Talk:Enrique Tarrio: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Neo-fascist?: Replying to Lighthead (using reply-link)
Line 117: Line 117:
: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. [[User:NedFausa|NedFausa]] ([[User talk:NedFausa|talk]]) 18:55, 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. [[User:NedFausa|NedFausa]] ([[User talk:NedFausa|talk]]) 18:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Lighthead}}, {{tq| Even far-right is a bit extreme}} are you proposing that we use another term? Which? Do we have sources to support that? [[User:Vexations|Vexations]] ([[User talk:Vexations|talk]]) 19:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Lighthead}}, {{tq| Even far-right is a bit extreme}} are you proposing that we use another term? Which? Do we have sources to support that? [[User:Vexations|Vexations]] ([[User talk:Vexations|talk]]) 19:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
::What is meant by far-right or neo-fascist? Is the implication, white nationalism? 19:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:37, 6 October 2020

Ballotpedia

We should be working to replace the Ballotpedia citations, no? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, yes, as a source Ballotpedia may be generally reliable (it has been discussed at WP:RS/N), but it it used here to cite Tarrio talking about himself, which makes it a primary source, use of which should be minimal. Vexations (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, What about the current list of "political and non-political figures as inspirations for both his political and personal values"? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, I don't think that list is due. Perhaps we could mention that citing Pat Buchanan's book, The Death of the West as a favorite is a reference to an insider joke by Gavin McInnes about the Proud Boys sitting in their club, drinking and smoking cigars while "discussing" books. Everything is always some sort of joke with these people, including electing a black first-generation immigrant as their leader. Vexations (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

businesses

There are a number of sources that have mentioned Tarrio's business(es) and suggested that he has a business(es) that provide(s) security services. Does anyone here have a reliable source that identifies those businesses? I'm especially interested in the security/surveillance business that is opaquely referred to in some sources.

I have collected some basic biographical information from unusable sources like LinkedIn, Yelp, Twitter and some business databases, and would like to find reliable sources instead. Most sources that found just repeat what he writes about himself on ballotpedia or LinkedIn, without any indications of fact-checking. Claims about his education could use some sources as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's BLP of Enrique Tarrio presently lists 19 unique references. Five of those cite the Miami New Times, which is obviously being treated here as a reliable source. On December 10, 2018, the Miami New Times referred to Tarrio as a "business owner" who ran a poultry farm in North Florida and "has started two businesses, one installing security equipment and the other using GPS tracking for businesses." NedFausa (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, I am fairly confident that I know the name of both companies, the security one and the GPS business, but the sources that call him a businessman do not mention those explicitly. Not sure what to do here, I don't think we commonly list all the non-notable businesses that the subject of an article owns.The NYT has mentioned his T-shirt business, an opaque reference to an online outlet that sells Proud Boys paraphernalia. That's three businesses. Vexations (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations: It is not necessary to name any of his businesses. Our existing references suffice to identify him as a businessman and entrepreneur. NedFausa (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, and then there's ProudBoys LLC, which he co-founded with Joshua Hall one of the Proud Boys' elders. That makes four. Vexations (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Businessman? Entrepreneur?

I suggest removing "businessman" and "entrepreneur" unless there are sources specifically describing the subject as such. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I suggest that you review inline references following first sentence of lead:
  • Slate reports on Fund the West LLC, a business registered in Miami by Henry Tarrio—who may be the same person as Enrique Tarrio, the current chairman of the Proud Boys. … Henry Tarrio is also the name on a business called Proudboys LLC, registered at the same address as Fund the West, and Enrique is the Spanish cognate of Henry.
  • The New York Times reports that Within minutes of hearing the president's remark, Enrique Tarrio, the Proud Boys' chairman, called down to the T-shirt business he owns in Miami with an order to get the presses rolling. "PROUD BOYS STANDING BY," the new shirts said.
NedFausa (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, Really? ... "who may be the same person as Enrique Tarrio" and making T-shirts are convincing enough for you to consider the subject a businessman and entrepreneur? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Yes, really! Please, let's await consensus before ignoring reliable sources. NedFausa (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, Give me a freakin' break. I insist there be sources actually describing him as either, or at least going into detail about his businesses. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, This source does not describe him as an entrepreneur. Please remove from the infobox. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, according to Wikipedia's Entrepreneurship page: More narrow definitions have described entrepreneurship as the process of designing, launching and running a new business, which is often initially a small business, or as the "capacity and willingness to develop, organize and manage a business venture along with any of its risks to make a profit." The people who create these businesses are often referred to as entrepreneurs. By that definition, The New York Times report that Enrique Tarrio owns a T-shirt business in Miami qualifies him to be described as an entrepreneur. NedFausa (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, Owning a T-shirt business does not confirm he designed, launched, and operates the business. It means he is a business owner. So, using your own argument, I politely disagree. No point in going back and forth so I will let other editors weigh in. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer: The Miami New Times reported that Tarrio "has started two businesses, one installing security equipment and the other using GPS tracking for businesses." I have added that reference to the infobox listing of entrepreneur. NedFausa (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, Then let's leave businessman, but I'm not comfortable with "entrepreneur" unless sourcing specifically describes him as such. Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: Inviting you to this discussion, based on the businesses discussion above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, I don't think that Tarrio is an entrepreneur in the sense that that terms is commonly understood; as someone who creates a new market for a business idea. His businesses are rather conventional. Businessman quite adequately describes what his business activities, so there's no need to call him both. Vexations (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, Agreed. I'm comfortable leaving businessman, since sources have been added, but "entrepreneur" is absurd, at least based on sourcing provided and reviewed to date. Do you mind removing? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, no, I don't. Neither of the sources cited mention entrepreneur, except to say that PB's central tenets include "glorify the entrepreneur". That does not mean he is one himself. Vexations (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, Update: User:Cedar777 has updated the infobox. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring by User:Another Believer

Another Believer is edit warring in spite of ongoing discussion on this talk page. I have warned him at his user talk page. NedFausa (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NedFausa, I added "citation needed" tags and started the above discussion. You removed the citation needed tags. I added them back because I still disagree and there's an ongoing discussion above. Cut the drama. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless another editor wishes to discuss my behavior, can someone please just archive this section? Restoring "citation needed" tags once is not edit warring... ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I object to premature archiving just so this editor can save face. Let's await additional discussion on the issue. NedFausa (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, What needs to be discussed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer: You reverted my contribution despite my edit summary linking to an ongoing discussion at this talk page. Now you claim that restoring "citation needed" tags once is not edit warring. I request that other editors be given a chance to express an opinion on this dispute. NedFausa (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, Your "contribution" was merely removing "citation needed" tags without actually adding sources or letting the above discussion play out. If you ask me, you're the one in the wrong here, not me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer: I provided the requested references in short order. And I don't appreciate your enclosing my contribution in scare quotes. NedFausa (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, Whatever, I'm done here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen! Please... we worked it out, didn't we? This is a somewhat peripheral article to an incredibly contentious subject and so far, we did very well. I think it's been mostly been pretty easy to work collaboratively and constructively on this article. I was actually quite proud of us. Both your contributions have been valued, by me anyway. Vexations (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, Thanks. I agree in general, but do feel compelled to defend myself when accused of edit warring (inappropriately, in my opinion). Regardless, if someone can please remove "entrepreneur" from the infobox, we can move on. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cedar777: Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Vexations. Info box modification has been made. Loads of work remain for editing this and related articles. Many good contributions made and many yet to be added. Cedar777 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image?

There's currently a non-free image being used in the infobox, but also an image at Wikimedia Commons. Which should be used? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. That one seems to have just been uploaded. The existing Fair use image and the new commons image seem to be either/or material for the info box. Not sure if one is better than the other. As the article grows, it may be more helpful to add a second image of the subject while at an event with the Proud Boys, related to his primary notability. I'll do a quick search. Cedar777 (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, would you be able to link to that Wikimedia Commons item? Using copyrighted images on Wikipedia requires a fair use declaration, which includes if the content can be replaced with a non-copyrighted item, so if appropriate, we should use the Commons one. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ItsPugle, File:Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys.jpg ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Oh yeah, we should most definitely be using that image instead of the non-free one. I'll update the article, and a bot will go through and tag (then delete) the non-free image unless it's added to another article with a free use rationale. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ItsPugle, Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: No worries, thanks for being awesome and bringing this up :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ItsPugle, Actually, looks like the image at Commons has been nominated for deletion. Should we swap back before the fair use image is deleted, too? ---Another Believer (Talk) 11:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Good catch! I think the best thing to do is keep the current image from Commons (the photographer may get the legal formalities done before it's deleted). If it does get deleted from Commons before the photographer gives us permission though, we may have to revert back to the non-free image. Depending on the timeline, if the file is deleted, we can re-download it from here. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image of T-shirt

Resolved

Do editors find the image of the Roger Stone T-shirt helpful? Anyone can print text on a shirt, so how do we know the shirt was made by Tarrio's company, as the caption suggests? ---Another Believer (Talk) 11:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Removed it as it is not clear if the shirt was produced by Tarrio’s company. Despite a search for Creative Commons images of the subject - this was the only (potentially) related content I could locate. Perhaps additional images will become available in time.
Thanks for removing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image is fine. Here's the source for Tarrio being the maker of the shirt.[1] -- Kendrick7talk 00:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Grassroots Organization"?

The correct designation for "Latinos For Trump" is either astroturfing or Front organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c0:c300:b7:4d78:cd7e:fe2f:a196 (talk • contribs)

No evidence: please provide some reliable sources, as existing sources say national grass-roots organization unaffiliated with the Trump campaign. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

non-primary sources on petition and res. 279

Can we find some non-primary sources that confirm that Tarrio is the author of the "Demand President Trump label Antifa a domestic terrorist organization" petition that failed to gather 100,000 votes but inspired resolution 279? Not sure if this would even be due (see [2]), but it is an aspect of the relationship between Tarrio and Ted Cruz that might be worth exploring. Vexations (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since that resolution hasn't even gone before the Senate yet and Antifa is not explicitly relevant to Tarrio personally, I think including that (especially without sources, as you've highlighted) is undue. If the resolution is passed and secondary sources link Tarrio personally to the resolution, I think a sentence on it would be fine, but it really shouldn't be until such time that we include it. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the "neo-fascist" descriptive of Proud Boys in the second sentence should be removed.

NOT DONE
Nothing actionable. No sources given, and this discussion should take place on Talk:Proud Boys as that's where this is often flagged (and shot down). (non-admin closure) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


They are admittedly far right but have repeatedly publicly denounced fascism.

In the political views section of this it even references Tarrio denouncing fascism.

TheLibertine63 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheLibertine63, give us a reliable source then. Perhaps is is helpful to consider that the likely reason that so many reliable sources call the PBs neo-fascist is they embrace violence, anti-feminism, ultranationalism, "western" supremacy, populism, xenophobia and opposition to immigration. That's much of what neo-fascism involves, so it's unsurprising that sources condense that to neo-fascism. We're not talking about a very narrowly defined version of fascism in early 20th-century Italy, but of an ideology that is in some aspects similar to, or rooted in it. We summarize what the sources say. I think it's a bit more complicated than the very simplistic notion of a far-right/conservative/centrist/liberal/far-left spectrum, and the PBs ideology is an unusual mix of ideologies, that doesn't comfortably fit on that spectrum. It includes some libertarian ideas, like their stance on drugs. That complexity is probably worth exploring in more depth, using scholarly sources, but this is not the article to do that. Vexations (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What is meant by far-right or neo-fascist? Is the implication, white nationalism? 19:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enrique_Tarrio&oldid=982208243"