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)

Why in the hell is Vox listed as a citation? They are the most whiny libshits in the planet. This whole page shouldnt even exist. HuffinGrass (talk) 00:14, 26 August 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)

Given the BLP concern expressed above, I've also removed the remaining (2) uses of the source article. For each of these uses the referenced statement remains multiply sourced, and for each, this particular article was a marginal source. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:28, 15 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)

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)

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)

Any movement on this? Is the description being kept and descriptions of the other outlets added, or is the description being removed? Zaostao (talk) 15:56, 4 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)

Cute attempt. Of course, an anon IP added that in very recently, and it looks like MarkBernstein already took care of doing exactly what you suggest. A better comparison would be to refer to the company as "the millenial-aimed news site Mic" - that certainly would be informative. But now we're getting on a tangent, which seems to be your M.O., so let's keep the discussion on the current topic. Rockypedia (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Going on a tangent "seems to be [my] M.O."? Please comment on the content, not the contributor. Thanks. Zaostao (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I still see no reason to remove the clarifying words. The ideology of an opinion magazine is relevant, and the magazine is not so well-known that it's obvious. The magazine's name is also generic and easily forgettable, and a little context is helpful enough here as a reminder to those who might otherwise confuse it for one of the many similarly titled rags out there. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It appears that only one user is opposed to the inclusion of the clarifying adjectives, and his reasons amount to "because no other source has them." I've stated that if he wants to describe other opinion magazines with clarifying adjectives, he should do so. Instead, he has removed these words close to a dozen times at this point. I'll take it to the sanctions board, after re-adding them. Rockypedia (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No, there are two users opposed to the inclusion. But I'm not going to drag this out into a big drama. I just don't think it's appropriate. As has been said, anyone curious can click through for information about any subject they don't know about, including this particular opinion magazine. The other editor who opposes inclusion of that description did add descriptions for other magazines about a week and a half ago, but they were removed. So if you're okay with including those as well, he or I can re-add them. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the edits you are referring to (I didn't remove them myself) were removed because they were inaccurate and/or unencyclopedic, as Zaostao was more interested in making a point and getting the "neocon" adjective removed than he was in actually describing the other magazines. But you already knew that. An accurate, NPOV, briefly phrased description of any non-well-known magazine is not only okay with me, I feel it's an improvement. Rockypedia (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

My edits were copy pastes of the description those outlets had on their separate article pages at the time of my edits, so they were completely encyclopedic. Anyway, how are we to decide what is "well-known" and what is not? What type of reader are we appealing to? As I said above, maybe the reader (who cannot muster the effort to click on a wikilink) doesn't know what "neoconservative" means either, so we should give a "briefly phrased description" of that too? Zaostao (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I regard this last comment, full of rhetorical questions, as further evidence that Zaostao was only attempting to make a point with his edits, and not actually trying to make the page better. My personal opinion is that he contributes nothing of value, and is here only to make topics like Alt-right and Jared Taylor more palatable by eliminating any adjectives he regards as describing the subject of an article negatively. Yeah yeah, I know we're not supposed to comment on editor behavior here and this is a tangent - but I've really had it with that type of behavior, and someone needs to call a spade a spade occasionally. So there it is. Rockypedia (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"and this is a tangent"? So you admit to going on a tangent where you attack me instead of responding to the content of my arguments? Look above, I have already kindly asked you to comment on the content, not the contributor. I will ask you again the same question in hopes that you respond to the question this time instead of attacking me.

How are we to decide what is "well-known" and what is not? What type of reader are we appealing to? As I said above, maybe the reader (who cannot muster the effort to click on a wikilink) doesn't know what "neoconservative" means either, so we should give a "briefly phrased description" of that too? Zaostao (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: No, I didn't already know that, since I'm not familiar with Mic, and I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith. But congrats, your attitude has caused me to lose interest in this conversation. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this description due to the personal attacks and the refusal/inability to answer questions as to why it should be included. Alternatively, someone can re-add it and add the descriptions of the other outlets too. (The alt-right was born in opposition to neocons by the way) Zaostao (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You'll be reverted each time you remove it. Your questions have been answered, to the point of exhaustion. You continue the argument without accepting the consensus that has been established, solely because you feel the "neoconservative" label shouldn't be there, despite other editors agreeing that it's appropriate. You've been blocked before for this exact same behavior on another page, and if you continue to edit war here, you will be blocked again. Rockypedia (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the qualifiers. I see no justification for inclusion and Rocky fails to provide a coherent rationale aside from the implausible claim that "The Weekly Standard is a little-known fringe publication." It shouldn't be restored without firm consensus. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That's clearly cherry-picking. I explained my rationale for restoring that phrase, and I wasn't the only editor to restore, or to explain that restoration, right here on this talk page - there's several editors that did both.

To summarize the points already made multiple times above: The adjectives used to describe this magazine are important context for the quotes being used. The ideology of an opinion magazine is relevant, and the magazine is not so well-known that it's obvious. If you feel there are other magazines mentioned on this page that are not well-known, and their opinions on the alt-right need context by way of a few extra words, you should add them. The solution, if you feel that way, is NOT to remove the adjectives preceding The Weekly Standard. That route is a clear attempt to make the praise of the alt-right movement make it seem as if it's coming from a mainstream, neutral source. It isn't. Reverted the removal. (edit: looks like MarkBernstein beat me to it. Thanks for that, it's the right call.) Rockypedia (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That's an argument to include "neoconservative" not "opinion magazine." What qualifies as an opinion magazine? Rolling Stone? Harper's? Any magazine where primarily the articles express opinions? Would Sound and Vision and Consumer Reports qualify? If we can't define the term we shouldn't use it to define something else. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Most sources describe The Weekly Standard as a journal of news and opinion. Our Wiki article describes it as an "opinion magazine" but that's sourced to National Review a fundamentally similar magazine with no such qualifier. In what way does the "opinion" qualifier inform? "CAUTION: Their articles may include opinions" - isn't that expected from any partisan magazine? If it didn't include opinion it wouldn't be partisan (neocon, liberal, etc.) By that definition you'd expect to find liberal opinion magazines but according to wikipedia no such thing exist - not The Nation, not Harper's - both heavy on opinion. Can someone point me to one? Unless we can define the term I'll have to remove it. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears that YOU can't define the term. Please don't ascribe your confusion to the rest of the editors working on this page. I, for one, find it relatively simple to define the term. Rockypedia (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"Unless we can define the term I'll have to remove it." That's not how this site works. There's consensus above to include the term. You don't get to unilaterally decide to take it out just because you don't like it. Your arguments are as circular as the ones Zaostao attempted above, and in fact, they're very similar. If you'd like to see a change, take it to an admin. Rockypedia (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I asked you to define "opinion magazine." You haven't here or in any previous discussion I can find. Can you point me to one? Let's try to focus on content. Statements like "That's not how this site works." "take it to an admin." are useless bluster. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like a definition of "opinion magazine", as well as a definition for "well-known"—this is one of the questions I asked and received a personal attack in response to by an editor who seems diametrically opposed to the core tenets of WP. Zaostao (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As multiple editors have pointed out, consensus has been reached, and if you don't like the result, you are free to open RfC. If you need help doing that, let me know and I will show you how. Continuing to ask circular questions because you don't like the result is not license to continue edit warring. Rockypedia (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Rocky: there are editors on this page engaging in meaningful dialogue to improve the article. That involves raising questions and answering questions. A question was raised and rather than responding you attack the questioners and "educate" them on wiki guidelines which they're already aware of. That's not helpful. If you don't intend to address the question it would be better to let others respond instead.

Zaostao: This seems to be the root of the problem. Maybe an RFC at The Weekly Standard article page would be the best course. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not about the description of The Weekly Standard, what i'm objecting to is the inclusion of the description in the article in attempt to undermine it as a source. The personal attacks just go to confirm the type of editor we're dealing with here.

The fundamental question is what is and what isn't "well-known"? A question that has not been answered. Zaostao (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, I also object to the inclusion but if we're to write for example: "so-and-so is a liberal blogger" I'd say the first question to ask is whether so-and-so is a liberal blogger and the next, assuming they are, is whether to include that description. I don't think we pass even the 1st test here so the 2nd is irrelevant. Specifically: if The Weekly Standard is not an "opinion magazine" there's no question it should not be described in this article as an opinion magazine. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I feel it's the other way around, since the description shouldn't be included, it doesn't matter what the description is. There's no precedent to include redundant descriptions of outlets—or redundant descriptions of anything, really—and there isn't even a consensus on this talk page to include the redundant description. Zaostao (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, since the magazine has such a low circulation, and the author that wrote that one opinion column praising the alt-right isn't even a notable author, it's probably best to remove that quote entirely as WP:UNDUE. The relevant part of that guide states: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." I think this viewpoint qualifies. Rockypedia (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

National Review and The Weekly Standard are the two most influential right-leaning publications. No question their opinions are relevant. Restored.

Zao: Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I'm going to review archived discussions for The Weekly Standard but I'll keep an eye on this article as well. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll watchlist The Weekly Standard in case there's a discussion there at some point. Zaostao (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As said, NR and The Weekly Standard are the two biggest right-leaning publications and have been held up as RS time and time again. Also, over 100,000 in circulation is hardly "such a low" amount for a political magazine, especially when the NR is similar and steadily declining, but I see you're just trying to deflect again. I'm grateful that you didn't resort to personal attacks this time though, thanks for taking my advice to comment on the content, not the contributor at least. Zaostao (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have never personally attacked you, but you keep raising this accusation in the hopes that if enough people see it, they will think it's true. Knock it off. You've been blocked for edit warring on Jared Taylor, the white supremacist that you wanted to call a journalist first and foremost, and your behavior there was exactly the same as it is here. You're not here to make the encyclopedia better; you're attempting to frame "alt-right" in a more positive light, that's POV-pushing, plain and simple. Rockypedia (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Rockypedia, Invoking WP:DUE seems a stretch. The views of alt-right-wing commentators on the alt-right are not undue for an article discussing the alt-right; it's the "Flat Earth" exception. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) amended Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard isn't even alt-right anyway, it's a William Kristol magazine—one of the main figures of the Stop Trump movement. Zaostao (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The main problem we're facing here is that despite consensus above being established that the Weekly Standard is not a well-known publication, and as such, deserves two adjectives describing its point of view when a comment is included praising the alt-right, two editors continue to insist that those two words be removed. The reason for this is transparent: they wish to frame that comment as a more mainstream, accepted viewpoint. The fact is, the opinion stated was by a single non-notable author, in a publication with a circulation of less than 100k; if that doesn't qualify as "an extremely small minority", what does? Keep in mind that WP:UNDUE states that it doesn't matter if "it is true or you can prove it". Rockypedia (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The "Flat Earth" exception, as I understand it, is that views of a small minority are appropriate if the article itself is about those views; ie, the Flat Earth article is entirely about the minority viewpoint of the shape of the earth. If there was an article about positive views of the alt-right, which there may be in the future, then this opinion would be due weight. But this article isn't about positive opinions about the alt-right; it's about the alt-right itself, so it's not an apt comparison. We're not talking about the opinions of right-wings commentators, either; we're talking about a single non-notable author's single column. Rockypedia (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

To claim "the Weekly Standard is not a well-known publication" is verifiably untrue:

• Media Matters - "one of the conservative establishment’s most influential magazines"
• NY Times - "one of the most influential publications in Washington."
• CJR - "National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The American Spectator—the three most influential conservative print magazines"

and prompts genuine concerns about competence. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me review the source, the author and the publication. I note that a circulation of 100k is not necessarily small. I also note that at least on cursory inspection, the article topic appears to be "Views on the Alt-Right", the majority of content appears to be opinion, and the majority of sourcing appears to be opinion columns, largely negative; inclusion of one with somewhat positive statements about the alt-right is not undue. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hang on a second. Your last point runs DIRECTLY contrary to this statement in WP:UNDUE: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view." In other words, whether or not the article includes mostly negative opinions has zero bearing on "Should we include a positive opinion" - the answer to that question depends solely on whether that positive opinion comes from a more than an extremely small minority, and can be demonstrated as such by its mention in reliable secondary sources. Rockypedia (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

See the policy you linked, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources," and "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." As has been established, The Weekly Standard is a reliable source and a one-line sentence is, as Ryk72 has said, not undue. Just because you don't like the fact that a reliable source has given a viewpoint you disagree with does not mean that it doesn't exist. Zaostao (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

While we're at it, the opinion of one non-notable professor from the U of Alabama probably falls under the same category. I'd remove that too. Rockypedia (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Late to the game here, just wanted to add my 2 cents - User James Labden is absolutely right, as the Weekly Standard is most certainly a well-known conservative publication that anyone who regularly reads US political news will be familiar with. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Addition to "Beliefs" section of page

To be added to the "Beliefs" section of the page:

Jeff Deist of the Ludwig von Mises Institute has described the alt-Right movement not as fundamentalist Christian but merely as “culturally Christian,” being more marked by being “anti-establishment,” “anti-GOP,” and "more than anything" populist. Because the alt-Right is populist, it is also “openly nationalist. . . . This idea of a uniquely American identity is okay with the alt-right.” Deist continued:

“The alt-Right has been tarred as racist and xenophobic. That may be true, but it may also be true that a more charitable view of the alt-Right would seemthem as simply saying ‘Hey look, identity politics is a two-way street'.”

Deist's presentation:

JosephFrontroyal (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Youtube is not a reliable source and in this case is a WP:PRIMARY source. We'd need to agree that this person's opinion is notable enough to include. Marking as "not done for now" so discussion can happen EvergreenFir (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Two paragraph intro instead of three.

I believe the first three paragraphs of the article may be more succinctly written as two. For clarity's sake, I've left out the hyperlinks and sources but could easily add them if this two-paragraph introduction is acceptable. Here it is:

The alt-right (also called the Alternative Right or the alt-Right) is a segment of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in the politics of the United States. As such, the alt-right has been described as an "amorphous conservative movement." Nevertheless, the alt-right movement has also been described as largely unified by support for Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump.

As a largely amorphous movement not officially associated with any particular ideology, the alt-right has been said to be a largely online movement. Members of the alt-right, said to significantly younger than mainstream conservatives, often uses internet meme to advance or express their beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan; much of the coverage of the alt-right has focused on the memes it has produced.

68.37.53.31 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I feel the current version is superior to this one. Rockypedia (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please discuss here on the talk page and once a consensus is reached, an editor can make any necessary changes (or the edit request can be reopened if needed). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 August 2016

All the shit about white supremacy should be taken out. That is nothing but bullshit opinion and is not backed by facts at all.

67.238.81.178 (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. clpo13_(talk) 17:33, 17 August 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)

Wilson

Please add the reliable source in the lede that: However, political analyst Rick Wilson, disputes these descriptions and instead, calls the alt-right "crazy ... childless single men who masturbate to anime," and who have "plenty of Hitler iconography in their Twitter icons."

We should reflect all opinions here about the beliefs of the alt right. 107.77.231.232 (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Note. Please be wary of WP:NPOV, WP:RS. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:47, 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: [2] [3], 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 [4]:

[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)

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)

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.

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)

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

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)

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)