Talk:Nick Fuentes/Archive 1

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... The Person in the article has at this time has had a notable impact within the american far-right and with recent events within the american rightwing --Finnobrien127 (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The AfD was narrowly delete, there's been a lot of mentions of him in the last month.[1] Doug Weller talk 12:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Considering this guy managed to get his supporters to heckle the Presidents son off a stage, I'd say he's far more relevant than most of the online political pundits on Wikipedia. -Gottrettunsalle talk 4:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

He has done considerable annoyance to TPUSA and people in there such as Charlie kirk (activist), Donald Trump Jr., and he did try to confront Ben Sharpio when he was with his family so he is defiantly more relevant then alot of far right wingers at the moment. here are some some sources for the statements I provided , and Davidmurray232 talk 11:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Nick Fuentes.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Biases in approach?

Reads very much as a hit piece. The "views" section justifies vilification on account of very specific quotes used to smear.

Considering recent events and that the page was made very recently (Nov. 17), it's safe to assume this page was created in bad-faith by those with opposing views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman220 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

When the page is edited to make nick less like a bad guy, it gets deleted Mwolff51 (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Page Vandalism

Grayfell

The constant reversions you have made are not only disruptive, but have been done dishonestly, and border on outright vandalism. Of the contributions I recently made, all of them including citations from reliable or otherwise impartial sources. I added that he was Catholic, which is both true, and appropriately sourced. I including a statement made in an interview with the hill in which he expressed regret for his attendance at the Unite the Right rally. This is also true, and appropriately sourced. He claimed the comments made in regards to the Holocaust were done so in jest. This is overwhelmingly pertinent to the understanding of the situation within its proper context. Furthermore you reversed a correction which properly brought up that he did NOT leave RSBN as a result of his CNN comments, but rather was fired after attending the Charlottesville rally. The current version is promoting an outright lie. You are vandalizing the page, motivated by what I can only assume is political bias. If you've a problem with my contribution, please discuss it on the relevant talk page as opposed to engaging in an edit war.

-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottretteunsalle (talk • contribs) 02:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

By making many subtle and flattering changes based on flimsy sources and editorializing language, you are altering the article to be disproportionate and more flattering. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy.

As an example, a fair summary of "Conservatives seek to stifle new 'alt-right' movement steeped in anti-Semitism" would be to, y'know, explain the anti-Semitism. This is the main thrust of the article, so it is not appropriate to cherry-pick the most accommodating and least informative tid-bit. It is especially inappropriate to do this in the lead of the article. Further, nowhere does the article say he "expressed regret" for attending an event which was, exactly as it said on the tin, headlined by Spencer, Duke, and other overt Nazis. Following up holocaust denial with a "just joking" is unpersuasive, to put it mildly. He is responsible for his words and actions. It is not realistic for him to say something for "shock value" and then dismiss people for reacting as they were supposed to, and nobody is particularly concerned with how sincere he is with this crap.

If you know of reliable sources for why he left "RSBN", present them. His own videos are not reliable for factual claims, because again, Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. The Media Matters source is not great, but it is still miles ahead of WP:PRIMARY fluff. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You say he "is responsible for his words and actions." Is it then, unimportant, to include retractions or followup statements, regardless of their sincerity? The article said, and I quote:

"In an interview with The Hill, Fuentes insisted that he is not racist, anti-Semitic or a white nationalist. Fuentes said he believes that the Holocaust did take place and that the “cookies” bit was said for shock value.

“I’ve never advocated for a white ethno-state,” Fuentes said. “Multiracialism is here and we have to live with it and [the question is] how will we do that?”

Fuentes said that in hindsight, he probably would not have gone to the Charlottesville rally if he had known it would be co-opted by David Duke, the former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, and Richard Spencer, a white supremacist and neo-Nazi."

Whether or not he really "means it" is not for us to decide, but he said these things. That is a fact, and should be included. Moreover, his show can be used in order to reference things he has personally said. He claimed the Holocaust reference was a joke. Therefore it is perfectly fitting to say "Fuentes claimed the statement was a joke." Admittedly, it is not however, appropriate to then say "The statement was in fact a joke." That said, would you agree to at least restoring the segment regarding his Catholic Faith and making note of his interview statements?

-Gottrettunsalle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottretteunsalle (talk • contribs) 02:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Recall that a 'joke' is not mutually exclusive with somebody genuinely believing what they are saying. There are entire generations of comedians who say things that they believe genuinely are true, wherein the joke is merely observational. When Jerry Seinfeld says "what's the deal with airplane food?" and proceeds to joke about it being bad, he still clearly believes that airplane food is bad. In the case of Nick, the charge being held against him is not whether or not he was 'joking': he was most definitely 'joking' in the sense that the purpose of the segment (and in particular, the distasteful 'cookie monster' analogy) was humour for his fans. The second half of the 'cookie monster' segment, where he refers to smoke stacks in Auschwitz, is something he has claimed on his show that he paraphrased directly from a Norm MacDonald skit. The controversy is whether he post-ironically meant what he was talking about despite it coming in the format of a joke, and whether the irony and humour is being used as a cover for genuine belief in Holocaust revisionism. We should have no problem referring to the segment as a 'joke', but clarify that he is being accused of harbouring the beliefs underlying the joke. 150.203.2.234 (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Using his response from the Hill article is cherry-picking the most flattering bits and ignoring the main thrust of the article. Highlighting his response, without properly explaining what he is responding to, or why it matter, is a form of public relations.

Per the Hill source:

Fuentes’s YouTube show has been a factory for bigoted, anti-Semitic and racist content.

The 21-year old attended the “Unite the Right” white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, and later posted on his Facebook page: “The ruthless transnational elite know a tidal wave of white identity is coming and know that once the word gets out they will not be able to stop us. The fire rises.”

Whatever "regrets" he supposedly had were not expressed until significantly later, and this is context which has been provided by the source. We cannot rush past the context just to seek-out the bland PR.

As for being Catholic, including someone's religion in an article is optional. Many biographies have this info, and many do not. Generally this is based on due weight, context, and sources. Since this person is either non-notable, or perhaps barely noteworthy, this is trivia which could potentially be added or removed based on whim. To avoid this kind of disruption, you should wait until the article is on solid footing before filling in bland details with obscure social media posts. Further, independent sources are always preferable to primary ones, even for routine details like this. His religion should be stated as a simple fact unless there is a specific reason to think this is disputed. We should not say he "claims to be" Catholic. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, we could use his own publications for this, but these sources do nothing to help establish notability. If his religion is disputed for some reason, we should use a reliable, independent source to explain this.

Do any reliable sources care about this definition of jokes? Do any reliable sources attribute this to Norm MacDonald, or mention this, or was this based on personal familiarity with his online activity and fan-base? I don't know, and kind of doubt it, but reliable sources do indicate that his "post-ironic" Holocaust denial has had lasting, negative consequences for at least one person who defended him. Grayfell (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Gottrettunsalle. Grayfell, I am sure you have the best intentions, but these points that Gottrettunsalle bring up ARE sourced and provide a lot of context which is needed for the reader to properly understand the situation. There is no reason to not include them. -user:HistoricallyAccurate —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"Context" is decided by sources, not by the desires of editors. Just using the Hill source, it would be inappropriate and transparently promotional to ignore one half of the source and only cite the parts where he "insists" he is not a racist. As I said, the source also says that his show "has been a factory for bigoted, anti-Semitic and racist content". That he describes his comments as being for "shock value" is both obvious and irrelevant, and the article should not misuse a source to include obvious trivia out of false balance.

Since the discussion you are replying to is several months old, if you are proposing an actionable change to the article, I suggest starting a new section. Otherwise, let it die. Grayfell (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

And to controversy that MM was fired for association

M.M. was fired because she associated with NF. https://www.thedailybeast.com/conservative-group-yaf-fires-michelle-malkin-over-support-for-holocaust-denier JonesyPHD (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Why can't we called a duck and duck?

Hes quacks like a duck, god damn, hes a nazi, just cause he calls himself a "paleoconservative" doesn't mean that's what he is, if so, that would mean North Korea is democratic. --Takenusername (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Because we go by what RS say; to do otherwise violates NOR. It is the job of journalists and academics, not Wikipedia editors, to ascribe political labels to media personalities. Also, "far-right" is an umbrella term for right-wing extremist ideologies, which includes both neo-Nazism and white nationalism. It seems most accurate to use this label in the lead rather than a hyper-specific and contentious label, especially one that has not been used by any source I'm aware of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherio222 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This's an unusual comment from a new account with only five edits, but I agree with the gist of what you are saying. We would need sources to explain this for us.

• "Actual Nazis seem to think that Fuentes is one of them, or at least on their side. Neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer has excitedly chronicled Fuentes’ campaign against Kirk..."[2]

That's not calling him a Nazi, per say, but it's still relevant context.

It's also worth noting that sources are skeptical that Fuentes's self identification can be taken at face value:

• "But this is pure semantics, as Fuentes is a white nationalist and an avowed anti-Semite who referred to Daily Wire writer Matt Walsh as a 'shabbos goy race traitor' for condemning the El Paso, Texas, gunman who killed more than 20 people in August. In fact, in an interview with a French Canadian white nationalist, Fuentes said that the only reason he didn’t call himself a white nationalist is because 'that kind of terminology is used almost exclusively by the left to defame.'"[3]

Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or public relations, so we are not obligated to ignore context and blindly repeat what he says about himself, in case that was in question.

If anyone knows of reliable sources (independent sources) which describe his views, and especially sources which explains why his views are important, please add them or propose them here for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're implying. I believe his frequent promotion by The Daily Stormer provides context for his views, particularly his anti-Semitism; however, no "Views" section presently exists for this article. With regard to his political affiliation, I see a case for removing "paleoconservative," which is his self-identification but always met with skepticism by the few reliable sources which acknowledge it. Cherio222 (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I have moved "paleoconservative" out of the first paragraph. Few sources discuss his views in any detail, so I don't think it's necessary to create a subsection, but it could work. Perhaps after the AFD, consensus on how the article should handle these things will become clearer. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There is now a redundancy between the final two sentences of the lede and the first two sentences of "Controversy." The paragraphs are nearly identical, so I believe one should be expunged. Also, I agree that it does not make sense to significantly lengthen an article which is a candidate for deletion. Cherio222 (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I made a WP:BOLD attempt at reorganizing the article and using that to summarize the body. Some redundancy is desirable, since the lede is a summary, but you're right, the flow was too awkward. There is also the issue of having a controversy section at all, since this is discouraged for several reasons. In this case, he is only notable for "controversy", so I combined both sections into one and rearranged them into something closer to chronological order. Grayfell (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

However we handle this, we cannot misrepresent why his is noteworthy by leaving the lead half empty. The lede is a summary of the body, and the body is basically just a list of controversies. The lead will have to summarize this, one way or another. Grayfell (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed the sentence added to the lede by Grayfell due to several issues (calling Fuentes a conservative; citing The Beast and Daily Dot; unclear reference to a "feud" (TPUSA?); poor grammar) -- if you would like to defend this addition, I think we should discuss here. I believe the lede should discuss his feud with Turning Point USA in particular using Reliable sources. Cherio222 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RSP. Again, strange that a brand new account who keeps linking to WP:RS doesn't know that Daily Dot and Daily Beast are reliable...

As I said, however we handle this, we cannot leave half a lead. We will need to explain why he is notable, and we do that by summarizing the body. We are attempting to evaluate all reliable sources, judge them based on WP:DUE, and summarize that for readers. Simply saying he's a far-right youtuber who doesn't like it when people describe him a certain way is not sufficient. Grayfell (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the lede: I left in some basic information you removed in your (undone) rewrite -- his prior relationship with Right Side Broadcasting Network and James Allsup seems informative, although it is not why he was the subject of news articles. His feuding with Turning Point USA was previously described under "Activism," but it was also the cause of his controversy. I am not sure what it should be characterized as. Regardless, since it is central to his relevance, I believe it should be summarized in the lede. I believe his Holocaust "joke" or denial should also be included, as it is usually summarized in the news articles which discuss him; I'm not sure if that's what you were alluding to by writing "anti-Semitic hoaxes." I did not see that phrase in your source. Cherio222 (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I have made a second attempt at cleaning up the article and rearranging it into chronological order. There is plenty more which could be done, but the previous version was not close enough to sources. Routine details about his media career are only as significant as is supported by sources. For example, Right Side Broadcasting Network was obscure enough that sources didn't really pay that much attention. There is never an end to the trashy edgelord trolling and insecure infighting these far-right Youtube personalities surround themselves with, but that's ultimately just more attentions-seeking, innit? As this has been a recurring problem with articles about these white supremacist podcasters, we should try to avoid too much gossipy minutia. Striking a balance can be tricky, though. Grayfell (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that paleoconservative should be removed from the opening sentence. Multiple sources call him such, he refers to himself as such, and his views are pretty much totally aligned with paleoconservatism. I also think it makes a lot more sense to include his current show in the lead than his past shows. Edit5001 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I am only aware of one source which calls him a paleoconservative, which is Spectator USA. Sources such as USA Today report that Fuentes self-identifies as a paleoconservative. This is not the same thing as reporting on his views, history, associations, etc and ascribing to him a political label. If you have multiple sources calling him a paleoconservative, please reference them. Cherio222 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few additional sources that refer to him as a paleoconservative (while several are conservative leaning, I still think it's fair to factor in their statements considering liberal leaning sources are cited in the page as well); this source talks about Fuentes in relation to Kirk's fued, this source refers to his followers as paleoconservatives, and this source covering TPUSA events also calls him a paleoconservative directly. To be clear I'm not suggesting that all of these be used directly on the page, I'm just giving more weight to the classification of paleoconservative. Edit5001 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

None of those sources are reliable. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what's unreliable about them. Further, when over four sources say something about a person, and that matches both the person's self description and what their views align with by simple definition, I think that makes it worthy of inclusion.Edit5001 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You "don't see what's unreliable about" those sources? You need to review WP:RS before editing further, because you clearly don't understand Wikipedia sourcing policies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm inviting him to say what his problems with the sources are. I haven't proposed any specific one be added to the article. Edit5001 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I already explained the problem: They are not reliable. If you are not proposing they be used in the article, then you are just wasting time. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

two reasons to call him neo Naz:

his own words are neo nazi beliefs

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=tkkyq5na2d4

2: journalists HAVE taken issue with terms like "alt right"" instead of neo Nazi

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vOY_d9e_038&feature=youtu.be

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/business/media/news-outlets-rethink-usage-of-the-term-alt-right.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/22/white-nationalists-alt-right-nazi-language-trump

https://www.cjr.org/criticism/alt-right-trump-charlottesville.php Editorman232 (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Describing Fuentes as a Neo Nazi

These source from Fox News and the Daily Dot mention Fuentes being described as a Neo Nazi. I can't see any reason not to include these allegations, although the fact that he denies them should still be included. Auberginandjuice (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

These two sources don't seem strong enough for this. The Daily Dot article only mentions this via this tweet from Nathan Bernard. This would need to be provided with attribution, but since it would not be clear to readers who Bernard is, nor why his assessment is encyclopedically significant, this doesn't seem appropriate.

The Fox source references a tweet by Fuentes himself, which Fuentes attributes to Shapiro as part of some other far-right celeb gossipy thing. This is not really useful for a few reasons. If a reliable source supported it, saying something like "Ben Shapiro has described Fuentes as a neo-Nazi" or similar might be appropriate, but it would need reliable sources and more context, not passing mentions. Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References

while they may not be the strongest sources they ARE sources

i believe the strongest sources are his own words

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=tkkyq5na2d4

while while he adamantly denies being a Neo-Nazi his own words espouse the exact fuse that they promote. Is desire that women should not be allowed to vote. Is referenced in for interracial relationships as degenerate. he also believes that non-white immigration is bad. and he eapouses Holocaust revisionism which is the precursor to outright Holocaust denial denia Editorman232 (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a primary research service. Peedporch (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Nationality: American ??

This seems an odd and arbitrary insertion, especially with the complete lack of personal life entries. In this case (and as a contrary mention to the 'white nationalist' comment) I would like to propose to add an etymology to the name 'Fuentes' which is Spanish Origin. Fuentes is ultimately of mixed race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2A40:405:2DCB:4979:857A:D453 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

No. "Nationality" is basic info which is standard for infoboxes. Conflating nationality with race is incorrect and completely inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Spain is in Europe. However, this person is known to be of Mexican origin. That does not automatically mean he is "mixed race" - though his movement is anti-Mexican.2605:6000:770D:1B00:A1A4:7595:AF72:3E38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes IS mixed race. He is mixed with European, Native American, and African ancestry Ayindolmah (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure whatever. Reddit is not a reliable source, nor does a downvoted clip from Owen Benjamin's subreddit explain why this would be encyclopedically significant. Pretty much the only sources mentioning this are reddit, 4chan, bitchute, etc, where it appears his "mixed race" status is used by fans as a a shield against racism. Pretty tedious, and totally unpersuasive. Grayfell (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Bobvans1487 has been blocked for socking

I just reverted the sock here and their edit to the article. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that the username "Bobvans1487" includes a reference to 14/88. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

nick is a paleoconservative. he has specifically referred to himself as such

https://twitter.com/NickJFuentes/status/1192686543925915649?s=20

"Fuentes said he identifies as a paleo-conservative" (use page search)) https://www.usatoday.com/story/college/2017/08/17/citing-threats-student-withdraws-from-bu-after-attending-charlottesville-rally/37434915/

also why was my addition of a video compilation of his own words deleted? https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=tkkyq5na2d4

Editorman232 (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Twitter and Youtube cruft are not generally reliable. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:UGC for starters. What he "identifies as" and what reliable sources identify him as are two separate things. If this is a defining trait, it should be possible to find much better sources than one qualified passing mention. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

See: WP:NOR and WP:Reliability 2601:600:947F:F6D0:1469:6668:FB52:ADAD (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia should say what he says his views are, but ultimately we have to go by reliable sources Peedporch (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

i believe the order of events should be changed

under his career and history tab the order of events seems a bit scrambled. Michelle Malkin endorsed him before his YouTube channel was banned and the order of those events should reflect that.. Editorman232 (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

there is no evidence he is a conservative

he has never referred to himself as conservative. and no reputable sources claim he is. his beliefs do not line up with conservatives. and all conservatives have excommunicated him from there events

this was the explanation given by editors as to why she cannot be referred to as paleo conservative. just the fact that he has referred to himself as such and that the definition of paleo conservatism more closely lines up with his beliefs

however according to other editors there must be evidence before referring to someone with a specific title. apparently definitions and self-identifying I not enough. based on that there is no evidence that he is a conservative. he has never referred to himself as a conservative and there are no reputable out with referring to him as a conservative. therefore it would not be appropriate to list him as a conservative if there is no evidence for this claim Editorman232 (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Starting multiple sections for these issues is disruptive. As has already been explained, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not original research. Further, Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. We mainly summarize independent sources, especially for biographies of living people. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes literally refers to himself as a campus conservative on his Twitter page Ayindolmah (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That he "literally" says something is precisely the problem. We are not interested in pedantic word games. We are mainly interested in what reliable sources say about him, not what he says about himself, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations or self-promotion. Grayfell (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Cookie baking operation?

I don't get it, what's the message and why is this here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6E00:1E4C:1401:C4C2:BE62:A3FD:E2F3 (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The “cookie baking operation” is a metaphor that holocaust deniers like to use. It argues that “how can someone bake 6 million cookies with their (number varies) ovens in (number of years varies”), with the cookies being Jews and the ovens being either gas chambers or incinerators. The problem with the argument is it pretends that gassing was the only method of executions used by the Nazis during the Holocaust (starvation and firing squads were also widely used) and that the only means of body disposal was incineration (mass graves have been found near camps). Nigel Abe (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

!-- State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes below this line, preferably in a "change X to Y" format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined. --> Added the word wrongly bc he did not directly break and rules. Added "He now hosts a show on the platform Dlive on Monday through Friday starting at 8:00PM EST." so people know where to watch him.

He was formerly a YouTuber before his channel was permanently and wrongly suspended in February 2020 for violating Youtube’s hate speech policy. He now hosts a show on the platform Dlive on Monday through Friday starting at 8:00PM EST. -- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> 2601:404:C500:2E28:694A:68A7:18F0:7CC0 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: That's going to be a controversial edit so you would have to propose the edit and gain consensus for it, and you would need to provide reliable sources tosupport what otherwise appears to be nothing but your opinion. The cited source is clear that YouTube thought he was in violation, quoting the block notice “This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube’s policy prohibiting hate speech,” Meters (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I neglected to address the second part of the request, the DLive show mention. It does not belong in the lead, and we don't need to promote the show's air time "so people know where to watch him". All we need is to mention the show in the body of the article, which we already do. Meters (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

References

The above comment by user seems as though it might come from someone familiar with the subject of this article. They make what appear to be subjective, unsourced statements about the subject.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Unite the right rally

I noticed info regarding Fuentes’ attendance of the 2017 Charlottesville rally was removed due to concerns it lacked notability. If we take into consideration the significance of the rally itself as well as the ongoing dispute over Nick’s actual political views I would argue the removed info was significant and should be re added. Nigel Abe (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nigel Abe: Could you kindly supply some diffs to the disputed edits so that passing editors don't have to wade through innumerable edits to work out what you are referring to? Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It's in reference to this edit by Senor Freebie. The edit summary was I'm not sure that an 18 year old attending a political protest meets the criteria of notability for Wikipedia. If you have a different view, please discuss on the talk page.

I reverted this edit, but mistakenly overlooked this discussion until now. As I said in my edit summary, since the Unite the Right rally is mentioned later in the article as part of the reason Fuentes left RSBN, this seems significant.

As an aside the Unite the Right rally is very, very significant to understanding the far-right in the United States. Calling this a mere political protest is simplistic. His age is mostly irrelevant. Fuentes was old enough to choose to travel hundreds of miles to a neo-Nazi rally, and also he is old enough for sources to report on the consequences of these actions. Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As Grayfell stated, that’s what my post was referring to, and I thank Grayfell for reverting the edit. As stated the rally attendance was highly significant both in regards to Nick himself and in determining his political position, thus it should be notable enough to include in the article. Nigel Abe (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Nick Fuentes 2020.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that it appears the previous image was also a copyright violation. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Notability of the the subject being banned from social media accounts

It is my strong contention that unless someone is specifically known for broadcasting on a platform to a wide audience, it is not notable that they have been had their accounts deleted. In the case of this person, I even have gotten the strong impression that his implied notoriety comes largely from self-publishing, including in this Wikipedia article, or at the very least, persons close to the subject have been involved in making edits. A number of the sources and links in the article were blatantly self-published and have been removed, and the practice of banning someone from social media sites for breaching terms of service is so common, and so uncontroversial that it's remarkable that it's even been reported. Further to this; it seems that one of the avenues that the subject routinely talks about, and attempts to amplify is the fact that he is "de-platformed". This means that as editors of Wikipedia we should be very careful when it comes to allowing references to this to remain in their article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Are there any other examples of BLP with mentions of accounts like this being banned? I'm happy to accept that I might've over-trimmed the article, as I was removing a lot of the self-referencing material, but I'd be very curious to see similar examples where this is considered notable.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Vague allegations are not enough. The edit history of the article is pretty clear that his fans have been around, but that's true for a lot of d-list internet celebs. If you have evidence that someone currently editing has a WP:COI, and that this is disruptive, you should consider explaining that in more detail, or if you cannot do so publicly without violating privacy, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard includes more detailed instructions for the next steps. If this was meant to imply that I am somehow involved with him, you are laughably off-base, but I appreciate your diligence.

Wikipedia generally has a dim view of precedent. We mostly evaluate things on their own merits, based on the sources we have on hand. Comparisons to other articles are only of limited use. While I am sympathetic to the concerns that this might be inadvertently promoting him, we still follow sources. A reliable source specifically discusses his subreddit. The goal is to provide context for what's happened and why he is notable, so this seems consistent with that. That he spins this a certain way would only be relevant if reliable sources explained it. I think it should be noted that these platforms are commercial services, and are under no obligation to go into business with him, but that's WP:OR.

I think if promotion is the concern, mentioning platforms he was removed from, with a secondary source, seems more useful than the line saying he's on DLive, or that he's on Spotify supported by a WP:PRIMARY source. Perhaps that paragraph should also be reevaluated. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the mention of the other platforms also banning him should be included. It's germane in this case, it's not self published, and it's irrelevant to Wikipedia what use the subject attempts to make of his de-platforming. Meters (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

For Grayfell - apologies if I incorrectly gave the impression that my concerns about persons close to the subject was about you. That was not my intention. It was a more general, sweeping comment, and was specifically in relation to some of the content that I removed, that has not been put back into the article. If you both think it's reasonable that these accounts are mentioned, then I accept your arguments.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Remaining issues with the article.

Fuentes' political commentary show America First with Nicholas J. Fuentes is live-streamed on DLive and is available as a podcast on Spotify.

The above especially as it comes at the end of the block of text reads like a promotion, or a direction for people to find the subject's content. Wouldn't mentioning the platform be more relevant in the first sentence below "Career and views".

Fuentes attended the August 2017 Unite the Right rally, and spoke positively of a "tidal wave of white identity" afterwards.[16][17]

Is the word 'positive' important?

In January 2019, Fuentes aired a monologue in which he compared the Holocaust to a cookie-baking operation, which has led to accusations of Holocaust denial. Fuentes later disputed that he had ever denied the Holocaust, calling his monologue a "lampoon".

Is it worth citing any references that specify that this is in fact an in-use dog-whistle?

Feel free to split my post and reply in line where relevant.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see the problem with any of these. Maybe we could move the part about where he’s currently active, but that’s about it. Nigel Abe (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Transgenderism

I propose this article use the term transgenderism, as the cited source does. In response to the claim that transgenderism is a "non-standard" word, various professional organizations use this term all the time (see here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/transgenderism). On the contrary, deviating from what the cited source says is what's non-standard. Edit5001 (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The source uses it in scare quotes for a reason. Per GLAAD:

• This is not a term commonly used by transgender people. This is a term used by anti-transgender activists to dehumanize transgender people and reduce who they are to "a condition."

This is also mentioned at Wikt:transgenderism. Since Fuentes is an anti-transgender activist, using this term in Wikipedia's voice is completely inappropriate. We are not attempting to repeat Fuentes' word games. The purpose is to summarize using neutral language. Grayfell (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, GLAAD is a vehemently pro-LGBT organization, and using their standards for what's non-neutral speech is itself non-neutral.

Further, we aren't even using "Fuentes' words" here, we're using the source's words. It may have put the word in quotes, but if anything that would justify also using quotes in the article, not throwing out the source's lexicon and replacing it with GLAAD approved talking points. Edit5001 (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Being a "pro-LGBT organization" doesn't make them any less of a reliable source, and we're not going to play stupid to this context to add dehumanizing language to an article to prove some tedious point. Grayfell (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing "dehumanizing" about it. It's used consistently by professionals, in many cases to argue for transgenderism. Your aggressive word policing contrary to the source has no place on a neutral article. In any case, I'll wait and see what other editors of this article have to say on the matter. Edit5001 (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Aren't you topic-banned from American politics, race, and abortion? This article easily falls under the first two topics, so this has been an even bigger waste of time than I realized. Grayfell (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I suspect I'm far from the only one on this page who disagrees with your edit on this, so. Edit5001 (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If this article falls under your topic ban then you should not be editing it. It is irrelevant whether other editors also disagree with Grayfell. They are free to edit the article and participate in the discussion as they wish. Meters (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Remember when Edit5001 was topic banned from editing articles relating to American politics? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Dammit, now I want some Milanos. Grayfell (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We could put the word transgenderism in quotation marks. Then the proper wording from the source is used in the article and not used directly as wiki’s voice Nigel Abe (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Why? WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and I don't think I accept that this is the proper wording in this context. The entire purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize sources, so we are supposed to paraphrase for clarity and neutrality. WP:SCAREQUOTES can potentially be a form of editorializing, and at the very least they draw more attention to a term. Additionally, Fuentes is not qualified to explain what transgenderism means, so using this as if it were some sort of term-of-art would be very misleading. He is very clearly not an expert in medicine, gender, sexuality, sociology, etc. He is not qualified to speak in a medical context, so his use of this medical term is just a pretentious, loaded way to refer to trans people. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Because the current phrasing is ungrammatical, and replacing the original term "transgenderism" (i.e., the phenomenon of gender transition and associated ideas, culture, movements, politics, social trends, etc) changes the meaning. If the John Birch Society says that communism is "deviancy" it might or might not also say that communists are deviants, and we would not be entitled to substitute the second phrasing for the first based only on confident speculation that Birchers would agree with it. In any case, whatever phrasing is ultimately used, the end result should be grammatically correct. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Catholic

There's no question that he's Catholic, so why can't we mention it? It's not an irrelevant personal fact, it's a part of his political identity, which is his claim to fame. That's not my own opinion, it's what reliable sources say. For example, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3wkvj/college-conservativism-and-the-alt-right says "Inspired by Nietzsche, he became a kind of Catholic egoist, saying that his family was not just his loved ones, but white people."

Oh, and we already have him in two Catholic categories, so it's not like we're hiding this fact very well. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Any information added to a WP:BLP (especially about such a controversial person) will require a citation. The information must also be WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. Looking for sources mentioning Fuentes religion turns up some potential sources and so maybe a sentence could be added to the article so long as the information can be construed as DUE enough for an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The article I linked to provides both. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Your changes were good. Thanks. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

I want to edit parts of the 'career and views' section to provide more insight into Nick's career, and make it as unbiased as possible. Dissidentrightindian (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Separate Career and Views

Perhaps it would make sense to separate the "Career and Views" section into a Career section and a Views section.

At the moment, the section is a confusing hodgepodge of the two. Saxones288 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of his career consists of generating controversy for his views and statements. Cherio222 (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

White nationalism in infobox

@Cherio222: This edit removes white nationalism from the infobox, which appears to be whitewashing. Your comment that these edits "make the article less accurate" are far too vague. None of this information is indisputably less accurate. Grayfell (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with white nationalism in the infobox or the other infobox changes (which is why I did not revert your re-addition of far-right). I was focusing on reverting the sloppily rewritten lede. I will gladly add white nationalism back into the infobox unless you still disagree about swapping lede language (i.e. conservatism --> paleoconservatism) without sources. Cherio222 (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Splitting up the article body

The formatting of this article is making it increasingly difficult to navigate and read; it's simply gotten too long, unorganized, and the current format is not standard. I propose splitting "Career and views" into "Career" and "Views and controversies" (after considering WP:CRITS, as most sources reporting on Fuentes' views are critical or related to subsequent backlash). I am also changing "Personal life" to the standard "Early life and education" for living persons. I am about to submit a tentative edit reorganizing the current iteration of this article into those sections with minor changes for clarity and readability. Cherio222 (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted. Sources do not emphasize the mundane details of his career (such as it is), so rearranging the article in this way misrepresents due weight. In this case, the controversies are not an afterthought. As you say, the only reason he is noteworthy is for these controversies. Placing his career in its own section, ahead of the reason he is noteworthy, would effectively whitewash the article. Grayfell (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

How about an "Activities" section? Cherio222 (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That might be a step in the right direction, but wouldn't that have the same underlying problem? Judging by coverage in reliable, independent sources, why is anyone talking about him (meaning his views/career/activities as a single topic)? The article should be an answer to this question. Subsections should be a convenience for readers, but I'm not sure each of these sections in isolation are what readers care about. Do sources make this distinction? Grayfell (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say that most of the sources reporting on his activities are primarily focused on Groypers -- that is to say, the activities of his fans rather than his own activities. This actually raises a question about the Groypers article superseding this article (similar to how we have an article for TPUSA but not Charlie Kirk). Cherio222 (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

TPUSA and Groypers are not treated the same by sources, and it would be a mistake to assume this article should treat them the same.

There are sources which discuss Fuentes but which don't discuss "Groypers". From what I have seen, sources mostly discussing both define Groypers as fans of Fuentes. There are (or were) Groypers from before Fuentes's fans started using the name, but I don't recall seeing sources discuss this in any depth. It was a non-notable meme related to Pepe, but it's now about Fuentes.

Sources which go into depth about Fuentes, such as the IREHR report ("Nick Fuentes emphatically denies that he is a white nationalist. But his own writings and words show this denial to be empty") may use the term Groyper for context, but they are very clearly about Fuentes. To put it another way, Fuentes appears to meet WP:NBIO, so merging this to that article would downplay or conceal sourced information. This would be functionally indistinguishable from whitewashing.

The Groypers and Turning Point USA articles both have issues, but this isn't the best place to discuss that. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2021

Replace "white nationalist" to "American Nationalist".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KK3YTI0tYE In this speech he describes his ideology at 1:30. Liammmcdonough (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done It appears that the article already reflects this change. Currently it reads in part: "He describes himself as an American nationalist". If you are requesting further changes, I recommend being more specific by giving your request in the "change X to Y" format. TimSmit (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes did not enter the capitol

I propose we add falsely accused to "Many journalists have alleged that Fuentes himself entered the Capitol, from photos of the event." as he was livestreaming the entire time he was there and had never entered the capitol building. This is a fact. Unless you can prove that NJF had a hologram livestream so that he could charge the capitol, this bit either needs to be removed or changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinishedCycle (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

The citations for "Some journalists have alleged that Fuentes himself entered the Capitol" do not themselves claim that. The New York Times article doesn't even talk about him being at the capitol at all, merely that he is a streamer on dlive who spoke positively of the events at the Capitol. The Hareetz article says he was at the capitol, though merely that "Fuentes, who took to Twitter to insist he had not entered the building, was seen in photos on the Capitol steps", rather than inside the building itself. The ProPublica article again merely claims he was on video at the capitol, and not specifically *inside* it. It seems appropriate to remove the irrelevant citations (NYT and ProPublica) and rewrite that sentence to align with what the Hareetz article actually claimed.

Changing "Some journalists have alleged that Fuentes himself entered the Capitol, pointing to photos taken at the event. However, he has denied these allegations on Twitter." to "While photographed on the Capitol steps, Fuentes has denied entering the Capitol building on his twitter account." seems appropriate (still citing the Hareetz article and his twitter post).

Volteer1 (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1, We don't appear to have any sources that can identify "some journalists". Fuentes seems to be denying something that nobody has accused him of. Vexations (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said. Volteer1 (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Haaretz mentioned this, but it is otherwise not supported by reliable sources as important. Whether or not he entered the building is only significant to the extent it is supported by reliable sources. I have therefore removed the claim that he entered the building. I have also mentioned his discussion of killing state legislators, since this is used as singificant context by multiple reliable sources. The NYT source is probably more useful for DLive than this article. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Saxones288: Hello. The only mention of Fuentes in this source is from a passing mention in a tweet by Nathan Bernard, and Fuentes' name is not otherwise used in the article at all. The Haaretz source only says that he was photographed on the capitol steps, not in the building. Clearly there is a huge amount which could be said about this incident, for example that he briefly said that people should destroy their phones (which would be destruction of evidence) before backtracking by saying "I'm gonna say don't do that, for my legal sake!" By contrast, whether or not he entered the building is not widely discussed by reliable sources. To summarize this incident, we should use sources to determine WP:DUE weight. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Grayfell: "Fuentes discussed killing state legislators" seems vague enough to basically mean anything, just "discussing" it could mean anything from unequivocally renouncing it and unequivocally advocating it or anything in between. Adding the full quote "What can you and I do to a state legislator, besides kill them? Although we should not do that. I am not advising that, but I mean, what else can you do, right?”, like all of the articles cited did, makes the most sense. Volteer1 (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Also, his denial of entering the capitol building was not just mentioned in the Hareetz article. It is mentioned in this source ("While there’s no evidence yet that Fuentes entered the Capitol — in fact, he explicitly denies entering the building") which is quoted here, in this source ("Fuentes, who since the incident took Twitter to say he had not entered the building"), in this source ("Fuentes has denied being part of the deadly mob at the Capitol building"), and partially in this source ("There is no evidence that Fuentes entered the Capitol during the events of Jan. 6."). That seems like plenty of different reliable sources supporting its importance. Volteer1 (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

For the first issue, you raise a good point, and including the quote seems acceptable here assuming it cannot be summarized otherwise.

For the second, I do not accept that Chainalysis or Coindesk are reliable sources at all, but they are certainly not a reliable source for anything other than blockchain stuff. In this context, Finance Magnates is underwhelming for the same reasons. WP:RSN has tended to agree that cryptocurrency journalism must be scrutinized carefully for various reasons.

As for NY Daily, that he denies being part of a deadly mob is not the same as denying having entered the building, nor is this distinction made by the cited source. As that source says, "Nick Fuentes, a far-right Internet influencer who was in the protest crowd that assaulted the seat of American government on Jan. 6." The source flatly says he was part of the "crowd", but denies being part of the "mob". Well, okay then, but so what? All of this is starting to seem legalistic to a fault. Why, per reliable source, would it matter whether or not he entered the building? If reliable sources are not accusing him of a crime, then we have no particular obligation to include his claims of innocence. This article isn't a platform for public relations. If unreliable sources are claiming he was there, it's just gossip and doesn't belong for that reason. If reliable sources explain any of this, then so can we. Otherwise, it seems like a potential distraction. Grayfell (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Grayfell: has been given a stern warning--by me--and I will continue to take action on this user, who is engaged in vandalism on this page. The phrase "On January 4, 2021, Fuentes discussed killing state legislators who were unwilling to overturn the results of the 2020 election" cannot be left to stand. It is false and misleading. Fuentes did not "discuss" killing state legislators. He did quip that such is the final recourse of a people in despair. And he immediately said he does not advocate for such an action. As the Wikipedia entry was written, readers were led to believe that Fuentes hatched a plot to "kill state legislators," which is ridiculous and unsupported by any citation. When writing the encyclopedic entry of a living person, special care must be taken in regards to sources and context. Editorialized sources, such as blogs and op-eds, are not appropriate citations for such an entry. This is not only common editorial knowledge, but this is the prescription of Wikipedia itself. If the contributors to this page cannot follow these reasonable standards and cease using this page as a platform for sensationalism, then I will take this issue all the way to arbitration.

RCuser92 (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It is supported by reliable sources. Per the above comment, there is agreement that it should be amended to include his own quotes. I recommend taking this to WP:BLPN if you think this is a policy violation, but again, it is supported by reliable sources. He indisputably discussed killing state legislators, and per those sources, this helps explain why he was banned from DLive. Your opinion that this is a "quip" is immaterial. Just kidding is only rarely a valid defense, and only when it's actually funny. Grayfell (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, since you brought it up, I think I will start a discussion at BLPN myself. I will post a link here when I'm done. Grayfell (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Please see: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Nick Fuentes. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, given both the almost meaningless ambiguity in the statement "discussed killing state legislators", prior agreement and a conformity to how his statement on killing globalists was addressed, it still seems his quote needs to be added. As a more minor point about the structure of this article, after the line about killing legislators was moved outside of the longer paragraph about his actions at the capitol, it now implies that it was his offline behaviour that got him banned from DLive. That's not supported by the source referenced, which cites a statement from Dlive about violations on his channel, not his offline behaviour.

Regarding his denial of entering the Capitol, that he was present at the protests but denies entering the Capitol building is how reliable sources seem to talk about his presence at the event. As well as Hareetz, the New York Daily News and the litany of bitcoin focused outlets like chainanalysis as I said, this framing is how Fuentes seems to be introduced by reliable sources. For instance, he is introduced in The Associated Press as "Nick Fuentes, a far-right internet influencer who was in the crowd in Washington but has denied being part of the deadly mob that stormed the Capitol", and introduced in Business Insider as "Far-right podcaster Nick Fuentes, who spoke at the protest but has denied being part of the group that stormed the Capitol". It's obvious why all of the sources discuss his presence at the event this way (the main significance of the riots of the capitol was the storming of the actual building), so it seems obvious that Wikipedia should also talk about it in the same way. Volteer1 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added the quote.

The article says that his channel was suspended for "inciting violent and illegal activities", so I do not agree that this implies it was about his offline behavior.

The current wording seems clear enough without hammering the point. Wikipedia is not a news outlet although we cite news outlets when necessary. Crossing building's threshold isn't what makes his presence encyclopedically significant. A news outlet will therefore handle something like this much, much differently than an encyclopedia article should. Obviously more sources will be published in time, and we can evaluate based on those sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Questioning the far-right tag on Nicholas Fuentes.

Hey, so I just wanted to point out an urgent need to remove the far-right label on Nick Fuentes as I feel it is is misleading, and/or inaccurate. Here are my reasons -

1. Reliable Wikipedia citations need to have justification for the things that they are cited for, otherwise that defeats the purpose of them being cited in the first place. The citation of Fox news simply states that Fuentes is far-right, and the rest of the article relates to a completely different matter at hand with regard to a controversy between him and other people. Fox news itself has been a subject of controversy as having a bias favoring the Republican party.

2. The other citation from the spectator seems to be biased and opinionated, to the extent that it might be a subject of controversy or debate, and not inherently objective. You can see and notice that bias when seeing the author's history as well, which relates to a specific political agenda, and not objective reporting, both in this case, and in general.

3.One of the articles seems to be paywalled, so I contacted resource request and read the article, and it too seems to be unsatisfactory, as it had NO actual mention of Nicholas being far-right in any way, shape or form, with mentions only of people like Charlie kirk criticizing ethno-nationalism, but declining to comment on him specifically. Remember, the line specifically states that these are citations which state Fuentes as far-right, but that did not happen here at all.

4. The citation from NBC news does not cite him at far - right at all, but rather the collective factionalization of pro-Trump conservativism that has emerged since the Charlottesville rally, which the "groypers" capitalized upon. The researchers pointed out in the article themselves have much opinionated, at might be subject to debate before being cited as a source. These self-published sources cited in the article directly violate Wikipedia guidelines.

5. The time.com citation which refers to Nick Fuentes as far-right is out-of-context, and does not directly support the information presented, the statement where fuentes says that "you cant get covid if youre white" was done in as a form of absurd comedy, which can be found if you see the context. You can also see that the author of the article is opinionated and her works may be subject to debate and not inherently objective, see this one -https://time.com/5894497/donald-trump-white-supremacists-debate/.

6. Furthermore, the last citation DOES NOT EVEN USE THE WORD FAR-RIGHT, and instead actually refers to Fuentes only once, and then as a conservative.

To conclude, all this is terribly against the wikipedia rules, the sources DO NOT directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article, which is the requirement. I propose that this be assessed immediately, and the far-right tag be removed.

Based47 (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Fuentes is still described widely by reliable sources as "far-right", the only plausible argument presented here was about the WaPo article, one of the six, which didn't actually call him far-right. These are all reliable sources, just saying they're "biased" or "taking him out of context" won't cut it. If you don't think what's given is enough, there are plenty more that could be added to justify the label (e.g. 1 2 3). Volteer1 (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing, the reliability of a source depends on context, and EVEN though it is a reliable source, it cannot be information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics at hand here An article talking about how fuentes is far right is different from related news, which names him far-right in passing Based47 (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

This issue has been discussed on numerous occasions, some of which you can find in other discussions on this talk page. Consensus has not changed and it is well sourced by RS. Tyrone (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

Basic information to add to this article: what is his heritage/ethnic background? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas has said he is of Irish, Italian, and Hispanic decent. He took a dna test that lined up pretty similarly to this. Link to his dna test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQTN0z3AKCI 2600:1702:A0:4140:6C1C:BCAC:5659:36CA (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

See Nick Fuentes#Personal life. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

AFPAC

On February 26th, 2021, Fuentes hosted his second annual America First Political Action Conference, or AFPAC for short. According to Newsweek, "other speakers (at AFPAC) listed online include conservative outlet BlazeTV's Jon Miller, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, and former Iowa Rep. Steve King." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natelindy (talk • contribs) 02:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Use of Nick's Twitter as a Source

I am open to differing opinions here, but it seems reasonable to use Nick's Twitter as a source when he is voicing his opinion, and especially when clarifying past remarks. However, I will also agree that this should not be used as a replacement for more journalistic or unbiased sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natelindy (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The use of Twitter would be undue weight. If the opinion expressed by Fuentes was noted by 3rd party sources, then we could include that. If it's just the subject of the article expressing their views on Twitter, then it's not suitable for the encyclopedia. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

If it is not irrelevant, unduly self-serving, and if there is no reason to doubt the authenticity, you should be able to use tweets, since the article is not primarily based on them. A tweet responding to news articles saying a quote was taken out of context is self-serving but not unduly so, is very relevant, and there is no reason to doubt its authenticity.Jomoore27 (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Relevance, in this case, would be demonstrated by reliable, independent sources. His tweets are neither reliable, nor independent. Likewise, context is decided by reliable, independent sources. It is not merely a matter or "authenticity". In this case, it is unduly self-serving, and the way to prove otherwise is with better sources. Twitter should be avoided in almost all cases. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

So a news site takes one of his comments out of context in a smear piece and because they didn't write a second article to apologize when he provided full context, the context is not relevant? And he is absolutely a reliable source when describing the context of a comment he made, especially when the context is publicly available.Jomoore27 (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, a journalist whose career rests on not getting sued for libel cites a tweet that's representative of a pattern, and fanboys claim that it's a cherry-picked smear piece as an attempt to control the conversation. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It comes down to a twitter user with no editorial standards versus agreed upon RS’s with varying degrees of editorial standards, which are listed at WP:RS. Sorry, but an encyclopedia is not for putting unfiltered opinions as congruent to heavily filtered articles who are considered RS. (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

"White Nationalist"

Nick Fuentes has strenuously denied being labelled a white nationalist. He says that he doesn't support the idea of an ethnostate nor does he believe in any major platforms that white nationalism purports to support. I would strongly recommend removing and/or changing this to avoid a) an inaccurate article and b) suffering a response as Fuentes has sued people for libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh look, yet another with little to no edit history who exclusively shows up to defend a white nationalist without providing any reliable sourcing. Come on. Nmi628 (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, he would, wouldn't he?. I would also recommend a quick skim of WP:NLT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps address what I've said instead of juvenile belittling. Nick isn't a white nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 13:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would also add that, I can see both of you are either communists or LGBTQ people, I see strong bias from the two of you from the outset. I'm not threatening legal action since I'm not Fuentes. Nick is notorious for this. Full disclosure; I'm not the biggest fan of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based off what reliable sources say. Reliable sources rather unequivocally attest to the fact that Fuentes is a white nationalist (1 2 3 4 5 6 7), so this is reflected in his article on Wikipedia. We don't publish original research, so it's not particularly important what your view of him is. Volteer1 (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not belittling you, I am explaining why Fuentes' denial of the label makes no difference to this article. I didn't address your the labelling of Fuentes because a) you've provided no contradictory reliable sourcing, and b) the extensive sourcing behind "white nationalist" is provided both in-article and in other discussions on this page. There's no point in repeating others. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I was saying it to make a point. If Wikipedia is to remain consistent, perhaps you should change your definition of "white nationalist" to "whatever the independent researchers say." Not the full definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

White nationalist is defined in the way that independent researchers define it. Every article on Wikipedia is based in what independent sources say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@ZoomerEnlightenment: Accusing them of belitting you while dismissing others' comments because they're either communists or LGBTQ people is hypocrisy. Our policy on legal threats does include suggesting that someone else might sue with the intention of getting their way in an argument (as you are clearly doing, because any reasonable assessment of the situation would conclude that Fuentes would have to sue the various sources cited in the article before he could sue us).

You are unusually devout in your faith that Fuentes is not a white nationalist if you aren't a fan of his. Either you don't know what "white nationalist" means in mainstream discourse (in which case the problem is that you need to learn and are in no position to correct others) or you don't understand how Fuentes's positions overlap with white nationalism (which, again, doesn't leave you in a position to correct others). There's plenty of sources out there that explain how Fuentes's views overlap with white nationalism, and it's less work for everyone for you to go out there and be a thinking individual who wants to learn instead of insisting everyone else is wrong based because lurnin am hard. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that much of this article, including the "White Nationalist" moniker, are the product of a few, highly biased left-wing editors. A cursory glance at their user profiles indicate that many of them are on some sort of editorial crusade against right-wing figures. Mr. Fuentes has repeatedly denied being a "white supremacist," "white nationalist," or a "neo-nazi." As such, any source suggesting that he is lying about his own beliefs is effectively conjecture or libel. If a person claims he is catholic, but an article states that person displays Methodist tendencies, that does not mean they are therefore Methodist. Ideology cannot be discerned purely from external sources, but rather should be primarily garnered from the direct words of the person in question. Thus, it is clear that much of the above debate is the product of a few individuals acting in bad faith. This will no longer be tolerated. (AFPchadking (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC))

@AFPchadking: Which is it? You have said both that the users on this page are biased left-wing editors pushing the "white nationalist" moniker, but you have also acknowledged that sources have described Fuentes as a white nationalist. If Fuentes would like to sue those sources for libel, that's his prerogative, but it's not relevant to what we're doing here.

Regarding Ideology cannot be discerned purely from external sources, but rather should be primarily garnered from the direct words of the person in question: It's fine if this is a personal belief of yours, but this is not the approach we take on Wikipedia: "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources."

If you truly believe that editors here are acting in bad faith or POV-pushing, raise your concerns, with evidence, in appropriate forums. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: As I stated clearly, it is both. There are unreliable and biased articles that are being used by unreliable and biased users to level a rather strong moniker on Mr. Fuentes. The intentions of those users, yourself included, are clear. Your edit history is quite illustrative of your intentions which are rooted in bad faith. You are attempting to bend the conventions of wikipedia to use as a shield. As I said, this will no longer be tolerated. (AFPchadking (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC))

@AFPchadking: If you want it to "no longer be tolerated" (whatever that means), then raise your concerns, with evidence, in appropriate forums. But posting baseless accusations (and what sound like vague threats) here is nothing more than casting aspersions, and is not productive.

If you would like to discuss the reliability of sources, please be specific about which you don't think are reliable so we can actually have a discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Perhaps a better question would be which source IS reliable? Is it motherjones, which is well known as a highly biased leftwing rag? Is it the SPLC, which has lost all of its credibility in recent years, and makes it money by mudslinging and chastising right-wing individuals, or perhaps its the Daily Dot, a non-serious website, or maybe Haaretz? Any objective person would tell you that these are absolutely horrible sources for anything, let alone an accusation like we are discussing. You are doing the equivalent of a right wing editor saying that President Obama wasn't born in the U.S. because Breitbart once said that. (AFPchadking (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC))

All four sources you name are listed at RSP as "generally reliable". If you would like to suggest Wikipedia change its stance towards the reliability of any or all of these sources, feel free to begin a new RfC at WP:RSN, but until consensus changes those are usable sources. Do you have any reliable sources that challenge the descriptor? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Are you serious? Do you have any articles that prove you aren't a white supremacist? What kind of ridiculous argument is that? "Well um, since there are no definitive articles saying you aren't a nazi, you must be one." Again you are hiding behind bad faith arguments. This is what the consensus says about the SPLC that you claim is such a good source: "The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis."

As I said, this kind of stuff is done being tolerated here, we are going to be ameliorating this page imminently. (AFPchadking (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC))

@AFPchadking: Do you have any articles that prove you aren't a white supremacist? I don't have a whole slew of articles that describe me as a white supremacist, unlike Fuentes. When there are a whole bunch of RS that describe someone as a white supremacist, and none that contradict, we describe them as a white supremacist. If there are a whole bunch of RS that describe someone as a white supremacist, and also some that contradict, we might say that "[Sources X, Y, and Z] have described Fuentes as a white supremacist; [sources A, B, and C] have disagreed with this label [etc]".

As I said, this kind of stuff is done being tolerated here, we are going to be ameliorating this page imminently. What does this mean? And who is "we"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I went looking for some sources that might contradict the "white nationalist" descriptor, and so far have only found additional sources supporting the term. The Wall Street Journal, one of the higher-quality news publications and one that is generally considered to be slightly right-of-center bias-wise, describes him as a "far-right personality and white nationalist" or in another article simply as "white nationalist". I've gone ahead and swapped out some of the more biased sources in that citation group with two centrist news sources and a research report by a topic area expert. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: So I know for next time, am I correct in saying I shouldn't really ever be sourcing potentially contentious political claims to sources like SPLC/Mother Jones without attribution because they're listed as biased at WP:RSP, though "partisan" but not "biased" sources like Vox are acceptable and more neutral sources like the WSJ are preferred? Volteer1 (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: Generally speaking, if there's a potentially contentious claim that's sourced only to the SPLC, Mother Jones, or any of the other sources at WP:RSP that mention "statements should generally be attributed", we should attribute it in-text. If a statement is supported by multiple RS which don't require attribution and the SPLC (or similar), it doesn't necessarily need to be attributed. In this case I was adding sources to a citation group that already had six entries, so rather than just tack on new ones I swapped out some of the stronger sources for some of the weaker ones (I say "weaker" primarily to refer to the fact that the SPLC and MJ have a fairly heavy bias, not as a comment on their reliability). Generally with potentially contentious political claims, I try to find a range of high-quality sources that fall in various places on the political spectrum.

In this case the statement is now still sourced to some lefty sources (Vox, Daily Dot), but balanced a bit by the WSJ. Compare before and after (I put AP on there because the Haaretz source is by Haaretz and the AP; note that the SPLC, Bellingcat, and Haaretz are sadly not charted by Ad Fontes). One thing I will note about the Ad Fontes chart: in a perfect world we might have a citation group where if you "averaged" the sources, you would end up right on the "neutral or balanced bias" line, this is tough to achieve in practice given that the most reliable sources trend left of center (see the chart filtered to the green line of "most reliable for news", and the chart filtered to omit "reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content").

It certainly would be within reason to cull the cite group further–Daily Dot and Vox would be the first to go if I were to do so–but IMO their inclusion doesn't hurt anything. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Volteer1 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll add in addition that this is the same thing I've seen on just about any other member of the dissident right. Jared Taylor is an example I'll use. Wikipedia's definition of "white supremacy" is "...the belief that white people are superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them." Jared Taylor has repeatedly denied being a white supremacist in both videos and interviews and doesn't fit the definition, since he doesn't believe whites a) are superior to people of other races and b) ought to dominate people of other races as justified by reason A. If you are completely transparent in your assertion that Wikipedia formulates its articles on the basis of "credible sources," either the source isn't that credible or the source is simply wrong. I would agree that sources aptly provide the definition of "white supremacy," but if those same sources also fail to use their own definitions accurately on individuals, how are we supposed to apply their information, which is wrong, to describe people? Same goes for Nick Fuentes here. Although "credible sources" have a pretty strong definition of what white nationalism is, they fail to ping that definition on Fuentes. Until I can be proven otherwise about my assertion, I strongly suggest removing "white nationalist" from this page and replacing it with the former label "far-right" or even "paleoconservative," which is what he is. I think Nick Fuentes is in the best position to describe who Nick Fuentes is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 03:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@ZoomerEnlightenment: You may find WP:TRUTH to be illuminating. Even if it is true that all of these reliable sources are wrong, and somehow no reliable sources have noticed and published their own articles to contradict, Wikipedia must go by what is published in RS. That is simply how Wikipedia works, for better or for worse. We as editors cannot simply decide that otherwise reliable sources are wrong in this instance and disregard them. As I've said above to AFPchadking, if there are other reliable sources that challenge this descriptor of Fuentes, we could potentially add them per WP:BALANCE ("when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance"). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate to know that Wikipedia is willing to publish contradicting information from RS and still purports itself to be reliable. It's quite shameful, as a matter of a fact. I'll once again add that if Wikipedia wants to sustain its reputation as a universal encyclopedia that everyone can access and receive reliable information from, perhaps you SHOULD write the truth, even if RS aren't willing to display the evidence for a claim. However, this is not surprising, since Wikipedia has aligned itself with the left + it would appear that you guys are clearly leftists and stalk upon these pages to pounce on people like me who try and correct this nonsense. It's unfortunate indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 13:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

ZoomerEnlightenment, there is no "contradicting information from RS" - at least you haven't *once* provided any sources to this discussion. Mvbaron (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron, if RS calls white nationalism a cheese pizza, but RS calls Nick Fuentes a pepperoni pizza, then Nick Fuentes isn't a white nationalist since he isn't a cheese pizza. Similarly, Nick Fuentes doesn't call himself a cheese pizza (a white nationalist) and in fact calls himself a Hawaiian pizza. RS calls white nationalism a cheese pizza, but they try and say that Nick Fuentes is a white nationalist despite him not being a cheese pizza. In other words, if RS gives a definition for A, applies that same definition to person B, but person B does not fit the definition of A and yet the justification RS gives for person B is their definition of A, then it's a contradiction. It's pretty simple.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 14:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

ZoomerEnlightenment, That's all well and good, but you need to present those reliable sources that talk about how NF's political views are misunderstood by so many other reliable sources. You keep saying that there is contradicting information from RSs - but you haven't actually provided any source. Please link it here, so that we can include it in the article. (But remember that NF's self description isn't a reliabel source). --Mvbaron (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

To use your somewhat confusing analogy, in this circumstance we have RS calling white nationalism a cheese pizza and many RS calling Nick Fuentes a cheese pizza, with (so far as I've seen) no RS suggesting Fuentes is not a cheese pizza but Fuentes steadfastly denying it (while looking suspiciously like a cheese pizza, in my view). GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron That's my whole point. If reliable sources define white nationalism as one thing yet when they apply that definition to someone who OBVIOUSLY ISN'T a white nationalist, it should be ameliorated. Since I can't edit the page, I simply suggest the admins do so. And my statement from much earlier wasn't to threaten legal action, but that Nick Fuentes might since he's done so to Haaretz before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You say he "obviously isn't a white nationalist" as though that were objective fact. It may be obvious to you, but to me it is obvious he is a white nationalist. This is why we rely on reliable sources, and not the opinions of individual Wikipedians. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

He calls for America to be a white nation, denies the Holocaust, has a laundry list of attacks on Jews and minorities, hosts a conference with the head of a neo-Nazi youth group, said white people need to "take a stand", and on and on. There's a reason every reliable source calls the guy *at least* a white nationalist, if not also a white supremacist and/or Neo-Nazi. Give me a break. Nmi628 (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Question for everyone here: isn't there some kind of contradiction between his Hispanic/Latino background and "white nationalism"? I'm very curious about this because he identifies himself as "Afro-Latino" (is there evidence this is a lie and if so, what is his actual background?) and yet mainstream sources call him a "white nationalist" in spite of the fact that most users on actual neo-Nazi and white supremacist forums consider him "non-white" because of this, some going so far as to claim that he "admitted" to having Jewish ancestry. This is one out of many, many examples: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1304357-2/. Actual white nationalists (neo-Nazi's, white supremacists, whatever term you prefer as it's all ultimately the same BS. I have no idea why Wikipedia editors insist on using all of these terms at the same time on many articles.) don't consider this guy to be "white," which they define as people of wholly non-Jewish, non-Muslim European ancestry. That means these idiots don't even consider Albanian Muslims and Bosnian Muslims to be "white" and this assuming the so-called "white race" is a real thing, which is unlikely as mainstream science considers it pseudoscientific and biologically incorrect. There seems to be some cognitive dissonance involved with these mainstream sources that call him this. They do make mistakes and often double down on those mistakes even when they've admitted an error. The situation of Richard Jewell, for example. So, how can he be a "white nationalist" when he isn't even "white"? Future Observer (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have seen this same argument made about Enrique Tarrio (see Talk:Enrique Tarrio#Tarrio Chairman position). As I wrote there, it's possible for people of color to be white nationalists; people are complex beings and sometimes hold beliefs that are hard to understand. I also linked to this article, which describes the phenomenon of young men of color joining white supremacist groups. As with anything on Wikipedia, we go with what reliable sources say, and because RS say he is a white nationalist, so too do we. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• For months or years, a steady stream of drive-by edits has tried to emphasize Fuentes' ancestry. Sometimes it's obvious that it's a misguided shield against criticism. Reliable sources do not emphasize factoids about his ancestry, and for obvious reasons. Therefor, the article should not emphasize it either.

It should go without saying that neo-Nazi websites are not reliable sources. Since they are not reliable in general, they cannot be used to provide a neutral definition of 'white', much less 'white supremacy'. It's also a mistake, although a reasonable one, to conflate neo-Nazism with all of white supremacy. White supremacy predates neo-Nazism by centuries. Not all white supremacists have swastika tattoos or wear white hoods. Infighting, purity tests, and gatekeeping are extremely common among far-right movements, but they are still far-right movements anyway. The fallout of the ironically named "Unite the Right" rally demonstrates this, as it led to endless accusations, petty bickering, and damage control. Perhaps Fuentes noticed some of the many the swastika tattoos on display when he attended that rally. It appears he was willing to be "united" with those movements at the time, but not later, when it might be inconvenient to him. Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, the article cannot help him fix this problem. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This argument has derailed and its been clear the case has not been made to prove Nick Fuentes a white nationalist. It seems in order that the moniker of white nationalist should be removed from Nick Fuentes’ page. Wikipedia is non partisan and needs to be an impartial website, and while Nick is certainly from a social standpoint, is extremely traditional and is far right in that regard, the Hispanic America First male this page is about, is certainly not far right economically. Based on his social media feed, he appears to be Centre right economically, not far right, and he claims among others to be a mainstream conservative. I warn the agitators who could make Wikipedia liable for defaming him that your actions will most likely be undone, and that the page will likely be locked. Nate Rybner 20:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naterybner (talk • contribs)

Are we reading the same conversation? Because the conversation above shows the sources are quite clear on him being a white nationalist. The arguments that you are making about his Twitter feed are original research and not usable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nick Fuentes has described himself as a white nationalist, pretending to pull the punch in a way that only fellow white supremacists would winkingly play along with. I'm honestly ready to say we give anyone who wants to argue beyond in his defense this point needs WP:NOTHERE blocks as they're clearly here in bad-faith to mainstream white supremacism. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You say, “Nick Fuentes has described himself as a white nationalist,” and your source says this:

“Nicholas Fuentes, host of ‘America First’ who has said he could be accurately described as a white nationalist, as he is both ‘white’ and a ‘nationalist...’”

The source claims that he said that he could technically be described as a white nationalist, because he is both white, and a nationalist. I don’t know about you, but that seems to be a joke. He didn’t say he claims the label of being a white nationalist literally, he claimed the racial label of white, and the political label of nationalism, and made a remark that because of the fact that he is both white, and a nationalist (an American nationalist) that he is technically, a “white nationalist.” He only “described himself as a white nationalist” in the sense that his racial identity is white, and he is a nationalist. I don’t think that such a remark could be used to say that he is a white nationalist, in the sense of the political ideology of white nationalism. Jrekd (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Ian.thomson said (back in March): Nick Fuentes has described himself as a white nationalist, pretending to pull the punch in a way that only fellow white supremacists would winkingly play along with. (emphasis mine). Nowhere does the cited source "claim" he could "technically" be a white nationalist. Pedantically interpreting a term in bad faith doesn't make it a joke. Your comment ignores the context from both other editors and the cited sources. Since Fuentes has no political training to speak of, nor is he a recognized expert on any relevant topic, he is not qualified to define white nationalism. The source is significant because it points out that he has not disputed that this term applies to him. Grayfell (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

This would support the notion that the hyperlink to "white nationalist" on the page should be two links to "white" and "nationalist". 131.93.181.202 (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove "white nationalist" from the article please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nick Fuentes has declined he is one so it is basically slander if the "white nationalist" tag is still on his page. 2600:1012:B0EA:CA11:C962:BE25:2640:2253 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

thx in advance

• No, that is not how "slander" works, and that's not how "white nationalist" works, but thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DoB

@AgeOfPlastic: How do those two Twitter sources confirm he was born in 1998 and not 1999? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The first twitter source probably confirms the day (though a bit of understanding of context would have to apply), which in combination with his age from the WaPo source would provide the year. Volteer1 (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see they'd left the WaPo source with the age. Thanks, I guess that's good enough. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitic?

He is not antisemitic, if you whatched his videos you would know that he does not hate neither jews or blacks.

Kinda cringe to quote a livestreamer with news papers with a clear bias when he has video evidence. 85.209.183.21 (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

please see WP:OR: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. When editing a Wikipedia article, we cannot watch the videos and draw our own conclusions from it. Mvbaron (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Anti-vax

He has recently become an outspoken antivaxxer, referring to the COVID-19 vaccine as “gene therapy” and saying he would take up arms to avoid taking it. See [4]. This should be added. 2604:2D80:6986:4000:0:0:0:7267 (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

MSN is republishing an article from Salon (RSP entry), which is yellow at WP:RSP. If there are additional reliable sources that mention it it could potentially be added; do you know of any: GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Several paragraphs from this article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution mention Fuentes' influence as an antivaxxer. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I found that in my brief search for additional sourcing, but there's not much to it. It mentions antivaxxers in the far right, but the only statement we could really make based on that source would be something like "Fuentes has said he won't get the COVID-19 vaccine". Given that 50% of Republican men aren't planning to get the vaccine, I'm not sure it's worth including just that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It is thin. Hopefully more sources can be found. Tying this antivax stuff may be too specific, but his history to COVID-19 misinformation in general is a bit longer. A Time source (already cited) from August 2020 mentions his claims that "You're only really susceptible to this virus if you're Asian". Worth keeping an eye on. Grayfell (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

He spoke positively of "a tidal wave of white identity"

Where is the source for this quote? I couldn't find it in the citations linked at the end of that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.14 (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't in those sources. I've swapped them out for ones it's actually in, thanks for spotting that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholic?

I know that Nick considers himself as having "traditionalist leanings" but he has explicitly denied any association or interest in "Traditionalist Catholicism", SSPX or any label or affiliation besides "Catholic". I'm not aware of him ever mentioning attending an Extraordinary Form (Tridentine) Mass, or having concerns over the Second Vatican Council, or anything that would suggest that he is a "Traditional Catholic". The Washington Monthly source asserts that he is a "traditional Catholic" but being traditional (in a general sense) and Catholic is very different from being a "Traditionalist Catholic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valepio (talk • contribs) 17:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Nick has referred to himself as a "traditional Catholic" on stream before, specifically when he was reacting to the JF Gariepy-Richard Spencer stream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoomerEnlightenment (talk • contribs) 15:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As Valepio said, I think there's a fair argument to be made that "being traditional (in a general sense) and Catholic is very different from being a 'Traditionalist Catholic'". Do you know of any sources that specify "Traditionalist Catholic"? Because the WM one is definitely open to interpretation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Stevens-Arroyo, Dr Anthony M. "Here come the Catholics | Moving Mountains". Pocono Record. Retrieved 2021-06-19. Elizium23 (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nick_Fuentes_Headshot.png 2601:154:4080:1660:AD4A:3E34:F82F:208 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The licensing on that picture does not look legitimate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have just marked it as a copyright violation on Commons. The uploader has uploaded several non-free images under improper licenses. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

America First characterized by using irony as cover for his extremism?

Under the Career section, it says "America First is characterized by Fuentes' frequent use of ironic humor to appeal to Generation Z while providing plausible deniability for his often extreme views." This sentence can easily be seen as pushing ideological goals because it makes it sound like this is what his entire show is based around. If there isn't going to be any other information about the contents of his show, it seems to make no sense about why this is included in the article at all. If we are going to talk about the contents of this show, it's fine that this sentence is included, but why just one sentence, it discredits us because we only talk about negative aspects of a person. I am certainly not a fan of Nick, but it seems a little ridiculous. (Also, please don't just gang up on me and accuse me of edit warring, we could have made this so much easier instead of just saying "No, I think it stays") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nousername46000 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to add more details about his show. Perhaps you could find some reliable sources and recommend a paragraph. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The information is supported by a reliable source and is obviously relevant to his show. If you know of sources, which in this case would be both reliable and independent sources, and those sources could be used to expand this section, feel free to propose them.

As for "pushing ideological goals", Wikipedia should neutrally summarize reliable sources. If sources describe an ideology, then articles will also describe that ideology. We are not here to decide which narratives need our support and which don't based on our own assessment. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to edit because there are multiple lies in this article and I would like to add different sources. Kivster12345 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

My reasons are stated above. Kivster12345 (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreliable sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You shouldn’t be allowed to use opinion hit pieces to make facts about someone. Kivster12345 (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Which source(s) is an "opinion hit piece"? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quotes

Please stop using "emphatic" quotation marks in the article. If you do not know what that means, look up "Scare quotes" on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Matadobra (talk • contribs) 16:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@James Matadobra: Which of these quote marks are being used for emphasis rather than to mark language taken directly from a source? I spot-checked a few and they all are quoting from their respective sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

January 6th Baked Alaska live stream appearance

There are some sources (such as Haaretz) which reported, in the days following the Capitol Siege, that Nick Fuentes was the individual seen standing behind Baked Alaska in Nancy Pelosi's office. These reports have not been updated with new information which was released months later: that this individual was not Nick Fuentes, but an individual named Anton Lunyk.

Credible sources on the individual being Anton Lunyk, not Nick Fuentes: https://nypost.com/2021/05/11/capitol-rioter-busted-after-hes-spotted-in-ny-post-tweet-feds/ https://patch.com/new-york/prospectheights/bk-man-caught-video-senators-office-capitol-riot-feds https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/brooklyn-man-arrested-for-allegedly-participating-in-deadly-capitol-siege/3049009/

The sources which identify Fuentes as the individual in this stream are therefore conflicting with these sources -- and we should defer to the newer sources with more current information. Cherio222 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Even the Haaretz source equivocates on it a bit. I agree that the sentence should be removed; the remaining paragraph seems like a reasonable description of his activities. We could add that he was on the steps of the Capitol if we really wanted, though I'm not sure it adds much. If a RS explicitly states that a man behind Baked Alaska inside the building was mistaken for Fuentes we could add that too, but these sources don't appear to mention that. By the way, Cherio, not sure if you're aware, but the New York Post is a generally unreliable source (RSP entry). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes's non-White ancestry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nick Fuentes is said to be of "Hispanic and Italian" descent, however he is much more than just that. He is also ~1/5th Native American, and has significant amounts of Semitic/Arab ancestry, as well as African ancestry, the latter of which he has, on multiple occasions, alluded to and shown pride in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQTN0z3AKCI — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoorishBlood (talk • contribs) 13:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobody here cares.

His YouTube channel is not a usable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Daily Dot is not a reliable source.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Daily Dot is the Leftist equivalent of Breitbart. Are we going to entertain that a title like, "It looks like white nationalist Nick Fuentes just had his YouTube channel demonetized" is objective or fair? They're obviously pushing something, especially when NJF has never claimed to be a White Nationalist nor advocated for White Nationalist policies. Looking at the twitter account of the writer Mikael Thalen, the author for all Daily Dot articles cited in this biography, he's a virulent Leftist whose entire platform is anti-Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PausePoz (talk • contribs) 07:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to suggest the Wikipedia community reevaluate the reliability of The Daily Dot, which is currently listed as "generally reliable" at WP:RSP#The Daily Dot, that's a conversation for WP:RSN and not here. You might also wish to read WP:BIASEDSOURCE. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The current wall street journal article is not a reliable source that Fuentes is a "white nationalist."

The Source:

Frosch, Dan; Levy, Rachael; Elinson, Zusha (January 15, 2021). "Extremists in Capitol Riot Had Histories of Violent Rhetoric and Threats". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Archived from the original on March 4, 2021. Retrieved March 4, 2021. Far-right personality and white nationalist Nick Fuentes, who was at Charlottesville during that deadly 2017 rally, told followers he planned to attend the Jan. 6 protest.

I read the source and it provides zero evidence that fuentes is a "white nationalist" or espouses their beliefs. The publication simply libels him, and Wikipedia reprints the libel here.

Wikipedia, for the sake of being unbiased and having a modicum of respect for itself, it's purpose, and those that read it, should at least use the word "alleged" rather than outright labels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.92.136 (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is one of the more reliable media sources out there, so if you are suggesting they are not a generally reliable source that may be a difficult argument (and it would certainly be one that would need to be held at WP:RSN rather than here). If you are just saying that this claim isn't supported by the source, a RS describing a person as a "white nationalist" is sufficient for that source to be used to support that claim; we do not demand they present their entire explanation of how they decided upon that label in order to use a source. If Fuentes is concerned about libel from the WSJ, he should take it up with them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Nick has had his Twitter account suspended earlier today

Apparently, the ADL wrote a piece on Nick Fuentes yesterday, and his account on Twitter was suspended earlier today. 2601:8C:4581:2A40:8C92:8AE9:5390:51F8 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this information has already been added. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

He participated in the attack?

There is no evidence that he was actually in the Capitol building on January 6th, and to insinuate that he was in this article makes it seem like we are just creating our own information. If he was not in the capitol, that needs to be said so. I have proposed changing it from saying "after participating in the attack..." to saying "after participating in the rally" to be more specific without editorializing. can we reach consensus on the language change? Nousername46000 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Calton, Cherio222, and Grayfell: Can y'all suss this wording out on the talk page rather than warring over it? I have no horse in this fight, as they say, but have been watching the slow-motion edit war happen on my watchlist. Please discuss rather than reverting. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nousername46000:Your disputants have stated that according to them whether Fuentes entered the building or not does not matter with regard to the use of the word "participate". According to them, to say that he has participated in the attack is just fine. If that's fine, clearly, changing the word from "attack" to "rally" can't possibly be fine (if he participated in an attack how could it ever be proper not to say it, and to substitute this with "rally"? Those are two completely different things; how's that "more specific" and better than editorializing? ...or "middle ground"), so that edit can't possibly have been a way to move ahead. This dispute could be resolved more constructively if the disagreement is addressed directly (using the word "participate" for people who haven't entered the building). Your position isn't as eccentric as it may appear when you're involved in an edit war. For example, there's a convention of sorts in the attack template: there are "participants" (per relatively longstanding comment [diff] which says that the word is only for people who are known to have physically entered the building) and "related persons", and Fuentes has been treated as the latter. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: I may be misinterpreting what you mean to say, but this is my take on your comment. The previous edit from another user had it say that he was banned off of multiples cites etc... because of his participation in the stop the steal movement. This was argued against because that was seen as 'muddying the waters' on the actual reasons for his banning, which seems like a reasonable enough reasoning. This was changed to say that he was in the attack, which is an absolute 180, implying that he was in the building even though he clearly was not. I hoped that everyone could settle on the "rally" because by all accounts, that was the most accurate because he was banned specifically for the events of the 6th, while at the same time he was never in the capitol. I have no objections to keeping the term "participated" because he did indeed participate in the Jan 6 rally, he just never entered the capitol. I hope this clears up my position, but if I missed something or inaccurately responded to what you mentioned, please get back. Nousername46000 (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not a middle ground, when across the table sit editors who prefer an account that he is a participant in the attack. "Attack" is very different from "rally". And what's at stake here is a change from the current state of the article to the next one. We have a history, yes, but but we don't have time travel - every change is from the present to the future. Why don't you simply argue that it's incorrect to describe someone as a participant in the attack if they haven't entered the building? What's your full position on that? — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a middle ground between saying "stop the steal movement" and "he participated in the attack". However, this is mostly backstory for my addition in the talk page, and not to be considered my main reasoning for the change. My main contention is, as you say, that it isn't correct to label him as a participant in the attack if he wasn't. I also haven't been 'hiding' part of my argument, I don't know what you mean by "full position". Nousername46000 (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nousername46000: I don't think you've been hiding anything, that wasn't the intent. "Full position" means something not as tautological as it isn't correct to label him as a participant in the attack if he wasn't. The other side says that it is correct to label him as a participant because (according to them) he was that. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The cited article states, "Fuentes promoted election fraud narratives and encouraged his adherents to participate in nationwide 'Stop the Steal' protests." Additionally, it states, "Since the attack on the Capitol, Fuentes claims that his bank account has been frozen, he has been placed on the federal no-fly list." The only participation attributed to Fuentes is within the "Stop the Steal" movement. On the other hand, the section of the article in contention states that Fuentes participated "in the attack." This does not comport with any relevant portions of the citation used. The beginning of this section of our article is much more accurate and clear, stating: "[Fuentes] participated in the rallies that led up to [the attack]." Those rallies constituted the "Stop the Steal" movement. This is clear-cut to me. If anyone would like to make an entirely different claim, a different citation is needed. Cherio222 (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is quite clear cut. Nowhere in the ADL article (or other, up-to-date reliable sources) did it say he participated in the actual attack, instead that he was a speaker in the rallies that lead up to it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@ValarianB: regarding Special:Diff/1033770023, that is not what anyone is disputing. Please read the discussion above. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• No reliable source is disputing that this was an attack, and attack seems like the most neutral way to phrase it at this point. I have not seen reliable sources make a distinction between the "rally" and the "attack" as though they were unconnected (at least not with regard to Fuentes). The cited source doesn't emphasize this, and that's what we should go by.

The cited source itself is specifically referring to this as an attack as context for Fuentes' participation in that event: Since the attack on the Capitol, Fuentes claims that his bank account has been frozen, he has been placed on the federal no-fly list, and has been banned from Airbnb, Facebook and Instagram.

Again, per the cited source he called the attack itself "refreshing" and said "keep moving towards the Capitol – it appears we are taking the Capitol back!". Per his own actions he amplified, coordinated, and monetized the attack regardless of what door-frames he crossed. This is participation in a very basic, non-controversial sense. Again, this is all per cited sources, no OR required. Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Grayfell: There's more or less a convention not to name people who didn't enter the building (or didn't fight with the Police outside, although I suppose that those individuals generally entered as well) as participants in the attack. For example, the now pretty longstanding template classifies them as related persons, i.e. individuals with a specific relation to the attack. This is existing consensus per WP:EDITCON, and I even think the issue was specifically discussed early on. @AllegedlyHuman: could know more. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, participant refers to someone who entered the Capitol building. I will note that this was decided when the page title was "2021 storming of the United States Capitol", but I think the rule still makes sense; there were protesters outside who did not commit any crime, and so to associate them with an "attack" is disingenuous. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not a rule, and it doesn't apply everywhere, it's barely even WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. That discussion, which was about the article's infobox, only applies to that page, and only in context. This talk page, on the other hand, is the place to form consensus on this article. While it's tempting to point out that the protestors' own actions associated them with the attack as a factual matter, this is not about all protestors in vague generalized terms. Shifting this to be about everyone who attended is a distraction, because every usage will still have to be evaluated on its own merits regardless of some other talk page consensus. This article is about Fuentes specifically. We must therefore look at reliable sources about Fuentes and form consensus based on those sources for how we discuss this issue in this article. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Grayfell:There is significant distinction between saying "attack" vs "rally"; all 'attackers' are 'rally-goers' but not all 'rally-goers' are 'attackers'. Fuentes is a rally-goer but not an attacker. you also mention that he "amplified, coordinated, and monetized the attack" although this is not entirely true. In terms of monetization, the investigation into possible monetary support of the capitol breach has not been concluded yet, therefore we don't know yet. There also doesn't seem to be any proof that he coordinated the attack, given that he isn't a member of any militias, the Proud Boys, 3%ers etc... Amplification is a possibility, given some of the speeches he made on the 6th before the incursion. However, I don't think that alone is enough to consider him a "participant" in the attack. Nousername46000 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not support that there is a "significant distinction" as it relates to Fuentes. I am going by the cited source. If you have a different source, present it.

I didn't say he "funded" the attack, I said he "monetized" the attack. There is a difference, and your comment misrepresents or misinterprets my statement. Fuentes made money from the attack, and from the lead up to the attack. He actively attempted to make himself a prominent public face for the attack, and this activity provided him with money. His enthusiastic participation in the attack (regardless of where his feet hit the ground) was part of a pattern of political activity that made him the most profitable streamer on DLive. That is what I meant by "monetized".

To put it another way, per sources he made a lot of money by praising the attack and encouraging attackers to "keep moving towards the Capitol – it appears we are taking the Capitol! The cited sources are already clear on this. As the relevant source itself points out, "America First" logos was proudly displayed by trespassers and vandals. Fuentes is the public face of the America First "movement". It doesn't matter whether or not he belonged to any supposedly formal organization, because that would be shifting goal posts. Whether or not he is technically a member of a group that coordinated the attack is a deflection that ignores the substance of existing sources. He was present, he encouraged his followers, he praised his followers, and he even advised those followers to discard their cellphones after the attack!

A line cook doesn't have to personally slaughter a chicken to make nuggets. A commanding officer doesn't have to fire a gun to participate in a battle. Fuentes didn't have to trespass to participate in the attack. If anything here is "disingenuous" it's the pretense that he was not participating in an attack merely because he wasn't willing to risk arrest by crossing a barricade. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This is somewhat dishonest, you're claiming the source says something that it doesn't: Since the attack on the Capitol, Fuentes claims that his bank account has been frozen, ... means "Since the 2021 United States Capitol attack [that is, the event], Fuentes claims that his bank account has been frozen, ...". This is not where the article describes his involvement in the events, that was a few paragraphs up – Fuentes served as an organizer and speaker at many “Stop the Steal” protests leading up to the January 6 attack on the Capitol.... Fuentes and other members of America First were present at the Capitol on January 6, about which Fuentes said... Fuentes was seen that day giving a speech near the Capitol encouraging his followers to “keep moving towards the Capitol – it appears we are taking the Capitol back!” While Fuentes does not appear to have physically entered the Capitol building, individuals wearing America First merchandise appeared in videos and images inside the building. I also don't see why profiting off an attack means you were a participant in the attack, and you didn't seem to explain that part of the argument so I don't think it needs responding to.

You're welcome to hold your belief that verbal support for an attack constitutes an attack in and of itself as some general philosophical principle or something, but it's irrelevant for the content of this Wikipedia article unless that is what reliable sources say about Fuentes. That ADL article, nor any other article I've been able to find, states what we are currently saying about him. This is still purely your own original research. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Per your own quotes, Fuentes organized multiple events which directly lead up to the attack, and in a speech at the attack itself, endorsed the push towards the capital in direct, unambiguous terms. I think the sources do a sufficient job of explaining Fuentes' role, no OR required.

The Wikipedia article for the 2021 United States Capitol attack follow sources, which treat the "rally" and the "riot" as both being part of the broader attack, hence the name of the article: 2021 United States Capitol attack. Sources, including but not limited to the ones you've quoted, do not consider this distinction to be vitally important, so neither should this article. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2021

Let me edit HeDaddyOfficial (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more understandable to label Nick Fuentes as a white supremacist or a racial segregationist rather than a white nationalist?

He just isn't a white nationalist. He has never come out in favor, nor advocated for the creation of an ethnostate. Yes, he has come out in favor of segregation and putting the White Race before all other races, but he's never advocated for a white ethnostate.Jimmyy68 (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC) @Jimmyy68

@Jimmyy68: That's gonna be a hard case to argue, given the reliable sources that call Fuentes a white nationalist verbatim. Your argument seems to be based on your perception of the truth, when Wikipedia follows verifiability not truth. ––FormalDude ^talk 10:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Intro, labels and self labels?

Shouldn't intro be made of 3 sections? For his and everyone else's biography.

1. Legal definition of nick Fuentes, ie whether he holds official office, such as US President, mayor, or if he's a convicted criminal. This would have precedence over anything he or others say about him. It's the legal position and status. 2. Nick Fuentes description by his own words. Why should e.g. NYT have a bigger say on who is nick Fuentes than nick Fuentes himself? 3. What others say about him, his media opponents, political enemies etc. 93.142.149.137 (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

check out MOS:LEAD, it describes what the lead paragraph(s) should do: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. It should summarize the article basically.

As to (2): The NYT has a bigger say about him because the NYT is a reliable source, and Fuentes himself isn't. Check out this link: Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Mvbaron (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

NYT has been rebutted as fake news by former US President, so how does NYT satisfy criteria for a totally reliable source? Their impartiality and accuracy is questionable. It has been questioned by the most powerful man in the world, and is constantly being questioned by many people. Basically it's US President and Nick Fuentes vs NYT. You don't think it's a close call? Overall no matter whose side we choose, it's a market of ideas and opinnions out there. I am not saying we should totally ignore NYT, it's still an influental publication shaping the public opinnion, but I think intro of this article/page, and the page itself should be logically coherent. It should go like this:

1. Legal status of Nick Fuentes, (president, mayor, convicted criminal ), such stuff takes precedence over anything else. Even Hitler's wiki page begins with him being German chancellor and dictator. It's just a legal fact.

2. Nick Fuentes job/activism/actions listed in neutral manner without praise, smear or labeling.

3. Nick Fuentes' own description/oppinion of himself.

4. Description/oppinion by others, notably critics, including NYT of course.

So all I am saying, leave the NYT stuff, by all means, but there is an order of precedence, which should be followed through logically. 93.142.149.137 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read the wikipedia policies that I linked above, they explain how a lead should look like and what shouldn't go in it. If you want to question the reliability of the NYT, WP:RSN is the place to do that. Also please read WP:BLPSTYLE again, where it is explained why we can't use Fuentes own word about himself too much. Mvbaron (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I've read it and I'm confused because MOS:LEAD states this: It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

How is it neutral if you pack the intro with NYT smears only? The way it is, intro describes nick Fuentes in a way he never described himself, only how his enemies describe him. How is that neutral? Ok you have his high profile enemies describing him, fine, but why don't you also have his own self descriptions? And also his allies describing him? Those are three sides.

I think it's problematic if there is no Nick Fuentes' own description of what he's doing in life and who and what he is. And secondly don't you realize that just like Trump who opposed mainstream media, nick Fuentes likewise opposes them so by definition NYT isn't a neutral party? Even if they were the nicest people, and totally trustworthy, due to the fact there is an ongoing feud between nick Fuentes and them, makes them party in the conflict and biased by definition. I think it's a problem to portay here their point of view exclusively. It can stay, but we also need to hear about nick Fuentes himself and also other side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.149.137 (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

People are not neutral with respect to themselves, and we typically do not give self-descriptors much prominence (especially when they conflict with how a subject is described by external sources). If you have any reliable sources that describe Fuentes in a more positive light, feel free to suggest them here. If you're not sure if a source is reliable, you can check to see if it's listed at WP:RSP or if it has been discussed at WP:RSN.

Regarding your suggestion that the NYT should be deemphasized due to being "party in the conflict", a 2020 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability found that disqualification of sources based on alleged conflicts of interest such as this did not have community consensus. The idea that all "mainstream media" sources could be discounted because someone speaks out against the MSM is ridiculous, I'm afraid—we do not write articles solely using sources that each subject approves of, but rather apply the same standard across articles.

You seem to be very focused on the usage of the NYT in the lead, but please note that the citations for the descriptors in the lead are grouped cites with quite a few entries, including some sources such as the Wall Street Journal, which is generally considered centrist if not conservative-leaning. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm using NYT as an example. WSJ is also part of mainstream media so a moot point on neutrality.

OK so you're telling me you don't notice the prevailing conflict of interests in this article? The intro states among others: "The Anti-Defamation League has described Fuentes as a white supremacist”. It's a harsh description, despite Nicholas Fuentes never stating so and such label is obviously negative portayal of him, meant to discredit him, based on ADL point of view. Fine, you have ADL point of view in this page. I'm not saying we should remove it. But Fuentes is also known to have critized Jewish power and the ADL wiki page says this: "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, is an international Jewish non-governmental organization based in the United States." So I'm asking how is this neutral? Fuentes, as a pundit and a politician criticizes Jewish influence and then Jewish organisation smears him and it's them and their view which are taken as neutral here. Shouldn't this page portay the political conflict, describe the sides and not take sides? It's highly problematic I think.

I'm all for all possible data and views to be presented here and sparing no one, but this page has huge issues with impartiality and neutrality.

Would it violate wiki rules if there was a sentence "Fuentes considers himself traditional Catholic and a conservative" before what his enemies say about him? First Fuentes, and then you have other NYT stuff. And in part in which ADL says Fuentes is a white nationalist, we also state Fuentes has previously spoken critically of Jewish organisations such as ADL so that conflict is presented to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.149.137 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If there is a conflict in how reliable, secondary sources describe a subject, we describe the conflict in proportion to the prevalence of the various views. But in this case, a whole host of secondary sources describe Fuentes in one way, and Fuentes himself describes himself a different way. That's not the same thing. If there are RS that themselves describe Fuentes more like how he describes himself, you're more than welcome to present them here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

In this sentence:

Fuentes was a prominent attendee and speaker at protests and rallies leading up to the 2021 United States Capitol attack.

can you remove "attendee and"? It's redundant. You can't speak at an event without attending it. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: He wasn't a speaker at every protest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an error of date in the last paragraph of the career section

The unite the right rally took place in 2017, not 2016 216.59.174.118 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've actually removed the full paragraph, since it was not sourced to anything besides AFPAC's own website and announcement. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Views on interracial relationships and segregation

May someone please add in the Views section Fuentes’ views regarding segregation and interracial segregation? As mentioned in Ali Breland’s article (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/06/who-is-nick-fuentes-and-why-is-a-us-rep-buddying-up-to-the-segregationist-holocaust-denying-gen-z-influencer), Fuentes is against interracial marriage, and he claims Blacks were better under Jim Crow. FlantasyFlan (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Vax Watch

Nick Fuentes also founded and is the president of Vax Watch, an anti-vax organization. https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-nationalist-nick-fuentes-followers-clash-with-anti-vaxxers-in-new-york-city FlantasyFlan (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

87.116.160.107 (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes is not a white nationalist, but a paleo conservative. There is no proof of him ever saying or acting as a white nationalist. This is clearly false and politically motivated

 Not done: Look at the sources. Cannolis (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2022

change "American political commentator" to "American Far Right Political Commentator" 2A02:6B6F:3800:0:FD68:1AEB:7CDE:623F (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It already says that. ValarianB (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Add Personal Life section

It would be good to add a Personal Life section. In December 2021 Fuentes stated that he has never been in a relationship with a woman on the “You Are Here” podcast. 2.30.7.80 (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Should there be a link or mention of his websites

America First with Nicholas J. Fuentes and America First. Should these be linked as his websites? --2001:8003:DDAA:5A00:E859:1F2E:D2:118E (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

They spelled AFPAC wrong

AFPCA doesn’t make sense, it’s spelled AFPAC like CPAC. 2600:1016:B11B:E8AB:B864:282F:EE1:DBC3 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.-gadfium 01:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Date of Birth

English wiki seems to be the only one that doesn't list his dob in the article? Are there insufficient secondary sources to verify his own claim of the day he was born? -Evansknight (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It was sourced to a brief mention of his age in the WaPo, which you could sort of infer the DOB from, and a tweet (from his now-banned account) that read "Lol my birthday is on sunday but thanks!!". Honestly, who cares? We're not a stat sheet. ValarianB (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2022

The first sentence in the description should be changed from “Is an American” to “is a Mexican American” 2600:1000:B157:7819:A060:30FD:43B4:FC3B (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Don't have any information in the article to back this up. Also

see MOS:ETHNICITY Cannolis (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)