Jump to content

Talk:Enrique Tarrio/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Lead sentence

I addressed this in #Removal of descriptors in lead but I suspect it was missed since it's not the topic of the section. Emir of Wikipedia has at least three times ([1], [2], [3]) inserted "is an activist and businessman" as the first sentence, changing the lead paragraph from "Enrique Tarrio (born 1984 or 1985) is the chairman of the Proud Boys" to "Enrique Tarrio (born 1984 or 1985) is an activist and businessman. He is also the chairman of the Proud Boys..." All sources I have seen discuss Tarrio primarily in the context of his participation with the Proud Boys, and only a small number mention him being an activist or businessman—it's worth noting even the two sources used to support activist/businessman state these facts only after introducing him as the chairman of the Proud Boys. Per MOS:BIO, the opening paragraph should mention "4. The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played; 5. Why the person is notable." These positions are not noteworthy, nor the source of his notability. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually I think you are right about activist, I've removed it from the both the lead and infobox. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Alright. Given the lack of engagement in this discussion I've created an RfC below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks girl. That is a good idea, but please don't accuse me of wasting time. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable to leave your suggested addition to the lead in for the full course of the RFC, though - per WP:ONUS, we should go back to the last stable version (which would be March 9th, immediately before you added the contested material) until / unless the RFC finds support for the bit you want to add. --Aquillion (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


Should the lead of this article identify Tarrio as a businessman and/or activist? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  • No. All sources I have seen discuss Tarrio primarily in the context of his participation with the Proud Boys, and only a small number mention him being an activist or businessman—it's worth noting even the two sources used to support activist/businessman state these facts only after introducing him as the chairman of the Proud Boys. Per MOS:BIO, the opening paragraph should mention "4. The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played; 5. Why the person is notable." These positions are not noteworthy, nor the source of his notability. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No. Completely ridiculous, why are we even discussing this? That he owns a poultry farm isn't even lede-worthy. Can we please restore the NPOV and DUE content (... is the chairman of the PB) asap? --Mvbaron (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    I would love to, but like I said, Emir has added this content three times (I've removed it twice). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No. He's obviously not notable in his role as a businessman: everyone who's not known for their day job has a day job, and Tarrio's isn't particularly interesting. I could kind of see "activist" but that's IMO covered by "head of the Proud Boys", and isn't how he's primarily described in RSes anyway. Loki (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No and remove from infobox a trivia; it's not what he's primarily notable for. Both sources cited primarily identify him as the chairman of the Proud Boys and mention the other biographical details listed here only in passing. His business shouldn't be mentioned anywhere in the lead; certainly not in the first sentence. Note that the text in question was added recently, in this edit, with no explanation beyond the argument that it needs to be in the first sentence of the lead because it's mentioned somewhere in the infobox. I don't think it's even worth putting in the infobox, but the argument that something needs to go in the lead - let alone the first sentence of the lead - simply because it's in the infobox is patiently groundless; infoboxes attract massive amounts of unimportant details like this on account of people trying to fill out parameters without regards for whether they're relevant. --Aquillion (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No and remove from infobox Tarrio is overwhelmingly discussed within the context of his leadership and connection to the Proud Boys. Agree with the additional suggestion that this should also be removed from the infobox as of limited relevance. Cedar777 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No and remove from infobox it's not even important for it to be in the infobox.Sea Ane (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes to businessman. This is what sources call him, and just because he has other aspects doesn't mean we should neglect this one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No to activist. I thought I had already removed this one. He is actually rarely called an activist by WP:RS's despite what some might think. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Since this has been unanimous, I've gone ahead and implemented the change. If anyone thinks the discussion needs more time, feel free to undo, but I don't want to waste anyone's time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  • No. He's simply not notable for his business activities; that's not the focus of the sources. He's notable as the leader of a far-right group (which is far more specific than "activist"). We should mirror the predominant descriptors of the reliable sources: WaPo ("chairman of the far-right Proud Boys"), NYTimes ("the chairman of the far-right nationalist group"); BBC News ("leader of the far-right Proud Boys group"). Neutralitytalk 21:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No, and no. The fact that he's self-employed has nothing at all to do with his notability; it's simply irrelevant that he started a business. It has no connection to his notability-related activity, even. Newspapers mention it because it is their style to try to identify people by occupational and other social details even when not pertient, and this is not WP's style. We include such details only when they're contextually significant. And sources do not call him an "activist" much. To the extent that he could be considered one, this is already implicit in having founded an organization that some consider "activistic".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No, and no. He is not notable for his business activities; the sources do not focus on this aspect. And sources also do not call him activist at all. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No and remove from infobox He is notable for being the chairman of Proud Boys not for being a businessman. And calling him an activist is reaching. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No. His business is selling right-wing T-shirts, and his activism is Proud Boys. It is all captured perfectly by Chairman of Proud Boys.Nyx86 (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda image must go

The image File:Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys.jpg fails our NPOV policy and must not be included in the article. The alternative image File:Enrique_Tarrio.jpg is more acceptable because "it's more neutral because it's an actual image of him in real life, doing the thing for which his notability is tied" as I stated in my edit summary.

This image on the other hand is designed to sending a political message saying this person is an intelligent, thought-provoking, powerful politician using the most obvious propaganda techniques. Its inclusion in the article is a major mistake in editorial judgement. This is not representative of how this person typically looks. In public appearances he almost always wears black t-shirts and bulletproof vets or military-style gear, not tailored suits. He's doesn't and has never held a publicly elected political office contrary to the message the US flag pin is intended to subconsciously convey.

Images must adhere to our polices like NPOV just as text must. They are part of the article. They only difference is that it's more difficult for editors to decide on the neutrality of an image. This particular example is as pure an example of propaganda as I've come across. It's been suggested that the image is better because he's without sunglasses in this one. That slight positive in no way counters the slant this image introduces, especially when the photograher was clearly trying to capture the eyes to portray thoughtfulness. His eyes here are PART of the propaganda techniques.

I have an essay (unfortunately not a very engaging read I lament and I've never been satisfied with it) regarding how NPOV must apply to images too that discusses some of these issues at User:Jason Quinn/NPOV is a problem for images.

@GorillaWarfare: don't say things like "please stop reverting without discussion" when I did give a rational in my sole revert (which itself was to undo a revert to my first edit). You managed to fit two mis-characterizations into one edit summary. And you made it sound as if I'm engaging in an edit war when I was the one who was reverted and when the edit history is not even close to satisfying any edit war criteria regardless. Reprimanding me on a false premise while I have participated completely within the normal back-n-forth of editing is either a gross mistake or treating an editor with bad faith. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We typically prefer higher-quality images to lower-quality ones, and the current image of Tarrio is in better resolution and with better lighting. We also typically prefer photos where the subject's face is not obscured, such as by a cap and sunglasses. We aim to do this for the subject of any article, and we do not pick poorer-quality photos because we think they make the subject look too intelligent. I think using both images, as we do now, is a good solution because there is value in the second photo depicting Tarrio "in the wild" so to speak, but it is objectively the poorer choice for the infobox.
Your essay is certainly food for thought, but it is not a policy or guideline. I suspect I would not be the only community member who would disagree with your suggestion in it that we should avoid using "too good" of a photo. If we have the ability to use high-quality images, we should use them.
Per BRD, I was asking you to discuss the image on the talk page rather than reverting. I was not accusing you of edit warring. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The portrait style image is pretty clearly superior compared to one where his face is at a weird angle and he's wearing a hat and sunglasses. I don't see the flag as a major POV issue or the suit as any POV issue whatsoever, and the claim that being able to see the subject's eyes is a POV issue, is hard to take seriously. VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at the lead images for Adolph Hitler and Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong and Benito Mussolini, or slightly lesser known but still controversial figures like Eugene V. Debs, George Wallace, Malcom X, Charles Coughlin and Braxton Bragg. NPOV requires selecting the best available freely licensed neutral portrait, rather than one selected to portray the person as a ranting, raving extremist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
You are barking up the wrong tree... I take issue with many of those photos too. I feel pretty strongly about this issue. I mean, I wrote a whole essay about it! I think the neutrality of pictures is something that editors have completely ignored. We've been able to mostly get by just fine until now but the subjects of our articles are starting to learn they can use Wikipedia for PR purposes and treat it as part of managing their social media reputation. But we are not a social media platform, we are an encyclopedia. We must aggressively attempt to keep our articles encyclopedic and neutral, as per policy. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
It is fine to hold those opinions, but if that is the case you should seek to gain community consensus and a policy change to reflect them. It seems at the moment you expect us to treat your opinions on image neutrality as though they enjoy the support of the wider community, which they do not, though perhaps something could be adopted after a policy proposal—current policy discussion of NPOV in images is quite lacking and perhaps there is an opportunity to fill that void. I do think some of your essay is quite reasonable, despite disagreeing with other parts. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
As Cullen states, you pick the higher quality images from AMONG those that are neutral and that add to the quality of the article. Suppose, for example, there just happens to be a free photo of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh of super high resolution of him in a smoking jacket with a pipe next to a fireplace in a legal library den with a statue of George Washington in the background, that is, looking like the stereotypical "educated gentleman" trope. By your criteria, VQuakr, of simply best the best quality free photo, we should pick this ridiculous photo for McVeigh's article rather than the crude mugshot currently used. That's clearly a bad decision. Why? Because it focuses solely on the quality of the photo while neglecting the context and content of the photo itself. Such a photo of McVeigh would clearly be non-neutral and intended to make him look as good as possible.... glossing over his notoriety. But even if we had a high-quality neutral portrait, say from a family photo shoot, it'd have to be asked whether it or the mugshot are more appropriate and make the best article. In that case maybe the mugshot would still be the best choice. Photos require editorial judgement and that judgement does NOT always boil down to something as as simple comparison of resolution and sharpness. I hope this absurd example drives him how important the message the photo conveys is to the appropriateness of its inclusion or exclusion in an article. YET, and here's the kicker, this invented example I just gave is effectively just as absurd as this particular photo of Tarrio! Jason Quinn (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Cullen has given plenty of examples of articles about notorious people in which we use photos which would seem to be "non-neutral" by your definition (like the photo of Joseph Stalin, which was quite literally used for state publicity purposes). In your McVeigh example, we do not have a better alternative to the mugshot. There are plenty of examples of articles where mugshots are available, but we use the higher-quality image in the lead (such as Ted Bundy). The neutral option here is to use the best photo available for all subjects, not try to apply value judgments to article subjects to determine who gets to have a flattering photo. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 12:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I have now responded to this above. I take issues with many of those images too. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jason Quinn: I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "your criteria", but we can have that conversation on McVeigh once the photo of him rescuing a bald eagle from a burning building comes available. I do note that the current infobox image for McVeigh does allow us to see his eyes. VQuakr (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
By "your criteria" I mean that you only seem to be considering technical aspects of the image such as resolution and "better lighting" and showing the face as determining quality. Nowhere in your comment above do you factor in other elements, such as those used in propaganda, to help determine the quality of an image. I am claiming the picture VIOLATES our policies on neutrality. It should not be used for the same reasons non-neutral text should not be used. I wouldn't care if the image shows his face with infinite resolution. I agree with you that we "typically" pick photos for the reasons you state. But that's because we typically don't have to choose from among a set that includes propaganda images. This is an atypical case. You have not made the case at all that the image is neutral. Nobody here has. The image is pretty clearly non-neutral which would make it a violation of Wikipedia policy. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jason Quinn: why did you put 'better lighting' in quotes as if it was something I had written? I did indeed address your neutrality concerns in my previous reply. Suit and visibility of eyes: not an issue. Sitting in front of a Betsy Ross flag: not ideal, but not the end of the world either. If we had two otherwise identical images of him sitting in front of a flag and sitting in front of a beige wall, I'd go with beige wall. Correct me if I am wrong, but it almost seems like you object to the image because it makes him look like a reasonably normal human being. But here's the thing: it's not our job as editors to select images of living people that portray people in the way we think they should be portrayed. That is clearly not consistent with our policies including NPOV. Our actual image use policy at WP:IMGCONTENT refers us to MOS:IMAGES, which notes: Use the best quality images available. For an image of a person, that means being able to see most of their face! This doesn't mean there could never be a high-quality image that was so clearly over-the-top that it wasn't a good lead image, but I don't see any issue with the one being used here. VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@VQuakr: Sorry, it was the comment directly above yours by GorillaWarfare that used "better lighting". The two comments kind of visually meld together because they are at the same indenting level. I appear to have conflated some of your words with those of GorillaWarfare while scrolling back to re-read. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, if the background flag is the concern, the CC license does allow us to modify the image. Someone with better image editing skills than my own could probably replace it with a plain background. To my eye it looks like it was edited in anyway. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I could very easily replace the background with a neutral, plain wall. However, to do so ought to be preceded by some careful deliberation, since making such material edits is arguably counter to NPOV. Having said that, if there is a consensus to do so then feel free to leave a request on my talk page. nagualdesign 21:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: as others have noted, the flag is likely green screened into the image anyways. My suggestion is that we create an alternate image with the neutral wall first, then have a discussion about which image to use. Easier to have the discussion when we can view both alternatives. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I was just examining the image more closely when you posted this and I agree that the background is very likely photoshopped in. Apart from several more subtle clues, the flag is not reflected in the desk. I also agree that it would be easier to discuss this when we can view alternatives. For those two reasons I'd be happy to upload an alternative image. I'm not in front of my laptop at the moment but I'll post here once I've finished it. nagualdesign 21:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done. See below. nagualdesign 23:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I can imagine very few worse ways forward for image policy than for us as editors to make a subjective evaluation of a person's character (in your case, your judgement being that Enrique Tarrio is not intelligent, thought-provoking, [or] powerful) and then choose a picture reflective of the value judgement we made about them. This micromanagement of appearances on BLPs – people trying to ensure sure we make the biographies of people we like flatter their subjects and the biographies of people we dislike denigrate their subjects – is already enough of a cancer on Wikipedia as it is; no one is stopping you from thinking someone is unintelligent on your own time, but it is ridiculous to think it's important for us to ensure that BLP subjects appear as good or bad to readers as you think they are. It is, for instance, absolutely not our job to worry that Mao's friendly and approachable demeanour in his portrait is mismatched with the views editors Alice and Bob have of Mao as a really mean guy. Who cares?
The alternative image you presented – where Tarrio's face is obscured by his hat and sunglasses and his face turned to the side – is a really crummy photo. Where we have a high quality photo of his face, looking at the camera, it's a tad absurd to think that we should make subjective judgements about their character and instead use a crummy image of a person whose face is mostly obscured because we think the better photo makes him look more intelligent, thought-provoking, [and] powerful than we reckon he actually is. The current image is fine until a better one comes around. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I did not say he's not intelligent, thought-provoking, or powerful. I said that is what the photo is designed to say, a completely different idea! Please strike out your entire first paragraph as it is a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what I wrote. As for your second paragraph, I disagree that the alternative photo is crummy. I think it is better and much more encyclopedic. The other photo is more like something that belongs in an actor's headshot album rather than an encyclopedia. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jason Quinn:, in your own essay, the very first line includes "No amount of text, however well-written, can precisely describe a person's face ..." So how can you argue for removing the image that actually shows his face, instead of being hidden behind sunglasses and a hat? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Because the pitfalls of including it outweigh the upside. Including that image is harms the quality of the article more than it benefits it. I'm really having a hard time trying to see things from this perspective. What you are saying is equivalent to saying "I want to show readers propaganda simply because it shows his face." I can't really put myself into this line of thinking unless I pretend to completely not recognize or understand what propaganda is or how it works. And pretend that seeing something is more important that getting a proper understanding of something through neutrality. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Plate carrier, hat, aviators, and stubble are more attractive qualities to those who are taken in by Tarrio's aesthetic. Probably why he wears them.
Go ahead and add that photo back, I've got no objection. It's both more flattering, more intimidating, and more consistent with his public persona. This one is strange anyway.
Joseph Stalin looks like Winnie the Pooh smoking a pipe in his photo. Personally, I like a cycle, possibly randomized, of the best photos of subjects.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Self-published, single-purpose account

Above I argued that the image in question is non-neutral. As is done with text content, a good question to ask is "What is the source of this material?" A quick look at Wikipedia Commons for the image shows that the image is by "commons:User:Peterdukephoto" and this is the only image uploaded by that account.

What we are using in this article is a non-neutral image self-published by a single purpose account (arguably used for promotional purposes). We do not let text of this nature stay in our articles. Nor should we let pictures. Our policies apply to the WHOLE article, text and media. I'd really like to see a coherent argument that this image respects our content policies. The arguments above about resolution and being able to see eyes and stuff are irrelevant as far as our policies are concerned. "Is this photo neutral?" is the main question. Nobody above has presented any convincing argument that it is. Now the background to this image makes that challenge much harder as the image conflicts even more with our usual polices and guidelines that we apply to textual material. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Is your concern about licensing? Because even if it was Tarrio himself who uploaded the photo, or Tarrio's PR person, that wouldn't affect whether we use it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
No. My concern is whether the inclusion of the image in the article satisfies our content policies. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Then, as I said, the uploader is immaterial. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely no it is not. The uploader can help determine whether the image satisfies our policies... just like is the case with text material. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare, can you go on the record answering this question: does NPOV apply to images used in articles on Wikipedia? I believe what you are advocated here is the same as saying "no". That is why I am asking for your clarification. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality absolutely applies to images, which is why I'm advocating that we must use the best-quality image available regardless of our personal feelings about the subject. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Our image use policy does not fit within a simple "we must use the best-quality image available" framing. There are many other criteria that matter. For example, images must be pertinent and encyclopedic MOS:IRELEV. I am claiming this image is not encyclopedic for reasons I've discussed above. Moreover there are other criteria that a lead image must meet as per MOS:LEADIMAGE. In particular, "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic". As I've also argued above, this is not the case with this photo. The concept of neutrality you are advocating is not in accordance with Wikipedia policies, not by the wording or the spirit. It's a severe over-simplification. Even ignoring that, trying to define "neutral" as ignoring everything except quality is an open door to allow propaganda such as this image on Wikipedia. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Who uploaded it is irrelevant from a NPOV standpoint, Jason. You are way off base here. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
As I already stated, for exactly the same reason that single-purpose accounts using self-published material can be used to build a case for non-neutral text, who uploaded something can be used to build an argument that an image is non-neutral. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I think we agree that editors that are close to a subject tend to be terrible at writing neutrally about that subject. But you have it backwards. We don't "build a case" for whether text is neutral by identifying SPAs (or more accurately, COIs). Rather, clear COIs are red flags that the edits may likely need attention. The edits still stand or fall on their own regardless of who wrote them. NPOV unquestionably does apply to images, but you have a non-standard interpretation of what that means with regard to what images to use here and in similar situations. Having a dissenting opinion is great, but it isn't reasonable for you to expect everyone to immediately agree with you when your opinion doesn't match our MOS or practices. Honestly it seems like you should be tilting at this windmill at WT:NPOV or WP:VPP rather than trying to apply your take to one particular BLP. VQuakr (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
There are only two images to choose from at this time, and both of them have some shortcomings and some propagandistic elements. In my view, the current photo is a better photo than the alternative. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when the perfect is not freely licensed. If he makes a public appearance which is photographed by a Wikipedian, then maybe we will then have clearly better alternatives to consider. Now, we have only two choices and consensus is clear to everyone but Jason Quinn as to which is the better of the two alternatives. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
It is premature to talk about consensus. None of the (handful) of editors here have presented a convincing argument that this image is passes NPOV. The only person who tried is GorillaWarfare (by effectively saying that accepting all images is a neutral approach) and that argument is not consistent with our image use policy. You even admit there are "propagandistic elements" elements to these pictures. There is, however, a big difference between the two pictures. My claim is that current image is propaganda and has strayed beyond the boundaries of any editorial gray area and therefore must be removed as a matter of policy. The other image is not necessary propaganda at all. Certainty Tarrio dresses like that to send a message so there's "propaganda" in that loose sense but I see no reason not to assume both the photographer and uploader's motives were anything but documentary in nature. So the alternative photo itself is probably not propaganda and the only propagandist element is due to the way the subject presented himself.
Regarding the images we have available, you are correct that there only two photos. But you are incorrect to assume that we must use one of the two. Our image use policy and in particular MOS:LEADIMAGE explicitly acknowledges that "lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution [in some circumstances]". I actually think the second photo is perfectly fine. I do not care if I cannot see his eyes. It shows the subject in public, doing what he's been doing. I think it compliments the article well and is better than simply being able to see his full face. But no image would be better than using this absurd image. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a little frustrating that you won't even acknowledge the NPOV assessment I've made (twice now), but it's not my job to WP:SATISFY you. However as GW just noted there is no reason the flag needs to be retained within the image, and a third option with the flag cleanly removed would have my !vote for the infobox image. VQuakr (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
FWIW I'm with Jason Quinn here. First of all, just in pure "photo quality" I disagree that the current photo is better. Certainly it's more professional, but that doesn't make it "better". The second photo is also a very high quality photo, on par with the current image: they're both JPEGs, the resolution of both is very similar with an edge to the second one, and overall the second one just looks better to my eyes.
Regarding the concern about him wearing a hat and sunglasses, I think that's a bit of an odd objection to a photo of someone who is mainly known for activities where he's wearing a hat and sunglasses. There are photos of Darth Vader where he's not wearing the mask, but we would never use those exactly because they show his face, and the character usually doesn't. Similarly we show Agent Smith in sunglasses even though the character takes off the sunglasses reasonably frequently, because in the most typical case he wears sunglasses. The thing Tarrio is known for almost exclusively is being a Proud Boy at Proud Boy protests, thus the photo of him at a protest is more representative than the photo which isn't.
Behind these two previous concerns, the NPOV concerns are almost third tier, but I agree they're real. NPOV means we should follow the sources, meaning we should use a photo of him that aligns with the descriptions of him and why he's notable by almost all the sources, rather than a photo of him that doesn't. Loki (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Both of the comparisons you gave are with fictional characters, which (in my mind at least) is much less useful of comparison than the ones that have been done above with Stalin, etc. We show Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) in costume in our infobox image, but Scarlett Johansson's infobox image shows her dressed for the red carpet. Tarrio is notable for being the PB chairman, not for attending rallies (not that I view that as a relevant distinction for the image choice, but based on your argument, you might). VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@LokiTheLiar. The only thing I'd adjust to your comment is that NPOV concerns shouldn't be compared to "third tier". NPOV is one of the pillars of Wikipedia so its authority is literally above that of policy... it is the concept and ideal that helps set policy. That's how important it is. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:5P: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia." So for example, we wouldn't choose or reject an image based on our interpretation of what viewpoint it presents? VQuakr (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
There's lots to discuss here. I tried to make it brief but failed. First, the pillar is neutrality. Neutrality is our goal. This must be kept in mind at all times so we don't miss the forest for the trees. Second, I am not trying to get a personal experience, interpretation, or opinion in a Wikipedia article. I am trying to remove an image to enforce neutrality. (That's the end of the short reply. The longer part now follows.) I claim that "the image is propaganda" is a strong, cogent conclusion based on the evidence it presents and on its file history. Yes, the nature of this claim is open to debate because—barring the photographer or subject themselves admitting it's propaganda—the case against the image is inductive by its nature. There's no litmus test or going to be a mathematical proof it's propaganda. We have to use editorial judgement to decide that. I reiterate that the argument for the classification of this image as propaganda is strong as any such argument can reasonably be expected to be; so if groupthink prevents us from seeing that, we have no hope to ever enforce neutrality for images. Nobody here I think is claiming the image is not propaganda. (Anybody saying that?) Several of you tacitly conceded that it is. If it's a given that it is propaganda, I fail to comprehend how that is consistent with making our articles neutral. Again, yes, the argument for it being propaganda is inductive in nature and therefore requires using personal experience, interpretation, or opinion. But the editorial judgement we use, and editorial decisions we make, on Wikipedia always have that. We must not conflate using "personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions" as part of an argument with trying to get those opinions in Wikipedia's articles. Editorial judgement necessarily requires those things as part of the process of enforcing neutrality. (It is also noteworthy that the sentence is linked to our Wikipedia:No original research policy, which is more straightforwardly worded and has something of a litmus test for permissible inclusion of material rather than being an open-ended sentence loaded with philosophical issues. By the way, under a literal inflexible reading of No Original Research, almost no images should be included on Wikipedia, including this one, since it is not material supported by a reliable published source. This is why common sense through WP:Ignore All Rules is the most important of all our policies.) Jason Quinn (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
We mentioned Stalin earlier. That image explicitly, verifiably was used for propaganda purposes though I guess I don't know if the image was created for that purpose to begin with. That appears to be a stronger case than we have here, yet it still isn't a sufficient reasoning to exclude use of the Stalin image. Here, the reasons you stated that you had issues with the status quo image are that the portrait conveys intelligence, power, or is thought-provoking. My opinion remains that our feelings about the subject regarding whether he is or isn't those things should not be a factor in image selection. Obviously. More generally, you are interpreting the NPOV policy with respect to images in a novel way. You should be at VPP or similar, not at an article talk page, in order to propose broad-ranging changes in our practice. VQuakr (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jason Quinn: I find your use of the term "propaganda" here to be completely uncalled for, and appears to be based on your own assessment of the subject, counter to WP:NPOV. It is not propaganda, it's simply a publicity shot. We use headshots and official portraits all the time. Every US president's WP article uses one. And while I'd like to assume good faith, you've amply demonstrated that you think the subject is 'one of the bad guys' and therefore undeserving of a flattering image.
Furthermore, your statement that if groupthink prevents us from seeing that, we have no hope to ever enforce neutrality for images appears to be a blatant violation of WP:AGF, and an insult to the editors who have participated in this discussion. I suggest that you strike that comment. nagualdesign 21:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Jason Quinn, many images are designed to make the subject look good and convey things. . Some to hint at personal qualities (e.g. a smile), some to make them better looking than they normally are, some to show that they are good at what they do (e.g. musicians). Such does make them "propaganda" or unusual in Wikipedia. Also IMHO you have been implying that wp:npov says things that it doesn't. Rather go bock and forth on that, if you think otherwise I'd suggest that you quote the specific part of WP:NPOV that you are claiming that it violates. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason it violates WP:NPOV is because on Wikipedia "neutrality" has an objective definition, and that definition is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It is not some sort of view from nowhere. Here, the sources are quite clear about what Tarrio is known for, namely being the leader of the Proud Boys. So we should use a photo of him in that capacity, ideally as close to the sort of photo the sources would give us as possible, rather than a photo taken clearly in some other context. Loki (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The item which you are quoting is the broad opening statement of NPOV (and as such is very wide open to many different and even conflicting interpretations) and the rest of the policy is the specifics. If someone says that something violates npov, to have such accepted they really need to identify the specific part that they say is being violated. Respectfully, you just gave your own interpretation of the opening statement, and followed by other opinions of yours. Which is fine, but does not show an NPOV violation. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The suggestion that we must use (or even prefer) infobox photos of BLP subjects in the capacity for which they are known is not supported by policy. To take a quick glance through our featured articles, Michael Jordan is not shown in the lead playing basketball (though numerous images of him doing so are available), and Taylor Swift is not shown performing (again, plenty of options). While sometimes a photo of a BLP subject doing what they are known for is the best available option, there is no requirement that such a photo be used in the lead. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
We do not show Haskell Wexler behind a movie camera or Roger Bannister running or Pablo Picasso at the easel or Charles Lindbergh in aviator's gear. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternative image

File:Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys.jpg
Existing infobox image
Retouched image with background removed

Following the discussion above I have uploaded an alternative image with the background removed. Please do not replace the infobox image with this retouched version before establishing consensus to do so. If you require further edits please ping me. nagualdesign 23:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support replacing the infobox image with the retouched one, for the reasons discussed above. Do people think a RfC is warranted for this, or are we ok with just a straw poll? VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support replacing the infobox image with the retouched one, purely because the existing image already has a fake background and all we're really interested in is the subject. nagualdesign 00:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - much cleaner and easier to see; the background was distracting and cast a strange light on the subject, this retouched version is much clearer. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 02:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Although I would still prefer the alternate image with him wearing a baseball cap, I support replacing the current image with the one without a flag, because at least it's an improvement. Loki (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I could Photoshop a baseball cap onto him if you like. nagualdesign 18:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Issue with excerpt refs

There seems to be an issue with the {{excerpt}} template, where it's used twice in this article to take a section of the Proud Boys lede, alongside the original reference from that page. The refs number 4 and 15 are identical in content, but I can't merge them since they are not technically present in this article. Since I don't want to risk causing a ripple effect, I'd like to ask other editors with more experience to find a fix for that.

Another issue is that there is currently another huge chunk of text inside {{references}} that seems to complement the contents of refs 4 and 15 (i.e. not identical), but is not being used currently. Might be worth removing or merging with the original ref in the Proud Boys article. Isabelle 🔔 14:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that template is completely unnecessary in both locations it is used in this article. It should just be removed. VQuakr (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What 's in a name (and a date)?

Per his voter registration and other sources, Tarrio's first name is Henry, and he's a "Junior," and was born in 1984. Can anyone supply an acceptable source? Activist (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This Washington Post article verifies that his legal first name is Henry, but does not address the Junior part. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
This Miami Herald article confirms Henry, Junior and an age of 37 which is consistent with a 1984 birthdate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

FBI Informant per Reuters, AP, Forbes, etc.

I do not believe it is correct to characterize Mr. Tarrio as an conservative activist given that he was acting, undercover, as an FBI Informant. It also seems strange that the Proud Boys themselves are not described as a federal honeypot. He should be described, accurately, as an FBI informant per widespread reporting and his own admission. For example:

"Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys extremist group, has a past as an informer for federal and local law enforcement, repeatedly working undercover for investigators after he was arrested in 2012, according to a former prosecutor and a transcript of a 2014 federal court proceeding obtained by Reuters."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-proudboys-leader-exclusive/exclusive-proud-boys-leader-was-prolific-informer-for-law-enforcement-idUSKBN29W1PE https://apnews.com/article/proud-boys-government-informant-dc84086d78b688bc585f874452d2b481 https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/27/report-proud-boys-leader-was-a-prolific-fbi-informant/?sh=743e0a562577

While it may be editorializing, it is also worth pointing out that Mr. Tarrio has not been indicted despite his words and actions being used to indict others. Nor was his house or computer searched. While that may be outside the scope of this page, there is ample, public evidence that Mr. Tarrio was not a conservative activist and should not be described as such.

2601:42:C101:AAD0:21AC:5A7C:B63F:3C94 (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not able to edit this page. Can someone else? Reuters described Tarrio as a 'prolific' informer for law enforcement. It is not clear he was ever a conservative activist. I believe he should be describe as prolific informer for law enforcement and founder of the conservative group. I can draft some content but I figure it's more likely than not that the wikilords will bury this for not fitting their political narrative. If this site has any interest in representing objective truth then Enrique Tarrio's "prolific" work as an informant for law enforcement, which predates the forming of the Proud Boys, should be mentioned in this article. Let people draw what conclusions they would like from this widely-reported fact. But not including this fact is an incredibly biased representation of the available information.2601:42:C101:AAD0:3118:E2BC:7FC8:C507 (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Please feel free to list the sources that support your claim. Vexations (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
They did: the Reuters piece. it basically says the same as what’s already in the article: that he was a prolific informer from 2012-14, but went silent after after. I suppose the passage in the article can be expanded, but the Reuters piece doesn’t add any more information than what is already present.
Feel free to suggest an expansion, IP, and I’m sure people are happy to include it in the article. Though I have to say, your talk about “wikilords” and “biased reporting” doesn’t really inspires me to act on my own… Mvbaron (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The fact that Enrique Tarrio was a prolific FBI informant should be included in the opening paragraph. Despite your claim to the contrary, there is no evidence that Enrique Tarrio did not continue to work for the FBI after 2014. This creates a significant problem: We do not know that he founded the Proud Boys as a conservative activist just as we do not know that he founded the Proud Boys as an FBI informant. Until more is known, both of his roles (activist/informant) should be given equal prominence because his purpose and intention for founding the Proud Boys are not known.
I've been on wikipedia long enough to know that a small subsetof hard-core moderators tightly control the narrative on this site to further their personal and political agendas. Even Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger admits that this website is badly biased. I am not going to be shy about it.2601:42:C101:AAD0:A1CA:A410:4437:904A (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Tarrio didn't found the Proud Boys, Gavin McInnes did. Vexations (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
"Despite your claim to the contrary"? No, from the very article you linked: There is no evidence Tarrio has cooperated with authorities since then. -- Mvbaron (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Repetition of what Proud Boys is?

Why is there the exact same definition with same citation twice in the article? 161.73.255.58 (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Repetition of what Proud Boys is?

Why is there the exact same definition with same citation twice in the article? 161.73.255.58 (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

subpoenas

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enrique_Tarrio&diff=1056979130&oldid=1056948246

VQuakr, I'm not clear on your objection here. You moved the content to the body, which is fine, but body follows lead, so that sentence should remain in lead with possible elaboration in the body. I'm happy to do that. Also, the lead previously had no mention of the organization he leads being involved in J6, so the subpoenas of both him specifically and the org are leadworthy. Sure, the cite can be removed. soibangla (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like you do understand the objection and have addressed it, then? Your original proposed edit had this just in the lead not the body. VQuakr (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree with VQuakr here, I don't think the passage about the subpoenas should go into the lead per WP:RECENTISM and generally not lead-worthy content. Mvbaron (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Lead needs to be expanded first to be a better summary of the whole article to be able to include this, but ideally, inclusion would be okay, and I don't see this as RECENTISM. It's a kind of an updatable content point that can be remolded to fit latest developments regarding the congressional proceedings. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Tarrio an FBI Informant

References 10 - 12 are provided to support the statement. I couldn't find any mention of Tarrio being an FBI informant in the first two. In the third, three news articles are cited but they all source the same Reuters article. This Reuters article is duplicated in the References section as both reference 25 and 40. Do people on Wikipedia just not know how to cite?

Gwquinn (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"Tarrio has said he stepped down as Proud Boys chairman earlier this year"

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-probes-pre-capitol-riot-meeting-far-right-groups-2022-02-08/

I don't see this confirmed anywhere and don't think we can use what he has claimed, at least not in the lead, but I'll just leave this here. soibangla (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Political Views

The section entitled "political views" doesn't actual discuss any of his political views. It says a lot about what others have accused him of being and his denials but very little about what he actually believes. Calling someone a fascist does not define a political view, it merely expresses how they feel political views are enforced and the word "Trumpist" has no real meaning attached to it. If you want this article to be factual, please publish some facts rather than supposition and platitudes. 2607:FEA8:545F:87B0:1C5:E97:7CF2:C148 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

Change the final line in LEGAL ISSUES to:

On March 8, 2022, a federal grand jury charged Tarrio with conspiracy for his role in the 2021 United States Capitol attack. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/us/politics/enrique-tarrio-proud-boys-jan-6.htmlCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Nmagliato (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Already done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Education and family

It would be useful to read more about his education and his parents' situations (birthplace, political leanings, profession).--Smokefoot (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2022

He has not been in the chairman since September 11th 2001. He has been disavowed, is no longer a proud boy 50.197.237.126 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I doubt this is accurate since other sources say he didn't even join the Proud Boys till 2017, and he was a teenager in 2001. Rgs25 (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
This is probably trolling. Look at the date. Dronebogus (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Birthname

I think that Washington Post article is wrong. His birthname is Enrique, and «Henry» is a nickname. So it should be Enrique «Henry» Tarrio, the other way around as it appears there. 87.220.139.111 (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Former chairman of the proud boys

No longer the chairman of the proud boys, but still listed as in bio

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/23/proud-boys-extremism-book-00057703

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/former-proud-boys-chairman-tarrio-charged-with-conspiracy-washington-post-2022-03-08/

Recommend edit using these sources

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2022

Remove neo-fascist. I do not believe it’s okay to lie about someone. 1world2033 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Four reliable sources calling the Proud Boys fascist are in the article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
need to add the white supremacist tag to the description of the proud boys to bring it in line with that article's description 98.97.160.138 (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Birth year

The page says he was born in 1984 or 1985, which it bases on the fact that a 01/04/2021 article described him as 36. FYI, an 08/23/2021 article described him as 37 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/proud-boys-leader-sentenced-more-5-months-burning-black-lives-n1277466). Based on these 2 combined pages, he was born in 1984. How do we edit his Wikipedia page to reflect this without using original research? PiratePablo (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Photo

The current photograph partially obscures Tarrio's face with his hand. Does anybody know of any more recent photographs of the individual that might be used in the infobox? I'd expect there to at least be a PD mugshot given that he was arrested by federal authorities, but I can't find the mugshot on the internet and I can't find anything not already in the article (or discarded from prior discussion) where his full face is shown in the openverse. Anybody got any advice for how to track down a mugshot? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree and also I think a less flattering picture would be more appropriate. There is a mugshot under his real name (Henry) at this website, but it's got watermarks all over it, and I have no idea where to find the original. Raving Colonel (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

"banned" is a typo for "banner" in the sentence, "Tarrio and the group set fire ..." 45.58.90.160 (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out! – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

1776 Returns

Why no mention of the 1776 Returns (Jan. 6 planning document) anywhere in the article here, about Tarrio?

Should at least be listed in the "See also" section at the end. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

conviction sentence is in error

The sentence exaggerated the number convicted: "Tarrio was convicted in May 2023 on seditious conspiracy charges, along with four other Proud Boy leaders, for his role in the 2021 United States Capitol attack.: Per NY Times, he was one of four Proud boys convicted: "Four members of the Proud Boys, including their former leader Enrique Tarrio, were convicted on Thursday of seditious conspiracy for plotting to keep President Donald J. Trump in power after his election defeat by leading a violent mob in attacking the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021." The jury has yet to decide re the 5th member. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces-time-cutoff-30_impression_cut_3_filter_new_arm_5_1&alpha=0.05&block=more_in_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=752770949&impression_id=4d330594-eaab-11ed-aa64-d9bcb4f96239&index=5&pgtype=Article&pool=more_in_pools%2Fpolitics&region=footer&req_id=669311590&surface=eos-more-in&variant=0_bandit-all-surfaces-time-cutoff-30_impression_cut_3_filter_new_arm_5_1

This needs to be corrected. 97.112.25.207 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Error is repeated at end of article 97.112.25.207 (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Who authored this?

This is obviously a ridiculously bias politically driven write up. Wikipedia plays on the name on encyclopedia to make readers assume neutrality, which we all know is totally incorrect. 2603:8080:C8F0:8ED0:21FC:8E84:F073:17C7 (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

All those citations look pretty solid to me. Care to cite something to the contrary?
2601:3CA:204:F860:65C5:E4B3:4262:874A (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of citations discussion

Hi @David O. Johnson this edit is the fourth time you reverted on this page within a 24 hour period. You are edit warring and you need to cease. You need to self-revert immediately and discuss your removal of citations here. Your current editing is disruptive. TarnishedPathtalk 00:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Fascist Organization?

Employing a play book of the far left, calling Proud Boys a fascist organization can be described as a conspiracy theory. What are the qualifications of the author and or editors, that affords them the perceived expertise, to correctly identify any modern group as a fascist organization. If we are going to be that flippant about the use of that term, i would much more quickly identify Antifa as a fascist organization. First off, they use the same tactics as the Nazis storm troopers did. I took note that the Wikipedia article on Anitfa was authored by some I.Q. absconded character wearing kid gloves who is impersonating a person of knowledge. Wikipedia needs to get control of itself. it's being high-jacked by woke leftists who are divorced from reason and logic. Therefore, the antithesis of any true intellectual pursuit. 2600:1004:B1C2:E4D1:8FC:8857:2C35:A71B (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, I'm a random editor who had nothing to do with the text you object to. If you look at the end of the sentence, you'll see references to the sources that describe the organization as fascist. Wikipedians don't conduct our own original research on topics or attempt to share our own points of view, we just summarize what the existing reliable sources are saying, providing links in each case. Feoffer (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
We go with what WP:RS say around here, not with random IP's conspiracies about terms that they can't properly define. TarnishedPathtalk 23:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
@2600:1004:B1C2:E4D1:8FC:8857:2C35:A71B agreed. It is an absurd and utterly false claim to call the Proud Boys a 'fascist' organization. It is a right-wing, conservative, Trump supporting drinking club that has in recent years become increasingly involved in counterprotests against Antifa et all.
Previously, they had barely been politically active at all, only becoming so after relentless false accusations by the media of being a violent extremist group. I think they leaned into political activity and taking themselves seriously, largely due to the wild mischaracterization by the medi, and I think many new members joined as a result of this manufactured identity, so it started to become something closer to what they have been made out to be (though still not extremist, or a hate group any sort). AnswerManDan (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
We go by what reliable sources say about the topic, and right now the sentence cites four that describe PB as fascist. Do you have reliable sources to support your characterization as a "right-wing, conservative, Trump supporting drinking club"? –dlthewave ☎ 03:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Conservatives that go onto the streets and start fights with people? You all have a funny idea of what conservatism means. TarnishedPathtalk 04:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Starting street fights doesn't necessarily make them fascist, though I do think it necessarily makes them violent extremists.
However, the sources do consistently call them fascists, so we also must call them fascists. It's literally not our choice to make. Loki (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Actually very few sources refer to them as fascist and none of them are by fascism experts or were published in political science journals. One of the sources used for example is from an education communications journal which refers to them as "neo-fascists," which is not the same thing. It's classic cherry-picking.
During the Weimar Republic, conservatives actually started street fights and assassinated political opponents. There was even a middle of the road paramilitary group.
The IP incidentally does themself no favors in coming across as biased and bringing up anifa, which is a red herring. TFD (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree with TFD that the sources are of low quality. Samantha Kutner, a psychologist, is used as a source many times (it is always the same paper with a different publisher). What she wrote is simply that according to her Pinochet is a fascist, so the Proud Boys who support the same are crypto-fascists. However, there is no academic consensus that Pinochet was a fascist and Pinochetism is a neo-fascist ideology (semifascist ≠ neo-fascist).
The other academic source uses "protofascist." Only journalistic sources (cited in the article) and not academic sources use "neo-fascist." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
journalistic sources They're more than sufficient. It's not a big leap when their out-group term of derogation is "antifascist". Feoffer (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
You can refer to the numerous sources used at Augusto Pinochet#Characterisation_as_fascist for the fact that both Pinochet himself and the military dictatorship were fascist. TarnishedPathtalk 03:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath "However, he and his government are generally excluded from academic typologies of fascism." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Go argue with the academics who have published works linked in the article above. Don't argue with me. TarnishedPathtalk 23:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
There are no experts on the subject who claim Pinochet was a fascist. The only academic source I could find was from a political scientist writing from a Marxist perspective. Their definition of fascism was any pro-capitalist dictatorship, an opinion that has no mainstream support.
The first source used is an opinion piece by Andrew Neil. This is someone who set up a TV station promoting cultural Marxism conspiracy theories and anti-vax misinformation. Do you agree that he is infallible in political analysis? TFD (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
No experts in political science? Michael Parenti is an American political scientist. I'm not sure if that's who you're referring when you wrote "political scientist writing from a Marxist perspective"? Even if that were the case, that does not make him not a political scientist.
I agree the first source isn't much good, because aside from it being opinion, it's only the heading which calls Pinochet fascist. That aside, given Neil comes from the same side of politics as Pinochet, and that it was an attack on someone else I don't think his characterisation can be discarded just because he's a loon.
Mario Sáenz is listed as Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Integral Honors Program at Le Moyne College. Most philosophers have more than enough expertise to talk about political ideology. TarnishedPathtalk 03:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Michael Parenti in fact presents a Marxist perspective as his Wikipedia article says. You should know this and also what the Marxist analysis of fascism is before entering into an argument. As I mentioned, this analysis is no longer considered mainstream. The best you can say is that Marxists consider Pinochet to be Fascist. Before coming to conclusions, one should evaluate all the sources.
Also, Sáenz's being a professor of philosophy does not make him an expert on Fascism, particularly since he has not published any papers about Fascism. An expert in Wikipedia is defined as someone who is "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
And why do you think that we can dismiss the views of the leading experts of Fascism, such as Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton, Stanley Payne and Stanley Payne, who together developed the consensus definition of Fascism taught in textbooks? TFD (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Whenever Stanley Payne and Stanley Payne are in agreement, that pretty much ends the debate, I always say. EEng 05:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
e.e Agreed with TFD, the position should be attributed and contextualized. By the way, the source (Kutner) does not use "neo-fascist" but "crypto-fascist". 93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. TarnishedPathtalk 10:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
See WP:SYNTH and WP:VOICE. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Where is the WP:SYNTH or WP:VOICE in my statement. TFD wrote "Michael Parenti in fact presents a Marxist perspective as his Wikipedia article says". It's neither WP:SYNTH or WP:VOICE to state that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It's explicitly spelled out on WP:RS/P. TarnishedPathtalk 11:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
In any case, in this article the proud boys are not described as "fascist", they are described as "neo-fascist". So this whole discussion is kind of meaningless. TarnishedPathtalk 11:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
You misunderstood me: the academic sources used do not use "neo-fascist" but "crypto-fascist" and "proto-fascist"(i.e., WP:SYNTH).
In any case to be "neo-fascist" the subject must be inspired by a fascist regime, so the discussion is not off-topic. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
"[i]deologically, members subscribe to a scattershot array of libertarian and nationalist tropes, referring to themselves as anti-communist and anti-political correctness, but in favor of free speech and free markets."
To describe this as "neo-fascist" is quite questionable. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Looking at a descriptions used in the citations, my reading was that some use neo-fascist and some use cryptofascist. Self-ascription is never a good basis for defining political ideology of a subject. TarnishedPathtalk 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, your are approaching this backwards. It's not up to me to show that Parenti's is using a minority definition of fascism, it's up to you to show that his definition has consensus support in the literature, while Payne, Griffin, etc. do not. If you are interested in finding out more about Parenti's views on fascism, I recommend Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism, which is freely available online. If you read his book, you would see that he opposes current definitions of fascism. TFD (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Read my above statement to the IP. In any case, in this article the proud boys are not described as "fascist", they are described as "neo-fascist". So I don't know why we've allowed ourselves to get side-tracked. TarnishedPathtalk 00:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
As I discussed above, reliable sources mostly reserve the description neofascist for groups that have connections with historical Fascism, such as the Italian successor parties now including the current PM. While there are parallels between historical Fascism, the Proudboys, Trump, Pinochet and lots of other right wing groups and leaders, we do a disservice to readers to conflate them, especially when current scholarship does not. TFD (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

COI tag?

What's with the COI tag? The article is well-sourced and reads pretty NPOV, at least to me — is there a specific section that's a concern? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any allegations that someone with a COI has substantially edited the article, let alone that any such COI edits remain in-article (which is the purpose of the tag, to flag them for fixing). VQuakr (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The photo in the lede infobox was uploaded by commons:User:Peterdukephoto. Online searches using their name and the term photography indicate that they most likely have close ties to the subject and promote MAGA. TarnishedPathtalk 01:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The tag was added after Jason Quinn alerted us that "single-purpose account that uploaded this photo likely has directly affiliation with the article's subject which compounds the question of this photo's neutral status". Their concern is ongoing. Feoffer (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
They've never edited this wiki, much less this article. How is that "A major contributor to this article"? You seem to be taking your position that the photo itself is some sort of "COI" (despite the fact that people are in fact encouraged to donate freely-licensed photos of themselves or of others when they own the copyright) to an extremely WP:POINTy extreme with this tag. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
If I've misunderstood the argument that Jason and TarnishedPath are making, I apologize. I don't think I have. Feoffer (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
You are the one who added the tag, no? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I had NPOV concerns even prior to learning about the COI issues -- I find the COI concerns others have raised to be credible (though I haven't personally double-checked them). I wondered why our article deviates from the examples of RS, and I think Jason explained the why. Feoffer (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
photo in the lede infobox was uploaded... that doesn't make them a major contributor. This is bludgeoning the process; "I'm not happy with the answer" is not a sufficient reason to tag bomb. VQuakr (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Please do try to assume good faith and remember this isn't a battleground. I didn't start the RFC, I didn't bring up COI problems -- I just invited more eyeballs to help us sort it out. Feoffer (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps, time for the notice to come down. If there's been a few eyeballs on the question and people are mostly saying that it isn't an issue then there's no point pushing a point. TarnishedPathtalk 11:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there a downside to leaving it up for the duration of the RFC? We should have some tag up to alert people to the ongoing dispute, COI seems most apt, but NPOV and V are also in play. Feoffer (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The RfC is how people are alerted to the ongoing dispute. The whole purpose of the RfC is to draw in other editors from WP:RFC/A, WP:FRS, etc. There is not typically an articlespace alert just for the purposes of informing readers that there is an RfC on the talk page, and the COI tag is not well suited to it (as evidenced, I think, by my confusion around what it was even referring to). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enrique_Tarrio/Archive_2&oldid=1192467703"