Talk:Raw Egg Nationalist

Frontiers source

I don't think we should be using this, Frontiers is a pretty garbage publisher. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I have left a comment on my talk-page about this . So far there has not been a consensus at WP:RSPSOURCES saying we cannot use it on Wikipedia. The only place I have seen it removed is on MEDRS related articles for making unproven claims about anti-disease effects. Veg Historian (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I have taken this to RSN, because while I see your side the lack of clarity bothers me. WP:RSN#More clarity on Frontiers Media, particularly Frontiers in Communication PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Image of person rather than their avatar

This article has an image of the person discussed, rather than the avatar they use. Would it be better to show the image of the person the article is about, rather than a body builder? https://hopenothate.org.uk/2024/06/20/egg-sposed-we-reveal-the-identity-of-far-right-bodybuilder-the-raw-egg-nationalist/

We cannot use any image unless it is free to use, and I highly doubt REN would be willing to volunteer one for an article like this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

@PARAKANYAA: Short descriptions should generally be in consonance with the lead sentence. Especially true for extremist controversialists. I don't really see a discussion about the inclusion of the conspiracy theorist label in the lead on the Talk page, from the edit history I can see that there has been some limited removal and restoration (but the back and forth appears to be limited to this: and from you). I don't that provides any kind of [no] consensus on this.

If we are saying this in the lead, there is no reason to keep this away from the short description. Length also is not really an issue (a few chars don't really matter) and there is no hard rule for the same. Gotitbro (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It is contrary to the guidance at WP:Short description the short description to be so many characters. It negatively suggests against >40 character SDs and further suggests against ones that are >60 chars (because it stops displaying fully at that point). Your suggested SD is 61. Many articles e.g. Elon Musk have a far briefer one that only includes the main claim to notability, so yes there is reason to not include even if it is the lead sentence. This is a controversial label as well, so the default should be to not include, and since only one person has ever suggested it and one person has edited against it (as there have only ever been two substantial page contributors) that does not provide consensus. I don't even think this should be said in the lead sentence considering the only source that calls him that is Frontiers (terrible). Conspiracy theorist is generally a terrible label for people with more specific beliefs, there is not any far-right person who does not believe at least one conspiracy theory but it's original research and sloppy writing for us to prominently describe them as one when it is not how sources refer to them PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It only really makes sense in the context of people who are 1) prominently described as such 2) believe a broad range of conspiracy theories, e.g. Alex Jones. Otherwise I would wholeheartedly oppose its use in every other situation. You can apply it to many beliefs of course but it is almost never the best label and comes off as editorializing in those cases. See MOS:LABEL, why we very rarely call people terrorists in the first sentence even if it’s true PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I have been here long enough to know a few things about the application of MOS:LABEL and MOS:TERRORIST and how it differs from describing other extremists (including extremist conspiracy theorists) in wikivoice for what they are solely known for. The individual's notability here stems from the promotion of unscientific diets based in bizarre beliefs of a new world order which is feminizing men. The sources consistently and predominantly refer to these views as stemming from haywire (explicitly labelled as conspiracy theories) beliefs about the world. The statement that only absolute cranks like Jones deserve the label is completely your own POV and clearly not what enwiki follows (ironically Dale has regularly appeared on Infowars).

Coming to the length of short descriptions, 40 char is ideal but there is no actual rule to stick to this. The cutoff (only on desktop devices) doesn't really matter if we can accurately describe the individual or concept (there have already been discussions over this and we needn't litigate this here again). Gotitbro (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Also when a discussion is ongoing you should wait for consensus to emerge and not reinstitute edits which have already been challenged twice before.

And about the no consensus claim, that is a particular outcome of a dicussion and not a presumptive from something which hasn't ever been discussed before (the correct description of which would be a need for consensus and not 'no consensus').

And about Elon Musk. He is known for a whole host of things besides being a recent dabbler in extremism and I can understand banal short descriptions for the same. The same simply doesn't apply to Dale, solely notable for crankery. Gotitbro (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I self reverted the other part, but I still think it should not be in the SD. If it's ideal not to go over 40, why go against it? What is the point of having it if it doesn't display right for most people who view it? Going over that is allowed but it is not recommended unless there is a very strong reason to, and I don't see that here.

This is not really related to the labeling, as the aforementioned conspiracy theories are not solely nutritional, but I would argue against saying he is only notable for the dietary stuff. Many of the sources extensively cited here barely focus on his dietary views (e.g. Burnett/Tebaldi & Burnett, many of the news sources), more on his magazine and other far-right views. If he wasn't pushing any of the dietary stuff he would still be notable for being a prominent far-righter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Dale is predominantly (never said this was the only thing, extremists got to dabble after all) known for being part of the crank fascist fitness online sphere [the pseudonym itself being a hint], preceded by people like Bronze Age Pervert. And yes bizarre conspiracies related to justify that are a predominant part of this world view, which is especially true for Dale.

"If he wasn't pushing any of the dietary stuff he would still be notable for being a prominent far-righter." is entirely WP:CRYSTAL.

"What is the point of having it if it doesn't display right for most people who view it?" Most enwiki users are mobile users and short description usages go far-beyond the search tab (especially Wikimedia data). We only run into problems when char limits are very extraneous (~100 char). Conspiracy is crucial to his persona as the emerging consensus over the lead shows. Ethmostigmus also provides a way to reduce chars below. Gotitbro (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not WP:OR. There are other good WP:RS on this.

• Raw Egg Nationalist is described as a "right-wing conspiracy theorist" in NewYorker Magazine .
• Hope not Hate, write that Raw Egg Nationalist "is a keen promoter of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory, which holds that western elites are deliberately “replacing” white populations with migrants, and has called for mass deportations of those already granted citizenship in the UK" .
• The Point (magazine) describes Raw Egg Nationalist as a "Manosphere-adjacent seed-oil conspiracy theorist" .
• The Global Network on Extremism and Technology lists Raw Egg Nationalist as "Perhaps the most prominent and one of the most influential voices on this issue" of the ‘Great Reset’ conspiracy theory .
• S. Marek Muller in The Conversation writes "Raw Egg Nationalist, a prominent far-right influencer, who said that Impossible, Beyond and other plant-based companies are part of a “soy globalist” conspiracy to criminalize meat consumption and weaken citizens through poisoned food" .
• Media Matters for America have written that "The influencer, who goes by the name “Raw Egg Nationalist,” spouted pseudoscience and globalist conspiracy theories on Infowars a year before using the same language in Carlson’s new original film". Also "In a different Infowars appearance in November 2021, “Raw Egg Nationalist” espoused a white nationalist-linked conspiracy theory about soy products, claiming that “if you drink too much soy milk you will probably develop gynecomastia, which is man boobs essentially".
• Southern Poverty Law Center write that Raw Egg Nationalist "argues that the “globalists” are using the food system to emasculate men, a conspiracy theory he distributes in books and a magazine he produces with Antelope Hill, a white nationalist publisher" .

Conspiracy theorist is clearly supported by many WP:RS and is an accurate description. Veg Historian (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Veg Historian for compiling those snippets, I've been following this discussion and just sat down to comb through the sources but you've saved me the trouble. Describing REN as a conspiracy theorist is pretty clearly accurate and reflected by RSes, and I support its inclusion in the lead. As for the SD... I feel that "conspiracy theorist" is already somewhat implied by the label "far-right internet personality", but maybe that's just me. I don't think it is strictly necessary in the SD, and I err on the side of keeping the SD as short and basic as possible, but I think the rationale for including it is also quite valid. I will note that the SD currently reads "far-right internet personality" while the article lead reads "far-right influencer [and conspiracy theorist]" - dropping "internet personality" for "influencer" would help address the character count concern. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Lead

The lead needs sources for the claims made in it, due to WP:BLP. Metallurgist (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist There is no rule saying all lead claims must be cited in a BLP? You also introduced phrasing not in the sources (e.g., doxxed) and made it far more sympathetic to him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I am fine with not using doxxing, but leads with claims like this should be sourced because they are controversial. I presume there is no shortage of sources making those claims. I am not a proponent of his and barely know who he is. Please be less zealous in reversion. Metallurgist (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist They are not controversial in his case because there is no particular disagreement on them. Sources agree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok then put them in. And stop edit warring. You dont own this article. My other changes are perfectly valid. If you blanket revert again, I will seek outside consulting. I am happy to work with you on this, but dont just toss everything I changed. Thank you. Metallurgist (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, the sources linked to his name being disclosed literally use the word revealed. Metallurgist (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring = 2 reverts? Your changes were not improvements (why are we specifying so many details in the lead?) we fundamentally do not need citations in the lead. It would be better to remove all information from the lead if that’s what we have to do. You have cited no policy based reason for why we need citations in the lead when that is contrary to the purpose of WP:LEAD. It hampers readability and is unnecessary + leads to duplication.

And yes, they say it. Because they’re the ones that did it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It's been over a day. You going to respond or shall I remove the CN tags? Your grammar edits (minus doxxed) were decent, I think I was being overly nitpicky. This is covered by WP:LEAD and there is no exemption for BLPs from that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

To be clear - you're under the opinion he wasn't doxed? 96.246.53.98 (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Probably, but what I think is irrelevant here. There are no (reliable for Wikipedia's purposes) sources that use the word to describe what happened to him, and the word doxxed in its common usage tends to mean adn identity reveal the author dislikes. Did he have personal information he had been trying to hide publicized against his will, and does that fit some definitions of doxxing? Yes, but not all, other definitions of doxxing necessitate it be truly private information or obtained illegally, which this was not. We can't say it unless a source does; honestly I don't think we should use the word at all in wikivoice outside of its specific legal context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

YouTube interviews

@PARAKANYAA, @Ethmostigmus - Are we aloud to cite YouTube interviews on BLPs? I have read WP:RSPYT so the answer is probably not but I wanted to ask about this. The reason I ask is because Raw Egg Nationalist is a well known anti-vegan activist and he was interviewed for an hour on a carnivore diet podcast , so this would be a useful source to cite his anti-vegan views (there are several others). But these would probably classify as self-published sources. Raw Egg Nationalist claims without providing any scientific evidence that vegan and vegetarian diets are "maladaptive", cause chronic disease and are making people "weak". He describes Weston A. Price's pseudoscientific book as the best ever written. He then promotes a bizarre conspiracy theory that governments are trying to poison people, feminize men and reduce the population by promoting plant-based diets.

In the interview he admits that his "animal-based" diet consisting of grass fed beef, organ meats, raw eggs, raw honey and raw dairy is expensive and elitist. So nothing he says applies for the general population who can't afford grass fed steak (they cost around £16 each in the UK from a small farm). More bizarrely he pretends to care about the animals that he eats and claims his meat-based diet is ethical because he doesn't eat factory farmed meat. This position has been dubbed "carnivore traditionalism" but is seriously flawed from an ethical viewpoint. He has obviously never looked into invasive procedures on animals which take place on all farms including the small "local" ones that he promotes. All of the cows, pigs and other animals that he eats on a daily basis are still branded, mutilated, teeth-clipped tail docked, nose ringed, castrated, dehorned, or artificially inseminated. He is utterly clueless about animal suffering. I guess we will have to wait until more academic sources debunk this guys nonsense. Veg Historian (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's allowed if he's saying things about himself and what he believes per WP:ABOUTSELF but it's probably not due weight. If as you said we don't have any debunking of that specific facet it wouldn't be much different than what we have now. This is also not that rare for a fascist to have opinion wise, I've seen this kind of thing before, though not with his particular dietary choices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It's also hard to understand his white racialist fascist beliefs because he isn't even white or English. He posted this photograph of himself today on his official X.com account from 3 years ago . He claims he is 100% English/Cornish/Welsh but that is obviously not the case. He has refused to do DNA ancestry check and it is obvious why. This is the same guy who criticized people for having brown eyes and telling them they will never be Aryan . Nothing he posts makes any sense, it is likely just online grifting to make money. The best position here is just a wait and see position, I believe more academic sources are going to pick up on his contradictions. Veg Historian (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean that's just what Welsh people look like sometimes. Ever seen Sean Connery? IIRC long ago I looked into his family background; very British from tracing his ancestor's names. And on the waiting I agree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

His own racist followers on his X.com feed have made fun of him recently and said he isn't white. It's believable that he does have Welsh ancestry (he says his paternal grandmother was Welsh) but I also believe he has recent North African ancestry (probably Libyan) which would explain some of his features. REN is heavily mixed so which ever way you spin it he is not "Aryan" like he is obsessed with and he is hardly an accurate representation of the countryside "English gent" that he likes to promote. I can see why he was so angry when Hope Not Hate revealed his photograph. As for other sourcing, these two recent magazine sources mention REN, the first source we could potentially use , . Veg Historian (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

White supremacists accusing other white supremacists of being not-pure-white is something they have done for all time; believe any of what the others say about them and there has never been a white racist (except the person accusing, of course), they're all secretly part black, Jewish, or Arab, from Rockwell to Koehl to Spencer to Pierce to Anglin. I have written articles on dozens of neo-Nazis and I have only seen a handful who wasn't at some point accused of that. Wouldn't put any stake into what they say about it. He looks white to me, though I agree he is probably self-conscious of his appearance being insufficiently "Aryan", but that was the case for several neo-Nazis who were white; in any case this talk page isn't the place to debate what race we think he looks like. I agree the two sources you mention are reliable, but after a check it's mostly covered ground, so not much use. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed reply, I have been away from home the last few days. Youtube videos are sometimes worth using as sources, especially for uncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF information, but I agree with PARAKANYAA that in this case it would definitely constitute undue weight. Controversial figures like this often find it in their best interest to lie (or at the very least give misleading information) about themselves. There's also some crossover with WP:FRINGE here, but generally speaking, if there is any reasonable suspicions that ABOUTSELF statements are self-serving or there is any other reason to doubt their authenticity, situational sources like this should be avoided, and the information should only be included when it can be sourced to a reliable and independent publication. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)