Talk:Groypers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Times of Israel

Why is Israel defining what American Nationalism is allowed to be? Use real sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.80.125 (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The Times of Israel is a perfectly reliable, "real" source. This is the English language Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. International sources are not only allowed but encouraged. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Alt-right

Groypers are not alt right. I made certain changes which reflect the fact that they are not alt right. Please do not roll back these changes unless you can demonstrate that they are alt right. The Swamp Creature (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Reliable sources already "demonstrate" that the Groypers are alt-right, and that's plenty as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You also keep whitewashing the article's mention of white nationalism. This is also well-supported by sources. Your blunt statement that they are not alt-right is original research. We don't care about that. Cite reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Swamp Creature: You need to stop edit warring, and wait for conversation here to come to some sort of decision before just reinserting your changes. I agree with Grayfell, the sourcing pretty much unanimously describes Groypers as white nationalist and alt-right. Of course Fuentes denies this—it says in the article that he and others have tried to downplay the group's extremism—but per WP:MANDY we do not need to include it. Your other language changes are also not supported by sources. I have no objection to you adding that Fuentes has feuded with Spencer if that's well described in sourcing, but using that to claim that Fuentes & co. are not alt-right is WP:OR. It also doesn't hold water—after all, Fuentes and the Groypers have feuded with plenty of conservatives despite being conservative themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not make "blunt statements", I provided justified statements which disprove Groypers being a part of the alt right. The Swamp Creature (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You, as a "queer feminist" have an inherent bias concerning the Groypers, who are on the opposite end of the political spectrum. I think it appropriate to bring to question your reliability of your edits to the groyper article. The Swamp Creature (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the neutrality of anything I've written I'm happy to discuss them, but my sexual orientation and opinions on feminism do not preclude me from writing about political subjects. Furthermore, per your most recent edit summary, please read WP:BRD for information on why that's incorrect. I've reached WP:3RR myself so I'll let WP:ANEW deal with you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Conservatism

From the participation of long-time conservative figures such as Michelle Malkin to being described as a conservative group by The Washington Post, it seems uncontroversial to list conservatism as one of a variety of beliefs held by this group. Opposition to calling Groypers "conservative" seems to stem from a misconception that white nationalism and conservatism are somehow mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the two are closely related. Cherio222 (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cherio222: Can you provide sources supporting that there are Groypers that are conservatives but not white nationalists or far-right? The WaPo article you used specifies that Groypers are far-right: Turning Point and YAF had until recently been at the furthest-right edge of conservative activism in higher education. Over the past several months, however, Turning Point and YAF have been attacked for failing to espouse the more extreme “America First” populism advocated by figures like conservative columnist Michelle Malkin and conservative podcaster Nick Fuentes. Fuentes and his followers, called the “Groyper Army,” made waves last year by heckling Donald Trump Jr. at UCLA and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tex.) at Arizona State University. “Groyper” refers to a variant of Pepe the Frog, an illustrated meme appropriated by the alt-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops, looks like our edits crossed. Merging my section into yours. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

They are both, and called both by reliable sources. Cherio222 (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

IMO your edit suggests that there are members of the group who are not far right or white nationalist, which to my knowledge is not accurate. I have no issue with your addition of "far-right", but I don't think "conservative" is nearly descriptive enough. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It does not suggest that. It suggests that some conservatives are also white nationalist activists and far-right. One label is not descriptive enough, which is why I have included all of them. Cherio222 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"Not descriptive enough", meaning there are Groypers who are not white nationalists or far-right, but who are conservative—can you provide a source for that? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what you disagree about, considering that you previously recognized that Groypers are conservative on this very talk page: Fuentes and the Groypers have feuded with plenty of conservatives despite being conservative themselves. - GorillaWarfare. The Washington Post describes Groypers as "college conservatives." The Daily Dot describes Groypers as "a loose collection of conservatives that harbor white nationalists." This is exactly the description I believe is most accurate. Cherio222 (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, they fall under the conservative umbrella—I'm not disputing that, and wrote that in the article, where it's possible to expound on where they fall in the conservative movement (farther right of the "mainstream"). It also does say that they feud with "other conservatives" in the lead. But IMO it is misleading to include "conservative" in that first sentence where this nuance can't be explained: "conservative" is an extremely loose term. Groypers are a specific subset of conservative: namely, they are far-right and white nationalist. IMO including it in the lead without that additional context implies that there are non-far-right, non-white nationalist Groypers, which like I said I have not seen in RSes. Hope this clarifies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are conflating two different things: the overlap of these ideologies and the overlap of the members' alignment. Being sympathetic to white nationalism seems to apply to all Groypers, as it distinguishes the group from mainstream conservatives. However, their position within the conservative movement helps distinguish Groypers from the alt-right. This, to me, seems to be one of the main reasons why this article even exists rather than being a section within the body of alt-right. Also keep in mind that Malkin is a key figure and is described in her lede as simply a conservative. Cherio222 (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

All of this about Malkin's views smacks of WP:OR, and it's not up to you, as an editor, to distinguish the Groypers from the alt-right. Sources do not agree on this distinction or its significance.

"Front-loading" too many different overlapping or loose ideologies, in an article about a loose movement, is implying a level political nuance that is really, really not supported by sources. Few sources I have seen care about precisely how conservative they are (unlike the Groypers themselves, who often take political compass memes too seriously). Presenting more ideologies in the lead introduces the risk of falsely legitimizing the movement by using jargon. We should use direct, simple language. Grayfell (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If a distinction between Groypers and alt-right does not exist, then it begs the question: Why does this article exist? With regard to jargon and front-loading, as previously stated, "conservative" is an umbrella term and was used by multiple sources already cited in the article. It is also common, simple language. I do not see a compelling reason to remove that label in particular. Cherio222 (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to note that the second sentence of the lede ("They are known for targeting other conservative groups and individuals whose agendas they view as too moderate and insufficiently nationalist.") would become nonsensical if conservatism was precluded from the first sentence. Cherio222 (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The article already discusses the similarities/differences between Groypers and the alt-right (some people thinking it's nothing more than a rebranding, etc. etc.) But I'm not sure I follow your logic here, adding "conservative" to the lead of this article does nothing as far as distinguishing Groypers and the alt-right. I wonder if there's a compromise to be found here where we could add a term that's more specific than "conservative", but conveys that they are a part of the conservative movement. I've seen "paleoconservative" used: [1], [2] Grayfell, do you have thoughts on that? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the new first sentence makes clearer their relationship with American conservatism -- far-right vs mainstream. But I agree that it may be helpful to more clearly explain their place within vs outside of conservatism. It seems to be a dynamic and evolving relationship. As this would require good sourcing and further precision of language, it may be more appropriate to flesh out in the body of the article rather than summarize in the lede. Cherio222 (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually like the lead sentence more now too, with its mention of their desire to introduce far-right ideas into more mainstream conservatism. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to as far as explaining their place "within vs outside of conservatism" but when you add it I'll take a look and see what you meant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Distinguishing 2019 Groypers (Nick Fuentes), from 2017 Groypers (Including the Groyper High Council)

There needs to be a mention, of the extreme difference between these two groups, and the fact that Nick only stole, what was already in existence, since 2017. He caused an actual "Groyper War" between these two ideologically different groups, in his theft, and re-purposing of the Groyper image, and the term, "Groyper Army" in November 2019. Before that time there were 1000s of different Groypers, and even a "High Council", which still exists away from Twitter. 2017 Groypers are trolls (not just politically) online only, and most have become inactive/apolitical over time, when it became clear that fighting/debating people online, changed no one's minds about anything, and creating new accounts was getting tiresome. Those Groypers sit around on Saturday nights, with the original user, of the original Groyper image (the "Spring Toad/Easter Toad" as the image was originally labelled), and share a beverage (tea), while listening to "cozy" music on a playlist created by that original "first Groyper" (@that_groyper). It's called Tea Tunes. 2017 Groypers are not interested in the alt-right, or cringe white nationalism, and Richard Spencer was attacked online in 2017, by the original "Groyper Army", and told his dumb ideas weren't welcome, along with other extremists like David Duke. 2017 Groypers were 2016's MAGA/Kekistan accounts, re-branded when the election was over. Ukrainium (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia info needs to be verifiable. If you would like the article to explain any of this prior usage, you will need reliable sources. First-hand knowledge is not usable for this, since Wikipedia doesn't publish original research.

FYI, Kekistan has been used by the Alt-Right since 2016. It was used by the promoters of the Unite the Right rally. "Trolling" isn't a defense for attending a neo-Nazi rally, or at least not a defense anyone should accept. Grayfell (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The SPLC is not a reliable, or verifiable, source. They believe seeing a symbol can physically hurt you, and, that anyone can use a symbol, and that makes them a part of that group. These are patently false beliefs, which are used to push a political agenda, for money.

You cannot assess a group, from the outside looking in, making your judgments, based on rumors, spread by that group's enemies, and expect to get a realistic understanding of that group.

I said that Groypers were created in 2017. Groypers are not a part of Kekistan. Kekistan died before Groypers were created. No Groyper has ever taken action in real life, and that is one, if not the main difference, between the original Groypers, and the new fake "Groypers".

Original Groypers, are people who left political warring, to hang-out with their friends, and wait for the war to end.

Nick's "Groypers" are our enemies, because they got everyone to attack us, when we were done fighting political battles. And, they did it because, they hated us just watching the fight, and not getting involved, despite there being an army of us, so they tried to "Pearl Harbor" us into getting involved. Instead, we gave them "Hiroshima", and that is why, they stopped using the Groyper.

Labeling someone a racist, isn't a defense for attacking strangers, or at least, not a defense anyone should accept.Ukrainium (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You are still not citing reliable sources to support any changes to this article. This talk page is for discussing proposed changes, not for you to soapbox about "original Groypers" vs. "Nick's Groypers" without any reliable sources to back it up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Too early for an entry at OG, right? Drmies (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Turning Point USA Culture War Event at UCLA.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Groyper Origin

tldr; groypers are distinct from Nick Fuentes followers and to classify them together is lazy, most of the original people who had 'groyper' avatars for many years are blocked by nick fuentes .

There is a notorious division between the original 'groypers' and the Nick Fuentes fans who appropriated the meme of the 'groyper' @that_groyper on twitter originated the name of groyper, and his followers all created avatars that were variations on this. This has been a community for 3 years before Fuentes appropriated the 'groyper army' meme. He blocked all the original groypers who pointed this out and didn't appreciate him turning their thing into a calling card for a cringy reject from the conservative grifter movement.

See the following thread on twitter https://twitter.com/almightygenie/status/1272669284335063047

I don't have any influence on twitter, but if you actually care about the origin of the character and people that use it, rather than using it as a lazy way to categorise twitter accounts ask @that_groyper or @almightygenie.

I don't really use Wikipedia so sorry if this is formatted incorrectly

CantingCrew (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC) CantingCrew

@CantingCrew: Wikipedia articles are written based on what is reported in reliable, independent sources, not based on what people say on Twitter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Well the obvious inaccuracy of this article can be pointed out by the fact the groyper meme existed way before nick fuentes and had no association with him before last year.

https://slate.com/technology/2017/12/groyper-the-far-right-s-new-meme-is-a-more-racist-version-of-pepe-the-frog.html

Its fine if you don't care about the truth, I'm just ensuring anyone who reads the talk and see that the article willfully ignores learning about the actual origins of the 'groyper' and relies purely on the speculation of media articles rather than actually talking to people who are part of that community

CantingCrew (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)CantingCrew

@CantingCrew: Nick Fuentes definitely existed in 2015. But this article is quite clear that the group is named after the frog/toad/whatever it is, which is wikilinked in the "Background" section. Regarding your encouragement that we ignore the media sources and instead just ask random people on the Internet what this article should say, I see that you're fairly new to Wikipedia and I'd recommend giving WP:EYNTK a quick once-over. Wikipedia is fundamentally not meant for that kind of original research. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

So I have blown a huge hole in the article, and your refutation is

"Nick Fuentes was alive in 2015"

Very weak. Anyway, everyone who reads talk can see that this article is based entirely on the articles from 2019/2020 which focus on the usage of the groyper by Nick Fuentes. This is a development that is obvious to see is relatively recent, and does not require "original research". Also, we can go back to cached versions of 'know your meme' that describe the groyper without referencing Nick Fuentes at all. I propose the article should reflect the recent adoption by Nick Fuentes to be accurate. CantingCrew (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)CantingCrew

@CantingCrew: Just to make sure I fully understand your objection: are you saying that the group of people known as groypers predates Fuentes, or that the meme predates Fuentes? If the latter, that's already made clear by this article and by Pepe the Frog#Groyper, and I've just added a hatnote to clarify the distinction. If the former, you're going to need a reliable source—Know Your Meme (cached or otherwise) does not qualify (WP:SPS). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't really know any source that can be 'authoritative' on internet culture, especially if they are obscure I'll see what I can find, I'm assuming medium articles dated earlier don't count? https://medium.com/@akrolla47/confessions-of-a-groyper-1e0a5157abb7 Here again, we can see the group of people on twitter known as 'groypers' existed independently of Nick Fuentes. He isn't the originator of the loose subgroup. I think the standard of evidence you require for them to exist before hand is too high, considering that they were an extremely obscure twitter sub-culture. Why should there be newspaper articles on them ? CantingCrew (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)CantingCrew

Correct, per that same policy I just linked (WP:SPS), Medium articles can't be used. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles about internet culture, some obscure and some fairly mainstream. The reliable sourcing policy applies to these articles just as it does to the rest of Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that the 'reliability of source' depends on context, and therefore requires judgement. The sources I have provided and referenced can't be judged as 'unreliable' because you have a blanket treatment on all information coming from 'knowyourmeme', 'medium articles', 'twitter posts from relevant individuals'.

Here is an study from 2018 describing the 'groyper' as a distinctive subgroup of users on twitter

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.00317.pdf

" An expressive number of the profiles identified as hateful by the annotators had Groyper (or some variation of Groyper) as a profile picture. These profiles are anonymous and tweet almost exclusively about politics, race and religion"

Anyone reading this can see that I have provided enough evidence to prove that the groypers existed independently on Nick Fuentes, and Fuentes himself has commented on his shows about how 'the real groypers' were being salty (I can't link this because Nick Fuentes had his youtube channel deleted)

CantingCrew (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)CantingCrew

The Arxiv source might be useable, I'm giving it a read now. You're right that determining reliable sources is a judgment call, but the policy is quite clear about self-published sources and social media (such as Twitter). We do not loosen our standards for reliable sourcing just because there isn't much coverage in reliable sources—you might be interested in reading WP:TRUTH. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added to the #Background section using the Arxiv source: [3] GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The article still doesn't accurately reflect the reality of the groypers but having looked into your edit history and your profile I don't really think the article has any chance of objectivity. People like you are the reason why no one trusts Wikipedia on political issues. Activism hiding behind bureaucracy CantingCrew (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC) CantingCrew

That's a weird reply given I just worked with you for an hour to explain what sources are usable and introduced changes based on your suggestions to the article. I care very much about ensuring articles represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, which my edit history reflects. Not sure what "profile" you're talking about, unless you mean my userpage, and I'm not sure what there would make you think I'm unable to be objective—it would show that I've been doing this a very long time, which is hard to do if you can't edit objectively. Furthermore, this article (like any Wikipedia article) is edited collaboratively, so even if there was a problem with my judgment, other editors are involved in editing here as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete this

Someone apparently already tried to delete this monstrosity of an article, but was shut down because he did not provide the correct DMV form. Not only is the article of no encyclopedic value, it is not an article about anything other than Nick Fuente's usage of the word "Groyper." The groyper is an image macros which popped up in 4chan in 2016, and it is used by every community linked with 4chan: from movie fans to marxist-leninists. To find poof of this just google "alien groyper" or "marx groyper." It's usage is not limited to Nick Fuentes. When Fuentes did his sperg campaign of harassing conservative speakers, the people that partook were simply followers of his "America First" podcast, nobody identifies as "groypers" outside of a topic meme which is not even that popular anymore. People who were using the groyper meme and were influential (an unrelated to Fuentes) are already mentioned above, but dismissed because they are just "people on twitter." Despite this being an article about a supposed movement made up of people on twitter. Nick Fuente's people often only refer themselves as "the movement" and have had many topic memes before the groyper. For example, when the Joker movie came out, they all had Joker themed profiles. Will you also make an article about the "joker pfp movement" The articles sources, which you so claim to be "independent and reliable" are written by out-of-touch journalists who know absolutely nothing about the 4chan subculture, or right wing Twitter. So in summary: this article is about a specific person's usage of a meme that has nothing to do with him, and which he will have moved on from in a month or two. Brother Jerome (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brother Jerome: WP:AfD is thataway if you really think this article meets the deletion criteria. The other person who you mention used the proposed deletion process, which is intended for uncontroversial deletions. If someone objects to a proposed deletion, they simply remove the deletion template; the person who added the template was not "shut down for not providing the correct form", rather someone objected to the deletion, and voiced their objection in the proper way. That's why controversial deletion discussions, such as this one, have to go to WP:AfD, a fact that is clearly explained in the template the other person used.

As I've pointed out already, Wikipedia articles rely on coverage in reliable, third-party sources, and cannot source random tweets—even for articles about online phenomena such as this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: In the case of an internet meme or phenomenon like this one, tweets and forum posts would constitute most of the primary sourcing, by definition. If you can't properly source the article using the relevant primary sources for the subject it purports to cover, then the article shouldn't exist at all. There does not seem to be any reason for this article to exist other than to promote the same narrative espoused by the "reliable sources" [read: third-hand opinion pieces] it references. Other commenters on the talk page have already explained to you why this is shoddy work.

You can also spare me any smugness about being new to Wikipedia, as I have been reading the site since long before partisan hackery polluted it to this extent. I created this account solely for the purpose of leaving this comment. Thanks. TomasSchuman (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@TomasSchuman: The policy on primary sourcing, WP:PRIMARY, is quite clear: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors... Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

There are some cases in which we can use a primary source–for example, if the subject of a Wikipedia article has a verified Twitter account and tweets out "I got married to Jane Doe today!", we can then generally assume that the person indeed got married to Jane Doe on June 22, 2020. Secondary sources are still preferred, but primary sources can be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of fact such as that one. However, primary sources can't be used when interpretation is required: for example, reading a set of tweets from anonymous Groyper Twitter accounts and determining on the basis of those tweets that there is an entire separate movement of Groypers who are not affiliated with Fuentes. Primary sources also can't be used to establish notability; even if we could do the interpretation I just described, we need secondary sources to cover the group before we can determine that it is noteworthy enough to mention on Wikipedia. Hope this helps explain. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I am familiar with the policy, thank you. Your reference to it here is just a long-winded way of justifying your obvious narrative-weaving. As stated above by others, it would be very easy for you to establish when and where the meme originated (or simply not publish the article at all if you can't be bothered), but you don't care about that because that's not what you're trying to accomplish. Every secondary source you've provided (including the "study" done by the IREHR thinktank) is clearly pushing an opinionated narrative. Very convenient that the only "reliable" sources you are permitted to use all happen to present the same perspective on every contribution you've made to this dumpster fire of a website. TomasSchuman (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC) TomasSchuman (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@TomasSchuman: Since you are familiar with the policy and still state that it is so easy to establish this information, I look forward to you presenting the reliable, secondary sourcing that I am evidently missing. If you are referring to the conversation with CantingCrew above when you say "as stated by others", I already worked carefully with them to incorporate the new, usable sourcing they presented. Regarding the origins of the meme itself (the image, not the group of people), that is already described in the article based on what has been published in reliable sources. I did just notice that I made an edit a few days ago to Pepe the Frog#Groyper to clarify the timing around the emergence of the Groyper image, but didn't add it to this article though I meant to–I've just pulled that over to this article here so the timing is more clear. I am more than willing to work with you or anyone else on this page to incorporate reliably sourced information that may be missing from this page, but I am not willing to contravene Wikipedia policy by introducing interpretation of primary sources or claims that stem from unacceptable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability How does this fit the wikipedia notability criterion? SenseiSam (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Read the references in the article and WP:42, which should help you. thank you. Britishfinance (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

90% of those references don't mention groypers, groypers barely deserve a paragraph in the Pepe The Frog article, that's it. I don't see this fitting notability criteria in any way whatsoever. I'll keep up the deletion procedure then I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenseiSam (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@SenseiSam: You're certainly welcome to take the article to AfD if you believe it doesn't meet the notability criteria, but have you actually opened the references? While there are a few that don't mention Groypers because they are being used to support other statements in the page (for example references #20 and #21 which are being used to support the information about TPUSA cutting ties with Ashley St. Clair, which happened before Fuentes' followers generally became known as Groypers), and a few that mention Groypers but not by name (e.g. #23), your claim that "90% of those references don't mention groypers" is a gross exaggeration. At a rough count, there are 33 references on this page that discuss Groypers by name, and an additional five or so that refer to the group without describing them as "Groypers". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

So is wikipedia now a catalog of various online groups that have 0 notoriety anyway? I don't see why this page exists honestly. It's just a subsection of the Alt-right or anything but I'm definitely not looking forward to seeing dozens of terrible articles about internet groups that don't really exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenseiSam (talk • contribs) 15:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@SenseiSam: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. (WP:GNG) There has been significant coverage of Groypers in reliable sources. Wikipedia certainly does include articles on online groups (see Category:Internet culture), but not ones with "0 notoriety" (by which I assume you mean "notability"). GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I quite honestly couldn't care less about the actual wiki terminology, english isn't my native language. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/notoriety seems to be a valid word to me but okay, feel free to correct me as much as you possibly can. And yes, this article doesn't meet any sort of encyclopedic criterion of notability. The sources #20/21 don't even have the string "groyper" in them. Any sort of alt-right content could justify the article then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenseiSam (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@SenseiSam: Like I said above, you're free to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AfD if you truly believe Groypers are not notable. I suspect consensus there will agree with me that 30-40 sources about Groypers constitute "significant coverage" and therefore the article satisfies the WP:GNG, but if you want to know for sure that's the way to find out. As for sources 20 and 21, I explained their inclusion above. It's normal for articles to include a few sources that seem tangentially related as needed to verify claims in the article; they are of course not considered to contribute to "significant coverage" of Groypers, which is determined based on the sources that describe the movement itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Add information into the infobox and identifying "Christian Fundamentalism

1. To be added into the 'Type' section of the infobox: Reactionary. Nick J Fuentes often describes himself as a reactionary. I don't know how to add this into the infobox. Cheers to who ever does this!

2. Where in the article "Christian Fundamentalism" is mentioned, should this be narrowed down into the fact that Roman Catholicism is what this 'fundamentalism' is? There are many denominations in the world of Christendom. If it were to be narrowed down, fundamentalism would have to be taken away as what Fuentes follows is core Catholic doctrine. Fundamentalism is quite a Protestant movement.--Lord A.Nelson (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lord A.Nelson: Do you have reliable sources to support either of these statements? How Fuentes describes himself is not particularly relevant here and should not be included in the infobox unless reliable sources also describe the group as "reactionary". You'll see, for example, that the article states Groypers and their leaders have tried to position the group's ideology as being based around "Christian conservatism", "traditional values", and "American nationalism" whereas the article lead describes the group in wikivoice as "white nationalist and far-right"–this is because we put considerably more stake in how reliable sources describe a group than how a group describes themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits removed

Recent edits I have made have been overturned twice now without explanation. Identity Evropa is a white nationalist organization, but they are not white supremacists or neo-nazis. The article uses several heavily biased sources that paint an inaccurate picture that is below wikipedia's quality standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedianempire (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikipedianempire: Your edits were reverted because they substantially moved the article away from maintaining a neutral point of view, which is required by Wikipedia policy. Identity Evropa is unequivocally described at its Wikipedia article as a "neo-Nazi and white supremacist" organization, and so this article uses the same wording here. If you would like to refute that would description, I would recommend discussing it at Talk:Identity Evropa rather than this page that only mentions the group in passing.

As for your other edits, I'm happy to hear your explanations on why you think they're necessary, but please don't just continue to make the change repeatedly -- after your changes are reverted, the appropriate next step is to begin a talk page discussion (as you've done) and work to achieve a consensus with the folks who've disagreed with your changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Bitcoin payments

@Bangalamania: Two questions about your recent edits:

1. Why is this appropriate for this article, as opposed to Nick Fuentes?
2. ...gave $500,000 of bitcoin payments to alt-right figures and groups, with the nearly half of these funds ($250,000, or 45%) $250,000 is exactly half (50%) of $500,000

GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! On the first point, I'll admit it's probably more appropriate for Fuentes' article than here. On the second, I'm just going by what the sources say; maybe they rounded up the figure? – Bangalamania (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it probably ought to be omitted from this article unless there is some clearer connection to Groypers as a whole (and not just Fuentes). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

On December 8, 2020, a French national gave $500,000 of bitcoin payments to alt-right figures and groups, with the nearly half of these funds ($250,000, or 45%) going to Fuentes, who denied breaching the building. The day after the transfer, the Frenchman killed himself.[39] The FBI is launching an investigation as to whether any of this money went toward the financing of illegal acts.[40]

What building? If you are referring to the events of January 6th 2021 and the Capitol Building, this should be made clear in the paragraph. Also the math could be better. Geoffkryten (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to make much sense adding in a throwaway line to Fuentes' involvement in the protests leading up to the storming of the Capitol here, let alone how vaguely it's worded/introduced, and I'm not even sure the donation should be included in this article at all. I've taken the bit about the Capitol out and cleared up the wording around numbers a bit as per the source cited, but if someone wants to delete this paragraph entirely I wouldn't be opposed; it doesn't seem that relevant to the overall Groyper movement itself, just Fuentes. Volteer1 (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, see the above section. I'm going to remove it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Nickers

Groypers who support Nick Fuentes are also commonly referred to as “Nickers”. See [4]. 2604:2D80:6986:4000:0:0:0:7267 (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

Per the ADL source in the infobox, Groypers "oppose Israel" and have spread numerous "anti-Israel conspiracy theories", as opposition to Israel features prominently in their ideology and history. As such, I added anti-Zionism to the infobox as one of their defining ideological features. Nmi628 (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

My stuff just got straight up deleted

I tried to make this article sound less like Rachel Maddow's hit piece on Nick Fuentes and Paul Gosar but someone immediately removed the entire thing because of like a small mistake with putting what Groypers say they are before the other stuff. Cringe Department? I'd like to file a claim. Josh Theta (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit it was @GorillaWarfare that did it, not very neutral to do that I don't think Josh Theta (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Josh Theta: It was not a "small mistake with putting what Groypers say they are before the other stuff", that was the primary change introduced by your edit. That, and the addition of a long and unsourced description of their goals. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability

This article is strange. If you go to "Groyper" it redirects here, and it links to a very small section on Pepe the Frog saying the name Groypers is derived from Groyper. It would be more logical to have an article at "Groyper" about Groyper the cartoon toad (plus a bit on groypers as a generic cartoon character) and have that link to this article, which could perhaps be renamed "Groypers as a political movement" or something, since Groyper the cartoon character is more notable than this fringe political movement that just uses it as an avatar.213.46.223.174 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how "Groyper the cartoon character is more notable than this fringe political movement that just uses it as an avatar"? The vast majority of coverage I've seen is about the political group, not the cartoon character. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed the article is strange and poorly sourced. It claims the Groypers are “extremely conservative”. How so? It doesn’t seem they are by any objective definition of conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6C03:3760:F4AD:1726:B016:A150 (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"are a group..."

There is no sourcing for this claim whatsoever. Lions Clubs are a "group"; McDonald's Franchisees are a "group"; but a grab-bag categorization which is slapped on a person as a pejorative label, does not itself deem or establish that someone is part of a "group". Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022

Replace "White Nationalist" with "Christian Nationalist". 64.180.207.173 (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not, generally, interested in whether or not an organization disavows a title. Wikipedia is interested in verifiability, and if multiple reliable sources label an organization as "white nationalist" then that is a descriptor that Wikipedia will use. The fact they label themselves as "Christian conservative" is already covered in the Ideology section. Removal of the term "white nationalist" in whole is out of the question without an unprecedented consensus. —Sirdog (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Change "White Nationalist" to "Christian Nationalist"

Nick is Mexican. How can he be a white nationalist? 38.146.78.88 (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Non-Hispanic Whites are a US Census category.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_non-Hispanic_white_population#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20Census%20Bureau,of%20the%20total%20U.S.%20population. 68.98.90.105 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, Mexicans can be white (or at least light skinned) even if they’re stereotyped as always being brown, and white nationalists are pretty superficial. Nick Fuentes passes as white, ergo. Dronebogus (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Arguing with the wrong category, I think you meant White Hispanic and Latino Americans. Tweedle (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2023

In the "Other activities" section, cut the portions about January 6th (starting with "Groypers were present at the January 6 United States Capitol attack" and ending with "Paul Ewald Lovley of Halethorpe, Maryland, pled guilty to demonstrating in a Capitol Building and was fined $500") and place them into their own sub-section of "Other activities," titled "Involvement in January 6th" (or some variation). 96.231.249.86 (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Two of them live-streamed with guns outside Columbine

The stunt was in such poor taste that even Fuentes himself disavowed it. But it’s not like he hasn’t encouraged the kind of edgelord mentality that induces people to do stuff like this. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:4EFD (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

I felt that there should be an expanded section on the groypers' (failed) attempts at getting into mainstream politics, including their disavowals by multiple Republican candidates, the failures of groyper-endorsed candidates, as well as their involvement with the Kanye campaign. I've prepared the proposed section below, complete with sources. This can either be added in as a sub-section of "Other activities," or could be made its own new section simply titled "Political activism."

The proposed new section is as follows:

Political activism

The Groyper movement has repeatedly failed to gain any serious political traction, often being disavowed by most politicians it has attempted to support. Congressman Paul Gosar, the keynote speaker for Fuentes’ AFPAC II in 2021, disavowed Fuentes and his followers the following day while addressing CPAC. At AFPAC III in 2022, several political figures whom Fuentes claimed were slated to speak, including Arizona gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake and former acting Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Thomas Homan, did not attend and disavowed the event upon learning of Fuentes’ views. The conference’s keynote speaker, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, later claimed that she did not know who Fuentes was and, upon learning of his views, condemned him as well.

Of the speakers at AFPAC III who did not rescind their support for Fuentes, only two went on to run for major office: Lieutenant Governor of Idaho Janice McGeachin and Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers. Rogers ultimately won a competitive primary later that year and was re-elected to the senate, although she was censured for her remarks at the conference calling for political violence. McGeachin, who ran for governor of Idaho that year, was defeated in the primary by incumbent Governor Brad Little by a 20-point margin.

One of the candidates endorsed by Fuentes in the 2022 midterms who later disavowed his endorsement was Joe Kent, running for the 3rd congressional district in Washington. In response to the disavowal, Fuentes began organizing an online campaign against Kent in the hopes of blocking him from winning the nomination; Kent ultimately secured the Republican nomination, defeating incumbent Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler.

Fuentes and the Groyper movement later supported the candidacy of Laura Loomer for the 11th congressional district of Florida in 2022. On the night of the primary, Fuentes attended Loomer’s election watch-party, and they were filmed sharing a toast as results came in that seemed to suggest Loomer would actually defeat incumbent Congressman Daniel Webster; Loomer toasted “to the hostile takeover of the Republican Party.” When additional results came in confirming Loomer’s loss to Webster by a 7-point margin, she claimed without evidence in a speech to her supporters that her loss was due to voter fraud.

In late 2022 and early 2023, the Groyper movement shifted away from its longtime position of supporting Donald Trump and instead began promoting the presidential campaign of rapper Kanye West. West brought Fuentes with him for a dinner at Mar-a-Lago with former President Trump, which generated significant controversy while also raising Fuentes’ profile; Trump later disavowed Fuentes, claiming he was not initially aware of Fuentes’ views. West’s campaign soon included other figures in the Groyper movement, including Milo Yiannopoulos, Ali Alexander, and Rumble streamer Nico Kenn De Balinthazy, better known by his online alias “Sneako.” Many Groypers, including fellow streamers on Fuentes’ website Cozy.tv, began using their platforms to promote West’s anti-Semitic views. Two Cozy streamers, Dalton Clodfelter and Tyler Russell, began streaming themselves harassing students at college campuses with a table display reading “Ye is Right - Change my Mind,” a slogan that was derivative of a prior college tour by right-wing commentator Steven Crowder. The events were frequently protested by Jewish student groups and allies, who played music on loudspeakers and chanted in order to drown out the streamers’ speeches. The planned college tour was canceled after less than one month, after Clodfelter lost the funding for both the tour itself and the Rumble channel associated with it.

On May 4th, 2023, it was reported that West had fired Fuentes and Alexander, the latter of whom had become embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal involving young men and underaged boys, and re-hired Yiannopoulos, who had since split from Fuentes and was the first one to leak the allegations against Alexander. 65.222.246.26 (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done! Thank you for your contribution!

All the best,

~~~~ NotAGenious (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This page needs protection. Look at "Groyper wars"

That's not a heading a serious person would write. CrickedBack (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2024

To remove the title “Christian right” from ideologies as I myself am a conservative Christian and I don’t think any of you understand that Christianity is not a political compass test and as much as you may dislike us, we’re not your little political puppets that you get to falsely title any which way you choose. Why don’t you say Judaist right? since any racism they would theoretically write from the Bible would only be in the Old Testament. Do the 2.2 billion Christians in the world a favor and stop demonizing us for those who misquote God. And stop hating us for having standards and not thinking we’re gods. 100.8.41.254 (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This label isn't being applied to Christianity at large, it refers to a specific subset of Christians who hold specific political views - there are plenty of conservative Christians who could not accurately be described as part of the Christian right. This is a widely used term, is cited in this article, and cannot be removed just because someone doesn't like it.

There are many similar terms for political factions associated with other religions, such as Islamism or Hindutva. These do not refer to all Muslims or Hindus, just as the Christian right does not refer to all Christians. Jamedeus (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)