Talk:Nick Fuentes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Cozy.tv

Not one mention about Nick Fuentes being a cozy.tv streamer. This is like not mentioning someone being a twitch streamer. It’s how his show is broadcasted. Goblintear (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

So find a reliable source and add it. ––FormalDude talk 06:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m not allowed to edit (protected page). Reliable source https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1481641451444260866?s=20&t=4L9kyt5epvEyu2SE5QNgog Goblintear (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Many things are mentioned in many tweets through the the day, but that does not always make them noteworthy or notable, "cozy.tv" (not to be confused with Cozi TV) is just the name of some fly-by-night service founded by Fuentes himself. If it is to be mentioned at all, it would be in the context of its use as a platform to harass legitimate streamers with homophobic and transphobic abuse, per thegamer.com: Hate Raids Are Targeting LGBTQ+ Twitch Streamers Again. ValarianB (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t Wikipedia about being descriptive? His show is broadcasted on that website 5 days a week. Omitting that completely forgoes to purpose of an encyclopedia. This isn’t a blog. Goblintear (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

That Wikipedia is not "a blog" undercuts your own argument. It does not print things that merely exist, they have to be notable. Otherwise we would have articles on what the American President easts for Thanksgiving, or the daily doings of the Kardashians. There is nothing significant about "cozy.tv", other than a slight bit of press for being a new soapbox for incels and homophobia. ValarianB (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

??? You don’t have to like him, but it is clearly notable. If ISIS was using fringe types of social media to get their message out, you’re saying it wouldn’t be notable? Oh yeah wait, there’s an entire article about it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_social_media_by_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant Goblintear (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not clearly notable or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Dronebogus (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Complete apples and oranges, as the article you link is about a terrorist group's usage of social media in the general sense, not about any specific platform, esp. not one of their own. If we had a article on "ISIS.tv", you'd be within viewing distance of a point. ValarianB (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

ISIS.tv sounds like a great South Park premise Dronebogus (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

> These platforms of choice are Telegram, Justpaste.it, and Surespot.[9] Just admit you’re wrong. It’s OK. Goblintear (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, really mature and humble there. We’re more likely to just ignore you when that’s your response. Dronebogus (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Goblintear: a twitter feed purporting to be from an advocacy group is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Do you have an actual reliable source that complies with WP:RS? DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa Here is a link from media matters. https://www.mediamatters.org/alex-jones/alex-jones-infowars-props-white-nationalist-nick-fuentes

“ Fuentes, who has been banned from most major social media platforms because of his advocacy for white nationalism, has been broadcasting his show from a website he runs, called Cozy.tv.” Goblintear (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: ^ Goblintear (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@valarianb: see above Goblintear (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Media Matters for America is a partisan media watchdog. I think that the consensus at WP:RSN is that it can’t be used as a reliable source for BLPs. But there are a multiple threads on it so I’m not totally sure. Any views? Given that Fuentes is a streamer who’s been thrown off a number of platforms for hate speech it’s certainly notable and should be included in the article what platform he now uses - particularly if he’s had to set up his own platform because he’s too toxic for the usual platforms. The only question for me is the sourcing. (By the way, @Goblintear: can you indent your posts, otherwise it makes threads difficult to read. What you need to do is explained here: WP:INDENT.) DeCausa (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

My concern is the Wikipedia providing exposure to a platform of literal white supremacy, akin to Stormfront. So IF it were to be mentioned at all, it would have to be with the context of what it is. I see now that even the Anti-Defamation League has name-dropped it as a place for Fuentes and his fans, AFPAC III: The Groyper Army Seeks to Normalize White Nationalism. ValarianB (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

That’s not our concern. All we should care about is whether it’s WP:DUE and WP:V. We’re not here to limit or increase exposure to unsavoury beliefs. That’s a form of WP:RGW and is outside policy. DeCausa (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It most certainly is a concern, as it strays into WP:NONAZIS territory. We're not here to advertise for supremacy groups, and we're certainly not linking to this Groyper haven. ValarianB (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@ValarianB: absolutely not. NONAZIS is about editors, and has nothing to do with article content. If you’re editing with the aim of limiting the exposure of certain political beliefs that would be a serious breach of WP:NPOV and ultimately would lead to a block. That’s not what we do. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Calm down. I am well-aware of what NONAZIS is targeted at, the intent was to reference in relation to Goblintear's advocacy of a Groyper-friendly streaming platform, but I can see where that may have been misconstrued. ValarianB (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

”Calm down”! I think you neded to take a good look at what you’ve been posting! DeCausa (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Apologies, I am on my phone. Thanks for your willingness to be objective, unlike @ValarianB: who perhaps should not be tasked with being a caretaker of a descriptive encyclopedia.

Here is yet another source (if cozy.tv/nick, showing his profile and stream history isn’t enough).

“ The raids are reportedly originating from Cozy.tv, a streaming platform founded in 2021 by white nationalist Nick Fuentes.” “... He has been banned from most social media and streaming platforms including Reddit, Twitter, Twitch, YouTube, and even DLive...” https://www.pcgamer.com/more-hate-raids-strike-twitch-as-white-supremacist-takes-credit/

Here’s also the SPLC, which I’ve seen cited elsewhere on Wikipedia. “ Fuentes responded in October 2021 by mounting Cozy.TV, an independent livestreaming service that functions like those other platforms and enables him more freedom to speak without being tied to a company’s terms. Fuentes kept the format of his shows the same after going independent.” https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/nick-fuentes

The fact that Fuentes broadcasts on this platform is not a controversial statement. Do we need the New York Times to say it? Fuentes himself says he founded and streams on it, liberal watchdog groups say he founded and streams on it, and tangential articles say he founded and streams on it.

The founding of and streaming on Cozy.tv is essential for understanding Fuentes’ movement. I suggest putting it in the intro bloc as you would a streamer on Twitch. Goblintear (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It helps if you read what is actually written, instead of pitching temper tantrums. Above, I said IF it were to be mentioned at all, it would have to be with the context of what it is, i.e. that it is just the name of his personal website. It is most certainly not noteworthy enough for the lead. If deemed noteworthy enough by others (your view is abundantly clear by now), then a mention in the "Career" section will do. ValarianB (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: See my comment above, I think this settles it. @ValarianB cannot be reasoned with; he/she wants this page to be a safe space with an editorialized POV. I do not have the authority to edit this article. Could you do so on my behalf? Let's close this talk page. A simple note that Fuentes founded Cozy.TV, where he broadcasts his show, will do. Thanks for standing up for what Wikipedia was designed to be, even if doing so flew in the face of your own morals. Goblintear (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Goblintear: I was tempted to add a note in the careers section as I did find one or two reliable sources that state what you're saying and give some context; however, given you're not really being civil or assuming good faith, and considering coverage in RS is so poor — I'm now unsympathetic to your cause, so someone else can do it. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Goblintear, there needs to be a WP:CONSENSUS to add it and i don’t yet see it in this thread. While, in principle, I think it should be added (not necessarily to the lead) I’m still not convinced we have a reliable source for it. This is a WP:BLP so the sourcing has to be rock solid. Although ValarianB’s point appears to be contrary to Wikipedia policy a compromise could be to state that following expulsion from mainstream commercial platforms Fuentes now streams from a platform he set up himself. It’s a material point that he has had to do that - but there’s no particular reason why cozy.tv needs to be named. DeCausa (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and one other point Goblintear, ValarianB is not “tasked with being a caretaker of a descriptive encyclopedia”. We all have the same role here, as volunteers to build an encyclopedia in accordance with Wikipedia policies. No more or less. We all have the same status as “caretakers” and no one contributing to this thread has been “tasked”. This is a collaborative project and being combative in the way you have been is not welcome, and, as can be seen from MelbourneStar’s response, will be counterproductive. DeCausa (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This has all been thrown into a tizzy by the antics of a lone WP:SPA, so, let's refocus on the main points here. The subject has been

1. identified by sources as a far-right, white-nationalist
2. banned by nearly all legitimate streaming and social media platforms
3. created his own website, cozy.tv, and streams to/from it

Sources that note the existence of cozy.tv (feel free to add more if found)

1. Hate Raids Are Targeting LGBTQ+ Twitch Streamers Again
2. Alex Jones’ Infowars props up white nationalist Nick Fuentes
3. AFPAC III: The Groyper Army Seeks to Normalize White Nationalism

I would vigorously oppose mention of this being added to the lead, Fuentes' notability derives from his hate-filled beliefs, not from the personalized website he transmits from. Is it worth a mention in the Careers section? Not terribly convinced, but open to hear legitimate arguments otherwise. #2 and #3 may suggest that a mention is better suited at Groypers#Other_activities, as the harassment involves his followers as well. ValarianB (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

What has it got to do with his notability? I don’t really see what the harassment issue has got to do with it ether. Your thinking seems muddled. This is rather straightforward. As mentioned in the lead this streamer has lost his platform because of his objectionable views. I don’t really see the issue (other than sourcing) in saying that he set up his own platform to continue streaming. Indeed, that seems a highly salient point. The only issue is the sourcing for it - advocacy groups such as your 2 and 3 shouldn’t be used in BLP’s in that way. DeCausa (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Your characterizations of "my thinking" are veering into WP:NPA, I will not address that further, and you would be wise to knock it off.

The only notability that this cozy.tv has IS that it his personal platform for harassment, that is the entire point here. ValarianB (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Your increasingly aggressive and overwrought approach here is unnecessary. Cool it. Again, “notability” is irrelevant. your mixing up with WP:GNG. That’s not the test for article content. “The entire point here” is what? That sentence is a non sequitur which just doesn’t make sense. It may well be true that the platform is used for harassment, but what’s that got to do with what we’re talking about? If you’re saying that if it’s mentioned he’s set up and operates from his own platform you want it mentioned that that platform is used for harassment - then I don’t have a problem with that provided it’s properly sourced as this is a BLP. But that’s just additional information about the platform - not whether we mention he’s moved to a platform he’s set up. I really don’t see what the problem is. DeCausa (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa I hope you see where I’m coming from now. @MelbourneStar this user @ValarianB is stonewalling an obvious resolution by moving the goalposts around constantly.

First, it was that it wasn’t notable

>” Complete apples and oranges, as the article you link is about a terrorist group's usage of social media in the general sense, not about any specific platform, esp. not one of their own.”

This turned out to be simply false — the article listed three specific platforms that ISIS prefers.

Then it was that we couldn’t risk giving Fuentes’ website exposure, as if that is the role of a descriptive wiki. And now we’re back to notability.

Just to end it for good, DLive (Fuentes’ former platofrm) has a page despite significantly less traffic. I suggest going to any website traffic reporter and entering cozy.tv and dlive.tv.

@DeCausa I think we have consensus enough. You, me, @MelbourneStar all agree that it should be included. Only @ValarianB objects (and with dubious reasoning). Put a line about Fuentes having created cozy.tv, where he streams, in the summary or career section and let’s move on. Goblintear (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No. There is no consensus. Also, I‘m not satisfied with the quality of the sourcing. Just to be clear I don’t, in any case, see a necessity in specifying cozy.tv. The relevant point for me is that he set up his own platform because no one else would have him. That’s what should be mentioned if a source adequate for a WP:BLP can be found. All the ones mentioned in this thread are not adequate in my view. DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You keep talking about not being convinced. Tell me what would convince you, then, rather than just saying “no” again and again while leaving the door technically open. Also, why are you not going into that ISIS article and taking out/opening talks about the mentions of fringe specific platforms like justpaste.it if you don’t think such types should be mentioned? Goblintear (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't mischaracterise my initial (lukewarm-at-best) thought on adding said content, by saying that I believe it "should be included" — I don't, given it's poorly sourced (which should tell you it lacks any significance - so why would it belong on Wikipedia?). I can see you may have mischaracterised DeCausa's comments re adding said content, too. This is not how one seeks to establish consensus.

On the latter point on seeking consensus, please understand that the onus is on you to establish why said content belongs in the article and how to get it there (via reliable sources). You would like to add said content, yet others disagree, so obviously the onus is on you to persuade. I can tell you now, you'll have very little luck in doing that by not being civil as you did with ValarianB, mischaracterising myself and potentially DeCausa, and frankly, bludgeoning the process. At this stage, after half a dozen responses, it may be best you find the coverage in reliable sources which multiple editors have expressed is needed (refer to helpful guidelines WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:N etc. if need be), or perhaps let it go, and maybe someone else might visit this discussion and offer their 2 cents. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe I’ve proved my point with sources and comparisons to other articles. If this simple edit is too much, I suppose Wikipedia as a project has been lost to partisan actors. Goblintear (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no dog in this race (I live in a different country, different politics), so unfortunately your personal attack about "Wikipedia as a project has been lost to partisan actors" means very little to me. You've not proved your edits, as not one, but three editors have told you that – so again, I invite you to actually attempt to find the RS that we've requested, or just drop it. Also, I would encourage you to really consider assuming good faith and being civil, otherwise you might find your time editing Wikipedia to be cut short. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, the comparisons-to-other-articles argument isn’t how Wikipedia works (eg see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Each article forms its own local consensus (subject to policy). DeCausa (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was ever resolved. Cozy.tv currently has its own article, and although its notability has been questioned on the talk page, there has not yet been a proposal for deletion. If the article for Cozy.tv were to be merged into this article, it would likely constitute a significant portion of the body by length. If that became the case, then surely it would then justify a one-sentence mention in the lead. If Cozy.tv should not be merged into Nick Fuentes, it must be deemed notable enough to warrant its own article. If that were the case, then by virtue of its notability, it should probably be given more than a single passing mention in the Nick Fuentes article. Either way, it seems to me that the existence of Cozy.tv should be more visible within the Nick Fuentes article. Cherio222 (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

can someone get a photo of nick that isn't copyright?

Done. He just appeared on a YouTube channel which releases their videos under Creative Commmons. It is the same channel which provided the image for Mike Enoch.

Cherio222 (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I've just pulled File:Nick Fuentes screencap from July 2022 virtual debate.png from the same source video, to get an image of Fuentes with a slightly more neutral expression. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

a little bit too low quality MrMemer223 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Nick's Ethnicity

Nick recently stated on a show that he is of Italian, Hispanic, and Irish descent (Episode 1003 at the 46:25 mark, https://cozy.tv/nick/replays/2022-05-28). The article currently only mentions that he is of Italian and Hispanic ethnic origin - perhaps this should be changed, given the emphasis he places on race? I'm not entirely sure if his statements could be considered a sufficiently reliable source on the matter, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.103.231 (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

His dna test reveals he is of mostly italian descent with partial hispanic. He does have a little British and Irish too. 2600:8804:4E0F:D000:A0F9:396F:B64:BFCE (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

We would need a reliable independent source as a minimum to mention DNA test results. Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2022

He’s from la grange park not chicago 99.124.151.46 (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Scare quotes on the word 'threats'

NPOV at its finest ;) 2600:6C5E:137F:F61F:4413:CED9:271A:86B9 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is because the ADL source quotes the term (he left Boston University after he reported receiving “threats” tied to his attendance at the white supremacist “Unite the Right” rally), but we're using the word "claimed" here which is more than sufficient to show that it's a self-reported claim. I agree that with "claimed" and the quotes around "threats" it comes off like scare quotes, so I've changed it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This talk page and WP:NONAZIS

There's a lot of trolls that come in here and deny that Fuentes is a white supremacist. I suggest we just ban them immediately under WP:NONAZIS rather than responding to them with explanations - so they don't get validated by having people respond to them - and to prevent this cycle of question and answer continuing. Wikipedians should ofc assume good faith usually but I think it's fair to drawn the line here rather than letting things escalate.Stephanie921 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Just delete their comments and report them to anti-vandalism services. That’s what I do with most crackpots. Dronebogus (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Good idea @User:Dronebogus, thanks Stephanie921 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: Catholic -> TradCath

This article says "Fuentes is Catholic", but the linked source says "traditional catholic", which is really its own thing, especially as of late. It has its own separate wiki entry. 74.215.47.97 (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2022

Add https://nicholasjfuentes.com/ as his official website. Wdudee (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

We do not add far-right websites to Wikipedia. ZetaFive (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually we can. Dronebogus (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I am wrong then, should we add the website? ZetaFive (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see why not. Dronebogus (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

And a part about cozy tv Wdudee (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done No reason not to give website. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Cozy TV

Since the unresolved discussion on cozy.tv from April, there now is 1) a redirect from Cozy.tv to this article and 2) more reliable sourcing available:

[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/05/20/twitch-buffalo-shooter-facebook-nypd-interview/ - mentions Fuentes as the owner of the platform

[2]https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzgb4/groyper-young-christian-nationalists-movement - discusses Fuentes and his role within Groypers in length, as well as his usage of cozy.tv

Considering right now the article only mentions Fuentes' announcement to start the platform from last year in the middle of the article and the Groypers article basically having nothing on cozy.tv, that seems very thin.

I'd propose the following options:

1) extend the YouTube ban part in the lede with a mention of the launch of the platform and Fuentes' move on there

2) update the section in the article mentioning Fuentes' plans to launch his own platform 95.90.232.115 (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I started that original talk page. They never cared about sources, that was just a reason to not add his platform to the page. Now that there is clear MSM sourcing, they’re just ignoring this discussion. Goblintear (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The two new sources both tie cozy.tv to Fuentes specifically. If you have an actual proposal on how to improve the article, spit it out. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I took a stab at expanding the current mention of cozy.tv, but not sure of lede-worthiness at the moment. Zaathras (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

Add this page to the category "Category:Protesters in or near the January 6 United States Capitol attack" Tristanthebard (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Appears to meet WP:CATDEF. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Include something about his praise of Stalin - which rightwingwatch.org documented

Nicholas Fuentes is recorded praising Josef Stalin.

- rightwingwatch.org https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-the-millstone-act/ Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

During a recent tell-all interview, Jaden McNeil, the former treasurer for Nick Fuentes' America First Foundation, said that Fuentes was obsessed with both Stalin and the rapper Kanye West: "One day he's Stalin. The next day he's Kanye."

https://twitter.com/nickmartin/status/1526685548567330817 Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done. Unreliable sources and unclear requested changes. Dronebogus (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2022

Change birth place to just Illinois or Western Springs. He was not born in Chicago. 2601:240:D104:5FF0:5A3:F1E7:CFFA:9B13 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. The source, quoted in the reference section, just said that Fuentes was born in Illinois and does not mention Chicago, so I'm not sure why Chicago was mentioned. For now only Illinois is well-sourced. — Bilorv (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Sighting at airport

I removed some "material" about some sighting of the subject at the airport? Not sure what the deal is, but lets get some consensus for inclusion since this has been removed by different editors now. Malerooster (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, time for BRD please. --Malerooster (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Nonsignificant trivia, "celebrity sightings". Also noting that @Dunutubble:'s latest edit restoring that content cites a post from Trump that does not mention Fuentes, so WP:SYNTH, taking a sighting at the airport to infer Fuentes was one of the "friends" Trump mentioned. This is a WP:BLP; just a refresher: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives .Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Dunutubble, still no consensus to include material. Use the talk page please. --Malerooster (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What does it look like to get consensus on this? Here's my opinion: it seems pretty clear that as more information emerges this is far more significant than a celebrity siting. It seems pretty clear that the supper with Kanye West and Trump was newsworthy. Here's a good summary of why it's newsworthy: Trump reportedly dines with white nationalist at Mar-a-Lago Politico points out "It underscores how few guardrails currently exist within the former president’s political operation, with few aides there to screen guests or advise against and manage such gatherings." source: Donald Trump dined with white nationalist, Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes mennonot (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree. This is a mainstream national news story. CNN, NYT, and more are covering it just today. It’s significant and should be on his Wikipedia. Weplist (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Trump dined with Fuentes

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/25/trump-white-nationalist-nick-fuentes-kanye-00070825

let's watch what's going to happen ... Präziser (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What did they eat? I am kidding. So this guy knows Ye and tagged along for a meal with Trump, good for him. Does it rise to the level of inclusion in his bio? Not sure. --Malerooster (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2022 (3)

Change his hometown to La Grange Park, Illinois https://patch.com/illinois/lagrange/where-does-ex-lths-student-leader-live Satinpinot (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Do you mean in the infobox? That field is for his birthplace, and the source you've supplied doesn't verify that he was born in La Grange Park. I have added it to the early life section, though—it's already verified by that Chicago Tribune source. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Sourced from SPLC: Include his controversial praise of Dictator Joseph Stalin alongside his other controversial views

Southern Poverty Law Center, a trusted source on extremism in America: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/06/02/pro-trump-white-nationalist-group-facing-key-desertions

My recommended addition to this Wikipedia page:

Fuentes has expressed controversial opinions regarding former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, describing the Communist dictator as his “hero.”

The relevant SPLC paragraph:

«McNeil and Dickerman described Fuentes as carrying a huge ego, comparing himself to former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, Jesus Christ and American rapper Kanye West. (Fuentes has described Stalin as his “hero.” Likewise, in another recent livestream, Fuentes described the criticism he faces as natural for “any creator, whether it’s God or me.”) McNeil and Dickerman also accused Fuentes of belittling his supporters». Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Clarity in the "deplatforming" subtopic

Minor request: The first paragraph of the Deplatforming subtopic ends with the sentence "DLive was criticized for allowing Fuentes to use their platform," which I think is too vague/general. Could it be changed to "Various news outlets criticized DLive for allowing Fuentes to use the platform," or something similar in the active voice? Thank you for your work on this page. Ml1000231 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Misquote recently added to reformatted article

Under the "Political views" section, the following quote is attributed to Fuentes: "I piss on your Talmud. Jews get the fuck out of America."

The source for this misquote is National Review, which is not a reliable source per WP:RSP. This source splices together different sentences from a longer monologue without properly indicating such has been done.

The unaltered source of 1/2 of the misquote is:

They hate Jesus. If you hate Jesus, you have a problem with me. Newsflash, for every Christian, this should be the mantra: If you hate Jesus, you have a problem with Christians. Straight up. Don’t tell me religious Jews or whatever. Question: Do you hate Jesus? ‘Cause if you do, that’s a problem. That’s a big problem. And it’s especially a big problem if you have any influence whatsoever. If you hate Jesus and you have influence, it’s my job to make sure you don’t have influence anymore. ‘Cause I’m a real Christian. I’m not just one of these, ‘Hey, believe whatever you want’. Our job is to save souls and get people to heaven, and fight the devil. So don’t tell me they’re entitled to their religion. If their religion involves my Lord in Hell, then they can get the fuck out of America, frankly. Insofar as that is your belief, then you have no business being here. Certainly have no business being anywhere near the levers if you believe that. Because who do you serve if you don’t serve Jesus Christ? You serve the devil, you serve Satan.

While the second half of the (mis)quote comes from some follow-up comments (I could only find them reported with editorialization):

“Oh, I’m antisemitic?” he smirked. “Whatever. You can call me whatever you want. You hate Jesus. Your opinion doesn’t matter to me.” He went on: “Oh, I’m antisemitic? Yeah, I piss on your Talmud.”

I have bolded the two parts used to create the misquote.

Source: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/25/2131227/-Ye-s-antisemitic-diatribes-unleash-a-fresh-tide-of-fascist-eliminationism-from-right-wing-figures

The misquote should be removed from the article and replaced with a relevant, accurate quote from one of the myriad of reliable publications covering this individual.

Cherio222 (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have reported him stating the quote verbatim like that: not simply National Review. (Jay Nordlinger in this instance was the citation used in the article. It's important to note that National Review is not blanketly prohibited and that Nordlinger himself seems pretty respected as a reporter.) Is it likely that Fuentes has made multiple similar statements on the matter? And that the paragraph being cited was just one instance of him saying sentences close to that? Nordlinger wasn't the only one to quote it in that way. Which suggests that it may not necessarily be a contradiction. However, I temporarily removed the quote in the meantime, at least until we confirm that it was he stated at some point. If that paragraph is what Nordlinger (and other reliable sources) are basing the wording on — by an established, and from what I can tell, extensively respected reporter (and group of reporters on other news sites) none the less — that would be an egregious mistake.

Thanks for pointing it out, @Cherio222:. I deleted it in the meantime until a video of him stating it verbatim is found. Better to err on side of caution. KlayCax (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The quoted clip/anti-Semitic rant seems to have been originally clipped by Right Wing Watch, with two quotes from the same clip highlighted by Right Wing Watch when summarizing the clip.

Galvanized by his idol Ye’s latest antisemitic outbursts, Nick Fuentes unleashed his own rant telling Jews to “get out fuck out of America”: “You serve the devil. You serve Satan. … I piss on your Talmud.”

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/right-wing-bonus-tracks-you-serve-satan/

The entire content of the purported continuous quote is contained in this clip summary by Right Wing Watch, but what seems to have happened is that both quotes have been combined together. Since Right Wing Watch does not include the beginning of the sentence which ends with "get the fuck out of America", the subject of the rant ("Jews") was simply edited in (perhaps by Nordlinger, perhaps by another source -- it's not clear, as National Review does not link to a primary source). I believe this is why a comma is missing from the misquote (after the word "Jews"). Yes, this is sloppy journalism. Thank you for removing it. Cherio222 (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The same section contains another misquote, or possibly a paraphrase formatted as a quote.

During his speech at AFPAC 2022, Fuentes bestowed "giggling praise" on Adolf Hitler, saying that the media had been comparing Vladimir Putin to Hitler "as if that wasn't a good thing".

This one is a bit trickier, because it is accurately sourced from Rolling Stone:

Arizona State Representative Wendy Rogers said she wants to set up “new gallows” for the “crimes committed” by Democrats. Another speaker, Stew Peters, called his political enemies “creatures” and “lizard things” who aren’t people. “Christ is King,” Peters said. The crowd chanted it back in return. When he eventually took the stage, Fuentes swiped at the media for comparing Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler: “As if that isn’t a good thing.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/cpac-afpac-nick-fuentes-marjorie-taylor-greene-1313210/

However, having listened to the original clip (https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1497613102765907968), it has not been transcribed correctly.

The correct quote has been transcribed by CNN as follows:

FUENTES: Now they're going on about Russia, and Vladimir Putin is Hitler. And they say that's not a good thing and -- I shouldn't have said that.

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cg/date/2022-11-28/segment/01

Other reliable sources which match the CNN transcription (and my ears), differing from the Rolling Stone transcription:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/02/26/marjorie-taylor-greene-speaks-white-nationalist-conference/6956765001/

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/596215-mccarthy-criticizes-gop-members-who-spoke-at-white-nationalist-conference/

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/02/majorie-taylor-greene-nick-fuentes-speech

Despite generally being reliable, it seems that unfortunately, Rolling Stone has not transcribed this quote accurately.

This should also be corrected. Cherio222 (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Cherio222, can you correct it? Or, purpose it here and I will? --Malerooster (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2022

In the section, "Catholic integralism and Christian nationalism", change "Chrisitan nationalist." to "Christian nationalist." Overseasexile (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Done Dronebogus (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Cookie Monologue mistake

It says that he “aired a monologue in which he compared the Holocaust to a cookie-baking operation.” Nick did not make the comparison himself nor was it a monologue. He was reading a super-chat in which someone else was questioning how long it would take the Cookie Monster to bake 6 million cookies, which was a not so subtle questioning/denial of the number of Jews cremated during WW2. Throughout reading the super-chat Nick laughed and basically agreed with the questions being asked (ironically of course!). Also this happened sometime in 2017 but not sure how relevant that is to this section. 2600:4041:7A32:0:D2A:A635:20BB:1AD5 (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"Fuentes likened the Holocaust to a cookie-baking operation led by the Cookie Monster in a video monologue that implied he questions the death toll of 6 million Jews." is how the source describes it. Zaathras (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"Ironically, of course". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Link to website

Should the mans website be linked to the article when it is a known white supremacist propaganda outlet? 2603:6080:5840:76C:419D:9CC4:5847:F0C7 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The Wikipedia does not censor external links except for in very limited and extreme situations. Zaathras (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO

Also see Stormfront (website) where the link is in the infobox but not as an EL. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe adding it but without an EL is the best option. Weplist (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not without a valid reason, where you provide actual evidence of what is harmful at the URL in question, no, that will not be done. I vehemently oppose what Fuentes believes in, but the reason for stripping the URL can't just be "I don't like what's there". And all that is actually there, in case any of you have failed to check, is a plain page with Fuentes' America First logo, a link to his own minor streaming platform, and a link to his Telegram profile. That's it. Zaathras (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Fuentes's dinner with Trump

Why are there multiple articles listed in this article's "References" section that mention Donald Trump's highly criticized 2022 dinner with Nick Fuentes, but the current version of this article doesn't say a single word about this incident? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I added a few sentences about it. However, I'm not sure it's leadworthy—I've removed it from the lead pending consensus (cc KlayCax). In the grand scheme of Fuentes' career this seems unlikely to be particularly noteworthy, and seems like WP:RECENTISM. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:. I'm uncertain if WP: RECENTISM necessarily applies here. I agree with you that it shouldn't be included in the lead of Donald Trump's article. But this incident seems definitely noteworthy to include in Fuentes's biography. I don't think a one or two sentences in the lead is WP: UNDUE. 1.) There's been overwhelming coverage of his meeting with the former POTUS. 2.) Something such of this is unprecendented in recent memory. It definitely seems to have long-term notoriety that merits inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh course recentism applies and also not the news. IF this is some big deal in a few months, then maybe revist it then. As Joe would say, common man. --Malerooster (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@KlayCax and Malerooster: To be clear I do think it should be included in the article (in the career section), just not in the lead. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I sort of got that, but thank you for clarifying. This is also being discussed at Ye's article and probably at Trump's. KlayCax, to say "Something such of this is unprecendented in recent memory" really seems like hyperbole(sp). --Malerooster (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I still don't see a single word about Fuentes's November 2022 dinner with Trump in the text of the current version of this article (though I see links to numerous articles about this event). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Editors have been replacing citations with ones which talk about the dinner. The issue over whether we should include this in the article is being discussed here. Wikipedia is not the news. Is this dinner really that notable? Will it be important 3 months, 3 years from today? If Fuentes is Ye's campaign manager, then that could possibly change things. --Malerooster (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we need a RFC about this? The current section addition is mainly about Trump as it is currently written. Can people who want this "material" included please draft something here and gain consensus? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: I have left a warning for Malerooster about his edit-warring and apparent misinterpretation of BRD regarding this topic. (Behavioral issues aside, I agree with GorillaWarfare and others that this warrants inclusion somewhere in the article, based on the amount of IRS coverage, even if perhaps not with such a lengthy quote.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, just because "something" gets alot of news coverage doesn't mean we have to add it. How does this add to our understanding of the article subject? How relevant will it be in the history of the subject? If a number of editors want to add it, how should it be written and in what context as far as due weight and NPOV? Right now, its seems like it is mostly about Trump. Is Fuentes Ye's presidential manager? Should this material look something like: In November 2022, Fuentes gain wide media attention when he accompanied Ye on a visit and dinner with President Trump at Maralago??--Malerooster (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"doesn't mean we have to add it" but that's how content is created here. When multiple RS mention something, it is no longer trivial and is legitimate content. Maybe not enough for its own article, but in articles where it's logical, such as here, Kanye, and Trump. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Malerooster here, especially with that NYT quote at the end of the intro... total hyperbole Relis333 (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

We summarize what reliable sources say. We do not research anything ourselves. There are other sites for fact-checking. If multiple reliable sources agree on something, then it is considered worthy of inclusion. This is a very fundamental policy of Wikipedia and has been for a very long time - if you believe that it should be changed, it will require a lot (i.e., months to years) of discussion. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Article fork

The meeting between Fuentes—Trump—Kanye seems notable enough to now warrant its own article. But I'm uncertain what the wording should be.

"November 2022 Trump—Ye—Fuentes meeting"

Sound good? KlayCax (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No. --Malerooster (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

LOL what is this the Yalta Conference? Relis333 (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2022

Please include that Nick Fuentes is of Mexican descent. 146.111.144.174 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 18:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It's already in the article, see Nick Fuentes#Early and personal life – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Already in article. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 19:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

White nationalism in lede

Fuentes' white nationalism is clearly established by reliable sources in the article, from his Holocaust denial to explicitly anti-black and antisemitic statements. Every reliable source I can find, from ABC to WaPo, refers to him as such. Wikipedia is not in the business of whitewashing racism, and as such I have re-added the descriptor to the article's lead, undoing this edit. I would also note that @Volteer1: has been consistently editing this page to whitewash Fuentes' neo-Nazi and racist views. 216.15.17.180 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: my edits, my last edit was reverting whitewashing, and my last edit on the talk page was arguing against whitewashing in the lead. I don't think that characterisation is true – I just care about what is accurate. Also, we need to let discussion play out here rather than editing it right away, this has been discussed previously and you would need to establish consensus for a change like this, don't panic. Volteer1 (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Putting your motives aside, "white nationalist" is a common descriptor for Fuentes in reliable sources. USA Today describes him as the leader of a white nationalist movement. NBC describes him similarly. I could go on. Fuentes has--as is cited in the article--called for America to retain its white supermajority and said the country will cease to be America if whites lose their majority. Is that not the very definition of white nationalism? And that's not even getting into his statements that Jews "harm his daily existence", Holocaust denial, and opposition to interracial relationships. I'm glad to discuss in Talk, but given what reliable sources are clearly stating, the burden is on you to explain how this guy is not a white nationalist. The lead already says he "has expressed white nationalist views", which is a perfect examaple of WP:WEASEL. There's a name for someone who expresses white nationalist views.216.15.17.180 (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, the prior discussion cited is from January 2020. Since then, many more reliable sources have covered Fuentes, and they have overwhelmingly used the "white nationalist" descriptor, as cited above and in the disputed edits. This is not surprising given how much more Fuentes has risen to prominence over the past 14 months, particularly following January 6. Nmi628 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

There have been too many WP:SPAs and sock puppets here in the recent past, so this really needs consensus first. Stop edit warring, even if you think you're right. As for some of the recent specific sources being cited:

• The USA Today source lists Fuentes as one of several of the leaders of the white nationalist movement.
• the NBC source says Among them are VDARE and the white nationalist groups Patriot Front and Nick Fuentes' America First.
• Leber, Rebecca. "GOP congressman skipped the stimulus vote to appear at a white nationalist event". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2021-02-27. [Gosar] appeared Friday at a white supremacist gathering in Orlando, America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC) organized by Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist figurehead and instigator of the Jan. 6 insurrection.
• Beer, Tommy. "GOP Congressman Skipped the Stimulus Vote to Appear at White Nationalist Event". ...organized by Nicholas Fuentes, who has espoused white nationalism.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

There is a lot more to work with. Some are stronger than others, and some are more reliable than others. The case can be made, but it needs to be made, not just assumed. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. What I'm *not* finding are many reliable sources that don't mention some variation of "white nationalism" at all, which is why I'm inclined not to whitewash it out of the front of the lead. Even Fox News says he "participated in the white nationalist movement", which is about as muted as I'm seeing anywhere. Nmi628 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there's adequate sourcing for the label, especially after his AFPAC event. Here are some more:

• The Washington Post: "On Friday night, white nationalist activist Nick Fuentes convinced Rep. Paul A. Gosar..."
• Mother Jones: "America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC) organized by Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist figurehead..."
• SPLC: "Nick Fuentes, a 22-year-old white nationalist who..."

It looks to me like the label is pretty uncontroversial. I'm not sure how it should be worded though, it would require some jumbling around because as it stands just adding it in you'd be saying he's a 'white nationalist who has expressed white nationalist views', which is... clumsy... Volteer1 (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• The awkward language is easy to fix. How about this?

  is an American far-right political commentator and podcaster. ... His worldview includes white nationalism and antisemitism.

I.e. people who express antisemitic views are antisemites, and so on. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That language is better than the current version and more in-line with reliable souurces, but if "his worldview includes white nationalism" why not just say he's a white nationalist upfront? E.g. "Nick Fuentes...is an American white nationalist political commentator". Nmi628 (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

White nationalism is a far-right ideology. What would repeating a piece of information which is stated two sentences later add to this article? Also, the note is tailored to the third sentence regarding "white nationalist and antisemitic views." It cannot be copy-pasted for a different claim, however similar. Cherio222 (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Words matter, and we use the words that reliable sources use. As you can see in the footnote labeled "b", there are a plethora of sources describing Fuentes as a white nationalist, and going through the Talk page's history shows this discussion has already been had. "Far right" and "white nationalist" may have overlap, but they are distinct words with distinct meanings. Josh Hawley is far right, but he is not a white nationalist. Looking through your edit history, it appears your sole motivation is whitewashing all mentions of racism and white nationalism from Nick Fuentes' page. Wikipedia is not in the business of whitewashing racism. I'd be glad to include both "far right" and "white nationalist" in the first sentence, but we're not whitewashing, sorry. Nmi628 (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Flagrant and ridiculous violation of WP:AGF aside (if you think I whitewash pages, you can go look at the changes I've made to Jean-François Gariépy or James Allsup), my point was that the lede already labelled Fuentes as a white nationalist and your copy-paste edit was poor, if not completely nonsensical. It's certainly better now, as it's a matter of readability how general political orientation and specific ideology are introduced or listed. The only disagreement I still have is that far-right is a broad political orientation which neatly encompasses all of Fuentes' views (including white nationalism), while white nationalism itself is a specific ideology that only covers a relatively narrow segment of what he espouses (he could also be labelled neo-fascist, anti-feminist, conspiracy theorist, Christian extremist, etc). At the same time, I do acknowledge that his white nationalism in particular is probably the most-covered aspect of his ideology and activism, so I do see the argument for highlighting it. Cherio222 (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've split up the cite bundles for "white nationalist" and "antisemitic" since they are no longer in the same sentence, and I've added some sources mentioned on this talk page and that were already in the article. I think the lead should be fine for now. Volteer1 (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The term "white supremacist" or "white nationalist" have the wrong connotation and do not apply to this public figure. Supremacy connotes believing you're superior to another race, and race nationalism that your country should be exclusively your race. Neither of those connotations apply and therefore should not be used. Note: criticising other races, joking or seriously, does not qualify either. The article has to be neutral, that's the point of wikipedia. 2600:8800:8800:121:0:0:0:9E (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done we go by what reliable sources state — not our own original research. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

SPA complaint
Constant smear of White Nationalist repeatedly confirmed untrue. Recent response from Nick here: https://odysee.com/@AmericaFirstClipArchive:8/Nick-Fuentes-responding-to-the-white-nationalist-smear-attempts-2021:d Anandomus (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is Fuentes admitting he's a white nationalist in a conversation with Richard Spencer, and saying that when he calls himself a "nationalist" (without prefix), he means white nationalist, not civic nationalist. https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1196606079209213952

Describing him as a white nationalist seems self-evident when he identifies as such; his denials are quite clearly not in good faith. The rest of that Twitter thread shows many examples of him spreading Jewish conspiracy theories. He also outright denies the Holocaust in this clip.

The important context, for editors here who aren't familiar with Holocaust deniers: every veiled allusion he makes in an overt reference to Holocaust denialist narratives: the claim that Zyklon B was only used for "delousing", that the gas chamber doors were wooden and not airtight, that the graves were too shallow to contain such numbers, and that only "200k-300k" Jews died, are utterly typical white nationalist talking points regarding the Holocaust; he's clearly extremely familiar with these views and endorses them; that wasn't ad-libbing. DFlhb (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Shallow SPA complaining

How about you cite Fuentes’ words instead of opinion pieces? Especially those from sources like The Daily Dot. Many many times over Nick Himself has disavowed White Nationalism. He has stated that his movement is for the equality of all races. Zachabobo (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC) See #"White Nationalist" where it was explained at great length why we don't do this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Heavily concur. Wikipedia is becoming more and more discredited with the 'opinions' from news sources that it treats as 'fact.' If this were a legit encyclopedia (Funk & Wagnalls or Encyclopedia Britannica), such sources would, at best, be treated as supplementary sources to primary sources. 2603:6011:C003:1256:ADEB:3071:E4AD:C505 (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

that kid is nothing more than someone who paid close attention and called it as he saw it honestly and unapalogetically. Is what he witnessed or realized dangerous? Sure. To liars he told the truth about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.37.172 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I think "Christian Nationalist" would be a more apt description. He more obviously aligns with that ideology and openly admits to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:9540:16B0:3DD6:CA46:E548:39DD (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The article already mentions that he self-describes as a Christian nationalist. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Lampoon video

Not a suggestion to improve the article. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At no point during the video did Fuentes even mention the Holocaust, so this should be removed from his article. JackMcVitie (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Never directly, because he's too smart for that. But reliable sources have reported on what he meant and we all know it. Why are you denying his Holocaust denial? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC) He was talking about cooking. (JackMcVitie (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)) Sure he was, on his cooking show. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of Holocaust Denial debunked

Here is a clip of Nick Fuentes saying that he believes 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust when asked by the streamer Destiny at minute 1:11:30

Doesn't this account for anything? Why are we prioritising "reliable" sources that use unsubstantiated labels? Shouldn't we at least provide a quote from Fuentes that shows a different perspective to the mainstream narrative? 92.22.86.3 (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

He was probably "joking" in that clip you've shared, just like he was "joking" in this clip about denying the Holocaust. We go by what independent reliable sources claim. Also, quotes by Fuentes are well-documented in this article, particularly his denial of denying the Holocaust (see Nick_Fuentes#White_supremacy_and_antisemitism). Feel free to review WP:FALSEBALANCE before requesting more quotes from Fuentes in the face of significant coverage from independent reliable sources/the "mainstream narrative". —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that not every minority view needs to be mentioned (false balance), but we're talking about characterising a person as something which objectively doesn't reflect their own beliefs. If you have numerous politically-movitated, reliable sources saying that so-and-so is a Holocaust denier because of his supposed usage of irony, then I don't feel that this is sufficient enough. Maybe this is just more of a criticism of Wikipedia's policy, but is it really fair to allow mischaracterisation on the basis that these sources are branded as "reliable". If Fuentes has said something that is relevant to the article - which actually demonstrates a counter narrative to the one being pushed - then it should be mentioned. The fact that he has explicitly stated that he believes 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust refutes any accusation of Holocaust denial and must be included in the article if Wikipedia is to remain an objective source of information.

The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". 92.22.86.3 (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to quote Wikipedia policy and page guidelines to people who have been here longer than you, Mr. IP. The overwhelming preponderance of mainstream knowledge on Nick Fuentes is that he is an antisemitic Holocaust denier. Zaathras (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well some people have clearly forgotten what the purpose of this website is for. The overwhelming preponderance of mainstream knowledge does indeed say that Nick Fuentes is an antisemitic Holocaust denier, but there's nothing "fair and accurate" in the manner in which this policy allows the mischaracterisation of a political person on the basis of a majority rule. Your defense of mischaracterisation is nothing more than a bandwagon fallacy.

If Mr.Fuentes is guilty of Holocaust denial, then it should be substantiated - not stated as being true because reliable sources say it is so. 92.22.86.3 (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The main point is that, no matter which sources suggest otherwise, reliable sources indisputably classify Nick Fuentes as a Holocaust denier. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

And I think that should be mentioned. Absolutely.

But the problem is that when you search Nick Fuentes, the first thing that comes up is:

"Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American white supremacist... He holds antisemitic views and denies the Holocaust."

This is stated as fact. I do not think it's a good idea to allow the mischaracterisation of public figures based on a politically-motivated, "reliable" consensus. 92.22.86.3 (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It is stated as fact because it is a fact. There is nothing you're going to do about this. Zaathras (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, since this isn't going anywhere I'll make this my last comment.

Facts are facts because they are proven to be true. 50 articles from political organisations that copy and paste the exact same things does not make something true or factual. 92.22.86.3 (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Whenever you search him up, that very fact describes him succinctly. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

A YouTube video isn't sufficient enough to add such information. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)