Talk:Tara LaRosa

Criticism from other Proud Boys

@LosingBattle: I'll respond to your points made at my talk page here for the sake of visibility and in the hopes others might weigh in. You've argued that the source cited does not state where exactly it got this information from, how, or prove in any way that it was actually said. However Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline means that, in general, we don't try to determine where a news source gets its information from or how we can know it to be true. Instead, we consider the news source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In this case, The Guardian has a long history of accurate reporting, so it's likely to be safe to assume that they're not fabricating this story. That doesn't mean we're saying that their reporting is 100% definitely true – it's just that working on the basis of reputation and record is the approach that's served Wikipedia best over the last two decades(ish). I hope that clarifies things somewhat; let me know what you think. I've also added an additional source on criticism of LaRosa from other people involved with the Proud Boys that corroborates the Guardian article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts:"we don't try to determine where a news source gets its information from or how we can know it to be true" - No wonder Wikipedia's reputation is so poor. That article from the Grauniad, just some newspaper, is an individual's opinion piece with a clear ideological bent, submitted to this entry with a clear ideological intent. An encyclopaedia should not be 'he said, she said.' And as I stated, this article 'does not state where exactly it got this information from, how, or prove in any way that it was actually said' - nothing is verifiable, what matters most, obviously, for integrity. You are using Wikipedia's 'reliable sources guidelines' as a get out clause. The Guardian does not have a good reputation either. Any views to the contrary on this individual from this mystery encrypted source would not have been reported.

You added some nonsense piece that 'corroborates' nothing from an ideological co-warrior, after a bored search on Google. I don't know why THAT is acceptable, but the removal of this gossip isn't. Remember as well "Why are these random, anonymous views so notable that they make up the final line of, essentially, her mini autobiography?"

Wikipedia is nothing like it was 2 decades ago.

This was a random edit. My very first one. A simple removal of an unverifiable, utterly pointless jab on someone I don't know. I'm just a person fed up with leftist yellow journalism masquerading as 'encyclopaedic' whenever I decide to venture on this depressing website. And that's what it is, whether you find it "convincing" or not. I know full well there is no discussion here. LosingBattle (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• LosingBattle, please don't make random edits, then. Most of what you are saying here is incomprehensible, including the ideological co-warrior and the bored search--what? Point is, we have guidelines on reliable sources, and this was verified by one, and you can't just delete what comes out of those sources. And the Guardian's reputation is fine. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)