Talk:Enrique Tarrio

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)
  • Can you explain how "businessman" is a "noteworthy role" per MOS:BIO? I've seen maybe a handful of sources observe that he runs a business, but it is hardly a source of his notability. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:42, 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"). Neutrality^talk 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)

Enrique Tarrio was an FBI/Law enforcement informant

Seems like important information to include

Sources: YeetMachete (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Yeetmachete

That's already mentioned in the article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

References

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 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 seen 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)

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)

@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)

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)