Talk:Alt-right

Remove Faulty Sources

Buzzfeed is not a reliable source, and should be removed per WP:IRS. Look at the questionable sources tab to see why it is not a proper candidate. That is all. R00b07 (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Look at the archives to see earlier debate. Note that it is the journalist who is the source, not an anonymous writer. And if you think that The Guardian is a tabloid (obviously it's not) and unreliable source, it's hard to guess what you think would be reliable. Doug Weller talk 05:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Buzzfeed is a "meh" source but Grey's article seems fairly up to snuff to me mentioned. We attribute the authors opinion in nearly all instances and the that isn't, it's accompanied by another source. This is typically how we handle WP:SPS and WP:QS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I've read the article and would like to say that Gray's connections from the American Renaissance group and the National Policy Institute to the alt-right movement are dubious at best. She then goes on to tell readers to look at a twitter hashtag (#altright) and a random White Nationalist Blog (The Right Stuff) as more "proof". Both Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh seem to have no idea what the Alt Right even is.

The only solid connection she makes is that Richard Spencer named a website "Alternative Right" in 2010. I'm sure a better source than BuzzFeed can be found to connect Spencer to the Alt-Right. I can look tommorow if you want.

My Question is this: If I can reasonably show that the BuzzFeed article is biased and provide a better article that illustrates the same point, would the BuzzFeed article be removed? Or is it glued there forever? R00b07 (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It's one of the few in-depth sources we have. Also bias itself isn't an issue (WP:BIASED), especially if we attribute the statements to the author. But if better sources exist, there's always room for addition. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Neither. Removing it just because you find it to be biased misses the point (and is itself kind of biased). You need a better reason. See WP:BIASED. As has been hammered to death in the talk page's archives, Buzzfeed does a lot of crap, but it's also produces real journalism, so articles from it needs to be assessed on their own merits. As for being dubious, maybe, but you'll need sources, not generalities, which are WP:OR at best. Grayfell (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

NotAllBuzzfeed? I thought sources were judged by their overall standard? But I suppose we will start judging, for example, Breitbart articles on a case-by-case basis and not just tarring all with the same brush now as well. Zaostao (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Yeah, doesn't the case-by-case standard have to now apply to everything, not just BuzzFeed and sites with similar political biases? Otherwise, wouldn't that would conflict with Wikipedia:Point of view? R00b07 (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@R00b07 and Zaostao: no, that was a decision at WP:RSN, not here. Or rather they were decisions there. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: So, is this confirmation that Wikipedia treats similar sources (BuzzFeed and Breitbart are both "tabloid journalism", I'm sure you would agree) differently based on political slant? Since the case-by-case basis seems to only apply to BuzzFeed and the similar? R00b07 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart and Buzzfeed are two different websites, with different histories, and so to reduce them to "the same thing" is ludicrous. Their political leanings are irrelevant, Breitbart has serious issues with reporting false information, so it's reliability is very much in question. That is how this works. Constantly reducing everything to binary partisan politics doesn't accomplish anything.--Parabolist (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Where as BuzzFeed is well known as the pinnacle of accurate reporting and journalism? I'd like to know if you actually think the "21 Things White People Ruined In 2015" BuzzFeed, and the "Want to write for BuzzFeed? Send an email! (Preferably no whites or males)" Buzzfeed is a reliable source as long as it's taken on a case-by-case basis but Breitbart isn't. Zaostao (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious that the inclusion of BuzzFeed is due to the BIAS of the people who want it in. Parabolist, please cite some of those "serious issues with reporting false information"? Would that include CNN which of late has to retract many of their statements? Dan Rather's push against George W. Bush with fake documents , Or NBC manipulating a story with incendiary devices Or if this is the standard, there are MANY articles on Wikipedia that have done the same thing. The only reason to include the BuzzFeed article is it serves the purpose of the person who wants it included, or so it seems and does not pass the smell test.Hmmreally (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

---

"...to reduce them to "the same thing" is ludicrous" - Parabolist

I never said they were the same thing. I said the were similar sources. Both engage in misinformation to appeal to their audience. BuzzFeed uses outrage to gain clicks and Breitbart uses fear to gain clicks.

"Breitbart has serious issues with reporting false information, so it's reliability is very much in question" - Parabolist

And BuzzFeed Doesn't? Just look at the Gray article that is being used a legitimate source. I thoroughly debunked why it should be even used.

But, maybe that's not enough to suggest that BuzzFeed engages in false information. I know these aren't legit sources for the wiki article itself, but it sure is enough to make my point here.

(https://www.buzzfeed.com/emaoconnor/who-run-the-world-on-unequal-pay-girls?utm_term=.hd799KxBbj#.lyammzqpQE) - Gender Pay Gap Misinformation that has been proven wrong by Wikipedia itself.

From Wikipedia - "However, multiple studies from OECD, AAUW, and the US Department of Labor have found that pay rates between males and females varied by 5-6.6% or, females earning 94 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts, when wages were adjusted to different individual choices made by male and female workers in college major, occupation, working hours, and maternal leave. The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to originate from deficiency in salary negotiating skills and sexual discrimination"

Here's a respected left-wing (Yes, Left Wing, As Wikipedia Puts It) journalist watchdog organization, calling BuzzFeed out on unethical reporting - http://fair.org/home/buzzfeeds-obama-coverage-is-99-percent-uncritical-and-borderline-creepy/

(https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/511567927619760128) - Yep, even Anita, darling of the left, warned us how "dangerous BuzzFeed's Misinformation" is, when it came to taking her out of context, and damaging her character. R00b07 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, As an FYI to anyone who may potentially be misunderstood, I'm not advocating for Breitbart to be a legitimate source, I'm advocating for BuzzFeed to not be. R00b07 (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

There was a discussion at WP:RSN dealing specifically with this issue, though it doesn't look like any solid consensus formed regarding Breitbart vs. Buzzfeed: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 208#Use of Breitbart on Alt-right. clpo13_(talk) 17:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to rule out using Buzzfeed at all needs to go to RSN as that's where it was discussed before. In the discussions in the past here it's been decided that using the Gray article is not a problem, in part because the article was used in other clearly reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 20:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we made the talk-page archiving less frequent, would that reduce the number of times we repeat the same conversations? Probably not. Most news outlets make a distinction between editorial content and reporting. This has been true for over a hundred years. Much of their journalism is presented in a juvenile, (frankly obnoxious) format, and they produce a massive amount of editorial content, but BuzzFeed makes the same distinction. BuzzFeed has won multiple industry awards, including a Peabody. The FAIR article cited says "While BuzzFeed has certainly done important work of late..." and cites an NPR story explaining the incongruity. As far as I know, media analysts do not say the same about Breitbart, and its many errors and ethical lapses in journalism have been widely documented.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles (WP:CIRC), and using it to 'debunk' the validity of a listicle is missing the point. This really isn't the place to start recycling tired wage gap talking points, but the BuzzFeed article is specifically discussing Census Bureau statistics, and the article itself points out that the situation is far more complicated than that. As abrasive as that article is, it does a remarkably good job of citing its sources, and those sources exist whether you agree with them or not.

Citing one of Anita Sarkeesian's tweets demonstrates a poor understanding of Wikipedia's standards for sources, and describing her as 'darling of the left' looks like an attempted appeal to emotion. We're not trying to keep a tally of Left vs. Right. Wikipedia has well-established guidelines for identifying reliable sources. Original research is not accepted. Grayfell (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"articles from [Buzzfeed] needs to be assessed on their own merits" -- they are your words. I'm simply suggesting the same is done for other sources. I'm not even arguing for Breitbart as a full-on reliable source, but there needs to be some objectivity.

I didn't know Buzzfeed shared a Peabody award in 2014 though, I suppose that balances out the numerous race-baiting articles and make them a reliable source for a right-wing ideology associated with White identity politics. Maybe we can add some information from the 18 Jars Of Mayo Who Need To Check Their White Privilege piece to the article too? Zaostao (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Why? Is it relevant? Do you seriously think that the serious journalistic articles on Buzzfeed are inseparable from their banal listicles? clpo13_(talk) 21:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

If they are separable then "I suppose we will start judging, for example, Breitbart articles on a case-by-case basis and not just tarring all with the same brush now as well." Simply looking for parity. Zaostao (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what WP:RSN is for: to determine if a source is always reliable, sometimes reliable, or never reliable. There's absolutely no policy that says we need to treat all sources the same way. clpo13_(talk) 22:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Right. Of course we don't need to treat all sources the same way, that would just be tying our hands for no good reasons. Most of the criticisms against BuzzFeed which I've seen have been towards their puff-pieces, or for having an ideological bias, neither of which are deal-breakers. The criticisms against Breitbart are far broader, and include serious lapses in journalistic ethics, poor fact-checking, no retractions, et cetera. If you wanted to make the case for including a Breitbart article, you could try, but the hurdles would be a lot higher. Assessing sources on their own merits doesn't mean playing stupid and ignoring all past history. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Zaostao, I'm not quite seeing your complaint. Buzzfeed and Breitbart are both cited in this article. Are you just unhappy with the way this RS policies are applied in general? Because that might be an issue that would be more appropriate for another forum, like the Village Pump.

IMHO: Breitbart can be a reliable primary source for the statements of it's own writers, although, incredibly, there are cases where they can't even be trusted for that, but they are rarely useful for much else. I think everyone agrees that sources should be judged on a case-by-case basis (that's why there's no "blacklist" for unreliable sources), but there are very few cases where Breitbart has been useful. Nblund (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I mean... I don't think that Buzzfeed is unusable as a source or anything like that, but at this point the article has better sources anyway; nearly everything cited to Buzzfeed was already cited to something else as well or stated elsewhere in the article. So I've removed all but one cite to it, which explicitly summarizes the main thrust of Rosie Gray's article as her opinion rather than stating it as fact. (I do think we need to at least mention that article, since it seems to have had a big impact - many other sources refer to it, and it was one of the first sources to go in-depth on the term, which is part of why it was so heavily used. Certainly one sentence summarizing it is WP:DUE.) Generally speaking, though, if you object to a source, the first thing to do is to see if you can replace it with better sources. Oh, and there's only one thing I removed while stripping out extra Buzzfeed refs that I think might be worth restoring with another source; the Buzzfeed article was the only source we cited directly linking the Alt Right to the Trump's campaign. That's a pretty uncontroversial point, but I had a bizarrely difficult time coming up with non-opinion pieces referencing it... although this and this and this might be useful if we want to just quote someone. Anyway, it shouldn't be hard to find a news source describing the fact that the alt-right broadly supports Trump, if nothing else... probably one of the other existing sources mentions it and I just overlooked it while I was trying to improve the sources earlier. Oh, and I removed this source entirely; it only mentions the alt-right in passing and was only used to cite something that had four other cites anyway. TL;DR: It's silly for us to argue over Buzzfeed when sources we can probably all agree are better are now available. --Aquillion (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with those changes as a practical matter, but it still makes me a bit nervous. If the Gray one was one the first sources to go in-depth on the term, isn't that a good reason to use it? Why is it actively being removed? Removing the Bernstein source makes sense, but it's conventional and mostly straightforward reporting. If we needed to use it, we shouldn't balk just because it's an unpopular outlet. If we can preserve neutrality without having to resort to WP:CITEKILL, I'm happy, but citekill is the lesser evil. Grayfell (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Source number five, if followed, leads to a newsday article which very clearly states "opinion" on it. Cathy Young isn't necessarily a bad journalist, however, I believe citing an opinion piece necessarily transfers the bias from the piece in question to the article. I believe it should be removed as a source. TheSageOfNE (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Bias

This article is blatantly biased against those on the Alt-Right, especially in regards to the claims of racism. We all know these kind of generalizations would never fly on any other type of article, so why is it allowed on this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwharllee (talk • contribs) 07:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The claims, however ridiculous, are sourced. Wikipedia is known to have a liberal bias, but there's no use just complaining about a problem, start editing and trying to improve the encyclopedia. Zaostao (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be easier to edit if the biased article wasn't locked until after the presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfadude (talk • contribs) 23:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

From the very paragraph you linked to: "There are no data or surveys to back that." Just thought you should know what you're citing. Rockypedia (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to respect the opinion of Jimmy Wales, although maybe you think he doesn't know what he's talking about and that he's not aware of the state of wikipedia—which would be quite a strange opinion for you to hold, but not one for me to comment on. Zaostao (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is the one who said "There are no data or surveys to back that." I tend to respect high levels of reading comprehension. It would be strange if you didn't, but that's not for me to comment on. Rockypedia (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

See "opinion of Jimmy Wales". Your respect for high levels of reading comprehension doesn't seem translate into application, but I suppose we can admire high standards while not adhering to them ourselves. Zaostao (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop talking in riddles and actually say what you mean for once. A real man would do that. Jimmy Wales is the one who said "There are no data or surveys to back" the opinion that Wikipedia is slightly more liberal than the average American, because Wikipedia is a worldwide site and the rest of the world leans a little more liberal than the average American. That's very different from what you said, which was "wikipedia has a liberal bias" - You're clearly far to the right of the average American, based on how you've been blocked for your POV edits attempting to make white supremacists appear more palatable. The closest you've ever come to admitting your bias was your claim that "Wikipedia is known to have a liberal bias" while citing a link that says a similar thing, but is in fact quite different in substance. It's the same thing you do all the time - try to find something that's close to what you need in order to push your right-wing POV. It's too bad you won't just own it and state your real intentions. Not surprising, considering the way you've tried to sneak around 3RR multiple times in your edit-warring. Rockypedia (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A conservative bias would be as harmful as a liberal bias. I'm simply trying to improve the encyclopedia. Anyway, this tangent you've created has descended to pig in the mud levels, which isn't very kosher, so i'm not going to reply to this again and you can have the last word if you want. Zaostao (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Could the page (if expanded instead of repeatedly shortened) included sections such as "Criticism from the right" and "Criticism from the left"? I think that could solve the problem pretty well. User:JosephFrontroyal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Criticism sections should be avoided if possible, per WP:CSECTION. Additionally, separating the section into two categories would be false balance, would require us to make subjective judgments about where sources fall, and would imply that criticism has only come from politically aligned sources, all of which are problems. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The page already has criticism sections (just not named "criticism"). Most problems with false balance can be avoided by only used sources which are forthright about their argument, weather for, against the movement. Milo's manifesto in Brietbart, for example, could be included in a alt-right general belief's section while National Review's "Moral Rot" piece would obvious be put under the "criticism" section, and if need be under the sub-section "criticism from the right."

The issue could be cleared up if the page weren't insistently re-shortened. The "Beliefs" section has been shorted many times while the "Origins" section has been removed as many times. Someone should expand the page and expand/clarify where necessary. Cutting and re-cutting doesn't help anyone.

I can upload a general first draft of both if need be. The "origins" section is ready now. User:JosephFrontroyal (talk)

There's an error in the beginning of this article that states that alt-righters are 'opposed' to immigration. Actually, the overwhelming majority of alt-righters aren't opposed to immigration at all; rather, they support it in a selective and limited style. Numerous figureheads of the movement such as John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow have confirmed this. I'm sure this mistake won't be rectified because it jibes with some sort of narrative, which, of course, is much more important than factual accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.33.111 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That "error" is supported by reliable sources. If you have sources that back up your statement, please provide them. clpo13_(talk) 03:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The "realiable source" is an opinion column titled "Donald Trump’s hate for political correctness is comfort food to racists", sounds pretty biased to me.. That source is as reliable as me writing a blog post. (50.53.159.101 (talk))

First line on origins: "Origins According to economist Jeffrey Tucker of the Foundation for Economic Education, "The movement inherits a long and dreary tradition of thought........"

Pretty clearly unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.32.233 (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This description of the "Alt-Right" is on the border of being slanderous. This notion of associating any conservative movements with white-supremacy and hate groups clearly indicates a very prejudice and hostile takeover of this webpage to push a certain political narrative. The goal of Wikipedia is to inform the reader and to spread information for all to see, not to push your own highly delusional interpretation(s) of the information given. The Soothsayer (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As said over 9000 times already, find some sources and suggest changes. Reliable sources by and large describe the alt-right as nationalist and white supremacist. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

What EvergreenFir said. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 August 2016

• Tag {{synthesis inline}} after the text "various sources" and "much of the coverage" in the lead. WP:SYNTH:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.

The sources describe the ideologies in those terms, yes, but they don't explicitly say that "others" describe it like that, and thus to write "much of the coverage" is OR, and needs to be removed or rephrased. Here are the relevant quotes from the current sources who are only expressing their individual opinions (not asserting them as widely-held viewpoints):

"White nationalism"

"... But the alt-right has often seemed more diffuse than that, more of a catch-all for the least presentable elements of the online right: white nationalists"
"... the alt-right, a mostly online movement of mostly white nationalists ...

"White supremacists"

"... The rise of this sort of Internet-savvy racist trolling has accompanied the ascension of the alt-right, an amorphous, politically right-leaning group that has attracted the loyalty of the casually anti-politically correct; the racist meme lords who are mainly in it for the trolling and jokes; and more traditional white supremacists ..."

...and so forth. I don't really have time to go through the rest of the citations.

Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Summarizing "various sources"

The lead is intended to summarize the body of the article, which this does. All of those claims are supported by many source and explained in greater detail later in the article. Multiple, almost excessive references function as examples of coverage in this case, so a template is not productive. Grayfell (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• As I look again, the rest of the article suffers from the same problem.

"The alt-right's use of internet memes to advance or express their beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan, has been widely reported" / "The prevalence of memes in alt-right circles has led some commentators ..." / "Various sources have stated the alt-right as being composed of ..."

These all need attribution to specific people. This is like taking 3 movie reviews of people calling Titanic "the best movie ever" and then saying "Titanic is widely considered to be the best movie ever" which means nothing. WP:STICKTOSOURCE:

Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication..

Bottom line: if sources don't say "many people hold this view", then the article can't say it either.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Toggling. It looks like protection expires in 5 hours? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There are some WP:WEASEL problems, so if you want to propose (or just make) specific changes that fix this, that would be helpful. An improvement template is not going to accomplish anything in this situation. The Titanic comparison is not useful, since this isn't an academy award winning movie, and nobody is talking about 'reviews' or strictly subjective assessments of quality. That kind of comparison is an oversimplification. When a large number of sources are saying something, we can and should use common sense to summarize, especially in the lead. If you want to propose how to clarify this in the body in a way that meets WP:DUE and all the rest, go for it, but be aware this has all been discussed and edit-warred pretty heavily already, as a look at the talk archives will show. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: You're missing my point, it's not about critique, it's about the assertion of widely-held viewpoints, which these sources fail to do. Per WP:OR, the sentences should be removed immediately until sources that explicitly say "some regard the 'alt-right' as ..." can be found. The only thing this article does is collect individual opinions without ever actually discussing the subject from a broad perspective. To suggest that "various sources have stated" from 3 individual opinion pieces is a blatant misrepresentation of sources (WP:WEASEL / WP:STICKTOSOURCE). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As a correction, most of the sources for the belief section are not opinion pieces; those are news articles. Strictly speaking, we should be reporting what they say as fact (ie "the Alt Right is XYZ"). --Aquillion (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed solution

• I've read some of the talk page arguments - the biggest issue with the article is WP:WEASEL along with WP:NPOV as a result of systemic bias. I haven't looked deeply into this subject's coverage, but is The Spectator an RS? It was the first result on a Google search for "alt-right" and "disputes"

mainstream conservatism has far too eagerly conceded territory to the progressive opposition in order to demonstrate its caring, fluffy side. Even when conservative administrations have been in office they have failed to arrest the leftwards drift of the culture. Clearly something had to give ... for a certain kind of red-meat conservative intellectual it has coalesced into a movement (albeit loosely defined and fissiparous, mostly existing only in internet chat rooms and on social media pages) known as the alt-right. ... it has been associated with anti-Semitism and racism ... Ultimately — as blogger Sargon of Akkad explains on a YouTube investigation — it’s about the idea that white culture (which they identify interchangeably with western civilisation) is under threat and must be preserved for the future of the race.

— Delingpole, James (July 30, 2016). "Why the alt-right isn't wrong". The Spectator.

From that source alone, we can verify everything in the lead's first two sentences, along with the following:

The movement is loosely defined and fissiparous. While it has been associated with anti-semitism and racism, the alt-right is ultimately based in the idea of preserving western civilization (identified interchangeably with "white culture").

There is no reason to have the excessively-cited OR list of that second paragraph when such a statement would be so much more substantial and uncontroversial. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Collecting 3 sources in order to advance that an opinion is "widely reported" would make it a secondary source (or WP:SYNTH, also WP:WEASEL).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific when claiming systemic bias?

There's already a talk page section specifically about that James Delingpole article above, (#James Delingpole quotes). He's not neutral, nor uninvolved with the alt-right. As I've already said, that article is self-contradictory, and his comments were specifically about a flash-in-the pan incident regarding his "friend and colleague Milo Yiannopoulos", who is also involved and non-neutral. Directly quoting the word "fissiparous" would be pretentious and verbose, as well. Using his opinion piece without that surrounding context to present a controversial claim as fact would be far, far worse, than the Weasels we have now. Grayfell (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

SPLC PeterTheFourth

Please stop removing pertinent information on the SPLC just because you do not agree with it. I listed numerous sources to show their bias and attacks on those they disagree with, including the FBI dropping them as unreliable.Hmmreally (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if those were reliable sources, which they are not, this isn't the right way to add this content because it's non-neutral and contains editorializing. It's not the right place, either, as this would have to be established clearly at the SPLC's article first (which I think you already know isn't going to happen). Third, it's factually incorrect: [1] [2], which makes this whole thing a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your true assertion that the article on SPLC being protected so as to NOT show it's political bias against those it does not agree with, (which shows the article is POV) and the fact I did list an article where a judge REBUKED SPLC for not even practicing law in a forthright manner, shows that this article is biased. I thought that all articles are suppose to be unbiased. You may not be able to see the left wing POV in the article, but I most certainly can. I will no longer edit this article to remove left wing POV because it is clear that it will remain.Hmmreally (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not protected, but the IP recently edit-warring to cram garbage sources into it got blocked. Interesting thing to get confused about, though. Grayfell (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's going to take a lot more than this to classify SPLC as a hate group. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Presidential Campaign

Hillary Clinton is set to make a dog whistle speech in Reno August 25 2016 in a campaign attempt to tie Trump and his campaign advisors to the ‘alt-right’ political philosophy. Daddyojjj (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not made a specific request in the form "Please replace XX with YY" or "Please add ZZ between PP and QQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit to lede and content

Can we discuss Aquillion's recent edits - specifically whether claims should be attributed and how to phrase the association with fringe viewpoints? James J. Lambden (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Since I'm trying to untangle a bunch of edit conflicts here - do you object to the changes to the lead, to my removing some of the quotes about the Alt Right being disorganized, or both? You reverted fairly broadly, so I'm not certain which parts you object to; and they're essentially unrelated topics, so we'd need a separate discussion for each. Regarding the description of it as disorganized, I feel that the Mic and New Yorker quotes simply don't reflect prominent enough views to quote them verbatim or to put them at the top of the section - most of the sources we have now don't emphasize the idea that it is that disorganized. It's already covered further down, but I feel that given the way coverage has changed since the section was written, it no longer makes sense to lead with it or to quote those sources directly (especially since the quotes are not particularly prominent even in those sources.) That simply isn't a major aspect of how most sources discuss the Alt-Right. Regarding the lead (which, based on what you're saying here, I think is the only part you actually object to?), I was addressing objections above that we were using weasel words to characterize coverage; most of the sources used there now are news sources, so it's inappropriate to present them as opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You've restored your edits with the justification that "since based that (sic) the only objection is to the change to the lead." Nowhere in my comment do I suggest that and the title of this section, created to discuss my objection, is: Recent edit to lede and content. I'd ask you to self revert since that's a clear misunderstanding of my objection. I'm writing a response with specifics at the moment and will add it to this section. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your comment is about whether claims should be attributed and how to phrase the association with fringe viewpoints, neither of which (as far as I can tell) relates to the issue of whether the Mic and New Yorker quotes are appropriate to lead the section with. If you meant to object to that edit, I apologize, but I'm not going to self-revert until you provide at your explanation of your objections - so far, you haven't really given a reasoning for either of the two things you reverted beyond saying that you want people to discuss them (and that my edits changed the meaning, which is self-evident and obviously intentional.) As I said, I feel that the lead inappropriately characterizes news articles as opinion pieces by framing them with weasel terms, and that the old lead-in to the body put severely undue weight on two relatively minor comments relative to the rest of the section, both of which change the meaning of the article in ways that don't really reflect the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

My objections are to this series of edits [3]:

[1] They changed the text:

but various sources have said it to be associated with white nationalism, white supremacism, ...

to

but sources have described it as combining elements of white nationalism, white supremacism, ...

The phrasing in the updated statement implies each of the sources have described it as combining those elements, which isn't supported. This is repeated in the body. The previous wording does not imply that.

[2] They removed "amorphous conservative movement" and "loosely assembled" which were both specifically sourced and representative of other, existing sources.

Above you suggest the onus is mine to provide a sufficient explanation for reverting your changes, and that they should remain until it's provided. That interpretation isn't supported by policy and (again) I'd ask that you selfrevert. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're looking at the wrong policy; onus refers to providing the sources and rationale for including facts, quotes, and other things that are verifiable but which may not belong in the article; it doesn't refer to rationales for reverting. (In fact, for what it's worth for the second revert - where I removed two quotes I thought were getting WP:UNDUE weight - WP:ONUS makes it clear that the onus is on you as the person who wants them included; its point is that you can't just say "these are sourced" when the objection is that they don't deserve the level of weight they were getting.) There is no formal relevant policy for this sort of dispute over a revert, but the most high-profile essay says, in WP:REVEXP, that you should generally explain any reverts you make. Anyway, all that aside, we should probably try and reach a compromise - based on what you're saying, I think we can. If your objection to the second part is that you feel that the terms "amorphous conservative movement" and "loosely assembled" are vital, would accept describing it as a "loosely-defined conservative movement"? I don't feel those quotes are in and of themselves significant enough to be worth quoting verbatim, but if you feel that they represent a common description of the alt-right, paraphrasing them like that seems like it could get the message across without giving them the overwhelmingly heavy focus they had before (which I don't think they deserve.) The looseness of its definition is already mentioned further down, as I said in my edit, but I wouldn't object to those words near the beginning provided it wasn't a bloated set of quotations like we had before. Regarding the lead, I don't see how either version addresses the issue you have with it (your preferred version, by your interpretation, implies that all those sources have said that it is associated with all of them, right? Or do you feel that the inclusion of 'various' is sufficient to avoid that? Would you accept a compromise of my version with that word?) Most of the sources (especially the more recent and higher-profile ones) strike me as tending more towards "it is composed of these" and not "it is associated with these"; and "said it to be associated with" in particular is fairly awkward phrasing that effectively frames their description as opinions. Something like:

but various sources have described it as combining elements of white nationalism, white supremacism, ...

or

but sources have, at various points, described it as combining elements of white nationalism, white supremacism, ...

. The latter one I particularly like; unlike either of the previous versions, it makes it unequivocal that we're summarizing a variety of different views. --Aquillion (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I explained my revert in the edit summary and the section I started to discuss it. Please don't imply I didn't. You made bold edits to the article that (at least one person feels) change the meaning. I think the best way to phrase it is "various sources have associated it with ... " but please revert until there's consensus for an updated version.

NOTE: I appreciate you want your responses to be accurate and comprehensive but I can't keep responding to what you wrote, only to get an edit-conflict then have re-respond to what you edited, several times, for reach reply (it happened 3 times on this post alone.) Can you maybe hit submit once and leave it be? :) James J. Lambden (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I like "at various points" in your updated phrasing but still prefer "associated" to "combined" - I'll review the sources though and if "combined" has the most support then it's fine. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

On reviewing the sources "composed of elements" is a fair characterization. I've gone ahead an applied your updated phrasing to the lede although we should come up with a better alternative to just repeating lede content in the body (or vice-versa.) James J. Lambden (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I prefer "associated with" too, simple and represents the sources. Zaostao (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If you look up, you'll see that Lambden said they were fine with "composed of" after reviewing the sources. Beyond that, why do you feel it's necessary to quote the Associated Press and BBC verbatim? I'm happy to paraphrase them, but there's nothing particularly noteworthy about those two quotes, and we're generally supposed to paraphrase instead of quoting in a situation like that; quoting them verbatim gives too much focus to their specific descriptions, when those descriptions aren't particularly more prominent in the coverage than any of the other things the section covers. Is your objection that you don't feel that "loosely-defined conservative movement" accurately summarizes them? --Aquillion (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The assertion that the alt-right doesn't have an official ideology is consistent among virtually every source, so I think having two very brief quotes from strong sources supporting this common theme is due. Zaostao (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's consistent across every source, but it's reasonably common, yes. Why do you feel we need to quote those specific quotes verbatim rather than paraphrasing them, though? I'm happy to include the paraphrase I suggested above; my problem is that there's nothing about those specific statements that makes them noteworthy. What's your objection to my loosely-defined conservative movement paraphrasing? Do you think that it's inaccurate, or do you think that those specific quotes are important and noteworthy enough that we have to include them verbatim? --Aquillion (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The BBC quote could be dropped, it's mainly the AP quote corroborating the no official ideology claim that I was focusing on. It's due in my opinion. "loosely-defined conservative movement" is somewhat accurate, but that's essentially the BBC quote with an added, not-very-specific word. Zaostao (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2016

Under "Commentary", please change "On April 25, 2016, Democratic presidential candidate" to "On August 25, 2016, Democratic presidential candidate". This is clearly just an error in typing the month. The linked sources in the article have the correct date.

108.131.15.96 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Done The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Opposition to Political Correctness

It seems like many sources link alt-right beliefs to an opposition to political correctness, or what is sometimes more recently called Social Justice. A lot of alt-right folks (and Donald Trump, who seems to be the alt-right godfather) heavily criticize things like safe spaces and radical feminism. I've used the sixth source to add something about this.

I looked for other sources, but they tend to be mainly blogs and such, which I'd rather avoid. Anyway, I feel this is an important part of the movement. You hear things like "immigrants cause problems, sorry but I'm not PC." Anyway, I added a reference to the body and will look for more sources. Am I wrong, here? CarolOfTheForest (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I added an article from NPR that mentions this. ^Falling_Gravity 17:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Stupidity

Really guys? You use a picture of the french revolution to describe nationalism on a page about mainly trump? You must be kidding. Hell, If you place the mouse over the picture the alt text show up and says: "Liberty leading to the people" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA10:4102:1B80:CA2A:14FF:FE16:DE6C (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The alt text is what that picture is about, which is what alt text is meant to be according to 508 compliance in order to benefit people who need text to speech software to translate a page.

No shit sherlock, so the picture is about Liberty and not nationalism? Thats what the alt text say. Either the alt text is wrong or the picture has been misused

--31.10.132.250 (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as associating the picture with nationalism, the idea of liberty belongs to many political ideologies, just because its not the picture you would choose to associate with nationalism does not mean that followers of that ideology would not choose to use it to symbolize what they feel nationalism is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.207.34 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The picture comes from {{Nationalism sidebar}}, which is included on many pages relating to nationalism. clpo13_(talk) 18:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You missed the point. The article is mainly about AMERICANS, so why the fuck an french symbol? If you look up the same article in other languages, big surprise, they do not show this picture. You seem not to understand why this picture is associated with nationalism 1) Because of the flag 2) Because thats the moment where FRENCH people united against the Tyranny

--31.10.132.250 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You seem to not be educated on the workings of Wikipedia. The article is considered part of a series on nationalism. Articles that are linked to the Nationalism wiki feature that painting. It doesn't matter that the Alt-Right article is talking about American politics. The only thing that matters is the fact that the Alt-Right movement is connected to Nationalism. If you still need further help comprehending the matter I would be glad to explain it to you in simpler terms. Someguywhat (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hillary has said that Putin is the leader of the alt right

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This should be mentioned because it was said by a candidate, and for a candidate to effectively call another the puppet of a foreign leader is a pretty bold step. I trust that if Trump made such an extraordinary assertion it would be mentioned

Quote "The de facto merger between Breitbart and the Trump Campaign represents a landmark achievement for the “Alt-Right.” A fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican Party. And this is part of a broader story -- the rising tide of hardline, right-wing nationalism around the world...And the grand godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/25/hillary-clintons-alt-right-speech-annotated/

78.151.241.222 (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.241.222 (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Hillary Clinton is not a reliable source. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not think either Trump or Hillary are anything near reliable sources. But her ACCUSATION is notable. You would mention that Trump believes that vaccines cause autism or Obama was born abroad, because it helps you understand who he is, even though the beliefs are poppycock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.241.222 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Clinton's speech is very notable, and in it she made a number of claims that ought to be mentioned. Eclipsoid (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reading the quote in context, she appears to be talking about Nigel Farage and Brexit, not the alt-right. Note the ellipsis in the anon's quote. ^Falling_Gravity 06:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I put the elipsis to cut a range of quotes of Farage. Read the whole thing: she says that the alt right is fringe nationalism which has taken over the Republican Party. She says that this phenomenon exists in other countries, detailing Farage. She then says "And the grand godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin". It is well established to any reader that "this global brand of extreme nationalism" she mentions is the same thing as the movement that "rejects mainstream conservatism, promotes nationalism and views immigration and multiculturalism as threats to white identity", mentioned just before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.241.222 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a whole world away from "has said Putin is the leader of the alt right" (especially where context for alt right is as a US movement). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It's also a bunch of original research, the last thing we need to add about living people (i.e. Clinton and Putin). ^Falling_Gravity 00:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ultra right

"Alt right" is what some dunce heard. It's a made version of ultra right.--74.190.108.205 (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources appear to disagree. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:OVERCITE

Zaostao, if you belive there are too many references being used, please only remove those references in one edit whose summary is 'WP:OVERCITE'. If you also wish to change the prose, do it in another edit- that way you can properly explain the reason for your other edits in a seperate summary. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, if we are going to remove sources (which I don't feel is necessary), we need to choose which ones to include based on prominence and reliability. Obviously the New Yorker, CNN, and the Washington Post need to stay; and the Vox piece is one of the most in-depth we have, so it has to stay, too. It's silly to remove those while keeping (for example) opinion pieces, open letters and the like; sources should be removed starting with the weakest and most obscure. Several of the removed sources were among the best we have. EDIT: I went through and removed the most obvious cases where opinion-pieces seemed to be used to cite statements of fact (those are at best weak sources there). If there's still sources people object to or feel are comparatively weak, explain why here? --Aquillion (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Any more than 3 refs is superfluous, and clutters the article. Zaostao (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

All right, but as I said, we need to discuss the ones to remove; and like I said above, I feel that the Vox analysis of the Alt-Right (which you removed entirely, even from places where there were less than three) is one of the better sources and can't be taken out. Additionally, while arguing that there were too many refs, you added several to that section at the same time. If you have a problem with Vox as a source (which I feel might be the case, since you objected to using it earlier, and since your latest removal seems to have been specifically targeted at it, even in places where it was one of only two sources), please say so specifically, rather than saying that you just want to eliminate over-citation; I feel that it's one of the better sources in the section (as a reputable source that goes into further depth than most of the others), and therefore feel that it is obviously not a candidate for pruning. WP:OVERCITE sets specific criteria we're supposed to use to remove sources (low-quality, while trying to maintain a balance and to use sources that are most relevant); since it's clear we're in dispute over which sources apply, please list the sources you feel are redundant and why you feel they should be removed. Also, please use more accurate edit summaries; your edit summary here, for instance, is extremely misleading (since you made a vast revert and removed a large number of sources with the edit summary of "not really suitable for belief section".) I mean... should I go by your edit summary and assume that every change made there that wasn't to the belief section was a mistake on your part? Also, please respond to my question in the section above about your other reversions? I don't want to just change them back, but I need at least some more detailed of explanation for why you're reverting so I can try to find a compromise, and your edit summaries aren't much help. --Aquillion (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Zaostao, please discuss before removing sources, and please use more accurate edit summaries? I'm confused why you added the Financial Times (which seems like a relatively vague ref) to the section in question as a source in the same edit where you said the section was overcited; and your most recent edit removed several sources again with an edit summary of ref organizing. If you object to a ref or something, or feel one is better, discuss it in depth here so we can go over it; or at least provide some sort of rationale in your edit summary so we have something to go on and can try and reach a compromise on which refs are used where. Regarding Welton's piece, it's important (in the sense that people talked about it), but it's also written mostly in the style of an opinion piece - the Weekly Standard is intended to be "a weekly conservative magazine and blog of news and opinion" - so I feel it's a poor cite for the first sentence of the lead, especially since we have higher-profile news articles discussing the topic directly now. It's better used as a source to identify conservative opinions on the alt-right, given the publication. --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I was removing sources to bring down the number of cites to 3. I don't think vox—especially the piece with the typical millennial blogger "way, way weirder" title—is that good of a source but whatever, it's not the main source in any contentious claim and there'll probably be better sources in the future to replace it. Also, I seem to have used the 'vague' FT link by mistake, I'll replace it with the link to the full article. Zaostao (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

All right, but you just took out the Vox ref again (and, again, you didn't say you were doing so in your edit summary; by now it should be clear that removing that ref is disputed.) Why do you want to remove it? Why do you want to replace it with a ref to the Financial Times? As I've said above, I feel it's the strongest ref in the section and strongly object to its removal. If you feel the Financial Times ref is absolutely essential, I wouldn't mind going to four refs, but to me it's clearly the weakest ref in the section, with relatively little discussion of the Alt Right's beliefs as compared to the ref to Vox (which goes into the most detail on them, by far.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've gone through to remove the less useful refs myself. I explained my removals in the edit summaries, but generally speaking: Opinion pieces or anything specifically labeled as commentary is right out and can't be used there at all; if you feel they're important, they could be added to the commentary section instead. Given the level of coverage and sourcing we have now, articles that only mention the alt-right in passing are also not really things we can use, at least not there. The best articles for that section are ones that are about the Alt-Right specifically and which go into depth on its beliefs. --Aquillion (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"Reliable sources"

How is Buzzfeed considered a reliable source, but Breitbart isn't and keeps getting removed? Seems to me like the editors hear have a clear bias.--2601:980:8000:F92:A059:4A5:7DE2:71E3 (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed here before. Try WP:RSN and its archives. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed isn't a reliable source, and isn't cited in the article. Zaostao (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, Buzzfeed can be reliable depending on context. We've been over this so, so many times. See the many past discussion and respond with a new argument before removing this again, please. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't remove it. It's not a RS but fine in the commentary section. Zaostao (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Being accepted as reliable requires that publications have a consistent pattern of accuracy, which is why BuzzFeed is reliable and Breitbart is not. Breitbart does however assemble articles from reliable sources and their original work may be reported in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see Buzzfeed restored. RS, contextual, whatever, nothing requires us to use any particular source and my !vote is "leave it out." The CJR source added here however is I think the best we have so far. We should use it as a framework. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Since it's being cited as just the opinions of its author (with inline citations), the question is whether it is WP:DUE weight to mention it for a single sentence like this. That particular article actually attracted a lot of attention (it's mentioned in many of the other sources we have and in later coverage of the topic; see here, here, and here for examples.) In fact, the CJR source you want to use as a framework even mentions it, saying that: One of the first to highlight the alt-right was BuzzFeed in late 2015, describing the fringe group as “4chan-esque racist rhetoric combined with a tinge of Silicon Valley-flavored philosophizing, all riding on the coattails of the Trump boom.” So I think it's reasonable to give the article the single mention it currently has in a paragraph devoted to summarizing prominent opinions. We have better sources now, so nobody is suggesting that we use the Buzzfeed article as a framework (or even devote more than a sentence or so to it, with in-text attribution), but I feel that it's too high-profile to remove it entirely, which is why I left that single mention when I stripped out all other references to it earlier - it is really not an exaggeration to say that that article is one of the more prominent early articles written about the alt-right. --Aquillion (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If they're the first major publication to cover it, that's useful information on the wider topic, regardless of the accuracy of what they wrote. Likewise, as Breitbart is called a hub of the alt-right, their views are useful information on the subject, again, regardless of how accurate those statements are. An in-article warning may be in order, especially considering the link between alt-right and trolling... then again, considering that most RS are obviously not neutral to the alt-right, I suspect Buzzfeed and Breitbart aren't that much less reliable on this particular subject. --94.231.255.30 (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

We do cite Breitbart in the same manner, a bit further up in the section (where we summarize the opinions of Bokhari and Yiannopoulos.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Remove duplicated sentence

The sentence "The alt-right has no official ideology" appears twice in close proximity. The second instance is almost a C&P of the first. This seems bad style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwallenpoole (talk • contribs) 05:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Done, though I decided to remove the first instance of the duplicated sentence in the lede. ^Falling_Gravity 05:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed "Origins" section

The page has a "entomology" and a basic "beliefs" section, but both, I think, lack when it comes to a more detailed explanation of both. I think a section which describes the movement's origins can help add to both. Here's a draft below:

The intellectual roots of the alt-right vary widely, ranging from philosophers Oswald Spengler and Julius Evola to thinkers such as H.L. Mencken, Patrick J. Buchanan and Samuel T. Francis. The origins of the alt-right, as outlined by journalists Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos and others, are largely in Old Right of the United States as well as in various New Right movements of Europe.

The intellectual roots of the alt-Right movement very widely, ranging from Oswald Spengler of Germany and Julius Evola of Italy to American thinkers such as libertarian columnist H.L. Mencken and paleoconservatives such as Patrick J. Buchanan and Samuel T. Francis. Jeet Heer of The New Republic identified the alt-right as having ideological origins among paleoconservatives, particularly with respect to its general positions restricting immigration and foreign policy. According to anarchist theorist Jeffery Tucker, other influential thinkers among the alt-right include Friedrich Hegel, Thomas Carlyle, and Giovanni Gentile.

===The Old Right and the Nouvelle Droite===

According to conservative journalists Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos, the origins of the alt-right movement are largely in Old Right of the United States as well as in various New Right movements of Europe. In addition to paleoconservatives who supports Patrick Buchanan’s 1992 bid for the Republican presidential nomination after splitting from the neoconservative wing of American conservatism after the Cold War, other early members of what would become the alt-right movement also included thinkers who were largely inspired by the theories of European New Right, itself with its origins on the Nouvelle Droite (“New Right”) of France.

===American Renaissance===

At various conferences hosted by American Renaissance throughout the 1990s, a magazine founded in 1990 by self-described identitarian Jared Taylor, many figures of the Old Right such as Joseph Sobran, Paul Gottfried, Lawrence Auster, and Samuel T. Francis. Together with other identitarians such as Richard B. Spencer, Guillaume Faye, Alex Kurtagic, as well as Jared Taylor, American Renaissance acted as an early forum for the alt-right. Later forums included Taki’s Magazine, AlternativeRight.com, the Unz Review, and VDARE.com, which conservative journalists Milo Yiannopoulos and Allum Bokhari described as “an eclectic mix of renegades who objected to the established political consensus in some form or another.”

===Anarchism, libertarianism, and white nationalism===

The alt-right has been influenced not only by paleoconservativism and identitarianism but by anarchism and libertarianism. Significant overlap exists between individuals who have spoken at evens hosted by American Renaissance, the H. L. Mencken Club, the National Policy Institute, and the Property and Freedom Society. Of the four groups, Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer, Robert Weissberg, and Tomislav Sunić have spoken at two, Jared Taylor and Paul Gottfried have spoken at three, and Richard Spencer has spoken at all four. In addition to New Right-inspired identiarians, the intellectual origins of the alt-right also include anarchist theorists such as Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Please suggest whatever parts of it where additions/clarifications can be made. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephFrontroyal (talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

An origins section would be good, but you'd need to build it on sources like this WaPo one, not on just the Milo and Bokhari Breitbart piece and some assorted alt-right-ish sources. Zaostao (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought an overview of the alt-right from alt-right-ish sources might be a good start and then retorts from non-alt-right sources - I tried to include Heer, Tucker, and Lowry too -- could go in the "Criticism from the Right" and "Criticism from the Left" sections.

Do you have any suggestions for clarification/expansion? If so, I can re-write the draft into something more acceptable. Thanks for the input Zaostao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephFrontroyal (talk • contribs) 06:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, using retorts would almost certainly create false balance. Grouping ideologically similar source would be a judgement call, and would not be appropriate for a 'origins' section, for reasons explained at WP:CSECTION. Few of those sources are usable for the proposed content, either. Opinions about the 'roots' of the alt-right should not be presented as facts. Breitbart, Radix, and American Renaissance are all unreliable, so they should rarely be used, and never for statements of fact. Any opinions cited from them should be in direct response to something supported by a reliable source. Otherwise, there's a high risk of cherry-picking to support fringe theories or statements. Giving a platform for obscure sources to promote their specific interpretation of the movement is not neutral. The Yiannopoulos/Bokhari source has been discussed to death before, but there are many other sources specifically refuting or challenging it, from multiple political perspectives, so it cannot be used like this. Additionally, much of this is original research. "Significant overlap" should directly be established by a source, for one. A youtube playlist is totally insufficient, here. Grayfell (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Giving a platform for obscure sources to promote their specific interpretation of the movement is not neutral." If presented as the point of view of a source, and that source's relevance to the article can be established (such as American Renaissances' relevance to the alt-right), how the movement's component see themselves still contributes to the page overall. As I said before, there would presumably by two "Criticism" sections which can be hashed out later.

Other suggestions, "Origins" section draft re-writes? JosephFrontroyal (talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You've made many changes to the sources in your draft since my first comments, which should be noted, otherwise it misrepresents my response. Many of those changes introduce sourcing problems, also. The MediaMatters source, for example, doesn't mention the New Right while the majority of what it does mention hasn't been included at all. This suggests to me that you looked for sources that would support what you'd already written, which isn't going to work here. Content should reflect the sources, and if this was written based on original research or disputed sources, then substituting better sources without adjusting content is worse than nothing, since it implying that the sources support something they do not.

Your proposal only sometimes presents the points of view of the sources as such. Many of these statements are taken at face value as facts. "The intellectual roots of the alt-Right movement very widely..." for example. How widely? According to who? I don't see this as being 'wide' in a meaningful sense, so this seems subjective. Some of these influences are also vague, and seem like name-dropping. This needs context, otherwise it's not really informative. For dead people, the 'lineage' has to be either traced by a reliable source, or cautiously presented as an opinion. For example, mentioning Mencken (which also is not supported by the attached source) gives a degree of heft to the movement without offering very much information. Substituting Plato would be just as true and say just as little, wouldn't it? Modern proponents tend to stick to a walled-garden of pseudo-academic fringe websites and podcasts, but we need to explain that before just listing them, otherwise it's still WP:FRINGE, as well as being empty flattery.

The entire "overlap" section should go unless there is a reliable, independent source making that observation in regard to the alt-right. Otherwise it's WP:OR. Citing event listings to claim a commonality is WP:SYNTH. There is overlap, but Wikipedia isn't the right place to make that conclusion for multiple reasons.

Having two criticism sections doesn't really solve the problem. Determining the left-right ideology of each critic is not always simple and is usually subjective, and the political position of the critic doesn't automatically reflect on the substance or quality of their criticism. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, Grayfell, an overview of the alt-right from alt-right sources would be a good start -- one immediately to be followed by retorts from non-alt-right sources such as Heer, Tucker, and Lowry. They would go in "Criticism from the Right" and "Criticism from the Left" sections. Your critiques would be better spent drafting those three sections.

The fact that a better source was found after a first draft was written is irrelevant.

Do please try to suggest a better draft. This is where that's supposed to happen. Hair-splitting over who's biased towards what really adds nothing. Like I said, the various biases will go on in their respective sections -- "Origins," to largely show the alt-right's view of itself, as well as "Criticism from the Right" and "Criticism from the Left."

I look forward to seeing another draft presented. JosephFrontroyal (talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to explain why the premise of your proposal is flawed. I don't think an overview of the alt-right from alt-right sources is a good start. Too many of those sources are unreliable, many are contradictory, and figuring out which qualify as being alt-right and which don't would require independent sources anyway. Wikipedia strongly favors independent and secondary sources for many reasons. I don't think retorts are a good idea, and I don't think having two 'opposed' criticism sections is neutral or appropriate. I don't trust you, or myself, or any other editor to determine which sources are right and which are left, and even making that distinction at all seems like a bad, bad idea. What would that accomplish other than suggesting false balance? We should contextualize sources, but lumping them into two opposed categories is needlessly polarizing. It's inviting readers to pick their pony based on our own subjective opinions, rather than letting them assess the criticisms on their own merits. Since the underlying approach seems unworkable for multiple reasons, I see no point in proposing a better draft. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Reply to Grayfell,

Wikipedia already has pages which contrasts different schools of one movement, such as the Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism page, and already cites unreliable sources themselves for information specifically on those sources, such as the National Policy Institute and [[American Renaissance.

I see no reason why supposedly false-opposite sources cannot be assembled in a format similar to the Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism page nor why sources, reliable or not but defiantly original, cannot be used if only to provide one point of few on the subject vis-à-vis National Policy Institute and [[American Renaissance.

If you don't want to suggest another draft, alright. Do try to contribute rather than prevent am expanded page instead of keeping the terse, simplified, and comparatively uninformative page currently posted. I'm still looking forward to future drafts -- and to constructive criticism as to how those drafts may be improved.

JosephFrontroyal (talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot at least acknowledge the substance of what I've been saying, I don't think any criticism will be interpreted as constructive. Anyway, constructive criticism is obligatory for personal projects, but this is not a personal project, this is a collaborative one. Your proposals damage the article, and I see no valid reason to pretend otherwise. What you are suggesting would undermine the work others have put into the article. There are far too many sourcing, editorializing, and redundancy problems with your proposals. Many of the sources you added did not actually support the attached content. Much of what you wrote was redundant and verbose. Additionally, your wording presented opinions as facts and cited blatantly unreliable sources. Etc. Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism is a bad example for comparison. For one thing WP:OTHERSTUFF, but for another, it's an article specifically about two ideologies which are specifically characterized by many reliable sources as being in opposition to each other. Additionally, that article has its own problems, and has been tagged since 2008, making it a poor goal to shoot for. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Alt-right" is a thing?

WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it anything more than Newspeak invented by the Clinton campaign? 71.173.17.224 (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC) I suggest you read the article, especially the section Etymology, where usage by various conservative groups and people is noted. clpo13(talk) 16:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC) this sounds like a manufactured self identity. like pink-mafia https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=webhp&tbm=isch&sa=1&btnG=Search&q=pink-mafia or pink-nazi https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=webhp&tbm=isch&sa=1&btnG=Search&q=pink+nazi no one actually ever called themselves this term. it's creation is not unlike racism, complete with: prejudice, designations, and sterotypification. this entire topic is wp:synth or just plain projection. 107.77.206.155 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Antifeminism

The alt-right's antifeminism and support of patriarchy and traditional gender roles should be mentioned. "The so-called online “manosphere,” the nemeses of left-wing feminism, quickly became one of the alt-right’s most distinctive constituencies."[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congruent snackbar (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I bet there are reliable sources discussing this point, and likely some already used in the article, but Breitbart isn't one of them. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, most sources about the alt-right will be primary sources. It's the same problem that arises with the manosphere. If the mainstream media and academia don't want to cover something, then Wikipedia will tend not to cover it either. Therefore, if you're in the MSM or academia, then for purposes of getting a movement (or an aspect of a movement) ignored by Wikipedia, it's better to ignore it than to criticize it. Congruent snackbar (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

See the already linked neoreactionary movement. Zaostao (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Prominent figures

The two subsections on philosophers in the prominent figures section are entirely unsourced (with the exception of one dead link, lists a number of people who are not philosophers (Vox Day, really?) and provides no context for their inclusion. Is Hegel listed because Gottfied's The Search for Historical Meaning: Hegel and the Postwar American Right supposedly influenced the alt-right? The section needs clean-up and context. As it is, it cannot stand and ought to be removed. Mduvekot (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It was a mess of WP:OR, so I removed it. Also, the content should be presented, if at all, with context and attribution, making a bland list inappropriate. The image of Thomas Carlyle was especially odd, since the article doesn't explain how he's connected, but he died over a hundred years before the movement formed. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2016

I would like to include source from the Michigan Review on Wikipedia's description of the alt-right. I would like to use the cited source from the Review to support the claims that the alt-right endorses natvism and that it spawned on websites like 4chan. Thanks http://www.michiganreview.com/demystifying-alt-right/

The alt-right has no official ideology, although various sources have said that it is associated with white nationalism,[1][2][6] white supremacism,[3][7][8] antisemitism,[1][2][9] right-wing populism,[6] nativism,[10] and the neoreactionary movement.[7][11]

The alt-right has been said to be a largely online movement with Internet memes widely used to advance or express its beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan.[7][9][12]

Kl793 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that would be an improvement. Opinion pieces are not ideal for statements of fact. Being a college paper doesn't help, either. The Michigan Review may be usable in some situations, but to avoid WP:CITECLUTTER this probably isn't necessary here. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

More bias resolution

In an effort to reduce the amount of bias on this article, I've changed up the sections some. Beliefs are now in the Beliefs section and opinionated criticisms are now in the Criticisms (previously Reactions) section. Part of the issue with bias in this article is that it is sourced almost exclusively by opinion pieces (as opposed to strictly fact-based articles) from critics (and not supporters). If most of the sources are biased, of course the article is going to be biased. Vektor00 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As has already been discussed here at length, criticism should not be confined to one section, as that is less neutral. Removing unflattering comments as you did only increases bias. The lead is intended to be a summary of the body, so some redundancy is expected. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION says that a criticism section "may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." It only discourages, not prohibits, a Criticism section. This is within guidelines.

The article currently implies that not only are those on the alt-right white supremacists and etc., but also will admit to and be proud of it. You cannot honestly tell me that is less biased. The very fact that there are so many claims of bias on this article should be enough evidence that it is too biased in its current state. Vektor00 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Vektor00: Be that as it may, please avoid reverting to your preferred version when someone has disputed your changes (see WP:BRD). Wikipedia operates more on consensus among editors than strict policy. clpo13_(talk) 21:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Apologies. Vektor00 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

While I believe having a criticism section is well within policy, I believe instituting one in this article reduces the quality and informativeness of it. It reads much better to see the 'bad' along with the 'good' as you are reading through an article, and it makes more sense to me to mention these things as they come up rather than saving them all up for a separate area. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but the problem is that there is very little "good" in this article to balance out the "bad." The term "alt-right" is used almost exclusively pejoratively. There are only two ways to avoid bias: have separate sections, or have one section with equal parts positive and negative. Since we do not have have enough positive to balance out the negative, I've recommended separate sections, at least for now. Vektor00 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

We should not be worrying about 'balancing out' negative parts- we should simply follow the reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:RSOPINION, the majority of the sources used are opinions and therefore not reliable as subject matter sources. It is not clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Vektor00 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not what WP:RSOPINION says. What sources are being used for statements of fact that you believe should not be? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Just curious, was this article written by Hilary Clinton's people or something? If any of you care to bother looking up "what is alt right" in Google trends you'll see quite clearly that everyone googled this after hilary used the term. Real problem huh? This should be covered, there IS NO alt right. It's a made up term from Hilary Clinton. There's a large group a people who feel this way. Please talk about it. Wiki is not Hill dog property ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.225.203 (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Everything in the article that predates Clinton's speech was just made up. The term certainly wasn't used as far back as 2008 or anything. Seriously though, there was a spike in searches for the term after Clinton used it on August 25 (you can even see a spike in this page's views: [5]), but the term has been used by various groups (both conservative and liberal) long before that. clpo13_(talk) 23:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Most of the current article was written before Hillary's speech. We added several new sources after that, since the term got a lot more coverage afterwards (which is hardly surprising when a major party's presidential candidate gives a speech about it), but for the most part that coverage was in line with what was written about it before, so it didn't really lead to much of a change in the article's content. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Vector's suggestions for the article. TweedVest (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

8chan

I previously added information about 8chan and the alt right and it was removed. Benjamin (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Memes: Pepe the Frog

Please don't remove the material on the meme from this article, it is fairly short, while it is true it likely should not dominate the Pepe article, they removed a bit too much of it there. I had one problem I could find a good source for the Kek meme, people are posting "Praise Kek" all over the internet, and I had no idea what it meant. It should be explained. Doktor Faustus (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There's way too much weight given to a cartoon frog and some of the sources aren't usable. Zaostao (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I found better sources, but I'm not sure it's worth mentioning at all. The "praise Kek" bit in particular seems unrelated to its use in alt-right circles (as the WaPo piece notes, it has been used for a variety of things at different times.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Pepe the Frog had already made it in mainstream media reports well before the Clinton website posted about it, See "All In With Chris Hayes, Transcript, 7/7/2016" [6] and "How Pepe the Frog Became a Nazi Trump Supporter and Alt-Right Symbol" [7] I will agree that the examples (while useful) can be left out, but the person yelling "pepe" during Clinton's alt-right speech noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktor Faustus (talk • contribs) 07:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't agree that the person who yelled "pepe" is newsworthy. Independent Journal Review is a fairly opinionated source (they're intended to be basically a right-leaning version of BuzzFeed and RedState); we would need more coverage from a mainstream source to mention it, given its extremely low profile as an event. Compare to the coverage of how the media attention was a response to Hillary mentioning it, which is overwhelming, heavy, and goes across several mainstream sources - all of which extensively document how the meme reached its current level of discussion, and none of which seem to mention the yell. --Aquillion (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Current text, short and without using any sources objected to earlier. Doktor Faustus (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"Pepe the Frog memes are also popular leading references to "Nazi Frogs" in the media and internet, which attracted more media attention after "Pepe" was yelled at Hillary Clinton's Alt-right speech and it was criticized by her campaign."

This article is full of disinformation

The alt right is not a racist or white nationalist group. It is a group of people who reject views that the traditional neocon right wing holds. Anyone of any race can be alt right you just have to reject the standard leftist narrative that both parties push. How can you list mainstream media as a reliable source when they are wrong and don't know what they are talking about. The alt right is about rejecting globalism and leftist dogma, the left has only pushed the narrative that it is a racist movement because they want everyone who isn't white to believe they are a victim so they may further push globalism. I repeat people of any race can be a member of the alt right there is no racial agenda it is for anyone who loves their country and holds right wing views that aren't in line with the current neocon hijacking of the right wing. Seriously get your shit together and stop getting your information from buzzfeed and other mainstream biased trash.

142.241.254.68 (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR: "Anyone I disagree with is wrong and unreliable." See WP:The Truth. clpo13_(talk) 19:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, the article never definitively states the alt-right is racist or white nationalist, since it's a loose collection of people and not a monolithic group with solidly defined beliefs. It's been associated with such ideologies, however, whether you want to admit it or not. Even Breitbart acknowledges that: [8], specifically the section about "1488rs"). clpo13_(talk) 19:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

So why are all the sources mentioning it's ties to "anti-Semitism", "white nationalism" are all from Soros funded leftist media. People, CNN and the New York times are all bought and paid for by the same investors. How can you be so ready to cite them as reliable sources, they are bought and paid for and have an agenda. They don't report facts they tell stories. Traditional mainstream media is a bunch of old people afraid of losing their jobs because their industry is going down the toilet and they are fighting so hard to remain relevant at all even if it means making up blatant lies. The movement is about rejecting what are seen as traditionally right wing values and nothing more. There is no hidden Nazi agenda despite how bad you want to believe your Clinton News Network.

142.241.254.68 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"Clinton News Network", "Soros funded". Man, it's blatantly obvious what agenda you're pursuing. If you have something worthwhile to say about improving the article, say it. If you're just here to bitch about mainstream media, Wikipedia is definitely not the place for you. clpo13_(talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't really follow right wing news either just go to the top of all media and see where the money comes from. This isn't right wing conspiracy theory it's observable fact. The mainstream media is in its death throes and to even begin to think they have any credibility left is naïve. The media is afraid of losing their jobs because they are irrelevant and you want to cite them as credible sources. The are so out of touch with reality nobody trusts them anymore so why should Wikipedia. Edit: Just look at them talk about memes it's embarrassing. Pepe the frog a white nationalist. A bunch of senior citizens all out of touch with what is really going on.

142.241.254.68 (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Too much name calling and not enough information in this article, more primary source material would be helpful. The article on Paleoconservatism would be a good model to use for a re-write Doktor Faustus (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources, especially for controversial content. Primary sources must still be reliable, also. If reliable sources are describing the alt-right in unflattering terms, so be it. If the problem is the name calling itself, Wikipedia articles shouldn't use euphemisms. (Wouldn't that just match the alt-right's definition of "political correctness"?) Since paleoconservatism has a much longer history and much greater depth of sources, mentioning that article as a model while providing no other comparisons offers no usable information on how to actually improving this article. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter whether mainstream media are biased or wrong. Wipedia policy is that articles will be based on that type of source. If you do not like its policies then get them changed. There are wiki encyclopedias, such as Conservapedia, that have different policies on sourcing and balance and provide a different narrative. TFD (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Kek worship

The alt-right seems increasingly to be characterized by worship of the ancient Egyptian frog-god Kek, with Pepe seen as a representation of him. This piece from an alt-right website is an example, but I haven't yet found any mainstream sources discussing the Kek phenomenon, although I suspect it's only a matter of time. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

its obviously a joke and the people who wrote it are so hoping someone takes it seriously. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)