Talk:Tara LaRosa

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tara LaRosa article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Mixed martial arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mixed martial arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mixed martial arts concepts, events, and biographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Mixed martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Mixed martial artsmixed martial arts articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's sport: Martial arts / mma Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Women's martial arts task force.
	This article is supported by the Women's MMA task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Criticism from other Proud Boys[edit]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]