Talk:Alt-right

Article Incomplete Missing Discussion Linking Alt-right to Racist Attacks on Refugees and Islamaphobia

Please include sources here for inclusion in main article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carneyred (talk • contribs) 11:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

---

"...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)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2016

Ben Shapiro, a Jewish American Conservative, received anti-Semitic hate speeches by alt-right Internet trolls, including followers of British-American homosexual alt-right opinion leader Milo Yiannopoulos. Sources are included here: . Additionally, Milo Yiannopoulos should receive more attention, as he is an important voice in the Alt-Right movement. For example, maybe an entire paragraph should be written about Milo. 76.184.192.54 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

First off, I have no idea why your comment is under the "Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2016" section. Second off, I agree with you that Milo deserves his own section. Unfortunately, it seems Milo can't even get his own sentence. I mean, Source 24 itself is a link to his Breitbart article, where he outlines his support of the Alt-Right. The man is one of the largest figures of the Alt-Right, and he can't even speak for himself. If Jeet Heer, Benjamin Wallace-Wells, and Ian Tuttle (People I'm sure you have heard of /s) can give their analysis, why can't Milo? All you would have to say is: According to Milo, (blah blah blah). Then you could cite the SPLC or whatever far-left group you want after it.

Long story short, (One of the, if not) The largest leader of the Alt-Right can't even get a quote on the Alt-Right page. R00b07 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13_(talk) 16:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Milo Deserves A Quote

Since Breitbart and Milo are already cited, what is the problem with giving Milo a quote? R00b07 (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what arguments have preceded this discussion, but I generally prefer paraphrase to quotation. This is partly stylistic. It's also partly because writers like Yiannopoulos tend to use a lot of hyperbole, sarcasm, and "trolling" in their writing. That exaggerated manner of speaking can be entertaining for regular readers, but it actually makes it more difficult for readers who are unfamiliar with an idea to comprehend a debate, so it's not helpful for an encyclopedia.

I agree that he's an important figure, and can be a useful primary source for describing the ideology if he's used with caution. Is there a specific argument or concept that is being missed here, and could we paraphrase it instead of quoting directly? Nblund (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• This has come up before, and the problem is that Breitbart isn't a reliable source for statements of fact, and Yiannopoulos isn't a neutral observer. The affection many in the alt-right have for him still needs to be balanced with independent sources and a neutral point of view, otherwise this becomes a game of trying to figure out which quote of his to pick based on subjective preference. If we just go looking for some quotes because someone thinks he should be better represented here, we risk cherry-picking. One Breitbart article is cited, but only as a convenience because there are multiple reliable sources commenting about that article. If you can find a reliable source which quotes Yiannopoulos as being specifically informative, or as a good example of some aspect of the alt-right, then it might be worth considering with context. Grayfell (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It's strange for a group of supposed white supremacist, antisemitic reactionaries to be fans of a Jewish, self-described, "faggot", isn't it? Anyway, "sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" so I don't see the problem with adding something from Yiannopoulos, but I don't personally know what information would be suitable or relevant to add at the moment. Zaostao (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't find it particularly strange. The alt-right aggressively seeks validation, and the bigger the audience, the more leeway is given. That's a common pattern everywhere. Anyway, relying on you or me or any one editor to determine what quote to add is not going to work. My point was that we need an independent source to make that call for us. Also, as has been mentioned, Yiannopoulos' rhetorical style is often at-odds with NPOV, so it's still not simple. Even in the alt-right, he has many detractors. Grayfell (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand why "According to Milo...." would be against NPOV.

NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Can I repeat all the significant views? Since when was Milo not a significant view anymore?

Checklist Time:

Would citing Milo make the article increase article fairness and proportionality? Check.

Would not citing Milo imply editorial bias? Check.

Is Milo a reliable source? According to Source 23 of the article, Check.

Your opinion on the Alt-Right should not trump (no punintended) what NPOV actually states, nor should it trump what is already reliably sourced.R00b07 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos is cited in entry. He isn't quoted in the entry, but directly quoting from a primary source is not necessarily the only way to represent a viewpoint, and using secondary sources is usually desirable. Again, I'm not opposed in principle to a quotation, but I also don't see much of a reason for adding one. Again: is there some specific ideological argument that Yiannopoulos provides that can't be presented in a paraphrase? And is there something unique to this particular article that isn't discussed in some other source? Nblund (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has actually proposed a specific quote. As I said, Breitbart is cited as a convenience where a specific article is discussed by other, more reliable sources. Context matters. The word "bias" gets thrown around a lot, but there are ways to avoid that which still haven't been addressed. Just picking some quote and throwing it in because some editors would like to see something from him is arbitrary and very biased. If you can find an independent source quoting Yiannopoulos, that would provide necessary context and we could assess from that. "Significant views" means just that: significant views, not significant people. Yiannopoulos holds countless views no doubt, so it's not up to us to decide which ones are the most significant here. It's also worth keeping in mind that Yiannopoulos's popularity isn't universal among the alt-right, and there are many who reject his expertise. Nobody is a spokesperson for the entire alt-right movement, so including a quote from someone because he's somewhat popular seems like its using Wikipedia to promote a person or particular take on the ideology instead of building an encyclopedia article. The way to fix that is with independent sources. But again, nobody has actually proposed a specific quote. It's possible that he's summarized the alt-right in a non-controversial way. If so, that would be very handy, but nobody else has managed to do that yet, and since when has he ever done anything non-controversially? Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Meme paragraph

Zaostao has moved the 'memes' paragraph to the 'analysis' section twice now. I don't think that this is appropriate at all; that paragraph is exclusively cited to news sources describing the core beliefs and nature of the alt-right and using that to discuss an important aspect of what its beliefs really are. While we could theoretically call anything "analysis", the rest of the section is devoted to opinion pieces; I feel that dropping the section on internet memes (which many sources have identified as the defining characteristic of the alt-right) into that section is burying the lede, so to speak. This is what some of the highest-quality sources say about the core beliefs of the movement, not secondary analysis. (Based on this confusion, I also suggest renaming the 'analysis' section to 'commentary', since that's what it really is otherwise; after all, all discussion of a topic in reliable sources aside from the most superficial things is analysis of it. Regardless of how we structure the article, though, the paragraph on internet memes needs to be a lot more prominent than that, since it's a major aspect of the alt-right and comes up again and again in the sources; much of the commentary in the analysis section doesn't make sense unless you've already ready something that goes into that broad aspect. --Aquillion (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

How a group of people propagate an ideology does not affect the ideology itself - for example, using a speakerphone to spread your message further does not mean that speakerphones or speakerphone use are part of your ideology. The memes things is the same, they're just a way of disseminating a message - which is already stated in the beliefs section as being antisemitic, white supremacist etc., they're not the ideology itself and do not impact the message, just help to spread it. The last line of that paragraph is as analytical as it gets also so it without a doubt should not be in the beliefs section. Zaostao (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree (The medium is the message!), but maybe we should rename the beliefs section, too. Ideally we should probably structure the article with one section that has a broad description of what the sources generally agree are the most important aspects of the alt-right and what it is (core ideologies, differences from mainstream conservatism, who they support and who they don't, etc), and then another section for what people have said about them (and about those core things) in opinion pieces and the like. --Aquillion (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the ideology is largely shapeless - I am in "alt-right" circles I suppose and there are all types of people from fascists to anarcho-capitalists, so it's impossible to create a structured article around something that isn't structured. The fact that there's very few good in-depth sources on it doesn't help either, and a lot of newer sources frankly seem to be poor smear attempts trying to connect Donald Trump with messageboard trolls. Zaostao (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the fundamental point is that numerous sources have identified these memes as central to the definition of what the alt-right is. It really is one of the main topics that comes up with them. I absolutely cannot support putting it in the 'reactions' section; it clearly belongs in the section that describes the core of what the Alt-Right is and how it's defined by reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Memes are not related to beliefs at all, the commonalities sentence including things like "disdain for mainstream politics" and "view mainstream conservatives with ridicule" give some sort of idea of what the ideology is about, or what it is not about at least. Usage of memes is, again, just like usage of speakerphones, they're useful for spreading a message - that's it. The message has to exist independently otherwise there would be no content to be made memes out of. The speakerphone does not speak itself. Also, the last line is complete reaction and analysis, nothing about "commonalities", just about pushing a certain view higher up than it was in the reaction section. Zaostao (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The section isn't about just their beliefs, though (after all, the second paragraph describes things like populism and a disdain for mainstream politics.) The section is about the core defining features of the alt-right. Numerous sources have identified the use of memes as one of those core things, so it needs to be in our main description. It absolutely cannot go in the reaction section, which is limited to op-eds and editorializing; it belongs in the core description of the Alt-Right's nature. Is there a wording for the section header that would resolve your objections? It now has six sources, all of them high-profile reliable news sources and none of them opinion-pieces or reactions, so it definitely does not belong in the reactions section (it's a description of what the Alt-Right is by reliable sources, not a reaction); but we could reword the beliefs header to be more encompassing. How do you feel about "beliefs and strucuture?" Is there another wording for the header you feel would be appropriate? (Basically, I'm trying to understand your objection here - do you just object that the header is bad, or is your objection that you don't feel that the use of these sorts of memes is actually a core defining part of the alt-right according to reliable sources? I've found many reliable sources to try and answer the second objection; I think it's reasonably clear that it is a core defining aspect, and that many sources have included their use of memes as a way of describing, understanding, and explaining their beliefs. If your objection is just to the header, though, then we can find a better header that covers all key aspects in one paragraph.) Basically, though, our responsibility in an article like this is to cover each aspect of the topic in accordance to WP:DUE weight given its coverage in reliable sources; and the Alt-Right's use of memes has been very heavily covered, so it needs to be covered prominently in the article (probably, it needs at least a sentence in the lead as well.) Putting it in the reactions section is both inaccurate (these sources aren't op-eds or commentary, they're news sources describing what the alt-right is for their readers) and failing to give it weight appropriate to its importance - it has a lot more coverage (and a lot more high-quality sources discovering it) than many of the other things currently in the beliefs paragraph. (Also, as an aside, if your objection is to the wording of that paragraph itself, remember you can always reword it. There is probably more to be said in terms of eg. sources doubting whether these memes are entirely serious vs. ironic vs. tactical vs. some people only being in it for the lols.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of memes does not affect the message in the same way that use of speakerphones does not affect the message, it just helps to spread it. It has nothing to do with beliefs. The commonalities such as supporting Donald Trump and disdain for mainstream politics give a general idea of what the ideology is, or isn't, by comparison. The memes on the other hand have nothing to do with the ideology, they're just used to spread the message -- you might as well say a "core aspect" of the alt-right is internet usage as well as the use of words or images to spread their ideology.

Also, that last line ("The prevalence of such memes has lead some commentators to doubt whether the alt-right itself is a serious movement rather than just an alternative way to express traditionally conservative beliefs") is as much of a reaction/analysis/commentary/response/whatever as you can get. Zaostao (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Also I think "Response" would be a more accurate section title than "Analysis", but i'm not sure if Response is the correct name. Zaostao (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

2

But there are numerous reliable sources highlighting it as a defining aspect of the Alt-Right. Our responsibility is to weight things according to the sources; there are no sources saying that the Alt-Right is uniquely notable for using words or images, but there are numerous high-profile sources saying that one of the most noteworthy things about it is its use of memes. Therefore, we have to cover that prominently in the article. Likewise, in describing their beliefs, we have to adopt the WP:TONE of the sources that have described them, which means that we have to include doubts from reliable news sources in the beliefs section - we cannot separate it out into the reactions section, since that leaves the beliefs section in a state that doesn't accurately reflect the tone of coverage. Again, if you want to argue that we should not give such prominent focus to the use of memes, you have to argue that it is not prominent in the sources - it's not enough to say "oh, they use memes just like they use words or images"; you have to argue that there isn't significant coverage of the use of memes as a defining feature of the Alt-Right. Are you arguing that position? Because I feel I've provided enough sources to at least support the fact that the main section discussing the Alt-Right needs a section on memes. The purpose of this article, after all, is to describe the topic according to what reliable sources have said; if you want to structure it in some other way, provide a suggestion, but please don't move it to the middle of the 'reactions and analysis' section again - there are far more sources (many of them higher-profile) describing the use of memes than there are on any part of the beliefs, so we have to put that aspect front-and-center. If you feel that some aspects of it are commentary and not news and therefore belong in the commentary section, sure, we can split it out, but I think it's obvious from the level of sourcing I've provided that we at least need to mention the fact that the alt-right makes heavy use of internet memes somewhere more prominently than midway through the commentary section. --Aquillion (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Here, I'll go over the sources which describe memes as central:

• From the Washington Post: "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 neo-Nazis."
• From the New York Times: "The alt-right Internet community has started to sneak into the fringes of the mainstream Internet recently, ... And this means more people are getting introduced to the racist memes popular in this corner of the online universe."
• Also from the New York Times: "The “echo” is the first officially recognized symbol to emerge from the “alt-right,” a movement of white-and-proud extremists who are as obsessed with cultural memes as they are with white nationalism."
• Vox and NYMag both quote Breitbart's description of the Alt-Right by its leading figures as saying that "the alt-right’s young meme brigades shock older generations with outrageous caricatures", presenting this as a core part of its description.
• From Vice: "In fact, her approach is textbook for the alt-right movement—a neo-internet take on old-fashioned conservatism, mainly built around offensive memes and hyperbole statements..."

None of these are presented as commentary, or analysis, or opinion-pieces, or as reactions, or as analysis; these are presented, in those articles, as the basic description of what the alt-right is. Above right-wing populism, above libertarianism, above nativism or white supremicism or antisemitism, memes are what these sources say the alt-right is about. They're presented as its defining feature. Now, you might disagree with some of these sources; you might feel that there's more to say or that this has to be weighted against other sources. Sure! We're not replacing the entire beliefs section with this or anything like that; and if you feel there are other takes on the alt-right's use of memes (eg. the paragraph could say a bit more about the argument that the memes themselves are just trolling in an attempt to get a reaction or something), you can edit that in. But the sourcing is extremely strong and heavily supports the argument that, however we ultimately present it, internet memes (especially 'racist' or 'shocking' ones) are a major defining feature of the alt-right and require a correspondingly prominent feature in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I never disagreed on the wide use of memes, I disagreed with it being in the beliefs section as it's unrelated to beliefs.

A 'meme' does not exist independently, a meme is not a belief. There are commie memes, liberal memes, conservative memes, natsoc memes etc. A meme is not a belief or stance in the way that right-wing populism is, or libertarianism is, or even harboring disdain for mainstream politics is (this gives an idea of what your stance isn't at least, where as saying you use memes gives no one any idea of what your ideology is). Zaostao (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Taylor Swift?

Is the quote from a Washington Post writer claiming that "white supremacists in the alt-right (somewhat redundant since this article defines alt-right as being exactly synonymous with white supremacy) have started referring to Taylor Swift as an "Aryan goddess"? From what I've been able to find, it's basically just Andrew Anglin of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer who apparently has become just as obsessed with Swift as he has been with hentai and East Asian women. From what I can tell, it's only Anglin that has been talking about Swift specifically being an "Aryan goddess" -- he was definitely the first one to do so and it apparently has become a meme on 4chan, Facebook and the like, though those seem more parody than anything. This is tabloid fodder from the likes of the Daily Mail [1] that I'm surprised the Washington Post would promote as concrete fact. At the very least, Anglin should be identified as the person who originated this absurdity, rather than using weasel wording or sweeping statements. But really, this is the kind of tabloid crap which Wikipedia should avoid like the plague. Laval (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Where does the article say they are exactly synonymous? My first choice is to remove the Taylor Swift line as being minor and of no lasting consequence. Alternately, it could be expanded to provide context. The source makes it very clear that there is no reason to think that Swift is a white supremacist, and her personal views have nothing to do with this meme. That is one of its central points, actually. It's an analysis of meme culture and white supremacists' nostalgia-goggles, but it's not primarily about Taylor Swift as a person. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's clearly a joke. It doesn't add anything either apart from unfairly linking Taylor Swift to white supremacism as "white supremac-" is already found 7 times in the article before the line about her. It is quite funny though and emblematic of a lot of the reporting on the 'alt-right'. Zaostao (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's a passing mention lacking context and rife with BLP problems. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed Fascist link

Neither cited source makes a strong link: "even a few" and a single supporter. I'm finding just as many sources linking the Alt-Right to My Little Pony and Taylor Swift:

References

Given the ambiguity of the movement and the myriad purported connections we should take care to apply WP:WEIGHT appropriately with sources representing majority views; on quick perusal I see several claims qualified with "some sources..." - a standard which if applied consistently would have us link to so many disparate groups as to make our explanation meaningless. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

None of those are particularly reliable sources, though; the sources that mention fascism are comparatively strong. Obviously we're not about to cite Breitbart or Mediaite for statements of fact, and a mention in the New Republic's minutes column is hardly as relevant as eg. an in-depth analysis by Vox or a detailed discussion in the Weekly Standard by a self-described supporter. (And, I mean, if we were going to use those kinds of lower-quality partisan / blog-ish sources, there are lots and lots of and lots of comparable sources talking about the presence of fascists and the involvement of Stormfront. Waaaay more than three. Compare the results there to eg. My Little Pony, and it's not even close.) That said, my main objection was to the misuse of The Weekly Standard as a source that was created by incompletely paraphrasing that particular sentence (at one point, it was conspicuously cited for every aspect of the alt-right that it mentioned except the fact that it contains some self-described fascists.) If we avoid relying on anything that comes exclusively from that particular description of the alt-right, I don't have a problem with leaving fascism off for now unless more or better sources appear, but citing that weekly standard piece for neo-reactonaries, nativists, and populists and leaving off the last item on the list is obviously misusing it as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad we agree in practice and I support your recent edits - but for the record I have to disagree with that characterization of sources: the New Republic (RS) goes more in depth on MLP than than Vox does on fascism so if anything it's the reverse, but I think correlating length with accuracy is spurious. The Mediate piece quotes Rick Wilson (expert) on MSNBC (RS.) In general Ithink everything cited to a single source should be attributed (if it's included at all) but I do think the more serious the claim (e.g. fascism) the stronger the requirement for sourcing.

Those search results are odd - I compared straight Google searches and found equal results. The New Republic piece for example doesn't come up in a "News" search for My Little Pony despite the article; I don't know how Google qualifies search categories but something's lacking. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:04, 14 July 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)

James Delingpole quotes

This is about this edit. I have several problems with this:

The series of James Delingpole's one word quotes' seems disjointed, and that introduces NPOV problems. Earlier he says that the alt-right movement is ...loosely defined and fissiparous, mostly existing only in internet chat rooms and on social media pages. Only later does he comment on racism and antisemitism, and only in this one paragraph of a longer piece:

Part of me feels uncomfortable defending the alt-right because it has been associated with anti-Semitism and racism. Yes, most of this stuff is confected and insincere — just mischievous internet kids experimenting with irony, knowing that if there’s one way absolutely guaranteed to rile the grown-ups it’s a hideously tasteless Holocaust joke. But undeniably for some of the alt-right’s more extreme exponents, it’s a sincere expression of their philosophical core.

The very next paragraph he cites a youtube blogger as explaining that ...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. That doesn't sound insincere to me at all, that says that he believes this is sincerely about race. Highlighting this the jokey aspect of the article while ignoring the rest is misleading.

Another problem is that he's not "echoing" Tuttle, he's echoing his colleagues at Breitbart, Yiannopoulos and Bokhari. Their positions are supported by secondary sources, because they prompted multiple replies by experts and reliable sources. This article isn't anywhere close to that level, as far as I can tell. James Delingpole is not impartial or uninvolved. Quoting him in the same paragraph by name without mentioning his connection to Yiannopoulos, who is specifically mentioned in the article, is misleading through omission and overstates his significance and expertise.

The third problem is that I don't really see what this quote adds. It seem redundant with content already in the paragraph. Is a new fact or perspective being introduced? This wouldn't be a big deal if the other issues were addressed, but I don't think it's worth it. Grayfell (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"the neoconservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard"

Instead of edit-warring over this, I'd like someone to explain their position. I personally don't see any need to include that extra description in front of the name of the magazine. That type of thing is basically never done, in my experience, and I don't see any reason to do it here. Anyone curious about The Weekly Standard can click through and read about it, just as they can for any of the other magazines, journals, websites, etc mentioned all over the encyclopedia. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The question as I see it is: Are the adjectives used to describe this magazine important context for what they're used for? Does it make the article more informative? I believe so. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Are we going to give descriptions of all the other outlets too? Mic is much less known than The Weekly Standard yet my redundant description of Mic was removed while the redundant description of The Weekly Standard was kept. Also, are we assuming that the reader knows what neoconservative means? Shouldn't that be described as well?

Anyway, as you say, this type of thing is never done. People interested in what The Weekly Standard is can click the wikilink, just like if people read a sentence such as "Ljudevit was born in Dalmatia, Croatia" they could click on Dalmatia or Croatia if they're interested as to what those things are. Otherwise we'd be describing everything that is linked to give context and be creating ridiculous sentences such as "Ljudevit was born in Dalmatia, one of the four historical regions of Croatia – a sovereign state at the crossroads of Central Europe (a continent that comprises the westernmost part of Eurasia (the combined continental landmass of Europe and Asia – the Earth's (the third planet from the Sun (the star at the center of the Solar System)) largest and most populous continent), Southeast Europe, and the Mediterranean." Zaostao (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

For a mainstream well-known publication or media outlet, such as Forbes or Fox News or the NY Times, adjectives would be superfluous. The Weekly Standard is a little-known fringe publication. Moreover, the quote from the magazine is in a section regarding praise for the alt-right movement, and as PeterTheFourth touched on, context is important in a section like that, especially for a magazine that's not well-known. Rockypedia (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not a little-known fringe publication. It has a circulation of over 100k, on the same level as something like The Nation. Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes, the magazine's editors, have been prominent talking heads for decades, and their opinions have greatly influenced the United States Republican Party over the years. Tons of prominent conservative writers, up to and including people like David Brooks, have been published in it. Why do we need to try inserting caveats for praise only? I'm not fan of the alt-right, but this seems like an odd, arbitrary editing decision. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not a caveat. 100k sounds like a lot, until you realize that the NY Times has a circulation of 2.5 million, and Fox News averages 2 million viewers in primetime, etc. Perhaps "fringe" is the wrong word - I'll just say it's not so well-known that people who see the name would automatically know that they publish views nearly exclusively from the neoconservative section of the political spectrum, and that's important context when you're adding an opinion "praising" the alt-right movement. It's informative. I personally have no problem with informative adjectives preceding left-leaning sources or before criticism, as long as they're not clear POV phrases like "the liberal media company focused on news for a generation known as the "millennials"." I don't think "neoconservative opinion" is a pejorative phrase, nor is it inaccurate. If you believe "neoconservative opinion" is a phrase that shouldn't be describing The Weekly Standard, perhaps you should work to change it on its actual wikipedia page. Rockypedia (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The Nation was founded in 1865 as a successor to the famous The Liberator. The Weekly Standard was founded in the 1990s by NewsCorp as a print adjunct to Fox News. Many magazines with fringe readership claim audiences of 100K readers -- Make: Magazine (300K), Writers Digest (77K), GQ Britain (114K; GQ US has a million), Guns Magazine (105K), North American Whitetail (133K), Running Times (106K), Hockey News (95K), LouLou – Canada’s Shopping Magazine (93K), and Lindy’s Baseball (111K). I’m a baseball fan (Go Cubbies!) and read quite a lot about baseball, and I’ve never heard of Lindy’s. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you believe "the liberal media company focused on news for a generation known as the 'millennials'" is a POV description of Mic, perhaps you should work to change it on its actual wikipedia page. Zaostao (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This Article has no basis in reality. Donald Trump is not against multiculturalism or immigration. What are these lies. Wikipedia is usually on point with it's product. Why does this exist