Talk:Dark Enlightenment

Does this warrant an article?

Probably should be in the "21st century" section of Reactionary. Else more should be pulled out of there to here, with that as a short summary and this as the main article - David Gerard (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a specific subset of neo-reactionaries that has garnered some considerable coverage in journals and newspapers. It is also the topic of a lot of discussion in the blogosphere, although that mostly does not meet WP:RS. My gut says it warrants a stand alone article, however if there is going to be a merger I would say that it should have its own subjection under 21st Century. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Subset? It's much of a muchness as far as I can tell (from following them with some amusement, rather than with anything like a Wikipedia-quality RS) - "neoreaction" and "dark enlightement" seem approximately interchangeable in the sphere itself, though tending to the former. YMMV I suppose. Let's see how it goes as a separate article - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've put "neoreactionary" as a bold header here and redirected the relevant topics here. The paragraph in reactionary should largely be shifted here and a better summary written for that article section - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Conservatism category

I don't think having the "Conservatism" series is appropriate. Is there any reliable source putting this in the conservative movement or worldview more than any other?73.172.99.131 (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that reactionary political view are generally considered a subset of the broader notion of conservatism. Certainly classical Toryism (monarchism) is so regarded in Britain and most of Europe. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If there were a separate "reactionary" subcategory of conservatism, this would definitely go there. Do we have enough for such a subcat? - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we are getting pretty close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Radical Traditionalism

Radical traditionalism seems to be a perfect fit here for the "See also" section. Any disagreements? 2601:A:6200:AAC:190F:99B4:7633:28C1 (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's good for See Also. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Enlightenment

May want to add some comparisons to the original Enlightenment and what features of that which DE advocates reject. For example, some of Hoppe's fundamentals:

"the natural equality of all men; the view that all legitimate political power must be "representative" and based on the consent of the people; and a liberal interpretation of law which leaves people free to do whatever the law does not explicitly forbid"

I believe they reject at least those three principles. Especially the first.

J1812 (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but do we have RSes? 'Cos at the moment this article is very skimpy on RSes, and rather more like a semi-vanity piece on a not-actually-very-notable Internet subculture. Needs the RSes - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

e.g. the EL forest, which I've cut down. Moldbug is frequently cited in RSes as the source of neoreaction as we know it, so his blog is arguably relevant; he and others cite the also-notable Hoppe, the libertarian whose desired end point was feudalism; but WP:EL is really quite harsh on what rates an EL, and a lot of what was here really doesn't rate it - David Gerard (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The naming takes an opinion on the matter

The term "Dark Enlightenment" was coined by author and philosopher Nick Land as a satirical play on words for the knowledge supposedly gained from the Enlightenment and lost during the Dark Ages.

it appears to take a stance on the subject using the title

71.105.96.61 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It's probably the most commonly accepted term used by subscribers. That's usually what we go with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with OP that the name "Dark Enlightenment" is both confusing and non-NPOV. The political philosophy is typically referred to as the Neoreactionary Movement by both subscribers of it and critics of it. [1][2][3][4] User:Stephen Balaban - blog

Moving article.

[1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement [2] http://home.earthlink.net/~peter.a.taylor/moldbug.htm [3] http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/ [4] http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Balaban (talk • contribs) 18:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Dark Enlightenment not Neoreaction?

It is not clear that these terms are interchangeable. Apparently there are people who claim to be part of the Dark Enlightenment but who do not identify as neoreactioneries. More sources needed? 2003:5B:4B0C:7CB2:64B:80FF:FE80:8003 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Many use it interchangeably, some prefer one or the other. There's also the overlapping "alt-right", which is (approximately) white nationalism with some neoreactionary jargon thrown in. The trouble is that stuff meeting WP:RS is extremely thin on the ground, and we'd be reduced to synthesising an original-research article from individual NRx/DE blogs - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The terms "Dark Enlightenment" and "Neoreaction" are not interchangeable. The Dark Enlightenment encompasses a wide array of thinking and advocacy, while Neoreaction is a very narrow, purportedly philosophical school of thought. This network map as found there and elsewhere (original source not available) provides a good outline of "Dark Enlightenment," while Neoreaction occupies mostly the portions on the left-hand side of the network map, with a explicit Roman Catholic and Monarchist associations. I recommend re-naming the article to "Neoreaction." Voodooengineer (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yarvin and OpenWave

There's remaining evidence on the web he worked on it, though he didn't write the whole thing. Anyone know of anything that clearly sets it out? - David Gerard (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking at http://www.japaninc.com/ww49 he did a lot of work on it (and there's a lot of WAP related patents with his name on them) but the claim in the article was an overstatement, so I've removed it. And that article is literally the only thing approaching WP:RS on the matter, on a Google for "yarvin openwave" - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiple groups ?

Should this article be portraying multiple groups or as a loose term ?

I saw at theawl it portrayed not as a single "the movement" terms this article uses, but as a general grouping label, "less a single ideology than a loose constellation of far-right thought, clustered around three pillars: religious traditionalism, white nationalism, and techno-commercialism ". The Telegraph cite says similar, and the TechCrunch cite portrays it as lightly insulting term crafted by folks who dislike, and Spectator says the only unity is a discontent ...

In any event it seems not a "group" with membership or leaders, not a "movment" as something planned so suggestions for improvment please. Would the article do better to say it is "a broad term for" or something like that ? Markbassett (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not such a broad term. Mostly it's a small Internet subculture. (Although the alt-right end (an odd cross of white nationalism and NRx jargon) did have a mainstream memetic success with "cuckservative".) Maybe a cluster is a better description - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

David Gerard - so what instead of movement in "reactionary movement that broadly rejects egalitarianism and Whig historiography. The movement favors a return to" ? I'm thinking that word is not a good match to cites and does not fit Webster "a series of organized activities working toward an objective", and it really is not a group in the sense of a membership list. Should the lede perhaps say the term is some mix of 'subculture' or 'general term' ? Markbassett (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Fusionism?

I am going to remove the "Fusionism" link in the See Also section, unless someone has a compelling reason to keep it. The views of William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan have approximately nothing to do with the neoreactionary system of ideas. I mean, come on. Fusionism is just mainstream American conservatism. Pretendus (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Religion

David Gerard, why do you say a pile of traditionalist Catholics are in the Dark Enkightenment? What's your evidence?

According to the first reference found in The Baffler, "some are atheists".

According to the article by Nick Land, one of the leaders (Mencius Moldbug) is an atheist.

I don't think the movement supports religion.

69.127.248.215 (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• There are also many LaVeyan Satanists in the movement (such as Davis Aurini). Arguably Anton LaVey himself was a proto-neoreactionary; The Satanic Bible was essentially plagiarized from Might Is Right by Ragnar Redbeard.

Anders Breivik arguably anticipated the movement too; Breivik was agnostic about the existence of God but supported the Catholic Church because he believed it was the only force that could unify Europe (ignoring, of course, the fact that its actual membership is overwhelmingly non-European). The belief that traditional religion is a "noble lie"; not actually true, but sociologically useful and good for pacifying the masses (to paraphrase Karl Marx), seems common to a lot of these people due to their elitist and almost gnostic tendencies. I will edit the article to clarify this fact (that they may view certain religions as a good thing in society, but do not in general believe religious doctrines to be actually true, and they view "true believers" as superstitious degenerates). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you give examples of people within the Dark Enlightenment movement who view religion as a noble lie? Did Dark Enlightenment figures praise Breivik? Do LaVeyan Satanists think religion is societally useful?69.127.248.215 (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Vox Day is a big fan of Breivik: [1]. Mencius Moldbug has also expressed a sympathetic view of him. [2]. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The American Spectator ref specifically says: "They are Tridentine Catholic or Eastern Orthodox in religion, or else hard materialists." This seems accurate to me - I haven't encountered the Orthodox ones, but there's a pile of tradcats who buy into the DE. The religion as socially useful thing sounds very plausible to me, but we need a cite for this so I've marked it accordingly - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The source says: "or else hard materialists." So the movement is not clearly pro- or anti-religious. If you have no reference for your statement about religion being socially useful we shouldn't include it.69.127.248.215 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, lots of hard materialists. But the religious contingent do exist and it's part of their DE-ness. I concur we need a source on merely positing it as instrumentally useful - @FiredanceThroughTheNight:? - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the proposed addition is inappropriate because:

1. LaVeyan Satanists do not think religion is societally useful.
2. Any Christians within the movement (and you say there are piles of them) would not think religion is a pious fiction.
3. You have no source for your theory about pious fictions.
4. One of the leaders of the movement, Nick Land, is strongly anti-Christian. See: http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/198384.Nick_Land 69.127.248.215 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Fundamentalism

Does anyone have a source for the neoreactionary ideology having any connection whatsoever? If not, I am going to remove the entry in "See Also." Pretendus (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

About some of the references

Dear Wikipedia,

do you really consider sound practice to include as "references" some article that simply expresses biased opinions as though they were "facts"? I mean, if a journalist is clearly a left-winger, how can one expect objectivity when he discusses an anti-cultural-marxism sub-culture? Reference sections should be authoritative and credible, you know...

Otherwise, keep up the good work! Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.20.137 (talk • contribs)

Because they're the coverage we have from reliable sources. If a given source's actual claims are in fact provably systematically incorrect, that would be a different matter. But there's absolutely no requirement for the authors of sources to have the same views as the (decidedly fringe) political grouping they're covering - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Title of the page

I think that this article should be titled "Neoreaction" rather than "Dark Enlightenment". My rationale:

1) Dark Enlightenment applies mostly to Nick Land and his fans. This is like titling this page "formalism", coined by moldbug. Formalism & DE apply to subsets of the movement. Neoreaction is a broad term.

2)Dark Enlightenment is definitely the lesser used of the two, both in ordinary discourse and among journalists (in the US at least). I don't have an hard evidence for this so it is, for now, clearly the weaker of the 2 points — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.229.223 (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Could have been either really, was created as "Dark Enlightenment" first. I'd slightly prefer we keep "Dark Enlightenment", it's somewhat broader than "neoreaction" (I have nothing of RS quality, but in discussions with the SF end of neoreaction they disclaim things like the alt-right which Nick Land has tried neologising as "heroic reaction" ... it's in flux really) - David Gerard (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Page move to Neoreaction

The majority of reliable sources seem to use the phrasing "neoreaction" or "neoreactionary movement". I'd support moving the page to either of these locations. Any thoughts? Denarivs (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. I asked for more evidence a couple of weeks ago, but no further conversation has ensued. With the weak oppose and a couple of "slight preference" for current title, I don't see a strong consensus here. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Dark Enlightenment → Neo-reactionary movement – More popular term Deku-shrub (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC) --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• No objection, either is fine as primary location. I slightly prefer "Dark Enlightenment" but ehh whatever. I'd suggest "Neoreactionary movement" without the hyphen - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose In my experience the term Dark Enlightenment is the one preferred and more commonly used by those who subscribe to the philosophy. However my evidence for this is, admittedly, anecdotal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• No objection, agree with David Gerard. Also, I guess it'd be more clearly representing what the ideology is to somebody who doesn't know what the Dark Enlightenment means. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Relisting comment - it would be useful to see some more solid evidence on this. @Deku-shrub: you say that the proposed term is "more popular". Can you point to some evidence for that? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• No objection, agree with David Gerard, Connor Machiavelli, and Amakuru. Amakuru, please do a search on these pages for the terms "Dark Enlightenment" and "Neoreactionary", you'll see that the term "neoreactionary" is strongly preferred and "neoreactioary movement" appears more frequently. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com, http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/, http://home.earthlink.net/~peter.a.taylor/moldbug.htm, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement User:Stephen Balaban - blog 18:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please Fix Inaccuracy

Hello Wikipedia editors; my name is Justine Tunney. I've noticed that this article makes an incorrect claim about me. I'd like to point out that I'm not associated with the Dark Enlightenment. I am not a "neoreactionary." I have never been any such thing. Here's proof: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9703134 I've talked to people who've identified with these terms. But certainly talking to people isn't grounds for inclusion in a Wikipedia article that could be potentially damaging to my reputation. Furthermore, the reference that's being used to back up this claim is a smear piece. It was written by Arthur Chu, who is a man well-known for being a biased political partisan. The article he wrote about me in the Daily Beast makes such absurd, ridiculous, and unsubstantiated claims, that no reasonable person could possibly interpret it as anything other than a work of pure fiction. Certainly Wikipedia would not want to cite such untrustworthy content. -Jartine (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. It looks like the focus will be on the unreliability of this piece by Arthur Chu. Since I can't find specifically whether The Daily Beast is considered a reliable source, nor is opinion apparently separated from fact, I believe the focus will have to be on the reliability of the daily beast.

Another short term approach - is there any reliable source you refuting this position? Framing this as 'Arthur Chu claimed X but was since refuted...' can be done with such a rebuttal. Deku-shrub (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems obvious that there's major WP:BLP issues here to hang an accusation like this off a single source. Political stances aren't the same as, say, embarrassing incidents like getting arrested; barring rare circumstances, the person themself is the authoritative voice for their own opinions. This goes double for fringe groups. I'd say remove the sentence from the article entirely, and it's rather alarming for the veracity of the rest of the article that one of the main standard-bearers of the movement apparently doesn't even think they're part of it. (If there are a lot of sources on Jartine's membership and/or this is a notable topic of debate, then it might be fine to explain the debate with the proviso that the person themself disagrees with it, but right now there's just a single source tying her in, yet she's prominently in the 2nd paragraph. Yikes.) SnowFire (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Deku-shrub, please see the ycombinator link I provided. It links to to numerous tweets sent out on my twitter account over the years, plainly stating that I'm not a neoreactionary. Some of these tweets predate Arthur Chu's smear piece. As SnowFire said, I'm probably the best source you have available for mine own opinions. Thank you for being understanding. I really wish I understood why media sites have been so persistent in saying untrue things about me. This has been going on for almost three years now. I'm just an ordinary woman who has a job writing code for a tech company. Jartine (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. We don't really need it and unless it can be solidly established at not an infringement of WP:BLP it's best 'err' on the side of caution. If anyone feels it should be replaced I strongly feel it should be discussed at WP:BLPN first. Not all reliable sources are always right. Doug Weller talk 07:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Tunney has advised people to read Moldbug, but has consistently asserted she's not part of NRx or the DE. Note that Chu's article at no point calls Tunney a neoreactionary, it talks about a larger political cluster that it places Tunney, neoreactionaries, MRAs and various other factions in; it's a source to apply carefully if at all for this article - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

My concerns

The American Spectator is a blog. The Baffler appears to be a satirical, pundit site, which does not bode well for consideration as reliable. And the Daily Telegraph article link appears to be broken. Besides that, it appears a couple of descriptions were cherrypicked to WP:COATRACK the article lead with criticisms. Support for monarchism and traditional gender role? Unfounded, super minority, fringe views on the characteristics of the movement. Some critics have labeled it neo-fascist? Yea, a lot of critics label a lot of things, but those labels don't end up in article leads, especially when there is (if the link not working is entirely on my side) only one source that mentioned it in passing. That is undue weight, and poor attribution of the article. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that The Baffler is a first and foremost a print magazine. I was holding a copy in my hands just last week. To call it a "satirical pundit site" is a mis-characterization. Political analysis is very much its "core business". I would consider it a reliable source. And just in case this wasn't completely obvious, the American Spectator is also a print magazine. It's been in print for almost a century. Mduvekot (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything that remotely qualifies as a COATRACK. We don't exclude criticism from the article lead on any subject. This is an article about a fairly fringe political movement, most of whose adherents are quite open about their views which are IMO fairly represented. One could also peruse the primary source blogs run by the NRx crowd for confirmation of this. Nor is this an attack. I am a monarchist and I don't consider the term to be a pejorative. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Then this article should state that it is a pejorative term. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Why, when it is not? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The term was created by people who are critics of the alt-right movement, yes? In an insulting manner? DaltonCastle (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not really a coherent claim - we don't add to well-cited descriptions "and they meant it negatively" - David Gerard (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually the term "Dark Enlightenment" (assuming this is what we are talking about) was coined by one of the founders of the movement and is widely embraced by its adherents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying Nick Land is a member? DaltonCastle (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a political party with dues paying members. But yes, he is a prominent proponent and neo-reactionary theorist. Have you read his essay The Dark Enlightenment? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If you wanted to claim that the inventor of the term is not part of it, you could claim that I suppose ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian is NOT "right-wing".

I am getting really tired of seeing this kind of thing on Wikipedia.

Libertarianism is neither Right-wing or Left-wing, and is definitely not "conservative". Leftists tend to confuse it with right-wing because Libertarians are for small government, but it has few other similarities to the political "right" or conservatism.

Therefore the statement "coupled with Libertarian or otherwise right-wing or conservative" is wildly inaccurate. The use of "otherwise" lumps libertarianism in with right-wing and conservatism, which is simply incorrect. This sentence seems to be trying to say "anything but Left". But it does so in an egregiously erroneous way. -- Jane Q. Public (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You probably need to talk to Murray Rothbard about it first - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That comment was uncalled for, and also inaccurate. Murray Rothbard's ideas were important to Austrian economics, but he was never a mainstream "Libertarian". He was always on the fringes and in fact he eventually left the Libertarian Party, where he was never comfortable, to form his own real right-wing movement.

Please research your subject before attempting snide comments. That one failed. -- Jane Q. Public (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing and external links

Moldbug's blog has been attested as important to the subject in sufficient RSes to put in, and Land's paper named the movement, but I can't see random blog sources as being a good idea unless they're attested in multiple RSes as being very important sources on the topic. So I would be strongly against linking just blogs even if they claim to be a good directory page, unless they have such an attestation.

Scott Alexander's Anti-Reactionary FAQ would be a nice one to link ... if it has attestation in RSes. Does it? - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2016

Dark Enlightenment → Neoreactionary movement

We should move this page to maintain NPOV. User:Stephen Balaban - blog 00:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment How? Please make your case. Also, given the last discussion was just a few months ago, you should probably address all points raised therein - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Here's the problem: the sources given above by the OP do not appear to be reliable. A search on Google Scholar does turn up more sources for "neoreactionary;" however, most of the articles use the term fleetingly, not defining it, or are using it to describe aspects of reactionary modernism, the philosophical underpinnings of which are not represented in this article (which may be part of the problem). It looks like the article has been previously purged of blog sources, so I don't think we should necessarily be adding more now. I'm looking at academic sources and I found a couple that attributed Curtis Yarvin as a NR, and a couple that attributed him with the DE. The other "forerunners" named in the article, I couldn't find anything. I'm somewhat inclined to support the move because the new title seems more accurate, but I would do so only if we can nail down some solid sources that clearly identify the people and philosophy in this article as neoreactionary. Otherwise if we did the move as it stands, down the line someone might want to move the article back to Dark Enlightenment and point to a lack of sources describing it as neoreactionary - and they'd be right. As it stands, we're at a wash. We may also wish to describe how this philosophy has seemingly arisen in tandem across Europe, the US and Australia (and how they differ, for example I don't believe Yarvin subscribed to monarchism, AFAIK). Here are the sources I found with Yarvin mentioned with the neoreactionary term: https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=629207990052763;res=IELLCC , http://ywcct.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/270.short . FWIW, a google scholar search for "neoreactionary movement" turns up quite a few articles on neoconservatism, which would seem to be an altogether different animal. Also, I don't quite understand the NPOV concerns raised by the OP. We need to look at what reliable sources say. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This was proposed less than six months ago and the discussion was closed with no consensus. I see no compelling argument being presented that is likely to establish a consensus this time around. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I've written previously, above, that Neo-Reaction is a subset of Dark Enlightenment. Neo-Reaction, so or similarly titled, is a movement with depth of content at this time, but perhaps lacks recognition as a movement. Regardless, I believe it is sufficient to argue that Neo-Reaction is more description of the organized portions of the movement. Dark Enlightenment is a moniker for a general trend in thought, and is not associated with organization. Since the Neoreaction movement is explicitly "passivist," it is unlikely to solicit the notoriety similar flash-in-the-pan movements, such as Occupy, rapidly accomplish despite plenty of written and published material. Examples of Neoreaction organization include the following. There is no equivalent coalescence under the heading "Dark Enlightenment." http://neoreaction.net/ http://hestiasociety.org/ http://www.socialmatter.net/ (Publication back to 2014) http://thefutureprimaeval.net/ http://vannrx.com/ http://baycarlyle.com/ http://mattforney.com/neoreaction-bryce-laliberte/ Voodooengineer (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The Imaginative Conservative

Is this in any way either a source that passes WP:RS, or noteworthy in its own right? It looks like a blog. An informative one, but still not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

The Dark Enlightenment is described as an early school of thought in the alt-right Considering the term alt-right is more well known; the article goes into further depth. I think it would be useful to merge this page with that one, and have the term "Dark Enlightenment" re-direct to alt-right. This is my first time trying to do this, and I've read the guides on it, so I'm really, really sorry if I'm doing this wrong. :/ NimbleNavigator (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose good faith proposal. Alt Right is a term for which no one has really nailed down a firm definition and depending on who is doing the defining can mean any number of different things and serve as an umbrella term/group for all manner of disparate and often contradictory ideologies. Further the Dark Enlightenment has received sufficient coverage to be independently notable in its own right and justifies a stand alone article. On a side note you need to post proposed merge tags on Alt Right as well and direct the discussion to here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. They're really separate strains, though closely related with a lot of interchange of ideas. (Perhaps someone can trace the discussions in the comments of 2Blowhards which inspired Yarvin to neoreaction, and relate them to what Richard Spencer was doing with Alternative Right ...) Third-party RSes are still trying to make sense of what is and isn't the "alt-right", also. I'd leave them separate for now. I wouldn't call a later merge impossible - David Gerard (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Though they are clearly closely related, identifying the two, or calling one a subset of the other, would be original research not justified by the sources, I think - Anissimov, a neoreactionary blogger quoted in the Anti-Neoreactionary FAQ, calls them "very different" here (although he also predicts, in that blog post, that neoreaction will be absorbed by the alt-right in the future). --greenrd (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)