This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Information to be added or removed: | website =
• Explanation of issue: The ((infobox person)) 'website' parameter is missing an equals sign '=' causing the article to appear in this maintenance category: Category:Infobox_person_using_numbered_parameter.

108.56.139.120 (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. NedFausa (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Enrique Tarrio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Stating that Proud boys is a neo fascist organization is a lie. Fascist has a definition, and they do not fit the definition. They do not call themselves fascist.

Fascist is an insult. Im certain the editors of wikipedia are partisan hacks who will keep this misinformation up, which destroys the credibility of wikipedia.

Wikipedia used to be good, now all political pages are locked with blatant bias against the right. 2601:603:4C7F:A650:7597:58FF:C742:1E43 (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

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

• Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys.jpg

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

And supplies links that are supposed to act as evidence/support that simply point toward someone who holds the same opinion. This degree of bias degrades the overall value of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psywavetrace (talk • contribs) 17:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Enrique Tarrio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In this line, "after punching someone who is believed to be an antifa member"

The word "member" be removed. Antifa is not an organization, so there are no members.

Change it to: "after punching someone believed to be an anti-fascist (i.e., Antifa)" Heathdwatts (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done I edited it to "after punching someone who is believed to be aligned with antifa". The source is clear that it's referring to antifa and not the broader concept of anti-fascists, so we should be also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"a church in D.C." should be corrected to "a church in Washington, D.C." Using just "D.C." is informal, like calling Los Angeles "L.A." It shouldn't be done in an encyclopedic source like ours, where our tone should be professional rather than colloquial. 76.190.208.61 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Fair enough. Changed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the "Proud Boys are far-right" source #7 the only reason this section deviates from the usual 2-column format? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It is why it is only one column. I thought the usual format was 3 or 4 columns though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. The list-defined reference was being passed as the first unnamed parameter, which is where a custom column width should go. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That gives 7 a separate column for me, but other than that it is a good fix. Another great edit by 🦍Warfare. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the reference is so long it fills up a full column. If for whatever reason that's not desired, a column width could be specified to force some other behavior. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Looks better, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Enrique Tarrio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please, add the following sentence to the article:

"The FBI stated that Tarrio's arrest was an attempt to preempt the events of 6 Januar."

The source has already been used once: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-proudboys-leader/exclusive-proud-boys-leader-was-prolific-informer-for-law-enforcement-idUSKBN29W1PE . --217.234.68.203 (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done [2] GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [3]), 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)

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)

Probably will be gone shortly (nominated for deletion on Commons) but the inclusion of a 13-star flag of the United States strikes me as highly tendentious, implying that he is associated with patriotism, American values, etc. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be better if we could get a photo that shows him in the role that he is known for, not posing as a businessman or politician. Vexations (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I cropped his picture from a protest picture that is already posted. Since that picture is CC-BY licensed and allows transformation, I believe the image now is legit copyright wise and represents him in a way more consistent with what he's known for. Graywalls (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

ItsPugle, File:Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys.jpg ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@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)

ItsPugle, Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: No worries, thanks for being awesome and bringing this up :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

I think the image is fine. Here's the source for Tarrio being the maker of the shirt.[4] -- Kendrick7^talk 00:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Image for context

Another Believer: The image that shows Tarrio at an event with Proud Boys is useful as it provides a view of him in context of his primary notability. For this reason, I advocate for its restoration to the article. Cedar777 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Cedar777, I disagree, I don't see value in having an article with 2 images with one being a crop of the other. But, if others disagree with me, by all means someone can add back. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add it back. We don't need two versions of the same photo. If we must have "context" then restore the group photo in its place and restore the previous infobox portrait. But the group photo is simply not all that informative. NedFausa (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Genuinely surprised to hear this view that both of the photos are not valuable. High quality, high resolution visual data far is more informative than walls of text, I find. The quality of both images is solid and each offers a wealth of data for visual thinkers, myself included. Alas, we all process information our own way. Cedar777 (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

What does the group photo show? A crowd of men standing idly by as Tarrio glowers at a guy holding a cell phone at face level, presumably to record the Proud Boys chairman. It's worthless. The cropped version of Tarrio glowering, however, is revealing of the self-image he wishes to project. NedFausa (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

He is the leader . . . of a group. The infobox image shows him as an individual, wearing a suit and in tactical gear. The context picture shows him as a leader, surrounded by those that he leads, his followers in hoodies and camouflage, four men with clearly visible yellow Proud Boys insignia, a flag with the image of an automatic weapon, and an Infowars sticker on the bearded man's megaphone. Cedar777 (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: this is a BLP of an individual. We don't need to see him in a group. The Proud Boys already have their own Wikipedia page, replete with group photos—including the one with Enrique Tarrio. We don't need to replicate that same dull group photo here. NedFausa (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The current short description of this article is "American businessman and far-right political figure". We're told to "start with the most important information", which is not that he's a businessman. He's also not a politician (he tried, but failed) and does not hold office. He's neither notable for his business nor for his political career. I'd like to propose that the short description that uses universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change and avoids anything that could be construed as controversial or judgemental is "Far-right activist". What do people think? Vexations (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to eliminate "businessman" from both the short description and the lead. He is only incidentally known as a businessman. NedFausa (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Also agree with this point NedFausa. The coverage of business activities can be addressed in body but is given undue weight in lede. Cedar777 (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree that short description needs to be modified to reflect best quality sources with due weight on coverage. He is most often covered by RS as a “far-right leader/chairman of Proud Boys”. Activist, if also common and attributed to high quality RS, seems reasonable as well. Without reviewing all the sources my recollection is that he is more commonly referred to as chairman or leader of Proud Boys. Cedar777 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Cedar777, the problem with being chairman of something is that it may be subject to rapid change, so it's not ideal for a short description. Vexations (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

He is notable as a businessman over his 1776.shop site. https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/proud-boys-1776-shop-paypal-square-chase-removed.html He has been engaged in a fight with payment processors and vendors as a result of objectionable speech.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG: Per your linked source, Tarrio told The Daily Beast that he is the "business owner" of 1776.shop, identified in the story's subhead as "an e-commerce site associated with the Proud Boys." Without his notoriety as Proud Boys chairman, neither Tarrio's ownership nor the business itself would be notable. It does not belong in our lead or in the short description of this BLP. NedFausa (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Vexations I agree that a broader term, like activist, is desirable for the sake of longevity. However, there does not appear to be representation of this term to describe Tarrio in RS. Here is where I sourced a review of terminology for Tarrio:

• Daily Beast September 6, 2018 "president of the Miami chapter of the Proud Boys"
• Slate February 7, 2019 "Enrique Tarrio, the current chairman of the Proud Boys"
• The Guardian August 17, 2019 article identified him as " the Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio"
• Oregon Public Broadcasting September 25, 2020 "Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio"
• KOMO News on September 26, 2020: "Enrique Tarrio, Proud Boys International Chairman"
• New York Times September 30, 2020 "Enrique Tarrio, the Proud Boys’ chairman" "Mr. Tarrio, the current chairman"
• Politifact on October 6, 2020 described him as "Tarrio is the current chairman of the Proud Boys"
• Politico October 8, 2020 article refers to him as "Enrique Tarrio, the group’s Miami-based leader"

It makes sense to stick to RS unless there are more quality sources that describe him otherwise. Cedar777 (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Changed the short description to “leader of far-right organization the Proud Boys”, per discussion above. It may need to be to revised further if discussion continues. Cedar777 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Cedar777, If we're going that direction, since it really is the one thing that he's known for, for the sake of NPOV, perhaps we can say "chairman of the Proud Boys from 2018". I think that by now, everybody has figured out which on which end of the left-right spectrum they sit. There's no need to keep repeating that everywhere. Now, if we can make it clear in some other way that sympathizers of Augusto Pinochet, like Tarrio, are not "classical" fascists but "happy to accommodate neo-fascist elements within their activities", we might get some much-needed clarity. Vexations (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Vexations all that sounds quite reasonable. Support the change if you want to make a revision. Cedar777 (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Cedar777 & Vexations: Whoa. Wikipedia:Short description is a concise explanation of the scope of the page. Wikipedia's mobile interface uses descriptions to augment searches, and the Wikipedia App also displays them below each article title. Please, I'd like to know how you determined that "everybody has figured out which on which end of the left-right spectrum they sit." NedFausa (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, Alright, I can think of one notable exception. (I'm joking) What I mean is that there is no one who serious questions that their politics are right wing, or far-right and it is unnecessary to include that in the brief description. I've been looking at a lot of other short descriptions of chairpersons, and have found none that include a qualifier like far-left or -right for the organizations that those people chair. Vexations (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Vexations: You're missing the point. Consider this from a newly published book, Wikipedia @ 20: Stories of an Incomplete Revolution: Information in Wikipedia articles is being increasingly datafied and extracted by third parties to feed a new generation of question-and-answer machines. If one can control how Wikipedia defines and represents a person, place, event, or thing, then one can control how it is represented not only on Wikipedia but also on Google, Apple, Amazon, and other major platforms. Let's not make unwarranted assumptions about how much people know when they initially search for something that Wikipedia may help answer. NedFausa (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, I remember reading that book. I'm aware of our impact, so I'd like to get it right. It is clearly very difficult for a lot of people to distinguish between a slur (Fascist!) and a neutral, factual description like neo-, crypto, proto-, or para- fascist, and we have the very difficult task to help people understand that distinction using secondary sources. As to my assumptions, yes it's an assumption that it is common knowledge that the PBs are far-right, and I have no evidence for it. So I'm glad I haven't made any changes to the article yet, and we're having this conversation. But even so, I'm not convinced we should include the mention of far-right. Look, we might have added "convicted felon" to the short description. It certainly belongs in the article. Our readers deserve to know this about him, but I don't think it is the most important thing about him. It is not what he is known for. To include "convicted felon", while factual, would go against NPOV. And I think the same is true for most labels we would apply to the organization he chairs. Vexations (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat relevant. When we use books and magazines it's always a good idea to look for Wiki and Wikipedia through "search within book" to avoid this https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/citogenesis.png While we're not supposed to have original research within Wikipedia, they still get in and sometimes get cited into printed books and create an impression that it came from a reliable source by citing that book. Graywalls (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC) @NedFausa and Vexations:

In 2004, Samantha Power (lecturer at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University) reflected Orwell's words from 60 years prior when she stated: "Fascism – unlike communism, socialism, capitalism, or conservatism – is a smear word more often used to brand one's foes than it is a descriptor used to shed light on them".[from wiki article on fascism as epithet]

It is a political epithet that tells you more about the editors who ok'd its inclusion than the organization who denies it and speaks against all of its tenants.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, I think you mean tenents? Vexations (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Vexations: No, that definition of "tenents" is obsolete. It should be tenet. NedFausa (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Far right needs to be in the lede but not in the short description. Neo/proto/crypto/para fascist needs to be in the body but not in the lede. The tag for (undue weight? - discuss) needs to be resolved and removed ASAP. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

What's the rush? This section is only two days old. We don't have consensus for either of the changes you demand. Let's give other editors a chance to weigh in. NedFausa (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on the lede modification?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, well, I think that in the near future, some consensus may emerge that the Proud Boys are a street gang in which case we may want to add something to that effect. As is stands, I don't see that consensus yet, but the authors of [5] scholars Shannon E. Reid and Matthew Valasik make a case for classifying them as a street gang. Vexations (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean like insinuating criminal charges have been brought against them under 18 U.S. Code § 521.Criminal street gangs? Or that they are a non-criminal street gang?

Street gang implies that it is a criminal organization. It is unclear why wikipedia should imply this. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/521 TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, I mean to insinuate nothing, but rather refer to secondary scholarly sources. I also don't think you have to be convicted to be a gang, it's the other way around: You're a gang and THEN you get convicted. As to convicted criminals, two Proud Boys, Maxwell Hare and John Kinsman were convicted of attempted gang assault. Vexations (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of a non-criminal gang. I thought that the criminality is what qualified a group as a gangTuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here: Is it that the Proud boys can't be a gang because none of their members have been convicted of being in one yet? My point was that that doesn't work. You can only be convicted of a crime after you commit it. Now, per WP:CRIME, a living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. So we would never say that an individual Proud Boy is a criminal, unless convicted. But that does not bar us from citing a reliable source that says the organization meets their definition of a gang. For example, we might cite Phillips, Matthew, et al. "The daily use of Gab is climbing. Which talker might become as violent as the Pittsburgh synagogue gunman?" Washingtonpost.com, 29 Nov. 2018. which said "After the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, many expected the alt-right to retreat from physical gatherings and return to digital realms. Instead, alt-right gangs such as the Proud Boys, the Atomwaffen Division and their followers, have become bolder, engaging in street violence at rallies, bomb plots and killings" (emphasis mine). Vexations (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

as per wiki "A gang is a group or society of associates, friends or members of a family with a defined leadership and internal organization that identifies with or claims control over territory in a community and engages, either individually or collectively, in illegal, and possibly violent, behavior."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Street_gangs

We should guard against an ongoing defamatory escalation happening on this and associated pages in order to be stewards of reality. Is it the intention to bring the organization up on charges, or inform readers of the closest possible summary of the group?

Far Right, violent, male-only organization could fit. Calling them the equivalent of the sturmabteilung, fascista, or the Bloods/Crops/mafia doesn't strike you as way off of the mark?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, careful there with ongoing defamatory escalation. An accusation of defamation could easily be (mis?)construed as a legal threat. I've provided sources. If several independent, reliable sources make a comparison to a street gang, especially when those sources are academics who are experts on street gangs, then citing that material is very likely due in the article on Proud Boys, and possibly here as well. Vexations (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, as I write this, I'm looking at a picture of Tarrio from October 13, wearing a baseball cap with RWDS on it. RWDS means "Right Wing Death Squad" to many people. And you're concerned about calling them a gang? They appear to self-identify as something far worse!

Anyway, back to Reid and Valasik, the piece in the Guardian is opinion, but they've also published Alt-right gangs : a hazy shade of white with University of California Press. (ISBN: 9780520300446), which I expect will make a fine source. I think you'll find page 55 illuminating. Vexations (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Run With Dull Scissors

Is it possible that they are an organization of aggressive libertarian trolls? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

On 9 October 2020, Emir of Wikipedia tagged five references as Failed verification—three here and two here. Today I double-checked and was able to verify each of these, as linked in this numbered list:

1. Producers, Parasites, Patriots: Race and the New Right-Wing Politics of Precarity: "groups such as the protofascist Proud Boys"
2. The Blood of Patriots: Symbolic Violence and "The West": "the Proud Boys, a multinational fraternal organization that uses an aesthetic of libertarianism to advance a fascist politic"
3. Are those whiffs of fascism that I smell? Living behind the orange curtain: "the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys"
4. Social Inequality in a Global Age: "The Proud Boys, an all-male neo-fascist group"
5. Vigilante Gender Violence: Social Class, the Gender Bargain, and Mob Attacks on Women Worldwide: "The Proud Boys are a neo-fascist masculinist hate group"

In each of his five {fv} templates, Emir of Wikipedia included an identical Reason parameter: Does not like the neo-facist claim to Tarrio. To me, this suggests a misunderstanding of how the lead is worded. We do not describe Enrique Tarrio as neo-fascist; rather, we identify the organization he chairs as neo-fascist. That is an important distinction.

Accordingly, I shall remove the five {fv} tags. If consensus forms that the tags should be restored, I will naturally abide. NedFausa (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, exactly. I wanted to write something almost identical. Vexations (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

They verify that Proud Boys is a neo-fascist organization, but they don't verify a link between that being such a notable aspect to include it in the first line of this article. I will tag with template:undue-inline, as it seems like that is a better fit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of anything more due than that they are neo-fascists. Curious to see what you think IS due then. Their drinking? Vexations (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you seem to have misunderstood, I am not saying it is undue to mention that Proud Boys have been called a neo-fascist organization. What I am saying is that it is undue to mention it in the first line of this article, as no reliable source has Tarrio along with mention of them being neo-fascist (and/or drinking). Until/unless reliable sources establish this link I feel it is undue for this article (and not for a claim in general). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, Can you clarify what would satisfy your criterion for establishing this "link" that you mentioned? Do you mean we can only say that Tarrio is the chairman of a neo-fascist organization if we can cite sources that say that he is a neo-fascist AND the organization he leads is neo-fascist? From the way you phrased they don't verify a link between that being such a notable aspect I can't discern what is or ought to be linked to what. Vexations (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying we can't mention the body there are reliable sources stating Proud Boys are neo-fascist, but that this is undue in the lead if is not specifically linked to Tarrio in the sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, let's see if I understand you correctly: Do you want to a source that doesn't just call the Proud Boys neo-fascist but also says that Tarrio is a neo-fascist so that we can say that Tarrio is the chairman of the neo-fascist Proudboys? Ist that the "link" you keep asking for? Vexations (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No, whether sources call Tarrio neo-fascist is a separate issue. It needs to be show that the sources mentioning Tarrio in relation to Proud Boys need to prominently and consistently call Proud Boys neo-fascist for it be due in the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are four WP:RS that mention Tarrio in relation to Proud Boys and prominently and consistently call Proud Boys neo-fascist. Is it now WP:DUE in the lead?

• Special Broadcasting Service (SBS)
• The Guardian
• The Intercept
• Gizmodo

NedFausa (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, these are all the mentions in the sources that we use at the moment:

[6] "He's working closely with various members of the Florida chapter of the Proud Boys, the hard-right, pro-Trump, semifascist group with numerous ties to harder-core white-supremacist organizations."

[7] : "The Proud Boys are a neo-fascist group that glorifies violence against opponents, particularly on the left."

[8] : "Fundraising for a political campaign is apparently not that easy when you and all of your closest friends have been kicked off a host of websites and credit card platforms for being in a neofascist street gang with close links to white nationalists and people who commit acts of violence and seem to enjoy sharing racial slurs online."

[9]: "There are T-shirts and hats with all manner of right-wing slogans, from lib-baiting (“Roger Stone did nothing wrong”) to fascistic (“Pinochet did nothing wrong”)."

[10]: "Freshly brought to the world’s attention by Donald Trump’s refusal to condemn their associations with white supremacist ideology during Tuesday night’s US presidential debate, the US neo-fascist group the Proud Boys was created by the Canadian-British far-right activist and Vice magazine co-founder Gavin McInnes in 2016 in the lead-up to Trump’s election as president."

[11]: "Proud Boys as a Fascist Organisation" has its own chapter.

[12]: "RAM is a neo-Nazi, white ethno-nationalist group that is connected to other groups such as Identitarian Identity Evropa, the hate-filled, far-right neo-fascist organization, Proud Boys, and Hammerskin Nation, a neo-Nazi skinhead group."

[13]: "This phenomenon is illustrated through a close reading of the Proud Boys, a multinational fraternal organization that uses an aesthetic of libertarianism to advance a fascist politic."

[14]: "Their tactics and ideology have led to accusations that they are the modern face of fascism."

[15]: "As harmful and upsetting as their behavior may be, we must try to understand that these are people who were in a vulnerable place in their lives. Instead of getting the help and support they needed, they got recruited into a violent, crypto-fascist, extremist organization." Vexations (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No one questions whether some sources describe them as neo-fascist. As I mentioned, the problem is that articles are supposed to properly convey information and avoid terms that can be ambiguous and to use proper weight in descriptions. Note the SPLC article about them does not use the term neo-fascist. I could only find them using the term when describing the National Radical Camp, New Force (Italy), CasaPound, and the Lega Nord. Note that the first three developed out of historical fascism, have an openly fascist ideology and use symbols reminiscent of fascism. The Proud Boys did not develop out of Italian fascism but out of a uniquely American far right tradition.

WP:DUE incidentally does not mean something is true or fitting, but it is about describing them the way they are usually described in reliable sources. So if news reports generally begin articles about them with "The neo-fascist Proud Boys," then it would be WP:DUE to do the same.

TFD (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

In reporting on Enrique Tarrio last November, the Orlando Weekly referred to the Proud Boys as his neo-fascist group. NedFausa (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No one questions whether some sources describe them as neo-fascist. As I mentioned, the problem is that articles are supposed to properly convey information and avoid terms that can be ambiguous and to use proper weight in descriptions. TFD (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this proves the point. If only a single mention a year ago from a "liberal progressive alternative newsweekly" makes this link, then it is undue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Proud boys are a limited government organization. They are against the political party which believes in censorship, corporate domination backed by the largest industry of information controllers in human history. Facebook, Amazon, Twitter and alphabet (google and YouTube). This needs to be corrected objectively. Tripleaughtcraft (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There's no law that says neo-fascism has to be rooted in italian fascism and the rule about undue weight is about the overall consensus of opinion. There's nothing in the articles that do not specifically mention neo-fascism which indicates the group is not neo-fascist. "Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, racial supremacy, populism, authoritarianism, nativism, xenophobia and opposition to immigration as well as opposition to liberal democracy, parliamentarianism, free-market capitalism/neoliberalism, liberalism, Marxism, communism and socialism." What part of this is not exemplified by the Proud Boys actions? They have coined themselves western chauvinists and you have failed to provide any reliable sources that say they are NOT neo-fascist. When something is justifiably attributed with all the qualities of a group, that thing is a member of that group. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck etc. Whether it wants to call itself western chauvinists or flying spaghetti monsters is irrelevant nor does it matter whether every single news article clearly identifies that in the first sentence. They are not disagreeing with the characterization based on their actual reporting of the proud boys, no one is saying they're liberal pro-immigration socialists are they? Where are the reliably sourced articles refuting the claims provided by those that are reliably sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus40540057 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what Cyrus40540057 has written, there seems to be a difference between American neo-fascism and European neo-fascism, in that in Europe it is much more tied to historical fascism, whereas in countries such as the United States which did not go under fascist rule like in Europe and where fascism has come mainly through Nazism and its racialism rather than Italian Fascism (hence why, many neo-fascists in the United States are much more pro-capitalist than European neo-fascists who still try to echo an anti-capitalist rhetoric), neo-fascism is much more tied to white nationalism/supremacism, with Western being a code work for white. Davide King (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

While there is no law that says neo-fascism must be rooted in Italian fascism, it is one of the two main definitions of fascism and one that many readers would assume was meant. I always prefer to use unambiguous language.

There was a fascist group in the U.S., the Silver Shirts, but they were disbanded during WW2. In the UK OTOH, the fascist British Fascists was succeeded by a host of new groups: the BUF, BU, NF, BNP, EDL, BF, etc. Neo-Nazism in the U.S. in contrast was resurrected in the 1960s.

TFD (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Continuing discussion per Talk:Enrique_Tarrio#Tags_in_lede_…. I truly do not understand the rationale for the tag. Tarrio is the chair of an organization that reliable sources describe as far-right and neo-fascist. We owe it to our readers to indicate that he is the leader of a far-right, neo-fascist organization. As far as I can see, there's no WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE problem with pointing that out. What's the problem? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Only a single source has ever been presented that was from a "liberal progressive alternative newsweekly" where it was ever deemed important to mention that the Proud Boys have been called neo-fascist when linked to Tarrio. This would still be issue if he was deceased, so it has nothing to do with WP:BLP. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The main page for Proud Boys contains both of these terms, until the consensus removes them from that page there is no reason to remove or arbitrate them here. Cyrus40540057 (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Enrique Tarrio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This article refers to the proud boys as a neo-fascist organization but does not cite any reputable sources. Rather it utilizes a string of ideological sources that are obviously aimed at trying to legitimize a premise that is easily defended against given the information about the group and its actions. I suggest that the article be edited to be factually accurate. It otherwise represents an ad hominem attack against a living person. Cogijl (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Vexations (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Concur. To support calling Proud Boys a neo-fascist organization, the lead includes a bundle of seven references to WP:RS. Moreover, this is not an ad hominem attack against Enrique Tarrio, whom we quote under Political views as saying, "I denounce fascism." NedFausa (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Black Proud Boys and their friends were stabbed by BLM on DC on election night.

Enrique Tarrio was slashed in the stomache, Bevelyn Beatty was stabbed in the back, lung punctured, liver lacerated.

Maybe add a mention?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8912161/Proud-Boys-wearing-MAGA-hats-flashing-white-power-signs-celebrate-Trump-near-White-House.html TuffStuffMcG (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@TuffStuffMcG: read WP:DAILYMAIL. No opinion on whether to add or not add. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/multiple-proud-boys-stabbed-in-washington-dc-knife-attack/ar-BB1aGnKW TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-stabbed-washington-enrique-tarrio-election-1544740 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The MSN article is just reprinting Newsweek, and Newsweek is not a terrific source (WP:RSP#Newsweek). I'd say we should wait for stronger sourcing before adding anything. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Users are repeatedly using this page in opposition to the NPOV.

Many celebrities to and political figures are convicted felons, and the facts belong in their articles, but not in the beggining of the lede.

Use other articles as a parameters for usual and customary. Mark Wahlberg is a convicted violent felon. It is mentioned in his wiki, bit not the first sentence of his lede, or anywhere in his neutral lede.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, the reason given for the removal was that ot everything in body of BLP belongs in lead, and he is not known primarily as a felon. This is misleading. The lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the body of the article. The subject is primarily known as the chairman of the Proud boys, but he is also other things. To exclude only ONE of those from the lead, because he is now primarily known for that one thing is not neutral. If we are to list only those that he is "primarily known for", then we'd have to exclude everything else too. What Wahlberg, who has no known affiliation with the Tarrio, has to do with this article is beyond me. Roger Stone is probably a better example. We do mention there in the lead that he is a convicted felon. Vexations (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you believe "convicted felon" is a due weight decision for the description in the first sentence of the person's lede?

If you want to mention the summary elsewhere in the lede, that's fine, but the first description? This fails the NPOV and looks like an indie weight attack rather than and informative summary.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, It was unreasonable to to apply a general rule (exclude mention of what he's not primarily known for) to one specific instance (felon), but not another (businessman). That exemplifies tendentious (non-NPOV) editing. GW's solution is fine with me, because it applies the general rule fairly even though my preference is for the lead to include most or all of what he is. I'm unfamiliar with the term "indie weight attack", would you care to explain what that is, in case it's something you think I've done? Vexations (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations: I believe that was meant to say "undue weight". GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I saw the edits to Enrique Tarrio on my watchlist and made an edit before seeing that there was also discussion here. I agree that Tarrio is primarily known as the leader of the Proud Boys, not as a businessperson or as a felon, and so I changed the lead to reflect that (and also give a brief explanation of who the Proud Boys are–despite the recent mention by President Trump, I don't think we can assume they are a household name). I agree that his felony conviction is relevant for the article body, but I'm not convinced it's appropriate for the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I support leading with "chairman of the Proud Boys" as this is how he's primarily known. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/proud-boys-stabbed-washington-dc-enrique-tarrio-bevelyn-beatty-b1595242.html.

Police in Washington DC are hunting for three suspects who stabbed the chairman of the Proud Boys and a prominent female Trump supporter during a brawl... The stabbing happened in the 1400 block of New York Avenue, two blocks from the White House, around 2.25am, police said.

https://www.ajc.com/news/police-4-people-associated-with-proud-boys-stabbed-in-washington-dc/DVBDRUJKH5HDNCMCXTIV2H3USY/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/woman-3-men-stabbed-after-fight-blocks-from-white-house-dc-police-say/2462803/

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/several-arrests-made-overnight-following-election-day-protests-4-injured-in-stabbing-near-white-house

207.216.154.212 (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Tarrio hasn't claimed that he was stabbed, despite the headlines claiming he was. "I got slashed, but it’s not serious". Vexations (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

only if you follow the traditional and widely understood definition of "stabbed". The consensus among reliable sources is that he was stabbed, and his own words are not reliable, so it is well sourced that he was stabbed.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, but of course he's not a reliable source. We probably ought to cite only sources by experts on stabbings (at least a phD in Emergency Medicine) and a forensic report on the exact angle, depth, sharpness of the weapon, wether it was a single edge or double edged blade etc. We also need photographic evidence. I'm kidding, of course. Vexations (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

This edit request to Enrique Tarrio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

@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)

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)

… 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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 [16]. 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)

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)

This edit request to Enrique Tarrio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 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 [17]. 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)

This edit request to Enrique Tarrio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

@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)

"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)

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)

The Proud Boys are not white supremacists. Their leader is Afro Cuban and many of their members are mixed races. You can say the media claims them to be white supremacists, but the evidence shows that they are not. Come on people. This is Wikipedia, not CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.237.107 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That's probably something better served for the Proud Boys talk page, the label is something currently being discussed. Volteer1 (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TuffStuffMcG (talk • contribs)

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: [18] 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."[19] 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."[20]

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)

There is no attempt at hiding the left wing bias of the wikipedia members editors here. Even the slightly educated reader can see your bias. There are some legitimate concerns here that haven't been properly addressed by the writers and editors of this page, as well as the pages of the Proud Boys and the modern Antifa. For one, the Proud Boys can't be white supremacists if their members are mixed race. Two, the Proud Boys were created to fight back against Antifa violence, not the other way around. There is clear evidence of this if you actually search for it. Third, the writing is completely biased; you can say the left wing media labels them white supremacists, but the evidence shows they clearly are not. The white supremacists label was created by the left and left wing media as an attempt at character assassination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.237.107 (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This is all probably a discussion better had at Talk:Proud Boys, but I'll reply here anyway:

• For one, the Proud Boys can't be white supremacists if their members are mixed race. ^{[citation needed]}
• Two, the Proud Boys were created to fight back against Antifa violence, not the other way around. Where has anyone suggested that antifa was created to fight the Proud Boys? Antifa far predates the Proud Boys, so if this suggestion is being made somewhere please point it out and I can fix it.
• Third, the writing is completely biased; you can say the left wing media labels them white supremacists, but the evidence shows they clearly are not. Again, ^{[citation needed]} If you have any reliable sources saying that they are not white nationalists, left-wing, right-wing, or any other wing, please provide them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

• See WP:SSEFAR. It's standard practice to describe white nationalist organizations as such whenever reliable sourcing is unambiguous per WP:NOTCENSORED. --Aquillion (talk) 12:46, 22 March 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)

Seems like important information to include

Sources: ^{[1] [2] [3]} YeetMachete (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Yeetmachete

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