Talk:Nick Fuentes

Contested deletion

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

• Nick Fuentes.jpg

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

Biases in approach?

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

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

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

Page Vandalism

Grayfell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per the Hill source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And to controversy that MM was fired for association

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

Why can't we called a duck and duck?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

two reasons to call him neo Naz:

his own words are neo nazi beliefs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Describing Fuentes as a Neo Nazi

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

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

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

References

while they may not be the strongest sources they ARE sources

i believe the strongest sources are his own words

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

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

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

Nationality: American ??

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

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

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

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

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

References

Bobvans1487 has been blocked for socking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i believe the order of events should be changed

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

there is no evidence he is a conservative

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Cookie baking operation?

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

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

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

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

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

References

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

Unite the right rally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Nick Fuentes 2020.jpg

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

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

Notability of the the subject being banned from social media accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remaining issues with the article.

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

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

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

Is the word 'positive' important?

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

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

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

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

Transgenderism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholic

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

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

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

Separate Career and Views

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

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

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

White nationalism in infobox

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

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

Splitting up the article body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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