The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
IHateAccounts (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 405: | Line 405: | ||
[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 18:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 18:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Maybe you should consider reading the discussions above before repeating the same stuff again and again. [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts|talk]]) 18:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:55, 24 November 2020
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RfC: Statements in lead
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.
Should the Proud Boys be characterised, in wiki-voice, as:
- Far-right;
- Neo-fascist;
- White supremacist;
- A fraternal organization.
Responses may include one or more, or none. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Opinions
- 1, 2, 3 but not 4 as it is unduly self-serving. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1, 4 but not 2, 3 TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1, 2, 3 but not 4 as it is unduly self-serving.--Jorm (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1, 2, 3 but not 4 as it is unduly self-serving. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes 1) far-right in wikivoice, as well supported by the sources that we use. Not 2) neo-fascist in wikivoice with the sources currently referenced, but include generally or specifically attributed; this isn't as well supported as far-right by the sources referenced - might be better supported with better sources; happy to reassess if so. Not 3) white supremacist in wikivoice - per my comment at NPOVN,
Either the sources attribute ... (to various agencies & advocacy groups), or they couch it as "with ties to" <or "members with ties to"> or they're passing mentions, or they require interpretation to get there.
, but include generally or specifically attributed and/or with phrasing better aligned to the sources. Not 4) fraternal organization, as it's a localised US term, with elements of political spin to it, and not commonly found unattributed in the sources we reference; possibly include attributed to McInnes, Tarrio or the organisation itself, if sufficient secondary sourcing exists; prefer mens' organization as a more international, less spin noun for the first sentence. - Ryk72 talk 22:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC) - 1, 2, 3 but not 4. Cedar777 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1, 2, 3 but not 4. NightHeron (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1, 2, 3 but not 4. - 1, 2, and 3 are regularly and repeatedly used by independent reliable sources as defining descriptors. 4 is their unduly self-serving (and vague) wording. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- *1 It's an encyclopedic article, not a rapsheet. 2 and 3 require clarification (for example they have no connection with historical fascism and do not have overtly white supremacist rhetoric). 4 is self-serving and doesn't belong. We can explain in the body why they are neo-fascist and white supremacist. While some editors may believe that a long list of negative descriptions helps to disparage the group to readers, it actually comes across as strident (and hence biased) and has the opposite effect. Also, three terms is redundant. Who ever heard of centrist or left-wing neo-fascists? TFD (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1,2, and 3, with no preference for 4. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1, 2, 3 but not 4 — as discussed by SummerPhD, coverage has focused on the former three titles, I don't see why we wouldn't follow suit. 4 is unduly self-serving as mentioned a number of times here. —MelbourneStar☆talk 03:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- *1 Far right extremist hate group or whatever the SLPC used. It is the most commonly used RS description. The rest are extremely weak and will be challenged often. These right wing hate group pages stick to the SLPC as the lede as anyone opposed can take it up with SLPC.2601:46:C801:B1F0:1C62:B9D7:AE9A:BEB0 (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1, 2, 3, not 4: Sources support #1-3; as for #4 - "fraternal" suggests "companionship [or] brotherhood dedicated to the religious, intellectual, academic, physical, or social pursuits of its members"; this organization doesn't seem to promote any sort of fraternal activity beyond their infantile college-style "hazing". François Robere (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that the sourcing is strongest for 1. Oppose the rest: 2 (considering the usage fascist (insult), I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to support inclusion in the first sentence), 3 (the first sentence should say that they have ties to white supremacy or something like that, this phrasing is more common in RS). I am also happy with not mentioning white supremacy in the first sentence and keeping the current second sentence as it accurately and NPOV describes the connections. Prefer "male-only association" as it is more clear than "fraternal association." (t · c) buidhe 13:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1 and 2. The facts behind 3 need more nuance and appear to have insufficient sourcing to merit mention in the first sentence, and 4 is problematic for the reasons discussed at WP:MISSION. "Male only" could be an acceptable, more factual, description. VQuakr (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- @VQuakr: Just to double-check, did you see my comment below to Hipal which linked to this discussion which includes 11 different sources for white supremacy? I'm not objecting if you did see it all, I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that there's many many many more sources out there to support statements than the few that are included in the article :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support 1, 2, and 3, which are extensively-sourced to high-quality, neutral sources and reflect what makes the organization notable. Oppose 4 as it has basically nonexistent coverage compared to the other three and is largely a self-serving self-description, which violates WP:ABOUTSELF. I strenuously disagree with the argument, above, that we can disregard high-quality reliable sources stating facts about an organization as facts, or can minimize them to mere opinions, simply because some editors feel that those descriptors are controversial. White supremacy and neo-fascism are well-defined academic terms with clear, factual meanings; while they require high-quality sourcing, that standard is met here. The idea that they must always be treated as opinions even when reliable sources overwhelmingly describe them as fact is absurd, not grounded in policy, and effectively allows editors to substitute their own opinions for the facts as determined by reliable sources by selectively choosing what academic political descriptors they consider beyond the pale. We can be cautious when citing wording from lesser sources, but it is completely absurd and untenable to argue that descriptors widely used in high-quality academic sources are somehow inappropriate - we ultimately must look to the sources to make that decision. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support 1 only. Support 1 - it seems non-controversial among all reliable sources that they are far-right; even sources that dislike the term agree they are very much aligned with the extreme conservative movement. Oppose 2 - while the term seems accurate based on the wiki page, it is too much a pejorative to include in the lede sentence. Oppose 3 - while they have membership alignment with white supremacist groups, most sources suggest that pro-"Western" is a better descriptor than a purely racial sense. Oppose 4 - the comparison with college fraternities and groups such as the Freemasons aren't helpful; the valuable part is "male-only", which is better stated directly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1 and 4 in the first sentence... 2 and 3 in the lead, but not in first sentence. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- 1, 2, 3 but not 4 per arguments already gave above, especially Aquillion's. Basically the current lead, so 1 and 2 in first sentence and 3 as it is currently worded. "The Proud Boys are a far-right[1][2] and neo-fascist[3] male-only organization[4] that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada.[5][6][7][8][9] While the group officially rejects racism, several members have been affiliated with white supremacy and the Proud Boys have been described by United States intelligence organisations as 'a dangerous white supremacist group'.[10][11][12][13]" Davide King (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Summation Currently 10/18/2020
To sum up current views above as of this edit following 8 days of RFC discussion here and previous discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard, there appears to be a clear consensus regarding the words' supportability (or in the case of option 4 / "fraternal organization" lack thereof):
- Support 1: 19/19
- Support 2: 13/19
- Support 3: 13/19
- Support 4: 2/19
For "Support 2" and "Support 3" I am counting the comments of VQuakr and Blueboar who indicate that they support the words being in the lead ("Attributed description as white supremacist in the lead is warranted." - VQuakr) but have questions about the specific wording/phrasing. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:1415:FAD2:6664:3C80 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Updated above to reflect contribution by Davide King. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:1415:FAD2:6664:3C80 (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support 2: 13/36 I am counting the 17 unique IP editors that have explicitly objected.2600:1002:B00E:2487:8973:D27D:22B5:3850 (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
An attempt to distil consensus from the NPOVN thread. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG:, Have you started an RFC through Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment in order to bring input outside the involve crowd? Graywalls (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- If that is done, I suggest that it clearly state that it is about the wording of the first sentence of the lead. TFD (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Graywalls: doesn't need to, read WP:RFCBEFORE. —MelbourneStar☆talk 03:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a little bit concerned about the calls to use only one source, particularly the SPLC sources. The suggestion to exclude content because "will be challenged often" is veering very close to censorship, and excluding descriptions that show up in several sources because one specific source doesn't include it seems like quite a blatant NPOV and balance issue to me. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- That comment seems to have been made by someone who has a very weird take, some wording makes me suspect not here for good purposes. Rants about "MSM" and so on.
- "Although it is of the we won't cover this therefore it didn't happen MSM material", "Don't notice that a supposedly mysoginist group attracts female social scientists detractors inventing terms, definitions and claims of secret motives." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=982920139
- "but for example New Mexico Highlands University is not Harvard", "You continue to repeat this charade as if they authored the Oxford dictionary", "I do not like to cast doubt, but I highly doubt anyone else bothered to read anything but the buzzwords if even that much", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=982929780
- Particularly troubling are this person's attacks on Samantha Kutner, a highly respected academic currently working for the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism https://icct.nl/people/samantha-kutner/. I would suspect the existing Gender bias on Wikipedia is probably why she doesn't have a wikipedia page yet. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:19B:99A3:485C:7505 (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- That comment seems to have been made by someone who has a very weird take, some wording makes me suspect not here for good purposes. Rants about "MSM" and so on.
- Particularly troubling is Kutner neither leads with calling them fascist nor concludes with calling them fascist and yet that is being perpetually pushed as the lede here. Also, troubling, a psychology and communications academic citing 17 interviews with what are largely uneducated, disaffected men but neither making the questions or answers public. She doesn't have a page because she only became notable at all with the release of the paper cited- if he is even notable at all. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:125:F8EB:C6FA:6525 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate the purposeful misquotation of what was posted either. Wilfred Reilly despite being a notable expert in quantifying political claims' material cannot be used because it conflicts with the MSM narrative, not carried by the MSM despite being topical here and a notable expert, he not only does have his own page, his historical findings have stood up to intense scrutiny. It is relevant here since Kutner responded to his findings of 10-20 percent of the group being members of color with their being victims identifying with their attackers-a very dubious claim based solely on her opinion.
- I also don't appreciate the misstating of my position. The SLPC should be the exclusive source for the lede. Followed by their denials, followed in the body by the rest of these extremely weak hardly substantiated claims. There is no risk of censorship or any other WP policy that you care to cite in yet another effort to push the hardly used by an RS even Kutner in her initial description fascist to be anywhere close to the top of the page. Looking for censorship? Look how Reilly's material on this group cannot be used despite being a topical and notable expert. In the real world, that is textbook censorship.(maybe I should cast doubt on good faith and say his material can't be included because he is an African American being discriminated against by the MSM and subsequently WP?)2601:46:C801:B1F0:125:F8EB:C6FA:6525 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think you have a major issue in understanding here. Wilfred Reilly is a WP:FRINGE individual who seems to only be able to get coverage by unreliable outlets and publishes on the Regnery imprint, a print-mill without editorial or factual standards from which any 'book' should be considered WP:SELFPUBLISHed. And until you brought him up, he had not been mentioned in regards to the topic here.
- After doing some google searching to see what you're even ranting about, it appears you are trying to source something to a couple of his tweets that the Washington Times, i.e. the Moonie Times, very briefly covered. This faces the following problems:
- The Moonie Times has Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources reliability issues.
- The fact that the Moonie Times chose to cover what he said, does not lend it any legitimacy.
- Twitter posts are considered WP:SELFPUBLISHed.
- He is not, in fact, an expert in analyzing hate groups. Rather, his field of (supposed) research claims to be "empirical testing of political claims" but he steadfastly refuses to publish in peer-reviewed journals, which may well be a result of his "research" designs not standing up to scrutiny under peer review.
- Humorously, Reilly's thesis claimed to debunk the idea of privilege by asking people if they would change their gender or race, and then declaring that individuals not simply wishing to change their gender or skin color - rather than wishing to eliminate the negative prejudices in society and the institutional barriers they faced - was evidence that they weren't "really" discriminated against. I will leave to the reader to determine if this is merely insane, or batshit insane, illogic. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:19B:99A3:485C:7505 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- @2601:2C0:C300:B7:19B:99A3:485C:7505: Regenery is a publisher, they've published the memoirs of presidential candidates, such as Mitt Romney. Here is a C-Span special detailing their printing process -https://www.c-span.org/video/?436827-2/tour-regnery-publishing
- They are not equivalent to "self-publishing" as you've suggested.
- Wilfred Reilly is a published Phd (multiple) from a historically black college and posesses a law degree, notable enough for a cultivated wiki page. He has engaged in a public debate at KSU against white supremacists, and criticised Trump for dog whistle behavior. Washington times is a sometimes reliable source that I wouldn't use if I could avoid it, but it is not on an unreliable blacklist. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Wilfred Reilly is a notable expert with multiple books in all kinds of media including WAPO, USA Today, CBC et al dealing with empirically analyzing political claims or exactly the matter of the majority of this talk page. Furthermore the Proud Boys Whisperer, Kutner whom is trying to build a cottage industry out of tracking the Proud Boys thought highly enough of his work to respond. His information has been vigorously tested since it runs counter narrative unlike most of the sources thus far presented here whom my testing may be the first. Anything less and his page on this site would reflect it. Mr. Reilly said that about 10% to 20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color, a diverse racial composition that is “extremely well-known in law enforcement,” based on his research. (this should be in the article) He works closely with law enforcement, guess whom else works closely with law enforcement? Oh the language specific notable hate group experts ADL and SLPC work extremely closely with law enforcement? Voila, no wonder why domain experts explicitly excluded white supremacist as a label and the ADL explicitly used members of varying ethnicity. Furthermore, our beloved Snopes issued a report recently and of course no any kind of fascist to be found and their first descriptor is close to the SLPC. To sum this up on the assumption that page numbers are never coming for the books with the content inaccessible to the vast majority of visitors to the page. Most of the RS use the SLPC description as their first sentence or something close to it. The academic press sources although interesting to some degree use: neo fascist, proto fascist, crypto fascist and approach fascist or there isn't agreement among any random two of them. The ones that are accessible do not lead with any kind of fascist. Sorry Dauo is never, ever counting as a RS. The rest, McLaren the marxism human studies expert and the New Mexico Highlands first book, the non notable crew of which I think exactly one has their own page here etc....are dubious as best, but Daou is not an RS and Vitolo Hadid was sufficiently disgraced. The status quo of the first sentence and paragraph: does not reflect the majority of the RS, does not reflect best sources, does not reflect what the academic press uses in their introductions, does not reflect the majority of editors who have posted on this talk page-what it does reflect? "Look ye upon the giant, barren field of the fucks I give about your thoughts on the SPLC" "The Proud Boys are Neo-Nazis" etc...... For my 16 contributions here pushing to merely use the SLPC as the first paragraph-which is harsher than calling them neo fascists since SLPC hate group label means limited access to institutions like social media, banking etc....while calling them neo fascists merely means being factually wrong, I was personally attacked nine times, accused of being associated with the group etc...I was warned of actually reading the sources as OR, I was accused of censorship for pushing the domain experts and may or may not have been accused of wrong formatting on purpose. While calling for the harsher introduction. Ridiculous.2601:46:C801:B1F0:A9F6:4516:F04B:3ABE (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- While those are all certainly words, nothing in that wall of rambling word salad seems to cohere into a rational thought. What comes closest is the claim that Kutner "thought highly enough of his work to respond", which is certainly not the case if you read her actual Medium post at https://medium.com/@ashkenaz89/but-how-can-proud-boys-be-white-supremacists-when-they-have-black-members-6cf269b42bc3, which was not directly in response to him in any case but was a response to someone having emailed a copy of the Moonie Times article and being asked what she thought. That being said, her analysis as an actual expert in this field (as opposed to Reilly, who is in a different field of research) might be usable even though a Medium post under WP:USESPS, as an expert citation in-her-name demonstrating the fact that the PB's can both be white supremacist, and attract a token amount of minorities to use them as rhetorical shields.
- Stepping back to Reilly, however, it appears that the Moonie Times may have been engaged in fabrication or misrepresentation again. The tweet in question appears to be here. https://twitter.com/wil_da_beast630/status/1311326969754255361
- Note the differences in text. The numbering he writes is "~15%" versus the Moonie Times's "10% to 20%", and he does not state "based on his research" anywhere in the tweet. That ought to certainly disqualify the Moonie Times for trying to cite something to his research when his own tweet doesn't, and is one of the reasons it has such a bad reputation as a source.
- Oh, and no source has been provided for the claim that Reilly "works closely with law enforcement", either. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:46B:2511:8AAE:C97B (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please make sure that you're replying to the correct thread, not just the absolutely bottom of the section, everyone. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone else wondering if Wall-O-Text-Loon is actually Reilly trying desperately to boost his own profile?
- In any case, I've been trying to identify what the loon is actually referring to and the "Snopes" they reference seems to be this. https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/07/proud-boys-explained/
- In keeping with loon's inability to correctly represent what sources say, however, the title/subtitle are "Who Are the Proud Boys Trump Told To ‘Stand Back and Stand By’? Members of the fringe club turned volunteer "security" force have openly advocated violence and white supremacy" and the article mentions fascism thrice, in the context of the group considering their enemies to be "people against fascism or critics of Trump". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:A4D2:15CF:D346:FCFD (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please make sure that you're replying to the correct thread, not just the absolutely bottom of the section, everyone. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Could someone identify references for each option? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Hipal: Here are a few sources for each of these descriptors:
- I would like to see "street gang" added as an option. per [1] Vexations (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- That is an opinion column, so as I understand it WP:RSOPINION restrictions would apply unless more sources begin to use the terminology in general news or academic coverage. 76.31.177.30 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
WOW more personal attacks, very surprising! If one could actually properly address the material, one would have no use for personal attacks.
1)Exactly one of the academic press sources quoted (the marxist humanist expert) calls this group neo fascist. 2)Is anyone familiar with WP/UNDUE? 3)Is anyone familiar with WP/BEST SOURCES as the SLPC and ADL are drowned out by non notable academic press and hyper partisan zealots. 3)This is never a reliable source ever on any planet-White grad student apologizes for falsely claiming to be person of color-https://www.foxnews.com/us/white-grad-student-admits-to-tells-others-they-are-black-resigns-from-ta-position if the position wasn't so weak, these sort of obviously unreliable sources wouldn't appear. 4)If these allegations weren't so weak the page wouldn't be relying on the citations of non notable academic press such as gender studies, anthropologists and outright political hacks. 5)Why no pic of the black cuban leader? Why no mention of the notable expert estimate of 10-20percent people of color. 6)Wilfred Reilly himself said he works closely with law enforcement. The SLPC and ADL have both said exactly same or similar. The non notable, non expert academic press does not mention working with law enforcement once. 7)I've asked for the page citations three now four times for the inaccessible sources. Is anyone else also doubting that these references exist? 8)Snopes like the vast majority of sources including all of the non notable academic press do not lead with any kind of fascist, yet WP does lead with neo fascist for some odd reason? Does WP/UNDUE just not exist any longer? 9)How many personal attacks are permitted before the warning and subsequent block appears?2601:46:C801:B1F0:B990:D6F0:8035:28E3 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know what you feel is a personal attack. You will need to be more specific.
- The editor immediately before this gave ten sources. You seem to be dismissing many of them at once as "obviously" unreliable, "non notable academic press and hyper partisan zealots", etc. That's not how it works. Pick a (one) source, clearly identify which source you are referring to and describe how you feel it does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS for what it is cited for. If you can establish a consensus, we'll remove it and you can move on to the next one. (That a publication is not "notable" is immaterial. InfoWars, Stormfront, The Epoch Times and numerous others are not reliable sources for much of anything, though they are notable.) - SummerPhDv2.0 04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- To break down Wall-Of-Text-Person's stuff here a bit more:
- 1)"the marxist humanist expert" - pejoratives like this are pretty good to establish that the writer is WP:NOTHERE in good faith.
- " 2)Is anyone familiar with WP/UNDUE?" - looking above in this discussion and in the discussion in the NPOV Noticeboard, it appears that many editors are quite aware of it, which is precisely why WP:FRINGE and WP:MANDY stuff isn't being treated as if it were the overwhelming "truth" here.
- "3)Is anyone familiar with WP/BEST SOURCES as the SLPC and ADL are drowned out by non notable academic press and hyper partisan zealots." - this sentence makes no sense, and if I am guessing at what the writer means correctly, it appears they have not actually read the article.
- some kind of skippable fox news link/rant, not sure what they're going on about there
- "4)If these allegations weren't so weak the page wouldn't be relying on the citations of non notable academic press such as gender studies, anthropologists and outright political hacks." - the writer appears to not understand the sources involved, and believes that the fields of anthropology and gender studies are somehow illegitimate?
- "5)Why no pic of the black cuban leader?" - not standard practice to put the photo up but whatever
- "Why no mention of the notable expert estimate of 10-20percent people of color." - Wilfred Reilly is not a notable expert in this field. It further turned out, after checking the source of this false claim, the claim of "10-20 percent people of color" was not even a correct citation by a non-reliable source (Moonie Times) of his tweet, which wouldn't be usable anyways since it is merely the assertion of a non-expert in this field from his personal twitter account.
- "6)Wilfred Reilly himself said he works closely with law enforcement." - And if you could provide reliable sourcing to whether or not he actually has, you'd be getting somewhere, but I can't even find a record of him making that claim in his twitter account. The fact remains, however, that he is not an expert in this field.
- "The SLPC and ADL have both said exactly same or similar." - While it is true the SPLC and ADL state that they work with law enforcement, more importantly, it is widely reported and confirmed in reliable sources of record that they do so. The same is not true of Reilly.
- "The non notable, non expert academic press does not mention working with law enforcement once." - "working with law enforcement" is not a requirement for being an expert in this field. Also, word salad.
- "7)I've asked for the page citations three now four times for the inaccessible sources. Is anyone else also doubting that these references exist?" - And it has been explained multiple times that page numbers are not required for the citation. Perhaps if we move the box of straws closer to you, you might grasp at them better?
- "8)Snopes like the vast majority of sources including all of the non notable academic press do not lead with any kind of fascist" - Weren't you just claiming that other sources were the "BEST"? Why are you on about Snopes now? And for the record, the Snopes link above references Fascism directly and includes notation that the PBs consider their enemies, per McInnes, to be "people against fascism or critics of Trump."
- "Does WP/UNDUE just not exist any longer?" - It does, which is why Wall-O-Text-Person is not getting any traction when they try to scream and throw tantrums because their WP:FRINGE stuff isn't being put front and center into the article.
- At this point I am suspecting that Wall-Of-Text-Person suffers from WP:COMPETENCE issues, both in media literacy and source evaluation senses. Possibly also in the baseline ability to read and understand the policies themselves. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:1415:FAD2:6664:3C80 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- To break down Wall-Of-Text-Person's stuff here a bit more:
- More persona attacks. If I used same description generally reserved for Marx and Einstein to describe graduate assistants and New Mexico Highlands University gender studies teachers, I might have to resort to personal attacks too.
- This is WP/IGNOREALLRULES to WP/RIGHTALLWRONGS.
- "1)It is obviously not NPOV(the editors pointing this out were accused of whitewashing)
- "2)It is obviously not compliant with WP/BLP with the unsubstantiated negative hyperbole and libel.
- "3)It is obviously not WP/BALANCE excluding the black notable topical expert Reilly in favor of the no blacks, non notable, non topical academic press. Plus no inclusion of a pic of the black leader. Subverting Reilly's work in favor of a collection of no black work on a topic heavily involved in race is also bias. Hardly any source incl Snopes leads with neo fascist but WP does.
- "4)It is obviously WP/UNDUE ascribing so much esteem to a political blogger, gender studies teacher, graduate assistant et al as Freud, Marx, etc......via the phrases being used to describe the academic press-"highly respected academic scholar" etc,,,,,just shows the weakness, that adjectives normally reserved for Nobel laureates field changers and pillars of human knowledge like a Freud, Einstein is so interchangeable with a first time published New Mexico Highlands assistant sociology professor, a political blogger etc....
- "5)WP/BESTSOURCES is also largely being subverted, minimalizing the domain experts ADL and SLPC in favor of academic press.
- "6)I've been editing here since WMD in Iraq, often on hate group pages from the outset of them, this is the single weakest article that I have ever come across
- Proud Boys 1 Wikipedia 0. (Books are to be accompanied by page numbers, no one should have to ask five times)2601:46:C801:B1F0:2927:3097:A2C0:1CAF (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Proud Boys 1 Wikipedia 0"??? - I believe this has now confirmed that Wall-Of-Text troll here is WP:NOTHERE for legitimate reasons. The continued insistence that Reilly is somehow a topic expert (he isn't) while attacking and misrepresenting the reliable sources in the article is just icing on the cake. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also wow, this Proud Boy really has an obsession with "Marx". 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't contribute here often and I'd rather not jump into a hot arguement, but I just want to say anecdotally that both their website (should be the most primary of primary sources, no?) and their local recruitment officer made it seem more like #4 (a "frat") than any of them. They touted brotherhood above all else. They have mixed race members and don't discriminate based on race (group pics and leadership for proof). Their goal seems to be sternly glorifying western chauvinism, which could come across as far-right to somebody who doesn't understand the differences. [15] Labeling them far-right would be peddling disinformation, or at least intentionally skewed information. I would highly advise prefacing the introductory sentence of this article to say "alleged far-right, white supremacist, etc...". Most news sites copy each other, so posting 8 or 9 sources from the same media parent company saying the same thing is not acceptable, especially in this unprecedented time of disinformation. Find better sources for this wiki, please. And those in here who are clearly left or right, check your bias; I shouldn't be able to tell on a website like this. 18:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- As exciting as that original research is, I am going to put my trust in the cited reliable sources. You can complain all you want ("news sites copy each other", "intentionally skewed information", "someone who doesn't understand the differences"), but for now you are not, as far as I know, an author whose conclusions about what this organization really is have been published by reliable sources. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Intellectually Challenged man blames proud boys for his bomb threat
"Diskinson Police Sgt. Joe Cianni described Raymond as an "intellectually challenged Dickinson resident" who is not believed to have any affiliation with the Proud Boys."
TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps, maybe to a section titled "false allegations of voter intimidation" if any more pertinent and reliable sources document new activity. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @TuffStuffMcG and Muboshgu: A few other more reliable sources:
- Vox Recode: "What we know about Iran and the threatening “Proud Boys” emails"
- Miami Herald: "FBI investigates ‘Proud Boys’ emails that hint at voter intimidation campaign"
- Washington Post: "U.S. government concludes Iran was behind threatening emails sent to Democrats"
- NBC New York: "‘This is a Voter Intimidation Campaign': Explaining Iran's Threatening ‘Proud Boys' Emails" ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Kyle Chapman/Alt-Knight Proud Boys Coup
Kyle Chapman proclaimed himself leader of the Proud Boys after Enrique Tarrio was stabbed. the "Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights" was rebranded into the "Proud Goys." Not exactly sure if this should be added into the article or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebeedruf22 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- This would need a reliable source. At one point, Tarrio said the injuries were serious, but not life-threatening, but other sources cast doubt on the Proud Boy's account. Per this source, the injuries were minor. I cannot find any sources mentioning Chapman's new role. It is unlikely this would belong in the article without significantly better sources, and WP:NOTNEWS applies also. Grayfell (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry! Yes, a bit new to wikipedia-type stuff. At the time I posted this, I saw it posted by Berkley Antifa, however, then it was reported on by Newsweek and The Sun Sentinel --Bumblebeedruf22 (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC) ; edited 07:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding recently closed RfC
@ProcrastinatingReader: could I ask you to clarify something on your closure of the RfC above? As I understand the discussion and various points made, consensus was against changing the wording from "male-only" to instead call the Proud Boys a "fraternal organization", the RFC developing from discussions currently archived to Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 4. I believe this is also why several editors in the RFC left comments such as "Prefer "male-only association" as it is more clear than "fraternal association"" (buidhe) and "the comparison with college fraternities and groups such as the Freemasons aren't helpful; the valuable part is "male-only", which is better stated directly" (power~enwiki). Since the prior discussions to the RFC providing this context were archived off before your closure I'm not sure you read them but I think the clarification would be helpful to prevent mistaken removals. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- By my reading, the "male-only" term was not part of the RfC and no editors explicitly stated their opposition to it, so I wouldn't say the RfC explicitly provides either support or opposition to the statement "male-only political organization". However, much of the opposition to 4 mentioned their preference for the existing statement, and all discussion of the statement in the RfC was in favour of it. So I'd say it can reasonably be presumed that the statement enjoys consensus, with no prejudice against a future discussion to change that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Proud Boys Infighting
It appears the organization is splitting, and Kyle Chapman is trying to assert control. This may be relevant both to the website question, and to other questions and coverage about the organization.
- https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-based-stickman-enrique-tarrio-goys-1546597
- https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/civil-war-brewing-inside-proud-boys-as-top-leader-says-hes-done-pretending-he-isnt-a-nazi/
- https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-proud-boys-rebrand-20201111-kp4cr7l5pbdnxguwyb3xq4m63e-story.html
- https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/proud-boys-leader-trying-to-rebrand-the-group-as-explicitly-antisemitic-648831
- https://www.dailydot.com/debug/far-right-infighting-trump-defeat/
- https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-post-election-proud-boys-meltdown-is-here-and-its-ugly
"“Due to the recent failure of Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio to conduct himself with honor and courage on the battlefield, it has been decided that I Kyle Chapman reassume my post as President of Proud Boys effective immediately,” Chapman wrote. “We will no longer cuck to the left by appointing token negroes as our leaders. We will no longer allow homosexuals or other ‘undesirables’ into our ranks. We will confront the Zionist criminals who wish to destroy our civilization.” He also made clear that he believed talk of defending “Western Civilization” was really just a racist dog whistle all along. “We recognize that the West was built by the White Race alone and we owe nothing to any other race,” he wrote."
If anyone can help work on wording and keep an eye on sources it would be helpful. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Added to Proud Boys#Leadership. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
How many members do the Proud Boys have?
Do we have an estimated number? I tried to find a source in order to add that information to the article, but so far with no success. Alcaios (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Alcaios, " A Rewire survey of private Facebook groups that claim to be affiliated with Proud Boys chapters showed that there were about 6,000 members of those groups within the United States in mid-July, with the largest chapters in California." https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2017/08/28/hate-goes-mainstream-gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys/ Vexations (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Alcaios and Vexations: Hm, I'm not really sure if we'd be able to use Facebook group membership as evidence for actual group membership. The ADL's page on the Proud Boys suggests "likely several hundred" members, so I would personally be in favour of something along those lines, maybe mentioning Facebook group membership:
The Proud Boys likely has several hundred members (ADL citation), however a private Facebook group claiming to be affiliated with the group had around 6,000 members in late 2017 (Rewire citation).
ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)- ItsPugle, It varies a great deal. I don't think we should cite any number as definitive. "Kutner estimated in her research that the group has 3,000 members worldwide." https://www.insider.com/proud-boys-trump-debate-who-what-comments-hate-group-2020-9. But Kutner, in https://icct.nl/app/uploads/2020/05/Swiping-Right-The-Allure-of-Hyper-Masculinity-and-Cryptofascism-for-Men-Who-Join-the-Proud-Boys.pdf cites the splc, which, in turn, cites rewire. Vexations (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Vexations: Sorry, you're right. Giving a specific number probably isn't best. How about something like
It is unknown how many member are part of the Proud Boys, but reports estimate membership between several hundred up to six thousand.
? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Vexations: Sorry, you're right. Giving a specific number probably isn't best. How about something like
- ItsPugle, It varies a great deal. I don't think we should cite any number as definitive. "Kutner estimated in her research that the group has 3,000 members worldwide." https://www.insider.com/proud-boys-trump-debate-who-what-comments-hate-group-2020-9. But Kutner, in https://icct.nl/app/uploads/2020/05/Swiping-Right-The-Allure-of-Hyper-Masculinity-and-Cryptofascism-for-Men-Who-Join-the-Proud-Boys.pdf cites the splc, which, in turn, cites rewire. Vexations (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Alcaios and Vexations: Hm, I'm not really sure if we'd be able to use Facebook group membership as evidence for actual group membership. The ADL's page on the Proud Boys suggests "likely several hundred" members, so I would personally be in favour of something along those lines, maybe mentioning Facebook group membership:
Neo-Fascism sources
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.
I know this is beating a dead horse at this point, but the Neofascism label should be removed, they are no doubt far-right, but there is no compelling evidence presented here. Of the four sources given, none are by historians or experts of fascism. Samantha Kutner, I can't find any academic background on and CV Vitolo-Haddad is a graduate student who recently was fired for lying about her race. Unless someone can provide statements from historians of high caliber like Ian Kershaw. Richard J. Evans, Roger Griffin, Paul Gottfried, Robert Gerwarth, Peter Longerich, Volker Ullrich, etc, I don't believe that the label should be included especially in the heading. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
CV Vitollo Hadad is not a reliable source
Recently hired CSU professor admits pretending to be a person of color https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/18/recently-hired-csu-professor-admits-pretending-to-be-a-person-of-color/ 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. The journal has not retracted the paper, and this constitutes an attack on the author without merit. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- reliable, consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hosang is being misattributed
HoSang-calls them proto fascist(largely the subtextual opposite of neo fascist). He is being misattributed. The reference is in passing with no explanation or clarification. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- It appears that there is a Wikipedia:Competence is required issue here, as having pulled the book from library access, the word "protofascist" is used, in the sense of "a political movement or program tending toward or imitating fascism" [2], similar to neofascism "a political movement arising in Europe after World War II and characterized by policies designed to incorporate the basic principles of fascism (as nationalism and opposition to democracy) into existing political systems" [3]. They use the term neofascism as a similar descriptor to describe the Murder of Heather Heyer by "neofascist" James Alex Fields Jr., on page 105. Protofascist, as used in the book, is definitely not "the subtextual opposite" of neofascist. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- It appears Hosang is still being misquoted. Proto and neo are still not synonymous.2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest you re-read, and understand the term definitions. You cannot simply try to pull the prefixes off and declare them "the subtextual opposite". I also suspect that you didn't really read the source; perhaps you got the bit about the term from a review somewhere? IHateAccounts (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest a halt to misquoting Hosang. Neo and proto are still not synonymous2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC).
- Having sat down and read the book, I suggest the issue here is one of Wikipedia:Competence is required; are you a native english speaker, and do you understand that you cannot simply attempt to strip the prefixes from compound words with specific definitions? IHateAccounts (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kutner is not a reliable source
she calls them crypto fascist or fascist in secret(the bar for this dubious claim is very high as it is axiomatically false to call them crypto fascist and then find material to justify this label). She only uses the social factors common among fascists to describe how the Proud Boys use fascist recruiting methods. Her description of any kind of fascist including her completely made up fascist 2.0, does not include any dictatorial or authoritarian control of governance or military. It focuses solely on the common social attributes. She is a Psych and Communications graduate; she based the cited piece on her interviews with 17 as she describes them largely uneducated and disaffected former members without making the questions or answers publicly available. She concluded that the subjugation of women was their largest draw. That is beyond FRINGE, they're not enslaving anyone and no one else confirms this opinion. She self-acclaims as The Proud Boys Whisperer, charges $200/hr or $1000/day for consulting on specifically The Proud Boys-this is linked to the cited piece. She is clearly COI and not a reliable source on this group. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good lord this is flimsy. All of this is WP:OR. Leave the interpretations to reliable sources. None of this has anything to do with WP:RS or with conflicts of interest. Topic experts charge money for consulting, just like doctors, mechanics, and accountants charge money for their services. Big whoop. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There appears to be no concrete point here by the returned-WP:NOTHERE commenter; this is solely an attempt to attack the author, a respected expert and researcher with the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism [4], on unsound grounds. Attempts to attack an expert for their speaking or consulting rates are ridiculous, and clearly the commenter doesn't understand what "COI" means. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh heavens. Conflict of interest does not exclusively mean an editor is conflicted. "Beneath their libertarian exterior lies the redpill. Proud Boys don’t want freedom in the libertarian sense they have co-opted. They want the freedom to subjugate women" No one is enslaving anyone here despite Kutner's hysterical claims to the contrary. Beyond fringe, completely unreliable and zero credibility.2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
"Proud Boys as a Fascist Organisation-Before continuing, it is important to provide a few working definitions of fascism in the context of this group.56Fascism may be defined as a form of political behaviour marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional beliefs, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal constraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
Kutner's definition of fascism completely lacking dictatorial or authoritarian control or the single biggest tenet of fascism. Beyond fringe a self serving definition little different than the fantastical claims of enslaving women.2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Editors here are using the term fascism exactly as you've described; unconnected to the historical definition of fascism.
- You must simply be upset by modern society, advocate even lawful violence, and be more patriotic than average and you qualify.
- Advocacy of totalitarian government is no longer required, and claims of egalitarian belief are a smokescreennhiding true intent for recruitment purposes.
- The term has been rendered meaningless but is being applied consistently as per the "reliable sources" available.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @TuffStuffMcG: your comment appears to be a combination of WP:NOTFORUM content and WP:OR. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm explaining to the OP that the editors are correct here. The source has been deemed "reliable", and the term fascist is being consistently used to describe other organizations who meet this minimum criteria all over wikipediaTuffStuffMcG (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Discrepancies between SPLC/ADL and other sources
Section renamed from "If it cannot be corroborated by and/or conflicts with the SLPC and/or the ADL involving right wing hate groups it is not credible and unreliable" to a more reasonable length and neutral title. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The SLPC and ADL are the language specific domain experts used by think tanks, government agencies, law enforcement et al. Their descriptions are the ones most commonly used by RS. Anything that cannot be corroborated and/or conflicts with their descriptions is prima facie not credible and unreliable. That would specifically include: white supremacist, racist and fascist. We don't subjugate Einstein on The Theory of Relativity page in favor of Math Weekly and non notable academics. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Spamming [5] is probably not the best way to go about it, but also, you are grossly misreading both Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:WEIGHT policies. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also @3Kingdoms: it appears this is a previously blocked person returning [6] who was engaged in similar behavior [7] [8].
- 19:36, 19 October 2020 Bradv talk contribs blocked 2601:46:c801:b1f0::/64 talk with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: spreading disinformation / POV-pushing)
- Given that they spammed this page and repeated the behavior, pinging @Bradv: who was the blocking admin, if this continues I will request admin advice on next steps. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Based on the other spammy sections posted by the IP, the implication here is that the SPLC and ADL don't use "neo-Fascist", therefore neither should Wikipedia. This is incorrect for so many reasons it would be a waste of time to explain them all individually. Presenting this as a conflict from sources is WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's definitely the same one that was blocked as "(Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: spreading disinformation / POV-pushing)". They started ranting stuff about Reilly again at Vexations's talk page [9], then about "a marxist humanist academic" and "Einstein" and "Math Rhetoric Weekly" at ItsPugle's [10]. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I make no excuses for what the IP did if it went afoul of the rules. However, the point about the sources stands. The IP and myself both voiced issues with the sources provided, they are poor. The burden of proof is now for someone to argue that they are good. It is not much to ask for someone to provide a reasonable and detailed defense of the sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @3Kingdoms: You have an odd idea about burden of proof. The consensus, from RFC, is that the sourcing is proper. It is YOUR job to prove your arguments, the sources have already been defended quite thoroughly. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I did. I explained that none of the sources are by experts of fascism, one has no academic background I could find, one was found to have lied about her race, one uses proto-fascism as opposed to neo, etc. So again please explain, what is credible about them. Not the what RFC says, not that there is a consensus, but why do you think they are credible. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest you actually read the RFC, where the things you bring up were already discussed, and your claims such as "none of the sources are by experts of fascism" were debunked. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Evidently, it appears you have not read it. No one there actually mentions it or responses to the claims. So again I ask you, to defend these sources. Please explain how four people are expert on fascism when none of their bios on their schools list them as such. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I did. I explained that none of the sources are by experts of fascism, one has no academic background I could find, one was found to have lied about her race, one uses proto-fascism as opposed to neo, etc. So again please explain, what is credible about them. Not the what RFC says, not that there is a consensus, but why do you think they are credible. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @3Kingdoms: You have an odd idea about burden of proof. The consensus, from RFC, is that the sourcing is proper. It is YOUR job to prove your arguments, the sources have already been defended quite thoroughly. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- It is too much as they haven't been able to do it for six months. They have been called out for the incredible weakness a dozen times without an iota of credible response. I have RS to back up every single thing that I have posted on this site over the past 15yrs. Unlike IHateAccounts whom posted disinformation that Proud Boys social media urged members to come and edit here. Claims that the black cuban leader is tokenism, that I am a Proud Boy, that I am promoting Wilfred Reilly, that I am here promoting the SLPC etc....that editor nor any other editor here has yet been able to address the factually incorrect fascist label.2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- The gish gallop is a bit much, but I will note that your first edit upon return from block was a wall of text on the talk page of user Vexations [11] in which you returned to your ranting about Reilly and mentioned him no less than five times.
- As for the term Neo-Fascism, while the current citation lists four sources, no less than ten were provided to the RFC in discussion. And, interestingly, the Proud Boys have recently had their own infighting over who is leader, with one Kyle Chapman having... revealing... choices of language regarding the question of tokenism [12]. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I make no excuses for what the IP did if it went afoul of the rules. However, the point about the sources stands. The IP and myself both voiced issues with the sources provided, they are poor. The burden of proof is now for someone to argue that they are good. It is not much to ask for someone to provide a reasonable and detailed defense of the sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please explain Grayfell. Reconcile credibility and reliability without being corroborated by or conflicting with the unquestionable topical experts. Forget that most RS use the SLPC and ADL descriptions making any contradiction or lack of corroboration on WP ludicrous. No need for explanation on how the Proud Boys are portrayed worse than Hitler and the Nazis on WP2601:46:C801:B1F0:2D92:A947:910C:C354 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@3Kingdoms: It's getting silly watching you repeat things that have already been discussed in the RFC or otherwise above.
- Your personal attacks against CV Vitolo-Haddad are meaningless. The journal has not recalled or rescinded the paper, which passed peer review and is a Wikipedia:Reliable Source as published in a reputable journal.
- Samantha Kutner is a researcher with the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism [13] with particular expertise in this field. Your claim that you could not find any background would only be proof that you didn't bother looking, especially as it was directly pointed out in responses to your partner in the RFC.
- Just to be sure, I checked out the Hosang book through library access, and those responses are above. Read the responses for yourself above, I'm not going to waste time and energy further on repetition.
- You continually attempt to attack three sources with illegitimate arguments, while ignoring that TEN sources were provided in the RFC above in ItsPugle's response to Hipal. Further, McLaren (2020) is also listed in the page sources for the term currently and I note neither you nor your partner address that source at all.
Again: there was a rather long RFC above. If you believe you have something to add, it is your responsibility to provide sourced arguments, not the responsibility of others to waste time and emotional effort continually debunking BS that's already been answered in the RFC and in other discussions above. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I did look that up on Kutner, all I saw was that one link, it list her majors as psychology and communication, not history not fascism. Its not a personal attack on CV Vitolo-Haddad, she lied about her race and is a Journalism and mass communications major, not history or fascism. Being in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make the source right read about the Tantura affair in Israel. Hosang focus is on Ethnicity, Race & Migration and American Studies, not fascism. McLaren focus is critical studies not fascism. These are not very hard concepts, if you don't make a background on fascism and you call people you don't like fascist, your not credible. Might as well call Obama, the Democrats, and anyone to the left of Ted Cruz a fascist cause Dinesh D'Souza, says so. I am not a "partner" with IP, but a bad source is a bad source. The ten previous sources you mention were not discussed because they are even worse. One was by Peter Daou, a Clinton partisan who is regularly considered to be a grifter in left-wing circles. Others were just sources that called them Fascist with no analysis of the claim. I did not provide a source, because there is no need the Proud boys are not fascist; far-right, inclined towards violence, offensive, correct... does not make you fascist. If you can provide a source from someone like Ian Kershaw. Richard J. Evans, Roger Griffin, Paul Gottfried, Robert Gerwarth, Peter Longerich, Volker Ullrich, etc then you might have a case, but you don't. You seem to be unable to have a reasonable debate on the merits and instead prefer to get angry and insult, that is unfortunate. I suggest you calm down, before you proceed with angry messages. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Once again, you need to re-read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You don't get to arbitrarily demand a tiny list of names that are the only ones you will accept, and likewise, it is completely inappropriate to describe Peter Daou as "a Clinton partisan who is regularly considered to be a grifter in left-wing circles."
- I definitely don't see where you get off declaring that the majors of people who have studied the Proud Boys in detail don't count, since I am not aware of any university that offers degrees in "fascism". With regards to Samantha Kutner, an expert with degrees in psychology and communications studying "violent extremism, and the gender dynamics of radicalization" by focusing on the messaging and recruitment tactics of groups like the Proud Boys is entirely appropriate. She is very much an expert on the Proud Boys and what their messaging contains.
- Similarly, attempting to dismiss McLaren by stating "McLaren[sic] focus is critical studies not fascism" betrays a deep, Wikipedia:Competence is required-level problem with your understandings of what critical theory is and of McLaren's research and expertise.
- You make the same mistake in your attacks on virtually every source, along with crossing the lines of WP:FRINGE numerous times and offering an absolutely ludicrous false equivalence gambit with regard to far-right conspiracy theorist Dinesh D'Souza. Once again, since you are the one(s) demanding change after a very thorough RFC: the onus is on you to provide sourced backings for your claims, not merely to shout wild nonsense and then demand that others "disprove" it. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you noticed, I said "history" as the expert topic. Also I listed etc, since there are many respectable historians of fascism that can be used. Quite frankly I could care less what a "communication, critical studies, etc" person thinks of them. Fascism is an ideology where complete worldview, history, and beliefs, someone who understands that such as the men above are able to see if a group is or is not. as opposed to what whatever nonsense these people spew. You still have not defended these sources to any great degree.
- It is also completely fair to describe Daou, as such he attacked sanders supporters for years, created a pro-Clinton site that was compared to North Korean propaganda and then rolled around 2019 starts going all in on sanders, which a lot of his supporters didn't buy. He produces the same low-quality hackery as D'Souza, who cares what he thinks.
- Citing Wiki rules does not help your case everyone interprets the rules differently, you think these sources are good, I think they are low-quality.
- Also there is nothing Fringe about what I am saying, your just projecting, cause you are upset that I dispute the claim and you can not provide an answer without using a logical fallacy.
- Once again calm down, stop with the insults, and use some deductive reasoning. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- It is your job to make a case, and provide citations to support your argument, and you have not done so. It is your job to describe your objections in the context of wikipedia rules and policies, and when you say "Citing Wiki rules does not help your case everyone interprets the rules differently", that indicates a lack of understanding - or a rejection - of the rules and policies.
- The misrepresentation of and personal attacks against Daou don't need answering, they're simply ridiculous and I note you didn't provide any citations in that case either. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Since this page is not about Daou I'm not posting sources about him. I don't see why you care about him so much, he produces low-rate hackery just like D'Souza, do you really dispute that? Finally I don't need to provide a source, because my argument is that they are not fascist, hence said label should be removed. You argue that they are because of sources, to which I pointed out said sources are poor. The IP noted that the SPLC and ADFL don't label them that, so there are two sources. If you dispute find a source by a reputable historian of fascism, such as the ones listed, that they are, of course the likely answer is that they would answer in the negative. Finally please stop making this personal this very unbecoming.3Kingdoms (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have made nothing personal, but your attempts to claim otherwise are somewhat revealing.
- As for Daou, I can find nothing on Peter Daou to corroborate the claims you have made, which would definitely need sourcing.
- Likewise, for your "argument" (if it can at this point be called that): No less than ten sources were provided backing up the wording in the RFC. You have shown no actual evidence regarding the sources you claim are "poor", only some WP:OR, and now you are defaulting back to the same argument that Special:Contribs/2601:46:C801:B1F0:0:0:0:0/64 makes ad-nauseum despite its having absolutely no basis in policy. There is no requirement in policy that only the SPLC and ADL can indicate a group is of neo-fascist typology, nor is there a requirement in policy that only "historians of fascism" can make that determination. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- It is personal when your going through my edit history, to report me. https://theoutline.com/post/2207/the-strange-life-of-peter-daou?zd=1&zi=itppwg4d Finally I am not saying it needs to be the sources I mentioned, but said sources posted are Bad. So get better ones. I have already pointed out why said sources are bad, none have any understanding of fascism and ironically most use the term in passing not actually explaining why it is. One of the few that does, is by a discredit liar. So no I don't put much weight in it. I also have to ask can you actually provide a detailed summary of the articles in question to prove their claim. I am sorry I prefer the works of professional historians as opposed to discredited grad students and marxist critical theorist. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Without going too much in detail, the objective of fascism is an ethnically pure country. If one believes that their country should be made ethnically pure, he/she is a fascist, regardless of being economically leftist or rightist, regardless of being for or against hierarchy and/or authoritarianism. Yup, there is a thing called national-anarchism.
Scholar Brian Reynolds Myers views North Korea's actual ideology as a Korean ethnic nationalism similar to statism in Shōwa Japan and European fascism.[1][2][3]
- Copy/paste from North Korea. It is an example of ethnically pure country=fascism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing Against Myers himself, but I disagree with his conclusion, also it should be noted that his book got a very divided response among scholars of North Korea and Fascism. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- @3Kingdoms: That's exactly the issue here. You disagree with a source so you feel as though the source is therefore universally incorrect. WP:VNT is a pretty good essay to summarise the issue with that stance - we are here to share existing knowledge, not to create our own knowledge or reinterpret evidence in a way that we prefer. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree because framing the definition is based on poor sources. Read below for more as others have said more or less the same thing. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have no dog in that fight: it was only an example that any modern dream of ethnic purity could be construed as fascism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly, which is why we have to be careful in calling something fascist. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's beyond ridiculous to claim that editors who went through an entire RFC and had at least 10 sources, and came to agreement on the WP:RS status of the citation, weren't "being careful". IHateAccounts (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly, which is why we have to be careful in calling something fascist. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have no dog in that fight: it was only an example that any modern dream of ethnic purity could be construed as fascism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree because framing the definition is based on poor sources. Read below for more as others have said more or less the same thing. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @3Kingdoms: That's exactly the issue here. You disagree with a source so you feel as though the source is therefore universally incorrect. WP:VNT is a pretty good essay to summarise the issue with that stance - we are here to share existing knowledge, not to create our own knowledge or reinterpret evidence in a way that we prefer. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing Against Myers himself, but I disagree with his conclusion, also it should be noted that his book got a very divided response among scholars of North Korea and Fascism. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- It is personal when your going through my edit history, to report me. https://theoutline.com/post/2207/the-strange-life-of-peter-daou?zd=1&zi=itppwg4d Finally I am not saying it needs to be the sources I mentioned, but said sources posted are Bad. So get better ones. I have already pointed out why said sources are bad, none have any understanding of fascism and ironically most use the term in passing not actually explaining why it is. One of the few that does, is by a discredit liar. So no I don't put much weight in it. I also have to ask can you actually provide a detailed summary of the articles in question to prove their claim. I am sorry I prefer the works of professional historians as opposed to discredited grad students and marxist critical theorist. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Since this page is not about Daou I'm not posting sources about him. I don't see why you care about him so much, he produces low-rate hackery just like D'Souza, do you really dispute that? Finally I don't need to provide a source, because my argument is that they are not fascist, hence said label should be removed. You argue that they are because of sources, to which I pointed out said sources are poor. The IP noted that the SPLC and ADFL don't label them that, so there are two sources. If you dispute find a source by a reputable historian of fascism, such as the ones listed, that they are, of course the likely answer is that they would answer in the negative. Finally please stop making this personal this very unbecoming.3Kingdoms (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mother Jones, Vox, and the Daily Beast have said they are fascist.
Mother Jones, Vox, and the Daily Beast have been accepted as reliable sources by wikipedia
Therefore they are listed as fascist. Arguments about the term "fascist" being effectively meaningless are irrelevant to this article.
You need multiple "reliable sources" to specifically state that Proud Boys are not Fascist in order to undermine the preponderance of current sources.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- To my understanding wiki rules but the onus on the person adding, not removing. I'm not saying that the article, should call them not fascist, just that the fascist label should be removed. If you want evidence there is the fact that head of the group when he ran for congress, his platform was pretty much conventional right-libertarian ideas, they support the current President, who is more or less a conventional republican, neither the SPLC or ADFL call them such, they don't call for a one-party state, etc. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- it goes for removal as well. The trouble is, if 3 people deemed "scholars" redefined the word "potato" and wrote that the proud boys were potatoes, it would be added here. You wouldn't be able to remove it unless scholars published articles or books of equal weight to bring the assertion into question.
Bad faith scholarship is an argument for the area in wikipedia where we build or undermine a source's reliability... Using sources.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Categorizing far right groups has always been difficult. Where available, I think it is best to use textbooks about the far right. Failing that we can look at what experts on the far right say. Failing that we can look at what the SPLC and similar watchdog groups say, since they are usually the first to identify and classify new groups.
It's usually a sign of poor quality of sources when lots are provided, as if strength in quantity compensates for lack of quality. For brevity, I will address one source, Samantha Kutner's "Swiping Right: The Allure of Hyper Masculinity and Cryptofascism for Men Who Join the Proud Boys" Kutner has a master's degree in communications and her article is about the communication style of the Proud Boys, a group that she has studied closely. The article was published by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism.
In the article she compares the Proud Boys with fascism, using Lawrence Britt's "The 14 Characteristics of Fascism" (Spring 2003) which was originally published in the humanist magazine Free Inquiry. There are several problems with this. First, Britt is not an expert, he's a novelist and his list is not used by experts in the field. Secondly, the states he used to develop his list include Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’ Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. But experts generally only classify the first two and sometimes the third as fascist. it's mostly in Communist writing that all these states would be considered fascist. However, Communists were first to interpret of fascism, and many non-Communist laymen have adopted their classification of all right-wing dictatorships as fascist. Finally, his list was about the characteristics of fascist regimes, not fascist movements.
The main topic of the article is the Proud Boys' communication style. That's Kutner's area of expertise and the real value of her article. Also, I disagree with googling for sources for statements we want to add to articles, rather than ensuring that articles reflect what the best and most relevant sources say.
TFD (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Took the words right out of my mouth. Agree with everything you posted. That is crux of my issue with use of the term. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- There's a heck of a lot of WP:OR there, given that nothing TFD says is cited to anything. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- OR applies to article content not talk page discussions. Obviously editors are not expected to provide footnotes but must support their statements when asked. What do you want sourcing for? The introduction to The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right says that Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal had "a form of right-wing politics that looks like fascism but is not really all that fascist beneath the surface." (p. 3). While Papadopolous, Pinochet and Suharto have entries in the book, none are described as fascist. As for the definition of fascism, the book explains the various attempts to define fascism on pages 42 following. There is no mention of Lawrence Britt or his definition in the entire book. Why should we use his definition (written by someone with no academic qualifications and not published in an academic book or article) over those of renowned experts? TFD (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I would be more likely to believe you'd read sources if you could properly spell Laurence Britt's name. It's amazing how much time you want to spend attacking him; further, on actually reading Kutner I find she cites not just Britt but Robert Paxton in her footnote regarding definition of the term fascism, and further she provides a detailed analysis comparing the Proud Boys to other fascist groups. I find her scholarship compelling and justified. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Paxton is cited in one footnote and no statement is given of his work, the bulk is on Britt, who is not a good source. Upon reading the article, it is even worse than I thought it blantly misleads/lies about Pat Buchanan and Jordan Peterson, that this is considered one of the better articles, is not a good sign. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- OR applies to article content not talk page discussions. Obviously editors are not expected to provide footnotes but must support their statements when asked. What do you want sourcing for? The introduction to The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right says that Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal had "a form of right-wing politics that looks like fascism but is not really all that fascist beneath the surface." (p. 3). While Papadopolous, Pinochet and Suharto have entries in the book, none are described as fascist. As for the definition of fascism, the book explains the various attempts to define fascism on pages 42 following. There is no mention of Lawrence Britt or his definition in the entire book. Why should we use his definition (written by someone with no academic qualifications and not published in an academic book or article) over those of renowned experts? TFD (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- There's a heck of a lot of WP:OR there, given that nothing TFD says is cited to anything. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Took the words right out of my mouth. Agree with everything you posted. That is crux of my issue with use of the term. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- that was a personal insult and was uncalled for.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- (For readers who do not have access to Paxton's book, his definition is shown at Definitions of fascism#Robert Paxton or read his book here.) Sure, she references Paxton's definition, but uses Britt's 14 characteristics for her analysis. Unlike Britt, Paxton rules out fascist regimes outside Europe, hence ruling out Suharto and specifically says that Pinochet was not fascist. He doesn't mention Papadopoulos' Greece at all. Anyway, the most you can say is that Kutner is expressing an opinion. She's analyzed the Proud Boys and come to the conclusion that they are fascist. But I am not seeing that as having been established in the literature on fascism or the far right. TFD (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- So the entirety of the argument is "since we couldn't impugn Kutner with sexist language and make false accusations of a lack of credentials stick, we're going to cherrypick one of many sources from her paper and attack that." WP:OR and entirely unconvincing. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is nothing sexist with what was posted nor were there false accusations, as noted the bulk of the "fascist claim" is built around Britt who has a very flawed understanding of the topic. You seem to have a very hard time understanding sources and other people's arguments. If your only answer is personal attacks then you should just stop now and say your sorry. If you keep leveling personal attacks on people it will lead to a report. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have not forgotten the IP attacking her for being "female" [14], and I am more than well aware of the nature of downplaying or misrepresenting the accomplishments and credentials of fully qualified women. Particularly odious to me is the sexism involved in denigrating a woman for her level of pay in her career [15]. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well since neither of us are the IP, who cares? Second even then calling IP's attack on her is reaching pretty far. Third there is nothing sexist about mentioning her pay, it was clearly framed in that context as describing her as making money off of the Proud boy by making it sound as if they are serious threat to America and since she is a self described expert on them, people will presumably pay her to "explain" them. Finally claiming the whole "downplaying" thing is a worthless complaint. You have been provided with numerous reasons, why she is a poor source. She is not an expert in history or present day far-right groups, she is focused in communication. The fact that her "peer-reviewed" paper, contains only one source by an actual respected scholar of fascism, Robert Paxton who is mentioned in only one footnote with no actual commentary or statement on his ideas, is more than enough to question this as a source for the claim. If she was a male I would say the same thing, in fact I have already mentioned the problems with the two male sources. So once again please provide an actual argument as opposed to name-calling people you disagree. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- And you're back to the nonsensical demands. She does not need to be "an expert in history". She IS very much an expert regarding the Proud Boys. The fact that you WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an actual argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Its not nonsensical, it is completely resonable to have a group, that was mentioned in a Presidential debate, be accurately described by sources of merit. The sources given do not support this. As mentioned before, she can call herself an expert all she wants, but given that in her article she used Britt as her main source, lied about two important public figures, and the citing of Paxton is so small to the point that it might as well not been there there is little reason to consider this a good source. The fact of the matter is during this whole debate you have been unable to defend your view. I and other provide reason why source is bad and you can't give any good defense says enough. Then getting in to you calling people you disagree with sexist and then going through my history to fight with me on other pages just makes this even more absurd, so please stop with this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Again, this is WP:OR which has almost nothing at all to do with WP:RS. It is up to sources to make conclusions. It is not up to editors to challenge those conclusions based on their own flawed interpretations of the facts. Further, it is not realistic or expected for sources to endlessly include their own sources for every statement. I have not seen any credible, policy-based argument that this source is unreliable. Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- The issues have been clearly explained. By the logic used here, there would be no point in having an sort of RS. To be RS it must be debated and here there has been strong evidence, that the use of the term fascist here is not backed by good sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- All I've seen is a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, special-pleadings trying to create an arbitrarily high set of goalposts (doubtless to be moved as soon as they were met) that are not supported anywhere in policy by claiming that only an "expert in history" can assess whether or not the Proud Boys are fascist even if the expert has impressive and clear expertise on the subject of the Proud Boys, and arguments that because you disagree with the assessment of the sources they can't be reliable, which is WP:OR. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- The issues have been clearly explained. By the logic used here, there would be no point in having an sort of RS. To be RS it must be debated and here there has been strong evidence, that the use of the term fascist here is not backed by good sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Again, this is WP:OR which has almost nothing at all to do with WP:RS. It is up to sources to make conclusions. It is not up to editors to challenge those conclusions based on their own flawed interpretations of the facts. Further, it is not realistic or expected for sources to endlessly include their own sources for every statement. I have not seen any credible, policy-based argument that this source is unreliable. Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Its not nonsensical, it is completely resonable to have a group, that was mentioned in a Presidential debate, be accurately described by sources of merit. The sources given do not support this. As mentioned before, she can call herself an expert all she wants, but given that in her article she used Britt as her main source, lied about two important public figures, and the citing of Paxton is so small to the point that it might as well not been there there is little reason to consider this a good source. The fact of the matter is during this whole debate you have been unable to defend your view. I and other provide reason why source is bad and you can't give any good defense says enough. Then getting in to you calling people you disagree with sexist and then going through my history to fight with me on other pages just makes this even more absurd, so please stop with this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- And you're back to the nonsensical demands. She does not need to be "an expert in history". She IS very much an expert regarding the Proud Boys. The fact that you WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an actual argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well since neither of us are the IP, who cares? Second even then calling IP's attack on her is reaching pretty far. Third there is nothing sexist about mentioning her pay, it was clearly framed in that context as describing her as making money off of the Proud boy by making it sound as if they are serious threat to America and since she is a self described expert on them, people will presumably pay her to "explain" them. Finally claiming the whole "downplaying" thing is a worthless complaint. You have been provided with numerous reasons, why she is a poor source. She is not an expert in history or present day far-right groups, she is focused in communication. The fact that her "peer-reviewed" paper, contains only one source by an actual respected scholar of fascism, Robert Paxton who is mentioned in only one footnote with no actual commentary or statement on his ideas, is more than enough to question this as a source for the claim. If she was a male I would say the same thing, in fact I have already mentioned the problems with the two male sources. So once again please provide an actual argument as opposed to name-calling people you disagree. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have not forgotten the IP attacking her for being "female" [14], and I am more than well aware of the nature of downplaying or misrepresenting the accomplishments and credentials of fully qualified women. Particularly odious to me is the sexism involved in denigrating a woman for her level of pay in her career [15]. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is nothing sexist with what was posted nor were there false accusations, as noted the bulk of the "fascist claim" is built around Britt who has a very flawed understanding of the topic. You seem to have a very hard time understanding sources and other people's arguments. If your only answer is personal attacks then you should just stop now and say your sorry. If you keep leveling personal attacks on people it will lead to a report. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- So the entirety of the argument is "since we couldn't impugn Kutner with sexist language and make false accusations of a lack of credentials stick, we're going to cherrypick one of many sources from her paper and attack that." WP:OR and entirely unconvincing. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- (For readers who do not have access to Paxton's book, his definition is shown at Definitions of fascism#Robert Paxton or read his book here.) Sure, she references Paxton's definition, but uses Britt's 14 characteristics for her analysis. Unlike Britt, Paxton rules out fascist regimes outside Europe, hence ruling out Suharto and specifically says that Pinochet was not fascist. He doesn't mention Papadopoulos' Greece at all. Anyway, the most you can say is that Kutner is expressing an opinion. She's analyzed the Proud Boys and come to the conclusion that they are fascist. But I am not seeing that as having been established in the literature on fascism or the far right. TFD (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the same standard editors apply to all articles about far right groups and individuals. Many far right groups pose a threat to society and it is important that we describe them correctly with reliable sources in order for people to have an accurate understanding of them. Following those procedures ensures that readers can consider these articles to be credible. I have posted the issue to RSN. TFD (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Andrei Lankov (4 December 2009). "Review of The Cleanest Race". Far Eastern Economic Review. Archived from the original on 4 January 2010. Retrieved 5 June 2015.
- ^ Christopher Hitchens: A Nation of Racist Dwarfs – Kim Jong-il's regime is even weirder and more despicable than you thought Archived 1 June 2012 at the Wayback Machine (2010)
- ^ Brian Reynolds Myers (1 October 2009). "The Constitution of Kim Jong Il". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 10 November 2012. Retrieved 20 December 2012.
From its beginnings in 1945 the regime has espoused—to its subjects if not to its Soviet and Chinese aid-providers—a race-based, paranoid nationalism that has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism. [...] North Korea has always had less in common with the former Soviet Union than with the Japan of the 1930s, another 'national defense state' in which a command economy was pursued not as an end in itself, but as a prerequisite for rapid armament. North Korea is, in other words, a national-socialist country
Scholarly sources
Has anyone read Alt-right gangs: A hazy Shade of White, by Reid and Valasik, especially pages 24–29? If may offer a way out of the seemingly endless back-and-forth about whether we should call them neo-fascist. Spoiler alert: They don't. If we follow their lead, we describe them as a gang. Vexations (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have not, who are Reid and Valasik? To see if they are qualified. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe when the scholarly articles tell us that they are in the same league as the Crips, Yakuza, Triads, and Italian Mafia, the article can list them as a neo-fascist gang.
Why settle for one baseless denigration when you can have all of them. Reliable sources provided, of course.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Shannon E. Reid, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of North Carolina. Matthew Valasik, Ph.D. is Associate Professsor of Sociology at Louisiana State University. Their book is published by the University of California Press. They provide a definition of what an alt-right gang is and explain in detail how the PBs meet the criteria. No, they are not compared to the Yakuza and the Mafia, but to the Aryan Brotherhood for example. They're quite cautious about stating a political position for the PBs and describe them as more as alt-lite than alt-right. Vexations (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- the key is that gangs are organized crime groups. Even the Hells Angels are accused of many murders, prostitution and weapons/drug operations.
Proud Boys would have to be the lamest gang ever.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Traditionally, scholars of the far right in the United States have seen it as home grown rather than as imports from Europe and avoided use of the term fascist except for obvious copies particularly those before the defeat of fascism in 1945. TFD (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Proto-fascism
The first source used for the neo-fascism label says, "extra security was often provided by groups such as the protofascist Proud Boys." (Producers, Parasites, Patriots: Race and the New Right-Wing Politics of Precarity It later says that the Proud Boys "share many of the defining characterists of fascist or protofascist formations," although it doesn't say what they are.
Wiktionary defines a protofascist as "An individual whose opinions or policies show the beginnings of fascism."[16] That seems to fall short of calling them fascist. I suggest therefore that we remove this source because it contradicts the text it is supposed to support.
TFD (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe you should consider reading the discussions above before repeating the same stuff again and again. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)