This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rockypedia (talk | contribs) at 15:48, 19 August 2017 (→Proud boys described as 'Far-right'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:48, 19 August 2017 by Rockypedia (talk | contribs) (→Proud boys described as 'Far-right')(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | United States Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
References
This article is shit and contains 3 shitty references that call proud boys far right so i guess they must be cause well we're calling them that, after all the sky is green because I say it's green. One of the 3 shit references contradicts this article by stating PB is a fight club but this article says FOAK is the fight club part of PB, which is it? I watched the video that reference 2 describes and the AP "reporter" is clearly writing from a partisan viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.132.63.125 (talk • contribs)
You could change the wording to "has been described as far-right". That's not biased and is an adequate way of dealing with your issue. --Aleccat 21:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: Done. If anyone else has any comments on this, please use this page. --Aleccat 21:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Next time, consider just making the edit instead of ranting on the talk page and then making the edit. Muad (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted. 38.132.63.125's comment about the AP journalist is disgusting and sexist. As for the subsequent edit, the downplaying of the group's far-right stances is a form of "improper distancing" - basically distancing ourselves from what the reliable sources say. Where we have multiple high-quality reliable sources that say "Group is X" - and no reliable sources that contradict this, then Misplaced Pages should also directly state that "Group is X" not this "Group has been described as X" weaseling. The idea that "the organization has never described itself directly as 'far-right' or 'alt-right', so we should not ascribe that tag" is not supported by policy. The fact that a group does or does not describes itself in a certain way is not a justification for ignoring how reliable outside observers describe them. They simply don't get a veto in this way. In addition, we already include in the lead section the group's own self-description. Neutrality 16:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- The issue is that it is controversial. Most of those sources are biased/unreliable. The "Village Voice" source even says "the group is mostly apolitical". I'm not going to revert, but what is your reasoning, in opposed to saying something like " has noted that the group's idealogy fits ? --Aleccat 19:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Your position is that the Associated Press is "biased/unreliable"? And the Seattle Times? And the Los Angeles Times? Neutrality 19:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the first would be OR, but the other two, sure. You never answered my question though. Aleccat 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Why is the first OR? The link literally says it in the opening line: "NEW YORK (AP) — Fights broke out when the founder of a far-right men’s organization appeared at New York University, leading to 11 arrests — the second time this week that violence broke out at a controversial speech at a U.S. university. The speaker, Gavin McInnes, ... McInnes is the founder of a group called the “Proud Boys.'" Neutrality 20:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the first would be OR, but the other two, sure. You never answered my question though. Aleccat 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Your position is that the Associated Press is "biased/unreliable"? And the Seattle Times? And the Los Angeles Times? Neutrality 19:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Proud Boys at HWNDU
I think it should be included, maybe not in the lead, because it is relevant to an event that happened. Unless someone can explain how the group's presence at an art exhibit they allegedly "ruined", I'm including it. --Aleccat 02:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Neither source you included states that the organization was present at the event, only that there were individuals who personally supported Proud Boys there. One article simply stated that one guy had a Proud Boy tattoo. The other stated "The area ... became divided into two camps. There were the Trump supporters — a mix of 4chan trolls, Proud Boys and college Republicans, many wearing Make America Great Again hats." To me, that doesn't even come close to saying that the subject of this article, the Proud Boys organization, was present at the event. It would be like saying the Toronto Maple Leafs were present at the Grey Cup if a few of the players were in the stands. CrispyGlover (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
That directly states they were there, and the comparison used makes no sense, but ok, I'm not edit warring. Aleccat 17:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Good, I'm not looking for an edit war. I just think that a few guys saying "We're proud boys" isn't the same thing as an organized group stating that they're present at a rally/march/demonstration, whatever. The previous wording made it seem like that's what was going on, but the two sources are very weak, and barely even mention Proud Boys. CrispyGlover (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The name came from Aladdin?
I think it's interesting that a group championing the superiority of Western culture takes its name from a musical about the Middle East. Why is that? I think the history of that decision would be a nice addition to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.143.240.137 (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source for this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Sourced Political Terminology & Semi-Protection requested
Here is the thread where you you can discuss sources relating to the political terminology and alignment of the proud boys for inclusion in the article. Due to lots of reverts and unsourced attempts to edit the article, I've requested semi-protection for this page. Hopefully this will generate more discussion about accurate sources here. If you wish to change the political alignment of the proud boys without sources, this can be done (but not on Misplaced Pages) by leaving the computer terminal at which you are currently stationed and going to talk to them directly. Cheers Edaham (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Proud boys described as 'Far-right'
Can someone explain how they are 'far-right'? Gavin mcciness has recalled them from major alt-right rallies numerous times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:19B4:8701:C5F2:94BF:A61A:1B0A (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- They are described as far-right because reliable secondary sources describe them as far-right. See WP:RS for an explanation of the policy, and see the citations provided in the article for the sources. Rockypedia (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)