos, members of the Proud Boys have even attempted to act as “security,” but those efforts have descended into chaotic violence " etc
• New Yorker - deploraball "n front of the Press Club were several dozen police officers and several hundred protesters. One of the protesters, wearing a black mask, crossed McInnes’s path; McInnes grabbed him by the shoulder, turned him around, and punched him in the face. “What the fuck?” the protester shouted. “Fuck you, fascist!” A few police officers rushed to arrest the protester, while other officers escorted the Proud Boys inside..... McInnes stopped to talk to several reporters, each time heightening the story of his scuffle with the protester. “I think that when I punched him my fist went into his mouth, and his teeth scraped me on the way out,” he said. “Now I might get loser AIDS.”"
• village voice "He and I met during the presidential campaign, after I crashed a meeting of his Proud Boys at a bar in Brooklyn. Best described as a fan group for McInnes’s show, the Proud Boys exist primarily online, and in practice the group is mostly apolitical. The meetup I attended consisted of a handful of millennial men drinking beer, fighting outsiders, and reveling in an anti-p.c. space where they were free to toss around the word faggot to their hearts’ content. .... The morning after the protest at NYU, he posted a clip on YouTube entitled “Fighting ‘anti-fascists’ is fun!” It seems likely that he’ll continue to posture, at least, about meeting force with force. And he’ll probably have a few takers."
• Northern star starts out "GAVIN McInnes is heading down under to "recruit soldiers". The British-born Canadian comedian and founder of the pro-Trump men's rights group The Proud Boys - whose members are notorious for engaging in street brawls with left-wing Antifa protesters - is the latest right-wing commentator to set his sights on Australia. McInnes and The Proud Boys were banned from Twitter earlier this month for being "violent extremists" ahead of the second anniversary of the deadly Unite the Right neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia."

- am pausing for now. have to go. it is in almost every citation in this article. Those asking "show me the sources" are very clearly not doing the work it takes to be competent editors. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The info box on the top right corner states: "Far-right men's organization that promotes political violence" and gives two articles as citation. Neither of those articles corroborate the statement that the Proud Boys promote political violence. One article mentions that others committed violence AGAINST the Proud Boys and the other suggests they promote violence but includes no evidence of such and admits that their founder had stated they do not promote violence. Therefore, this particular statement saying they promote political violence within the box for basic info about the group seems grossly unfair and rather biased. Let's keep Misplaced Pages as objective as possible! 66.64.100.220 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

See above. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

See above. Glad to see someone got to it before me. DukeOfMarshall (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

FBI Reference Is Unsubstantiated

This references that the FBI classifies the PBs as an extremist group, but the source listed is just a media article. There's no reference to actual FBI documentation. Media articles can, and often are, biased with misleading information. Please remove this section until actual evidence from the FBI is presented. It shouldn't be that difficult if it actually exists. DukeOfMarshall (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The source indicated is a reliable one, so it is acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually the Guardian source links to an official IA report from the Clark County Sheriff's Office which makes the claim. The Guardian attributes it to them so I made that correction. I'd like direct confirmation from the FBI before saying anything beyond that. It could be a field office designation, potential miscommunication between the sheriff and FBI, etc. and better safe than sorry. D.Creish (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Any FBI statement would be a primary source, the Guardian is a secondary source (actually tertiary in this case), so it's actually preferable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is The Guardian is reporting something the Sheriff's Office said the FBI said. Notice how The Guardian attributes it to the Sheriff but we didn't before I fixed it. What we need before declaring this officially is The Guardian reporting what the FBI said officially. D.Creish (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

We aren't 'declaring it officially' - we're simply echoing reliable sources. There is no reason to remove the information. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not require "official documentation"; it requires reliable sources and the Guardian is plenty reliable. You can challenge this at WP:RSN if you like but it will be a waste of time; as there is no basis in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines to question its reliability on this point. Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Nonresponsive. I've restored the attribution per the Guardian. If you like you can challenge it at BLPN. D.Creish (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Since it wasn't clear the first two times, the cited Guardian article attributes the claim to the Washington State police so our article should attribute the claim to the Washington State police. Does anyone see a policy problem with that (because I see a policy problem with not doing that.) D.Creish (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@D.Creish: What is the policy issue with not doing that? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Start-Class Men's Issues articles
• Low-importance Men's Issues articles
• WikiProject Men's Issues articles
• Start-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment