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 mute. No need to continue. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Who authored this?

This is obviously a ridiculously bias politically driven write up. Wikipedia plays on the name on encyclopedia to make readers assume neutrality, which we all know is totally incorrect. 2603:8080:C8F0:8ED0:21FC:8E84:F073:17C7 (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

All those citations look pretty solid to me. Care to cite something to the contrary?

2601:3CA:204:F860:65C5:E4B3:4262:874A (talk) 06:34, 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)

Fascist Organization?

Employing a play book of the far left, calling Proud Boys a fascist organization can be described as a conspiracy theory. What are the qualifications of the author and or editors, that affords them the perceived expertise, to correctly identify any modern group as a fascist organization. If we are going to be that flippant about the use of that term, i would much more quickly identify Antifa as a fascist organization. First off, they use the same tactics as the Nazis storm troopers did. I took note that the Wikipedia article on Anitfa was authored by some I.Q. absconded character wearing kid gloves who is impersonating a person of knowledge. Wikipedia needs to get control of itself. it's being high-jacked by woke leftists who are divorced from reason and logic. Therefore, the antithesis of any true intellectual pursuit. 2600:1004:B1C2:E4D1:8FC:8857:2C35:A71B (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, I'm a random editor who had nothing to do with the text you object to. If you look at the end of the sentence, you'll see references to the sources that describe the organization as fascist. Wikipedians don't conduct our own original research on topics or attempt to share our own points of view, we just summarize what the existing reliable sources are saying, providing links in each case. Feoffer (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

We go with what WP:RS say around here, not with random IP's conspiracies about terms that they can't properly define. TarnishedPath^talk 23:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@2600:1004:B1C2:E4D1:8FC:8857:2C35:A71B agreed. It is an absurd and utterly false claim to call the Proud Boys a 'fascist' organization. It is a right-wing, conservative, Trump supporting drinking club that has in recent years become increasingly involved in counterprotests against Antifa et all.

Previously, they had barely been politically active at all, only becoming so after relentless false accusations by the media of being a violent extremist group. I think they leaned into political activity and taking themselves seriously, largely due to the wild mischaracterization by the medi, and I think many new members joined as a result of this manufactured identity, so it started to become something closer to what they have been made out to be (though still not extremist, or a hate group any sort). AnswerManDan (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say about the topic, and right now the sentence cites four that describe PB as fascist. Do you have reliable sources to support your characterization as a "right-wing, conservative, Trump supporting drinking club"? –dlthewave ☎ 03:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Conservatives that go onto the streets and start fights with people? You all have a funny idea of what conservatism means. TarnishedPath^talk 04:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Starting street fights doesn't necessarily make them fascist, though I do think it necessarily makes them violent extremists.

However, the sources do consistently call them fascists, so we also must call them fascists. It's literally not our choice to make. Loki (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually very few sources refer to them as fascist and none of them are by fascism experts or were published in political science journals. One of the sources used for example is from an education communications journal which refers to them as "neo-fascists," which is not the same thing. It's classic cherry-picking.

During the Weimar Republic, conservatives actually started street fights and assassinated political opponents. There was even a middle of the road paramilitary group.

The IP incidentally does themself no favors in coming across as biased and bringing up anifa, which is a red herring. TFD (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with TFD that the sources are of low quality. Samantha Kutner, a psychologist, is used as a source many times (it is always the same paper with a different publisher). What she wrote is simply that according to her Pinochet is a fascist, so the Proud Boys who support the same are crypto-fascists. However, there is no academic consensus that Pinochet was a fascist and Pinochetism is a neo-fascist ideology (semifascist ≠ neo-fascist).

The other academic source uses "protofascist." Only journalistic sources (cited in the article) and not academic sources use "neo-fascist." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

journalistic sources They're more than sufficient. It's not a big leap when their out-group term of derogation is "antifascist". Feoffer (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You can refer to the numerous sources used at Augusto Pinochet#Characterisation_as_fascist for the fact that both Pinochet himself and the military dictatorship were fascist. TarnishedPath^talk 03:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath "However, he and his government are generally excluded from academic typologies of fascism." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Go argue with the academics who have published works linked in the article above. Don't argue with me. TarnishedPath^talk 23:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There are no experts on the subject who claim Pinochet was a fascist. The only academic source I could find was from a political scientist writing from a Marxist perspective. Their definition of fascism was any pro-capitalist dictatorship, an opinion that has no mainstream support.

The first source used is an opinion piece by Andrew Neil. This is someone who set up a TV station promoting cultural Marxism conspiracy theories and anti-vax misinformation. Do you agree that he is infallible in political analysis? TFD (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

No experts in political science? Michael Parenti is an American political scientist. I'm not sure if that's who you're referring when you wrote "political scientist writing from a Marxist perspective"? Even if that were the case, that does not make him not a political scientist.

I agree the first source isn't much good, because aside from it being opinion, it's only the heading which calls Pinochet fascist. That aside, given Neil comes from the same side of politics as Pinochet, and that it was an attack on someone else I don't think his characterisation can be discarded just because he's a loon.

Mario Sáenz is listed as Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Integral Honors Program at Le Moyne College. Most philosophers have more than enough expertise to talk about political ideology. TarnishedPath^talk 03:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Michael Parenti in fact presents a Marxist perspective as his Wikipedia article says. You should know this and also what the Marxist analysis of fascism is before entering into an argument. As I mentioned, this analysis is no longer considered mainstream. The best you can say is that Marxists consider Pinochet to be Fascist. Before coming to conclusions, one should evaluate all the sources.

Also, Sáenz's being a professor of philosophy does not make him an expert on Fascism, particularly since he has not published any papers about Fascism. An expert in Wikipedia is defined as someone who is "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

And why do you think that we can dismiss the views of the leading experts of Fascism, such as Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton, Stanley Payne and Stanley Payne, who together developed the consensus definition of Fascism taught in textbooks? TFD (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Whenever Stanley Payne and Stanley Payne are in agreement, that pretty much ends the debate, I always say. EEng 05:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

e.e Agreed with TFD, the position should be attributed and contextualized. By the way, the source (Kutner) does not use "neo-fascist" but "crypto-fascist". 93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 10:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH and WP:VOICE. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is the WP:SYNTH or WP:VOICE in my statement. TFD wrote "Michael Parenti in fact presents a Marxist perspective as his Wikipedia article says". It's neither WP:SYNTH or WP:VOICE to state that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It's explicitly spelled out on WP:RS/P. TarnishedPath^talk 11:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

In any case, in this article the proud boys are not described as "fascist", they are described as "neo-fascist". So this whole discussion is kind of meaningless. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstood me: the academic sources used do not use "neo-fascist" but "crypto-fascist" and "proto-fascist"(i.e., WP:SYNTH).

In any case to be "neo-fascist" the subject must be inspired by a fascist regime, so the discussion is not off-topic. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of citations discussion

Hi @David O. Johnson this edit is the fourth time you reverted on this page within a 24 hour period. You are edit warring and you need to cease. You need to self-revert immediately and discuss your removal of citations here. Your current editing is disruptive. TarnishedPath^talk 00:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)