Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:24, 14 December 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

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)

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)

Proud Boys respond to violence to protect other people. At rallies where there are no attacks by Antifa or others, there is no violence. Why does this entire page not cite the Proud Boys themselves? Their views are plainly laid out at www.proudboysusa.com . Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about accurate information not libelous propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambiorex (talk • contribs) 20:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

We have no obligation to honor self-promoting fig-leaves. And claiming PB did no violence indicates that you might not be here to build an encyclopedia. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:10, 29 November 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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

You are clearly not looking at the sources in the article; i have summarized just the first batch of them below. And now we have the FBI classification of them as an extemist group and sending warnings to law enforcement that they escalate violence... (ref) Jytdog (talk)

• Support both - Proud Boy's use of violence is overwhelmingly and extensively documented, including the exact term "political violence" so this is not merely an intrepretation. Not including them would be undue. "Glorifying violence" may be a bit subjective but it is included in sources verbatim, so it deserves a place in lead too, although not necessarily using the exact words. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose We should not state it in Misplaced Pages's voice. Besides, it fails verification based on the sources provided. Also, not so sure, but it seems a bit undue and unbalanced to put in the first sentence and the infobox. 49.195.72.88 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Striking vote by blocked user. Bradv 01:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose both: HouseOfChange is right to say that "glorifies violence" is more accurate. Saying "promotes political violence" gives the impression that Proud Boys organize violent attacks or destruction to advance political aims. Rather, the violence seems to revolve around defense against Antifa, who do those things. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 22:35, 5 December 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)

• Attribution is necessary for things which are either contested, or opinions. It is not necessary here, so this appears to be whitewashing. It is inappropriate to use distancing language to subtly imply the Washington State Police are wrong about this. Do we want readers to think this is subjective? Is it merely the police's opinion that the FBI classified them as extremist? We do not preemptively assume that sources are wrong, and Misplaced Pages specifically prefers WP:SECONDARY sources to primary documents. Grayfell (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

....and this is why no university finds Misplaced Pages to be credible..."This appears to be whitewashing?" Um..No. The FBI has NEVER said that the Proud Boys are an extremist group in any way, shape or form. The FBI has not said this orally, they have not written this down nor issued it in a report, either internally nor to the public that is known. There is no FBI official who has taken credit or responsiblity for naming the Proud Boys as an extremist group, either....just to be clear. What has been said, according to the Clark County, Washington Deputy Sheriff, is that the FBI has so named the Proud Boys. That is the only thing verifiable in this story. 172.58.201.47 (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Philadelphia: What is your source for saying that the FBI has never said that? We have a reliable source that says they did. Game, set, match. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's a WAPO link with a limk to the report. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I can;t read it because of the pay wall. Someone with a WaPo sub add the ref to the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The link in the WaPo piece is the same as the link in the Guardian piece - it is to the Clark County Sheriff's Memo. The Guardian reporter followed up the sherrif's department and verified the memo -- the author of the memo was communicating the results of an FBI briefing he attended. The Guardian also followed up with the FBI, which refused to confirm or deny, which is their standard practice. The WaPo reporter quotes the Guardian on what the sheriff said, and also reports its own efforts to follow up with the FBI, which again refused to confirm or deny again per their standard practice. There is nothing new in the WaPo piece but we can cite it, sure. There will be no primary-source confirmation from the FBI forthcoming. The demand for that was not appropriate based on the policies and guidelines and is not a real world expectation in any case. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken: Laredo Morning Times reprinted the WaPa article without a paywall. - SummerPhD 22:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look a little later in the day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

So, as Jytdog says, we could add it as a ref, but there's really no reason to as it doesn't provide anything substantial that's not in the Guardian, already cited. The Guardian and WaPo are equally reliable as sources, so there's no advantage to replacing the former with the latter, especially since the Post cites the Guardian. I agree with Jytdog that a confirmation by the FBI is extremely unlikely to be forthcoming, and that there's no "real world" purpose in waiting for one. The people asking for such seem to want to discredit the report to the advantage of the Proud Boys. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure many things are Beyond Your Ken, including what game, set and match means...nice of you to declare yourself the "winner"...as well as the referee. It should not matter a whit if the report or lack thereof works to the advantage of, or the disadvantage of the Proud Boys...reality is what it is. In this case, every "source" cited refers to the Clark County, WA Sheriff's Office making a claim and nothing else. The FBI is silent on the topic of whether or not the Proud Boys are extreme or not extreme, but they certainly have issued no report nor made any statement to that conclusion. What you seem to be concluding here is the lack of verifablity is in and of itself verifiablity...since the FBI will not verify it made such a statement, then it must be placed in the article as verififed, because the Clark County Sheriff said so. This is ridiculous.

Here is the official statement from the FBI Portland Field Office, regarding the standing of the Proud Boys, as released 11/21/2018. No mention of the Proud Boys being categorized as an extremist group...story debunked.

"When it comes to domestic terrorism, our investigations focus solely on criminal activity of individuals—regardless of group membership—which appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion. The FBI does not and will not police ideology.

The various levels of intelligence analysis and investigative activity that the FBI can undertake—as well as the thresholds required to reach them—are laid out in our Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG). In addition to reading through that, we would encourage you to keep in mind that there is no federal, domestic terrorism criminal statute."

50.241.115.219 (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)50.241.115.219 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Don;t be ridiculous, that debunks nothing at all, it's exactly what one would expect from the FBI, "no comment". This is precisely what was said above. You guys are going to have to work a lot harder, because we're not idiots, you know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources are not "sources" they are sources. They say quite clearly what they say. That you have an official statement that does not say it does not in any way indicate what the report in question does or does not say. The material is from reliable sources. It is verifiable. - SummerPhD 04:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Proud Boys accidentally release documents with names improperly redacted

Heads up, editors. Apparently some of the Proud Boys released an updated copy of their by-laws without properly redacting the names of their leaders. Expect to see a lot of articles like this one over the next while. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

We probably cannot include individual names per BLP unless they have individual pages. That said, their supreme intelligence never cease to amaze me. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Key people in infobox

The following was added today, in "key people"

key_people = Jason Lee Van Dyke
Elders Chapter: Harry Fox, Heath Hair, Enrique Tarrio, Patrick William Roberts, Joshua Hall, Timothy Kelly, Luke Rothling, Rufio Panman

References

1. ^ Crosbie, Jack (November 28, 2018) "Proud Boys Failed to Redact Their New Dumb Bylaws and Accidentally Doxxed Their 'Elders'" Splinter News

I'm objecting to this on two levels. Not a great source, but more importantly, I am not sure what this even means, in the real world. I don't believe there is an actual legal entity here; this is more like a loosely affiliated group. I don't know if these "elders" are going to be recognized widely within the group or have any actual authority within the group.... This is not like "CEO" etc that we put in this field, in actual nonprofit or for-profit organizations. Other folks may view this differently... Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If the source is the problem, the actual document is available here. Yes, it's primary, but primary sources are acceptable for what an organization says about itself. As to the status of the "Elder Chapter" within the Proud Boys, that's really not our problem: they listed them as key people in the organization (no matter how loosely connected that is), not anyone else, so they are clearly fair game for listing in the infobox. What the Elders do is spelled out in the by-laws. I support restoring the information as legitimate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

These clowns have little notability to be put in the infobox. That said, I added the following to the Metropolitan Book Club section, in regards with their latest infight and botched document redaction:

After McInnes nominally left the group, the "Elder Chapter" of the group reportedly assumed control, with Jason Lee Van Dyke, the group's lawyer, appointed as the chapter's chairman. Van Dyke was previously known for suing news media and anti-fascist activists for reporting on the group, and for making violent online threats with racist language. The group then publicly released its new bylaw, with the names of its "Elder Chapter" members listed and redacted. It was later discovered that the redaction was botched, as the list of names can be accessed by selecting over the black bar of the released document.

References

1. ^ Crosbie, Jack (2018-11-28). "The Proud Boys Just Accidentally Doxxed Their New 'Elders'". Splinter. Retrieved 2018-11-28.
2. Campbell, Andy (2018-11-26). "The Proud Boys Are Imploding". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2018-11-28.
3. Campbell, Andy (2017-11-14). "Lawyer Suing Anti-Fascist For Calling Him Nazi Sent Death Threats, Racial Slurs On Twitter". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2018-11-28.
4. Campbell, Andy (2018-09-19). "Proud Boys Lawyer Arrested For Lying To Cops, Can Still Practice Law". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2018-11-28.

Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Putting it there makes sense enough to me. Again it is unclear if these "elders" are going to have any actual authority. It is unclear to what extent McInnes has actually "quit"... Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree re:McInnis, but it's not our place to speculate in Misplaced Pages's voice, it's our place to report what's happening according to reliable sources. Right now, the Proud Boys say about themselves that they're re-organizing, with new by-laws and a new leadership structure. This may turn out to be nothing (especially since organizations such as theirs really need a strong individual at the helm if they're not going to break down and wither away), but, again, that's speculation on our part. We should report what they report as their leadership, and if it turns out to be inconsequential, the names can be removed. It is, however, the state of play at this moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you remember this? Just because someone says "I am the leader" doesn't mean they are. If this turns out to real (which will reveal itself with time) nobody will have a problem with treating it that way. Things are in flux; let's wait and see. Lagging indicator, not-news, etc... Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course I remember that, and if it happened today we wouldn't write that he was "acting President", we would write that he said he was "in control at the White House", or whatever his exact words were. (I was no fan of the man or his boss, but I thought the media blew that incident up way out of proportion; it was very clear to me that he was saying "I'm holding down the fort", which is a legitimate statement to make.)Now, things may or may not be "in flux" at Proud Boys, but they have announced their new bylaws, they have released (albeit without intending to) their new "elders", and we should be reporting that. (Remember, the entity in control of the radio station and the treasury is the one that's got the upper hand in any revolution - and these guys have control of the Internet accounts, and presumably the checkbook as well.) If things shake out differently, if someone pulls a coup and takes over the organization, or Van Dyke reduces the "Elder Chapter" to a rubber-stamping non-entity (as Hitler did with the Reichstag), we report that and change the infobox. I simply don't see what the objection to that is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I would just be repeating myself. Let's see what others say.... Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you Ok with the page now? there is a leadership section and a reduced key people infbox line. I can sort of live with that... Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It's good for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2018

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

Change "Proud Boys is a far-right white nationalist extremist organization that admits only men as members and promotes political violence." to "Proud Boys is a multi-racial fraternal organization made up of men who proclaim their support for Western Culture, and who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world."

Change "The group sees men, especially white men, and Western culture as under siege; their views have elements of white genocide conspiracy theory." to "The group sees men, and Western culture as under siege."

Add "But those members who appear at those rallies are swiftly disavowed, and removed from the organization." after "While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often appear at racist rallies and events."

Change "In 2018, the FBI classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group with ties to white nationalism." to " In 2018, a police commander in the Vancouver Police Department claimed the FBI referred the the Proud Boys as "an extremist group with ties to white nationalism," yet the Proud Boys deny the characteristic, saying it is a "third party coming from a police department known to be hostile to in the past." 2606:A000:1127:2073:FD96:6119:737C:8845 (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done as the proposed changes are not neutral but express a decidedly positive POV about the Proud Boys, and in any case are not supported by citations from reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The proposed changes relay the organization in a way that fits the statements made by the organization itself. Calling them "white nationalist" is not neutral, but rather decidedly being negative about the organization in a very unfair way. They don't advocate white nationalism, and have, and explicitly allow non-white members. By definition you can't allow non-whites while being white nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1127:2073:FD96:6119:737C:8845 (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant, we don't report what organizations say about themselves, we report what reliable sources say about them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, using third party sources saying that the FBI says they have "ties to white nationalists" to make the claim made in the first paragraph is beyond disingenuous. Even if the claim from the third party source is true, the FBI isn't saying they are white nationalists, but rather having ties to them. Either way, using a third party source to directly tie an organization to white nationalism is not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1127:2073:FD96:6119:737C:8845 (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the sources you speak of may be "third party" but they are, in our terms, "secondary sources", which is the kind of source we use the vast majority of the time, because it's the kind our policies prefer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

If reliable sources says they quack like white nationalists, then they are white nationalists. Having token minority doesn't change that. We have no obligation to honor first-party self-promoting fig leaves. And "refuse to apologize for creating the modern world" is unapologetically racist. Are you here to troll? Tsumikiria (T/C) 08:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Whatever they're here for, they're not going to get the edits they want. We're not here to help promote Proud Boys, are they apparently are, and there are many editors who watch over this article and will prevent their kind of POV editing. The IP's copmments above just show that the don;t understand how we work, orwhat sources we use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• The page is incorrect. Superkpill (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• "white nationalist" was added to the first sentence here. I removed it here. I think that needs further discussion especially in the first sentence. The body (as summarized in the lead) already unambiguously puts them right on the edge of that for sure... it is unclear to me if we can put them unambiguously in that bucket. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with the removal. Describing an organization in wikivoice as straight up white nationalist in the lead sentence would require multiple sources (and certainly boingboing, a blog, doesn't count for that) clearly stating they are white nationalist which I don't see; mostly I see that sources attribute to the SPLC that many of its leaders spread white nationalist memes and that the FBI says they have ties to white nationalism; and they call the organization far-right/alt-right. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Request to Edit Semi Protected; FBI reference is unfounded, and now, discredited.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2018/12/head-of-oregons-fbi-bureau-doesnt-designate-proud-boys-as-extremist-group.html

I quote:

"Cannon said in relation to the Proud Boys, the FBI 'tried to characterize the potential threat from individuals within that group.' The bureau doesn’t designate groups but does investigate violent conspiracies, he said.

'We do not intend and did not intend to designate the group as extremist,' he said."

The original claim came from a Clark's County Sheriff's memo that stated the FBI had warned said Sheriff's office of inflammatory behaviors the Proud Boys exhibit. The author of the memo, however, makes the editorial leap and decides to characterize those actions as extremist. Thus, generally speaking, the FBI had warned the Proud Boys are an extremist group. However the FBI itself never made this classification.

A first-person resource in a senior FBI agent is a far more credible source than a Guardian article that references a misleading Sheriff's memo. The sentence claiming the Proud Boys have been classified as extremist by the FBI needs to be removed from Misplaced Pages.Larousse1995 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Larousse1995 12/04/2018

• Not done - The argument has been repeatedly debunked on this page. If I see this request again I will be deleting it on sight as trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Noting - all but one of this editor's previous "contributions" have been outright vandalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I know we've rehashed this a number of times now, but this looks like it's actually new information. If the source above is correct, all the other articles were based on an erroneous sheriff's report, and we would need to update the article to reflect this. However, I would like to see this reported in more sources before making a decision. Bradv🍁 00:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. Let's see where this leads. I'm especially interested in seeing if the Guardian or the Sheriff's Office backs down from their claims. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, since the national office of the FBI wouldn't confirm or deny, we need to know if this is that local agent's personal opinion, or if it represent's the Bureau's opinion. Is he doing damage control? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything else on this. On the one hand, we have an official report, released under FOIA, and cited by dozens of newspapers. On the other hand, we have a single local newspaper reporting that an FBI employee told them the report was inaccurate. Until the FBI officially confirms or denies this classification (which they've so-far declined to do), I think we need to continue to rely on the consensus among the sources. I vote we leave it as is for now. Bradv🍁 00:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Even though The Oregonian is a reliable source, I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Federal Government does not have mechanisms for designating domestic groups as terrorist. Doug Weller talk 05:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, interesting, but, given the circumstances of the past two years, with the White House releasing proven falsehoods, I'm not terribly inclined to accept the assurances of the White House about this matter. I'd rather wait until the media sorts it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"I think we need to continue to rely on the consensus among the sources." There is ONE source, that source is the Sheriff's released memo. This consensus you speak of is merely multiple credible outlets all reporting on the one source. This new, credible source is a first-person account from a Senior FBI agent in the area. Clark County is immediately adjacent to Portland, making this agent and his comments absolutely relevant. The nature of the agent's comments does not suggest it is his private opinion, in fact he very pointedly states that the FBI does not make these kind of classifications. This fantasy that the FBI classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group is just that- a fantasy. It is now been clearly and objectively denied by the FBI and the article MUST reflect this. The article states as fact that the Proud Boys have been labeled extremist by the FBI, when there exists clear, objective, and credible truth that this is not the case. "However, I would like to see this reported in more sources before making a decision.". Below are three more credible sources all confirming the same comments. Ignoring an FBI statement because it alleviates some condemnation from an otherwise unlikable group is not a wise decision.

t appears that there is now a SECOND FBI agent denying ever classifying the Proud Boys as extremist. My OP referenced an article where a Senior Agent Cannon made the statement. The agent that made these new comments is agent Beth Anne Steele. According to her LinkedIn, she is the public affairs officer for the region. A public affairs officer releasing a statement to the press is speaking on behalf of the FBI and is not sharing a personal opinion. Now the Public Affairs Officer for the Oregon region has come out with further denial, as well as this statement:

"When it comes to domestic terrorism, our investigations focus solely on criminal activity of individuals—regardless of group membership—which appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion. The FBI does not and will not police ideology."

Two senior FBI officials, both speaking on behalf of the FBI, both denying the FBI ever classified the Proud Boys as an extremist group, both denying the FBI even partakes in classifying groups as extremist to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larousse1995 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-fbi-proud-boys-clarifies-statement/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/5/fbi-denies-designating-proud-boys-extremist-group/

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/head-oregon-fbi-denies-bureau-considers-proud-boys-extremist

https://katu.com/news/local/proud-boys-respond-to-report-saying-fbi-calls-group-extremist-linked-to-white-nationalism

Larousse1995 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Larousse1995

So we now have dozens of reliable sources citing a Sherrif's report that claimed one thing, and several other sources citing an FBI employee claiming the opposite. I think this needs to be fully explained in the article. Right now the article claims the original statement 4 times. It's not wrong, it's just outdated, assuming the above reports are accurate. Any suggestions on how to best reflect this in the article? Bradv🍁 20:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

My reply was to the original comment, here. Larousse1995 edited it further after I replied. Bradv🍁 21:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

When we have dueling reliable sources, we generally report what both groups say -- however, I will point out that of the sources provided above, only OPB is actually reliable, the rest are not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

2 FBI agents made separate press statements that classify the report to be false, or at the very least misleading. Who should we believe more, what the Clark County Sheriff said the FBI does, or what the FBI says the FBI does? And in response to Beyond My Ken, is the Washington Times not credible? Is CBS affiliate KGW8 not credible (https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/proud-boys-not-designated-as-extremist-group-fbi-spokeswoman-says/283-620948085)? I believe the article should say something along the lines of: "Clark County Sheriff's Department released a memo that appeared to show the FBI classifying the Proud Boys as an extremist group, however the FBI quickly denied this, stating that it is not within their standard operating procedure to classify groups as extremist, or to police ideologies of groups." This is a fair, neutral statement, that respects information obtained from your secondary sources and my primary sources. Larousse1995 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the Washington Times is not credible. Like Fox News, it was founded specifically to be a conservative news outlet, and regularly skews its articles in that direction.{{parabr}And no, your version of what the article should say is incorrect. The Sheriff's memo didn't "seem to show" it "showed" They may have been incorrect, but there is no doubt that they made the claim that they made.I have rewritten the sections of the article to reflect the current status in an impartial and accurate manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know how many left-skewing news outlets you personally view as not credible. But that's neither here nor there. In regards to your edit, I appreciate you yielding to the truth. It is an accurate manner, albeit leaving out several things that are also accurate and relevant (such as both FBI employees stating it is never within SOP to label any group as extremist). This is objectively a more powerful truth than merely stating "it wasn't our intention" which is a understatement, to say the least. It also omits the fact that two separate FBI officials made the same statement. Larousse1995 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo is a "left-leaning" outlet, and I said right above that it's not reliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) BTW Beth Ann Seele is not any kind of high official in the FBI, she's just the head PR flack for the Oregon FBI office. She repeats what she's told, so there's still only ONE source, not TWO. I've used Cannon's statement as reported by the Oregonian as the source. It still isn't clear, however, if the Sheriff's Office internal memo correctly reported what the FBI said, and the Oregon FBI office is now tap-dancing backwards to get itself out of hot water, or if the Sheriffs misunderstood in the manner described by Cannon. Either is believable -- and even if you accept Cannon's explanation, the fact that the FBI in its slide show presented the designation of the SPLC is significant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Beast is hardly reliable either, and yet that is cited within this article as a source. I thought your role here is to determine what is factual based off of reliable sources? It seems you also are privy to the organizational schemes of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It also seems you take it upon yourself to determine what ulterior motives are. The facts are the facts. Sheriffs Office said one thing, THEIR source, Clark County's source for the memo they released, denied that was their intention, and denied it could even possibly be their intention on the grounds of their SOP. Those are the facts. It isn't up to me or you to determine who really meant what, or who really is who's boss at the FBI.

Omitting the fact that there were two separate FBI officials who denied the memo because you personally don't think a PR Officer is senior or important is a subjective decision, not a factual one. Larousse1995 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If you think The Daily Beast is not a reliable source, I suggest you start a discussion at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Good luck. As to your other point, nope. He don;t generally say "Joe Blow, Secretary of State, said such and so, and his Press Agent said the same thing." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm completely new to the Misplaced Pages community, I didn't realize there was an accessible blacklist of discredited conservative sources. I'll reference that from here on. To quote you, "Whatever they're here for, they're not going to get the edits they want." I'm at least glad in this case the truth had a small win. Take care, Merry Christmas. Larousse1995 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, we don't service "The Truth" here, we service WP:Verifiability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That just sounds like the truth, with more steps. Lol. Larousse1995 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, "The Truth" always knows in advance what the end result will be, and strives to get there whatever the verifiable evidence may say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

So, kinda like adamantly believing that The Proud Boys are a horrible, Neo-Nazi organization, and fastidiously protecting a slanted hit piece masquerading as neutral article? Ref: "They won't get the edits they want". Glad we are both on the same page as to the definition of the word "truth". (: Larousse1995 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not -- and should not -- try to give balance to each side. We do not, for example treat the flat Earth theory particularly kindly, because the reliable sources do not. The independent reliable sources are, in your words "slanted hit piece(s)" that adamantly believe "that The Proud Boys are a horrible, Neo-Nazi organization". As a result, Misplaced Pages should state that The Proud Boys are a horrible, Neo-Nazi organization. If you have independent reliable sources that report they are a misunderstood bridge club, working to raise funds for homeless vets, please present them here for discussion. - SummerPhD 01:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"Slanted hit piece" does not refer to the sources cited. It refers to the edits that are being defended. An overwhelming amount of reliable sources discredited the FBI bit, and yet the first reaction was threatening to "delete on sight as trolling". I believe this discussion is opened and closed, however, as my suggestions for accurate and appropriate edits were ratified. Not a forum, no need for further discussion. Larousse1995 (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

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

Most statements on this page are clearly not factual. They are derived from various news outlets so the legitimacy is questionable and almost 100% inaccurate. Given the fact that Gavin Mcinnes produces the majority of his work as comical satire, the quotes portraying the group as inciting violence is also false. Putting up information without context is basically an attack at someones credibility, but, like in many cases and this one, is also false. I think Misplaced Pages needs to be a source of truly objective information. I don't care what political views someone carries, but manipulating content for a particular agenda is extremely reprehensible and it should be avoided at all costs. Let's make Misplaced Pages a source of truth and objectivity, not lies and subjectivity. Thanks. 24.244.23.252 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Objections

Does anyone have specific objections to these edits (rationale provided in edit summaries) and if so, which?

• organization that admits only men as members to men's group
• white men, and Western culture as under siege to white men, and Western culture as under attack from the left
• Removal of Media Matters (Brock)
• Removal of Portland Mercury "Blogtown" (Redundant)

D.Creish (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with none of them. They amount to distortions of the facts in what appears to an attempted whitewashing of the article in favor of the subject group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

How so? For example, how did removing the redundant Blogtown source (without changing any content) "whitewash" the article? D.Creish (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

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