![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
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
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.
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
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
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
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 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
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)
@ 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)
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. [a] 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.
@ 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)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability How does this fit the wikipedia notability criterion? SenseiSam ( talk) 14:39, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
@ Bangalamania: Two questions about your recent edits:
...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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Groypers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Groypers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace "White Nationalist" with "Christian Nationalist". 64.180.207.173 ( talk) 03:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Nick is Mexican. How can he be a white nationalist? 38.146.78.88 ( talk) 03:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Groypers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Groypers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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:
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. [1] 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. [2] [3] 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. [4]
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. [5] 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. [6] 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. [7]
Fuentes and the Groyper movement later supported the candidacy of Laura Loomer for the 11th congressional district of Florida in 2022. [8] 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.” [9] 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. [10] [11]
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. [12] [13] West’s campaign soon included other figures in the Groyper movement, including Milo Yiannopoulos, [14] Ali Alexander, [15] and Rumble streamer Nico Kenn De Balinthazy, better known by his online alias “Sneako.” [16] Many Groypers, including fellow streamers on Fuentes’ website Cozy.tv, began using their platforms to promote West’s anti-Semitic views. [17] 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. [18] [19] 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. [20] 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. [21]
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. [22] [23] 65.222.246.26 ( talk) 18:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
That's not a heading a serious person would write. CrickedBack ( talk) 15:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Groypers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
"Yes… It's simple…. It's just we're moving toward the future," he said when asked if he's running.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
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
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.
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
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
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
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 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
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)
@ 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)
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. [a] 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.
@ 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)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability How does this fit the wikipedia notability criterion? SenseiSam ( talk) 14:39, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
@ Bangalamania: Two questions about your recent edits:
...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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Groypers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Groypers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace "White Nationalist" with "Christian Nationalist". 64.180.207.173 ( talk) 03:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Nick is Mexican. How can he be a white nationalist? 38.146.78.88 ( talk) 03:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Groypers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Groypers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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:
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. [1] 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. [2] [3] 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. [4]
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. [5] 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. [6] 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. [7]
Fuentes and the Groyper movement later supported the candidacy of Laura Loomer for the 11th congressional district of Florida in 2022. [8] 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.” [9] 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. [10] [11]
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. [12] [13] West’s campaign soon included other figures in the Groyper movement, including Milo Yiannopoulos, [14] Ali Alexander, [15] and Rumble streamer Nico Kenn De Balinthazy, better known by his online alias “Sneako.” [16] Many Groypers, including fellow streamers on Fuentes’ website Cozy.tv, began using their platforms to promote West’s anti-Semitic views. [17] 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. [18] [19] 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. [20] 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. [21]
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. [22] [23] 65.222.246.26 ( talk) 18:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
That's not a heading a serious person would write. CrickedBack ( talk) 15:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Groypers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
"Yes… It's simple…. It's just we're moving toward the future," he said when asked if he's running.