Talk:Nick Fuentes

Revert
Hi Why did you revert multiple edits of mine — including copyedits — with no summary? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi I reverted revert because you removed good content due to your own biases (which is evident in your professional history). I added facts - reinstatement on X (formerly known as Twitter) and also added a more neutral introduction, while still giving space to the criticism. As I reverted, I added notes as I was able. -- domest icen ginerd 15:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You reverted far more than the single edit you've identified (and as Muboshgu has pointed out, you inappropriately used rollback to do so). Can you clarify whether your concern is specifically with this revert or with the three other edits I made? And can you please elaborate on this "your own biases (which is evident in your professional history)" comment? Thanks, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you are watering down sourced content, and now making value judgments on contributors rather than sticking to content. You should stop edit warring right now and only make changes with consensus to do so. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Requesting an image change for Nick Fuentes
I am requesting that the image shown for Nick Fuentes be changed. It is currently a low quality screenshot. There is an image photographed by Nicole Hester of Fuentes at a rally, which seems to me as a better image to portray the subject.

Nick_Fuentes_at_a_rally_in_the_Lansing_Capitol.jpg

Regards. Heatyeet (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ – thanks for your suggestion. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the edit due to the image in question being ripped straight from the article it sourced, which does not license the image under Public Domain. @Heatyeet, I recommend you look into WP:IUP and image licensing guidelines before uploading images to the project. @Zenomonoz, I understand that you were just trying to fulfill the request but please make sure to double-check images submitted in edit requests to ensure whether they fit copyright guidelines or not. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry I would never have approved that change had I checked. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What can I do to get the image licensed properly? Heatyeet (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Get the owner of the license to agree to release it to the public domain. If it's a photo from a major agency like Getty or AP, that won't happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The photo is by an independent photographer by the name of Nicole Hester. How can I get her to release it? Heatyeet (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reach out to her directly to request that she release it via creative commons. If she agrees, great. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Heatyeet Chances are, you are not going to be able to get agency or independent photographers to freely license the images they take for journalists. I recommend looking at this page for general licensing guidelines for Wikimedia Commons. B3251 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2024
Uglytriangle999 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I assume you are asking for this template, which you created, to be added.
 * Right now, Fuentes, Trump, and William Dudley Pelley are the only articles specific to this template. That isn't enough to bother with for a "series". Neither Pelley nor Trump's article specifically describes either man as a "Christian nationalist", which raises WP:UNDUE and WP:OR issues. It's also odd to imply that these three people are comparable in significance, since Pelley was obscure and politically impotent. Adding the template would be premature, to put it mildly. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Islamophobic
In the lead it says Nick is Islamophobic. I don't think Nick Fuentes is Islamophobic. And I checked, none of the sources say that. Also I find it weird how later in this article it says Nick praised religious and political aspects of the Taliban when they're an islamist government. And isn't Nick friends with Muslim Internet personality Sneako? and I think I saw a Nick clip on Twitter where Nick defended Islam or something. I think islamophobic should be removed. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

heres a clip on Twitter where Nick says "I love Muslims" https://x.com/vetementsiaga/status/1563153697063940096?t=7_RbhdEI_k30_cqcq9mNEQ&s=09 HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's Nick going on another ant-semetic rant defending Muslims. https://x.com/goyabeangroyper/status/1747075246488744329?t=ssqambJtSX_0lFPzEjjNqg&s=09 HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Nick is bad, but since I recently saw on twitter clips of him defending Islam and Muslims, I think "islamophobic" should be removed from the lead. Not because I like Nick, but because I think wikipedia shouldn't be misleading. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia mainly summarizes reliable, independent sources. Here is one source which explains this:
 * Per that source: "Islamophobia has been weaponized by white nationalists like Fuentes for recruitment and propaganda, making his support for the Taliban's militant Islamist worldview all the more intriguing."
 * Avoid cherry-picking from primary sources. His occasional willingness to defend some Muslims, in some situations, proves nothing at all. Grayfell (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It says "Islamophobia has been weaponized by white nationalists like Fuentes". It doesn't say "by fuentes", it says "white nationalists like Fuentes." So the source is saying white nationlist like him are islamophobic, but it doesn't say fuentes directly. Is there a source in this article that says Nick attacked Muslims, insulted them, etc. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Grayfell also since you even admitted he defends Muslims, if there's no sources that directly say he's islamophobic, I think it's reasonable to remove Islamophobic or only keep it in the infobox. I haven't really seen any clips of him targeting Muslims, if he is islamophobic, that shouldn't be in the lead because it's not that significant since 99% of the time he says positive things about Muslims, from at least the clips I've seen on Twitter/X HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The clips you have seen are not reliable sources, and for you to select an arbitrary sample of clips, based on your own personally viewing habits, is original research. His willingness to exploit the Israel–Hamas war for attention is as unsurprising as it is transparent, and reliable sources are unlikely to fall for it. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The clips you have seen are not reliable sources, and for you to select an arbitrary sample of clips, based on your own personally viewing habits, is original research. His willingness to exploit the Israel–Hamas war for attention is as unsurprising as it is transparent, and reliable sources are unlikely to fall for it. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Is English your primary language? "Islamophobia has been weaponized by white nationalists like Fuentes" is stating that white nationalists are weaponizing Islamophobia, and states very plainly that Fuentes is an example of a white nationalist that does this. This is not a difficult sentence to parse. Zaathras (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zaathras it says "Islamophobia has been weaponized by white nationalists like Fuentes". It says White nationalists like him, but it doesnt say him specifically. When it says "white nationalists like him", they're talking about other white nationslists who are racist and anti-semetic but it doesn't say him specificall. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Grayfell I didn't do original research. The clips popped up on my twitter feed without me searching for them. Also how do you know he's exploiting the Israel-Hamas war? He probably is, but how do you know that? Is it because you're also doing origami research? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * original (sorry I didn't mean to say "origami research" lol) HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since There's no sources that say "Nick Fuentes is islamophobic", and since this article says "he praised the Taliban" which is an Islamist group. And since in one source linked in this article which is this https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-750425, that says Nick and sneako (a popular Muslim YouTuber) did a show together. And since Nick said on Twitter "He loved Muslims", even though that's not a reliable source, that should be more convincing that yeah this is a little misleading when this article says he's islamophobic. A source saying "White nationalists like Fuentes is weaponizing islamophobia" isn't say Nick is, it's saying other white nationlists like him are. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, your comments are original research, and yes, the source is talking about Fuentes specifically.
 * What twitter chooses to recommend you is still arbitrary and selective. Twitter is not a reliable source on Wikipedia, but it's also not a credible source of information in general. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So you're saying i have to have a reliable source to remove Islamophobia, that says Nick loves or praises Muslims? For you shouldn't there also be a reliable source that says Nick Hates Muslims. I still can't find that source. All I see is "White nationlists similar to Nick weaponize islamophobia" but there's still no sources that calls him islamophobic specifically. I might end this conversation here because I hate Nick and he's anti-semitic. The only reason I cared was because I don't think articles should be misleading, but maybe it's not. You know best since you've been on this website longer than me. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your but it doesnt say him specifically is a false statement. Whether your are deliberately making a false statement or it is false out of a lack of understanding of the subject matter is academic. We will not be altering text in this article based on your incorrect analysis. Zaathras (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How is my statement false? It says "White nationlists like Fuentes weaponize islamophobia". It doesn't say Nick does, it says white nationalists like him do. "White nationlists like Fuentes weaponize islamophobia" not "Fuentes weaponizes islamophobia". It says white nationlists like him, but it doesn't say him specifically. What's false? In the source it's talking about other white nationlists similar to Nick with racist and anti-semetic views who weaponizes islamophobia. Bro, I have no idea how you interpreted my message as false. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said I'm going to end the conversation because it's extremely pointless. I hate arguing with people. @Zaathras Btw I clicked on your account and saw that you're a fellow Jew :) sorry for frustrating you guys. Have a great day HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Nicholas Fuentes is described as a neo-Nazi by a preponderance of reliable sources.
The introduction should classify Nick Fuentes as alt-right and neo-Nazi.

Here are just a few sources to begin with:


 * The presence of these extremists has been a persistent issue at CPAC, and in previous years conference organizers have ejected well-known Nazis and white supremacists such as Nick Fuentes. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nazis-mingle-openly-cpac-spreading-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories-fin-rcna140335
 * Nick Fuentes, the 25-year-old leader of the America First “Groyper” movement, was banned from Twitter in 2021 for “repeated violations” of the rules. Fuentes attended the deadly 2017 neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and was also at the Jan 6. 2021, Capitol attack, encouraging his supporters to take over the building. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-says-hell-reinstate-214735037.html
 * In a move that will surprise few people, Elon Musk announced Thursday that far-right commentator Nick Fuentes, known for racist, neo-Nazi, and antisemitic views, will soon be allowed back on X. https://newrepublic.com/post/181234/elon-musk-nick-fuentes-hitler-twitter-x
 * Elon Musk Wants To Bring Neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes Back to X https://uk.news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-wants-bring-neo-205800467.html
 * Neo-Nazi Trump dinner guest Nick Fuentes laments Kanye’s antisemitism apology https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nick-fuentes-kanye-trump-apology-b2470199.html
 * Elon Musk Will Reinstate Neo-Nazi on Twitter https://lamag.com/internet/elon-musk-will-reinstate-neo-nazi-on-twitter

DocZach (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure at first but this might be enough then yeah FMSky (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which sources from the list do you recommend we use? I don't want to use too many for the same thing. DocZach (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Imo the NBC and independent one FMSky (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO it should be changed from "has been described as a neo-Nazi by some sources" to "has been described as a neo-Nazi by various sources". There are still a lot more sources than those that call Fuentes this. Fruitful Frugal (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dont know exactly how this makes any difference but I've changed it --FMSky (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024
someone remove the damn neo-nazi title from his name BoomNick2007 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: He is one, and he is described that way by reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Idk if its appropriate to have in the opening sentence so I moved it down a bit --FMSky (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Dinner with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago section
Do any experienced editors have suggestions on how this section could be condensed? Maybe a combination and trimming-down of, or complete removal of the 'Response from political leaders' and 'Response from the Jewish community' subsections? The article is about Nick Fuentes, not the dinner, so detailing every senator and organization's thoughts on it seems a bit excessive. Swinub (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No input from anyone, so I removed the subsections mentioned above and left Pence and Netanyahu's reactions. Hopefully this is sufficient. Swinub (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Advocates for Genocide
In the lede, replace use of word "genocide" with "holy war"

Cited source from the Jerusalem Post quotes him as saying "holy war" and never uses the term genocide. "Genocide" and "Holy War" are not synonymous. Squidroot2 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. No consensus. Per the source: "Because we're willing to die in the holy war, we will make them die in the holy war. And they will go down." Fuentes is not only calling for a "holy war", he is saying that all Jews will die in a holy war, which is a grandiose and pretentious way of calling for genocide. Please do not reopen this template until consensus has been changed. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

(My understanding of WP:ER is that I am to open a new topic for consensus, not reply to original edit request. Apologies in advance if this is not correct)

We should not say in the lede that the Fuentes "advocates for the genocide of Jews". This is a strong accusation and needs to be supported by a Reliable Source. The cited source for this claim is a Jerusalem Post article that never uses the word genocide. Instead it quotes Fuentes as using the term "Holy War", which is a distinct concept from genocide. While genocide advocacy is a possible interpretation of his words, we cannot be making our own interpretations as Wikipedia editors, especially in the lede of a WP:BLP. This situation is explicitly called out in the second point of WP:BLPREMOVE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that... is an original interpretation or analysis of a source"

The word "genocide" was previously removed but added back in | this revision. While I agree with the editor that "spiritual holy war" is not appropriate (Fuentes seems to be describing a physical war with real violence; not Spiritual Warfare), I don't think we should editorialize in the other direction. As for the claim from the summary that Rolling Stone said he advocated for genocide: 1) There is only one citation for Rolling Stone in the current version of the article and it does NOT say this about Fuentes 2) Per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, Rolling Stone is not considered reliable for political topics. If included, we would need an attribution. Squidroot2 (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Fuentes is calling for a holy way in which Jews shall be murdered. That's literally genocide, my dude. Sourced and accurate. Zaathras (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction between holy wars like The Crusades and genocides like The Holocaust. We need a Reliable Source for the interpretation that he advocates for genocide otherwise it is WP:OR.
 * Even if you think I'm wrong and there is no distinction, then I'm not really arguing for any content change to the article. Why not just change it and be on the safe side of WP:BLPREMOVE? Squidroot2 (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fuentes is not a history professor, he is not speaking of the capital-C crusades, he is calling for violence against Jews and Judaism, i.e. the "holy" part. Also, some rather curiously specific WP: policy shortcuts you seem to know of quite readily. Not what one would expect from a 2 yr-old account with sporadic edits. Zaathras (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Zaathras. I just try to make sure I understand the rules before making or suggesting edits.
 * As for your actual point, yes I agree that he is calling for violence against Jews. I would have no objection if the article said "advocates for violence against Jews". But it says "advocates for genocide of Jews" which is I think goes beyond a straightforward reading of the cited sources. Bin Laden advocated for violence in the form of what many would call a holy war, but I think there is a reason why you won't find "advocated for genocide" in the lede of his article.
 * And I would disagree about the plausibility of Fuentes referring to The Crusades. According to | this article from Right Wing Watch he does seem to be fascinated with that era in history.
 * Could I understand why you feel the word "genocide" is the most appropriate word here? Clearly, it is not because of any Rolling Stone article like the edit summary that added it said. Squidroot2 (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * His dilettante interest in history is irrelevant. He is advocating for the death of all Jews. Wikipedia isn't a platform for euphemisms or PR, so over-simplifying this to just 'violence' is inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Grayfell I'm certainly not interested in euphemisms or PR; my original suggestion was to use Fuentes' ugly words directly. My issue is that we have dozens of sources that are clearly not afraid to harshly critisise Fuentes' beliefs, but not a single one that says "Advocates for genocide of", "Advocates for killing all" "Calls for death of all", or "Calls for extermination of" and that includes the Jeruselem Post article. If someone can find one that does, great; I'll drop it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is interpreting sources in a BLP which we can't do. I don't understand what's wrong with "advocates for killing Jews", "advocates for war against Jews" or anything similar. Squidroot2 (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia. We summarize things in direct language. That's the point. Grayfell (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and an accurate summary of our currently cited sources is that every single one of them stops short of calling him a genocide advocate.
 * I don't understand why the phrase "advocates for genocide" is so important to this article. I really thought this would be a simple, non-controversial change. We are replacing a phrase that, if I'm right, is a violation of the second point of WP:BLPREMOVE, with a phrase that, if you're right, is completely synonymous. The asymmetry of the arguments we are making alone would seem to justify making the quick change. Squidroot2 (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Genocide and holy war are not interchangeable, and holy war is certainly direct language. If that part of the lead said "and advocates for a holy war against Jews," would that really need to be summarized further? I don't believe there's any ambiguity there. Swinub (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed "advocates for the genocide of" on BLP grounds. I agree 100% that the best interpretation of Fuentes' words is a call for genocide, but we need that interpretation to come from RS. I searched for a while for reliable sources describing his "holy war" comments as genocidal, but I found none. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of Donald Trump
He recently began to vehemently criticize Trump for his pro-immigrant and pro-Israel statements in X. Should we still classify him as a Trumpist or a Third Way supporter? 188.163.69.27 (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We should classify him as WP:RS do. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Christianity should be in infobox
Just like on the page about Osama bin laden on the infobox it says his religion in Sunni Islam. It needs to say Christianity in the infobox on this article because fuentes known for Christian nationalism HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)