Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Proud Boys. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just noting for talk page watchers that this is now at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review request for Proud Boys RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The context of this post is that I've just closed the long RfC above.

Taking off my closer hat, and speaking as an uninvolved non-American who has read the above discussion and the whole article carefully from top to bottom, I would encourage the community to consider whether it really is absolutely necessary to use all five-or-so labels for the Proud Boys that we currently employ in sentence one. Where we can truthfully say that an organization is neo-fascist, it does seem tautological to call it white nationalist and far right as well. Equally, where we can truthfully say that it's white nationalist, it seems rather redundant to call it far right and neo-fascist. I do feel that the current first sentence whiffs more of a thesaurus than an encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 16:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

yes, that makes perfect sense. It is tautological. Many modern American politics articles like this suffer from these kinds of over descriptions, IMO. Bacondrum 03:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

From past discussions on Wikipedia this issue comes up a lot. If we only say one, a vocal minority will insist that it cannot also mean the others. We see this kind argument here on this talk page, also. Of course it should be obvious that categories can overlap or imply each other, but the line between "obvious" and WP:OR is blurry enough to prompt arguments. It's a time-sink regardless of motives. Instead of getting bogged-down in this kind of thing, it's often better to be a bit redundant for the sake of clarity. This is similar to how some contentious points in articles will have a large number of citations. It's better to be technically accurate than to look pretty. Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Since the RFC has been closed as no consensus, here is a proposal. There are multiple RS that describe the PB as white nationalist, but the highest quality RS do not make the association routinely, rather making claims of association and ties of the PB with white nationalism and white supremacism (e.g. the SPLC). So:

• (A) remove the LABEL white nationalism from the first lead sentence.
• (B) add a weaker explanatory sentence describing the association and ties to white nationalism as it occurs in the RS

Proposal - The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada. The group also has been associated with and members routinely maintain ties to white nationalist and white supremacist extremists.

Things to discuss:

• (1) Position - (a) keep it in the second sentence in the lead or (b) move it further down to where it is described that the PB try to make it appear as if they distance themselves from the extreme right and white nationalism.
• (2) Wording - The PB have been associated with white nationalism or less indirect Members of the PB have ties to white nationalism

Mvbaron (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the FBI's opinion on the matter is already expressed lower in the article, here and here.

I think a condensed source-stack in the lead (similar to what we have already for other descriptors) is appropriate with something along the lines of what you posted, and perhaps incorporating in some way the sources which were more happy to LABEL the PB — seems a poor omission to discard them entirely. Characterizing the Proud Boys in general as having this association is probably warranted. I think sources reflect that, along with their general history (e.g. the origin at Taki's Magazine) --Chillabit (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the RFC above shows that there is no consensus to LABEL the PB as white nationalist, so we can't do that - with or without stacked sources. I suggest we add the ties/association claim to the lead in a separate sentence, and work in the rest of the sources in the body? Mvbaron (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(A)remove the label from the lead and summarize the nuance in the sub-lead.

(Wording) "The Proud Boys is a far-right and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada."

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the RFC above shows that there is no consensus to LABEL the PB as white nationalist, so we can't do that - with or without stacked sources. Huh? If there was consensus not to label the PB as white nationalist, this would be true, but there was no consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Chillabit's Mvbaron's proposal seems like a reasonable path forward to me. Minor note, but some commas might improve the readability of that second sentence: The group also has been associated with, and members routinely maintain ties to, white nationalist and white supremacist extremists.. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

+1 for commas :) And sure, but is the proposal now to include 'white nationalist' in the lead sentence or not? I suggest not, I don't quite know if Chillabit does... Mvbaron (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, Chillabit's proposal (in green text) is for the first two sentences of the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

hmmm. Chillabit didn't post any green text. I posted the proposal above. I'll edit it to make it more clear I guess Mvbaron (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh! I just realized I missed your signature in the middle there. It's apparently your proposal that I am supporting Facepalm GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I support B here, but note that the way the closure review of the above RfC at WP:AN is going, I imagine A will probably be disallowed as an option anyway unless there's a new RfC/new consensus. Regarding wording, I'm a bit perplexed by what is meant by "ties to white nationalist and white supremacist extremists". It seems like this is saying they have ties to the extremist brand of "white nationalism and white supremacy" as opposed to the moderate brand, whatever the hell that means. It should probably just say white nationalist organizations or white nationalists, like sources do – the word "extremist" was just pulled out of a hat anyway. No opinion thus far on the position until I get a better view of what we're going to use to source that statement, whether it goes in the second sentence or in another paragraph would be a matter of what is due. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that "white supremacist extremists" and "white supremacists" are synonymous, and the latter is probably clearer since it avoids people wondering exactly what you were. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not think we need to soften our language here. The Proud Boys have made it clear they support & encourage white nationalism. The RfC did not say there is no consensus for the label, it found there was no consensus to change it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Above I mentioned that white nationalism is a euphemism, and I mentioned that specifically because of this issue. We are already softening this by using a euphemistic term (which was coined by white supremacists precisely to soften their image) LABEL only applies if there is some more neutral way to describe this -but there really isn't. It's not some unforgivable LABEL-crime to mention a fact about them. The most appropriate and neutral way to explain that the Proud Boys are a white nationalist gang is to explain directly that they are a white nationalist gang. Grayfell (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but the sourcing on the label white nationalist was indeed thin enough to result in a no-consensus RFC. The SLPC does not use the label, and we generally don't have many RS routinely using it either. On the other hand, the RS do make the connection of the PB member's ties. I tried to make a compromise by splitting the first lead sentence to reflect this. Mvbaron (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I figured there is a serious distinction between labeling the PB as white nationalist and labeling people they associate with as white nationalist or white supremacist. Or, otherwise, labeling part of their membership as overlapping with white nationalism/supremacism. Labeling the whole group as white nationalist would entail that as basically a goal of the group in general, where mentioning overlap or ties with this ideology would be different (in perhaps the same way that Italian fascists weren't the Nazis, to give a comparison that immediately jumps to mind). Regardless I think sourcing is heavily on the side of this position and not on either omitting it or full-on labeling, and this distinction means this is a unique proposal rather than just a reopening of the RfC, as well. --Chillabit (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

If we imply (directly or indirectly) that only some members are associated with white nationalism, we are also implying that some are not associated with white nationalism. This is not strictly accurate. The organization is, per sources, associated with white nationalism, so all of its members are associated with white nationalism, regardless of what they believe in their heart of hearts. I think we should say it plainly and trust that readers understand that people are complicated beings. To the extent that reliable sources discuss any western chauvinist modern world creators who are not actually racist, we can discuss them proportionately. Grayfell (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The RfC did not say there is no consensus for the label, it found there was no consensus to change it. Not sure if you're following the AN discussion, but there is ongoing discussion there about this particular part of the close. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the change as it is consistent with how the group is described in expert sources. They basically draw in a wide range of extremists. While white nationalist groups sometimes recruit non-whites as tokenism, it's unusual for their leaders to be black. TFD (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

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

whoever made this did not actaully do any research and 2/3 of the references are incorrect, Arkadisevyan (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Add homophobia 198.255.141.110 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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

The Proud Boys are not what Wikipedia says they are. Someone is trying to label a bunch of GOOD MEN as a bunch of terrorists. Absolutely pathetic. All the Proud Boys are, are a group of patriotic men, who are PROUD of their country. They are PROUD to be men. And they are PROUD to defend their country against terrorists. Basket-Head (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2021 (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. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"The surprising answer to this question is that the Proud Boys enjoy significant support from a slice of the Chinese American community and the broader Chinese diaspora."

Their gifts made up more than 80% of the $106,107 raised for medical costs for members of the Proud Boys who were stabbed during violent clashes in Washington in mid-December.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/04/proud-boys-chinese-americans-community-support-donations/7343111002/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger, Emir of Wikipedia, and Volteer1: Proposing to bump the talk page archiving to something like 90 days. Newslinger, can you explain your concerns with slowing down the archiving of this talk page? I see you and Emir have each undone changes to slow the archive speed (Newslinger undid Emir's, Emir undid Volteer's, though Emir's appears to have just been based on Newslinger's). There was a period where this talk page was so active that 14-day archiving made sense, but bumping it to 90 days would seem to make sense now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't contentious; the purpose of archival is to prevent a page from becoming unmanageably long. It currently has the opposite problem; it is being archived too aggressively. VQuakr (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Not much to discuss. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I changed the time to 140 days, Volteer1 changed it to 30 days. We do have to keep in mind the activity changes over time. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Extreme right (conservative) & Fascists are polar opposites, as Fascism is a form of socialism. Please correct the opening description. 64.19.79.34 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for obvious reasons, being that this request assumes that words no longer have meanings.--Jorm (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Needs a proper citation for declaring the group a terrorist organization. The link is to a New York Times article declaring them as such an organization. The group hasn't been formally declared a terrorist organization by law enforcement. Skeszler92 (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: "Canada adds Proud Boys to terror list". This article is cited. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also states the group has "folded" while saying it's status is "active". This is clearly a contradiction. Skeszler92 (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Skeszler92: The Canadian chapter folded, not the entire organization. Perhaps the wording needs to be clarified. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

👍🏻 Skeszler92 (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Add Category:2021 disestablishments in Canada since the organization is dissolved in Canada. 2603:6010:D307:98CA:65F1:5975:317C:B2BF (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Article added to Category:2021 disestablishments in Ontario per WP:CATSPECIFIC. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

They joined the Wisconsin Proud Boys looking for brotherhood. They found racism, bullying and antisemitism. Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And [15] [16] Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I came across this article from USAToday that talks about how the Proud Boys enjoy strong support from the Chinese-American community and saw a wave of donations starting in December. Might be worthwhile to include some information about the racial demographics of Proud Boys membership and supporters, given that they're widely viewed as a white nationalist/white supremacist organization. Some media outlets have also accused the Proud Boys of using minorities (including Tarrio) as cover to hide its alleged bigotry[17], though I don't pay enough attention to these people to make a judgment either way. Incerto501 (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

[18] and [19]. Of course we'd want more and better sources. We can't use Kos and there's no consensus on Vice. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yesterdays clashes with far left "anti fascist" terrorists in Portland should be included in the article as they were notable and well publicized, and at least two Proud Boys were involved as organizers in the event who later participated in the violence. History Man1812 (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

Sources? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's coverage in the Washington Post. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

They engage in violent protests/clash with counter protestors every other week. Is there anything noteworthy about August 22nd in Portland in particular? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly, there's probably been enough Proud Boys activity in Portland by now to justify Proud Boys activities in Portland, Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears very redundant because both ideologies are very similar. Additionally, I did not want to get into an edit-war with the other contributors, so I would ask that here to better know. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

How are these similar ideologies?--Jorm (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There are similarities, though I don't know if I would say they are so similar as to be redundant. That said, I could support removing "chauvinist" from the lead sentence simply because although it's a term that the Proud Boys often use for themselves, it's not widely used in reliable independent sources (except when quoting the Proud Boys). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The term "Chauvinist" is objectively descriptive and helpful in distinguishing the organization from other nationalist movements. "Western Chauvinism" describes the focus on a pan-"western" alternative to nationalism. The group mythologizes western cultural advancements in a way similar to historical fascist movements, but disconnected from race - that "culture" is key and all races are welcome to contribute to it - in a unique way that isn't present in eastern cultures (which focus on ethno-nationalism). In this way it distances itself from racialist pseudoscience and focuses on the ideological environment unique to "the west".

Unfortunately, many tenets are opposed to the multiculturalism that has, to an extent, made western culture great - which leads to cognitive dissonance.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you got sourcing to resolve the concern about this currently only being a self-descriptive term? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

ADL mentions their extreme focus on western culture, combined with the terms we are describing.It is helpful and undisputed though, wouldnt you agree? It isn't like the controversy behind claims of "anti-racist" or "pro-liberty" as the group claims - but which claims are directly disputed by RS. I'll dig a bit deeper.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Anon the group its self condemns Fascism, it does not feel right putting neo fascists there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.224.56.242 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

We describe subjects in the way they are widely described by reliable sources. In some cases, that includes using labels that the group does not use for itself, or even rejects. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

They are an overtly anti fascist group which can be verified by their charter and multiple other sources. Much of this entry is verifiably false the fact that many of its "sources" are opinion pieces by far left activist groups is enough to make one lose faith in the collective integrity of Wikipedia altogether. Savatage2k (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It's common for controversial groups to officially deny things they support, to deflect criticism. Wikipedia has enough integrity to ask around instead. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I might suggest a couple of tweaks to the lead. The fist one is the redundant back-to-back repetition of "multiple racist events". And the second tweak is to fit MOS a bit better:

According to The Daily Beast, though the group officially rejects white supremacy, "members have nonetheless appeared at multiple racist events". Members have also engaged in multiple racist events and events centered around fascist, anti-left, and anti-socialist violence; and events centered around ... The Proud Boys glorifies violence The group is frequently accused of glorifying violence,

Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a policy-based reason as to why we should use weasel words to white wash the organization? Jorm (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I absolutely do not want to "whitewash" this organization. They are a terrible, racist group as far as I'm concerned. But explaining this to the reader will be more effective without awkward phrasing, would you not agree? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing "They glorify violence" (fact) to "some people say they glorify violence" (opinion) white-washes it. We are not going to do that. Jorm (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what you mean. So why does this sentence say, "The organization has been described as a hate group by NPR's The Takeaway"? Isn't that also whitewashing, if they are, in fact, a hate group? Please know I'm not trying to argue here, just trying to see what you mean. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You didn't quote the whole sentence. 'Hate group' is a designation used by specific organizations, and it has a quasi-official status. SPLC designated them as a hate group, that's the key part. Saying how "SPLC designated x as a hate group" as opposed "x is a hate group" is whitewashing is like saying "FBI designated x as a domestic terrorist" as opposed to "x is a domestic terrorist" is whitewashing... Which is clearly... not... correct. Now, someone apparently thought that it's a good idea to squeeze in a media organization, NPR, to pad the claim that they are a hate group. NPR is a trusted news org, but they're not expected to make such a designation, it would have to be seen as an opinion. However, an organization glorifying violence is certainly something any competent observer can state as fact, which would make this claim verifiable for our purposes.

In short: the difference is in the specific character of the hate group designation, it's traditionally tied to certain organizations. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

They aren't "frequently" "accused" of glorifying violence. A select number of reliable observers made this statement of fact which makes the claim verifiable. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. What about the other point. The repetition of the phrase? Seems almost like a typo. I'd just fix it, but I thought I'd bring it here, first. I'm not on any kind of mission here, just looking for copy edit opportunities to make the article stronger. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

How about:

Though the group officially rejects white supremacy, members have participated in many racist events and events centered around fascist, anti-left, and anti-socialist violence.

This trims out the quote and attribution to Daily Beast, which doesn't seem necessary, and the bit about Jason Kessler, which introduces more questions than it answers. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that reads a lot better, in my opinion. I wonder if others agree? Thanks for jumping in. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

See [21]. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

complaining, not an actual request

This edit request to Proud Boys has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Proud boys in not far right or extremists. They are traditional and patriotic. 2001:569:5109:8000:4058:4842:3F02:5245 (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

There are only four sources cited for labelling the Proud Boys network as neo-fascist, two of which actually do not use the word neo-fascist but protofascist and cryptofascist. Out of the two remaining sources, one is an editorial piece by Peter McLaren, who is not a political scientist, and is not in the least trying to be neutral (boasting about punching a life-size picture of Donald Trump). I do not think that article qualifies as a neutral source. The only remaining source, the New York Times, does call the group neo-fascist, but does not explain why, and which definition of neo-fascism they used.

I think this article's neutrality would be greatly helped if more sources were added justifying the neo-fascist label, and if those sources also clarified why the group meets a specific definition of neo-fascism. As an example, I would look at the wikipedia page on the Rise Above Movement, where the labels used to describe the group are much more well-defined in the sources referred to. The ADL and the SPLC are generally good sources for these kinds of subjects.

--82.169.68.56 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful input. I will remove McLaren's piece and add two British reliable sources that explicitly call PB "neo-fascist." soibangla (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The SPLC and ADL do not call them neo-fascist, nor do any experts on fascism or the far right. These are the best sources we could find. TFD (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

SPLC: "organized fascist street gangs such as the Proud Boys", "the proto-fascist group", and "The greatest threat to the country comes from a fascistic right-wing political bloc that includes groups like the Proud Boys." Maybe more in this search. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

They make no reference to fascism in their main entry for the group.[22] i don't think that the listing of a search for ""proud boys" fascist" is helpful because it includes terms such as anti-fascist or "far right and fascist." Proto-fascist btw means "tending toward or imitating fascism." (Merrian-Webster)[23] TFD (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's helpful as a quick link for editors who want to research further. If you mean "not helpful as evidence by itself" then I agree. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Given that Proud Boys attempted an insurrection, is it a proscribed organisation? If not, why not? Other organisations which wish to overturn the democratic basis of government are disallowed from their members joining public/civil service/government organisations. What efforts have been made to stop Proud Boys from infiltrating government agencies? 2.28.151.187 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I ask because they've been removed from List of neo-Nazi organizations by User:Sjö as unsourced in the article. They are in the Neo-Nazism template but in List of neo-fascist groups. And is it realistic now to distinguish? My experience is that these terms are used interchangeably. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that fascism and nazism are related but still different enough that they should be distinguished, and that per WP:V we need a source that specifically says they are a nazi or neo-nazi organisation. Please note that they were added to the list only yesterday. Sjö (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sjö: in the modern political context, what's the difference? And this says "On Aug. 9, Tarrio posted an illustration “from a very talented individual” depicting Proud Boys engaged in combat in front of a burning U.S. Capitol building. The illustration contains a number of pieces of white supremacist and Nazi imagery, including the number 88 – a white supremacist code for the phrase “Heil Hitler.” In a follow-up post, Tarrio wrote, “Zoom in and you’ll enjoy it more.” But what we probably need is a List of neo-fascist groups - I presume you'd agree to that? Doug Weller talk 17:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea, but I think we would have to accept some overlap if different RSs describe a group as both neo-nazi and neo-fascist. My main point and the reason for my original edit is that I think that we must be very careful with the sourcing, especially when it comes to political labels that might be considered derogatory. Sjö (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The terms were invented to decribe successor groups to Nazis and Fascists. In the UK for example, the origin of modern far right groups such as the BNP can be traced to the British Union of Fascists. Neo-Nazi groups, such as the American Nazi Party conciously modelled themselve on the German Nazi Party.

There has long been a debate about the connection between the far right in Europe and America. Following writers such as Adorno who saw fascism as a type of psychopathology, many social scientists classified the U.S. far right as fascist, while others saw it as having developed separately out of America's history. That's partly why the term far right is more often used.

TFD (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The other part is that "far-right" was a term these groups used to soften their image, because Neo-Nazi and fascist were (understandably) something that set most people on edge. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen any examples of that and would be appreciative if you could provide one or at least a reliable source that makes that conclusion. I have seen members of the far right claim they are right-wing or moderate or that the political spectrum is meaningless or try to distance themselves from historical fascism by claiming it was left-wing. TFD (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This is from a long time ago, so I'll have to go digging on a day off to find it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember that coming up. AFAIK, the term was used in European politics to describe right-wing extremists and was adopted by American social scientists. Sara Diamond says that social scientists in the 1950s began to apply the terms "extremist" and "radical right" to U.S. politics in the 1950s, but she sees that as derogatory. They described themselves as "conservatives," which is how she describes them.[24] But I have seen no evidence that they adopted the term far right to distance themselves from fascism. If you have any source that says that, I would be very interested to see it. TFD (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

[25] "Proud Boys Regroup, Focusing on School Boards and Town Councils The far-right nationalist group has become increasingly active at school board meetings and town council gatherings across the country." If you can't read it and want to see a copy, email me. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to communicate who this organization is perhaps you should not focus on the personal life of its high profile members and focus on their beliefs. It reads as a personal smear, not an explanation of who these people are. All you have done here is give credit to their claim that they are unfairly represented in the media. The truth is the truth and attempting to colour the truth with irrelevant factoids only works to cloud the truth. This is supposed to be a place where we share the truth, free of spin. 2607:FEA8:545F:87B0:1C5:E97:7CF2:C148 (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

How is it a smear? The Proud Boys of Alabama chapter disavowed him because of that, which seems very relevant to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Being a federal informant is not just about someone's "personal life." It needs to be viewed in the overall context along with his other government related activities. Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This has video of a Proud Boys leader brutally attacking an innocent black woman and yelling racial slurs at her. Since he's a leader of the Proud Boys, I think this info could be especially useful in the article:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/andrew-walls-proud-boys-assault-video_n_621c87a3e4b0afc668c2eda2

Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

He's a local chapter VP, not a Proud Boys leader. I don't know if it's significant enough to the org in general to merit mention. VQuakr (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• https://www.opb.org/article/2022/06/06/proud-boys-charged-with-seditious-conspiracy-in-capitol-riot/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Change the first sentence ending...FROM "American Organization" TO an "Anti-American Organization" 2600:387:C:6F12:0:0:0:9 (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean, it is an American organization, just a terrible one, so  Not done. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

What about the proud boys actually is fascist, not the fake definition but the actual real fact definition of fascism, I see no fascist idea's (nationalism is not fascism) and clearly 0 "white supremercy", Miriam Webster defines fascism as such, "often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition", proud boys stand for decentralization (states retaining independent rights and privileges over the central us government) and the continuing of the current American political system (elected officials otherwise known as democracy), what you describe with the "fascist" label is what Antifa stand for but you haven't labeled Antifa as "neo-fascist", when did Wikipedia(an information platform) become so politically charged. 101.100.148.250 (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It might've been that whole thing where they stormed the Capitol and demanded the Vice President be hanged and that the peaceful transfer of power from a free and fair election be stopped so that their preferred guy be installed as a dictator. Either way, see if the reliable sources describe them that way, if they don't, then we'll change it. Andrevan@ 03:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The redirect POYB is referring to something added to the infobox in this edit citing the ADL. I have confirmed that to the ADL as claimed, but almost nowhere else reliable (if the ADL can be considered reliable on this topic, I don't know as I don't edit this topic) backs the claim up. Is this a true alias of the Proud Boys? Sennecaster (Chat) 00:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not on the ideology page Option 1 have neo fascism in both Option 2 have cryptofascism in both 176.72.43.90 (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It’s not clear what you’re suggesting. Acroterion (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

New information about the role of the Proud Boys came out after the start of the January 6th Hearings on June 9th, 2022:

• Caroline Edwards and Nick Quested testified as to what they experienced on Jan. 6th.
• Nick Quested provided new video on the Proud Boys from the documentary that he was shooting at the time.
• On June 17th, after the Hearings started, the New York Times completed an investigative video tracking the movements and roles of several key members of the Proud Boys during the insurrection.

Taken together the new information shows:

• The Proud Boys played a key tactical role.
  • They had a special command structure for Jan. 6th.
  • They formed into teams.
  • The NYT video shows the leaders falling back when progress stalls and then redirecting Proud Boys to different attack points.
• Evidence suggests the attack was well-planned.
  • They marched directly to the Capitol, not to Trump's speech.
  • The statement of the Proud Boy called Milkshake "...let's go storm the Capitol with Nordean"
  • The statement by the woman in front of the Capitol with the Proud Boys, “I’m not allowed to say what is going to happen today, because everyone’s just going to have to watch for themselves, but it’s going to happen, something’s gonna happen one way or the other."
• The size of the Proud Boys contingent was considerable, about 300.
• The Capitol Police were outnumbered at least 50 to 1.
• According to an informant, the Proud Boys would have killed Pence.

Key Citations

• Boys Led Major Breaches of Capitol on Jan. 6, Video Investigation Finds - The New York Times
• Documentary footage from filmmaker shows evidence that Jan. 6 was a planned attack
• Three Characters at the Heart of an Unsettling Jan. 6 Narrative - New York Times
• 17 requests for backup in 78 minutes - Washington Post
• Transcript of the First Jan 6 Committee Hearing - NPR

If you have not watched the New York Times investigative video in the first article, I strongly recommend it. I have put much of these new findings together. There are multiple references to the NYT video, each providing different times in the video for the events or text cited, but the difference in times does not seem to show up unless you try to go to the YouTube video of the NYT investigative report.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The plan was, according to prosecutors, that the Proud Boys would be attacked by antifa and Trump would be forced to declare martial law. The Proud Boys would then retrieve their weapons and serve as auxiliaries to the armed forces and Capitol police. The vote would then be suspended and Trump would remain president after Jan. 20 by default. There's no evidence there was any plan to enter the building before the mob (illegally) entered the grounds. TFD (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead refers to Enrique Tarrio both as "chairman" and as "former chairman". The latter is cited from this press release about his indictment. A lot of news articles also refer to him as the former chairman, but I can't find anything about a change of leadership or a new leader. Perhaps the group is considered to no longer have a recognized chairman due to the statement from the Alabama, Indiana and Oklahoma chapters (quoted in the article) that they don't recognize his authority. Someone with more insight into these issues should resolve this inconsistency; in case he is no longer considered chairman, the article on Enrique Tarrio himself would also need to be updated. Joriki (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Joriki this is a sources issue, not one we could use an expert for so I’ve removed your template. Opinions even of an expert would be of no help. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It's here.[26] Doug Weller talk 14:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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

The opening sentence should be changed to this:

"The Proud Boys is an American far-right, neo-fascist, white nationalist, street gang that is exclusively a male organization that engages in a range of street-level violence and promotes and participates in political violence in the United States.[1][7][8]

additional cites:

• Campbell, A. (2022). We are Proud Boys: How a right-wing street gang ushered in a new era of American extremism. Hachette Books ISBN 9780306827464
• Reid, S. E., & Valasik, M. (2020). Alt-right gangs: A hazy shade of white. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520300453
• Valasik, M. & Reid, S. E. (2021) “Why Law Enforcement Needs to Classify Far-right Groups as Gangs?” Contexts, 20(4): 70-71.

The second sentence should be changed to this:

"Despite the Proud Boys penchant for violence and street gang characteristics[Campbell, 2022; Reid & Valasik, 2020] the group is designated as a terrorist group in Canada[9][10] and New Zealand,[6] in the United States the group is regularly Mavalasik (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Curious what others think of the label "street gang" because there are several outlets (such as this one), and others that define them this way. I believe the founder called them a gang in an interview, too. Certainly not how they are typically described, though. Perhaps we can say "which has been called a street gang" or something. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

“Which have been called” sounds good Dronebogus (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

What about as an addition to the second sentence of the lead in bold below. One possible way to phrase it:

The Proud Boys is an American far-right, neo-fascist, white nationalist, and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States. Among various definitions, it has been called a street gang and was designated as a terrorist group in Canada and New Zealand. The Proud Boys are known for their opposition to left-wing and progressive groups and their support for former U.S. President Donald Trump. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I've added ISBNs and a link for these sources, to make verification easier (archive.org for the contexts one, which isn't loading for me). Page numbers would be nice.

I have not checked the books, but the contexts.org opinion is interesting. As a source, it could potentially supplement other academic sourcess, but probably shouldn't stand on its own for this.

Do any reliable sources dispute that this group is a gang or street gang specifically? Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think they have. But I don't think it's the most common label, either. Seems fine to include the term, in my opinion, based on the RS that does exist. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I can provide you any cites that you need. Mavalasik (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing the request while it's under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Their description as a street gang is figurative. They don't actually have a street they operate from and in fact operate across the U.S. and perhaps other countries. Also, they don't engage in typical street gang behavior, such as pickpocketing and burglary. TFD (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That's true, Mr. Dickens. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I assumed street fighting was more the intention of the term, which does fit the Proud Boys, but it's up to reliable sources, regardless. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The most robust description in academia that someone is member of a street gang is self nomination, which Gavin McInnes has articulated numerous times. Also, street gangs are not always territorial, and do not need to be spatially bound to a specific street. That being said, Proud Boys routinely hangout in public locations, specific bars for example, and defend these spaces from outsiders. Proud Boys also engage in cafeteria-style offending with lots of different types of crime, no different than traditional street gangs. Mavalasik (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

These are myths about gangs that you are talking about. Street gangs are not always territorial, and do not need to be spatially bound to a specific street. That being said, Proud Boys routinely hangout in public locations, specific bars for example, and defend these spaces from outsiders. Proud Boys also engage in cafeteria-style offending with lots of different types of crime, no different than traditional street gangs Mavalasik (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added the gist of it, with edits based on discussion. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you did not include the other cite by Reid & Valasik, which is actual academic research vs. Campbell’s journalist piece? They are the only two substantive pieces that are sea with this issue, and Reid & Valasik came out first. Can you have both listed? Mavalasik (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The Politico link that you included with the Campbell cite, is just referencing his book. It is not an independent supporting cite, like Reid & Valasik would be. Mavalasik (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

For Reid & Valasik, do you have page numbers? That would make it easier to summarize this.

The Politico source does cite the book, but the author also calls the Proud Boys a "street gang" for context. Specifically, the source is using this phrase as context for the interview, not just as part of the interview itself. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Proud boys are discussed at length by Reid & Valasik as a street gang, but there is an entire subsection focused on the group as one on pages 24-29. Does this help? Mavalasik (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mavalasik We don't want to overcite, either. An academic source is not necessarily needed to back up how the group is defined by media, general public, etc. In short, unless someone is disputing the fact itself, I think the two sources there now are fine. Good to have more options if needed, though. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely understand about not overciting. My point is that by having a variety of sources, academic and journalistic, provides more support to the claim that they are a street gang, instead of readers seeing that the cites are just from the "liberal media." I always feel that a diversity of cites supporting an argument is stronger than just one voice, in this case a book by Andy Campbell and a interview with him. 130.160.126.3 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely understand about not overciting. My point is that by having a variety of sources, academic and journalistic, provides more support to the claim that they are a street gang, instead of readers seeing that the cites are just from the "liberal media." I always feel that a diversity of cites supporting an argument is stronger than just one voice, in this case a book by Andy Campbell and an interview with him. Mavalasik (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mavalasik It seems clear by your username that you may be, or be associated with Matthew Valasik, in which case you should state you have a conflict of interest in getting that source included in the article. 15:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am the author of the book and an expert is street gangs. I did not try to hide my identity in calling out the improper identifying of Proud Boys as a gang. I apologize for not making it more clear. The book is the only modern academic monograph that accurately looks at far-right group through the lens of street gangs. You can look at my CV and clearly see that I am not a hack. I just want the group to be labeled accurately and people and the criminal justice system to start thinking about them in that way. A throughly researched academic book that connects across disciplines will carry more weight for some audiences than a a journalists expose. Again that is the point I am trying to make. Wikipedia is not just todays hot takes but is a modern day encyclopedia and should be sourced as such. Mavalasik (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Simply put, Wikipedia has strict rules about promoting your own work. Please see WP:COI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am new to suggesting edits to wikipedia. That being said, can on e of the other editors tell me that the book I am suggesting, published by UC Press, is not more appropriate than an interview puff piece by Politico? One of the editors can make look at both pieces and see which cite is more valued to people trying to learn the truth about Proud Boys. Mavalasik (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The Proud Boys have been called many things, and there is no formal, scientific definition of a street gang in the U.S. that I'm aware of. So, the sources for the label should be sufficient to say that they've been "called" a street gang. In this case, by an editor at a major publication, and by a journalist who covers that topic extensively. In short, the sources there now are reliable and independent, and suitable, in my opinion. I do think there should be additional explanation in the body of the article (since the lead is meant to summarize the body) and it could be that additional sources would help, depending on the context, in that area. But that's a separate edit. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There are formal, scientific definitions of a street gangs that have consensus in the field of criminology. The Eurogang definition, which we use in our book is the most robust in academia. Under the Eurogang definition, “any durable, street-oriented youth group whose own identity includes involvement in illegal activity” is considered a street gang. As I state earlier, I have a PhD in Criminology and an expert in street gangs, I am not sure why there is so much pushback against the expert in the field of of study being discussed. Why are my credentials dismissed compared to journalists? While I may not know all of the ins and outs of editing on Wikipedia, I do know the research on street gangs extensively.

Would it be beneficial for me to writeup a whole section about why Proud Boys are a street gang in the body of the document?Mavalasik (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Your research already appears to be cited in the first sentence of the lead, actually. See here. You're welcome to expand on the gang definition in the History and Organization section and suggest a sentence or two here on the Talk Page, this time explicitly mentioning who you are, but since you're already cited in the article, it's going to look like unnecessary promotion. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible then to switch that source cited in the first sentence to Reid, S. E., & Valasik, M. (2020). Alt-right gangs: A hazy shade of white. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520300453, instead. The chapter that is cited in the first sentence was derived from the book. Then I will also be able to cite the book appropriately in the gang section and I am not "unnecessarily promoting" myself.Mavalasik (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the History and Organization section there needs to be more discussion about Proud Boys being a street gang first and foremost. The material I am suggesting can be added at the beginning of the second paragraph. From Proud Boys inception McInnes has publicly labeled the group as being a gang (Rogan 2017). Self-nomination is consistently shown as being one of the most robust predictors of gang involvement (Esbensen et al., 2001). Despite there being no universal academic or legal definition of street gang, Proud Boys clearly meet the Eurogang definition, which has a strong consensus among gang scholars, “any durable, street-oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is part of their group identity” (Decker, Pyrooz, & Densley, 2022). Proud Boys actively appeal to marginalized men, who yearn for a nostalgic past of hegemonic masculinity where the bestowed privilege of being male were not questioned, sharing a collective identity (DeCook, 2018; Reid & Valasik, 2020). That identity is a hipster persona that deploys humor and irony to facilitate far-right arguments attacking the political, social, and cultural status quo, opposing feminism, immigration, political correctness, and establishment politics (DeCook, 2018). Proud Boys routine behaviors and characteristics are also analogous with street gangs, primarily hanging out together, drinking beer, and participating in a variety of criminal acts, primarily violence ([10]; Reid & Valasik, 2020; Rogan 2017). Additionally, Proud Boys adopted a specific set of colors, yellow and black, along with a mascot, a cockerel, frequently worn on Fred Perry polo shirts in public as a uniform to clearly display group affiliation [274][275][276]. Proud Boys also use violent initiation ceremonies to “jump in” new members, along with a variety of other identifiers, such as getting a Proud Boy tattoo, that further indicate group loyalty and reinforce collective identity [10].

Cites:

Rogan, J. (2017). Joe Rogan Experience #920—Gavin McInnes [Video]. https://www.bitchute.com/video/lrRL5PzeOxu6/

Esbensen, F.-A., Winfree, L. T., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gangs and definitional issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime & Delinquency, 47(1), 105-130.

Decker, S. H., Pyrooz, D.C., & Densley, J. A. (2022) On Gangs. Temple University Press.

DeCook, J. R. (2018). Memes and symbolic violence: #Proudboys and the use of memes for propaganda and the construction of collective identity. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(4), 485-504.

Reid, S. E., & Valasik, M. (2020). Alt-right gangs: A hazy shade of white. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520300453

I will note that I am a tenured professor of criminology and criminal justice, an expert in street gangs, and one of the few academics that are treating Proud Boys with the concern that they warrant. I am citing my own work, along with Andy Campbell's brand-new book, because they are the most appropriate pieces of research that clearly articulate the rational for why Proud Boys are a street gang. Mavalasik (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I would summarize it like this: McInnes has publicly labeled the group as a gang, and criminologists have pointed to the Proud Boys initiation ceremonies, involvement in criminal and violent behavior, identifying apparel and tattoos, and other characteristics as consistent with street gangs.[1][2][3]

But I would really like some other editors input on this, as it's been only you and me discussing this, and you have a COI. Anyone? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This looks good, but I do have a couple of concerns:

Outside of the Proud Boys, McInnes is mainly known for his supposed use of "hipster irony", which makes a quote taken from a podcast hosted on Bitchute especially flimsy as a primary source.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a journal, so we don't use sources to make conclusions. Instead, we summarize existing conclusions.

Esbensen et al., 2001 is WP:SYNTH here, since that source obviously doesn't mention the Proud Boys. Likewise, Decker, Pyrooz, & Densley should not be cited in this article unless it mentions the Proud Boys directly. Either could be cited if they clarify some disputed point, and the sources are explicitly contextualized as relevant by another reliable source on the Proud Boys. That is the kind of thing which would typically be explained in a footnote instead of in the article itself, but it's probably not necessary.

Otherwise, if the sources support this, go for it. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Good points. I agree, and think the McInnes line should go, and only sources mentioning the Proud Boys as consistent with these characteristics should be used. Which brings us back to using the Valasik and Campbell books, which I'll have to review to make sure they mention those characteristics. @Mavalasik You're welcome to chime in and point me in the right direction to the pages that would support the sentence in green. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The pages in Reid & Valasik, 2020 that directly support the sentence in green are on pages 24-29. Chapter 2 of Campbell's book supports this also. I do not have the book in front of me to look up the pages.

Also, the cite on Bitchute is the video of the Joe Rogan Experience. The direct link to the episode has the video hidden, that is why I included the bit chute one instead. Here is the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast link (https://www.jrepodcast.com/episode/joe-rogan-experience-920-gavin-mcinnes/).

Does this help? Mavalasik (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If a reliable source (which also means independent source in this case) mentions that McInnes has called them a gang, than we should just use that source. If the only source we have for this is WP:PRIMARY, in my opinion it's probably not worth including in this article. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Here is a independent story from Rolling Stone that you can cite instead of the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast.

Dickson, E.J. (2021). The Rise and Fall of Proud Boys. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/proud-boys-far-right-group-1183966/

Mavalasik (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I've made the addition and added the two book sources. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding recent categorization discussion, the article already exists in Category:Fascism in the United States and Category:Proud Boys, both of which are diffusing subcategories in the Category:Far-right politics in the United States tree. Please refer to WP:CATSPECIFIC. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. My knee jerked a bit. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

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

requesting more substantive changes, if they are justified with reference to reliable sources, and not the subject of ongoing discussion Coomer 3 (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2022 (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. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

What kind of grammar fuckery is this?

"The '''Proud Boys''' are<!-- "is" is not correct grammar. Do not change the word "are" -->...an organization"

"It" is an organization. It, it, it.

That edit was made by User:Recobben. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think both "are" and "is" would be OK in the first sentence – "are" would match "boys", "is" would match "organization". The rest of the article always uses plural verbs with "Proud Boys" (but of course singular with "organization" or "group"). Other Wikipedia articles aren't quite consistent either: Articles about musical groups and sport teams almost always use "are", e.g. "the Green Bay Packers are a ... team", but articles about political groups seem to prefer "is", even if the name of the group is a plural term. It's complicated. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I certainly prefer "is" - among other things we can use it to distinguish between the organisation, "is", and members of the group acting togather, "are".. Although it would be better to say "organization" when that's what the article is discussing. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. The confusion comes from the fact that "Proud Boys" both refers to the members and to the organization as a whole. In this particular sentence, it's referring to the overall organization, so "is" would be the appropriate word. If we were referring to the members as a collective, then "are" would be correct. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the type of situation where we should be consistent and remove all ambiguity. We can do that by always referring to the people as "members" and their organization as some synonym of "organization." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be needlessly clunky to always say "the Proud Boys members" whenever we're talking about them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I am suggesting we only write "members." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that makes the most sense I think. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There may be spots that won't work, but the idea is to prevent ambiguity by using common sense. Just make it work. Be creative when necessary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no need to change anything.

In the first sentence, we say "the Proud Boys is an [...] organization". That's fine. ("the Proud Boys are an [...] organization" would be fine as well – just like "the Green Bay Packers are a [...] team" is perfectly fine.)

In the third sentence, we say "the Proud Boys are known for [...]". That's fine as well. Changing this sentence to "the Proud Boys is known for [...]" or "members of the Proud Boys are known for [...]" would not be an improvement. Maybe one of these forms would be grammatically more correct according to some rules, but both would make the sentence less readable. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈænti(ˌ)fə/) is a left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement in the United States. It consists of a highly decentralized array of autonomous groups that use both nonviolent direct action and violence to achieve their aims.[1][2][3] Most antifa political activism is nonviolent, involving poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, and community organizing.

The Proud Boys is an American far-right, neo-fascist, and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States.[1][11][12] It has been called a street gang[13][14] and was designated as a terrorist group in Canada[15][16] and New Zealand.

Why are Proud Boys declared a far right strictly violent street gang terrorist group, while ANTIFA is declared a highly decentralized left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement that is mostly non-violent?

This page clearly paints proud boys in a strictly highly exaggerated negative light. Proud Boys are not strictly violent, and not strictly neo facist and in most cases are peaceful. This gets a mention in the antifa first paragraph, yet proud boys don't get that same favorable courtesy? Please adjust the sentence to mention that they engage in both violent AND non violent activity, just like ANTIFA. Please also remove the neofascist mention, this is not factual. 2601:243:702:4D50:3EFA:6492:1103:95FC (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Those things in the brackets represent reliable sources that support the statements made. That's why the leads are the ways that they are. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The two groups are described differently because they are not mirror images of each other.Police organizations and criminal gangs for example are opponents, but they are organized differently and have different cultures, despite many points of similarity, such as a tendency to authoritarian views. TFD (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not really clear what could objectively be meant by "fascist" in this article, if anything, other than perhaps nationalism and civilian political violence, which is not enough to define someone as fascist: by this definition, the Koumintang, the Vietcong, the French resistance, and the Hong Kong independence movement are all "fascist." Also, in defense of the claim that McInnes is far-right, you cite that his organization is designated as a terrorist group in Canada. So is the Communist Party of Peru. Does that make them far-right?

Of course, anyone who were to read this article would realize that "fascist" is being used in a purely juveinle, pejorative, subjective sense. The organization does not describe itself as such and has excommunicated members who promote it. It is nearly as absurd to describe the Proud Boys as fascist as it is to describe Antifa as fascist; both of them share vague cosmetic similarities with fascism, as well as in tactics, but clearly neither are fascist. Harry Sibelius (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

We describe the Proud Boys as the reliable sources describe them. We'll describe the Communist Party of Peru as the sources do as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@MuboshguAlright. Also, please excuse my liberal use of the word "you" to describe Wikipedia and its users generally. Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

White supremacy has been a common denominator of neo-fascism for most of its history. I think you see Biden trying out a new term like “semi-fascist” because this is a bit different. There are many references calling the Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990) neo-fascist, but I think Wikipedia is correct not to include it in the neo-fascism series. There is no good word for the ideology of the Pinochet government or the Proud Boys, but I think the two are very similar. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The good sources describing Pinochet as fascist use the Marxist definition, that is, when capitalist regimes replace constitutional government with dictatorship. However, since social scientists began studying fascism, there is no support for this definition among fascism scholars.

Equating white supremacy with fascism is problematic, because it would classify all European powers prior to the end of the Second World War as fascist. TFD (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

By "common denominator", I don't mean white supremacy alone would equate to fascism. The "Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, racial supremacy, populism, authoritarianism, nativism, xenophobia, and anti-immigration sentiment, as well as opposition to liberal democracy, social democracy, parliamentarianism, liberalism, Marxism, neoliberalism, communism, and socialism" definition is pretty good. I am saying the racial supremacy element is missing. You can watch videos of Proud boys arguing with white supremacists that remind me of the way Biden Democrats argue with the defund-the-police crowd over police reform. The Biden Democrats disagree with the defund-the-police strategy but want to keep the defund-the-policers in the party. Similarly, the Proud Boy leadership disagree with the white supremacists, but want to keep them in their Trumpism party. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Suffice to say, white supremacy is not the sole purview of fascist governments/organizations, but fascist governments/organizations have a marked tendency to adopt white supremacy as a foundation of their movement.

Either way, this is a bit of a tangent. The article has reliable sources describing the Proud Boys. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The founder, Gavin Mclnnes once wrote a list about the things he hates about Israel, one of the Proud Boys leaders said Zionists are criminals who are trying destroy our civilization. Bradenmeddleton (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources we can cite for those statements? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.jta.org/2020/11/11/united-states/a-leader-of-the-proud-boys-says-it-is-now-a-fully-white-supremacist-group-called-the-proud-goys Bradenmeddleton (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this source is sufficient to identify this as part of the group's overall ideology. The source notes It is unclear how Chapman’s call has been received by others in the group. Other Proud Boys channels on Telegram have not reflected the changes he wants to institute, and a message from the administrator of one said, “No, we are not the Proud Goys. No, Kyle didn’t stage a coup,” and then referred to him with an ableist slur. If this change were broadly accepted, I would expect additional sources would have reported on it in the intervening two plus years. VQuakr (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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

The word "always" needs to be changed in the sentence

"The Proud Boys are known for their opposition to left-wing and progressive groups and for their support for former U.S. President Donald Trump,[1][10] who has always denounced such groups, including the Proud Boys.[15][16]"

because it simply isn't true, as later described in the article.

I suggest the following

"The Proud Boys are known for their opposition to left-wing and progressive groups and for their support for former U.S. President Donald Trump,[1][10] who sometimes denounced and sometimes offered acknowledgement of such groups, including the Proud Boys.[15][16]" Chuckjonesbabygorilla (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I'm going to change "has always" to "has". "Offered acknowledgement" doesn't appear in the article and needs consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

So i looked through the PDF linked in Reference No. 1. The word "Chauvinism" are mentioned two times, "Authoritarianism" are mentioned one time, "islamophobia" are mentioned 0 times and none of those are in relation to the subject of the article.

Does the reference really support the statements or am i missing something?

Overall it might be a good idea to diversify the references for the ideology section of the infobox Trade (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Callmemirela 🍁 19:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Trying to get some consensus here @Callmemirela:--Trade (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Then the edit request template is inappropriate to establish consensus. Callmemirela 🍁 21:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll make the change myself if i dont get any responses within a week Trade (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trade @Callmemirela Authoritarianism is not an ideology, but a political system; it should be removed.

Anti-immigration, anti-feminism and anti-LGBT rights can be summarized with the term social conservatism.

What do you think of the following ideologies (as internal factions)?

• Pinochetism

"The Proud Boys have increasingly embraced Pinochet as a sort of mascot. “Helicopter ride” memes and the phrase “Make Rotary Aircraft Great Again” – references to the dictator’s practice of dropping political enemies from helicopters – are common on Proud Boys’ social media posts. At one point, the group also sold merchandise and gear featuring a crest associated with Pinochet."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys

• Occidentalism

"but welcome non-white members as long as these members acknowledge that Western civilization is superior to all others"

https://www.populismstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ECPS-Organisation-Profile-Series-1.pdf

• Right-wing libertarianism

"Despite purporting to oppose government tyranny, the Proud Boys’ values exemplify the slippage between right-libertarianism and fascism (Vitolo-Haddad, 2019), working toward what Michael Orth (1990) described as a “libertarian Utopia which combines violence, repression of women, and a dictatorial state into an all-American Utopia which emits strong fascist resonances.” Similarly, political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr. (2013) argues that this contradiction is inevitable in right-wing libertarianism, and the Proud Boys adopt a libertarian “aesthetic” of freedom to promote a politics that is often authoritarian"

https://www.populismstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ECPS-Organisation-Profile-Series-1.pdf 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds excellent to me Trade (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The episode should be added to the proud boys history section.

References:

"In March 2017, a Proud Boys member named Brandon Vaughan of the Ottawa, Canada, chapter assaulted a Palestinian-American community college professor. Videos of the assault show Proud Boys members fighting alongside the Jewish Defense League, a right-wing militant organization." https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/proud-boys

"Vaughan is a prominent member of the Ottawa Proud Boys, a right-wing group that describes itself as “Western chauvinists.” He is also a regular at far right protests in Ottawa, Toronto and elsewhere in Canada." https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/warrant-issued-after-ottawa-man-skips-u-s-arraignment-on-assault-hate-crime-charges https://canoe.com/news/local-news/warrant-issued-after-ottawa-man-skips-u-s-arraignment-on-assault-hate-crime-charges/wcm/5b97e2c2-4875-47c4-a5e9-730ae5a8e916 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I propose to add the following:

RWDS - Right Wing Death Squad https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/05/09/what-to-know-about-right-wing-death-squad-phrase-linked-to-texas-shooter-proud-boys/

Hoppean snake https://theintercept.com/2021/02/04/pinochet-far-right-hoppean-snake/

If you know of anything else please say. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

p.s. POYB - Proud Of Your Boy

https://extremismterms.adl.org/glossary/proud-your-boy-poyb 93.45.229.98 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The neo-fascism template is "open" and takes up much of the page. In the other Wikipedia articles it is "closed" (see show/hide).

There is also a neo-Nazi template that I am not quite sure what it is for. The group is not listed in that template. Also, why in the major action (in the militant organization template) is there not the January 6 Capitol attack instead of "terrorism" which is much more vague?

The organization, formerly registered as Proud Boys International LLC, is now decentralized; the groups are semi-autonomous:

"The Proud Boys is a decentralized organization with semi-autonomous chapters in several U.S. states."

https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/proud-boys

From the way it is written on the ADL website, the organization appears to be international:

"Proud Boys have international chapters in Canada, Britain, Ireland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Australia and the Philippines."

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/proud-boys-0

Kyle Chapman's expulsion is missing.

https://www.insider.com/ousted-proud-boys-underling-attempts-white-supremacist-coup-2020-11

Libertarian Party candidates and Proud Boys members:

Alex Furman

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/he-was-a-drug-smuggler-now-hes-a-proud-boy-and-running-against-cori-bush-34136115

Augustus Sol Invictus before being expelled from the Proud Boys

https://reason.com/2016/11/07/florida-senate-candidate-struggles-bears/

While affiliation with the GOP is present, affiliations with the Libertarian Party have been omitted. In my opinion they are to be incorporated into the article.

93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The article on Augusto Pinochet states, "However, he and his government are generally excluded from academic typologies of fascism." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#Accusations_of_fascism); the sources would all seem to be reliable.

The argument made by Samantha Kutner starts with the premise that Pinochet is fascist, ergo the Proud Boys who glorify him are fascists. (see Proud Boys as a Fascist Organisation pp. 10-11)

It is not objective to write Proud Boys is a fascist organization (with this argument) and such a position falls under WP:FRINGE and WP:WIKIVOICE.

It should then be pointed out that not all sources describe Proud Boys simply as a neo-fascist group, but with other ideologies so quoting only one label at the beginning of the article is POV-pushing. N.B. Both CTC Sentinel and ICC are based on Kutner's position.

Additionally, it would be better to write: is considered neo-fascist by some scholars for supporting Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Instead of trying to make the article incomprehensible to a general audience as it is done now. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The article should have a section about "ideology" and specific positions. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a sub-section called "Membership and doctrine", which still omits many positions and enhances the analysis of a small number of scholars. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Considering that: academic sources use "crypto-fascist" and "proto-fascist"; that the Proud Boys are not inspired by a classical fascist regime, but by Pinochet's Chile (which is not described as neo-fascist by most scholars, but is described as semi-fascist and/or neoliberal (see Pinochetism)). I suggest changing "neo-fascist" (X) to "crypto-fascist/protofascist" (Y). Alternatively, I suggest adding more context. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump said "stand back and stand by" in September, not October. Atubofsilverware (talk) 1:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The infobox currently lists Black Lives Matter as "opponents" of the Proud Boys. I'm not sure this is justified. Yes, absolutely, the Proud Boys are against BLM and have engaged as such... but I cannot find in this article any mention of BLM trying to do anything to the Proud Boys, and the Proud Boys aren't even mentioned in the BLM article. (Quickly found definition of "opponent": someone who competes against or fights another in a contest, game, or argument; a rival or adversary.) So at first glance it does not appear that BLM is directly opposing the Proud Boys; they are a target of the Proud Boys. As such, this should be removed from the infobox. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing in the article suggests that BLM is their opponent. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I've gone and done it. (And to be clear, Antifa is a different case; we have sourced statements on Antifa coming to a PB-centric rally.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There was a short-lived UK division of Proud Boys. This is documented on Jack Buckby's article with a source and can be included on the Proud Boys article. 2A00:23C6:C022:C701:904E:8571:793:B0EA (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I request adding a link to "street gang" when it's mentioned at top of the page. I think it's beneficial to the reader to be able to be suggested to know more about street gangs there. JaumeAlcazo (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)