Talk:Enrique Tarrio

Neo-fascist?

This is probably similar to the previous one, but isn't the term neo-fascist being diluted by using it for a person of color? It seems to be an extremely liberal usage of the term. It starts to have no meaning when you throw it around like that. Even far-right is a bit extreme. I'm not sure if this is an example of the goalposts being moved. It's getting absurd. Lighthead ^þ 18:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, the term neo-fascist appears only once in this BLP, where it describes the organization of which Enrique Tarrio is chairman. We do not call Tarrio himself neo-fascist. NedFausa (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Lighthead, Even far-right is a bit extreme are you proposing that we use another term? Which? Do we have sources to support that? Vexations (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

What is meant by far-right or neo-fascist? Is the implication, white nationalism? Lighthead ^þ 19:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Lighthead, we use the neo-fascist only in the context of "chairman of the far-right, neo-fascist organization Proud Boys" and use the exact same term to describe the Proud Boys in the article on them. Unless that is overturned by consensus, we ought to use the same term here. The term far-right is used in a quote: "freewheeling online emporium for far-right merch" which can't edit to say something else and to also describe far-right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, where the same thing is true as for Proud Boys. If we use that therm in the article on Yiannopolous, we use it here too. Now, unless you are going to to propose a term that is used by reliable sources, I think we can close this thread as not actionable. Vexations (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's valid reasoning, just for the sake of consistency. Is this article part of some consortium of articles? Lighthead ^þ 20:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Lighthead, it's consensus, not consistency for consistency's sake. And you still haven't proposed something we can actually do. Vexations (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

My proposal is to remove the far-right and neo-fascist designations, and call it simply right-wing. Here in the U.S., neo-fascist is essentially a white nationalist that would have no one other than a white person in their organization. The picture makes it evident that he is assuredly not white. The average person sees the term 'neo-fascist,' looks at the picture, and it becomes extremely obvious that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias. Wikipedia is, then, seen as less credible. I can assure you that, at the very least, Slate is a left-wing magazine, or website. It might not be that way in Europe, but it certainly is here. It's not even center-left, it's squarely left-wing. Lighthead ^þ 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Lighthead, we're English, not American Wikipedia. As for what passes as left-wing in America, that is indeed quite subjective, and it would be wonderful, IMO if we could replace left- and right-wing with terms that actually mean something and help our readers understand. I'm strongly opposed to right-wing or right-leaning (something the Proud Boys use themselves). I wouldn't be opposed to using more precise terminology though: anti-immigration, pro-gun, pro drugs, violent, misogynistic, aggressively patriotic, islamophobic, transphobic and secretive about who their members are. Vexations (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have a source for right-wing if you want to take a look at it, Vexations. It's about as neutral as you can find with a regular search engine. It wasn't extremely easy to find since everything is political nowadays, but here it is: [1] Tell me if you think it's good. Lighthead ^þ 00:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Lighthead, I think this comment The Four Deuces is relevant. By the way, we do not have just news media referring to them as far-right and fascists, we do have academic books and journals, too. Davide King (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I oppose replacing far-right and neo-fascist with right-wing. This BLP is an offshoot of Proud Boys. Absent his chairmanship of that organization, Enrique Tarrio would fail Wikipedia:Notability. Circumventing accord at Proud Boys to designate that organization as far-right and neo-fascist would violate Wikipedia:Consensus, which readily transfers and applies to this BLP. NedFausa (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I provided a legitimate source. It provides in an unbiased way the notion that the Proudboys are right-wing. It's a local news agency, so there's no way that they could be biased. Lighthead ^þ 17:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You imply that the preponderance of WP:RS, which identify the organization chaired by Enrique Tarrio as far-right and neo-fascist, are biased. I reject that unfounded accusation. Your requested change should be denied. NedFausa (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not Tarrio is a person of color is wholly irrelevant to whether or not the Proud Boys is a neo-fascist organization. The Ethiopian Lictor Youth for example was a fascist organization recruited from black school children. It's a well known canard used by far right groups to say that because they have minority members they are not racist. Yes there were Jewish Nazis and black Klansmen, but that doesn't change the essential nature of the organizations.

There is no right-wing versus far right debate in reliable sources. Right-wing is sometimes used as a synonym for far right, but its meaning is clear from context. When for example they write, "American Nazis, Klansmen and other right-wing groups," it's clear that by other right-wing groups they don't mean the Republican Party. But when a news item says that the UK had a center-right coalition government, it's clear from context that they are referring to the Conservative Party.

I would avoid the term neo-fascist since it is best used for groups that developed out of historical Fascism and subscribe to its core tenets. The Proud Boys developed out of the American rather than European far right tradition. In any case far right includes neo-fascists, so we should only use once term.

TFD (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: Wikipedia's page Proud Boys begins by describing them as both far-right and neo-fascist. You do not make a convincing case as to why this subordinate BLP should differ in that regard and use only one of those two terms. NedFausa (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What is discussed or decided in one article does not bind any other article. I did provide reasons. I don't know if any reasons will be convincing to you, but I'll try again. The first cite for neofascist in the Proud Boys article calls them protfascist not neofascist. Webster's defines protofascisma as "a political movement or program tending toward or imitating fascism."[2] It defines neofascism as "a political movement arising in Europe after World War II and characterized by policies designed to incorporate the basic principles of fascism (as nationalism and opposition to democracy) into existing political systems."[3]

Of course, different writers use different definitions. I prefer to use unambiguous language since the point of articles is to convey information. We shouldn't give the impression that the Proud Boys wear black shirts and give Roman salutes in public.

As I said, saying they are neofascist and far right is redundant, since neofascists are far right. The article about humans for example begins, they "are highly intelligent primates," it doesn't say they "are highly intelligent apes, monkeys and primates." Humans are in fact a type of ape, which is a type of monkey, which is a type of primate. Primates happen to be mammals, which is a type of animal, but that's not mentioned either.

TFD (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your user page begins: Left-wing and right-wing are meaningless terms created by the Left in order to discredit the Right. You are bringing that same ideological bias to this BLP, but it won't wash. I believe editors here will see through attempts to circumvent the hard-won consensus forged at Proud Boys. NedFausa (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That's irony. Obviously if the terms were meaningless then there would be no Left to create them. Note that I either created or was the major contributor to Right-wing populism, Radical right (United States), American Left, Left-wing terrorism, Right-wing terrorism and Left-right political spectrum. Furthermore, I support calling the Proud Boys far right, because that is how it is normally classified in reliable sources. Finally, it really doesn't matter what I think because articles are supposed to be based on what reliable sources say, not what editors think. I find for example that often the media give too much attention to unimportant issues and ignore important ones, but insist that we use the weight established by reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Enrique Tarrio discussing his and his organisation's political beliefs on Tim Pool's podcast v=Pj-WUk0c5wQ?t=2414 I linked to where I feel the natural start point of his response is, but 41:33 or 43:50 if you want to skip a bit further in. As the leader of an organisation, I feel it is acceptable for him to speak on the behalf of what the organisation represents. And that this clearly debunks the idea of having ties with any kind of fascism. Karnowo (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Karnowo

The page for Proud Boys has both of these terms and neither is in dispute, until they are changed from the organizations main page there is no reason to remove them here. Cyrus40540057 (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no amount of factual evidence that can counter the leftists who are defining their own opposition here. Wikipedia isn't biased to the left, Wikipedia editors are. They can find any number of "scholars" writing papers claiming anything to the right of Bernie Sanders is "right wing" and there's really nothing you can do about it. Facts are irrelevant. Leftist scholars dominate society and Wikipedia editors employ circular reasoning to defend their articles. It's a fascist organization because the people who disagree with them want them to be called that. Period. Notice a complete lack of sourcing for actual behavior or policies advocated.

If you look up Wikipedia's description of Antifa, despite being anarcho-communists who officially want to end the entire government but want to start with radical actions like ending police and being entirely opposed to free market exchange, they are described as "left wing" not "far left". They are described as only opposing "far right" and "fascists" despite their record of violently assaulting and protesting moderate right wing people and events. The intro article bends over backwards trying to portray them as mostly nonviolent even though Antifa members are proudly pro-violence as a policy. Even murderers are "mostly nonviolent" that doesn't mean you spend half a paragraph on their article explaining how they aren't killing people "most of the time".

No honest person can look at Antifa vs. Proud Boys and call the Proud Boys "far right fascists" and Antifa "nonviolent left who only oppose fascists" In terms of behavior and stated ideals. One is pro-violence and destruction of society, and the other is a reactionary group that is pro-violence against the pro-violent, but not for destruction of society. Yet with a straight face editors will explain here how the articles are completely valid. J1DW (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@J1DW: Please review WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM. The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. If you have any changes in mind for this article, please be specific. But if your only purpose is to denigrate "biased Wikipedia editors" without suggesting any improvements to the article, you're in the wrong place. Please note that policy requires Wikipedians to write without editorial bias; it does not require individual editors to be automatons with no personal opinions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, step one for Wikipedians to silence any opposition to your leftist agenda. My suggestions aren't opinions and they're very specific. Antifa is a far left organization of Marxists, anarcho-communists that openly advocate for violence. All of this is objective fact that can be sourced directly from them. Instead you use roundabout methods, third party biased articles to justify your biases. Similarly the Proud Boys aren't "far right" or "neo-fascist" by their own policies or actions and I'm clearly stating this should be removed as it's objectively false and biased. You again use roundabout third party biased articles to justify the propaganda. I agree this isn't a forum. I am making some clear statements specifically about the facts lacking on these pages, not a broader political ideology. You don't have to be an "automaton with no personal opinions" but you can take them out of the articles and do better. As much as you want to silence my personal opinion in the talk section, I want yours out of the main article. J1DW (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim is well-sourced. Please stop with the attacks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim is sourced to random people writing papers, not referencing actual events or policies by the people involved. That is the crux of my dispute. I am literally not attacking anyone. You are targeting me. All I wrote is that these articles are biased to the left. Antifa is called "left wing", the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting: "Hodgkinson was a left-wing activist" but when it comes to Proud Boys, they become "far right" and "neo fascist". If shooting someone in Congress just makes one a "left wing activist" or being an openly pro-violence organization makes them "left wing" and "mostly peaceful" how is an organization that rose up from and exists solely to counter these "moderates" in behavior "far right" and "neo fascist"? The terminology is biased. I am using reason here. I can't make you agree with me, but stating this is not an attack on you. You are not the article or the idea. J1DW (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The comment that "Leftist scholars dominate society and Wikipedia editors employ circular reasoning to defend their articles" ... that was phrased better by Stephen Colbert as "Reality has a well known liberal bias". It turns out that unlike measurable facts like length or weight, terms like "far right" are entirely defined by society. So if leftist scholars do actually dominate society, and those leftist scholars do consistently say someone is "far right", then, well ... they're far right. These terms aren't absolute, but change in relationship to society. In Renaissance Spanish society the opinion that Muslim and Jewish people need to be converted to Christianity by force or expelled was not "far right", but pretty much mainstream thought. So we don't call Ferdinand and Isabella "far right". In modern (mostly global due to things like rapid air travel and the Internet) society, as of 2021, it isn't. If you want to show that someone should not be called far right, you need to show that enough of what we call Wikipedia:Reliable sources call them something else; in other words you need to show that leftist scholars do not yet completely dominate 2021 mostly global society. --GRuban (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@J1DW: If you object to our entire reliable sourcing policy as "random people writing papers", I suspect you are not going to enjoy editing Wikipedia very much, or have any success with it. We are not going to throw out policy and write whatever you like just because you disagree with one of our foundational policies; if you'd like to see WP:RS changed, feel free to suggest updates at WP:VPP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think PBs themselves would say they are right wing, but the neo-fascist and white nationalist monickers are absurd.

The group lists anti racism amomg core tenets on their website, along with minimum government and maximum freedom, that is not fascism, which is a political system that retains private property but govwrnment control of industry and economy Ryantheviking (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Tags in lede …

… do not identify content with undue weight, because they precisely replicate the first line of the lede of Proud Boys, a highly-trafficked page in which the lede is surely the result of hard-won consensus. Propose removing {{undue-inline}} accordingly. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see #Verified references support description in lead of Proud Boys as neo-fascist organization. Please do not remove the tags until there is a clear consensus at that section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

There are no tags currently. Any opposition to archiving this section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Domestic terrorist?

The current description calls him a "domestic terrorist" however none of the cited sources seem to collaborate that statement. Specifically the three in text citations linked in, "Tarrio is the Florida state director of the grassroots organization Latinos for Trump and a domestic terrorist," do not claim that. I think the reference to it needs to be removed or at least collaborated with a source. Kokpep (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This was a recent addition that was already undone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021

This article needs the titles "fascist" and "cryptofascist" removed, these are opinion-based statements totally disconnected from reality, the Proud Boys' own website confirms they are not a fascist organization, https://proudboysusa.com/tenets/, they are a pro-American, pro-Constitutionalist movement from many nationalities and backgrounds who are vehemently anti-racist, and to say otherwise is nothing but politicized name-calling. Do you jobs, make the edit. 2600:1700:E190:EF40:5533:F4D5:4C3:7054 (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia summarizes what reliable, independent sources say, not what an organization's own self-serving website says. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to accurately reflect what those sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, the only mention of "cryptofascist" is in a reference–we certainly don't change the titles of reliable sources (or direct quotes from them) because we disagree with what they say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Weight of arrest

@InsulinRS: I just undid an edit of yours that added an entire "Arrest" section for the January 4 arrest in DC. Now I see you've added it to the lead. I really don't think that's appropriate weight. We have to be careful with biographies of living people, and giving that amount of weight to a charge for which he has not been convicted is, in my opinion, improper. I think the mention should be omitted from the lead, and we can reconsider when and if he is convicted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I respect the decision. I believe in teamwork.InsulinRS (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Mathematical error in age

I was unable to correct this arithmetical mistake, but if his age is really unknown better than 1983/1984, his age should be 36-38 years old, not 37. I have to assume the inclusion of his birthdate was added recently as this person is not generally considered interesting on the national stage.2601:182:4381:E60:D93:9F1E:ED15:6077 (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources list him as currently 36

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/proud-boys-leader-arrested-after-allegedly-destroying-d-c-church-n1252789

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/us/politics/enrique-tarrio-proud-boys.html

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

On January 27, 2019, a reliable source listed him as 34. Go figure.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6638303/Alt-right-Proud-Boys-leader-arrives-Roger-Stones-house-solidarity.html

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMAIL is not a reliable source, but the information is consistent with RS at least. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The template calculates his age and year of birth based on a reliable source saying he was X age on Y date. I just updated it to a new source, which said that he was 36 years old on January 4, 2021. It is accounting for the fact that he could have just turned 36, or he could be just about to turn 37. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

mylife, the public website, suggests that he is just about to turn 37.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RSP#MyLife. MyLife (formerly known as Reunion.com) is an information broker that publishes user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I figured, although in reality the exact date that they've provided is most likely right on, and i was just showing you that you were probably exactly right.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

He was born on 02/09/1984 and is 36 years old. I contacted the jail in Washington DC and confirmed. Call (202) 698-4932 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:5806:C200:91C1:8AF1:1BE0:7C80 (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately (or fortunately) we need reliable sources. Thanks for doing that, but unless it is published in a reliable place, we cannot add. But you are probably rightTuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Dedicated Bio on Subject for citations

"At the age of 20, he was convicted of stealing a motorcycle and sentenced to three years of probation and community service. At 29 he was convicted of selling stolen medical supplies and sentenced to 16 months in jail."

https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20210106-who-exactly-is-enrique-tarrio-leader-of-the-us-s-far-right-proud-boys-organisation

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any actual source for him claiming to be Afro-Cuban

Is there an article anywhere that actually points to a source for this claim? It certainly isn't in the references, and I'm having trouble finding one... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanoSho (talk • contribs) 14:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@SuzanoSho: The sources are provided inline, directly after the sentence:

• "[Tarrio]'s a Proud Boy, yet he gushes about his girlfriend any chance he gets and identifies as Afro-Cuban." - Miami New-Times
• "Though Tarrio himself identifies as Afro-Cuban..." - Miami New-Times

GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of descriptors in lead

@Emir of Wikipedia: I did read #Tags in lede …, as well as #Verified references support description in lead of Proud Boys as neo-fascist organization, and I am not seeing this local consensus to remove all descriptors of the Proud Boys that you are suggesting exists. Could you be misreading AleatoryPonderings' suggestion to remove the {{undue inline}} tag as meaning to remove the descriptors?

It appears you were the only person arguing against the descriptors being used in those discussions, and NedFausa, Vexations, AleatoryPonderings, Cyrus40540057, and (I think?) Davide King all argued for their inclusion. Also pinging The Four Deuces who commented to describe policy but did not seem to express a preference one way or the other. Please establish consensus to remove before doing so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I have no doubt that the sources overwhelmingly describe the Proud Boys' ideology as some variant of fascistic and misogynistic . On the other hand, I dislike labeling without context. We always seem to come back to the same thing: a number of sources call a subject "something", often without explaining why. We add those labels, supported by generally reliable sources. Folks who sympathize with the subject then see the article and call us biased for using a label that is widely supported by sources, but, to them, inapplicable "because logic" or by insisting on some strict definition of the label that the source's use fails to meet. For example: The white-supremacist claim is often challenged on the grounds that a black person can't be a white supremacist. That's superficially obvious, but wrong. Scholars have explained how that works, but that's hardly ever mentioned in the sources we cite for this article, so we don't add the reasoning to the use of the label. This situation is deeply dissatisfying to everybody involved. My preference is that (for example) in stead of saying: "Subject is a racist", we say "Subject has expressed the belief that that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance". That's much better than sticking a label on a subject. It is more neutral, and it avoids using a term that is often used and perceived as a pejorative. But it's also to long for a lead. If we must use labels, we ought to contextualize them. Not in the lead perhaps, but somewhere in the article. Vexations (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, this is referring to the descriptors referring to the Proud Boys, not about any descriptors of Tarrio (there are none at the moment). But I'm not sure I follow your objections around the labels—if people object to a label, but it is widely-supported by sources, we should not be removing it just because they are "dissatisfied". GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not think they should be in the lead of this page at the moment. Have not said that Tarrio is "dissatisfied" with it or that if he did that it would be a reason for removal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm quoting Vexations, not you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the mixup 🦍Warfare. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

But I think they should be removed for the time being. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I disagree and so do many people who've weighed in in these sections, so please stop trying to do that without any kind of consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in the lead at the moment so am removing it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to my statement at the beginning of this section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have partially reverted as I don't understand why you reverted the rest of my edit from your edit summary. The discussion tag has also been put back so we can get other views. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I had previously removed the "activist and businessman" in the lead because reliable sources rarely describe him in that context. He is not notable for being an activist or a businessman, he is notable for being the chairman of the Proud Boys, and so that is how this article should introduce him.

As for the discuss tag, okay, but it wasn't really drawing much discussion. You might draw more activity with an RfC or similar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I expressed myself poorly. I didn't mean to suggest that we should censor ourselves because our subjects are unhappy. I meant that a the situation that we find ourselves in, where we constantly have to deal with the same or similar complaints, is unfortunate. A FAQ might help. Vexations (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with restoration; there is clear consensus that these characterizations are warranted. @Emir of Wikipedia: please stop blanking content from the article. VQuakr (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Where is this clear consensus. The has not been consensus on this page, only on the Proud Boys which is local consensus for that page. Even if we do apply that here it is not a reason to shove it in the lead, but it in the body where it should logically go. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Should becoming an informant be in personal life section?

Thanks to @GorillaWarfare: for spotting me missing existing information on him being an informant. Should the information on his activities as an informant be in the personal life section? It makes sense to me for this to have its own section but unsure what it could be called.

Also should and how the fact he was an informant be included in the lede?

Thanks

--Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor: It seemed like the best place to me, because it's not related to his career, involvement with the Proud Boys, or political views. We could potentially add another section with a title like "Criminal history", but I worry that such a prominent section heading would be undue given that his criminal past is kind of a side note to the things that have made him notable. I also think it would be undue in the lead. I suspect it will get a short burst of news coverage because it's clickworthy—I note both Reuters and The Guardian have made no effort to avoid suggesting he is a current informant in their headlines, even though they acknowledge that by all appearances he only used to be a federal informant—but it's not relevant to his notability really, unless something changes as a result of it (for example, if he were to be removed as chair of the Proud Boys). GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: thank you for your thoughtful reply. You've clearly thought a lot about this, so whatever you think is best, it just seemed unusual to see this kind of information in the personal life section since informants are sometimes (I don't know how often) paid.--Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fair, though I haven't seen any mention of whether Tarrio was or not. It also seems a bit weird to put in "Career" even if he was paid; one does not usually think of "federal informant" as a career choice, though perhaps it is for some, what do I know :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Should political views go under personal life? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean should it be nested under the personal life section, or do you mean should it be ordered after it? If the former, no, I don't think so. If the latter, I also think no, but could probably be convinced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I meant the former. I think normally entries have political ideology covered under Personal life sections, but that's for bios with just Early life/education, Career, and Personal life. I acknowledge, this one's a bit more complicated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider merging the Career and Early and personal life sections? Neither are lengthy. I dunno, I just find "early life" at the bottom of the entry a bit awkward. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I like the latter suggestion better. What do you think of this? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Works for me! Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

terrorist designation

It is indisputable that Canada has designated the Proud Boys a terrorist entity. This is a link the Canada Gazette where the official announcement was made: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2021/2021-02-03-x2/html/sor-dors8-eng.html What's up for discussion may be where in the article we mention that. One option is to do so at the first mention of Proud Boys, by changing "Proud Boys, a far-right, neo-fascist and male-only political organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada" to "Proud Boys, a far-right, neo-fascist and male-only terrorist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada" Vexations (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

My strong preference is to use the same introductory sentence as is used at Proud Boys, which I see is currently "far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist terrorist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada" (although there appears to be disagreement over "terrorist" there too). That would allow the edit warring and discussion to at least be limited to the article about the entity itself. Would there be any appetite for just {{excerpt}}-ing it? I feel like that would solve the somewhat perennial discussion over what the description of the group here ought to be. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

My preference is not use the same introductory sentence in the lead of this article, especially if it is not even in the text body. Agree that it would be best to have discussion in one place. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's odd that it's not in the body of the article. Luckily that's easily remedied. But Emir, this conversation is about whether "terrorist" ought to be included in the description or not; there are several other discussions on this page over whether the whole descriptor ought to be removed, most recently #Removal of descriptors in lead, and none have achieved consensus to remove as of yet, and in fact appear to oppose doing that. Please stop attempting to do this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If we are shoving all the other things in the lead the only reason I can think of to not include the terrorist designation is that it is Canadian only. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's a reasonable argument to make. But it seems like we agree that the discussion of how to summarize the group probably ought to be had at Talk:Proud Boys. I've created a discussion section at Talk:Proud Boys#"Terrorist" in intro sentence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, hmmm... so if Canada is not enough, it would need to be designated a terrorist in how many other countries? Vexations (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Per weight, we would need to show that the Canadian designation is routinely mentioned in news articles about Tarrio, both in the U.S. and Canada.TFD (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the use of “terrorist” in the Proud Boys article is not necessarily in line with how we tend to treat other groups similarly designated as a “terrorist” organization by one government. We don’t use, for example, New Jersey's declaration that Antifa is a domestic anarchist extremist organization in its opening, despite it being a government source. Similarly, we don’t label the Council on American–Islamic Relations as a terrorist group in the lede, even though it has been declared one by the UAE (a sub-section in the article is devoted to this instead) and the FBI believes they are connected to Hamas (which is included in another sub-section).

For this BLP, in particular, we shouldn’t call Tarrio a “terrorist” without RS asserting this in their own voice (rather than just restating Canada’s decision). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think anyone has seriously suggested that Tarrio himself should be described as a terrorist. The main question was whether the Proud Boys should be described as a terrorist organization. The descriptor has since been removed from the lead sentence of Proud Boys, and is not being used here either. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, National Action (UK) is an organization that is proscribed in the UK, but nowhere else, as far as I know. We call it a "a far-right neo-Nazi terrorist organisation based in the United Kingdom". Military-sports-group Hoffmann was only ever designated a terrorist organization by Germany, but we call it a fascist terrorist gang. The problem with insisting on more countries is that the Proud Boys are primarily based in the US and Canada, and the US cannot designate a domestic group a terrorist organization, because there is no no Domestic Terrorist designation. See [4]. Requiring that we see such a designation by the US before we adopt it, is disingenuous, because it cannot exist. Vexations (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Requiring that we see such a designation by the US before we adopt it, is disingenuous, because it cannot exist. Maybe that is the point that some might, if it can't be a terrorist organisation then we should not call it one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, to insist that we use a definition that cannot be met is a bad-faith rhetorical device, and I consider it disruptive. Vexations (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, I am not insisting that at all. If anything is disruptive it is your bad faith false accusation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You can't cite "sources" for a subjective opinion

I'm not doubting that you can find endless articles as sources for the language your using in this article. And I'm sorry, but they are all irrelevant because you're not stating facts, you're stating opinions. There is nothing on any Proud Boys media site saying they are "white supremist", there isn't any video evidence of any senior members of the Proud Boys organization saying they are a white supremist organization, and their leader is apparently black. In fact, from what I know, every "official" Proud Boys document online or otherwise, states they welcome all races. Your claim that they are white supremist, since they aren't echoed by the actual organization in like... any way, is 100% subjective opinion. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for subjective opinions presented as facts. It appears to me, that you have a political bias, and wikipedia isn't, or shouldn't be, your personal soapbox. I'm sorry if this sounds mean, but this in my estimation is completely true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.242.4 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to summarize what published reliable sources say about the topic. You are welcome to provide citations to reliable sources that make the case that the group is not white nationalist. Provide the evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This really appears to expose the hole in the policy (RSes failing us) and contrary Wikipedia's ethos. The article is bordering on farcical and possibly defamatory. Yes of course, theoretically, it's possible for someone non-white to be a white nationalist/supremacist, but strong evidence (verified statements by Tarrio) surely must be produced first.103.253.94.156 (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it would be contrary to Wikipedia's ethos only to repeat how article subjects describe themselves. We describe people how they are described in reliable, independent sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please reread my message because that is not what wrote. That aside, I believe I misread parts of the article, which only attributes those labels the group he leads. 103.253.94.156 (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If your sources are printing opinions as facts, which is what this is, they are not reliable sources of anything. Sources with journalistic integrity don't report opinion as fact. If Wikipedia a place for facts or opinions? Is this an encyclopedia or vice magazine. Encyclopedias are for editorial content, not op-ed content. This is op-ed content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.242.4 (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What you have effectively done, is repeat op-ed politically "progressive" opinion pieces, then stated their opinions as facts and claim the pundits opinions pieces as "sources". This kind of thing erodes the integrity of what should be an editorial site, an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎24.224.242.4 (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources describing the Proud Boys as white nationalist or white supremacist are opinion pieces. Furthermore, if you would like to argue over the description of the Proud Boys, I would recommend doing so at Talk:Proud Boys; this article is now using a sentence directly taken from that article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

We cite the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and Fox news. Those are hardly "progressive". Vexations (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s fine to cite reliable sources for these sorts of things, though it’s important that we stay close to the subjective language contained in them when we include it in the article. That being said, we seem to be staying close to the subjective language of the sources when we use it in the article, so it’s fine to include their designation as such. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

White Supremacist should be added to organization description

Description of affiliated organization should be consistent. Either add the "white supremacist" description on the black persons bio or remove it from the bio of the multiple white members. Subjects color should not alter how the same organization should be described.

"Ethan Nordean is a leader of the Proud Boys, a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist organization that promotes and engages in political violence" TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Nordean's bio is using the exact sentence used at Proud Boys, which is what I've supported doing here as well. See #terrorist designation GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like, if the organization is now called white nationalist, and so are other leaders, then Tarrio's page should be consistentTuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

it is not other stuff. It is Same stuff.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The Proud Boys may be far-right, they may be Nationalist, but they are not a “White Nationalist” organization. There is no objective proof that they are. This designation is an inaccurate opinion and should be stricken from the record. Their leader is of mixed race and I have seen zero evidence that their ideology is based upon ethnic group membership. This, amd the reference on the main Proud Boys page must be changed if this Wiki is to be credible, otherwise it’s like having a page on oranges and showing pictures of oranges, lemons, and grapefruit as examples of oranges. They may all be citrus fruits, but precision is important to distinguish one citrus from another. CNYinCA (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Find a "reliable" source that directly contradicts the "white nationalist" label.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources TuffStuffMcG (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What?

Henry Tarrio, Jr. was born in 1984 or 1985 and raised in Little Havana, a poor neighborhood in Miami, Florida. Tarrio is of Cuban heritage and identifies as Afro-Cuban. --- But the proud boys are a whites only group far right group? Whaaaaat??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.110.139 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Proud Boys are not whites only. From Proud Boys: Some men who are not white, including Enrique Tarrio, the group's chairman and the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump,[46] have joined the Proud Boys, drawn by the organization's advocacy for men, anti-immigrant stance, and embrace of violence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Change “White Nationalist” to “Nationalist” when describing the Proud Boys here and on the main Wiki for the Proud Boys. It is led by a person of mixed race, has mixed race membership, and there is no objective evidence their ideology has a white-ethno-nationalist component. The rest of the description appears accurate. Calling them White Nationalist is like calling a lemon an orange - both are citrus fruits, but they are distinctly different. Not all extreme nationalists are ethno-nationalists. CNYinCA (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: there's currently an RFC (request for comment) going on over at Proud Boys regarding removing the label, you're welcome to participate in the discussion over here. Until that's concluded though the label will stay. Volteer1 (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Tarrio Chairman position

Tarrio was voted out of the chairman position after the revelations he is an FBI informant. The club has reorganized as autonomous chapters.

It is also ridiculous to have a picture with this afro-cuban Chair (former) right under the monicker "white-nationalist". Anti-racism is a core tenet of the group. They are far right for sure but not racist or fascist, that shit is vandalism Ryantheviking (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your first paragraph, you need to provide at least 1 reliable or even semi-reliable source for the re-organization claim, that's why I reverted the work.

I also agree that the "white nationalist" classification of the organization headed by a black man is obviously absurd, but this is how all other public figure members are described in their lede. For a while, editors conveniently neglected to update his profile to match, so I did it for them using the same logic used on other pages.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources describe the organization as white nationalist despite the race of its chairman, so too should we. Proud Boys addresses this directly: "Some men who are not white, including Enrique Tarrio, the group's chairman and the Florida State Director of Latinos for Trump,[46] have joined the Proud Boys, drawn by the organization's advocacy for men, anti-immigrant stance, and embrace of violence.[47] The Proud Boys claim to condemn racism, with Tarrio stating that the group has "longstanding regulations prohibiting racist, white supremacist or violent activity". However, the ADL has deemed the group as having antisemitic, Islamophobic and racist views, with the group known to threaten, intimidate or violently assault anti-racism protesters." GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The classification of "white nationalist" forces cognitive dissonance in the reader. A rational reader will read "far right" and think: plausible. They will read "neo-fascist" and think: plausible. Then, they will get to "white nationalist", and if they are on the Tarrio page, they will have a cognitive dissonance moment - that causes them to question the prior adjectives and the reliability of sources that assert it. It grinds the propaganda to a halt and forces a higher level of scrutiny.

If you believe that those sources are ideologically driven and unreliable, then this isn't the worst thing that can happen.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's only cognitive dissonance if you believe it's impossible for any person of color to be a part of a white nationalist group. Of course it's not, people are individuals who can do whatever they want, even if it appears cognitively dissonant to others. See [5]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The suspension of disbelief that an intellectual is capable of stands in marked contrast to that of a casual reader. It is true, though, that prima facie evidence can be rebutted, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I follow the public pronouncements of the group pretty closely. I won't bring this anecdote into the article without reliable sources to avoid first party research claims, but the idea that the group has a white nationalist agenda is absurd to me. After the Jan 6 riot however, I am concerned about the neo-fascist label.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So what is the suggestion here, that we omit what RS have said about the Proud Boys because we don't think our readers are intelligent enough to understand it? I can't get behind that. Personally I think you are underestimating our readers. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If the RS says something that is clearly not the case, it should remain in the article until the credibility of the source itself is called into question. It is up to the reader to use critical thinking and inquire further to square the circle. Alternatively, we could let the litany of adjectives live under the "proud boys" article and remove them from the BLP, but that isn't the standard used wiki-wide for this group.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

I noticed this fellow is listed as Afro-Cuban in heritage. Would that negate the claim that the group he leads is a white supremacy group? 2601:1C0:6703:7720:38DD:4D0F:3482:E86F (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope. See the section directly above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

a few articles from "reliable" sources vaguely suggest that this organization is white nationalist. Since they've said it is so, it becomes our job to use reliable sources which specifically contradict the white nationalist label, if we want it removed because it is obviously not the case. Since reliable press is ideologically opposed to the proud boys, it is almost certain that you won't find such an argument, unless it come from "unreliable" sources. That's how wikipedia works; Take a look at the "perennially reliable sources" list to see which sources are suitable for citation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources TuffStuffMcG (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Template issue

"Section 'pb-lead-sentence' not found" is in the Proud Boys section of this article, this phrase appears mid way through the first sentence of the section of this article, labeled "Proud Boys". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:900:2150:430:f705:797:9b37 (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I've fixed the issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead image concerns

I am not sure of the proper way to address this, but I am concerned with the lead image used in this article. It appears to be taken during a professional photoshoot conducted by a photographer, presumably in the employ of the subject. Considering Tarrio is known for his involvement in an organization famed for wearing a specific uniform/colour scheme, and not for being a businessman, I believe the image should be replaced with a more relevant image. --Tomthumbsbluesclues (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

We only have two options, both of which are currently used in the article, unless you know of another freely available image of him. They were somewhat recently rotated, as the image of him in a cap was previously in the infobox. I have to agree that the image where he is not wearing a hat and sunglasses is preferable for the lead. I don't share your concern about the image not being representative—we prefer clear, well-lit photos of subjects and don't generally choose lower-quality images because they are more "relevant", which is a bit of an editorial statement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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 ([6], [7], [8]) 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)