Talk:Nick Fuentes

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2021

Replace "white nationalist" to "American Nationalist".

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

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

Nick Fuentes did not enter the capitol

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have added the quote.

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

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

The Daily Dot is not a reliable source.

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)

Questioning the far-right tag on Nicholas Fuentes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

"White Nationalist"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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