Talk:Nick Fuentes/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2025

Change image to an image up-to-date with current time (2025). Jmac66999 (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Please suggest a specific creative commons licensed image to change to.Czarking0 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I did just a very quick search and I didn't find anything else. DanielRigal (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Confusing sentence: Deplatforming -> Reinstatements

"Fuentes, alongside Alex Jones, attempted to rejoin YouTube in September 2025 after it was revealed YouTube, alongside Rep. Jim Jordan, would be offering the reinstatement of all channels banned from the site due to political speech violations"

What does "alongside Rep. Jim Jordan" mean here? was he removed form youtube too? It sounds like Jordan would be reinstating Fuentes which seems improbable.

I don't have a specific change I'm requesting - because I don't understand it - but someone should clean it up... FergusArgyll (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with OP that the quoted sentence is unintelligible. I also point to "Fuentes, alongside Alex Jones". What does "alongside" mean there? In collaboration with? In similar fashion to? Or what? Narky Blert (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This has been resolved. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2025

The current image

• 

should be replaced with this one

• 

It has less artifacts and looks better overall ~2025-31625-93 (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: They're essentially the same image; the current one is just cropped so it can fit in the infobox. Day Creature (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Racist family

> Various sources have reported that his parents share Fuentes's racist views. His parents did not want to visit restaurants associated with Black people.

This seems like a strong claim... and the only source is something called "patch". Is this a reliable source?

https://patch.com/illinois/lagrange/racism-runs-fuentes-family - Karel Bílek (talk). 13:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

And in that actual article, the quoted person is... Nick Fuentes himself.

> In another episode of his podcast, Fuentes said his father, Bill Fuentes, would not take his family to certain restaurants because he believed they were associated with African Americans.

That's not "various sources", that's Nick Fuentes himsef. - Karel Bílek (talk). 13:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There's a few things to note. (1) the current wording "Various sources have reported that his parents share Fuentes's racist views" seems false. As the OP mentioned, the only secondary-source reference for this is the Patch, which appears to be low-quality or unreliable. So, that wording needs to be removed. (2) Fuentes probably shouldn't be taken as a reliable source on this matter because he is not a reliable source on any matter. (3) Even if you take Fuentes as a sufficient source for this claim, that doesn't establish significance or weight. If this is noteworthy, then why is Patch the only secondary source mentioning it? His parent's views could be not worthy if covered by secondary reliable sources. Considering there are BLPs, though unnamed, involved, I think we should remove this content until such sourcing could be provided. R. G. Checkers ^talk 01:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

patch.com doesn't seem THAT unreliable - I originally thought it's user submitted news, but they seem to have editors - but it's really just quoting Nick podcast. - Karel Bílek (talk). 12:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

How should 'trollish' quotes be handled?

I included this part under personal life: He has expressed interest in marrying a 16-year-old girl, describing this age as "right when the milk is good", however I wonder to what extent this is worth mentioning? He is kind of known for trolling, so perhaps stating that he has "expressed interest in marrying a 16 year old" in WP:VOICE is not the way to handle it? I believe this comment is also many years old. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it should be handled differently, I’m not sure exactly how though Justanotherguy54 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

White supremacy

The wiki article states that Nick Fuentes is a White supremacist. Several news articles like NYT, or the one cited in the wiki page also state that Nick Fuentes is a white supremacist, but Nick himself denies the label. He proudly calls himself a White nationalist but denounces White supremacy - the belief that the White race is genetically superior to other races - based on his religion convictions. So I think this attribution is undue. ~2025-31407-09 (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Read the FAQ. 1timeuse75 (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean, reliable sources (and the wiki article) implies that he genuinely believes that "having sex with women is gay"... the boomers and gen X just don't understand irony and think that everything he says, he says unironically. ~2025-31407-09 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

ok 1timeuse75 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok great talk thanks for removing the label :DDD ~2025-31407-09 (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why that is his photograph

Seems biased to have a cherry-picked poor photograph to represent him rather than choose something more clear and recent, it seems petty and not in the interest of fully informing the reader. Think what you what about the guy but vandalism shouldn’t be accepted on Wikipedia even if it aligns with popular opinion. Pyknical (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

No. I looked for a better photo that we could use and there is pretty much nothing. The problem is that we are very restricted in what we are allowed to use for copyright and licencing reasons. I'm sure there are tons of better photos but we are not allowed to use them. Currently we have two options for the photo and they are both pretty bad in different ways. If you want to try to find a better photo then please feel free but don't expect it to be easy. Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy carefully first in order to understand what is and isn't allowed. DanielRigal (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Nick_Fuentes#Infobox_photograph 1timeuse75 (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Simonm223, can you discuss your revert to my modifying of the lead which has already been discussed in the sections above? A large list of labels is awkward and not the WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC tone required on a WP:BLP. I've brought it in line with the approach taken on many white nationalist articles, like that of David Duke.

Editors, please refer my modified lead, which reads:

“ Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American far-right political commentator, activist and live streamer. He identifies as a Christian nationalist and part of the incel subculture. His views and commentary include support for "America First" policies, white nationalism and opposition to non-white immigration, rolling back women's and LGBT rights, and antisemitism including Holocaust denial and conspiracy theories about Jews. His supporters are known as Groypers. ”

Zenomonoz (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This is clearly POV pushing to reduce how clearly Wikipedia represents this man's politics and make him seem more mainstream than he is. I vehemently object. Simonm223 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

How is this "POV pushing"? The lead is a summary of the body of the article, and this version clearly summarises his far right political positions. What about this constitutes POV pushing? Zenomonoz (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I concur with Simonm223 NesserWiki (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

How? My version of the lead actually includes an explanation of his views, while retaining labels like white nationalist and antisemitic. I think most readers would find that clarifying. The current version frankly sounds like a parody. I really don't think users here understand POV, and consensus should be achieved through application of Wiki guidelines rather than voting. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I also concur with Simonm223, and discussion like this is how consensus is formed, which is a core Wiki policy.

I bet we can all agree that the current wording is a bit clunky. This proposal was an attempt to fix that problem, but this 'explanation of his views' downplays those views in an unacceptable way. To me, this proposal looks more like a parody than the current wording. Regardless, you can blame others for not understanding basic policy if you want, but it ain't gonna help you change consensus. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines are also clear that polling is not a substitute for discussion of guidelines. So far, nobody has explained to me this alleged POV issue. What parts are being downplayed in an unacceptable way...? I've kept the main points in the lead (WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the things receiving the most coverage), and I've retained the key contentious labels (antisemitic, white nationalist). "Rolling back women's rights" and "opposition to non-white immigration" is clearer and more controversial than simply being labeled 'misogynistic' or 'racist' – which are vague descriptors. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Saying we 'don't understand POV' does make it a lot less likely that other editors are going to give you the benefit of the doubt and explain this.

'"America First" policies' is regurgitating his own PR-term without providing any informational value.

The term 'white nationalism' was largely popularized as a euphemism for white supremacy by white supremacists. Some, but not all, modern sources treat them interchangeably, and some news outlets mistakenly use it because it sounds vaguely more academic so it must be more neutral. Wikipedia is not a platform for white supremacist PR, but it is a place where words matter, so this was not an appropriate change.

"Opposition to" is broad and vague, and "rolling back women's rights" is both loaded and fails WP:TONE. Further, it subtly implies that he is qualified to speak on how many rights anyone is entitled to, which is deeply incorrect. You don't have to agree, but you don't have consensus to make that change, either.

Etc.

Remember that you specifically asked me and NesserWiki to contribute to this discussion. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

White supremacist can certainly be used in the place of white nationalist. I didn't realise I had used the latter over the former, it was a case of not noticing that during a rewrite.

Further, it subtly implies that he is qualified to speak on how many rights anyone is entitled to, which is deeply incorrect – I don't even know how you come to that conclusion. You agree the intro is clunky, but offer no thoughts on how a potential re-write could be improved.

America First" policies' is regurgitating his own PR-term without providing any informational value – no, it includes a wikilink to the America First article which explains that. I think it's clear enough what this refers to in modern republican politics. If that isn't suitable, propose an alternative. Perhaps you'd mention populism instead. But I think 'America First' is a relatively clear descriptor, as it includes "quote marks" and links to a page describing it. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Your argument here is not source based. It is does not matter what is or is not a euphemism it matters what the sources say. Czarking0 (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I would prefer something considerably more direct. Something like:

Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American neo-Nazi live streamer. He denies being a neo-Nazi and instead identifies as a Christian nationalist and part of the incel subculture. His views have been described as racist, white supremacist, misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic. His supporters are known as Groypers.

I'm not necessarily attached to "neo-Nazi" specifically and could go for something like "white nationalist" or "white supremacist", but clearly we ought to use one of those terms instead of the mess of indirection we have now. Loki (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This is clearly an attempt to establish a POV labeling of him rather than summarize the article. Start with reading the whole article and then summarizing one or two sentences per section and that is a good way to write a lead. Czarking0 (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Tagging other users active on the talk page: Grayfell, NesserWiki, Czarking0. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The current intro couldn't be more biased. Nothing but WP:LABELs. Not even Hitler's reads this bad. Zenomonoz's version should be restored 61.8.152.202 (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I think in the previous talk section myself, Simonm223, and LokiTheLiar found consensus that this is one of the cases in which the guidelines indicate these labels should be used due to them being "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Czarking0 (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's way more tame than, say, Richard B Spencer, a close equivalent. Loki (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Spencer is a C class article with clear issues in the lead. I do not know why we would look to it for guidance. Czarking0 (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Modified proposed lead

Given some comments, I have further modified a proposed lead:

“ Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American far-right political commentator, activist and live streamer. A self described Christian nationalist, his views and commentary promote "America First" populism, white nationalism including opposition to non-white immigration, opposition to LGBT rights and women's rights, and antisemitism including Holocaust denial and conspiracy theories about Jews. His supporters are known as Groypers. ”

Zenomonoz (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Given how contentious this is I think we should not be so quick to introduce his self described views. I think looking to Adolf Hitler a WP:GA for guidance is a good idea. Czarking0 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Well it currently says he is a "self identified Christian Nationalist". I'd appreciate if editors would start actually proposing suitable sentences to use instead. A summary of views most prominent in the body is what the lead is designed for. The Adolf Hitler lead is indeed good, but the lead here is going to be largely about Fuentes views because he is a commentator and not the leader of a country. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Czarking0, I don't think this change makes sense. I modified it to antisemitism including holocaust denial. "Neo nazi" is not mentioned in the body of the article, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so this will work better Zenomonoz (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Good change thanks Czarking0 (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this looks much better than the current lead on the article, although from my perspective, it contains too much information. Shadowfax33 (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

New lead

I agree with Loki's change here. LokiTheLiar, given Czarking0 has commented below that he wanted incel retained in the lead, it might be worth a brief comment to explain the removal. I suspect it's minimal coverage on the article (and in RS) means this is a more trivial point. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Basically yes. It is mentioned but it's mentioned so briefly compared to a bunch of other stuff it doesn't feel lead-worthy. Also one of the contexts it's mentioned feels possibly non-serious. Loki (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Religious views

A sentence should be added in the religious views section about the document released by the US Council of Catholic Bishops. https://www.ajc.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2024-12/TranslateHateCatholicEdition_December_2024.pdf

In this document, the bishops condemn by name the Pepe the Frog meme, groypers, and specifically Nick Fuentes.

Perhaps

In December 2024, the US Council of Catholic Bishops rejected the groyper movement and Nick Fuentes in particular as "a Holocaust denier and peddler of anti-Semitic content".

~2025-33144-35 (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Totally wrong. A committee of the USCCB together with the AJC published a document about antisemitism. If you read it, it is essentially a ADL website, that the USCCB added a introduction to. This document has 0 authority whatsoever and in way intending to speak for the conference as a whole. PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 03:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2025

The first part of this article cites a quote made by Fuentes, in which he is quoted as saying "Jews are running society, women need to f__king shut up. Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part.” This is taken from a NYT article, which removed the obscenity. IG whoever added this put it back in in the wrong place. What he actually said was "Jews are running society, women need to shut the fuck up, Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part." Right now this violates WP:BOWDLERIZE, as it is both not what he said and not what the NYT quote said. I suggest we change it to the accurate quote, with the obscenity listed out. It could be cited to Media Matters (https://www.mediamatters.org/diversity-discrimination/nick-fuentes-jews-are-running-society-women-need-shut-fuck-blacks-need-be) although they are only considered marginally reliable so if there's a higher quality source with the quote it is preferable. Alternatively the profanity could be removed to accurately reflect the NYT quote. Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Anne drew (talk · contribs) 20:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Removed quote, this is totally redundant in the lead. The sentence prior already makes it clear he is racist, misogynistic and antiemetic. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the quote is helpful in demonstrating explicitly how truly horrific he is. However, you're probably right that it's unneeded in the lead, and potentially undue. Also, I saw someone recently added a section on influence and how he's "on the rise." It includes the "30-40% of staffers" quote. It is worth noting reporter Emily Jashinsky disputes this. I'm somewhat skeptical of her reliability, but I figured I'd put that on your radar. An analysis of social media by Open Measures also found Fuentes isn't actually significantly increasing in popularity online - https://openmeasures.io/nick-fuentes-audience-growth. I'm not sure this is a notable enough/reliable source and can be added to the article either. However you seem like you've done a good job with this page so I just figured you should know this context Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the lead mentions his growing influence on the right. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request: on 15 November 2025. Change “White-Nationalist” to “Nationalist” in Introduction.

Obscureballs (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi

Why were the statement and category of Neo-Nazi removed? He’s described as such by multiple sources. Firekong1 (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The sources actually describing him explicitly as a nazi are hardly reliable (Daily Dot, for example). There are some sources that use the term nazi in more vague ways in the body of the text, but don't explicitly tie it to Fuentes. E.g. the WSJ source talks of Nazis, but that was not about Fuentes: .

The removal of "Neo nazi" from lead was a fact of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. As far as the body of the text goes, it states that Fuentes "said afterwards he neither supported Nazism nor the man who drove into the crowd". IMO, I don't think it makes sense to categorise him as a Nazi, because of a lack of significant RS using this label. He has expressed admiration for Josef Stalin in the same vein. It seems Fuentes has admiration for dictators in general. He probably qualifies as a fascist, but the current labels in the lead (white nationalist, far-right) encompass this and make it clear what his stances are... and they are also far less ambiguous. Sources do say he has expressed support for Adolf Hitler (and Stalin) and this is partially covered in the article. Zenomonoz (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we need more in the body but that’s no problem as there appears to be multiple sources, see [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Nick+Fuentes%22+%22neo-nazi%22&num=10&client=safari&sca_esv=fd5333ef45dac276&hl=en-gb&sxsrf=AE3TifMjfq7sP3JnO3SR0SIoYTZl-w5hZA%3A1763234184171&ei=iNEYaduTCuOGhbIPnI3LkA4&ved=0ahUKEwjb98-Z7_SQAxVjQ0EAHZzGEuIQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=%22Nick+Fuentes%22+%22neo-nazi%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGSJOaWNrIEZ1ZW50ZXMiICJuZW8tbmF6aSJIlR9Q6A5Ygh1wAXgAkAEAmAFwoAGnAqoBAzIuMbgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAKACAJgDAIgGAZIHAKAH7QGyBwC4BwDCBwDIBwA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp Doug Weller talk 19:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz@Doug Weller I argue that classifying him as a Neo-Nazi would make sense given his genuine praise of Hitler and the Groyper’s similarities to baseline Neo-Nazis in the Alt-Right. Fuentes’s statements supposedly disavowing Nazism and violence are also bull and void since he constantly gives contradictory statements on what he believes given the current moment he’s speaking in. As for his support for Stalin, Nazism and Stalinism overlapping isn’t that unheard of (there’s an entire page comparing the two ideologies and leaders, and there’s many similarities), so him praising and supporting Stalin doesn’t invalidate his classification as a Neo-Nazi, and in addition his personal ideology is not Stalinism, which again does not invalidate the classification of him as a person and his ideology. I understand that some sources may be questionable at best, but I don’t doubt there’s genuinely resourceful articles we can use for citations when he’s classified as a Nazi. Firekong1 (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The photo is low quality and outdated

Most people know nick from clips on instagram and such, where he is seen in his office environment, perhaps a new photo would better suit the article? Either way, the photo is poor quality and of low standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsspmosmicl (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You're not the first person to mention this on the talk page. We can only use photos with a compatible license. See Wikipedia:Image use policy or Commons:Licensing. Grayfell (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is a better image quality of the current photo, the other is very out of focus. Please replace it with this photo:

https://archive.org/details/nick-fuentes-july-2022-virtual-debate

Thanks! Eric Carpenter (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks AI enhanced Anne drew (talk · contribs) 03:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Education - BU

Based on other templates, the education portion should still include Boston University with a tag that clarifies he did not graduate/receive a degree Pajamahop (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

It says that he dropped out. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Updated Infobox Image Replacement Request

Here is a better image quality of the current infobox photo, the current one other is very out of focus. Please replace it with this photo:

https://archive.org/details/nick-fuentes-july-2022-virtual-debate

Thanks! Eric Carpenter (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Too much AI enhancement has made him look like a different person. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Needs source for assassination attempt

No source for alleged assassination attempt. Suggesting removal if proper source cannot be provided. Clownwife (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

It is sourced in the body. The lead technically does not require citations because it is a summary of the body of the article. See WP:LEADCITE. We made the decision to include citations for contentious things, however. Zenomonoz (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Update image.

Look, if I we're to point out everything wrong with this article I'd be here until the money Wikipedia got from the United Nations runs out. However at the very least can we update the image? There's no point in trying to make Wikipedia unbiased and factual anymore; at least can we have proper images even if it's for someone that the basement-dwellers of Wikipedia have personal disagreements with?

Edit: Now somebody decided to add an image with even worse quality for zero reason, showing that you can in fact add new images without violating policy but you can't do it for good, got it. LoganStylus (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

LoganStylus, Wikipedia has strict rules on using free or Creative Commons license images. So we are restricted in what we can do. If Nick Fuentes or a photographer wants to release a suitable photo (that they own) via Creative Commons, it would solve the problem. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This photo is literally a screenshot of one of his shows, why not add a screenshot of one of his newer shows? If this is breaking the rules then remove the current photo. LoganStylus (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The YouTube video source of the current image was uploaded under a Creative Commons license, which allows us to use it. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Second paragraph, last sentence...

"In 2020, seeking to establish a white supremacist conference to rival the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Fuentes began holding an annual America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC)."

This is a not-so-subtle attempt to make those not familiar with the CPAC believe that it is a 'white supremacist' conference, and make those who are associate the CPAC with 'white supremacy' in general. The preceding paragraph notes that Nick Fuentes is a white nationalist. What other kind of conference would he establish? The only reason for juxtaposing 'white supremacist' with a CPAC rivalry is to make a subtle assertion that the CPAC is a white supremacist organization. And the fact that it was cited, from the far-left liberal rag Daily Beast no less, makes it ever more apparent.

The author's bias bleeds thru. Honor your creed Wikipedia. Remove the modifier. ~2025-34182-74 (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that is how most people will read it. The sentence is implying that AFPAC is white supremacist, not CPAC. Perhaps it could be rephrased but I don't see the issue. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. There is no attempt to tar CPAC in that sentence. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I just reverted some inappropriate posts

Please don’t try to analyse ideologies. We only care about what reliable sources say and how to use them. Thanks Doug Weller talk 09:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Why does the image suck so bad

With an image like that you’d think he’s a middle eastern militia leader who hasn’t been seen publicly since the 90s. Gotta head on over to the pixel store and buy some more pixels am I right? Nah but seriously what’s up with that ~2025-35219-29 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I’m begging people to read the existing discussions before asking this again. Yes the picture sucks. No, there’s not much we can do about it due to copyright issues. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I've added this question to the FAQ. I invite other editors to improve upon the wording if they can. — nomen alternativum (he/him • talk • contribs) 01:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Image

I just emailed the photographer who took this image of Fuentes, , for permission to use it. Zzendaya (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The photographer would need to submit a ticket to Commons. However, it's not going to happen because the image is licensed to Redux Pictures. Again, if Fuentes wants to release a photo via Creative Commons, he can do so whenever he likes. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2025

Photo the Photo to this

File:Nick Funates.jpg

Nick Funates

~2025-35550-42 (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 04:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I notice that the uploader of that image has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Given that they have already deceptively abused Wikipedia in one way I don't know that we can trust their claim that the image is their own work. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Infobox photograph

No i will not give context.

• 
  (Option A: Him from 2022)
• (Option B: Him from 2024)
  (Option B: Him from 2024)
• (Option C)
  (Option C)

1timeuse75 (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

What's the copyright status of B? The reason we've been using a mediocre photograph up until now is copyright issues.

(Aside from that I also think the weird angle of photo B isn't great, though the potato quality of A makes it at least vaguely even.) Loki (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Image B is from a police body cam, making it public domain. 1timeuse75 (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

"Image B is from a police body cam, making it public domain"

And when exactly did you had this discussion with the Commons community? Trade (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

What's the problem with copyright issues anyway? Wouldn't it fall under fair use for most copyrighted images? Couldn't we just use the photo from NYT or from IMDB (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9585321/mediaindex/)? ~2025-31407-09 (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31407-09 To keep things very brief, it would not go under fair use since there are free alternative to the copyrighted images. 1timeuse75 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Neither picture is great. I don't think there is much in it either way. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean one is higher resolution, and newer. 1timeuse75 (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

A is a better image of his face IMO. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

B is higher resolution, and newer image 1timeuse75 (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

There's also an option D, which is the image currently being used. Apparently taken from the same video, I think it's better than Option A because he's looking directly at the camera. Options B and C are inferior, I think, because of the strange angle, poor lighting, and similarly low resolution as the other options. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Also that image is actually freely licensed Trade (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

A is better. The current image does not look good, and it resembles him less due to the frame chosen. I wouldn't be opposed to B if the copyright issue is resolved. Staryu★ 11:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2025

In the section "Relationship with Kanye West", "Involvement with 2024 presidential campaign." Change: "In late 2022, Fuentes shifted away from his longtime position of supporting Donald Trump and instead, and instead began promoting Kanye West's presidential campaign.[139] and far-right streamer Sneako.[140]" to: "In late 2022, Fuentes shifted away from his longtime position of supporting of Donald Trump and instead began promoting Kanye West’s presidential campaign[139] and the far-right streamer Sneako[140]." To be more gramatically correct. KILLGOESE (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. A citation is not considered part of a sentence. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 21:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Partly done: The duplicated "and instead" was deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

About the reversion

Hey @Ser! In this reversion Nick Fuentes: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia have you taken a look at WP:SOB? You're not supposed to have two separate links right next to each other, which is why I made the change I did to the lead sentence. Do you mind either reverting what you just did, or rephrasing it yourself to avoid this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I’m kept a bit busy atm but have just seen the notification. In the interest of caution I’ll self revert and look at it properly when I get a chance. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 01:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Infobox photograph

Someone fix the picture of him coz its bad, love of him or hate him, the picture is fucking blurry bro ~2025-35880-62 (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times people request this, unless there is a better alternative picture which is licensed in a way that we can actually use then we can't change it. We can't just go infringing people's copyrights. We put this in the FAQ for a reason. If you have a candidate for a better image then please suggest it. If not, then please don't waste any more time on this. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

"Assassination Attempt"

Zenomonoz; you reverted my edit and claimed that "we don't need to call it an 'alleged' assassination attempt when sources like CBS clearly state Fuentes was targeted to be killed." The CBS source that you added only mentions:

"In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes posted a video in which he claims he was the intended target in Berwyn. Doorbell camera video in his post shows someone with a gun and what appears to be a crossbow outside Fuentes' home, and the timestamp on that video is about 10 minutes before police said they were called about Lyons.

Police have not connected Lyons to the incident at Fuentes' home."

So again, zero reliable sources claim there is evidence that anyone attempted to assassinate Fuentes. Add sources that make the claim, or I'll remove it again from the article. Bill Williams 15:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Bill Williams – Lyons murdered two people, drove a very long distance to Fuentes after his address was leaked, wielded a crossbow and a pistol, and is slamming on the door and yelling his name "Nick".

Chicago Sun Times states that he "targeted" Fuentes

What exactly are you trying to remove from the article? The lead already states "apparent assassination attempt".

Zenomonoz (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The Chicago Sun Times article never says a single thing about an attempted "assassination." The guy showing up to his door is not sufficient to say it was an attempted assassination in WP:WIKIVOICE. Your speculation violatesWP:OR; I'm removing it again from the lead and clarifying in the body that it is "alleged." Bill Williams 23:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Bill Williams, the specific word 'assassination' does not need to be in the source because we paraphrase. This isn't OR. An apparent assassination attempt is clearly a paraphrasing of alleged... anyway I have rephrased the lead if we are going to be pedantic about it. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Zero sources say it's assassination. That's a major accusation that requires reliable sources to back it up. You're in clear violation of WP:OR and I'm adding this to WP:ORN. Bill Williams 19:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I deleted the WP:OR violation again because an editor on the WP:ORN noticeboard agreed. This article is on far too controversial of an issue to have unsourced claims in the body or the lead. Bill Williams 07:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2025

In Nick Fuentes#Women and Abortion, please remove the word "brash" from the following paragraph, as it's clear WP:EDITORIALIZING:

−

In November 2024, after Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Fuentes mocked supporters of abortion, tweeting, "Your body, my choice. Forever" (a brash spin on the freedom of choice slogan "My body, my choice").

+

In November 2024, after Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Fuentes mocked supporters of abortion, tweeting, "Your body, my choice. Forever" (a spin on the freedom of choice slogan "My body, my choice").

The use of "mocked" might also be an issue, but I don't have any specific suggestions in this edit request.

Thank you. Mosplot (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Subjectivity

Unactionable kvetching The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Seems to have a bunch of subjectivity in this article. ~2025-39739-63 (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it's insanely biased. This is unacceptable on Wikipedia. ~2025-39782-55 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Yet neither of you have stated what the specific issues are or how you would fix it. Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article. Beach drifter (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Misleading description of his beliefs

In the section on his political views it states “ Fuentes holds antisemitic views and denies the Holocaust. He has praised Adolf Hitler, and stated on his show America First: "Hitler is awesome. Hitler was right. And the Holocaust didn't happen."”

I believe the final quote is misleading, as if you look at the clip cited as a source, it is Nicholas Fuentes telling a story about the views he held when he was a teenager. In the video, he is laughing as he is recounting the experience he had talking to his parents about his new found beliefs.

The impression any reasonable person would get from the description used is that Nick stated those utterances as an earnest expression of his current ideology (current as in when that particular episode of his show occurred) and not (as it actually is) him wryly explaining how the apparent extremism of his views as a teenager initially shocked his conservative parents. I think this should be changed or removed to avoid misleading people. Qwdfnjkl (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure, just change the first sentence you mentioned to the past tense, just as the second sentence is. Beach drifter (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? I don’t think that solves the issue. The issue is that while, albeit, he did say those words specifically on his show, the implied context in which he said it does not match what the actual context was. The actual context is him recounting when he came back from his second semester at college and had recently developed more right wing views. He was explaining how he encountered resistance from his conservative parents upon sharing these views with them. This is why he states, in the clip, “Hitler is awesome. Hitler was right. And the Holocaust didn't happen”. The context of the clip was him laughing in a wry manner, in a manner that was probably intended to have been taken to be unserious and overall jocular. Thus, it seems not only illogical but also misleading to present this as something which he either currently believes or that he had believed in the past. The issue with the phraseology is that it presents it as though it is something he had currently believed when he made the show, when it self evidently was not. Furthermore, and moreover, I take an issue with taking statements said by people in jest as as earnest expression of their beliefs, past or present. That seems problematic. I believe that if we are reporting on the ideological beliefs of someone, we should only use reputable sources, or at the very least sources where it is indisputable to a reasonable individual that they were not joking. I think in this particular instance that is clearly not the case as the person was laughing as he told the anecdote. Nick has also made statements that he is planning to “join the Jews’ side” and that “Goyim are not people”. He said those statements in a joking manner as well. It would be asinine and lackadaisical to attribute those beliefs to him. And, quite frankly, it is indicative of a low standard of diligence and a low level of respect for the truth. Qwdfnjkl (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

You may note that in the lead, where the ideologies are first described, there's a whole flotilla of reliable sources. You may also note that the portion of the sentence which ascribes ideology in the Antisemitism section ALSO has multiple reliable sources. I can see where you're coming from (taking a quote out of context to imply a belief is bad), but this isn't that. The views in that quote are, according to WP:RS, current. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

And the WP:RS state that that Fuentes uses humour and irony to give himself plausible deniability. It's pretty obvious Fuentes is a denier, he cited the work of Eric Hunt on a livestream this year – a holocaust denier who later recanted his beliefs after going on medication. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2025

In the section "Relationship with Kanye West", the first paragraph has an incorrectly placed period (.) between "presidential campaign" and "and far-right streamer Sneako". Please remove the unnecessary period. Dzy4shzy (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for catching that. nomen alternativum (he/him • talk • contribs) 05:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

FIX the Nick Fuentes X URL

...as it is https://x.com/https://x.com/... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-40371-99 (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Holocaust Denier Title

Recently, Nick Fuentes and Piers Morgan did an episode together and Nick Fuentes clarified that he believes that "It is at least 6-million but it could be one-hundred times more than that" in regards to the holocaust deaths.

Keep the Holocaust Denier title? AstroDominant (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

He was obviously trolling and presumably you are too. Zenomonoz (talk) Zenomonoz (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Im the original poster of this topic, I'm not home and I can't get the verification code to log into my account on my phone.

Anyways, I apologize. Somehow I genuinely didn't realize he was trolling. Thanks for the enlightenment. ~2025-39702-72 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

"it could be one-hundred times more than that" is a standard holocaust denier joke for those 'in the know'. They frequently make jokes about '6 billion' or '6 quadrillion' etc. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank ya for the clarification, I've been enlightened. AstroDominant (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Attribution and tone per WP:BLP in “Personal life” section

I’m not requesting removal of any sourced material. My concern is wording, attribution, and section placement. In the “Personal life” section, some statements made during livestreams or online political commentary are presented largely in Wikipedia’s own voice in a way that reads as literal belief or intent. For example, the statement that Fuentes said “having sex with women is gay” is presented without attribution or context, which risks treating a provocative remark as a settled fact about his personal beliefs. Fuentes has also made other statements elsewhere expressing conventional views about heterosexual relationships, which suggests that individual remarks like this should be attributed and contextualized rather than asserted as literal belief. Per WP:BLP, Wikipedia should avoid stating intent or sincerity unless clearly supported by reliable secondary sources. More generally, much of this material concerns public rhetoric and political persona rather than private life. Its placement in the “Personal life” section may give it undue biographical weight, and rephrasing or relocating it to a section on public statements or controversies would better reflect neutrality. Headstock1234 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The passage you refer to is Fuentes has said that "the only really straight heterosexual position is to be an asexual incel", as "having sex with women is gay". This is accompanied by two citations, which provide attribution and context. It would be WP:OR for us to decide which statements were made in earnest and which were in jest, as you pointed out. I also can't imagine what you would think of as a source for personal life, as pretty much anything a public figure says to news agencies, in podcasts, etc. is their public persona. Wikipedia does not have hidden cameras in celebrity's houses to see what they say when they're NOT in public. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I do think we should probably avoid including trollish quotes from Fuentes on trivial matters like this one, though. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we can generally look to the stronger sources to determine what is trivial. This quote in particular has a couple independent, seemingly reliable sources, so it clears the absolute minimum bar. Both sources are in-the-moment coverage of the comments and responses from social media. Stronger sources would reflect after some time on Fuentes's views as a whole, and the choices such sources make would be a better guide. Unless we have such sources, I'd support trimming the statements being disputed here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, but the consensus seems clear anyway. I removed the passage in question. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Classy move! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

There is alot of misinformation in this. Im not sure if its a mistake?

holocaust denier can be debunked with a 2 second search. Discussion on statistics and why it is safer to have your offspring not date a race is not white supremacy. Please correct this, this site should not be used as reddit. Thank you. Blacktar444 (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

You have neither specified which passages of the article you would like changed and to what, nor provided sources reliable to Wikipedia to support such a change. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Piers Morgan Interview

I added the Fuentes interview into the Pier Morgan Uncensored page, you reckon this page could need it? It's garnered quite a lot of attention. BigBoiWikiWhale (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

found a ref [1] 1timeuse75 (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2025

His show doesn’t promote white supremacy, misogyny, antisemitism or holocaust denial. You’re misinforming anyone who googles him. ~2025-41658-44 (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• Nick Fuentes on 2025.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit request: incorrect date

Under section "Live streaming and interviews", the video's caption says it's from 2024, but in viewing it on Commons, one can see that it's actually from 2022. Someone fix that please. Thanks, Cesiumslate9 (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done; Thanks for the catch. EducatedRedneck (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

−

In November 2024, the address of Fuentes's [[Berwyn, Illinois]], home was doxed on Twitter in response to Fuentes mocking [[Abortion-rights movement|abortion advocates]] in his tweet "Your body, my choice"

+

In November 2024, the address of Fuentes's [[Berwyn, Illinois]], home was [[Doxing|doxed]] on Twitter in response to Fuentes mocking [[Abortion-rights movement|abortion advocates]] in his tweet "Your body, my choice"

Add a hyperlink to "doxed" under Personal life

~2025-33890-41 (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2026

Nick Fuentes in 2024.png

Replace portrait with this Nkbok (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: File:Nick Fuentes in 2024.png is tagged for deletion on the Commons. The majority of votes in the deletion discussion favour deletion so it is likely to be deleted at some point. DanielRigal (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: As the image has copyright issues and is likely to be deleted. Day Creature (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2026

(Remove the following biased/defamatory titles as they do not align with the genuine character of "Nicholas J Fuentes" as he has expressed several times. "Holocaust denier, Anti-Semite") TheNeutralGoose (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 16:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Remove ~2026-11787-6 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Since reliable sources describe him as such, he will continue to be described as both a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite. See also the FAQ at the top of the page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Defamatory Titles?

Nick fuentes has said he does not "Hate" Jewish but hates the power he thinks they hold. Also he has stated in the Piers Morgan podcast that he does not "deny the holocaust" and has claimed he thinks there could have been more deaths then counted. These claims have been all forged by taking clips of distasteful jokes he made on his podcast.

Note: I do not support nick fuentes and actually i dislike him but adding titles that are subjective on a objective platform like Wikipedia is not something i can stand for neither is the messages he spreads TheNeutralGoose (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Please provide multiple reliable sources backing up these claims. You'll need to present sources to outweigh the ones already in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

well the articles I'd argue are unreliable and you should look at what the man himself says. So I'd like to request the removal of any "articles" and anything he says or acts upon outweighs claims from articles ~2026-11787-6 (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

against "White nationalist" title

1:25 (this really happened this was made before ai so it is reliable) ~2026-11787-6 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

1:00:36 - How many jews died in the holocaust: "I'm thinking 7,6 million what's the number"

55:57 - What do you like about jews: "I like alot of things about them. I think their funny, I think their smart. Um I think they're pretty remarkable people" ~2026-11787-6 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

to add onto this why does it say he is: A White supremacist and White nationalist? The only fair title hes given is Christian nationalist. ~2026-11787-6 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we add Christian nationalist to white nationalist? —C.Fred (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm suggesting you remove "White nationalist, Anti-Semite and white supremacist" and keep Christian nationalist TheNeutralGoose (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

and if you really wanna express what the sources say then atleast say "Several media sources label him as a antisemite,white nationalist or white supremacist" but Nick himself doesn't associate himself with those groups. TheNeutralGoose (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

He says he has toned down his antisemitic views. So he is still antisemitic. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

He does not have hatred for the Jewish religion. He said alot of stupid stuff but it shouldn't be highlighted on a objective platform like Wikipedia. This page seems to be looking to make nick look bad instead of actually educating people about him. TheNeutralGoose (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not on first name terms with Fuentes and I would strongly recommend that approach. Anyway, we are not digging for this coverage ourselves. It all comes from Reliable Sources. Fuentes has chosen to make himself a public figure and chosen to be quite open about his antisemitic opinions. If people write about them then that is, presumably, exactly what he wants. He doesn't need you denying things that he is clearly proud of. I'll be blunt. You are wasting everybody's time here, including your own, unless you can provide Reliable Sources supporting a change in the article. DanielRigal (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully your showing me you haven't seen the interviews I sent TheNeutralGoose (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, we don't give a tinker's cuss about links to YouTube videos. We only care about Reliable Sources. That's how it is on Wikipedia. You don't have to like it but if you can't play by those rules then you need to play somewhere else. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Please make requests for specific changes with Reliable Sources to support them. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Il rework my suggestion with more evidence structure because if the media is gonna make him look bad they should do it properly and not just mark assumptions as facts TheNeutralGoose (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

New Photo

I noticed that a new, independently published photo of Nick Fuentes appeared today. I think it could be a good addition to the article, I am just not sure if it is a freely usable image. It is File:NicholasJFuentes.jpg. Ell22Moore (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

It's a screenshot of a YouTube video, and thus not Creative Commons unless proven so. I've nominated that image for deletion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I hadn’t realized it was a YouTube screenshot. Ell22Moore (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2026

This isn’t totally true and I want to fix his ancestry part. Evan Garzadori (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 17:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

"Incel" in lead

A few back and forth reverts have happened over including the "incel movement" in the list of things Fuentes promotes in the lead. Two editors (@Zakaria1978 and @EvergreenFir) have edited to include it, and one editor (@Davefelmer) has reverted them. I think it's time to have a talk page discussion.

I haven't reverted Davefelmer because WP:ONUS, but I agree it should be present. Davefelmer notes that "incel" only appears twice in the article before this edit, but one of those comprises half of what's below a level 4 heading. It's not a lot of volume, but that's comparable to the "anti-LGBT" label which similarly has one sentence in a level 4 heading. I believe this warrants inclusion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

If anything, the LGBT label should be reverted too. Both are not prominently featured compared to the others or generally throughout the article body, which is the criteria for lead inclusion. I didn't revert it only because there is a note there from a prior consensus saying not to add or remove any other labels from the line, so I was respecting precedent and prior discussions. Davefelmer (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Incel should absolutely not be in the lead. He has stated he has no interest in having sex until marriage, due to his Catholic faith, which is not involuntary celibacy. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Zenomonoz, that's original research. Academic citations have shown him to embrace the label incel, and to advocate for that lifestyle. Please read WP:RS as that is what the Wikipedia goes by. You also deleted material about Fuentes being from the Hispanic community and advocating white supremacism, which is what academic citations have noted. I'm pinging BootsED, Rhododendrites and Binksternet for opinions on this, since these citations were removed by you.Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

"Incel" should remain in the lead section. It is a crucially important aspect of Fuentes' fame, regardless of whether his celibacy is involuntary. Good sources discuss this aspect of his life. The book Extremism and Radicalization in the Manosphere says "Nick Fuentes is a self-avowed 'proud incel' who specifically targets young men who are active in manosphere spaces..." Another book, How to Talk to Your Son about Fascism, says, "Most important for Fuentes's brand is that he is a young 'incel'... Fuentes uses his position as an incel to connect with down-and-out young men..." Many similar sources exist. Binksternet (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

It's fine now that it is incorporated into the sentence. It was very weirdly placed before, which was my main issue. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why I'm being tagged here but we should go by what reliable sources say. Reading the lead it seems to have some minor grammatical oddities that should be resolved (for instance, it should be the incel movement). If Fuentes called himself a "proud incel", his exact words can be highlighted similar to how Laura Loomer's description of herself as a "proud Islamaphobe" is quoted on her page. To avoid a run-on sentence, there could be one that simply says "He is a self-described "proud incel" and part of the manosphere." More extensive details of him receiving support from the manosphere or using his incel status to appeal to young men should be reserved for the body. A refn template specifically for reliable sources to support the incel terminology should be created owing to the contention around this descriptor. BootsED (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Binksternet and BootsED, it looks like the academic reception was deleted from the intro. [Fuentes being from a minority Hispanic-American community and the son of an immigrant, yet peddling white supremacist-xenophobic views.] Could you look at it? This is how scholarly citations frame Fuente's activities and it's concerning! I saw it was moved to being later in the article, but it should be in the intro. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That's a different issue, and should be discussed in its own thread. Per WP:LEAD, I moved that text down into the article body. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't rationalwiki. The whole "hes a white supremacist but... he's hispanic!" reads like editorialised spin that doesn't belong in WP:VOICE. Especially the word "despite". It should be encyclopaedic. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.dailydot.com/news/nick-fuentes-mtv-white-supremacy-documentary/?amp. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Fuentes isn't involuntarily celibate, denoting him as such mistakes irony for honesty

He said he was an incel in the piers morgan interview, along with a litany of other inflammatory claims he made purely to annoy him once it was clear morgan's arguments were being made in bad faith. When being honest about his celibacy he has said it is purely for religious reasons and that he would have no trouble with women when he chooses to marry, but that he has chosen to remain celibate to focus on his political outreach. I don't take issue with mentioning his connection with the incel movement, but framing him as an 'incel' himself is incorrect. Most of his comments on his celibacy have been made on his livestream but I would find the article I sourced relevant enough to make an aside, and pertains to the discussion on morgan specifically. Pyknical (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

also, I often see people saying that academic citations refer to him as an incel. Academia on the incel movement is relatively new with scholars looking to pin the ideology on anyone that can fit into whatever argument they are trying to make (I write for the subject myself). If anyone can link me any of these academic citations I'll take time to look through them, but until them I think framing fuentes as an incel is still a mistake. Pyknical (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes off of what reliable sources say. If you can provide multiple RS that state he's not an incel, that can be added to the article as a "Fuentes has stated X, though some scholars believe him to have been trolling" or somesuch. I do note that an opinion by a commentator is unlikely to be viewed as a RS.

If you want to see the citations, I encourage you to read the article and click the footnotes beside the statements you disagree with. EducatedRedneck (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I read through the footnotes for that particular section before making a talk, I'll get back to this. Pyknical (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is that technically 'reliable sources' choose to frame comments made in jest as honest declarations. This can be repeated on wikipedia without it technically being untrue (the language used in the article; 'has described himself as a "proud incel"'), but I don't think it's useful for someone trying to ascertain his actual beliefs. In the same clip that the sourced article is referring to, he explains his celibacy through waiting for marriage, which I think makes his following statement that he is an incel directly contradictory. If the 'nick fuentes is an incel' commentary won't be removed, fine. But I think that adding a comment that his celibacy stems from religion is necessary to provide the reader with a full picture despite the irony he employs, like with the article I sourced in the original talk point. Pyknical (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY analysis, not the analysis conducted by interested editors on the talk page. SECONDARY analysis defines the topic, which means that Fuentes's own words or actions cannot be used to change the conclusions made by uninvolved expert observers. These uninvolved expert observers have weighed the various factors and have come to a conclusion. The conclusion is what we relay to our readers. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

these uninvolved expert observers have no idea about how gen z use humor and irony and so as a result propagate mistaken perspectives. This will destroy wikipedia. We have to be a little more nuanced. Pyknical (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I think there is some leeway for editors to form a consensus on repeating his trollish comments, but Binksternet is still right that Wikipedia should just reflect the WP:RS. We can't just dismiss everything as a 'joke' though. Fuentes clearly uses humor/irony to give himself plausible deniability when the media highlight his comments. I believe (?) Fuentes has admitted this tactic on a livestream, but I could be misremembering. With regards to being an incel, we could probably say he has promoted incel movement views etc. I don't think Fuentes personally qualifies as an incel, because he has no shortage of women approaching him, and his celibacy is derived from his religious beliefs. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

absolutely correct, he definitely digs his own grave when it comes to making dishonest comments on what has traditionally been a forum of a formal talk show. For the incel comment specifically I don't think he's trying to give himself any leeway when it comes to his true beliefs but more as a relatable joke for his fans to latch onto. I come more at this from, not being religious myself, but regarding it as being important to distinguish involuntary celibate vs religious as a matter of making each distinct as they are in reality. Calling him an incel is a good poke but not great for avoiding polluting the perception of either the ideologies. Pyknical (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

None of this discussion about whether he's joking has any leverage to change what we tell the reader. What we tell the reader must be a summary of uninvolved observers writing in reliable sources. Fuentes is classified by these sources as an incel or as a leader of the incel movement. It's not that tough. Binksternet (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

this is a wikipedia issue more than a page issue. Let the page be wrong, whatever. Pyknical (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)