Talk:Nick Fuentes

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)

He's a far-right nutbag, a self-proclaimed white supremacist neo-Nazi scumbag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

And yet, Adolf, he IS a white nationalist. And so is anyone who tries to defend him.

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)

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 [1]. 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)

how is a half Hispanic, half Italian man a "white supremacist?"

traditionally and historically speaking, legitimate "white supremacists" have never in any right, reason or regard held the Hispanic community nor the Italian community in any other regard than inferior.

to suggest that a half Hispanic, half Italian is a white supremacist is like suggesting a Jewish person is a N*zi.

the logic just doesn't add up. 2603:6010:DA06:391B:1109:2640:DC94:3820 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've heard that Adolf wasn't close of being the ideal of the blonde, blue-eyed athletic Germanic, not to mention that he wasn't even German. Yet he became the GröFaZ, propagating such ideals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:560:42B4:2B00:90CF:E4BE:14FF:403 (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2022 (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)

This description is dishonest

Dishonesty now prevails as journalism and our free speech is GONE and becoming equal to speech flexibility found in dictatorships since relentless suppression of ALL dissent is being punished via cancel culture, way to go Brandon 2601:183:CB00:DE50:6085:BCAD:C4A5:1503 (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)