Jump to content

Talk:Alt-right: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Alt-right/Archive 14) (bot
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 55: Line 55:


::Confirmed as another sock, so striking his post. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 14:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
::Confirmed as another sock, so striking his post. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 14:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is calling someone a sock puppet the new tool of the left to silence views? [[User:Mantion|Mantion]] ([[User talk:Mantion|talk]]) 13:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC) [[User:Mantion|Mantion]] ([[User talk:Mantion|talk]]) 13:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:32, 18 December 2017

Earlier relevant usage of the Alt-Left term

[1] [2] [3] The Alt-Left term has been prominently noted prior to the Charlottesville protests and prior even to the Clinton speech that made 'Alt-Right' a household name. The term was originally used to denote somebody who is skeptical of the contemporary consensus on racial differences, but otherwise favors liberal/leftist politics. It has been used for a few years now as a self-identity within the subculture built up around an obscure podcast. This loose ideology includes including Brandon Adamson ('Rabbit' in the Salon article), Robert Lindsay, HAarlem VEnison (whom I stumbled upon through a video on CNN of him chasing the man who punched Richard Spencer), and Ryan England. Lastchamber (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would need much better sources to go into any depth. Both the Salon article and The Week article mention the concept as something which didn't catch on, so this might warrant a sentence or two but probably not more. The Salon article links this older "alt-left" to Strasserism and Aleksandr Dugin, who's work has been translated by Richard B. Spencer's wife, with Spencer as publisher. (This was coincidentally recently added to Spencer's Wikipedia article). This seems like a good indicator that this isn't a large or distinct movement, and is still part of the walled-garden of pseudointellectual white supremacists.
That blog is completely unreliable (and painfully bad writing), but it also indirectly supports that the "alt-left" it describes is just fascism with training wheels. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the first bloggings of the term [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1151:CD00:44B0:C701:5CF8:B6D2 (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A blogger with a WordPress account rambling for three short sentences amounting to "there's an alt right so why not have an alt left" doesn't exactly meet the criteria for a reliable source, especially given that the body text (and what little there was of it) was actually self-contradictory and supported either a centrist or third-way proposal. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have these sources been discussed?

[6][7] - sorry, I haven't paid close attention to this article. I do think that the changes in terminology of white nationalists/separatists belongs somewhere. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Group sections, sockpuppets, NPOV, and madness

Hello, recently User:Grayfell and I have gotten into an argument about whether a group section is needed. This occured because of a previous user using stockpiles to disruptly edit. It is currently getting reverted by him because of WP:BE. (The sockpuppet had created a similar section himself.) The rule cited also states that "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor".

Is this not a case of Wikipedia: Ignore all rules? It seems insane that an important part of the article is being left out because of a previous editor.There is already a faction section in the alt-right template. A lot of those factions are not even mentioned in the alt-right article. Instead, we are stuck with a list of beliefs and buzzwords that contradict each other. How are Steve Bannon and Jack Posobiec alt-right under the current definition?

This article needs a LOT of work for NPOV. A faction section should be added, or we should remove all alt-lite members such as Bannon. If this is a white nationalist article, only list white nationalists in it. Currently this is not the case. OhOhCanada (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is very obviously the same editor, using the same evasive language as before, convincing nobody who is familiar with their history. The way for PerfectlyIrrational to edit the article is for that editor to log into their original account and resolve the issues which led to them being blocked. This would also require that the stop creating sock-puppets, and also stop insulting everyone's intelligence by pretending to be someone new. Being blocked isn't intended to be an invitation to create a new account and pretend nothing happened. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed as another sock, so striking his post. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Is calling someone a sock puppet the new tool of the left to silence views? Mantion (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Mantion (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]