Talk:Ethan Nordean

White Supremacist description vs other related BOLP

Description of affiliated organization should be consistent. Either drop the "white supremacist" description on the white persons bio or include it under the bio of the black person who leads the organization.

"Henry "Enrique" Tarrio (born 1984 or 1985)[2] was the chairman of the Proud Boys, a far-right, neo-fascist and male-only political organization that promotes and engages in political violence"

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

As best I can tell, this is an WP:OTHERSTUFF issue. If you have a problem with the Tarrio article, bring it up there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a transitive property issue; reflecting how one organization is described. The color of a subject should not determine how the organization is described. If I brought the issue to the Tarrio page, your circular reasoning would call that Otherstuff. Better to address it where it lies.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I've taken your advice though, and created the request to add it there, or clarify.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, Are you aware that the transitive property is frequently used in memes to arrive at humorous false equivalencies using "logic"? See https://www.dictionary.com/e/memes/transitive-property/ Vexations (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you implying that I am using a false equivalency, or that the meme context is the primary meaning of "transitive property"?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, I was asking if you are aware of the common use of "transitive property" (as a joke). Now that you are, you may want to make your argument differently.

My preference is that we describe the Proud Boys in their own article and leave all the adjectives out from other articles that link to it. That solves two problems a) inconsistency and b) the endless bickering about how it is somehow impossible to label the Proud Boys as anything. My second choice would be that we at least make it consistent and use the excerpt of the pb-lead-sentence section from the target article. That way we only have to argue there. If that is what you're proposing, then I support that proposal, with that caveat that I'd prefer no adjectives at all. Vexations (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, I agree with that. Remove adjectives, or only include them at the organization level. I do agree that it is getting silly, and want to pull the nomenclature out to it's inevitable conclusion so that it rubber-bands back to an informative and recursive standard.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

regarding the transitive property meme, I believe that this is the purpose of all of these adjectives within each article. Many casual readers draw fallacious conclusions due to the complexity of logic. If the article says that the subject is part of an organization which is XYZ, the subject must be XYZ. It is very effective as a result of defective reasoning that is commonly shared, and the subject is impeached by association.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, umm.. no. If I am the member of something that is French, such as the Alliance Française, that membership doesn't make me French. It most certainly doesn't give me French citizenship. I think most people understand that. Vexations (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

further, it is the reason that a black member won't have the adjective - because such an absurdity would cause cognitive dissonance on its face - and the reader would be more careful with the logical equation, leading to critical analysis rather than reliance on the summary.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Jumping to false conclusions, based on insufficient information, is one of the most common logical fallacies experienced by the human primate.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, I have no problem understanding that at all. This article by explores why people of color join groups like the Proud Boys or Patriot Prayer. Vexations (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

it doesn't say much about why people of color would be leading those groups and denying the accusation in official tenets, though. Anything is possible.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, don't forget that much of what the PBs do is a "joke". Vexations (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be consistent from article to article but there is citation overkill about the Proud Boys themselves and an WP:UNDUE matter when most of those citations do not mention Nordean. There are plenty of descriptors about the group in RS that discuss Nordean without having to copy and paste from the ones from the Proud Boys article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethan Nordean Released

Judge Beryll Howell released him due to evidence for his involvement in violence being "weak", looking for RS TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"Though she called evidence of Nordean’s alleged role “troubling,” Howell ruled the government had “not met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a danger to the community, or by a preponderance that he will flee” before trial."

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/judge-orders-release-of-prominent-auburn-area-proud-boy-charged-in-capitol-siege-case/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

major issues with this

1. Proud boys are not a white nationalist organization

2. Ethan may have led a group of men but you have to cite a source if you suspect they were all Proud Boys

3. avoid commentary by irrelevant sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:C1CB:259F:583:3C20 (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable sources describe the Proud Boys as a white nationalist organization. Not agreeing with them doesn't make the sources irrelevant. You made major changes to the article, and kept forcing them in. I'm not going to revert them again myself, but you should until a discussion (like the one above!) takes place. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen a reliable source say that the Proud Boys are a white nationalist organization. You can also read the Proud Boy's own materials. BBC calls them far right and say that they are a multiracial group. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54352635 https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-proud-boy-rules-less-fighting-less-wanking?ref=scroll here's another description from a far left website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:C1CB:259F:583:3C20 (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC) https://abcnews.go.com/US/proud-boys-founder-denies-inciting-violence-responds-feels/story?id=59758209— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:C1CB:259F:583:3C20 (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

1.If you "haven't seen a reliable source say the Proud Boys are a white nationalist organization" - take a moment to observe citation 2 as it currently exists on the Ethan Nordean page. It contains a drop down list of the sources that support the various terms used by RS to describe the Proud Boys. There are 3 sources listed for the term white nationalist. It has been discussed at length at the Proud Boys talk page. That would be the best place to raise your concerns about the Proud Boys being described in reliable sources as white nationalist and to present your sources there. The Ethan Nordean article makes use of those sources arrived at by a consensus of Wikipedia editors on the Proud Boys page.

The Proud Boys themselves are not a useful source of information. Independent secondary sources are vastly preferred to primary sources: see WP:PSTS

Regarding your second concern, RS (reliable sources) identify Nordean as leading a number of Proud Boys on January 6. That is an accurate statement even if there are some Oath Keepers/Boogaloo/others present. It is not necessary that each and every individual be identified as a Proud Boy for the statement to be correct.

3. Wikipedia concerns itself with high quality reliable sources as those are the generally the relevant ones. See belwo RE: Seattle Times Cedar777 (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, there is an established list of sources that are considered generally reliable by a consensus of Wikipedia editors for use in the encyclopedia. The page is located here: WP:RSP. Several of the sources you recently deleted (The New York Times and the Southern Poverty Law Center) are both listed in green. The talk page is a good place to discuss specific sources. Cedar777 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I deleted some guy Devin from some organization no one ever heard of. Pretty sure it won't be on the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:C1CB:259F:583:3C20 (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The Seattle Times, a Pulitzer prize winning publisher located closest to Nordean's hometown, cited the opinion of Devin Burghart, as they found his expertise and opinion relevant. It is a reliable source with relevant content that belongs in the article. Cedar777 (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

IP user; The reliable sources you proposed above do not override the 3 more recent sources already cited in the article. Two of the above sources are from 2018, whereas all 3 of the article’s existing sources are from 2021. Here are the items listed for supporting that the terms white nationalist or white supremacist apply to the Proud Boys (despite their self-proclaimed denials):

1. Austen, Ian (February 3, 2021). "Canada Formally Declares Proud Boys a Terrorist Group". The New York Times. 2. Li, David K. (February 3, 2021). "Canada labels far-right Proud Boys a terrorist entity". NBC News. 3. Diaz, Jaclyn (January 19, 2021). "Members Of Right-Wing Militias, Extremist Groups Are Latest Charged In Capitol Siege". National Public Radio.

Also, the sources you cite only state that the PB themselves deny the claims WP:MANDY rather than the publisher stating it as fact. McInnis is also quoted referring to the fact that his legal team advised him to modify his language. Secondary sources are much more useful than primary sources. While the ABC, Daily Beast, and BBC are RS, they are not enough to justify the content you deleted and it needs to be restored to the article. Cedar777 (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

edits needed

remove the hyperbolic "white nationalist" language. it has no basis in reality and is taken from a poorly written NBC article that offers no evidence or other sources

stop saying 100 proud boys when the legal documents don't say this. the 100 proud boys is a false interpretation by the New York Times of the legal documents. why use the New York Times as the middle man to interpret the legal documents? they are written in plain English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:7CAC:B9BF:E19B:CE7F (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The analysis provided by a publisher with high editorial standards is considered a value added, not a "middle man". Looks like you need to read this WP:PSTS again as it explains why Wikipedia looks to use secondary sources before primary sources. This essay is longer but also covers it well and provides a number of examples: WP:USEPRIMARY

An excerpt from that essay: A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Wikipedia. Cedar777 (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

Remove "Neo-Fascist" and "White Nationalist". The Leader is Latino and open to all races. Fascist and Nationalist is a lie. Reiz45 (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Neofascist?

Citations have been provided. That you don't like said proof is irrelevant to Wikipedia's policies. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Proud Boys are not a “neofascist” group. Such claims require proof. It is historically illiterate to suggest this. They are right wing, they are Western chauvinists, and they are all male. These are not sufficient to meet the definition of fascist. The inclusion of this term is just another example of article edits by individuals with an axe to grind at the expense of proper encyclopedic accounts. Delete the claim, or prove it..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.127.225 (talk • contribs) 18:49, May 15, 2021 (UTC) Please hover your mouse pointer over footnote #2 in sentence #2. soibangla (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC) All heavily biased accounts, none of which are sufficient or qualified to overturn the decades old established historic and technical definition of fascism. But Wikipedia gonna Wikipedia....find a source, any source, that says what an editor believes and it becomes ‘true’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.175.137 (talk • contribs) 13:30, May 18, 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

Add this page to the category "Category:Protesters in or near the January 6 United States Capitol attack". Tristanthebard (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:DIFFUSE. This category includes Category:People criminally charged for acts during the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2022

Article states he was released to home detention - need to add "But the federal judge currently presiding over his case revoked his release and ordered him detained months later in April 2021, and he has been incarcerated since for sedition." 96.8.168.130 (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I found and added a source from April 2021, but anything which has happened since then will need a fresher source. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2022

Despite his parents claim to have stopped supporting him, they offered $980,000 for Nordean's bail. Crysknife65 (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

References