Talk:Alt-right

Question

this is a joke and why cant i edit it??

Kolovrat19 (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is semi-protected because we have a lot of drive-by vandalism. This happens to articles that discuss topics that have passionate online communities. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

i want to edit it. needs to be changed doesnt make sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolovrat19 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

In order to request a change, use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template along with the specific changes you want made. clpo13_(talk) 23:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing needs changing, why does it say that its just a joke on 4chan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolovrat19 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

it says what it says, based on what we call reliable sources. if you want to work in Wikipedia, you need to learn and follow the policies and guidelines here - this is not 4chan where you can do what you want. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

if you read what I asked I said why it says its just a joke on 4chan and then you say im on 4chan? it doesnt even make sense.. did you write this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolovrat19 (talk • contribs) 00:06, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

Please reread this entire conversation. Your questions have already been answered. Earthscent (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

See also section

If a link is that important, ideally it can be added to the body of the text rather than this section becoming a "list". --Malerooster (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The new "Public opinion" section

I must question the current content of this section, consisting of a single poll in which a plurality (45%) of respondents claims to be too ignorant to form an opinion! The cited source itself is incorrectly written. 34% and 21% of the remaining 55% of respondents with opinions should translate to 18.7% and 11.55% of all respondents, respectively, but those don't add up to 55%. 34% and 21% do. Furthermore, this same poll yielded a 58% majority holding favorable views of the BLM movement. Clearly, most respondents had no idea what the alt-right is. I recommend deleting this section until useful and meaningful polling can be included. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd be more in favour of removing the section if the sourcing is inappropriate, rather than putting your own POV on the results. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That said, the source doesn't really support a section of its own- your points are perfectly correct, I just think the chosen action was wrong (editing rather than removing.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the section did need to go. The poll was too ridiculous, and even the source reporting on it was problematic. Thank you. However, my edit, made in the event editors insisted on keeping the section, was not POV or "editorialising," as one of your edit summaries indicated. I was correcting the original misrepresentation of what the cited source actually said, using language closely paraphrasing that source. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. I was a bit tired at the time and may have not read as closely as I should have. My mistake. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right = Everything Democrats don't like and find deplorable

The list seems to include everything the Democrats find to be bad, from people working for men's rights in society, to nationalists.

Is this really a movement or a figment of Clintons imagenation? Since it were she and CNN who first started defining the term in this way.Jacob3939 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If you read the article and its sources, it's clear that this predates Clinton's current campaign and that it was not defined by her or CNN. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

But it were not defined in this way before Clinton started speaking about it. It is more or less Clintons word right now, and is defined as anything the Democrats don't like. Jacob3939 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton made her speech on August 25, 2016. Here is the article as it was on August 21. The definitions were already present. clpo13_(talk) 18:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

But prior to Trump's seizing the nomination, Republicans didn't like any of these things either! FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... Parsley Man (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016

Add the following relevant and important definition on ALT RIGHT political position. It is nececssary to balance this wiki page by including additional tenets of the alt right, as revealed from their own writing:

The Alt-Right is a movement founded on the need to reject the false political dichotomy that favours an increasingly Leftist and globalist world. The Alt-Right rejects the simple binary form of the two party Democratic or Republican / Liberal or Conservative model of politics for the following reasons: (i) It is a false dichotomy (ii) It ignores the metapolitical dimension (iii) It embeds false premises in the political debate

Sondrad (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Additionally, blogs are almost never reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, and that one is no exception. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Question about sources and quotation

This article contains the following sentence:

She [Hillary Clinton] identified this radical fringe with the alt-right, and noted that Trump's campaign chief executive Stephen Bannon has described his Breitbart News Network as "the platform for the alt-right."

The verb noted implies not only that this statement was made, but also that it was true. Thus we say, "John noted that it was now past noon," but we do not say, "Robert Welch noted that Eisenhower was a member of the Communist Party". The latter claim, being controversial, should use a verb such as "asserted" or "claimed", rather than "noted".

The sentence above includes a source [1]. This source indicates that Clinton quoted Bannon as having used these words, but it does not indicate whether Bannon actually used these words. So I think that we should either change the word "noted" to something else, or we need a second source that supports the claim that Bannon actually said this. I have found one such source online: [2]. But before I add this source, I'd like to check to see whether there is any additional data on this quotation -- for example, did Bannon ever confirm or deny that he described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right"? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The Mother Jones source makes sense as a supplemental reference, since it clearly supports the quote, but I don't think it's strictly necessary. Whether or not Bannon actually said this is not an opinion, so this isn't a case of editorializing. Regardless of the content of the quote, that he said it is fairly straightforward, right? Lacking evidence to the contrary, we should assume it's an accurate quote. If he had specifically denied saying that, or some fact-checkers had called this into question or something, of course we should consider rephrasing to clarify. Otherwise we don't really need Bannon to weigh in on this specifically. Grayfell (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the Mother Jones link as a second reference, just to be careful -- WP:BLP applies even though this article isn't about Bannon specifically, so it seems better not to use a political opponent as the sole source for the quote. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi and Skin heads

Is this group related to Neo-Nazi, Skin heads, and KKK?