Talk:Enrique Tarrio

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2023

Request to change photo to reflect he is a convicted criminal; the photo in a suit suggests he is a professional, which he most certainly is not! 50.208.129.241 (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you should put this as a discussion with an alternative photo which meets Wikipedia's licensing requirements, but I see no reason why the current photo stays for ever as long as a suitable replacement is suggested and for which consensus is met. TarnishedPath^talk 02:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.hstoday.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Screenshot-2023-09-05-at-33535-PM.png

Perhaps this would work: The mugshot released by the Alexandria Sheriff's office. 174.51.18.230 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Contrast is horrible and I doubt the licence is compatible with Wikipedia's licence requirements. I'm not a fan of the current photo but you'll need to suggest better. TarnishedPath^talk 02:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. – Recoil16 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Image has now changed (see "Photos" heading below) so this discussion is now moot. No need to continue. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Photos

I've just swapped the photos in the article. My reasoning for this is: news stories on Tarrio's conviction commonly use photos of him wearing a sunglasses and a hat, and the New York Times states that he is "rarely seen without his uniform of sunglasses and a baseball cap". As such the photo I've moved into the infobox is more representative of his appearance. I've also swapped out what appears the files at Commons to have been a photoshopped version of a photo where he had allowed himself to be photographed posing very formally in front of the Confederate flag - why the flag was removed is unclear. I've added the original with the flag. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I see that this was discussed at Talk:Enrique Tarrio/Archive 2#Propaganda image must go, with concerns being raised that the flag was also photoshopped, which seems likely. I've swapped the blank background photo in. I have no concerns with being reverted outright here if other editors think that the result of the 2021 discussion over the most suitable infobox photo hold. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That image where he was in front of a confederate flag needs to go, whether it's been removed or not. TarnishedPath^talk 10:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I support your change to have a photo showing what he looked like doing things he was known to do. TarnishedPath^talk 10:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Restored the image with the gray background, as previously discussed. Whether the subject is known for wearing sunglasses, the lead image should recognizably look like the subject; with hat and glasses we can barely see his face. We of course can have a image of his typical look at a rally elsewhere in the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The photo where he's wearing a hat and sunglasses could reasonably be added, but should not replace the lead photo (File:Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys (retouched).jpg) for reasons I described in the last discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are we not just using his mugshot then? 70.16.143.20 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC (Which photo of Enrique Tarrio should we use in the article infobox?)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for either image, of the two RfC options. Reasonable arguments of similar weight have been made against both options by similar proportions, particular A being unduly promotional, and B having an obscured appearance. As discussion opposes both images more than they support them, and there has been discussion about other options, the infobox should use neither "A" or "B" and discussion should continue assessing other images. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

---

(No change is required as a direct result of this discussion, as neither image was used in the infobox at the time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC))

Which photo of Enrique Tarrio should we use in the article infobox? TarnishedPath^talk 02:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

A Portrait of Enrique Tarrio (original)

B Tarrio at a gathering in 2020

Survey

• B, The photo shows what he looked like doing things he was known to do. Additionally, despite the fact that he is wearing sunglasses and a hat he is clearly distinguishable. TarnishedPath^talk 07:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• B is more representative and less promotional. The alternative has been digitally altered from its original by Wikipedians and is thus inappropriate. Feoffer (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, it is inappropriate for Wikipedians to alter a problematic upload from an SPA with no reliable sourcing so as to remove evidence that the upload was "obviously photoshopped". Feoffer (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain your position, which has no basis in policy and is pushing AGF a bit, in the discussion section? VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

pushing AGF a bit To clarify, I'm not accusing anyone of duplicity or anything else bad faith. Our local retoucher probably didn't even notice the original image was a photomanip, I didn't until it was pointed out to me. Feoffer (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

What, for the love of Jimbo, makes you think a digital background in a portrait is problematic? VQuakr (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR, It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light. IF we could verify the original image was with a revolutionary flag, it would not be okay for us to photoshop that flag out. In this case, obvious photoshopping means we can't even verify the SPA's image is authentic. Feoffer (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

No, that policy is irrelevant here. This is a background to a portrait, not a materially significant change that distorts the facts or position illustrated by the image. VQuakr (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think setting a precedence to use photoshopped images for any reason in Wikipedia of all places can be dangerous. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@MaximusEditor: Green screen backgrounds are used all over the place in WP already in portraits. It's not a precedent nor is it contentious. The relevant policy is WP:IMAGEOR, which precludes image manipulation that changes facts or position related to a subject. That's not a concern here. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand that there inevitably are greenscreen background images used in Wikipedia. A vast majority of them will be non-trivial. I wasn't even commenting that it was the use case in this particular RFC's subject matter. I was simply stating my personal preference, of erring on the side of non-greenscreened/manipulatied photos. Thank you for clarifying the policy though, I will take it under advisement and agree with your assessment. MaximusEditor (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• A per past consensus, and my arguments there — in brief, that we prefer higher-quality images where the subject's face is not obscured (such as by a hat and sunglasses). Removing a background (that was clearly photoshopped into the original upload, I might add) does not make the image unsuitable — in fact, in this case, it makes it more suitable for use. Feoffer's comment that digitally altering a photograph automatically makes it inappropriate is not at all supported by policy or common practice. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• A has everything we want in a lead photo; subject clear and not obscured (other than the hand on his face), looking towards the camera. B has some obscuration due to the hat and sunglasses in the midst of a more chaotic scene and he's not looking to the camera, making it a good body photo. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• A is more suitable as a lead image, since it clearly shows the subject's face (it would be even better if we had one where the hand isn't obscuring part of it, but so far as I can find we don't have a free image of him like that.) B is more suitable for use in the article body. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• A Clear view of his face. Option B has him wearing a hat, sunglasses, and not looking towards the camera. Some1 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• B Per the thread above, this is the appearance Tarrio is best known for according to the New York Times. News articles on him commonly use photos depicting him in similar attire attire rather than a business suit. Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• B I think that both photos have strengths and weaknesses. But I find photo B better represents what Tarrio is best known for. The cap and the sunglasses are part of his image, and the tactical gear, the walkie talkie, and especially the strangely colored American flag patches, one on his cap which has an assault rifle on it, and the other has a reference to 5.11 Tactical. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• B Like the last RFC we had on this, I think B is a better photo. In its unedited form, the previous version of A was clearly intended as propaganda and therefore inappropriate. But I do still think that A, even after editing, is intended by Tarrio to promote a certain image of himself (namely, as the leader of an ordinary conservative organization and not, y'know, a fascist gang) and therefore has WP:POV issues. I also am not a huge fan of using an edited image of Tarrio no matter how well it shows his face. Loki (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I also want to point out that, while people have been saying that A is a "higher quality" image, from a pure image editing perspective that's not actually true. They're very similar image quality pictures, to the point that trying to pick out which one is better is not really possible. Loki (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• A, the key purpose of an infobox image is to portray the subject. What he's "best known for" is both subjective and irrelevant. No objection to the use of B elsewhere in the article. VQuakr (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• B, the other photo is still nothing but propaganda regardless if the background flag has been blanked out. It's fruit from a poisoned tree. The photo is so bad that it shouldn't even be considered a reasonable choice in the first place and I'm really disappointed in the people who are picking A now and in the past. Clarity, resolution, face not obscured, face looking at camera, and all these trivial matters are ridiculous arguments to override one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia: that we are neutral. You are being blinded by the details and not seeing the bigger picture. Choosing A is basically saying "Hey, controversial people, send us your most biased picture possible that sends the rosiest message it can about you and so long as it's professionally/technically well done, we'll use it!". The fact that some of you supporting A are administrators is awful are severely calls into question your judgement as far as I'm concerned. An article without a picture would be better than using A. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• B - scrolling through Google images indicates this is what he looks like, this is who he is. The other option looks like he might have been sitting in court waiting to be sentenced to 22 years. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 23:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• I still prefer image A, as per the original discussion. Arguments about WP not using digitally altered images is nonsense; I spent over a decade editing images here. Many are infobox or primary images. Feel free to post any requests on my talk page. @Feoffer I'd be happy to correct any image editing artifacts but I couldn't spot any. Are you sure you were looking at the full-resolution image? What you saw may have been compression artifacts. nagualdesign 18:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• A I'm not really fond of either image and if that's the case on a RFC question about an infobox image I'll just lean back on the previous consensus choice. Nemov (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support B - Agree with User:Feoffer's comments about B being "more representative and less promotional". At the same time though, I agree with other editor's comments about B being "obscured". I'm not sure either of these options are great. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• B More representative of what the subject is notable for. Subject's face is not obscured, other than by the sunglasses. I also think "A"'s face is more obscured because of the hand in front of the face. Wes sideman (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• A Because in "B" he is not recognizable. --93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) — 93.45.229.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  This is simply not true and a personal attack. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This IP has been blocked for edit warring on a different article. Wes sideman (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• @LokiTheLiar Please remove the falsity you entered (namely, "has made few or no other edits outside this topic"). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect here, that is:

  a) not really my accusation: the tag was meant to summarize Wes_sideman's comment below.

  b) as far as I can tell, true (almost all your edits are not just about politics but usually a fairly narrow band of politics, especially extremist right-wing or libertarian politics). Loki (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  My edits involve articles on liberalism, libertarianism, fascism, racism, futurism, pantarchism, iusnaturalism, militianism, racial separatism, whig history, conservatism, religion, etc., etc. This is not necessarily related to Enrique Tarrio ("this topic"). Your argument can be applied to all the editors of this article, even yourself. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Long tangent about the definition of "conspiracy theory"

Based on this IP's POV statements at Talk:Antifa_(United_States), and their interactions with both Doug Weller and Grayfell, I believe their stated reason above is misleading, and they have a different motivation in calling for "A" that they are not stating here. I don't know if that affects how the RfC survey is considered, but I felt it was important to provide some context regardless. Wes sideman (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC) You made an edit on another article just to go against me (the one about religion in Italy)-of which I am the one who originally added the information about the decline of religious practice. You wrote a conspiracy theory (comment below) that instead of the Betsy Ross there was the Confederate flag. But yes, you are the neutral one. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Conspiracy theory? TarnishedPathtalk 23:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Read VQuakr's comment. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) I did. They stated that people claiming it was a confederate flag are doing so inaccurately, as it is a Betsy Ross flag. Obviously people have been mistaken in claiming it is a confederate flag. People can make mistakes. You've provided no evidence of anyone promoting conspiracy theories. If I were in your position, given the contents of your talk page, I wouldn't be throwing around WP:ASPERSIONs that anyone is promoting conspiracy theories. TarnishedPathtalk 02:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC) "Hypothetical speculation that is untrue or outlandish." https://www.wordnik.com/words/conspiracy%20theory 93.45.229.98 (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) They weren't engaging in hypothetical speculation that is untrue or outlandish. They were plainly incorrect, mistaken. It happens. Again, you've thrown around WP:ASPERSIONs and given the contents of your talk page I'd suggest you not do so. TarnishedPathtalk 10:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) "I believe the original photo had the Confederate flag in the background" is a hypothetical speculation that is untrue or outlandish. So stop refusing to get the point. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC) No, it's a mistaken belief. You have no point. Refer to my previous comments. TarnishedPathtalk 10:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) It can be both. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC) The phrase "hypothetical speculation that is untrue or outlandish" gives no value judgment of the person promoting it. A person can also promote the speculation by believing it to be true (i.e., a mistaken belief). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) It is a Betsy Ross flag per the pin on his jacket and the original photo which you can see here.[1] It was flown by a number of right wingers during the January 6 United States Capitol attack.[2] Doug Weller talk 12:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC) A few editors have been mistaken, which happens. There's no doubt that it is as you say a Betsy Ross flag. The IP however has taken it upon themselves to claim that those who were mistaken were promoting conspiracy theories, which is incorrect and should cease. TarnishedPathtalk 12:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC) It definitely needs to stop. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Next time I'll use the term falsehoods, so misunderstandings will be avoided. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC) So you're pivoting to claiming that people were pushing falsehoods now? TarnishedPathtalk 14:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) I got things to do. Have a good day. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• B Along with conversations above, this photo is more representative of what Enrique is notable for and is itself a high quality photo. 198.145.150.65 (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
• A His face is simply too obscured in the other. ~ HAL333 19:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Neither B obscures too much of his face. Compare to Roy Orbison and Sean Combs, where the face is only slightly to the side. The glasses are not completely opaque, and no hat is worn. A is a more clear shot but less neutral. Senorangel (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• A of course, looking at camera, face unobscured. Use B in body.--GRuban (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• B-(Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I would go with the notion previously echoed by many that a photo giving weight to more of what the subject is known for over choice "A". MaximusEditor (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• A per VQuakr. Should we use this image of Putin because it's "what he's known for"?^{[just kidding]} Cremastra (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment to closer I count !votes as 11-10 in favor of B, discounting an SPA ip !voter. I note that rationales supporting A are accused of being weak, both by myself and other commenters. Many rationales deny that images should be "representative". Some simply cite past consensus. Others simply ignore the WP:V and WP:NPOV concerns that have been raised and state a personal preference. In contrast, multiple rationales raise well-founded concerns about A's inclusion in the article. There is no consensus to include A in the article. Feoffer (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Feoffer, I think any closer is well placed to make a solid assessment. I'd called for a closer at WP:CR a couple of days ago given that discussion/voting had slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• It's not clear to me why an RfC is needed here when consensus was already reached on this topic two years ago. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:CCC? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare, per @Muboshgu's comment. Also there's been editing around this in the last few days and I think it would be preferable if it wasn't reverted back and forth. TarnishedPath^talk 01:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it should remain at the prior consensus image (the one marked A in this RfC) unless/until new consensus emerges. Indeed consensus can change; an RfC just seems a bit like overkill, but no harm if that's the route you'd like to go. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  To be honest with Nick's thread above I thought a new consensus had emerged. That obviously wasn't the case. You are correct that the image should remain as the previously arrived at consensus unless/until new consensus emerges. TarnishedPath^talk 01:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Don't speak too soon! There's still most of a month of RFC-time to go! Loki (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging @Recoil16, @Nick-D, @VQuakr, @Jason Quinn, @Cullen328, @Nagualdesign, @Adolphus79 and @TuffStuffMcG as editors who have previously been involved in this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 01:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Am I the only one who finds the photoediting artifacts in A to be SUPER jarring? His right shoulder is especially hard to ignore. Feoffer (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Even after the confederate flag has been edited out, I find it problematic that he's displayed in a promotional manner. TarnishedPath^talk 04:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I understand and agree with wanting to nix the flag, but I don't understand how a plain portrait can be "display[ing someone] in a promotional manner". For the sake of example, I'll pick two photos from the main page right now: File:Adele for Vogue in 2021.png &nbsp File:Pedro Sánchez in 2023.jpg

How is this photo more "promotional" than these? Or any of these? GorillaWarfare :(she/her • talk) 04:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

For me it's a matter of tone. It projects an image of him that doesn't gel with who he actually is, which is a common thug and criminal. I don't know either of those other two people (I'm Australian, so I'm not automatically going to know who every American personality is) so I can't comment on how the images you've presented may or may not be promotional in any sense. TarnishedPath^talk 05:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

How is this photo more "promotional" than these?

Aside from things others have said, we wikipedians actually took it upon ourselves to "sanitize" his confederate flag image in a way that makes him seem more professional than the original image. That's crossing a hard NPOV line. Feoffer (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This gets to a topic that was covered at the last discussion, where I'll just repeat what I said then: The neutral option here is to use the best photo available for all subjects, not try to apply value judgments to article subjects to determine who gets to have a flattering photo. As came up in that conversation, articles for subjects like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy are all quite high-quality and generally flattering, even though all of those people are almost universally considered to have been monstrous individuals. That's because we use the highest-quality free image available, not the ones that we think portray our personal value judgments on the subject. (The examples are English pop singer Adele and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, by the way). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Feoffer, I prefer the sans-flag image to the with-flag one (in no small part because it's a lot less visually busy, and the flag is very obviously photoshopped in to the original photo), but would still take with-flag over hat-and-sunglasses. That said, I disagree that removing a portion of an image that's not relevant to what it's meant to show, such as the background in a portrait of a person, is a NPOV issue. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

obviously photoshopped in to the original photo WP:V isn't met -- We shouldn't be publishing a WP:SPS that's obviously photoshopped. Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, can you point to the policy or guideline you're referencing? Wikipedia routinely uses photos that are retouched/photoshopped, and there's no "verifiability" concern. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"Retouched" is not the extent of the possibilities. The image, which is VERY unrepresentative of the subject, might be created from whole cloth. The mugshot and protest photo aren't SPS. Feoffer (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This is covered by MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. A retouched image or even a painted portrait would be fine provided they look like the subject. VQuakr (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think both are high quality images, the fact that in the second one he is wearing sunglasses and a hat makes him no less distinguishable. Given that I consider both to be high quality then I guess for me other things are fair game for consideration. TarnishedPath^talk 05:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

If the choices are between a photo with a confederate flag edited out and the man on the wrong side of a conflict at an historic black church, then the options for flattering portrayals are limited. Ender and Peter 17:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, what was originally behind him in photo A? Just an office wall of some kind? Or a green screen? Why not use the original version of photo A if someone slanderously added a confederate flag? Ender and Peter 17:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Enderandpeter:, I believe the original photo had the Confederate flag in the background. It was edited out to create option A. Wes sideman (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

But some have been arguing that the flag was edited in. If so, what was in fact the original background? Why is the only appropriate image of this person one that has to be digitally edited? If there was a picture of the article subject with a natural normal background, surely we'd be looking at it.

I would not be surprised if Option B is more neutral than his self-photos. Take a moment to realize that proponents of Option A are advocating for taking time to remove unflattering imagery from his promotional portraits... imagery that, likely, his supporters consider flattering. Ender and Peter 18:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not a discussion of your political positions and/or baseless claims. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wes sideman: the original had a Betsy Ross American flag in the background, which was visually distracting. Not a confederate flag as some have inaccurately stated. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

You are right. I am looking more closely at the flag in the original image compared to the 13-stripe, 13-star Betsy Ross flag and it does look more like that than the stars and bars flags. Yes, that is worth clarifying. Ender and Peter 05:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Jason Quinn, it appears to be you who are having problems maintaining neutrality. Your comments make it clear that you want the subject of the article to be presented in a more negative light, and you think photo B does that. This is not our purpose. The article tells people who the subject is and they make up their own minds on what they read. Regarding how you're really disappointed in the people who are picking A now and now question [our] judgement, remember to assume good faith and focus on content, not on contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• I did not suggest I want him portrayed in a negative light so your reply is off-base. What I have suggested (and stated before) is photo A was deliberately uploaded to portray him in a positive light and that it is non-neutral. I do not think removal of the flag background solved this. The single-purpose account that uploaded this photo likely has directly affiliation with the article's subject which compounds the question of this photo's neutral status. But let's now talk about photo B too: it's literally of picture of him in public doing the kind of thing that made him newsworthy. In a very real sense, it is objectively a fair representation of him that is connected to his reason for being notable by our standard; saying so requires no judgment call regarding whether it puts him in a more positive or negative light. So the choices presented here are between a photo of him doing that for which he made national headlines, and a derivative image (hence "fruit from a poisoned tree" comment) of what is perhaps literally among most obvious propaganda photos imaginable. The former is a reasonable neutral choice whereas the latter is not. The technical properties suggested for choosing A do not fix its inherent non-neutrality. Regarding the rest of your comment, good faith and poor judgement are not mutually exclusive ideas. I have clearly stated the arguments why I believe this image violates our neutrality pillar. This is not a circumstance where I think the arguments on each side are comparably sound. The technical and trivial reasons people are suggesting to prefer A, if allowed to sway neutrality questions, are an existential threat to the trustworthiness of Wikipedia itself. We should not tolerate such obvious manipulation of articles by the subjects themselves, let alone embrace it by groupthink. So, even assuming good faith, I still maintain supporting A is extremely poor judgement that demonstrates a very grave misunderstanding of the kind of neutral encyclopedia originally envisioned for Wikipedia and I do hold administrators to a higher standard for having a deep understanding of not only our policies but most importantly their purpose. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

you want the subject of the article to be presented in a more negative light

That's not what Jason, Isaidnoway, or the rest of us are saying at all. NPOV requires us to be representative of what's depicted in RS. Tarrio is never depicted in RSes as a man sitting behind a desk -- we are completely alone in depicting him that way, and sure enough, it's because the user who uploaded this image had a Conflict of Interest and was, at best, editing on behalf of the subject, if not creating an image out of whole cloth. Feoffer (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Just specify that it is a promotional portrait (i.e., "Promotional portrait, 2020"). In Photo B, the cap covers the head and the glasses cover the eyes. In addition, it's a side-view photo. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's say my counter-arguments to the most representative photo argument are:

- Tarrio's typical uniform is the black and yellow Fred Perry polo shirt, not the mission impossible suit with the bulletproof vest;

- At formal conservative conferences he uses the blue suit (e.g., the Turning Point USA conference). See photos with Donald Trump Jr. and Ted Cruz;

- The eyes are not visible; eye color should not be taken for granted;

- Covered head;

- Facial features are less visible in photo B.

Plus even in photo B there are distracting elements: the U.S. flag with the motto "Always Be Ready" and the come and take it rifle flag. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, a review of commons reveals that the image which A was based off was uploaded by a WP:SPA, commons:User:Peterdukephoto. Online searches for them reveals their Facebook page where they push MAGA. They even have promotional photos of Tarrio, promoting him for congress. This is way over the top POV pushing. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's bad enough for a COIed SPA to upload an unrepresentative subject photo, but in the ensuing discussion, we've learned that it's actually an obviously-photoshopped unrepresentative photo. After discussion, inclusion of A in the article remains controversial. Feoffer (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know how things work in commons. Is that sort of thing covered by their policies? TarnishedPath^talk 12:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Oh it's a clear violation of COM:ADVERT, but one step at a time; first priority is document a lack of consensus for its inclusion in the article. Feoffer (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  It is not a violation of ADVERT, nor is it problematic at all to use. I'm also not clear on why anyone thinks retouching is a problem; this is ubiquitous in modern portraits. I believe the removal of the American flag background was by User:Nagualdesign, not the original uploader. VQuakr (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  To expand, photos released by an entity connected to a public figure are in common use everywhere in Wikipedia. Compare with Dick Durbin or Charles Koch, for example. The suggestion that this is somehow a flagrant violation of any policy or guideline is, to be frank, absurd. As for the background - Feoffer are you really not familiar with green screen portraits? Are my children's school pictures somehow less authentic because the background is inserted digitally? These are frivolous issues being raised. VQuakr (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  Well, we're repeating ourselves here. Dick Durbin and Charles Koch's images are representative of their depictions in RSes, while Tarrio is never depicted in RSes as a man behind a desk. Per many other voices, the Tarrio PR image failes NPOV. Feoffer (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, that's a different frivolous argument. Are you conceding, then, that your reasonings about COI, ADVERT, and retouching are silly? Charles Koch is infrequently pictured standing in a field, yet our picture of him in his biography does so. Do you believe that's a NPOV issue as well? Can you see how your position (that a mugshot is not a NPOV issue but sitting behind a desk somehow is), is not a position that results in you being taken seriously as an editor? It should not be our goal as editors to portray subjects in a particular light, especially in a BLP. VQuakr (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Are you conceding, then, that your reasonings about COI, ADVERT, and retouching are silly? Nope, don't know how you got that out of anything I've said.

  your position (that a mugshot is not a NPOV issue but sitting behind a desk somehow is)

  The mug shot has been used in RSes, the promo image has not -- I can WP:Verify the mug shot is an actual image of the subject, not fan art. We have guidelines on how to use mugshots, I wouldn't have agreed with the use of a mugshot prior to sentencing, but a mugshot is a fine NPOV representation of someone notable for their multi-decade prison sentence. IF we didn't have other options, we would just upload the mug and be on our way. Feoffer (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Nope, don't know how you got that out of anything I've said. Then don't change the subject until you've addressed those items. VQuakr (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Mugshot

Is there a reason we can't use Tarrio's mugshot, which is readily available and (I think) constitutes fair use? There are plenty of other articles about people mainly known for criminal activity that include mugshots as the profile pic, so this can't be all that controversial a choice. It's a high-quality image, head-on, unobscured. Wes sideman (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This image?

It's a lower-quality image than either A or B and using a mugshot presents similar-but-reverse NPOV problems to image A. I would object using a mugshot on any article, certainly any article where the subject of the article's primary source of notability is something other than being a criminal. Loki (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I certainly think the mugshot is preferable to A if it is available to us to use, I'm unsure how much agreement it would get though. TarnishedPath^talk 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I would prefer no image to either A or the mugshot (but not B). Loki (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I certainly prefer no image to A. Feoffer (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That's why I stated I'm unsure how much agreement that photo would get. As far as I'm concerned B is my preferred photo, but I would take the mugshot over A if it came down to a third option. TarnishedPath^talk 01:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

My views align closely to TarnishedPath's. As I've made clear above, for me A is unacceptable on neutrality grounds. While I agree mugshots can present a neutrality issue, I reject any false equivalence suggested between A and the mugshot over neutrality; the non-neutrality concerns with the mugshot are minimal when viewed in context. So the contending choices are between B, the mugshot, and no photo. I do not feel strongly between these three remaining choices. Perhaps I lean slightly towards B although any of the three will find no objection from me. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The mugshot is an obvious choice and we absolutely should use it. Feoffer (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know much about this person, but would the mugshot be acceptable in this case per WP:MUG? Nemov (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:MUG states that generally police photos shouldn't be used "[b]ecause a police booking photograph can imply that the person depicted was charged with or convicted of a specific crime". In this situation he was both charged and convicted, receiving 22 years for his involvement in the January 6 insurrection. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but he's earned the distinction of receiving the longest sentence so far out of anyone involved in the insurrection. TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:MUG approves of our usage -- conviction has been obtained and it's a primary source of the subject's notoriety. We wouldn't want to use a MUG before sentencing, but there's no BLP issue with a mug from someone sentenced to multiple decades for a notable crime. Feoffer (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Based on WP:MUG, and the fact that Tarrio has been convicted and sentenced to 22 years, and this discussion, I think the mugshot is a better option than A or B. Wes sideman (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Wes sideman, that image was previously used in a part of of the article lower down from the infobox. At some point it's been removed and I don't know why. I had a quick look through the revision history to a point where it was in and it doesn't seem to be in commons anymore. We'd need to know why it was removed if we were going to consider removing using it again. TarnishedPath^talk 12:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Image was removed in this edit by @ImageRemovalBot. There's a bit of any essay on the user talk page which explains why that might be the case. Basically we can't just claim fair use and stick it up, that's my reading. TarnishedPath^talk 12:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. There are hundreds of mug shots in commons that are marked as "fair use"; why would this particular one be any different? Wes sideman (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe there's something that needs to actually be done to make it clear that it's fair use because it was produced by a government department and no one owns the copyright and whoever uploaded the photo didn't do that? I don't know. I've never uploaded media to commons before. TarnishedPath^talk 12:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There are zero images on commons marked as "fair use"; if you see any, please point them out, and they will be hastily deleted. The entire point of Wikimedia Commons is to only host free, not fair use, images. --GRuban (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

If an FBI mugshot is available (i.e., a public domain mugshot) with proper contrasts and good resolution I am in favor with the proposal. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a freely-licensed version available? This was recently deleted at WP:Files_for_discussion/2023_November_12#File:Alexandria_Virginia_sheriffs_office_photo_of_Enrique_Tarrio.png I believe. Fair use isn't going to work per WP:NFCCP #1 and #8. VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That was predicated on the assumption that a free alternative existed. This RFC demonstrates it doesn't. Feoffer (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Non-free images of living people rarely are kept after a NFCC challenge because most non-free images aren't necessary for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject (criterion #8). VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think most editors would agree that a mugshot, in this case, is necessary for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, as his primary notability comes from his arrest, conviction, and sentencing to 22 years in prison. Wes sideman (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

As noted, generally no. Saying in text the subject's legal status conveys the same information. The subject was absolutely notable prior to his legal troubles. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@VQuakr, do you have an understanding of how the photo classifies as "non-free"? My limited understanding of US copyright law is that any US government authority, including police/sheriffs/etc, can't hold copyright. That therefore means that any content they produce including mugshots is without copyright and is therefore necessarily free for any and every usage. Is my understanding incorrect? TarnishedPath^talk 23:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Harvard lists Virginia govt documents as presumably public domain, but some other states do copyright their works. But even from those states, I've never known us to challenge a mugshot except with the justification that it's unnecessary because of a free equivalent. Feoffer (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

From my limited knowledge I thought the only exception lies where a government body has a private business produce copyrightable works. There's a wiki article on it at Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States, I just discovered. TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Feoffer you are correct, it varies between states. So next question, and this might seem like a dumb one because I'm Australian not a US citizen, who produced that mugshot? Is that a federal government thing, from the District of Columbia or a state police thing or a county sheriff thing? Where did it come from exactly? TarnishedPath^talk 23:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on the overlay it appears to have been created by the Alexandria Police Department, but I am not an expert. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: I specifically asked about that in the files for deletion discussion above; it was answered there. @Feoffer: see WP:Files_for_discussion/2020_June_4#File:Derek_Chauvin.jpg for another example. I don't know how to be any clearer that non-free mugshots of living persons are routinely deleted under NFCC; it's not something I'm just making up. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies; if you find our practice too conservative (a defensible position), strive to change our policies. VQuakr (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@VQuakr, it seems like something that is ripe for potential gaming, not suggesting that actually occurred, if no exploration is done about the origins of an image and if it is without actual copyright or not. TarnishedPath^talk 23:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The presumption on Wikipedia is that all images are non-free unless proven otherwise, per WMF:Resolution:Licensing policy. Like it or not, that's not a policy that we as editors have the ability to directly change per WP:CONEXCEPT. VQuakr (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I've found this in any case. The image is not in the public domain. "Virginia law specifies that copyrightable materials created by state employees within the scope of their employment are the intellectual property of the commonwealth". The way it was being used in the article previously was only for decorative purposes and there was no commentary about the image at all. There was no transformative usage and as such it didn't come anywhere close to fair usage. In that context I'm not surprised it was deleted. TarnishedPath^talk 23:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

We simply cannot use a non-free image in a biography of a living person. Especially when freely licensed images of that person are available. It is out of the question. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand. TarnishedPath^talk 03:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

We simply cannot use a non-free image in a biography of a living person That's simply not so. It might be harder to get consensus for such an image, especially when we have B, but it's not inherently impossible. Feoffer (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

No, a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not let us violate policy on this. VQuakr (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not technically impossible. See WP:NFC: non-free content can be used in narrow circumstances, and as far as I can tell there's no specific exception for BLPs. But since B is definitely a free photo of Tarrio that we could use, we definitely fail the criteria for the use of non-free content on this article. Loki (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: yeah but you're answering a different question here. I'm aware of NFCC, of course; that's not the suggestion I replied to. An image either meets NFCC for a particular article or it doesn't; that's not a decision subject to consensus as suggested by Feoffer. VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Feoffer, can you provide a single example of a biography of a living person that includes a non-free image of that person? Cullen328 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, hundreds. Not sure if I should, though -- if I show you a big pile of beans, aren't you just going to want to stuff them up your nose? Feoffer (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"Trust me, bro..." but that's not what WP:BEANS says. You may be thinking of WP:POINT. VQuakr (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Another image

I think the lighting, angle, and posture on File:Proud Boys at Richmond gun rally 2020.jpg are all marginally better than "B" above, and the resolution appears adequate that we could crop it down for a lead image. It still has some of the same recognizability issues as B but at least the quality is better. Probably it's a little late in the RFC to be adding more options, but I figured it's worth linking here. VQuakr (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It's my new favorite, great find! Feoffer (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@VQuakr, I don't know if it's the done thing but you could ping everyone who's entered a choice in the survey and obtain their consent to enter a C option and if obtained enter it in? Then if everyone agrees that would also give people the option of changing their vote or choosing a main preference and a secondary preference. I don't know if that's permissible or not? I'd think the image would need to be cropped to remove a lot of the people around him though. As the RfC mover I have no objection.

Another option is that I withdraw this RfC and we start again, with a crop of the image you've found as C but I think we've already past the point where that is permissible given the amount of people that have entered votes? And that would run the risk of severely pissing a lot of people off given the effort they've already gone to. I don't really think it's an option at this point. TarnishedPath^talk 10:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the utility of the RFC is establishing that A's inclusion is controversial with many editors, while some of the editors who don't share those concerns prefer A at top but don't object to B's inclusion in the article. Once we get that settled, B vs C at the top would likely be a simple !vote of personal preferences. (A really should have been sent to FFD, but none of us knew that at the time the RFC started. ) Feoffer (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Seems like the original discussion/votes has mostly run its course, with a slight leaning in the direction of the non-propaganda image. I put that image back in the infobox. As for option C, I'm all for it, as I think it's a slight improvement over B. I think we're ready to have that discussion now. Wes sideman (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Wes sideman, I I wouldn't do that. My reading of the vote so far is 10 B and 8 A. I'm not sure how an RfC closure would read that given the discussion and more might come in yet. I would urge you to self revert and wait until the conclusion. TarnishedPath^talk 14:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hasn't been a new vote favoring either in a week, and the reasoning by the 10 B votes seems much more grounded in policy than most of the 8 A votes. Having said that, I would also prefer C over either of the two, as may some others. Wes sideman (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

They typically run a month. Certainly no one involved, myself included, should be closing it! That said, I agree with Feoffer that I think an alternative like a crop from the one linked above meets the spirit of those !votes and can be determined with a quick discussion after the RfC. There's also nothing stopping us from swapping out B with the newer one (I prefer "B2" but that's just me) in the article body immediately. VQuakr (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think a crop of B2 would meet the spirit of B1 (We have a children's show in Australia called bananas in pyjamas where the bananas are called B1 and B2). TarnishedPath^talk 00:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

no one involved, myself included, should be closing it! VQuakr speaks the truth. INVOLVED closures are really only permissible when they're "without objection", and no one is surprised that there was an objection in this particular case. Feoffer (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with C/B2/whatever we're calling it, but hold it to be basically equivalent to B. I don't really prefer either of them to the other. Loki (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed that File:Proud Boys at Richmond gun rally 2020.jpg is slightly better than option B above, so I would support replacing the in-text image with it. I don't think it makes sense to have both it and option B, as it is now, because they are so similar. It doesn't resolve my concerns about the obscuring of his face, however, so I remain in support of option A for the infobox. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I moved it to the relevant section and removed the redundant old one. VQuakr (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Given the results of the RfC how does everyone now feel about using this image? TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I voted for B in the RFC anyway so I definitely support it. Loki (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see "no" image on the article now. The options aren't perfect, but I think we're cutting off our nose to spite our face to not show any when we do have options. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

There was an a cropped image of Enrique being used in the body previously. I don’t know why it was removed from the body however there has been discussion on it. TarnishedPath^talk 23:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@VQuakr, TarnishedPath, LokiTheLiar, and Muboshgu: Any image can be boldly added into the infobox, except for the two that were discussed and rejected in the Request for Consensus, subject to ordinary editing guidelines. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

All we have on Commons other than those two are the original of Photo A with the Betsy Ross flag (hard pass) or a photo that's similar to Photo B, but worse. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

How about the mugshot? It was deleted before because it wasn't used as the primary means of identification, but we could use it instead. Feoffer (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It would get deleted again for the same reasons it got deleted last time and we have alternative options, see my comment below. TarnishedPath^talk 02:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It would get deleted again

Last time it got deleted because it wasn't being used as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article. With a consensus here to use it in that way, it could be added to the article and protected from deletion. -- IF we can agree that's the best image. Feoffer (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the odds of that happening. TarnishedPath^talk 10:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

One step at a time. Do you think the cropped mugshot would be an improvement over the face-obscured gun rally pic? I do, especially since it doesn't even let the reader know it's a mug shot -- no orange jumpsuits, just a neutral-colored t-shirt. Feoffer (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to go through another discussion in which we end up with consensus to not use two options. TarnishedPath^talk 10:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Feoffer: I don't know and don't care the specific reasons given last time for deletion but using a NFCC images for simple identification of a living person is rarely, if ever acceptable even when alternatives have not been found despite an extensive search. There has been some suggestions it should be okay when extensive searches have been made for a free images and for whatever reason it's difficult or impossible to to photograph the subject e.g. they're known to avoid or publicity or are locked up by some despotic regime which doesn't allow the person contact with the outside world, but even in that case AFAIK we don't have consensus it's okay. What we do have is clear consensus that that it's not acceptable when there are any existing free images. If editors have rejected the free images, this doesn't change the assessment. Note that rarely an image may be acceptable to use for some other purpose e.g. an iconic image of the person could be shown somewhere other than the infobox. I'd note that you've claimed below there are plenty of cases where NFCC images were used for simple identification of living persons but then rejected telling us about them apparently because you don't want us enforcing a fundamental pillar which isn't a good thing but isn't something to deal with except that it isn't a reason to violate said fundamental pillar. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

If everyone can live with File:Proud Boys at Richmond gun rally 2020.jpg I suggest we drop it for the near future. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I said "claimed below" above, what I meant to say is "claimed above". Also I mentioned this at AN after looking more carefully, and I'll mention it here too. Note that the living person issue isn't just part of the guideline Wikipedia:Non-free content, it's comes from the foundation's own wmf:Wikimedia Licensing Policy. So this isn't simply a case of local consensus not overriding global consensus, but we as a project cannot override the WMF whether we like it or not. They've allowed us to write our own exemption doctrine, but only in so much as it doesn't go against their own policy. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne makes perfect sense when you put it in that context. TarnishedPath^talk 12:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure Nil speaks for the project on this one -- they're still arguing for the use of the controversial promo image uploaded by an SPA edit: a controversial image derived from the SPA-uploaded promo image, despite that option being clearly rejected at RFC. Feoffer (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing was "clearly rejected" by the RFC, which resulted in no consensus. The mugshot is such an obvious nonstarter per NFCC that it's a waste of energy to discuss. VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing was "clearly rejected" by the RFC

@VQuakr, that may be your reading of the discussion but that's certainly not what the close says. If you want to dispute the close I'd suggest discussing it with the closer before this becomes stale. TarnishedPath^talk 23:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: you can see the closer's talk page for follow up discussion and the appeal on AN. But regardless the closure statement, as it currently stands, does not say clearly rejected. VQuakr (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@VQuakr, thanks for the advice about those discussions. I wasn't aware. TarnishedPath^talk 02:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Muboshgu, File:Proud Boys at Richmond gun rally 2020.jpg is in commons and it is appropriately licenced. TarnishedPath^talk 02:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That's the one that I meant is similar to Photo B. I see Gorilla liked it better than B, so I'll defer to her judgment, and yours. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I've boldly made the change as suggested by @Onetwothreeip. TarnishedPath^talk 03:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• The new image looks just as "promotional" as Option A from the RfC. If we wanted to go with the less "promotional" image, then the original Option B from the RfC above is more "neutral" than this new one. I don't oppose this new image, though. Some1 (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Proud Boys were a "social media"-saavy militia that actively tried to promote their image online and even on Wikimedia projects. Amazingly, it's still working -- the NPOV choice for image is the mugshot, and we could use it if that was the only picture we had, but the existence of free images of Tarrio "in costume" are preventing us from going with the neutral cropped "likely-public-domain" booking photo. Feoffer (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Like I previously said, I have similar WP:NPOV concerns about the mugshot than I do about the professional portrait, just in reverse. I think if at all possible we should avoid going with a mugshot on an article about a living person. The current image and Option B from the RFC are both perfectly fine and neither have anywhere near the WP:NPOV concerns that either of those two images have. Loki (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Virginia mugshot is not public domain. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Harvard's State Copyright Resource Center suggests Virginia state works are Free Images. It's page on Virginia details the 2020 statute releasing "all potentially copyrightable materials under the Creative Commons or Open Source Initiative licensing system". Another source mentions "Other states, however, may be reluctant to “give up” copyright. For those states we point to basic legislative solutions such as a Creative Commons license, which maintains copyright but opens up the materials for nearly unconstrained use. This is a route that the state of Virginia has recently adopted, using the CC-BY license." Feoffer (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  CC and OSI are not the same as public domain (with some exception for CC0, but that seems unrelated in this case if they're talking about CC-BY). You've also provided an incomplete quotation of the statute, which reads more completely:

B. The Secretary of Administration shall establish policies, subject to the approval of the Governor, regarding the protection and release of patents and copyrights owned by the Commonwealth. Such policies shall include, at a minimum, the following:
1. A policy granting state agencies the authority over the protection and release of patents and copyrights created by employees of the agency. Such policy shall authorize state agencies to release all potentially copyrightable materials under the Creative Commons or Open Source Initiative licensing system, as appropriate.

Crucially, this is not a policy, it's a mandate to create a policy. Can you provide a link to a policy created as a result of this statute? Unless and until these images are actually explicitly released under a clear license or into the public domain, they have to be assumed to be non-free. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

And it's a mandate to create a policy to empower state agencies to release materials into PD, not require them. So it's several degrees removed from an actual free license on this specific picture. To be clear even if this image were free we wouldn't want to use it in the infobox due to NPOV concerns (though we would want it in the article body). VQuakr (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard discussion

There's discussion of the above RfC at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC closure review request - Enrique Tarrio. TarnishedPath^talk 00:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI, The closure review has been archived without consensus to overturn. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed it was archived. Is there supposed to be a formal close with those sorts of discussions or not necessarily? TarnishedPath^talk 05:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no requirement for a formal closure; it defaults to not overturning. VQuakr (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Neo-Facist

calling the group neo-facist needs a citstion 2603:8081:8402:A575:85F9:EA:D476:CC08 (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of citations. I suggest you read the article again. TarnishedPath^talk 04:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Date of birth

This arrest record from 2014 gives Tarrio's DOB as February 9, 1984. This information is republished from the website of the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office, and Tarrio's original jail record can be found here by typing in his legal name (Henry Tarrio) and searching for released inmates only.

Is this record acceptable to use as a citation? Comitialbulb561 (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

"Contradicted"

Tarrio denied working undercover or cooperating with prosecutions, but the court transcript contradicted the denial, and the former federal prosecutor in the proceeding against Tarrio confirmed that he cooperated.

The word can mean anything when a context is not included. One person's opinion of a "contradiction" may not be shared with others. Some substances should be provided within the Lede to lend some degree of credibility to the assertion, because given the FBI's history, I'm inclined to believe the statement is a manipulative lie, from a biased and manipulative source, such as the Prosecutor, or Law Enforcement in general, or a politically biased reporter from a politically bias media platform. So, in terms of readability, it demands something more than a simple statement of "contradiction", as if thinking and aware Readers are simply going to accept the use of that word without questions. I have questions. Others have, and will have, questions, but not so much about the "Readability" of the Article, but whether or not this, and possibly other "facts" have been cherry-picked and modified to convey a particular and intended "understanding" of the situation. And, I don't feel like putting a lot of energy into continuing to read the Article, since it expects me to just accept this statement as "fact". The answer is "No".

In terms of space and where to place what, I wonder if an internal link from the Lede could be used to "zoom" to a relevant passage in the body of the Article, thereby allowing the lack of context for the use of this word in the Lede, put providing an option for 1st-time Readers that immediately object to it.

70.94.140.138 (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

As an afterthought (vs. the gut-instinct expression of the post I am replying to), one example of how this manipulation could be employed is by simply having the Prosecutor say he "cooperated" at trial (which goes on the "court record"), and then the Article mentions that the "court record" confirms that he "cooperated", meaning using the same source (what the Prosecutor said, and what the court record said the Prosecutor said), as if the now-corroborated "fact" has come from two different sources. We learned this lesson from the Steele Dossier, and it would be wise to learn this lesson, and immediately apply the fruits of that awareness in other areas.70.94.140.138 (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)