1995:
866:
quality of an image. I am claiming the picture VIOLATES our policies on neutrality. It should not be used for the same reasons non-neutral text should not be used. I wouldn't care if the image shows his face with infinite resolution. I agree with you that we "typically" pick photos for the reasons you state. But that's because we typically don't have to choose from among a set that includes propaganda images. This is an atypical case. You have not made the case at all that the image is neutral. Nobody here has. The image is pretty clearly non-neutral which would make it a violation of
Knowledge (XXG) policy.
747:
should pick this ridiculous photo for McVeigh's article rather than the crude mugshot currently used. That's clearly a bad decision. Why? Because it focuses solely on the quality of the photo while neglecting the context and content of the photo itself. Such a photo of McVeigh would clearly be non-neutral and intended to make him look as good as possible.... glossing over his notoriety. But even if we had a high-quality neutral portrait, say from a family photo shoot, it'd have to be asked whether it or the mugshot are more appropriate and make the best article. In that case maybe the mugshot would
96:) inserted "is an activist and businessman" as the first sentence, changing the lead paragraph from "Enrique Tarrio (born 1984 or 1985) is the chairman of the Proud Boys" to "Enrique Tarrio (born 1984 or 1985) is an activist and businessman. He is also the chairman of the Proud Boys..." All sources I have seen discuss Tarrio primarily in the context of his participation with the Proud Boys, and only a small number mention him being an activist or businessmanâit's worth noting even the two sources used to support activist/businessman state these facts only
3227:
3333:
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
Knowledge (XXG) article on Anitfa was authored by some I.Q. absconded character wearing kid gloves who is impersonating a person of knowledge. Knowledge (XXG) 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.
2340:
draft some content but I figure it's more likely than not that the wikilords will bury this for not fitting their political narrative. If this site has any interest in representing objective truth then
Enrique Tarrio's "prolific" work as an informant for law enforcement, which predates the forming of the Proud Boys, should be mentioned in this article. Let people draw what conclusions they would like from this widely-reported fact. But not including this fact is an incredibly biased representation of the available information.
287:, with no explanation beyond the argument that it needs to be in the first sentence of the lead because it's mentioned somewhere in the infobox. I don't think it's even worth putting in the infobox, but the argument that something needs to go in the lead - let alone the first sentence of the lead - simply because it's in the infobox is patiently groundless; infoboxes attract massive amounts of unimportant details like this on account of people trying to fill out parameters without regards for whether they're relevant. --
3228:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces-time-cutoff-30_impression_cut_3_filter_new_arm_5_1&alpha=0.05&block=more_in_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=752770949&impression_id=4d330594-eaab-11ed-aa64-d9bcb4f96239&index=5&pgtype=Article&pool=more_in_pools%2Fpolitics®ion=footer&req_id=669311590&surface=eos-more-in&variant=0_bandit-all-surfaces-time-cutoff-30_impression_cut_3_filter_new_arm_5_1
1135:) and then choose a picture reflective of the value judgement we made about them. This micromanagement of appearances on BLPs â people trying to ensure sure we make the biographies of people we like flatter their subjects and the biographies of people we dislike denigrate their subjects â is already enough of a cancer on Knowledge (XXG) as it is; no one is stopping you from thinking someone is unintelligent on your own time, but it is ridiculous to think it's important for us to ensure that BLP subjects
1492:
likely need attention. The edits still stand or fall on their own regardless of who wrote them. NPOV unquestionably does apply to images, but you have a non-standard interpretation of what that means with regard to what images to use here and in similar situations. Having a dissenting opinion is great, but it isn't reasonable for you to expect everyone to immediately agree with you when your opinion doesn't match our MOS or practices. Honestly it seems like you should be tilting at this windmill at
1438:. In particular, "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic". As I've also argued above, this is not the case with this photo. The concept of neutrality you are advocating is not in accordance with Knowledge (XXG) policies, not by the wording or the spirit. It's a severe over-simplification. Even ignoring that, trying to define "neutral" as ignoring everything except quality is an open door to allow propaganda such as this image on Knowledge (XXG).
31:
2729:
2502:, I'm not clear on your objection here. You moved the content to the body, which is fine, but body follows lead, so that sentence should remain in lead with possible elaboration in the body. I'm happy to do that. Also, the lead previously had no mention of the organization he leads being involved in J6, so the subpoenas of both him specifically and the org are leadworthy. Sure, the cite can be removed.
3121:
2957:
2778:
2643:
904:
otherwise identical images of him sitting in front of a flag and sitting in front of a beige wall, I'd go with beige wall. Correct me if I am wrong, but it almost seems like you object to the image because it makes him look like a reasonably normal human being. But here's the thing: it's not our job as editors to select images of living people that portray people in the way
2108:
3170:
1084:
3006:
2827:
3847:, your are approaching this backwards. It's not up to me to show that Parenti's is using a minority definition of fascism, it's up to you to show that his definition has consensus support in the literature, while Payne, Griffin, etc. do not. If you are interested in finding out more about Parenti's views on fascism, I recommend
699:
but the subjects of our articles are starting to learn they can use
Knowledge (XXG) for PR purposes and treat it as part of managing their social media reputation. But we are not a social media platform, we are an encyclopedia. We must aggressively attempt to keep our articles encyclopedic and neutral, as per policy.
451:
details even when not pertient, and this is not WP's style. We include such details only when they're contextually significant. And sources do not call him an "activist" much. To the extent that he could be considered one, this is already implicit in having founded an organization that some consider "activistic".
2307:"Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys extremist group, has a past as an informer for federal and local law enforcement, repeatedly working undercover for investigators after he was arrested in 2012, according to a former prosecutor and a transcript of a 2014 federal court proceeding obtained by Reuters."
3605:
in fact presents a
Marxist perspective as his Knowledge (XXG) 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
3441:
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
2618:
The section entitled "political views" doesn't actual discuss any of his political views. It says a lot about what others have accused him of being and his denials but very little about what he actually believes. Calling someone a fascist does not define a political view, it merely expresses how they
2188:
lede, alongside the original reference from that page. The refs number 4 and 15 are identical in content, but I can't merge them since they are not technically present in this article. Since I don't want to risk causing a ripple effect, I'd like to ask other editors with more experience to find a fix
1862:
nowhere. Here, the sources are quite clear about what Tarrio is known for, namely being the leader of the Proud Boys. So we should use a photo of him in that capacity, ideally as close to the sort of photo the sources would give us as possible, rather than a photo taken clearly in some other context.
1618:
Behind these two previous concerns, the NPOV concerns are almost third tier, but I agree they're real. NPOV means we should follow the sources, meaning we should use a photo of him that aligns with the descriptions of him and why he's notable by almost all the sources, rather than a photo of him that
1614:
in sunglasses even though the character takes off the sunglasses reasonably frequently, because in the most typical case he wears sunglasses. The thing Tarrio is known for almost exclusively is being a Proud Boy at Proud Boy protests, thus the photo of him at a protest is more representative than the
1538:
propaganda and has strayed beyond the boundaries of any editorial gray area and therefore must be removed as a matter of policy. The other image is not necessary propaganda at all. Certainty Tarrio dresses like that to send a message so there's "propaganda" in that loose sense but I see no reason not
1329:
media. I'd really like to see a coherent argument that this image respects our content policies. The arguments above about resolution and being able to see eyes and stuff are irrelevant as far as our policies are concerned. "Is this photo neutral?" is the main question. Nobody above has presented any
1150:
The alternative image you presented â where Tarrio's face is obscured by his hat and sunglasses and his face turned to the side â is a really crummy photo. Where we have a high quality photo of his face, looking at the camera, it's a tad absurd to think that we should make subjective judgements about
746:
of super high resolution of him in a smoking jacket with a pipe next to a fireplace in a legal library den with a statue of George
Washington in the background, that is, looking like the stereotypical "educated gentleman" trope. By your criteria, VQuakr, of simply best the best quality free photo, we
595:
article, and we do not pick poorer-quality photos because we think they make the subject look too intelligent. I think using both images, as we do now, is a good solution because there is value in the second photo depicting Tarrio "in the wild" so to speak, but it is objectively the poorer choice for
282:
a trivia; it's not what he's primarily notable for. Both sources cited primarily identify him as the chairman of the Proud Boys and mention the other biographical details listed here only in passing. His business shouldn't be mentioned anywhere in the lead; certainly not in the first sentence. Note
210:
introducing him as the chairman of the Proud Boys. Per MOS:BIO, the opening paragraph should mention "4. The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played; 5. Why the person is notable." These positions are not noteworthy, nor the source of his notability.
100:
introducing him as the chairman of the Proud Boys. Per MOS:BIO, the opening paragraph should mention "4. The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played; 5. Why the person is notable." These positions are not noteworthy, nor the source of his notability.
3878:
As I discussed above, reliable sources mostly reserve the description neofascist for groups that have connections with historical
Fascism, such as the Italian successor parties now including the current PM. While there are parallels between historical Fascism, the Proudboys, Trump, Pinochet and lots
3385:
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
3072:
The current photograph partially obscures Tarrio's face with his hand. Does anybody know of any more recent photographs of the individual that might be used in the infobox? I'd expect there to at least be a PD mugshot given that he was arrested by federal authorities, but I can't find the mugshot on
2303:
I do not believe it is correct to characterize Mr. Tarrio as an conservative activist given that he was acting, undercover, as an FBI Informant. It also seems strange that the Proud Boys themselves are not described as a federal honeypot. He should be described, accurately, as an FBI informant per
1835:
Jason Quinn, many images are designed to make the subject look good and convey things. . Some to hint at personal qualities (e.g. a smile), some to make them better looking than they normally are, some to show that they are good at what they do (e.g. musicians). Such does make them "propaganda" or
1229:
Because the pitfalls of including it outweigh the upside. Including that image is harms the quality of the article more than it benefits it. I'm really having a hard time trying to see things from this perspective. What you are saying is equivalent to saying "I want to show readers propaganda simply
698:
You are barking up the wrong tree... I take issue with many of those photos too. I feel pretty strongly about this issue. I mean, I wrote a whole essay about it! I think the neutrality of pictures is something that editors have completely ignored. We've been able to mostly get by just fine until now
574:
revert (which itself was to undo a revert to my first edit). You managed to fit two mis-characterizations into one edit summary. And you made it sound as if I'm engaging in an edit war when I was the one who was reverted and when the edit history is not even close to satisfying any edit war criteria
548:
Images must adhere to our polices like NPOV just as text must. They are part of the article. They only difference is that it's more difficult for editors to decide on the neutrality of an image. This particular example is as pure an example of propaganda as I've come across. It's been suggested that
545:
this person typically looks. In public appearances he almost always wears black t-shirts and bulletproof vets or military-style gear, not tailored suits. He's doesn't and has never held a publicly elected political office contrary to the message the US flag pin is intended to subconsciously convey.
544:
This image on the other hand is designed to sending a political message saying this person is an intelligent, thought-provoking, powerful politician using the most obvious propaganda techniques. Its inclusion in the article is a major mistake in editorial judgement. This is not representative of how
450:
The fact that he's self-employed has nothing at all to do with his notability; it's simply irrelevant that he started a business. It has no connection to his notability-related activity, even. Newspapers mention it because it is their style to try to identify people by occupational and other social
3348:
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
3332:
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
3225:
The sentence exaggerated the number convicted: "Tarrio was convicted in May 2023 on seditious conspiracy charges, along with four other Proud Boy leaders, for his role in the 2021 United States
Capitol attack.: Per NY Times, he was one of four Proud boys convicted: "Four members of the Proud Boys,
1876:
The item which you are quoting is the broad opening statement of NPOV (and as such is very wide open to many different and even conflicting interpretations) and the rest of the policy is the specifics. If someone says that something violates npov, to have such accepted they really need to identify
1861:
is because on
Knowledge (XXG) "neutrality" has an objective definition, and that definition is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It is not some sort of view from
1725:
propaganda, I fail to comprehend how that is consistent with making our articles neutral. Again, yes, the argument for it being propaganda is inductive in nature and therefore requires using personal experience, interpretation, or opinion. But the editorial judgement we use, and editorial decisions
1533:
It is premature to talk about consensus. None of the (handful) of editors here have presented a convincing argument that this image is passes NPOV. The only person who tried is
GorillaWarfare (by effectively saying that accepting all images is a neutral approach) and that argument is not consistent
1177:
say he's not intelligent, thought-provoking, or powerful. I said that is what the photo is designed to say, a completely different idea! Please strike out your entire first paragraph as it is a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what I wrote. As for your second paragraph, I disagree that the
1062:
I was just examining the image more closely when you posted this and I agree that the background is very likely photoshopped in. Apart from several more subtle clues, the flag is not reflected in the desk. I also agree that it would be easier to discuss this when we can view alternatives. For those
617:
The portrait style image is pretty clearly superior compared to one where his face is at a weird angle and he's wearing a hat and sunglasses. I don't see the flag as a major POV issue or the suit as any POV issue whatsoever, and the claim that being able to see the subject's eyes is a POV issue, is
261:. He's obviously not notable in his role as a businessman: everyone who's not known for their day job has a day job, and Tarrio's isn't particularly interesting. I could kind of see "activist" but that's IMO covered by "head of the Proud Boys", and isn't how he's primarily described in RSes anyway.
2387:
The fact that Enrique Tarrio was a prolific FBI informant should be included in the opening paragraph. Despite your claim to the contrary, there is no evidence that Enrique Tarrio did not continue to work for the FBI after 2014. This creates a significant problem: We do not know that he founded
2321:
While it may be editorializing, it is also worth pointing out that Mr. Tarrio has not been indicted despite his words and actions being used to indict others. Nor was his house or computer searched. While that may be outside the scope of this page, there is ample, public evidence that Mr. Tarrio
1796:
propaganda, it's simply a publicity shot. We use headshots and official portraits all the time. Every US president's WP article uses one. And while I'd like to assume good faith, you've amply demonstrated that you think the subject is 'one of the bad guys' and therefore undeserving of a flattering
865:
By "your criteria" I mean that you only seem to be considering technical aspects of the image such as resolution and "better lighting" and showing the face as determining quality. Nowhere in your comment above do you factor in other elements, such as those used in propaganda, to help determine the
3587:
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
1770:
isn't a sufficient reasoning to exclude use of the Stalin image. Here, the reasons you stated that you had issues with the status quo image are that the portrait conveys intelligence, power, or is thought-provoking. My opinion remains that our feelings about the subject regarding whether he is or
1491:
I think we agree that editors that are close to a subject tend to be terrible at writing neutrally about that subject. But you have it backwards. We don't "build a case" for whether text is neutral by identifying SPAs (or more accurately, COIs). Rather, clear COIs are red flags that the edits may
3226:
including their former leader Enrique Tarrio, were convicted on Thursday of seditious conspiracy for plotting to keep President Donald J. Trump in power after his election defeat by leading a violent mob in attacking the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021." The jury has yet to decide re the 5th member.
2339:
I'm not able to edit this page. Can someone else? Reuters described Tarrio as a 'prolific' informer for law enforcement. It is not clear he was ever a conservative activist. I believe he should be describe as prolific informer for law enforcement and founder of the conservative group. I can
1601:
here. First of all, just in pure "photo quality" I disagree that the current photo is better. Certainly it's more professional, but that doesn't make it "better". The second photo is also a very high quality photo, on par with the current image: they're both JPEGs, the resolution of both is very
1230:
because it shows his face." I can't really put myself into this line of thinking unless I pretend to completely not recognize or understand what propaganda is or how it works. And pretend that seeing something is more important that getting a proper understanding of something through neutrality.
2572:
References 10 - 12 are provided to support the statement. I couldn't find any mention of Tarrio being an FBI informant in the first two. In the third, three news articles are cited but they all source the same Reuters article. This Reuters article is duplicated in the References section as both
1546:
explicitly acknowledges that "lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution ". I actually think the second photo is perfectly fine. I do not care if I cannot see his eyes. It shows the subject in public, doing what he's been doing. I think it compliments the
942:
Sorry, it was the comment directly above yours by GorillaWarfare that used "better lighting". The two comments kind of visually meld together because they are at the same indenting level. I appear to have conflated some of your words with those of GorillaWarfare while scrolling back to re-read.
713:
It is fine to hold those opinions, but if that is the case you should seek to gain community consensus and a policy change to reflect them. It seems at the moment you expect us to treat your opinions on image neutrality as though they enjoy the support of the wider community, which they do not,
2549:
Lead needs to be expanded first to be a better summary of the whole article to be able to include this, but ideally, inclusion would be okay, and I don't see this as RECENTISM. It's a kind of an updatable content point that can be remolded to fit latest developments regarding the congressional
2391:
I've been on wikipedia long enough to know that a small subsetof hard-core moderators tightly control the narrative on this site to further their personal and political agendas. Even Knowledge (XXG) founder Larry Sanger admits that this website is badly biased. I am not going to be shy about
2368:
They did: the Reuters piece. it basically says the same as whatâs already in the article: that he was a prolific informer from 2012-14, but went silent after after. I suppose the passage in the article can be expanded, but the Reuters piece doesnât add any more information than what is already
1715:
by its nature. There's no litmus test or going to be a mathematical proof it's propaganda. We have to use editorial judgement to decide that. I reiterate that the argument for the classification of this image as propaganda is strong as any such argument can reasonably be expected to be; so if
1514:
There are only two images to choose from at this time, and both of them have some shortcomings and some propagandistic elements. In my view, the current photo is a better photo than the alternative. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when the perfect is not freely
903:
why did you put 'better lighting' in quotes as if it was something I had written? I did indeed address your neutrality concerns in my previous reply. Suit and visibility of eyes: not an issue. Sitting in front of a Betsy Ross flag: not ideal, but not the end of the world either. If we had two
599:
Your essay is certainly food for thought, but it is not a policy or guideline. I suspect I would not be the only community member who would disagree with your suggestion in it that we should avoid using "too good" of a photo. If we have the ability to use high-quality images, we should use
590:
We typically prefer higher-quality images to lower-quality ones, and the current image of Tarrio is in better resolution and with better lighting. We also typically prefer photos where the subject's face is not obscured, such as by a cap and sunglasses. We aim to do this for the subject of
549:
the image is better because he's without sunglasses in this one. That slight positive in no way counters the slant this image introduces, especially when the photograher was clearly trying to capture the eyes to portray thoughtfulness. His eyes here are PART of the propaganda techniques.
2388:
the Proud Boys as a conservative activist just as we do not know that he founded the Proud Boys as an FBI informant. Until more is known, both of his roles (activist/informant) should be given equal prominence because his purpose and intention for founding the Proud Boys are not known.
1771:
isn't those things should not be a factor in image selection. Obviously. More generally, you are interpreting the NPOV policy with respect to images in a novel way. You should be at VPP or similar, not at an article talk page, in order to propose broad-ranging changes in our practice.
1047:
as others have noted, the flag is likely green screened into the image anyways. My suggestion is that we create an alternate image with the neutral wall first, then have a discussion about which image to use. Easier to have the discussion when we can view both alternatives. Thoughts?
1515:
licensed. If he makes a public appearance which is photographed by a Wikipedian, then maybe we will then have clearly better alternatives to consider. Now, we have only two choices and consensus is clear to everyone but Jason Quinn as to which is the better of the two alternatives.
755:
I hope this absurd example drives him how important the message the photo conveys is to the appropriateness of its inclusion or exclusion in an article. YET, and here's the kicker, this invented example I just gave is effectively just as absurd as this particular photo of Tarrio!
4016:
Oh, I had NPOV concerns even prior to learning about the COI issues -- I find the COI concerns others have raised to be credible (though I haven't personally double-checked them). I wondered why our article deviates from the examples of RS, and I think Jason explained the why.
206:. All sources I have seen discuss Tarrio primarily in the context of his participation with the Proud Boys, and only a small number mention him being an activist or businessmanâit's worth noting even the two sources used to support activist/businessman state these facts only
3561:
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
1742:
policy, which is more straightforwardly worded and has something of a litmus test for permissible inclusion of material rather than being an open-ended sentence loaded with philosophical issues. By the way, under a literal inflexible reading of No Original Research, almost
1324:
What we are using in this article is a non-neutral image self-published by a single purpose account (arguably used for promotional purposes). We do not let text of this nature stay in our articles. Nor should we let pictures. Our policies apply to the WHOLE article, text
714:
though perhaps something could be adopted after a policy proposalâcurrent policy discussion of NPOV in images is quite lacking and perhaps there is an opportunity to fill that void. I do think some of your essay is quite reasonable, despite disagreeing with other parts.
838:
I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "your criteria", but we can have that conversation on McVeigh once the photo of him rescuing a bald eagle from a burning building comes available. I do note that the current infobox image for McVeigh does allow us to see his eyes.
3583:
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
979:
For what it's worth, if the background flag is the concern, the CC license does allow us to modify the image. Someone with better image editing skills than my own could probably replace it with a plain background. To my eye it looks like it was edited in anyway.
920:
For an image of a person, that means being able to see most of their face! This doesn't mean there could never be a high-quality image that was so clearly over-the-top that it wasn't a good lead image, but I don't see any issue with the one being used here.
426:. He's simply not notable for his business activities; that's not the focus of the sources. He's notable as the leader of a far-right group (which is far more specific than "activist"). We should mirror the predominant descriptors of the reliable sources:
4113:, etc. There is not typically an articlespace alert just for the purposes of informing readers that there is an RfC on the talk page, and the COI tag is not well suited to it (as evidenced, I think, by my confusion around what it was even referring to).
3381:
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
2007:
Following the discussion above I have uploaded an alternative image with the background removed. Please do not replace the infobox image with this retouched version before establishing consensus to do so. If you require further edits please ping me.
3400:
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"?
1476:
As I already stated, for exactly the same reason that single-purpose accounts using self-published material can be used to build a case for non-neutral text, who uploaded something can be used to build an argument that an image is non-neutral.
1401:@GorillaWarfare, can you go on the record answering this question: does NPOV apply to images used in articles on Knowledge (XXG)? I believe what you are advocated here is the same as saying "no". That is why I am asking for your clarification.
1765:
We mentioned Stalin earlier. That image explicitly, verifiably was used for propaganda purposes though I guess I don't know if the image was created for that purpose to begin with. That appears to be a stronger case than we have here, yet it
3625:
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?
1720:
prevents us from seeing that, we have no hope to ever enforce neutrality for images. Nobody here I think is claiming the image is not propaganda. (Anybody saying that?) Several of you tacitly conceded that it is. If it's a given that it
1539:
to assume both the photographer and uploader's motives were anything but documentary in nature. So the alternative photo itself is probably not propaganda and the only propagandist element is due to the way the subject presented himself.
1641:'s infobox image shows her dressed for the red carpet. Tarrio is notable for being the PB chairman, not for attending rallies (not that I view that as a relevant distinction for the image choice, but based on your argument, you might).
1702:. Neutrality is our goal. This must be kept in mind at all times so we don't miss the forest for the trees. Second, I am not trying to get a personal experience, interpretation, or opinion in a Knowledge (XXG) article. I am trying to
1316:
Above I argued that the image in question is non-neutral. As is done with text content, a good question to ask is "What is the source of this material?" A quick look at Knowledge (XXG) Commons for the image shows that the image is by
3315:
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.
3965:
They've never edited this wiki, much less this article. How is that "A major contributor to this article"? You seem to be taking your position that the photo itself is some sort of "COI" (despite the fact that people are in fact
1710:
conclusion based on the evidence it presents and on its file history. Yes, the nature of this claim is open to debate becauseâbarring the photographer or subject themselves admitting it's propagandaâthe case against the image is
3609:
Also, SĂĄenz'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 Knowledge (XXG) is defined as someone who is "an established
1877:
the specific part that they say is being violated. Respectfully, you just gave your own interpretation of the opening statement, and followed by other opinions of yours. Which is fine, but does not show an NPOV violation.
3462:
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
1605:
Regarding the concern about him wearing a hat and sunglasses, I think that's a bit of an odd objection to a photo of someone who is mainly known for activities where he's wearing a hat and sunglasses. There are photos of
308:
Tarrio is overwhelmingly discussed within the context of his leadership and connection to the Proud Boys. Agree with the additional suggestion that this should also be removed from the infobox as of limited relevance.
2372:
Feel free to suggest an expansion, IP, and Iâm sure people are happy to include it in the article. Though I have to say, your talk about âwikilordsâ and âbiased reportingâ doesnât really inspires me to act on my ownâŚ
1683:
WP:5P: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Knowledge (XXG)." So for example, we wouldn't choose or reject an image based on our interpretation of what viewpoint it presents?
3784:"deologically, members subscribe to a scattershot array of libertarian and nationalist tropes, referring to themselves as anti-communist and anti-political correctness, but in favor of free speech and free markets."
3950:
alerted us that "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". Their concern is ongoing.
3866:
Read my above statement to the IP. In any case, in this article the proud boys are not described as "fascist", they are described as "neo-fascist". So I don't know why we've allowed ourselves to get side-tracked.
1836:
unusual in Knowledge (XXG). Also IMHO you have been implying that wp:npov says things that it doesn't. Rather go bock and forth on that, if you think otherwise I'd suggest that you quote the specific part of
778:
Cullen has given plenty of examples of articles about notorious people in which we use photos which would seem to be "non-neutral" by your definition (like the photo of Joseph Stalin, which was quite literally
3386:
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).
3916:
I'm not aware of any allegations that someone with a COI has substantially edited the article, let alone that any such COI edits remain in-article (which is the purpose of the tag, to flag them for fixing).
1429:
Our image use policy does not fit within a simple "we must use the best-quality image available" framing. There are many other criteria that matter. For example, images must be pertinent and encyclopedic
1330:
convincing argument that it is. Now the background to this image makes that challenge much harder as the image conflicts even more with our usual polices and guidelines that we apply to textual material.
3801:
Looking at a descriptions used in the citations, my reading was that some use neo-fascist and some use cryptofascist. Self-ascription is never a good basis for defining political ideology of a subject.
2619:
feel political views are enforced and the word "Trumpist" has no real meaning attached to it. If you want this article to be factual, please publish some facts rather than supposition and platitudes.
1534:
with our image use policy. You even admit there are "propagandistic elements" elements to these pictures. There is, however, a big difference between the two pictures. My claim is that current image
3591:
Mario SĂĄenz 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.
3268:
228:. Completely ridiculous, why are we even discussing this? That he owns a poultry farm isn't even lede-worthy. Can we please restore the NPOV and DUE content (... is the chairman of the PB) asap? --
3334:
3289:
3267:
This is obviously a ridiculously bias politically driven write up. Knowledge (XXG) plays on the name on encyclopedia to make readers assume neutrality, which we all know is totally incorrect.
2620:
2393:
2341:
2325:
1633:
Both of the comparisons you gave are with fictional characters, which (in my mind at least) is much less useful of comparison than the ones that have been done above with Stalin, etc. We show
575:
regardless. Reprimanding me on a false premise while I have participated completely within the normal back-n-forth of editing is either a gross mistake or treating an editor with bad faith.
1738:
Knowledge (XXG)'s articles. Editorial judgement necessarily requires those things as part of the process of enforcing neutrality. (It is also noteworthy that the sentence is linked to our
1542:
Regarding the images we have available, you are correct that there only two photos. But you are incorrect to assume that we must use one of the two. Our image use policy and in particular
1178:
alternative photo is crummy. I think it is better and much more encyclopedic. The other photo is more like something that belongs in an actor's headshot album rather than an encyclopedia.
4058:
Please do try to assume good faith and remember this isn't a battleground. I didn't start the RFC, I didn't bring up COI problems -- I just invited more eyeballs to help us sort it out.
552:
I have an essay (unfortunately not a very engaging read I lament and I've never been satisfied with it) regarding how NPOV must apply to images too that discusses some of these issues at
1018:
I could very easily replace the background with a neutral, plain wall. However, to do so ought to be preceded by some careful deliberation, since making such material edits is arguably
2310:
1893:
The suggestion that we must use (or even prefer) infobox photos of BLP subjects in the capacity for which they are known is not supported by policy. To take a quick glance through our
791:). 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.
2894:
I think that Washington Post article is wrong. His birthname is Enrique, and ÂŤHenryÂť is a nickname. So it should be Enrique ÂŤHenryÂť Tarrio, the other way around as it appears there.
4072:
Perhaps, time for the notice to come down. If there's been a few eyeballs on the question and people are mostly saying that it isn't an issue then there's no point pushing a point.
541:
is more acceptable because "it's more neutral because it's an actual image of him in real life, doing the thing for which his notability is tied" as I stated in my edit summary.
3569:. 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?
1271:
Go ahead and add that photo back, I've got no objection. It's both more flattering, more intimidating, and more consistent with his public persona. This one is strange anyway.
2253:
2202:
that seems to complement the contents of refs 4 and 15 (i.e. not identical), but is not being used currently. Might be worth removing or merging with the original ref in the
1415:
Neutrality absolutely applies to images, which is why I'm advocating that we must use the best-quality image available regardless of our personal feelings about the subject.
1131:
ways forward for image policy than for us as editors to make a subjective evaluation of a person's character (in your case, your judgement being that Enrique Tarrio is not
2047:
replacing the infobox image with the retouched one, purely because the existing image already has a fake background and all we're really interested in is the subject.
2030:
replacing the infobox image with the retouched one, for the reasons discussed above. Do people think a RfC is warranted for this, or are we ok with just a straw poll?
1707:
3445:
During the Weimar Republic, conservatives actually started street fights and assassinated political opponents. There was even a middle of the road paramilitary group.
1792:
I find your use of the term "propaganda" here to be completely uncalled for, and appears to be based on your own assessment of the subject, counter to WP:NPOV. It is
1747:
images should be included on Knowledge (XXG), including this one, since it is not material supported by a reliable published source. This is why common sense through
1207:, the very first line includes "No amount of text, however well-written, can precisely describe a person's face ..." So how can you argue for removing the image that
3049:
The page says he was born in 1984 or 1985, which it bases on the fact that a 01/04/2021 article described him as 36. FYI, an 08/23/2021 article described him as 37 (
787:
a better alternative to the mugshot. There are plenty of examples of articles where mugshots are available, but we use the higher-quality image in the lead (such as
3748:
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.
1204:
553:
2238:
Per his voter registration and other sources, Tarrio's first name is Henry, and he's a "Junior," and was born in 1984. Can anyone supply an acceptable source?
1573:
there is no reason the flag needs to be retained within the image, and a third option with the flag cleanly removed would have my !vote for the infobox image.
1345:
Is your concern about licensing? Because even if it was Tarrio himself who uploaded the photo, or Tarrio's PR person, that wouldn't affect whether we use it.
672:. NPOV requires selecting the best available freely licensed neutral portrait, rather than one selected to portray the person as a ranting, raving extremist.
3660:
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".
2316:
1808:
appears to be a blatant violation of WP:AGF, and an insult to the editors who have participated in this discussion. I suggest that you strike that comment.
2916:
2926:
1610:
where he's not wearing the mask, but we would never use those exactly because they show his face, and the character usually doesn't. Similarly we show
1434:. I am claiming this image is not encyclopedic for reasons I've discussed above. Moreover there are other criteria that a lead image must meet as per
1288:
Joseph Stalin looks like Winnie the Pooh smoking a pipe in his photo. Personally, I like a cycle, possibly randomized, of the best photos of subjects.
2311:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-proudboys-leader-exclusive/exclusive-proud-boys-leader-was-prolific-informer-for-law-enforcement-idUSKBN29W1PE
427:
2706:
2687:
1254:
Plate carrier, hat, aviators, and stubble are more attractive qualities to those who are taken in by Tarrio's aesthetic. Probably why he wears them.
3053:). Based on these 2 combined pages, he was born in 1984. How do we edit his Knowledge (XXG) page to reflect this without using original research?
2068:- much cleaner and easier to see; the background was distracting and cast a strange light on the subject, this retouched version is much clearer.
753:
Photos require editorial judgement and that judgement does NOT always boil down to something as as simple comparison of resolution and sharpness.
534:
1387:
Absolutely no it is not. The uploader can help determine whether the image satisfies our policies... just like is the case with text material.
1151:
their character and instead use a crummy image of a person whose face is mostly obscured because we think the better photo makes him look more
1063:
two reasons I'd be happy to upload an alternative image. I'm not in front of my laptop at the moment but I'll post here once I've finished it.
3050:
2594:
1706:
an image to enforce neutrality. (That's the end of the short reply. The longer part now follows.) I claim that "the image is propaganda" is a
2599:
I don't see this confirmed anywhere and don't think we can use what he has claimed, at least not in the lead, but I'll just leave this here.
2517:
Sounds like you do understand the objection and have addressed it, then? Your original proposed edit had this just in the lead not the body.
3935:. Online searches using their name and the term photography indicate that they most likely have close ties to the subject and promote MAGA.
1994:
3901:
What's with the COI tag? The article is well-sourced and reads pretty NPOV, at least to me â is there a specific section that's a concern?
3073:
the internet and I can't find anything not already in the article (or discarded from prior discussion) where his full face is shown in the
2895:
2810:
475:
He is not notable for his business activities; the sources do not focus on this aspect. And sources also do not call him activist at all.
403:
Since this has been unanimous, I've gone ahead and implemented the change. If anyone thinks the discussion needs more time, feel free to
3248:
3233:
3028:
2476:
2457:
3879:
of other right wing groups and leaders, we do a disservice to readers to conflate them, especially when current scholarship does not.
3272:
3788:
3771:
3721:
in my statement. TFD wrote "Michael Parenti in fact presents a Marxist perspective as his Knowledge (XXG) article says". It's neither
3700:
3661:
3537:
3487:
3338:
3153:
513:. His business is selling right-wing T-shirts, and his activism is Proud Boys. It is all captured perfectly by Chairman of Proud Boys.
3293:
3092:
I agree and also I think a less flattering picture would be more appropriate. There is a mugshot under his real name (Henry) at this
2624:
2397:
2345:
2329:
3696:
3427:
However, the sources do consistently call them fascists, so we also must call them fascists. It's literally not our choice to make.
1980:
462:
1739:
345:
Yes to businessman. This is what sources call him, and just because he has other aspects doesn't mean we should neglect this one.
3378:
3207:
742:
and that add to the quality of the article. Suppose, for example, there just happens to be a free photo of Oklahoma City bomber
3027:
need to add the white supremacist tag to the description of the proud boys to bring it in line with that article's description
2754:
It would be useful to read more about his education and his parents' situations (birthplace, political leanings, profession).--
2739:
603:
Per BRD, I was asking you to discuss the image on the talk page rather than reverting. I was not accusing you of edit warring.
2854:
I doubt this is accurate since other sources say he didn't even join the Proud Boys till 2017, and he was a teenager in 2001.
2313:
3424:
Starting street fights doesn't necessarily make them fascist, though I do think it necessarily makes them violent extremists.
2677:
On March 8, 2022, a federal grand jury charged Tarrio with conspiracy for his role in the 2021 United States Capitol attack.
1661:@LokiTheLiar. The only thing I'd adjust to your comment is that NPOV concerns shouldn't be compared to "third tier". NPOV is
1634:
1565:
It's a little frustrating that you won't even acknowledge the NPOV assessment I've made (twice now), but it's not my job to
372:
350:
149:
121:
3413:
Conservatives that go onto the streets and start fights with people? You all have a funny idea of what conservatism means.
166:, immediately before you added the contested material) until / unless the RFC finds support for the bit you want to add. --
158:
I don't think it's reasonable to leave your suggested addition to the lead in for the full course of the RFC, though - per
908:
they should be portrayed. That is clearly not consistent with our policies including NPOV. Our actual image use policy at
59:
3093:
2317:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/27/report-proud-boys-leader-was-a-prolific-fbi-informant/?sh=743e0a562577
1748:
496:
He is notable for being the chairman of Proud Boys not for being a businessman. And calling him an activist is reaching.
480:
2921:
2917:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and
431:
3851:
which is freely available online. If you read his book, you would see that he opposes current definitions of fascism.
3770:
In any case to be "neo-fascist" the subject must be inspired by a fascist regime, so the discussion is not off-topic.
3448:
The IP incidentally does themself no favors in coming across as biased and bringing up anifa, which is a red herring.
2927:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/former-proud-boys-chairman-tarrio-charged-with-conspiracy-washington-post-2022-03-08/
2694:
2218:
Yes, that template is completely unnecessary in both locations it is used in this article. It should just be removed.
385:? I've seen maybe a handful of sources observe that he runs a business, but it is hardly a source of his notability.
1913:). While sometimes a photo of a BLP subject doing what they are known for is the best available option, there is no
2735:
38:
3127:
2963:
2784:
2649:
3884:
3856:
3631:
3574:
3453:
1902:
3988:
If I've misunderstood the argument that Jason and TarnishedPath are making, I apologize. I don't think I have.
368:
346:
145:
117:
84:
4118:
4007:
3979:
3906:
3349:
points of view, we just summarize what the existing reliable sources are saying, providing links in each case.
2899:
2145:
1922:
1420:
1378:
1350:
1022:
to NPOV. Having said that, if there is a consensus to do so then feel free to leave a request on my talk page.
985:
796:
719:
608:
501:
413:
390:
247:
216:
193:
135:
106:
3101:
2814:
2247:
1734:"personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions" as part of an argument with trying to get those opinions
4105:
how people are alerted to the ongoing dispute. The whole purpose of the RfC is to draw in other editors from
3503:
They're more than sufficient. It's not a big leap when their out-group term of derogation is "antifascist".
3252:
3237:
3032:
2274:
1910:
3157:
2531:
I have to agree with VQuakr here, I don't think the passage about the subpoenas should go into the lead per
2480:
2461:
538:
476:
3051:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/proud-boys-leader-sentenced-more-5-months-burning-black-lives-n1277466
2809:
He has not been in the chairman since September 11th 2001. He has been disavowed, is no longer a proud boy
2595:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-probes-pre-capitol-riot-meeting-far-right-groups-2022-02-08/
1139:
as good or bad to readers as you think they are. It is, for instance, absolutely not our job to worry that
909:
3792:
3775:
3704:
3665:
3541:
3491:
3391:
2993:
2938:
2118:
2054:
2015:
1815:
1302:
1098:
1070:
1029:
3970:
to donate freely-licensed photos of themselves or of others when they own the copyright) to an extremely
3932:
2717:
2532:
1493:
1318:
3611:
3432:
3309:
3058:
2555:
2091:
1867:
1756:
1674:
1624:
1556:
1551:
than simply being able to see his full face. But no image would be better than using this absurd image.
1482:
1443:
1406:
1392:
1364:
1335:
1235:
1183:
1160:
948:
871:
810:
761:
704:
580:
459:
266:
4041:
3550:
Go argue with the academics who have published works linked in the article above. Don't argue with me.
3387:
2136:
This looks good to me, and is actually much less visually busy as well. Thanks for your editing work,
4087:
tag up to alert people to the ongoing dispute, COI seems most apt, but NPOV and V are also in play.
3880:
3852:
3627:
3570:
3449:
3211:
2989:
2877:
2869:
2207:
1216:
2713:
1566:
1359:
No. My concern is whether the inclusion of the image in the article satisfies our content policies.
4114:
4003:
3975:
3902:
3405:
3097:
3018:
2759:
2604:
2507:
2415:
2359:
2283:
2262:
2196:
2141:
1953:
1918:
1884:
1847:
1712:
1521:
1416:
1374:
1346:
1156:
981:
792:
715:
678:
604:
561:
497:
409:
386:
363:
to activist. I thought I had already removed this one. He is actually rarely called an activist by
292:
243:
242:
I would love to, but like I said, Emir has added this content three times (I've removed it twice).
212:
189:
171:
131:
116:
Actually I think you are right about activist, I've removed it from the both the lead and infobox.
102:
47:
17:
2576:
4073:
3936:
3868:
3844:
3803:
3749:
3738:
3681:
3592:
3551:
3533:
3522:
3414:
3368:
3317:
3182:
2243:
1638:
314:
4106:
3971:
3730:
3726:
3722:
3718:
3714:
3692:
3486:." Only journalistic sources (cited in the article) and not academic sources use "neo-fascist."
3367:
say around here, not with random IP's conspiracies about terms that they can't properly define.
1602:
similar with an edge to the second one, and overall the second one just looks better to my eyes.
2086:
replacing the current image with the one without a flag, because at least it's an improvement.
4092:
4063:
4022:
3993:
3956:
3508:
3354:
3082:
2934:
2580:
2540:
2495:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Enrique_Tarrio&diff=1056979130&oldid=1056948246
2433:
2378:
2137:
2113:
2049:
2010:
1944:
1810:
1298:
1093:
1065:
1042:
1024:
335:
233:
3734:
3536:"However, he and his government are generally excluded from academic typologies of fascism."
3074:
1858:
1837:
1665:
so its authority is literally above that of policy... it is the concept and ideal that helps
159:
4049:
3947:
3922:
3518:
3464:
3428:
3054:
2843:
2551:
2522:
2223:
2178:
2159:
2087:
2073:
2035:
1863:
1787:
1776:
1752:
1689:
1670:
1646:
1620:
1598:
1578:
1552:
1505:
1478:
1467:
1439:
1402:
1388:
1360:
1331:
1231:
1198:
1179:
1155:
than we reckon he actually is. The current image is fine until a better one comes around. ââ
1053:
944:
926:
898:
867:
844:
833:
806:
757:
700:
665:
649:
623:
576:
454:
262:
4110:
2835:
2314:
https://apnews.com/article/proud-boys-government-informant-dc84086d78b688bc585f874452d2b481
1662:
1497:
3602:
2873:
2859:
1936:
1212:
743:
518:
439:
3677:
3619:
3364:
1894:
364:
1698:
There's lots to discuss here. I tried to make it brief but failed. First, the pillar is
1462:
Who uploaded it is irrelevant from a NPOV standpoint, Jason. You are way off base here.
3760:
3650:
3468:
3402:
3131:
3014:
2967:
2788:
2755:
2653:
2600:
2503:
2411:
2355:
2278:
2257:
1948:
1932:
1898:
1516:
673:
657:
653:
637:
288:
167:
3096:, but it's got watermarks all over it, and I have no idea where to find the original.
4044:
the process; "I'm not happy with the answer" is not a sufficient reason to tag bomb.
3764:
3483:
3178:
3152:"banned" is a typo for "banner" in the sentence, "Tarrio and the group set fire ..."
2407:
2239:
2082:
Although I would still prefer the alternate image with him wearing a baseball cap, I
1940:
1543:
1435:
669:
641:
633:
537:
fails our NPOV policy and must not be included in the article. The alternative image
310:
4122:
4096:
4078:
4067:
4053:
4026:
4011:
3997:
3983:
3960:
3941:
3926:
3910:
3888:
3873:
3860:
3808:
3796:
3779:
3754:
3743:
3708:
3686:
3669:
3655:
3635:
3597:
3578:
3556:
3545:
3527:
3521:
for the fact that both Pinochet himself and the military dictatorship were fascist.
3512:
3495:
3457:
3436:
3419:
3408:
3395:
3373:
3358:
3342:
3322:
3297:
3276:
3256:
3241:
3215:
3186:
3161:
3105:
3086:
3062:
3036:
3022:
2997:
2942:
2922:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/23/proud-boys-extremism-book-00057703
2903:
2881:
2863:
2847:
2818:
2763:
2743:
2721:
2628:
2608:
2584:
2559:
2544:
2526:
2511:
2484:
2465:
2437:
2419:
2401:
2382:
2363:
2349:
2333:
2290:
2269:
2227:
2212:
2163:
2149:
2124:
2095:
2077:
2060:
2039:
2021:
1960:
1926:
1888:
1871:
1851:
1821:
1780:
1760:
1693:
1678:
1650:
1628:
1582:
1560:
1528:
1509:
1486:
1471:
1447:
1424:
1410:
1396:
1382:
1368:
1354:
1339:
1306:
1239:
1220:
1187:
1164:
1104:
1076:
1057:
1035:
989:
952:
930:
875:
848:
814:
800:
765:
723:
708:
685:
627:
612:
584:
522:
505:
484:
467:
442:
435:
417:
394:
376:
354:
339:
318:
296:
270:
251:
237:
220:
197:
175:
153:
139:
130:
Alright. Given the lack of engagement in this discussion I've created an RfC below.
125:
110:
4088:
4083:
Is there a downside to leaving it up for the duration of the RFC? We should have
4059:
4018:
3989:
3952:
3504:
3350:
3200:
3193:
3078:
2695:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/us/politics/enrique-tarrio-proud-boys-jan-6.html
2536:
2429:
2374:
2277:
confirms Henry, Junior and an age of 37 which is consistent with a 1984 birthdate.
2256:
verifies that his legal first name is Henry, but does not address the Junior part.
1906:
1806:
prevents us from seeing that, we have no hope to ever enforce neutrality for images
331:
229:
188:
Should the lead of this article identify Tarrio as a businessman and/or activist?
3606:
to be Fascist. Before coming to conclusions, one should evaluate all the sources.
805:
I have now responded to this above. I take issues with many of those images too.
4045:
3918:
3644:
Stanley Payne are in agreement, that pretty much ends the debate, I always say.
3566:
3472:
2839:
2518:
2499:
2475:
Why is there the exact same definition with same citation twice in the article?
2456:
Why is there the exact same definition with same citation twice in the article?
2219:
2155:
2069:
2031:
1772:
1685:
1642:
1611:
1607:
1574:
1501:
1463:
1049:
937:
922:
840:
619:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
3759:
You misunderstood me: the academic sources used do not use "neo-fascist" but "
2855:
2203:
2185:
1803:
1717:
1431:
1140:
913:
645:
514:
144:
Thanks girl. That is a good idea, but please don't accuse me of wasting time.
2573:
reference 25 and 40. Do people on Knowledge (XXG) just not know how to cite?
3645:
2424:"Despite your claim to the contrary"? No, from the very article you linked:
788:
3013:. Four reliable sources calling the Proud Boys fascist are in the article.
2192:
Another issue is that there is currently another huge chunk of text inside
738:
As Cullen states, you pick the higher quality images from AMONG those that
3471:. However, there is no academic consensus that Pinochet was a fascist and
2590:"Tarrio has said he stepped down as Proud Boys chairman earlier this year"
2184:
template, where it's used twice in this article to take a section of the
661:
3206:
Should at least be listed in the "See also" section at the end. Cheers!
566:
don't say things like "please stop reverting without discussion" when I
3203:(Jan. 6 planning document) anywhere in the article here, about Tarrio?
2426:
There is no evidence Tarrio has cooperated with authorities since then.
382:
3849:
Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism,
2988:
Remove neo-fascist. I do not believe itâs okay to lie about someone.
2913:
No longer the chairman of the proud boys, but still listed as in bio
2322:
was not a conservative activist and should not be described as such.
83:
but I suspect it was missed since it's not the topic of the section.
1143:
is mismatched with the views editors Alice and Bob have of Mao as a
2838:
for your proposed change before using the edit request template.
652:, or slightly lesser known but still controversial figures like
2354:
Please feel free to list the sources that support your claim.
2154:
I went ahead an changed it per the unanimous discussion above.
162:, we should go back to the last stable version (which would be
3115:
2951:
2772:
2637:
25:
1500:
rather than trying to apply your take to one particular BLP.
381:
Can you explain how "businessman" is a "noteworthy role" per
3077:. Anybody got any advice for how to track down a mugshot? â
1982:
File:Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys.jpg
535:
File:Enrique Tarrio - International Chairman Proud Boys.jpg
2304:
widespread reporting and his own admission. For example:
3787:
To describe this as "neo-fascist" is quite questionable.
3467:
is a fascist, so the Proud Boys who support the same are
1211:, instead of being hidden behind sunglasses and a hat? -
1141:
Mao's friendly and approachable demeanour in his portrait
3312:
2494:
2104:
I could Photoshop a baseball cap onto him if you like.
1570:
1321:" and this is the only image uploaded by that account.
404:
284:
163:
94:
91:
88:
3282:
All those citations look pretty solid to me. Care to
434:("the chairman of the far-right nationalist group");
4040:
that doesn't make them a major contributor. This is
1901:
is not shown in the lead playing basketball (though
330:
it's not even important for it to be in the infobox.
2705:tags on this page without content in them (see the
2686:tags on this page without content in them (see the
1840:that you are claiming that it violates. Sincerely,
80:
283:that the text in question was added recently, in
3931:The photo in the lede infobox was uploaded by
3517:You can refer to the numerous sources used at
438:("leader of the far-right Proud Boys group").
3565:The first source used is an opinion piece by
2948:Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2022
1373:Then, as I said, the uploader is immaterial.
554:User:Jason Quinn/NPOV is a problem for images
8:
3519:Augusto Pinochet#Characterisation_as_fascist
2769:Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2022
1751:is the most important of all our policies.)
2674:Change the final line in LEGAL ISSUES to:
2634:Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022
2299:FBI Informant per Reuters, AP, Forbes, etc.
430:("chairman of the far-right Proud Boys"),
407:, but I don't want to waste anyone's time.
4038:photo in the lede infobox was uploaded...
3112:Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023
1979:
1153:intelligent, thought-provoking, powerful
1133:intelligent, thought-provoking, powerful
3731:Knowledge (XXG) is not a reliable source
4002:You are the one who added the tag, no?
3379:@2600:1004:B1C2:E4D1:8FC:8857:2C35:A71B
3269:2603:8080:C8F0:8ED0:21FC:8E84:F073:17C7
2868:This is probably trolling. Look at the
2535:and generally not lead-worthy content.
2233:
2000:Retouched image with background removed
1917:that such a photo be used in the lead.
4037:
3500:
3335:2600:1004:B1C2:E4D1:8FC:8857:2C35:A71B
2425:
1801:
1312:Self-published, single-purpose account
1152:
1132:
918:Use the best quality images available.
783:). In your McVeigh example, we do not
780:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
3290:2601:3CA:204:F860:65C5:E4B3:4262:874A
2621:2607:FEA8:545F:87B0:1C5:E97:7CF2:C148
2394:2601:42:C101:AAD0:A1CA:A410:4437:904A
2342:2601:42:C101:AAD0:3118:E2BC:7FC8:C507
2326:2601:42:C101:AAD0:21AC:5A7C:B63F:3C94
1663:one of the pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
1637:in costume in our infobox image, but
7:
3247:Error is repeated at end of article
2406:Tarrio didn't found the Proud Boys,
2174:There seems to be an issue with the
2105:
1740:Knowledge (XXG):No original research
1669:policy. That's how important it is.
2931:Recommend edit using these sources
2697:
2678:
632:Take a look at the lead images for
367:'s despite what some might think.
24:
3733:. It's explicitly spelled out on
3618:has previously been published by
2909:Former chairman of the proud boys
2471:Repetition of what Proud Boys is?
2452:Repetition of what Proud Boys is?
1800:Furthermore, your statement that
781:used for state publicity purposes
3482:The other academic source uses "
3177:Thanks for pointing that out! â
3168:
3119:
3004:
2955:
2825:
2776:
2727:
2641:
2106:
1993:
1909:is not shown performing (again,
1730:have that. We must not conflate
1082:
29:
3304:Removal of citations discussion
3221:conviction sentence is in error
2234:What 's in a name (and a date)?
1903:numerous images of him doing so
81:#Removal of descriptors in lead
3528:03:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
3513:09:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
3496:20:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
3458:05:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
3437:04:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
3420:04:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
3409:03:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
3396:02:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
2943:03:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
1635:Black Widow (Natasha Romanova)
1:
3374:23:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
3359:23:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
3343:21:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
3323:00:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3298:06:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
3277:05:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
3216:13:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
2560:22:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
2545:19:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
2527:19:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
2512:18:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
2485:05:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
2466:05:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
2291:23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
2270:22:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
2248:22:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
452:
4123:16:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
4097:11:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
4079:11:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
4068:10:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
4054:09:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
4027:03:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
4012:02:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
3998:02:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
3984:02:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
3961:01:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
3942:01:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
3927:01:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
3911:23:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
3622:, independent publications."
3232:This needs to be corrected.
3106:22:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
3063:21:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
3037:00:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
2609:14:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
2585:03:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
2438:16:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
2420:16:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
2402:14:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
2254:This Washington Post article
1726:we make, on Knowledge (XXG)
3933:commons:User:Peterdukephoto
3889:01:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
3874:00:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
3861:18:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
3809:23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
3797:15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
3780:15:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
3755:11:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
3744:11:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
3709:10:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
3687:10:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
3670:10:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
3656:05:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
3636:03:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
3598:03:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
3579:00:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
3557:23:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
3546:20:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
3475:is a neo-fascist ideology (
3146:to reactivate your request.
3134:has been answered. Set the
3023:19:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
2998:19:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
2982:to reactivate your request.
2970:has been answered. Set the
2803:to reactivate your request.
2791:has been answered. Set the
2668:to reactivate your request.
2656:has been answered. Set the
2383:16:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
2364:15:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
2350:13:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
2334:22:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
1319:commons:User:Peterdukephoto
4149:
3286:something to the contrary?
2882:20:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
2864:23:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
2848:20:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
2819:20:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
2764:17:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
523:14:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
506:11:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
485:10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
468:22:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
443:21:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
418:20:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
395:21:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
377:21:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
355:21:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
340:20:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
319:16:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
297:12:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
271:00:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
252:16:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
238:15:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
221:15:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
198:15:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
176:21:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
154:21:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
140:15:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
126:15:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
111:19:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
87:has at least three times (
3676:Knowledge (XXG) is not a
3588:just because he's a loon.
3087:20:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
2904:16:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
2744:18:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
2722:16:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
2629:16:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
2275:This Miami Herald article
2164:16:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
2150:15:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
2125:18:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
2096:06:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
2078:02:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
2061:00:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
2040:23:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
2022:23:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
1961:06:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
1935:behind a movie camera or
1927:15:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
1889:13:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
1872:02:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
1852:20:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
1822:21:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
1781:02:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
1761:13:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
1694:08:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
1679:07:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
1651:18:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1629:18:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1583:16:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1561:11:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1529:06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1510:06:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1487:05:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1472:04:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1448:05:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1425:02:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1411:02:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1397:01:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1383:01:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1369:01:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1355:01:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1340:00:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1307:00:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1240:00:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1221:18:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
1188:00:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
1165:14:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
1105:23:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
1077:21:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
1058:21:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
1036:21:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
990:11:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
953:05:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
931:04:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
876:00:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
849:16:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
815:01:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
801:12:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
766:10:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
724:11:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
709:00:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
686:04:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
628:04:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
613:01:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
585:01:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
3946:The tag was added after
2228:15:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
2213:14:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
618:hard to take seriously.
529:Propaganda image must go
3974:extreme with this tag.
3640:Whenever Stanley Payne
3257:18:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
3242:18:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
3187:02:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
3162:01:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
2568:Tarrio an FBI Informant
2170:Issue with excerpt refs
1857:The reason it violates
1209:actually shows his face
1127:I can imagine very few
539:File:Enrique_Tarrio.jpg
369:Emir of Knowledge (XXG)
347:Emir of Knowledge (XXG)
146:Emir of Knowledge (XXG)
118:Emir of Knowledge (XXG)
85:Emir of Knowledge (XXG)
3199:Why no mention of the
1988:Existing infobox image
570:give a rational in my
3616:in the relevant field
3612:subject-matter expert
3328:Fascist Organization?
2736:ScottishFinnishRadish
42:of past discussions.
3501:journalistic sources
2750:Education and family
1905:are available), and
1547:article well and is
751:be the best choice.
79:I addressed this in
1947:in aviator's gear.
1749:WP:Ignore All Rules
494:remove from infobox
328:remove from infobox
306:remove from infobox
280:remove from infobox
18:Talk:Enrique Tarrio
3767:"(i.e., WP:SYNTH).
3263:Who authored this?
1639:Scarlett Johansson
1615:photo which isn't.
477:CommanderWaterford
3150:
3149:
2986:
2985:
2807:
2806:
2672:
2671:
2211:
1971:Alternative image
1945:Charles Lindbergh
1911:plenty of options
1895:featured articles
416:
393:
250:
219:
196:
138:
109:
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
4140:
3363:We go with what
3310:David O. Johnson
3176:
3172:
3171:
3141:
3137:
3123:
3122:
3116:
3012:
3008:
3007:
2977:
2973:
2959:
2958:
2952:
2833:
2829:
2828:
2798:
2794:
2780:
2779:
2773:
2731:
2730:
2712:
2711:
2710:
2704:
2693:
2692:
2691:
2685:
2663:
2659:
2645:
2644:
2638:
2288:
2286:Let's discuss it
2267:
2265:Let's discuss it
2210:
2201:
2195:
2183:
2177:
2111:
2110:
2109:
1997:
1985:
1983:
1958:
1956:Let's discuss it
1943:at the easel or
1791:
1569:you. However as
1526:
1524:Let's discuss it
1202:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1046:
941:
902:
837:
683:
681:Let's discuss it
666:Charles Coughlin
650:Benito Mussolini
565:
466:
412:
389:
246:
215:
192:
134:
105:
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
4148:
4147:
4143:
4142:
4141:
4139:
4138:
4137:
3899:
3603:Michael Parenti
3479:â neo-fascist).
3469:crypto-fascists
3442:cherry-picking.
3330:
3306:
3265:
3223:
3197:
3169:
3167:
3139:
3135:
3120:
3114:
3070:
3047:
3005:
3003:
2975:
2971:
2956:
2950:
2911:
2892:
2826:
2824:
2796:
2792:
2777:
2771:
2752:
2728:
2702:
2700:
2698:
2683:
2681:
2679:
2661:
2657:
2642:
2636:
2616:
2614:Political Views
2592:
2570:
2492:
2473:
2454:
2301:
2284:
2263:
2236:
2199:
2193:
2181:
2175:
2172:
2107:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1998:
1990:
1989:
1986:
1981:
1973:
1954:
1937:Roger Bannister
1931:We do not show
1785:
1522:
1314:
1196:
1145:really mean guy
1083:
1081:
1040:
935:
916:, which notes:
896:
831:
744:Timothy McVeigh
679:
559:
531:
77:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
4146:
4144:
4136:
4135:
4134:
4133:
4132:
4131:
4130:
4129:
4128:
4127:
4126:
4125:
4115:GorillaWarfare
4035:
4034:
4033:
4032:
4031:
4030:
4029:
4004:GorillaWarfare
3976:GorillaWarfare
3944:
3929:
3903:GorillaWarfare
3898:
3895:
3894:
3893:
3892:
3891:
3842:
3841:
3840:
3839:
3838:
3837:
3836:
3835:
3834:
3833:
3832:
3831:
3830:
3829:
3828:
3827:
3826:
3825:
3824:
3823:
3822:
3821:
3820:
3819:
3818:
3817:
3816:
3815:
3814:
3813:
3812:
3811:
3785:
3782:
3768:
3761:crypto-fascist
3746:
3729:to state that
3674:
3673:
3672:
3623:
3607:
3589:
3585:
3563:
3515:
3480:
3446:
3443:
3425:
3411:
3383:
3376:
3361:
3329:
3326:
3305:
3302:
3301:
3300:
3287:
3264:
3261:
3260:
3259:
3222:
3219:
3196:
3191:
3190:
3189:
3148:
3147:
3132:Enrique Tarrio
3124:
3113:
3110:
3109:
3108:
3098:Raving Colonel
3069:
3066:
3046:
3043:
3042:
3041:
3040:
3039:
2984:
2983:
2968:Enrique Tarrio
2960:
2949:
2946:
2910:
2907:
2896:87.220.139.111
2891:
2888:
2887:
2886:
2885:
2884:
2851:
2850:
2811:50.197.237.126
2805:
2804:
2789:Enrique Tarrio
2781:
2770:
2767:
2751:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2670:
2669:
2654:Enrique Tarrio
2646:
2635:
2632:
2615:
2612:
2591:
2588:
2569:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2562:
2529:
2491:
2488:
2472:
2469:
2453:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2422:
2389:
2370:
2300:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2235:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2171:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2152:
2142:GorillaWarfare
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2099:
2098:
2080:
2063:
2042:
1999:
1992:
1991:
1987:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1972:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1933:Haskell Wexler
1919:GorillaWarfare
1899:Michael Jordan
1891:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1798:
1783:
1708:strong, cogent
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1616:
1603:
1597:FWIW I'm with
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1540:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1417:GorillaWarfare
1399:
1375:GorillaWarfare
1347:GorillaWarfare
1313:
1310:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1224:
1223:
1203:, in your own
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1168:
1167:
1148:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1079:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
982:GorillaWarfare
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
793:GorillaWarfare
771:
770:
769:
768:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
716:GorillaWarfare
691:
690:
689:
688:
658:George Wallace
654:Eugene V. Debs
638:Vladimir Lenin
615:
605:GorillaWarfare
601:
597:
562:GorillaWarfare
530:
527:
526:
525:
508:
498:Guitarjunkie22
487:
470:
445:
410:GorillaWarfare
400:
399:
398:
397:
387:GorillaWarfare
358:
342:
321:
299:
273:
256:
255:
254:
244:GorillaWarfare
223:
213:GorillaWarfare
190:GorillaWarfare
187:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
180:
179:
178:
132:GorillaWarfare
103:GorillaWarfare
76:
73:
70:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4145:
4124:
4120:
4116:
4112:
4108:
4104:
4100:
4099:
4098:
4094:
4090:
4086:
4082:
4081:
4080:
4077:
4076:
4075:TarnishedPath
4071:
4070:
4069:
4065:
4061:
4057:
4056:
4055:
4051:
4047:
4043:
4039:
4036:
4028:
4024:
4020:
4015:
4014:
4013:
4009:
4005:
4001:
4000:
3999:
3995:
3991:
3987:
3986:
3985:
3981:
3977:
3973:
3969:
3964:
3963:
3962:
3958:
3954:
3949:
3945:
3943:
3940:
3939:
3938:TarnishedPath
3934:
3930:
3928:
3924:
3920:
3915:
3914:
3913:
3912:
3908:
3904:
3896:
3890:
3886:
3882:
3877:
3876:
3875:
3872:
3871:
3870:TarnishedPath
3865:
3864:
3863:
3862:
3858:
3854:
3850:
3846:
3845:TarnishedPath
3810:
3807:
3806:
3805:TarnishedPath
3800:
3799:
3798:
3794:
3790:
3786:
3783:
3781:
3777:
3773:
3769:
3766:
3765:proto-fascist
3762:
3758:
3757:
3756:
3753:
3752:
3751:TarnishedPath
3747:
3745:
3742:
3741:
3740:TarnishedPath
3736:
3732:
3728:
3724:
3720:
3716:
3713:Where is the
3712:
3711:
3710:
3706:
3702:
3698:
3694:
3690:
3689:
3688:
3685:
3684:
3683:TarnishedPath
3679:
3675:
3671:
3667:
3663:
3659:
3658:
3657:
3654:
3653:
3649:
3648:
3643:
3639:
3638:
3637:
3633:
3629:
3624:
3621:
3617:
3614:, whose work
3613:
3608:
3604:
3601:
3600:
3599:
3596:
3595:
3594:TarnishedPath
3590:
3586:
3582:
3581:
3580:
3576:
3572:
3568:
3564:
3560:
3559:
3558:
3555:
3554:
3553:TarnishedPath
3549:
3548:
3547:
3543:
3539:
3535:
3534:TarnishedPath
3531:
3530:
3529:
3526:
3525:
3524:TarnishedPath
3520:
3516:
3514:
3510:
3506:
3502:
3499:
3498:
3497:
3493:
3489:
3485:
3481:
3478:
3474:
3470:
3466:
3461:
3460:
3459:
3455:
3451:
3447:
3444:
3440:
3439:
3438:
3434:
3430:
3426:
3423:
3422:
3421:
3418:
3417:
3416:TarnishedPath
3412:
3410:
3407:
3404:
3399:
3398:
3397:
3393:
3389:
3384:
3380:
3377:
3375:
3372:
3371:
3370:TarnishedPath
3366:
3362:
3360:
3356:
3352:
3347:
3346:
3345:
3344:
3340:
3336:
3327:
3325:
3324:
3321:
3320:
3319:TarnishedPath
3314:
3311:
3303:
3299:
3295:
3291:
3288:
3285:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3274:
3270:
3262:
3258:
3254:
3250:
3249:97.112.25.207
3246:
3245:
3244:
3243:
3239:
3235:
3234:97.112.25.207
3230:
3229:
3220:
3218:
3217:
3213:
3209:
3204:
3202:
3195:
3192:
3188:
3184:
3180:
3175:
3166:
3165:
3164:
3163:
3159:
3155:
3145:
3142:parameter to
3133:
3129:
3125:
3118:
3117:
3111:
3107:
3103:
3099:
3095:
3091:
3090:
3089:
3088:
3084:
3080:
3076:
3067:
3065:
3064:
3060:
3056:
3052:
3044:
3038:
3034:
3030:
3029:98.97.160.138
3026:
3025:
3024:
3020:
3016:
3011:
3002:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2995:
2991:
2981:
2978:parameter to
2969:
2965:
2961:
2954:
2953:
2947:
2945:
2944:
2940:
2936:
2932:
2929:
2928:
2924:
2923:
2919:
2918:
2914:
2908:
2906:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2889:
2883:
2879:
2875:
2871:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2861:
2857:
2853:
2852:
2849:
2845:
2841:
2837:
2832:
2823:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2816:
2812:
2802:
2799:parameter to
2790:
2786:
2782:
2775:
2774:
2768:
2766:
2765:
2761:
2757:
2749:
2745:
2741:
2737:
2734:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2719:
2715:
2708:
2696:
2689:
2675:
2667:
2664:parameter to
2655:
2651:
2647:
2640:
2639:
2633:
2631:
2630:
2626:
2622:
2613:
2611:
2610:
2606:
2602:
2597:
2596:
2589:
2587:
2586:
2582:
2578:
2574:
2567:
2561:
2557:
2553:
2552:â Alalch Emis
2550:proceedings.
2548:
2547:
2546:
2542:
2538:
2534:
2530:
2528:
2524:
2520:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2496:
2489:
2487:
2486:
2482:
2478:
2477:161.73.255.58
2470:
2468:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2458:161.73.255.58
2451:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2421:
2417:
2413:
2409:
2408:Gavin McInnes
2405:
2404:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2390:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2371:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2361:
2357:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2347:
2343:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2331:
2327:
2323:
2319:
2318:
2315:
2312:
2308:
2305:
2298:
2292:
2289:
2287:
2282:
2281:
2276:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2268:
2266:
2261:
2260:
2255:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2245:
2241:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2209:
2205:
2198:
2190:
2187:
2180:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2151:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2132:
2131:
2126:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2117:
2116:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2064:
2062:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2053:
2052:
2046:
2043:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2014:
2013:
1996:
1984:
1970:
1962:
1959:
1957:
1952:
1951:
1946:
1942:
1941:Pablo Picasso
1938:
1934:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1881:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1860:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1844:
1839:
1823:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1814:
1813:
1807:
1805:
1799:
1795:
1789:
1784:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1769:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1724:
1719:
1714:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1571:GW just noted
1568:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1545:
1544:MOS:LEADIMAGE
1541:
1537:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1527:
1525:
1520:
1519:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1436:MOS:LEADIMAGE
1433:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1322:
1320:
1311:
1309:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1200:
1195:
1194:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1149:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1125:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1096:
1091:. See below.
1089:
1080:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1044:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
991:
987:
983:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
954:
950:
946:
939:
934:
933:
932:
928:
924:
919:
915:
912:refers us to
911:
910:WP:IMGCONTENT
907:
900:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
877:
873:
869:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
850:
846:
842:
835:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
816:
812:
808:
804:
803:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
767:
763:
759:
754:
750:
745:
741:
737:
736:
735:
734:
725:
721:
717:
712:
711:
710:
706:
702:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
687:
684:
682:
677:
676:
671:
670:Braxton Bragg
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
642:Joseph Stalin
639:
635:
634:Adolph Hitler
631:
630:
629:
625:
621:
616:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
589:
588:
587:
586:
582:
578:
573:
569:
563:
557:
555:
550:
546:
542:
540:
536:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
509:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
486:
482:
478:
474:
471:
469:
464:
461:
458:
457:
449:
446:
444:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
422:
421:
420:
419:
415:
411:
408:
406:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
379:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
357:
356:
352:
348:
343:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
322:
320:
316:
312:
307:
303:
300:
298:
294:
290:
286:
281:
277:
274:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
240:
239:
235:
231:
227:
224:
222:
218:
214:
209:
205:
202:
201:
200:
199:
195:
191:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
156:
155:
151:
147:
143:
142:
141:
137:
133:
129:
128:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
113:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
92:
89:
86:
82:
75:Lead sentence
74:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
4102:
4084:
4074:
3967:
3937:
3900:
3869:
3848:
3843:
3804:
3789:93.45.229.98
3772:93.45.229.98
3750:
3739:
3701:93.45.229.98
3682:
3662:93.45.229.98
3651:
3646:
3641:
3615:
3593:
3552:
3538:93.45.229.98
3523:
3488:93.45.229.98
3484:protofascist
3476:
3415:
3388:AnswerManDan
3369:
3331:
3318:
3307:
3283:
3266:
3231:
3224:
3205:
3201:1776 Returns
3198:
3194:1776 Returns
3173:
3154:45.58.90.160
3151:
3143:
3128:edit request
3071:
3048:
3009:
2987:
2979:
2964:edit request
2935:TuffStuffMcG
2933:
2930:
2925:
2920:
2915:
2912:
2893:
2834:. Establish
2830:
2808:
2800:
2785:edit request
2753:
2733:Already done
2732:
2703:<ref: -->
2699:Cite error:
2684:<ref: -->
2680:Cite error:
2676:
2673:
2665:
2650:edit request
2617:
2598:
2593:
2575:
2571:
2533:WP:RECENTISM
2498:
2493:
2474:
2455:
2324:
2320:
2309:
2306:
2302:
2285:
2279:
2264:
2258:
2237:
2191:
2173:
2138:nagualdesign
2133:
2119:
2114:
2112:
2083:
2065:
2055:
2050:
2048:
2044:
2027:
2016:
2011:
2009:
2006:
1955:
1949:
1914:
1907:Taylor Swift
1879:
1878:
1842:
1841:
1834:
1816:
1811:
1809:
1793:
1767:
1744:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1722:
1703:
1699:
1666:
1548:
1535:
1523:
1517:
1326:
1323:
1315:
1299:TuffStuffMcG
1297:
1208:
1174:
1147:. Who cares?
1144:
1136:
1128:
1099:
1094:
1092:
1087:
1071:
1066:
1064:
1043:Nagualdesign
1030:
1025:
1023:
1019:
917:
905:
784:
752:
748:
739:
680:
674:
596:the infobox.
592:
571:
567:
558:
551:
547:
543:
532:
510:
493:
489:
472:
455:
447:
423:
402:
401:
360:
344:
327:
323:
305:
301:
279:
275:
258:
225:
207:
203:
186:
97:
78:
65:
43:
37:
4117:(she/her â˘
4042:bludgeoning
4006:(she/her â˘
3978:(she/her â˘
3948:Jason Quinn
3905:(she/her â˘
3567:Andrew Neil
3477:semifascist
3473:Pinochetism
3055:PiratePablo
2144:(she/her â˘
1939:running or
1921:(she/her â˘
1915:requirement
1788:Jason Quinn
1753:Jason Quinn
1671:Jason Quinn
1612:Agent Smith
1608:Darth Vader
1599:Jason Quinn
1553:Jason Quinn
1479:Jason Quinn
1440:Jason Quinn
1419:(she/her â˘
1403:Jason Quinn
1389:Jason Quinn
1377:(she/her â˘
1361:Jason Quinn
1349:(she/her â˘
1332:Jason Quinn
1232:Jason Quinn
1199:Jason Quinn
1180:Jason Quinn
984:(she/her â˘
945:Jason Quinn
899:Jason Quinn
868:Jason Quinn
834:Jason Quinn
807:Jason Quinn
795:(she/her â˘
758:Jason Quinn
740:are neutral
718:(she/her â˘
701:Jason Quinn
607:(she/her â˘
577:Jason Quinn
473:No, and no.
456:SMcCandlish
448:No, and no.
36:This is an
3968:encouraged
3584:scientist.
3208:98.155.8.5
3136:|answered=
3045:Birth year
2990:1world2033
2972:|answered=
2874:Dronebogus
2793:|answered=
2701:There are
2682:There are
2658:|answered=
2204:Proud Boys
2197:references
2189:for that.
2186:Proud Boys
1804:groupthink
1718:groupthink
1700:neutrality
1567:WP:SATISFY
1432:MOS:IRELEV
1213:Adolphus79
914:MOS:IMAGES
646:Mao Zedong
533:The image
440:Neutrality
3972:WP:POINTy
3403:dlthewave
3313:this edit
3075:openverse
3015:Cullen328
2890:Birthname
2836:consensus
2756:Smokefoot
2714:Nmagliato
2707:help page
2688:help page
2601:soibangla
2504:soibangla
2490:subpoenas
2412:Vexations
2356:Vexations
2206:article.
1880:North8000
1843:North8000
1713:inductive
1619:doesn't.
789:Ted Bundy
289:Aquillion
285:this edit
168:Aquillion
164:March 9th
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
4107:WP:RFC/A
4101:The RfC
3897:COI tag?
3727:WP:VOICE
3723:WP:SYNTH
3719:WP:VOICE
3715:WP:SYNTH
3697:WP:VOICE
3693:WP:SYNTH
3620:reliable
3562:support.
3465:Pinochet
3179:Muboshgu
3079:âď¸hawk10
3010:Not done
2831:Not done
2369:present.
2240:Activist
2208:Isabelle
1157:Volteer1
906:we think
662:Malcom X
436:BBC News
311:Cedar777
4089:Feoffer
4060:Feoffer
4019:Feoffer
3990:Feoffer
3953:Feoffer
3763:" and "
3735:WP:RS/P
3505:Feoffer
3351:Feoffer
3094:website
2577:Gwquinn
2537:Mvbaron
2430:Mvbaron
2375:Mvbaron
2179:excerpt
2134:Support
2084:support
2066:Support
2045:Support
2028:Support
1859:WP:NPOV
1838:WP:NPOV
1494:WT:NPOV
1020:counter
432:NYTimes
383:MOS:BIO
332:Sea Ane
230:Mvbaron
160:WP:ONUS
39:archive
4111:WP:FRS
4046:VQuakr
3919:VQuakr
2840:VQuakr
2519:VQuakr
2500:VQuakr
2280:Cullen
2259:Cullen
2220:VQuakr
2156:VQuakr
2120:design
2115:nagual
2070:BrxBrx
2056:design
2051:nagual
2032:VQuakr
2017:design
2012:nagual
1950:Cullen
1817:design
1812:nagual
1797:image.
1773:VQuakr
1728:always
1704:remove
1686:VQuakr
1643:VQuakr
1575:VQuakr
1549:better
1518:Cullen
1502:VQuakr
1498:WP:VPP
1464:VQuakr
1173:I did
1137:appear
1100:design
1095:nagual
1072:design
1067:nagual
1050:VQuakr
1031:design
1026:nagual
938:VQuakr
923:VQuakr
841:VQuakr
675:Cullen
620:VQuakr
414:(talk)
391:(talk)
248:(talk)
217:(talk)
194:(talk)
136:(talk)
107:(talk)
3678:WP:RS
3365:WP:RS
3140:|ans=
3126:This
3068:Photo
2976:|ans=
2962:This
2856:Rgs25
2797:|ans=
2783:This
2662:|ans=
2648:This
2410:did.
1768:still
1732:using
1205:essay
1129:worse
749:still
600:them.
515:Nyx86
365:WP:RS
208:after
98:after
16:<
4119:talk
4093:talk
4085:some
4064:talk
4050:talk
4023:talk
4008:talk
3994:talk
3980:talk
3957:talk
3923:talk
3907:talk
3885:talk
3857:talk
3793:talk
3776:talk
3705:talk
3695:and
3691:See
3666:talk
3632:talk
3575:talk
3542:talk
3509:talk
3492:talk
3454:talk
3433:talk
3429:Loki
3392:talk
3382:all.
3355:talk
3339:talk
3308:Hi @
3294:talk
3284:cite
3273:talk
3253:talk
3238:talk
3212:talk
3183:talk
3174:Done
3158:talk
3102:talk
3083:talk
3059:talk
3033:talk
3019:talk
2994:talk
2939:talk
2900:talk
2878:talk
2870:date
2860:talk
2844:talk
2815:talk
2760:talk
2740:talk
2718:talk
2625:talk
2605:talk
2581:talk
2556:talk
2541:talk
2523:talk
2508:talk
2481:talk
2462:talk
2434:talk
2416:talk
2398:talk
2379:talk
2360:talk
2346:talk
2330:talk
2244:talk
2224:talk
2160:talk
2146:talk
2092:talk
2088:Loki
2074:talk
2036:talk
1923:talk
1885:talk
1868:talk
1864:Loki
1848:talk
1777:talk
1757:talk
1690:talk
1675:talk
1647:talk
1625:talk
1621:Loki
1579:talk
1557:talk
1506:talk
1483:talk
1468:talk
1444:talk
1421:talk
1407:talk
1393:talk
1379:talk
1365:talk
1351:talk
1336:talk
1303:talk
1236:talk
1217:talk
1184:talk
1161:talk
1088:Done
1054:talk
986:talk
949:talk
927:talk
872:talk
845:talk
811:talk
797:talk
785:have
762:talk
720:talk
705:talk
668:and
648:and
644:and
640:and
636:and
624:talk
609:talk
581:talk
572:sole
519:talk
502:talk
492:and
481:talk
428:WaPo
405:undo
373:talk
351:talk
336:talk
326:and
315:talk
304:and
293:talk
278:and
267:talk
263:Loki
234:talk
172:talk
150:talk
122:talk
3881:TFD
3853:TFD
3725:or
3717:or
3652:Eng
3642:and
3628:TFD
3571:TFD
3450:TFD
3138:or
3130:to
2974:or
2966:to
2795:or
2787:to
2660:or
2652:to
2428:--
2392:it.
1802:if
1794:not
1667:set
1496:or
1327:and
1175:not
593:any
568:did
465:đź
4121:)
4109:,
4103:is
4095:)
4066:)
4052:)
4025:)
4010:)
3996:)
3982:)
3959:)
3925:)
3909:)
3887:)
3859:)
3795:)
3778:)
3737:.
3707:)
3699:.
3680:.
3668:)
3634:)
3577:)
3544:)
3511:)
3494:)
3456:)
3435:)
3394:)
3357:)
3341:)
3296:)
3275:)
3255:)
3240:)
3214:)
3185:)
3160:)
3144:no
3104:)
3085:)
3061:)
3035:)
3021:)
2996:)
2980:no
2941:)
2902:)
2880:)
2872:.
2862:)
2846:)
2817:)
2801:no
2762:)
2742:)
2720:)
2709:).
2690:).
2666:no
2627:)
2607:)
2583:)
2558:)
2543:)
2525:)
2510:)
2483:)
2464:)
2436:)
2418:)
2400:)
2381:)
2362:)
2348:)
2332:)
2246:)
2226:)
2200:}}
2194:{{
2182:}}
2176:{{
2162:)
2148:)
2140:.
2094:)
2076:)
2038:)
1925:)
1897:,
1887:)
1870:)
1850:)
1779:)
1759:)
1745:no
1736:in
1723:is
1692:)
1677:)
1649:)
1627:)
1581:)
1559:)
1536:is
1508:)
1485:)
1470:)
1446:)
1423:)
1409:)
1395:)
1381:)
1367:)
1353:)
1338:)
1305:)
1238:)
1219:)
1186:)
1163:)
1056:)
988:)
951:)
929:)
874:)
847:)
813:)
799:)
764:)
722:)
707:)
664:,
660:,
656:,
626:)
611:)
583:)
556:.
521:)
511:No
504:)
490:No
483:)
453:â
424:No
375:)
361:No
353:)
338:)
324:No
317:)
302:No
295:)
276:No
269:)
259:No
236:)
226:No
204:No
174:)
152:)
124:)
93:,
90:,
4091:(
4062:(
4048:(
4021:(
3992:(
3955:(
3921:(
3883:(
3855:(
3791:(
3774:(
3703:(
3664:(
3647:E
3630:(
3573:(
3540:(
3532:@
3507:(
3490:(
3452:(
3431:(
3406:â
3401:â
3390:(
3353:(
3337:(
3292:(
3271:(
3251:(
3236:(
3210:(
3181:(
3156:(
3100:(
3081:(
3057:(
3031:(
3017:(
2992:(
2937:(
2898:(
2876:(
2858:(
2842:(
2813:(
2758:(
2738:(
2716:(
2623:(
2603:(
2579:(
2554:(
2539:(
2521:(
2506:(
2479:(
2460:(
2432:(
2414:(
2396:(
2377:(
2358:(
2344:(
2328:(
2242:(
2222:(
2158:(
2090:(
2072:(
2034:(
1883:(
1866:(
1846:(
1790::
1786:@
1775:(
1755:(
1688:(
1673:(
1645:(
1623:(
1577:(
1555:(
1504:(
1481:(
1466:(
1442:(
1405:(
1391:(
1363:(
1334:(
1317:"
1301:(
1234:(
1215:(
1201::
1197:@
1182:(
1159:(
1052:(
1045::
1041:@
947:(
940::
936:@
925:(
901::
897:@
870:(
843:(
836::
832:@
809:(
760:(
703:(
622:(
579:(
564::
560:@
517:(
500:(
479:(
463:¢
460:â
371:(
349:(
334:(
313:(
291:(
265:(
232:(
170:(
148:(
120:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.