Edit filter log

'{{talk header}} {{Ds/talk notice|topic=blp}}{{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}} {{Annual readership}} {{WikiProject banner shell |living=yes |collapsed=yes |1= {{WikiProject Biography |class=B |listas=Tarrio, Enrique |living=yes}} {{WikiProject Politics |class=B |importance=Low |American=yes |American-importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Criminal Biography |class=B |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Florida |class=B |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Law Enforcement |class=B |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject United States |class=B |importance=Low |Hispanic and Latino Americans=y}} {{WikiProject Miami |class=B |importance=Low}} }} {{Top 25 Report|Jan 3 2021 (23rd)}} {{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(60d) | archive = Talk:Enrique Tarrio/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 2 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{aan}} | minthreadsleft = 4 | minthreadstoarchive = 1 }} == Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2023 == {{edit semi-protected|Enrique Tarrio|answered=yes}} 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! [[Special:Contributions/50.208.129.241|50.208.129.241]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/174.51.18.230|174.51.18.230]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]} 02:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC) :[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> – [[User:Recoil16|Recoil16]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]} 13:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC) == Photos == I've just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enrique_Tarrio&diff=1174093788&oldid=1174087480 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enrique_Tarrio&diff=1174093788&oldid=1174087480 "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. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk: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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk: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. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk: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 [[Talk:Enrique Tarrio/Archive 2#Propaganda image must go|reasons I described in the last discussion]]. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;(she/her&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 17:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC) === RfC (Which photo of Enrique Tarrio should we use in the article infobox?) === <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 08:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1703318481}} {{rfc|bio|pol|rfcid=5F7CB4F}} Which photo of Enrique Tarrio should we use in the article infobox? [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]} 02:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC) {| |{{Infobox criminal | name = A | image = Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys (retouched).jpg | caption = Portrait of Enrique Tarrio ([[commons: File:Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys.jpg|original]]) }} |{{Infobox criminal | name = B | image = Enrique Tarrio.jpg | caption = 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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]} 07:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC) *'''B''' is more representative and less promotional. [[:File:Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys (retouched).jpg|The alternative]] has been digitally altered from [[:File:Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys.jpg|its original]] by Wikipedians and is thus inappropriate. [[User:Feoffer|Feoffer]] ([[User talk:Feoffer|talk]]) 07:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC) *'''A''' per [[Talk:Enrique Tarrio/Archive 2#Propaganda image must go|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 [[:File:Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys.jpg|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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;(she/her&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|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. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 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. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|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. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|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. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|Five Pillars]] of Wikipedia: that we are [[Wikipedia:Five_pillars#WP:5P2|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''. [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF5F1F">''(talk)''</b>]] 🍁 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. @[[User:Feoffer|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 [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Enrique_Tarrio_-_International_Chairman_Proud_Boys_%28retouched%29.jpg full-resolution] image? What you saw may have been [[compression artifact]]s. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em">[[User:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#000">nagual</b>]][[User talk:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#BBA">design</b>]]</b> 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. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wes sideman|Wes sideman]] ([[User talk:Wes sideman|talk]]) 14:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC) *'''A''' Because in "B" he is not recognizable. --[[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk:93.45.229.98|talk]]) 22:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) <small>— [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk:93.45.229.98|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> *:This is simply not true and a personal attack. [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk:93.45.229.98|talk]]) 20:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC) *:@[[User:LokiTheLiar|LokiTheLiar]] Please remove the falsity you entered (namely, "has made few or no other edits outside this topic"). [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk: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 {{u|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). [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|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. [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk:93.45.229.98|talk]]) 22:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) {{collapse top|reason=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 [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] and [[User:Grayfell|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. [[User:Wes sideman|Wes sideman]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk:93.45.229.98|talk]]) 19:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC) ::::Conspiracy theory? [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]} 23:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) :::::Read VQuakr's comment. [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk: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:ASPERSION]]s that anyone is promoting conspiracy theories. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]} 02:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC) :::::::"Hypothetical speculation that is untrue or outlandish." :::::::https://www.wordnik.com/words/conspiracy%20theory [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk: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:ASPERSION]]s and given the contents of your talk page I'd suggest you not do so. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]} 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. [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]} 10:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::It can be both. [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk: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). [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk: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.[https://www.facebook.com/peterdukephoto/?paipv=0&eav=AfYpbNCoFzmQENs5u2kXEcCdta6XznHPSbbbo1yUlj0jwW0MSRHBQYmwaf_c-r9M4yc&_rdr] ::::::::::::It was flown by a number of right wingers during the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack]].[https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-hill-insurrection-extremist-flags-soh/index.html] [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk: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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]} 12:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::It definitely needs to stop. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 13:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::::Next time I'll use the term [[False statement|falsehoods]], so misunderstandings will be avoided. [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk:93.45.229.98|talk]]) 13:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::So you're pivoting to claiming that people were pushing falsehoods now? [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]} 14:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::I got things to do. Have a good day. [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk:93.45.229.98|talk]]) 14:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC) {{collapse bottom}} * '''B''' Along with conversations above, this photo is more representative of what Enrique is notable for and is itself a high quality photo. [[Special:Contributions/198.145.150.65|198.145.150.65]] ([[User talk:198.145.150.65|talk]]) 14:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC) *'''A''' His face is simply too obscured in the other. ~ [[User:HAL333|<span style="background:red; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''HAL'''</span>]][[User talk:HAL333|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''333'''</span>]] 19:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC) ==== Discussion ==== * It's not clear to me why an RfC is needed here when [[Talk:Enrique Tarrio/Archive 2#Propaganda image must go|consensus was already reached]] on this topic two years ago. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;(she/her&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 17:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC) *:[[WP:CCC]]? {{shrug}} &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 19:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) *:@[[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]], per @[[User:Muboshgu|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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk: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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;(she/her&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk: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! [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC) *Pinging @[[User:Recoil16|Recoil16]], @[[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]], @[[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]], @[[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]], @[[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]], @[[User:Nagualdesign|Nagualdesign]], @[[User:Adolphus79|Adolphus79]] and @[[User:TuffStuffMcG|TuffStuffMcG]] as editors who have previously been involved in this discussion. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk: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. [[User:Feoffer|Feoffer]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk: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 [[:commons:Category:Chin on hand|these]]? [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;:(she/her&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]} 05:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) ::::{{tq|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. [[User:Feoffer|Feoffer]] ([[User talk:Feoffer|talk]]) 05:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) :::::This gets to a topic that was covered at [[Talk:Enrique Tarrio/Archive 2#Propaganda image must go|the last discussion]], where I'll just repeat what I said then: {{tq|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). [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;(she/her&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;(she/her&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 05:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC) :::::::{{tq|obviously photoshopped in to the original photo}} WP:V isn't met -- We shouldn't be publishing a [[WP:SPS]] that's obviously photoshopped. [[User:Feoffer|Feoffer]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;(she/her&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|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. [[User:Feoffer|Feoffer]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]^{[[User talk: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. <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">[[User:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#039;font-weight:bold;">Ender</span>]] and [[User_talk:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#c00; font-style:oblique;">Peter</span>]]</span> 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? <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">[[User:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#039;font-weight:bold;">Ender</span>]] and [[User_talk:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#c00; font-style:oblique;">Peter</span>]]</span> 17:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC) ::::: {{ping|Enderandpeter}}, I believe the original photo had the Confederate flag in the background. It was edited out to create option A. [[User:Wes sideman|Wes sideman]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">[[User:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#039;font-weight:bold;">Ender</span>]] and [[User_talk:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#c00; font-style:oblique;">Peter</span>]]</span> 18:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC) :::::::This is not a discussion of your political positions and/or baseless claims. [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk:93.45.229.98|talk]]) 19:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC) ::::::{{re|Wes sideman}} the [[:File:Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys.jpg|original]] had a Betsy Ross American flag in the background, which was visually distracting. Not a confederate flag as some have inaccurately stated. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) :::::::You are right. I am looking more closely at the [[commons: File:Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys.jpg|flag in the original image]] compared to the [[commons: File:Betsy Ross flag.svg|13-stripe, 13-star Betsy Ross flag]] and it does look more like that than the [[Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#First_flag:_the_"Stars_and_Bars"_(1861–1863)|stars and bars flags]]. Yes, that is worth clarifying. <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">[[User:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#039;font-weight:bold;">Ender</span>]] and [[User_talk:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#c00; font-style:oblique;">Peter</span>]]</span> 05:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) *{{u|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 {{tq|really disappointed in the people who are picking A now}} and now {{tq|question [our] judgement}}, remember to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and [[WP:FOC|focus on content, not on contributors]]. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|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. [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] ([[User talk:Jason Quinn|talk]]) 19:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC) ::{{tq|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. [[User:Feoffer|Feoffer]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/93.45.229.98|93.45.229.98]] ([[User talk: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). [https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/10/01/19/33872416-0-image-a-41_1601578092373.jpg 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. ~~~~'