Talk:Alt-left

FYI

This page has an RfD attached to it: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alt-left - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Which took place in April, which might as well have been during the Buchanan administration for all the relevance it has now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is the REAL AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alt-left

• Note, I don't know who changed the link in the first comment after I responded, but editors should NEVER make such an edit. I suppose it is only to be expected given the bad-faith editing and hostility that this page/AfD have generated. sigh. The comment I was responding to by Knowledgekid was linked to [[1]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede

What this word means and what the body of the article state should match as the lede is a summary of the article itself however, this needs further discussion as the body of the article is likely to change rapidly depending on contributions.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Moved from Lede to discus and return to article's body of text.

used by some conservatives and liberals to refer to people and social activist groups on the political left, mainly those who associate with progressivist ideals, to suggest the existence of a fringe ideological movement equivalent to the alt-right, a faction of the far-right consisting mainly of white supremacists and political extremists. The term had become known for its use by United States President Donald Trump in an August 15, 2017 press conference at New York City's Trump Tower. In the conference, Trump – who doubled-down on a statement he made on August 12, in response to the vehicle-ramming attack against rally counter-protestors commited by a 20-year-old white nationalist during the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia – criticized what he called the "very, very violent[...] alt-left," correlating to his earlier assertion that there was "blame on both sides" for the violence at the rally in his initial statement.

--Mark Miller (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue with the above is that there is a huge amount of text and all sources are grouped at the end. The claims need to be cited directly after each claim with an inline citation from a reliable source.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This still seems off to me and not at all what the article says.

used by some conservatives and liberals to refer to people and social activist groups on the political left, mainly those who associate with progressivist ideals, equating them to the alt-right, a faction of the far-right consisting mainly of white supremacists and political extremists. It is mainly used disparagingly to suggest the existence of a fringe ideological movement equivalent to the alt-right.

References

--Mark Miller (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Tvtonightokc I have reverted your edits because they have been disputed. A discussion has been requested.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The main concept behind the edits to the alt-left article was that the term had no political exclusivity. In point of fact, I've heard the term be used in articles as a derogatory term for progressives, but it is likely also used for other factions of the political left that are left-of-center. This is typified by one of the earlier edits which mentioned its origins during the 2016 Presidential campaign. Some of the refs do seem to contradict one another, creating a confusing "chicken or the egg" situation as to which ideology originated the term and which one co-opted it. Unfortunately, Mark Miller's removals of the lead text and the paragraph that reference its origins within the Democratic Party/left to refer to other ideologues to their left weakened the explanation of it being a uniform slur against certain factions of the left. I think that it's important to explain the full origins of the term and how it spread between the two parties. TVTonightOKC 19:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"..used by some conservatives and liberals to refer to people and social activist groups on the political left, mainly those who associate with progressivist ideals.." That needs multiple strong sources as it is a BLP issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"The term had become known for its use by United States President Donald Trump in an August 15, 2017 press conference at New York City's Trump Tower." aside from the grammar issue, it is undue weight.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated use in the UK

Buzzfeed UK wrote about "alt-left" media in the UK in May 2016. They used the term to mean hyperpartisan left-wing news websites that support Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the UK Labour Party. --User:Edpw ) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

May 2017.[2] Doug Weller talk 18:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a "Not to be confused with..." template added? Nah.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this another Campaign for the neologism "santorum"

Should this article simply treat this subject in a similar manner?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Jacobin magazine op-ed

How is it that an opinion piece by a non-RS magazine can be presented in "Wikipedia voice"? CJK09 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How do you consider the source to be non RS?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

why ?

@Mark Miller: , why

that reset  ??

My edit has delivered three places of finding (or is 'sources of information' the better word ? I'm German => no native speaker).

It's no WP:OR - the three are mentioned in a Spiegel online article that was published today. 'Spiegel online is one of the most influential political online media in Germany (even before FAZ.net, zeit.de and sueddeutsche.de).

I ask you to explain your reset your reset or to reverse it. Why didn't you use the Edit summary ? --Neun-x (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you show me the quote (even in German) that this is based on? Frankly, at the moment I do not think non-English sources should be introduced unless there is no English equivalent.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I should mention that most of that is already in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: What ??

• Liberals get hysterical over the 'alt-right' but we are living in their 'alt-left' world
• vanityfair.com March 3, 2017 and

The alt-left’s cyber jihad against Trump and his supporters

are N O T in the article. I have 2 eyes in my head (and about 50.000 edits on my counter) . --Neun-x (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that part of what I removed has relevance please feel free to re-add but please consider all of our policies and guidelines before adding.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark Miller continued reversions

@Mark Miller:} Is there a reason you continue to revert edits to this article with no edit summary? I realize it is a contentious topic, and in some ways distasteful, but at the same time we owe it to the reader to explain what the term means and how it is being used. Just having a sentence saying "It is a neologism and pejorative" doesn't really help people understand the phrase. 2602:30A:2C2A:370:458D:E292:3BA3:D6CE (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I should use more summary explanations. That is true. I will be more alert to that.

@Mark Miller:} One again, you are saying in your edit summary that the sources do not say what they actually do say.. The three sources in question say (verbatim I might add) "the term maintains differing usages between both parties" ss well as "The term has been used by some politicians and political commentators on both sides of the political aisle to frame certain activists and politicians on the left as an equation to the alt-right". Your edit summary say that the sources do not say this, when actuality they say it quite clearly. did you read the sources in question? 162.194.160.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

To make a claim about groups requires multiple strong sources that state as fact in unambiguous terms. This is original research and lacks inline citations to specific claims making it very difficult to verify, but when checked the sources simply do not support the claims.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, did you read the sources? They use this EXACT phrasing! I am now genuinely confused. Would you be more comfortable with "according to the New York Times..." blah blah blah...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.194.160.55 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I did read the sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok so once again, the NYT article uses the exact phrasing in question. Can you please clearly explain your objection (without being vague and saying "it's against policy")? More specifically, my question to you is why the objection to directly quoting a reliable source verbatim? No synth, no OR. Just using the exact words in the exact order that the NYT article used. I don't want to battle with you - I am asking in goof faith why the objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.194.160.55 (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what claim do you feel that supports?--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I asked a very simple question. Please provide the courtesy of answering it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C2A:370:458D:E292:3BA3:D6CE (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark Miller, you have no mandate to blank the sourced and relevant material from the lede. Stop your unilateral reverts.Axxxion (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Source your content with an inline citation and be careful of what claims you make about groups. All content that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be cited to a reliable source using an inline citation. It is up to the editor that adds the content back to provide an inline citation to a reliable source and once accomplished satisfies this guideline on verifiability. But the source must state it in in unambiguous terms.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you write a lot of characters here, but do not seem to say clearly and specifically what you think is not supported by sources and what you suggest.Axxxion (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You should recognize the last comment, it paraphrases our policy on verifiability.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not the one who created the subsection away from the discussion about the lede. I am just responding here as it is where the discussion continued.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

General criticism of the topic/not a forum.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ideology From what i've seen they are usually racist, sexist, anti science and socialist i can source all of this later Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP issues

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy is clear, claims about individuals or groups that is poorly sourced or not sourced at all should be removed without discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

But it is not poorly sourced. It is a quote directly from the New York Times. And it is not a "claim" about anyone - it is an attempt to define a term/ideology. In any event, I give up. Obviously I am missing something here. This really should not be that contentious of an entry. 162.194.160.55 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest reading the policy.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No BLP here. Mark Miller, you are just engaged in unjustified deletion of material.Axxxion (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Legal persons and groups.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. But you never said clearly what exactly you were unhappy about. I have removed all the groups. But why blank the whole lede?Axxxion (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. "Conservatives" is not a legal person or group. 184.101.234.2 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. There is no BLP issue here. Mark needs to specify if they feel there is one. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It was removed User:EvergreenFir but I contend that making such claims towards specific groups does qualify as a BLP issue and that the sources did not actually support the claim directly and unambiguously.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be a good faith effort to address the concerns.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Continued and baffling wholesale reversions by Mark Miller

Not sure why you refuse to discuss at talk, but it is certainly your prerogative. You are now editi warrring and creating a battleground atmosphere. My advice is to discuss your changes, and not just spout policy. Again it is your choice, but if taken to ANI at this pint you will likely be blocked from the article. I'd rather not do so because I think your contributions are actually valuable, but you need to discuss them first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:8C0D:5380:97D2:CF28 (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: Where is your source for this:"The term began being used by Sean Hannity and Fox News to criticize bias against President-elect Trump."??

I have initiated several attempts to talk including your talk page. Discussion is not required before edits are made but I have attempted to bring a discussion here. As for your question; "The term began being used by Sean Hannity and Fox News to criticize bias against President-elect Trump".. the reference is in the body of the article next to the claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Disputes to article content

Are there any current disputes about content, wording or sourcing? Would editors like to take the opportunity to discuss what they object to?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Plenty of objections, all of which you have chosen to ignore. Instead you cite policy without making any specific reference to the article itself (see above). Now the page is locked down. I trust you are satisfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.114.214.45 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It does seem odd to argue instead of adding your concern.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification

The part "Unrelated to Donald Trump's use of the word," appears to fail verification. The source must say it was "unrelated".

See "The term gained prevalence when U.S. president Donald Trump used the phrase during remarks on the Charlottesville rally on August 15, 2017." According to which source it "gained prevalence" after Trump used it? I think we needs sources in the lede in order to verify the content for a controversial topic. QuackGuru (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That is actually a good point towards the use of references in the lede.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:QuackGuru I checked the history and the line about "Unrelated to Donald Trump.." was attached to the original claim with no additional references. This appears to be original research or synthesis. Without that sourced context, I think it only confuses the situation and other content. I'm for losing it and going back to my original suggestion that I struck out. We should just add a "Not to be confused with". Template at the top of the page.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The page may be deleted. Mark Miller, to ping an editor you have to correctly use {{U}} or {{ping}}. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks..I did screw that up pretty badly. :) Sorry!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Alt-Left already existed prior to reinvention

The alt-left already existed before Fox reinvented the word. It borrowed the "alt-" from alt-right, some proponents did away with race realism and white identitarianism while others kept it, added typical left wing politics, but without it's brand of identity politics (things relating to intersectionality and critical theory). It also insists on being as critical of all religions as of Christianity, with Islam being a main subject of discussion.

There's a reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/

A dedicated site (which is more race oriented): https://altleft.com

Robert A Lindsay is allegedly the one who coined the term: https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/

There are pages and groups on Facebook too that predate the reinvention by Conservatives https://www.facebook.com/search/str/alt+left/keywords_search

Another dedicated site (not focused on race) https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/

a group which been established in 9 april 2016 prior to sean hannity statement.

https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/

a blog which describe preferred policies for the alt left and which describe the movements inside the group at the moment.

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.163.156 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.71.110.214 (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The Young Turks' TYT Nation program also recently published a video explaining its origins as a derogatory term by centrist Democrats to those within the party (as well as left-aligned independents) who support progressive ideals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8noaimoNzk

Here are other articles that corroborate this, coming from ShadowProof, The New Republic, Politico, The Washington Post, Vice, and the Los Angeles Times. A couple of these articles do muddy the water as to who originated the term, but most note that "alt-left" was co-opted by conservatives to disparage progressive Democrats but was originated for the same purpose by centrist Dems. I welcome Mark Miller and others to review these articles, so we can generate some form of compromise as to how to illustrate the origins of the term. TVTonightOKC 13:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

OK..now this is interesting but I wonder if these can truly be compared let alone be stated as the same al-left this article is referring to.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

the point is that there is actually a movement and blogs which affiliated with the name alt-left (as the sources i brought you show),and they are not related to antifa, and yes i understand that its basically an original research and blogs and facebook groups (the biggest have 10 thousnd members), but experts dont really care about researching our movement, so i cant bring you any other sources about our movement (its a catch 22 situation).

A framework for progress on the article

It seems unlikely the AfD discussion will suddenly produce a consensus for deletion, so we should discuss how to make the article good and useful. Here's what I think we know based on the references existing in the article.

The term "alt-left" saw isolated uses from 2015 into early 2017 by both liberal and conservative commentators in the United States, generally in attempts to coin the term into common usage. Centrist liberals used it as a derogatory term for the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. Conservatives used it to refer to violent anarchist, anti-capitalist, and anti-fascist activists as exemplified by the Antifa movement. The former definition was seen in both liberal and mainstream media; the latter definition was entirely restricted to conservative media.

Increasing use of the term by Fox News seems to have triggered increasing coverage in mainstream outlets staking out various positions on the meaning or legitimacy of the term. Some of these articles adopted the extreme position that there is no alt-left, which flies in the face of plentiful evidence that all of those earlier commentators were surely referring to very real groups, even though none of those groups used the term themselves.

Just recently, President Trump's adoption of the conservative-preferred definition has led to a new wave of coverage. Some outlets continue to maintain that there is no alt-left, but increasingly, mainstream publications such as The New York Times and The Washington Post are taking the term seriously.

At the same time, liberal outlets don't seem to be trying to re-establish the link to the Democratic Party's socialist wing. This has the effect of solidifying the Antifa-related definition. Also supporting that definition is growing documentation that left-wing radicals have been responsible for more violent protests in recent years than the alt-right. (That source isn't exactly reliable overall, but the list of violent demonstrations passes the sniff test. And though of course the awful violence in Charlottesville was vastly worse than all of those left-wing protests put together, it wouldn't be wise or fair to let that fact brush aside the others. There are plenty of historical examples of brutal murders by the left as well.)

So it seems likely to me that over time we're likely to see the usage of this term consolidate behind the conservative definition, and even while we're waiting to see if that really happens, there's an interesting fact-based story to tell right here. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

References

I dispute the above as being a way forward. First all that from one source? OK, but please explain why we should use this one source as the overarching source to begin?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark, I said "Here's what I think we know based on the references existing in the article." I think that's pretty clear. I mentioned one additional web page, but only to support one narrow point I'm trying to bring into the story. I strongly support the basic principle of WP:AGF, but you really do seem to be intent on pursuing a strategy of obstructionism here, and eventually assumptions must yield to ground truth. You said "first." Do you have other comments that would be more constructive? Did I, for example, assert any facts that reliable sources contradict? Did I overlook any useful, verifiable facts? 98.247.224.9 (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Look, I am discussing this with you and have made no comment that can be seen as not AGF. If you are attempting a good faith move forward please AGF yourself.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

In actual point of fact I do see your assertion that I used "this one... overarching source" to support "all that" text as an example of non-good-faith argument. This assertion was obviously false-to-fact because in my VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH I referred to "the references existing in the article." And this is just one example of several in your other comments. From these facts—the ground truth—I conclude that you are not arguing fairly or honestly.98.247.224.9 (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You stated;"The term "alt-left" saw isolated uses from 2015 into early 2017 by both liberal and conservative commentators". Now, perhaps you are just not seeing the above discussions but I have already disputed that and still dispute that. I dispute the 2015 history and that this is common use with both conservative and liberals.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

UTC)

user: 98.247.224.9 Agree this is an excellent starting point and also aligns with other reliable sources showing usage of the term as far back as 2015 or earlier. It does not appear there are any objections so I would say this is a nice starting point for the article when it comes off of lockdown. I admit I previously thought Trump was responsible for creating the term but there are obviously reliable sources documenting significant usage before Charlottesville. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:D0D2:BEF6:80AE:E760 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Just because there was something called alt-left in 2015 (there was a website but it was not the same thing and sources confirm that) or other uses even in 2016 by Democrats, these are not the same descriptors that the alt-left is supposed to have by the majority of sources. So...I don't believe we should be describing such in blanket terms.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

user:Mark Miller Is it your contention that the term did not see isolated usage in 2015/2016? Just curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.114.214.45 (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

What I am saying is that we cannot just say that something labeled in 2015 with the same or similar name is the same subject. In some instances (such as the UK) they are simply not related at all. Care must be made to distinguish what the use was in it's earlier stages. So, for example we might say that the term was used in a different manner by so and so at such and such time but then we would need very careful wording as to not use Wikipedia's voice to claim it is the same "usage or definition" as Sean Hannity or Donald Trump's.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark, maybe you would find it helpful to remember that the article is about the TERM "alt-left," not any ONE MEANING of the term. That's what I wrote above—a summary of the history of the TERM, based on the reliable sources already referenced in the article plus that one more. If you keep trying to interpret my text as an explanation of just ONE MEANING of the term, you will never get anywhere. Surely the 2015 website was just one isolated (same meaning as "independent," "disconnected," "unrelated," etc.) attempt to coin the term into more common use? And just as surely, both conservatives and liberals have made more isolated attempts to bring the word into more common use since then. Do you get it now? 98.247.224.9 (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The article was created by a now-banned sockpuppet and is trending towards delete, so don't get too carried away. If by some miracle it survives deletion, the focus should shift solely slur/pejorative aspect, as that is the only form in which this term exists. TheValeyard (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Where the article came from is now utterly irrelevant since most of the text in it now comes from other editors. Your repeated reminders of that origin are clearly destructive, not constructive. Please stop. Similarly, if the term "alt-left" is coming into broad use by notable, reliable sources as a way to refer to the Antifa movement and other similar movements—as I believe it is, and will continue to be, though I happily stipulate that it's too soon to be absolutely sure this whole thing won't just blow over—then it isn't a pejorative term any more, even if it continues to be used pejoratively by some people. We can't stop that, but we can and should explain it. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Editors arguing for deletion fail to understand that the term has been used hundreds of times in reliable sources over the past few days. People are obstensibly coming to wikipedia to find information about the phrase. This is an encyclopedia and it is our job to provide that information. If you don't like the term - that's fine! Contribute and help write an article that tells the verifiable truth about he term and it's origins. The gold, bad and ugly. But by failing to have an entry at all, we In turn fail our readership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.67.118 (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

IPs and editors (who forget to sign their posts) arguing to keep it fail to understand that Wikipedia isn't a wp:coatrack or a wp:dictionary. We're not using the king of America's faux-pas as an excuse to create a vessel into which to pump the objections of supporters of the far right who don't like the fact that our project reflects how it's spokespersons are portrayed in available sources. Edaham (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

But that's just it. Call the term what it is. Dont candy coat anything. But at least provide the information. Its irrelevant whether someone is a supporter of the "alt-right" or "alt-left" or whatever term is being used. This project is here provide information. And it can still conintie to portray spokespersons or whoever on whatever light the sources reflect. But to not have the information at all is doing everyone a disservice. 2600:1012:B068:BBB8:38DA:4C97:BBCE:AAA2 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

We aren't here to promote every piece of information and news article surrounding a subject in numerous POV forks. If we were we'd soon have an article on how you are a single edit, single purpose sock puppet created solely to comment on this thread as opposed to joining the effort to build an encyclopedia, just because some of the editors who might be thinking it happen to mention it in a speech. We don't though because, firstly it might not be true, secondly not all information is that important and thirdly, we have other pages which more than enclose what can be written about these subjects within their scope. Edaham (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If dozens of reliable sources, commentators, and newspapers made hundreds of mentions about me being an SPA/SOCK, then yes, an article might be appropriate. Please AGF and take your aspersions elsewhere - they are unnecessary and unhelpful. I do want to build an encyclopedia and I happen to believe that said encyclopedia should include an entry on this particular subject. Yoiu disagree and that's fine - reasonable minds can differ. I am simply presenting my views on the matter, notice I am not commenting on you nor casting aspersions. For what it's worth I don't care for Trump or the alt-right one bit. I do however believe that there has been enough coverage of this ideology to warrant an article. That's it in a nutshell. 70.197.76.99 (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't really cast aspirations regarding people I'm not sure exist now, can I? Or maybe I can - that seems to be the way the IPs would like things to work. Surely my unhelpful comments regarding your thread are a metaphysical nod in the direction of supporting such inclusions. As good a reason as any to cease. In any case I took your comments about being here in good faith as such and accordingly I have left you a welcome message and a link to the Wikipedia adventure, which will help you to locate articles outside of your very small nutshell, which are need of attention and creation - i.e. not this one. Nb. Apologies if you get this welcome message twice or even three times. It may have been sent to several of the accounts used to vote on this page, some of which may or may not be the same user. We're not aloud to make accusations, but apologies are encouraged - Edaham (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Notability of subject

IP user 98.247.224.9 stated; "Mark, maybe you would find it helpful to remember that the article is about the TERM "alt-left," not any ONE MEANING of the term. That's what I wrote above". Then, are you attempting to tell me this is an ambiguous term with different meanings, associations and groups with different definitions? Because if so, that sounds a lot like a list article. That has some slightly different criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. You might be suggesting that this is a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article, an ariticle about a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts. In our notability guideline it states under the section "Whether to create standalone pages"; "There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.". It may be better to merge any content here to several different articles such as antifa, United States presidential election, 2016 and even as a part of the "response" or "reaction" section in Alt-right article and then create a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page to point to the various articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

many scholars

This doesn't fly for me. Make a tally. Give a specific number. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I had "some commentators have suggested" but was reverted (numerous times) by user:Mark Miller. I have no idea why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.67.118 (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Did he not refer you to wp:weasel, where you can find advice on that kind of wording? Answer...

Yes he did explain to you that you were using weasel words, but cunningly, you were using a different IP address at that time, which makes it (a bit) harder to spot the history:

• here

• and here

his edit summary reads: Weasal(sic) words. Why are you attempting to add doubt

Seems clear enough to me.

Edaham (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. "Many scholars" is a clear case of weasel wording. This should be removed, I am considering making an edit request as such. Are there any objections? 162.194.160.55 (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 August 2017

Change no subscribers in citation 4 to anti-fa, communists, and other left-wing terrorist organizations. Bolo boloman (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That wouldn't be an accurate piece of text Edaham (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I am curious about something. Is user:Edaham an administrator? Not sure why he was answering user:Bolo boloman's query. I was under the impresssi that protected edit requests had to be approved by an administrator. Perhaps I am incorrrect in the matter.2600:1012:B02E:F7E3:ED27:2A98:388A:AA18 (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I removed Edaham's decline of this edit fully-protected request, because only admins should do this. The original IP requester would have more credibility if they identified themself properly. (They signed as User:Bolo boloman, but Bolo did not make this request). In general, edit requests on highly-disputed articles ought to be perceived to have consensus, for example, through a talk thread that reaches this conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston oh, was it fully protected - I thought it was a semi and didn't notice. oops - many apologies . Edaham (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done SPA request, this is the user's only edit. Nakon 04:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Many Scholars

It appears there is consensus to remove this line as it contains weasel-words. Can we please modify/remove it? 2602:30A:2C2A:370:540A:71D0:2C47:8CE1 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The citations quote 3 reliable sources which relay the opinions of a cultural critic for Vanity Fair, an analyst for the Anti-Defamation League, and so on, all agree that the "alt left" doesn't actually exist. IMO, the wording is fine, and does not necessitate an edit-through-full-protection request. TheValeyard (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

My contention is with the weasel-word "many". Let's attribute the opinion to the source(s) rather than using weasel-words.

 Not done, please feel free to edit the article once the full protection expires. Thanks, Nakon 04:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Usage

Underneath the "Usage" section, the following is stated in wikipedias voice. I believe it to be POV (I bolded the specific part).: Outside of being a derogatory term for radical progressive activists, the label usually refers to a faction of the political left that does not exist, as the progressive or far left segments of political ideology do not identify by any other particular collective noun. Can we please change or remove this sentence as it is highly POV and inaccurate? 162.194.160.55 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Same as the above, the reliable sources paint the term as a slur or a hollow attempt at false equivalence. No need to edit a fully-protected article for an edit that doe snot have consensus support. TheValeyard (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, not disagreeing with you, I just don't feel the word "usually" is helpful. Why not attribute the claims to the actual source?2602:301:772D:62D0:8089:391F:4409:CD33 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I fail to understand under what guideline you feel the word "usually" qualifies as POV. The sources support the use of the word "Usually" and in some cases state it with the same wording. I could support a more encyclopedic tone such as "in most cases" but do not see any reason to lose the word.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

which sources state it with the same wording? 2602:301:772D:62D0:8089:391F:4409:CD33 (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I think on this one, you may need to do the actual footwork of reading the sources. I see no reason to begin supplying sources over this question. This seems too easy for the general reader or contributor to look into.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I looked into the original question by User talk:162.194.160.55. I believe they have something here. I believe what the user is saying is that the wording is non neutral point of view. From Wikipedia:NPOV; "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." While the use of the word usual does correspond with many of the references I have read...I am actually the one that placed the original content that was "The label refers to something that does not exist.[11]" but was then stretched out into a very long claim and attributed it to the source in line as an opinion piece which they considered only because of the politics of the source. From there is got edited more. So, this should be edited back. Could EdJohnston or another admin please edit that to return it to the simple claim that was supported by the reference?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The ENTIRE "does not exist" part needs to removed unless it is cited SOLELY as an opinion of a given source. And it must be cited directly, not stated in WPs voice - that is policy and we must follow policy. 2602:301:772D:62D0:418A:A663:2E15:5168 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Uhm...what policy is that? In fact...that part is repeated a few times in sources. If anything I could see just losing the entire thing and rescuing the reference by placing it next to the same claim made elsewhere in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You are attempting to state in Wikipedia's voice that the alt-left does not exist. If it.is the opinion of a source it must be stated as such. Just like if another source states that the alt left DOES exist. It's called POV. Please read up on it. 2602:301:772D:62D0:418A:A663:2E15:5168 (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

So there is no specific Wikipedia policy or guideline just your opinion of what constitutes a fact? It is actually mentioned in the article as a fact. The source actually says "It goes without saying..." which it actually does. No, at Wikipedia we summarize the facts as written and only call something an opinion...when it is opinion. An opinion could be in the form of statement of such like; "In my opinion" or be in the form of a full editorial piece but must be identifiable as such. Just because you do not agree with the fact or you dispute the sources, does not mean it is not written as a fact by sources or that we cannot use Wikpedia's voice of authority to state such if the sources make the claim. We summarize without interpretation or analysis. This means that if a claim might be challenged it must be referenced. Once referenced properly and to Wikipedia standards it is up to the one who disputes the content to provide reasoning based on Wikipedia standards.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

user:Mark Miller I don't think you understand the concept. If The Daily Bugle says "the alt-left does not exist" and The Daily Times says "the alt-left does exist", we cannot state in wikipedia's voice as a fact either one. We can, however attribute the statement to it's appropriate source. For example: "According to the Daily Bugle, the alt-left does not exist", or "The Daily Times has stated that the alt-left does indeed exist and has origins from...". You seem to want the article to say "The alt-left refers to something that does not exist". We can't do this. We need to say what source makes this claim as it is indeed an opinion. It's not a fact. Depending on who you ask, and which source you reference, there are all kinds of opinions about the alt-left. Does this make sense? I am attempting to avoid another edit war like we had before the artilce was locked down. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that isn't how it works. If there are truly two differing sets of "facts" of equal weight and value...that last part is vital, then you discuss both...you do not call two opposing views in articles "opinion" just because there are others who say something different. It's WP:BALANCE; "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.".

Other factors include WP:PROPORTION which states; "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Right below that is WP:FALSEBALANCE which then states; "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.".--Mark Miller (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you have posted. There are reliable sources stating the alt-left exists, just like there are reliable sources stating the alt-left does NOT exist. The sources stating that it does exists are not a "tiny minority" or "fringe sources". The term and the existence of it's underlying concept have been well covered by reliable sources. So to state unequivocally that the alt-left does not exist is indeed false balance. You hit it on the head in your third sentence: we describe BOTH points of view and strive for balance. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

While this is not the section to further this discussion, you have not demonstrated that the sources are equal. In fact neither have I. I believe this to be what I have seen overall. Next in the discussion to gain a consensus, we would lay out or arguments in a logical manner by demonstration in some manner. We might decide that both views are equal and we might decide that one view has the most credible references themselves to back up claims while other sources merely mention the subject in a minor passing mention or without any specific way to source their own claims. Just an example of course. There are other ways to determine what is academic consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done, please feel free to edit the article once the full protection expires. Thanks, Nakon 04:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Current disputes/issues

• The lede (lead) - MOS:INTRO states that; "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." and "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." However, right now, it actually contradicts the body of the article. The lede says; "Alt-left is a neologism begun by conservative online media in 2016 suggesting the existence of a similar ideological fringe movement to the Alt-right on the political left." but the first sentence in the "Background" section state; "The usage of the term is made in contradictory ways, with many scholars noting that there is no equivalent to the alt-right on the hard and far political left."

References

We should probably cite most of the claims in the lede ( even if we are just repeating the citations from the article) and make sure we are not straying into NPOV, synthesis or original research.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• The following needs to be "unpacked". All the references for several claims are clustered at the end of the statement. I cannot verify part of this claim from the Washington Post by Aaron Blake which is cited 3 additional times as it is pay perview and I do not have a subscription;

Its usage eventually circulated within conservative online media, and was popularized around those circles through its use by Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity to suggest the existence of a similar ideological fringe movement on the political left. On the November 14, 2016 edition of his eponymous Fox News program, Hannity used the term to excoriate "alt-left media" together with "mainstream" and "radical" media for being "biased against President-elect Trump".

References

I'll come back and add a few more later. If anyone has something about the article they take issue with, please add your concern.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Just parking this here. I found a version of the Aaron Blake story from 2016, [3]--Mark Miller (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence in the "Background" section stating; "The usage of the term is made in contradictory ways, with many scholars noting that there is no equivalent to the alt-right on the hard and far political left." needs to either be deleted entirely, or changed. We must avoid weasel-words like "many scholars". We can say "According to xxxx..." but we can't say "many scholars" as it is inaccurate and not sourced. Nowhere in any of the sources does the phrase "many scholars" occur. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The Confusion of Left & Right

The authors who framed this article are intellectual frauds. Low level of scholarship, not only is this article rude? Scholastically pejorative, an insult upon our letters, arts and sciences, this article should have been expunged, upon conception.

General discussion of topic/not a forum.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Alt-left" or "alt-right" do not constitute specific generic or elemental slots in the policy community. "Extreme-right," "right," "center," "left," or "extreme-left" are terms which generalize ideological attitude and disposition toward conflict resolution, conflict analysis, and problem solving across three specific contexts: (1) economic systems, (2) political systems, and (3) philosophy of change. As follows: Economic Systems - Alt-right is pejorative for Laissez Faire Capitalism: - e.g., let it be; leave it alone; no government involvement in the economy, whatsoever; big and small producers compete. Hard-right is pejorative, for National Capitalism: - e.g., Large monopolies, duopolies, oligopolies and cartels under government protection. Right is pejorative, for Classical Capitalism: - e.g., Numerous small and large producers in free and open competition of supply & demand; labor and welfare totally competitive. Center is pejorative for Guided Capitalism: - e.g., private enterprise regulated in the public interest; rights of labor; welfare and social security materializing in some form. [[Left" is pejorative for Socialism: - e.g., nationalization of major enterprise; complete social security and welfare. Hard-left is pejorative for State-Communism: - e.g., top-down ownership by government of all factors of production; no private property, no rent, no profit. Alt-left is pejorative for Utopian-Marxist Concept: - e.g., theoretical communism; complete group effort; to each according to need. Political Systems - Alt-right is pejorative for Totalitarianism & Fascism: - e.g., elite rule based upon race, destiny and brute power; will of the people ignored. Hard-right is pejorative for Monarchy: - e.g., elite rule based upon divine right; rights to heredity. Right is pejorative for Democratic Authoritarianism: - e.g., rule by minority in the interest of the people; one party system; mechanisms for gauging public sentiment. Center is pejorative for people who have no idea what they're talking about: - e.g., there is no such thing as a "central" ideological political archetype; it doesn't exist; it never has. Left is pejorative for Representative Democracy: - e.g., "the republic"; people elect representatives who affect policy; minority rights refined by law; multiple party system. Hard-left is pejorative for Pure Democracy: - e.g., Government completely controlled by all the people; all vote on policy. Alt-left is pejorative for Anarchy: - e.g., every man for himself; no government. Philosophy of Change - Alt-right is pejorative for Ultra-conservatism: - (e.g., the "truth" is known; change in any accepted way is treason; allow no discussion of change. Hard-right is pejorative for Reactionism: - e.g., go back to the good old days; regain lost virtues; too many changes have occurred. Right is pejorative for Conservatism - e.g., classical conservatism; support of the tried and true; suspicious of change; fear and respect of unintended consequence; accept problems rather than risk the unknown. Center is pejorative for Moderatism - e.g., acceptance of change where need is clearly evident; burden of proof on changers. Left is pejorative for Liberalism: - e.g., classical liberalism; accept change readily; see progress in change; no dogma; much to be done. Hard-left is pejorative for Radicalism: - e.g., rapid and revolutionary change; acceptance of extreme solutions; time is of the essence. Alt-left would be pejorative for you have no position; you're off the map: - e.g., slang for inept individuals so hopelessly lost or muddled in their confusion of left and right, they cannot conceive or differentiate economic systems from political systems, political systems from philosophy of change, or their philosophy of change from fundamental comparative economics (e.g., the people who framed this article). Those outside-looking-in may oftentimes attempt general characterization of a mob, or group, as "alt-left," or "alt-right," across all three aforementioned contexts. However, that individuals tend to be eclectic and notoriously inconsistent, no one individual is ever hard-left, or hard-right across every continuum, with consistency over duration. Arguably so, some intra-combinations could be characterized comedic (e.g., a Utopian-Marxist Monarchist?), a scholastic abomination (e.g., a reactionary-anarchist?) or utterly absurd (e.g., a radical proponent of laissez-faire capitalism?). Nonetheless, that none of the three aforementioned continuums are statistically dependent, or synonymous, much less binding, we may characterize an individual as, say, a socially concerned right-leaning "political" moderate (e.g., proponent of democratic authoritarianism), a fiscal ultra-conservative (e.g., a proponent of Laissez-Faire Capitalism), yet sees progress with respect to philosophy of change (e.g., "Liberalism") would be wholly consistent with a human being's thought process with respect to policy, conflict resolution and problem solving. We can presuppose no mean. Blanket characterization of the hypothetical individual a moderate would be, by definition, rude. Oscillation and inconsistency in and of our perceptions are deeply etched in our humanity, and are profoundly affected by event, income, status, space, and time. Little compunction for racking up debt, plenty of time still left in life to correct from early mistakes, youths tend to be fiscally liberal. Little time left to self-correct from mistakes, with age human beings gravitate toward fiscal conservatism. It would be a fallacy of composition characterizing all youth as off-the-map Utopian-Marxists (e.g., alt-left), and all senior citizens as totalitarian-fascist Archie Bunkers who voted for Herbert Hoover (e.g., alt-right) - qed, asj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

47.136.138.209 (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

why deleted?

Hatting nonsense. See WP:NOTAFORUM. Jdcomix (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
why deleted? i found this article and then rememberd the robertslindsay blog and the altleft he would refer to robert was well recived on the badlingustics and badhistory and iamverysmart reddits why was my edits deleted i had primary sources not secondary ones? my best edit Protohistory A blogger Robert Lindsay and Rabbit? founded a movement called alt-left or what as the altleft site defined itself originally as "…The Other Red Pill" and currently as "The Left of the AltRight" also a reddit what they also called the paleo-left in late 2016 , the altleft blog dates back to 2015. </ref> Maybe split article into "altleft trumpite propoganda term" section up top then altleft internet movement or alt left movement trumps abuse of the term? and then i find someone has already bought this up below :The Alt-Left already existed prior to reinvention but i did not know as i did not read the talk page why was those primary sources not considerd after all wiki has links to social media and primary sources on google books trump is saying altleft=antifa so people they are no different to the altright except i have the altleft here and they are somewhat similar and somewhat differenet to the alt right you can see how different the altright and altleft are to the antifascists but see robert bans fascists on his blog but he also hates the current left however the altleft site seems to approve of the beatnik fascism so there is the lovehate between them they are like porcupines or somethin the altlefters in my mind seem to be a hybrid of pre 60s mildly racist labour left plus 30s fabian socialists eugenics? plus tankies but the seem to prefer keynes to planning i think robert said that mao and stalin were the greatest humanitarians ever if i remember correctley it gets weirder he is friends with jared taylor the white nationalist the more robert you read the more wtf it gets i used to read his blog until it became too crazy i havent read it in about a year but look here is primary source these guys are too obscure for the scholars and media to know of so this is a you read it here first on wikipedia. so in conclusion there is the altright the bs trump altleft catchphrase which is to attack the antifascists and then there is the obscure altleft people on the internet pre trump propganda use news use , mark ames the exiled good reading. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/why-the-alt-left-is-a-problem The alt-right receives the meatiest share of attention in the media, as it should. It’s powerful, vicious, steeped in neo-Nazi ideology, nativist white supremacy, men’s-rights misogyny, and Ayn Rand capitalist übermensch mythos, and it heralds a conquering hero in the White House in President Donald J. Trump, while the former executive chairman of the venereally right-wing Breitbart News, Steve Bannon, functions as despot whisperer, trickling Iago-ish poison into Trump’s receptive skull. The alt-left can’t match that for strength, malignancy, or tentacled reach, but its dude-bros and “purity progressives” exert a powerful reality-distortion field online and foster factionalism on the lib-left. Its outlets include not only Jacobin but also the Intercept, one of whose co-founders is the inexhaustible Glenn Greenwald, lawyer, author, journalist, and crucial conduit for Edward Snowden’s stolen N.S.A. data to The Guardian; Web sites such as Truthdig, Consortiumnews, and Naked Capitalism; and anomalous apostates such as Mickey Kaus, a former contributor to liberal percolators of ideas and opinions such as Washington Monthly, the New Republic, Harper’s, and Slate, who migrated sideways and down to the right-wing Daily Caller, did a temporary hitch as a columnist for the Breitbart bughouse in 2016, and serves as a tweeting defender of Trump’s proposed wall. Other busy beavers on Twitter include Michael Tracey, Freddie deBoer, Mark Ames, Connor Kilpatrick (a Jacobin contributor), Jeremy Scahill (journalist and Intercept co-founder), and similar fun guys. A Tumblr site devoted to “Trumpian Leftism” captures the intellectual flavor of their temperaments. One of the alt-left’s political darlings is Tulsi Gabbard, a progressive congresswoman from Hawaii who met with then president-elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower and was rumored to be under consideration for a Cabinet position, and its quixotic preacher-man and noble leper is Cornel West, once an orator at every social-justice convocation who got so uncoiled by his rancorous contempt for Obama and cast adrift into the hazy fringes of the alt-left References

a case of expert failure

The usage of the term is made in contradictory ways, with many scholars noting that there is no equivalent to the alt-right on the hard and far political left.[1][2][3] Unlike the term "alt-right" (which was coined by those on the extreme right who comprise the movement), as noted by Washington Post writer Aaron Blake, "alt-left" was "coined by its opponents and doesn't actually have any subscribers".[4] According to George Hawley, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, no such label has been adopted by any members of the progressive left.[5][6] While acknowledging that there are anti-fascism activists on the left who engage in physical confrontation against members of the far-right, Oren Segal, director of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, concurred that no equivalent to those who identify as being part of the "alt-right" exists, stating that anti-fascist groups were not consciously aiming to brand themselves in the manner that white supremacists, neo-Nazis and other members of the far-right had undertaken to mainstream their ideology.[6][7][8]

a question? so i need a journalist or a scientist or a organisation to make the claim! how does this work? i have proof in my posted links in my edits that you can read its all true well i have absoluteley shown that there is a expert failure here because i rememberd some guys on the internet who were actually making a "altleft?" movement so the talk that there is no such thing is false there is a altleft and trump is wrong it is not the antifa as he claims ive posted the proof the antifa is not the alt left it is these altleft guys so ive shown that the experts and trump are wrong so what happens when they are wrong wiki cant correct them? meow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:3158:C98E:9652:EA0D (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

While I do not endorse the content's use here, claims made must be attributed to a reliable third party and not directly to the subject mentioned. Facebook and personal blogs may not be used to source any claims. If the person has an official page, content from it may be used to reference only material about the subject themselves. If they are experts in the field being discussed their official site can be used to source content they have expertise in if used cautiously.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The sections WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:ABOUTSELF are pertinent. Also Wikipedia:Citing sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• The content could be re-added if properly sourced. Here is the content as originally presented;

The term was originally used as a self descriptive label of a movement of people with leftwing, Scientific Racism, nationalist, and/or keynesian ideologies who reject mainstream liberalism , identity politics , intersectionality and critical theory principally in the United States, but also to a lesser degree in the United Kingdom. the term was coined by blogger Robert Lindsay

The website altleft dates back to 2015 it defined itself originally as "…The Other Red Pill" and currently as "The Left of the AltRight" It has a presence on facebook , wordpress , reddit and blogspot

References

• About this; " [I] rememberd some guys on the internet who were actually making a "altleft?" movement so the talk that there is no such thing is false there is a altleft and trump is wrong it is not the antifa as he claims ive posted the proof the antifa is not the alt left it is these altleft guys so ive shown that the experts and trump are wrong".

Well, see that's a problem. This is bias. You are editing with the thought that you know better than the experts and feel obligated to correct them with your own original research. Using original research (your own knowledge of events) on the talk page is perfectly fine. That is how editors make suggestions or propose direction and articles approach, but then one has to demonstrate that the sources actually reflect the same approach. I am not saying that you are incorrect. I am saying that editing this way is not neutral and can introduce that same bias into the article. Lets look at this as if it is far away and we are seeing it for the first time. Be dispassionate and willing to see content you may feel strongly about be edited or changed etc.. It makes working at Wikipedia much more enjoyable.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

i read you im reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research also can there be a timeline of uses of "altleft" there is timelines for other things here see a timeline would use primary sources without making original claims the media reads the timeline and then the media will write seconary sources from the posted primaries im tired its late bye for now 2001:8003:117E:6D00:3158:C98E:9652:EA0D (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Good for you! I really should have suggested that but that shows absolute good faith that you took the initiative to locate and research that on your own.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Timelines are a common part of Wikipedia articles of this nature. A good way to find direction is to look at similar articles (of high rating or GA FA status) to see how such formatting has been done successfully. Let me see if I can locate a good example of a timeline section. Remember that sources are still required.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

About timelines

Some information on using timelines on Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Timeline (standard layout) and Wikipedia:Timeline standards to start. These are "how-to-guides" and are not policy or guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• The syntax at Wikipedia:Timeline syntax creates a unique display but is more complicated to use.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

... ive been thinking , yes im wrong goodbye 2001:8003:117E:6D00:8846:A4A6:2C55:FEC4 (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Severely criticized"

user:Mark Miller I am curious where you came up with "severely crtiticized". I see this term no where in any of the cited Sources. Please help me understand. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Did I add that? At any rate lets look at it.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The full line in question is;

"Both the term itself and the concept of an "alt-left" as a sort of opposite-but-equal mirror of the alt-right have been severely criticized for "likening" the "socialist critics" of neo-Nazism "to neo-Nazis". And the term has been criticized as a label that, unlike alt-right, was not coined by the group it purports to describe, but, rather, was created by political opponents as a political smear implying a false equivalence."

References

The content was added by E.M.Gregory at 07:37 on 16 August 2017 with this edit. I have done a quick review of the sources and cannot find such a claim or similar and feel this might be original research added from the first sources use of multiple criticisms. How would you like to proceed 23.242.67.118. Did you wish to remove it, attempt to source it or discuss it with the contributing editor?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Silence can be seen as consensus, for now we should lose this part of the text. As it draws attention.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Read those 2 sources and you will see that it is a fair summary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I was unable to verify "severely criticized". See "In my view, a strong case can be made for a popular front. But few are actually making it. Instead, some liberals who claim to favor unity are going out of their way to exaggerate the left’s divisions — and likening their socialist critics to neo-Nazis."[4] No mention of severely criticized or the new content generated controversy using the source I mentioned. Maybe there is another source to verify the content. QuackGuru (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That was removed from the lede but I thought it had also been removed from the article. At any rate, that works for me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The part "Instead, some liberals who claim to favor unity are going out of their way to exaggerate the left’s divisions — and likening their socialist critics to neo-Nazis."[5] does not verify the part have generated controversy or for "likening" the "socialist critics" of neo-Nazism "to neo-Nazis". Both versions fail verification using the content I mentioned. Am I missing something? QuackGuru (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That sounds rather biased. I can't imagine that would be written as a fact. What do you suggest? Feel free to make a bold edit to correct that.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The part "Instead, some liberals who claim to favor unity are going out of their way to exaggerate the left’s divisions — and likening their socialist critics to neo-Nazis."[6] is not specifically about alt-left. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like it should be removed entirely.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Scholars have noted..."

user:Mark Miller again can you show me where the sources state this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.67.118 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your post with the four tilde; ~~~~. I think that one is from something I did read. Again, let's look at it.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems to have been an issue with at least two parts~

Please do not edit your version in after you have already begun a discussion to gain consensus. Let's look at it first.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• The content was added by Tvtonightokc with this edit.

I started up a wrong path so some editors were pinged and can add input but those particular issues are not really related to this issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Part of the content has been removed from the lead. I say we just lose this portion for now as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

More Reliable sources to use in the article.

I found a bunch more reliable sources which can be used for this article:

• NBC News
• Rolling Stone Magazine
• The Week
• The Guardian
• Washington Post
• Slate
• Seattle Patch
• Chicago Tribune
• Los Angeles Times
• Politico
• Wired
• Time Magazine

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

a quick summary of those sources

• NBC News Only mentions trump's usage of the term. Specifically mentions Antifa (United States) - on which we already have an article.
• Rolling Stone Magazine Directly attempts to disabuse its readers of the "alt-left" terminology and, again, specifically mentions Antifa as the subject of its article
• The Week quote from article: Let me start with the alt-right. This term was deliberately coined and adopted by white supremacist Richard Spencer, as something more sanitized and neutral-sounding than the traditional name for what he espouses — namely, white supremacy. As we all have seen, this movement — while still small — has significant numbers, and has been powerfully emboldened by the Trump presidency. So despite Spencer's branding effort, "alt-right" was quickly associated with racism.

As best I can tell, the very first people to use the term "alt-left" was a tiny faction within the alt-right

• The Guardian - quote from this one: those on the alt-right have recently begun to describe their opponents as the “alt-left” – a coinage that, asymmetrically, seems to be an attempt to rhetorically downgrade them to a fringe group of eccentrics, rather than a broad coalition of people who don’t like racism much. “What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging at the, as you say, the ‘alt-right’?” Trump asked, Solomonically, after the clashes in Charlottesville. “Do they have any semblance of guilt?"

Some of the people who actually protest against alt-right protesters in the US are from a group called “Antifa”, short for anti-fascist. Their opponents happily adopt the term

• Washington Post This article uses the term unambiguously as a term for a movement, but doesn't actually attribute it to anyone. It says that it was a slur term invented by the democrats.
• Slate Op-ed which only mentions the Trump attribution
• Seattle Patch does mention the concept of "better defining" the alt-left... by talking to two members of Antifa
• Chicago Tribune essentially (insofar as it applies to this article) a quote from Jack Posobiec.
• Los Angeles Times Trump/Bennett quotes
• Politico Op ed, referencing centrist democrats as the originators of the term
• Wired Opinion piece decrying the use of the term
• Time Magazine can't open (China VPN issues)

feel free to further summarize as there's clearly a lot of material here and it needs to be processed into something - without synthesis. My feeling is that the material presented belongs in articles about Trump, Antifa and on the Alt-Right. As a body of source material it doesn't collectively really support the existence of an article about a specific movement or group in the same way that white supremacy doesn't. It also doesn't support the explanation of an ideology in the way our white supremacy article does as it seems to be connected too closely to antifa, on which we already have an article and too vaguely to a variety of things beyond that. It seems that either banausic* detailing of every facet of ongoing media diatribes or the need to have another name for a movement which hasn't quite emerged could be the only reasons for including this word at present.

I learned the word banausic (dictionary.com's word of the day) while searching for dictionary definitions of alt-left (its not there) Edaham (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Alt-left (neologism)

As per the deletion discussion, if this closes as keep or no consensus, it would be a good idea to move the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

An article as controversial as this will certainly need a move discussion should such be the case...which I would support. Another alternative could still be a merge request after the AFD if there is no consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If there's no consensus I'd certainly support a merge with alt-right. Jdcomix (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed here to the merge idea if the result is no consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Two sources that could be used

• https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2017/03/alt-right-v-alt-left/
• http://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/Alt_Narratives_ICWSM17-CameraReady.pdf

--Shrike (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

coining of the phrase altleft

this seems to be when the term was coined , it should be mentioned in the article

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Wordpress is not a reliable source. TheValeyard (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

irl altleft movement

im sick of the endless "there is no self described altleft", "there seems to be no altleft", that is parroted here so here is the facts you guys just cant admit that you are wrong there is a media blackout on the altleft

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ 
"and, since there seem to be not actual self-identifying adherents,"
https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/
https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ 

https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151119073815/http://altleft.com 2001:8003:117E:6D00:433:304F:CC39:2D5F (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Wordpress, blogspot, facebook, reddit, altleft.com are not reliable sources. TheValeyard (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

i think they are worthy because they contradict the articles references by 2 years

please read each of them ,let me know if you did 2001:8003:117E:6D00:433:304F:CC39:2D5F (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

look im tired i give up bye 2001:8003:117E:6D00:433:304F:CC39:2D5F (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No consensus on deletion

Per an existing consensus of editors, a merge discussion has followed the closing of the deletion discussion as no consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

how do i vote? 2001:8003:117E:6D00:4D16:66C5:793E:541E (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you figured it out.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad that the closer correctly recognized that most of the delete !votes weren't based on policy and were basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The closer recognized both like and dislike towards the subject, linking to WP:ILIKEIT. Wikipedia is not “fair,” it is netural, and articles are not kept or deleted because editors like or dislike a subject. The comments made without a rationale based in policy have been discounted. The closer also addressed the policy-based arguments of both sides and in the end they were equal enough to produce a no consensus closure; please do not carry over bitterness towards a certain position from previous discussions into this one. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal discussion

Should the Alt-left article be merged into the Alt-right article in the section Alt-left and expanded there?

Editors are reminded of the closing admin's comment about !votes at that AFD; "Many of the comments in this discussion are not based upon Wikipedia policy; they are merely a reflection of trying to be “fair” or trying to delete an article about a term that the editor finds politically disagreeable. Wikipedia is not “fair,” it is netural, and articles are not kept or deleted because editors like or dislike a subject. The comments made without a rationale based in policy have been discounted." Please remember to be civil and maintain Wikipedia policy: There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Please, also remember that this may apply to some groups.

_{While normal mergers may be closed uncontroversially by any editor, because of the controversial nature of the article and the AFD, a request for admin closing will be made.} --Mark Miller (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support or Redirect to Antifa (United States) for being a protologism that was created in order to balance out the left-right paradigm in America and the criticism received by the alt-right in the wake of the recent alt-right attacks. The majority of sources contain the word as a report on what Donald Trump said rather than reporting on the word as a legitimate subject. PBS: "As for the 'alt-left,' researchers who study extremist groups say there is no such thing." WP:NOTNEO & WP:TOOSOON apply here as well. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Those on the far right who use the term "alt-left" have stated that it refers to all opponents of Donald Trump; therefore a redirect to a very small hard-left movement such as Antifa (United States) would be wholly inappropriate. The opponents of Donald Trump are basically everyone who aren't part of the far right, from conservatives to the political left. --Tataral (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose A standalone page would be easier to edit than a merged one also there is evidence that trump is malicious in his use of the term and that the experts are wrong too there are those who call themselves altleft , the word has multipe uses and histories , i think the media has failed need broader histories and context [7] [8] 2001:8003:117E:6D00:4D16:66C5:793E:541E (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC) — 2001:8003:117E:6D00:4D16:66C5:793E:541E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - For a closing editor or admin not to discount this !vote, arguments to oppose the merge must be within Wikipedia guidelines and should be a discussion about how to determine consensus on the merge proposal, not arguments about the content itself. Try not to simply reflect your opinion of the subject. Be as specific as you can about policy and guidelines. If you are unsure about specific policies and guidelines as a new editor, you can always remove your current opinion for the moment, and read the other arguments and links provided to get a quick overview of the pertinent ones to look at. As more arguments and links appear, someone may support the same view you have but perhaps worded better. You can always just agree with another editor's assessment by posting something along the lines of "Oppose per [editor's name]. You can even add more by stating anything specific in their argument that you agreed with.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose With advice for future development. From WP:NEO Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. - I didn't previously support anything other than the mention of this term in a related article or a deletion if the term falls out of use or becomes irrelevant. However, virtually during the course of this debate, the term has gained enough usage that concepts have formed in reliable media which satisfy the above policy, i.e. There is reliable material which describes the term as a concept as opposed to simply using it (i.e. Trump). Differentiating between sources which contribute to an understanding of the term and sources which merely use the term when talking about a subject will be a key factor in avoiding synthesis in future contributions to this article. Edaham (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. Many of the articles that specifically discuss this term (Politico for instance), discuss the coining of the term itself instead of using it to describe a tangible, non-abstract idea. Because of this, it is in my view certainly a neologism. Buffaboy ^talk 04:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Meaning is wider than just the narrow scope of the antifa movements, and would seem to encompass many non-mainstream liberal (e.g. democrat) alternative leftist movements.Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC) For instance, this guy - [9] - is claiming this started in the 1990s in usenet forums.Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Icewhiz, is it possible this is simply discussing or reflecting your view of the subject. Could you elaborate on a reasoning why the article need not be merged? Are you perhaps arguing notability?--Mark Miller (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I actually misread the proposal and was responding to the Antifa suggestion, which I see as too narrow in scope. Regarding the proposal to merge alt right and alt left, well that would be akin to merging far left with far right, and makes even less sense. Alt left is a distinct concept and is widely used, so despite being new it should have a separate article. And probably the best thing to do witn this article is WAIT, and see what we have in a couple of months.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• "that would be akin to merging far left with far right" – I do not agree. There is a far-left, and there is a far-right. There is not, however, any such thing as "alt-left;" that is merely a term invented by Trump in response to criticism of the self-identified alt-right. "Alt-left" wouldn't even exist as a neologism without the term "alt-right" having already existed and risen to prominence. Master of Time (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification Icewhiz.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The article was created simply to "even out" the fact there is an Alt-right article. However, "Alt-left" is just a neoclassicism without an actual meaning that has been caught in the media cycle and this much detail on it is WP:UNDUE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

have you read? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#The_Alt-Left_already_existed_prior_to_reinvention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.141.68.184 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Alt-left is a neologism only notable for being used by some "alt-right" individuals/websites. It doesn't refer to a real movement that is notable independently of "alt-right." --Tataral (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support. Nearly all coverage mentions it exclusively in the context of the Alt-right (or in a single usage by the president); it has no independent notability and not enough independent coverage to support its own article. --Aquillion (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I see "alt-left" commonly defined in terms of its opposite (the radical fringe, just on the left instead of the right). I have not seen the term applied to an actual group of people whose members, activities, and goals can be discussed. - Brian Kendig (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support A paragraph about the neologism at alt right would be enough. TheValeyard (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This topic is independently notable and given the widespread coverage by reliable sources, there's plenty of material on which to base an article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support This article reads like an expanded version of Alt-right#Alt-left. Since the term seems to be used almost entirely in relation to the alt-right, and it does not describe a political movement, there is no need for it to have an article of its own, especially when said article cannot seem to say anything new. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 23:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

altleft was used YEARS before trump by the self identified altleft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#The_Alt-Left_already_existed_prior_to_reinvention 110.141.68.184 (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge / redirect to Alt-right#Alt-left where this section already exists. Oppose redirect to Antifa. The "alt-left" neologism only exists as defined by the Alt-right (and President Trump), so a discussion in the Alt-right article would be appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Because I hate articles that are two million lines long, and the topic seem deep enough to warrant its own article. ImTheIP (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Like User:ImTheIP I find that sort of double article unweildy. But also because the sourcing on the origins and use of this term: as a self-descriptor in a minor way, then - primarily - as an epithet to be extensive and an article therefore useful. And also because I do not see it as confined to antifa. Overall, I suggest that we let the article develop and see how definition develops over the next several months, keeping in mind the tendency for dismissive labels ("queer") to be be "flipped."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support There is no such thing as the Alt-Left. It's a concept used as part of the political language game. Because the Alt-Right has come in for criticism, they've decided to create the term. However, as a definable group of people, it doesn't exist. So yes it should simply be a paragraph on the Alt-Right page. Garageland66 (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#The_Alt-Left_already_existed_prior_to_reinvention 2001:8003:117E:6D00:4C6C:DF57:410C:23B9 (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose , it has a wider meaning than just the Antifa (United States) group. It should be a stand alone article, given the wider coverage. Kierzek (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support, this article fits okay under the alt-right article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose term has multiple meanings, and has been extensively covered in reliable sources even before Trump's comments. The topic is independently notable and easily flies over the GNG, given its extensive coverage in reliable sources. CJK09 (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge. The main section Alt-right#Alt-left is not very long. There is plenty of remove in that section for the content. Before creating a new article the main article should be expanded first and become too large for the main article. This has not happened yet. What is the reason to have two pages for largely the same content? See WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The article was created by a sock. Thank you for considering my comments regarding these matters. Much appreciated. QuackGuru (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note: the last revision of Alt-left submitted by the banned sock puppet appears to have no prose in common with the current version. CJK09 (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge A quick Google news search, shows that there is almost no usage of this phrase, other than in local media. What little I can find, simply refers to being said by a speaker with a questionable history of word usage in the past. There would be no usage of this term, if it weren't for the existing alt-left article about white nationalists/supremacists/antisemites/neo-nazis. Nfitz (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The alt-left is independently notable as per weight of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:Zigzig20s Do you have some of those sources that make it notable? Everything I've seen merely theorizes upon it, says it doesn't exist, or is extreme-right or white-nationalist non-RS claiming that the centre-right and centre is the alt-left. By comparison to the alt-right being armed neo-nazis, white nationalists, and such, the alt-left would presumably be armed Marxists, communists, Sandanistas, etc., which might exist, but don't even talk English, let alone user that phrase. Nfitz (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I see 20 RS already. We're not here to make judgement calls here. We simply relay content from reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The 20 in the article? I've opened several, and they discuss the term "alt-left", with phrases like "made-up" "there is no alt-left", etc. They might support that the term itself, is in use among fascists, but you are saying THE alt-left is notable. Which sources User:Zigzig20s make THE alt-left notable - because without an actual alt-left group, all that's left, is a merge to alt-right. Nfitz (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying the phrase is notable as per weight of RS (20 here but I'm sure we could find more). We have Basket of deplorables and Binders full of women, so let's keep some perspective here.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Those are metaphores. The first one was deleted at AFD - I'm not sure why it hasn't been speedied. The second hasn't been discussed in so long, I'm not convinced it would survive a merger discussion to the campaign now it's long forgotten. Also this is about an actual group - that doesn't exist. Where are these far leftists, that would be the equivalent to the supremacists, white nationalists, neo-nazis, and militias that we've seen at far-right rallies? While alt-left is notable, so was Beckham's right foot; however Beckham's right foot doesn't have it's own article, for it doesn't exist without Beckham - the same way the alt-left doesn't exist without the alt-right. Nfitz (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note - Per WP:APPNOTE, an appropriate, neutrally worded notification has been made on the WikiProjects whose scope this article falls under for a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to help form consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - To prevent excessive repetition, I encourage all editors to read in full if they haven't already discussion regarding deletion. To quickly filter the comments most relevant to this discussion, I recommend pressing CTRL+F and searching for "Redirect". BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support, there's no need for a separate article here, and there isn't sufficient evidence that this is an independently notable word in its own right. Robofish (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support if it's just a neologism, not a real movement being described. Earthscent (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Note: keep in mind that rationales based in "I like it" or "I don't like it" are no less invalid in merge discussions than in deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Sources rarely discuss alt-left except in its connection to or as a counter to the alt-right- it's dwarfed in comparison to the alt-right, and is more better discussed as a subtopic of it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - The subject is very shallow and lacking in serious examination by sources. It can easily be covered encyclopedically in a couple of paragraphs in the article that covers the subject that spawned this neologism. Including the alt-left material in the alt-right article frames it in the appropriate context, per WP:MERGEREASON.- MrX 13:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#The_Alt-Left_already_existed_prior_to_reinvention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:34BB:C64A:BF90:EFDE (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support the topic is never going to be any more than a phrase as a counter-cultural-attack, or dog-whistle. The subject is inevitably associated solely with the "alt-right" topic to such an extent that it doesn't actually have any logical sense outside of a single article. Koncorde (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• support the proposal or to Antifa (United States). This term is completely RECENTISM driven by Trump's reaction to Charlottesville. We don't do this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian for example which had way more RS, over a much longer period of time, than "alt-left". Really, read the AfD. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The alt-left is notable independently on it's own per a large number of RS. Merging makes no sense. 2605:E000:8412:4A00:A989:6384:80C7:26FE (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC) — 2605:E000:8412:4A00:A989:6384:80C7:26FE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support Per Koncorde, PetertheFourth, and MrX. This is only "a thing" (to the extent that it even is "a thing") as a foil to the alt-right. That's where it should be discussed (briefly, since there's not much beyond that to say). Fyddlestix (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Independently notable and growing movement that is no long just notable because of their ties to the alt-right. Also NEO no longer applies, with the large and continued coverage by RS. Especially with the growing antifa (or anteefah depends on who you ask) movement, which has been tied by RS to the alt-left. PackMecEng (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Source for "movement"? Anti-fascist (and Antifa by extension) is standard left opposition to right wing populism. If anything "Alt-Left" is a casual attempt to rebrand Antifa with a neologism / pejorative. Koncorde (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I was mentioning the link this article made to it here. But there are other souces like here and here. PackMecEng (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Those sources suggest that when people say alt-left they are referring to Antifa, which we already have an article on. They could be used to support a redirect there, but they don't demonstrate that alt-left is anything other than a synonym for something we already have an article about. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That is correct, the sources I listed say antifa is one of the groups that is associated with the alt-left. I brought them up as a notable example and expanded when asked to. Not that they are the alt-left or the only group with them. Which is why its own article is warranted, that it is a broad term for several groups. PackMecEng (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The articles you list, starting with the Salon, specifically say the use of "Alt-Left" makes no sense and then explain why. Koncorde (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not list a Salon article? I listed a The atlantic, Vox, and NY Times. The atlantic states the use of the term in relation to the alt-left but says there is not a "moral equivalence". Vox says "alt-left exists, it’s probably best represented by antifa". Finally NY Times mentions "centrist liberals have taken to using this term" for alt-left. Hope that clears it up for you, but again its a term used for describing not just antifa, but the larger group of the alt-left. PackMecEng (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, meant the Atlantic which is blatant in dismissing the link. You have left out the important "if" from your Vox quote, and the article is about Antifa and specifically says that people didn't know (nor did Trump) what he was talking about. Meanwhile you have avoided the bulk of the Times article that states "Researchers who study extremist groups in the United States say there is no such thing as the “alt-left.” Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League, said the word had been made up to create a false equivalence between the far right and “anything vaguely left-seeming that they didn’t like.”. I'll leave it at that. Koncorde (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The "if" does not change the meaning. Also since the mention by Trump, it is pretty clear by RS sources, they know what it means now if they did not at the time. Which shows expanding and continued coverage. The Times article is pretty weak on it, probably not the best choice. But again shows RS coverage of the subject. So in summary, lots of coverage by reliable secondary sources, no longer a neologism, grown to a independent subject from Alt-Right with its own distinct groups covered that are not related to them. Ticks all the boxes for WP:GNG. PackMecEng (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as per the essay Wikipedia:Does deletion help? Merger of information into a parent articles may also cause problems. A few questions to ask are; will said info be accessible with out having to read a huge amount of unrelated info beforehand, will a merger of information lead to less information because of the overview nature of parent articles, will the information on said topic in a parent article lead to less updates because of our undue weight policies?--Moxy (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom, Koncorde's argument, and WP:MERGEREASON (specifically reason 2 [overlap] and 4 [context]). As has been noted by other contributors to this discussion, the alt-left term cannot be separated from the alt-right concept. While obviously not fully equivalent, the "overlap" element of MERGEREASON suggests that "flammable and non-flammable can both be explained in an article on flammability". As the alt-left term only exists in its use as a foil to alt-right, it would seem to make sense to cover it in that article. Similarly, the "overlap" element of MERGEREASON suggests that, if a "short article requires the background material or context from [another] article in order for readers to understand it [it is best merged]". As the alt-left term can really only be explained in the context of the alt-right concept, it would seem to make sense to cover it in that article. In short, a merge/redirect would seem appropriate. Guliolopez (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• Object. It is more informative to have a direct entry on it. As long as it is notable, it's ok. If you think it is not, ping me with an argument and I'll reconsider. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge - Per my pledge to support a merge if there was no consensus on the AFD, here I am. Jdcomix (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: please read these parts of the altleft talk page

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#The_Alt-Left_already_existed_prior_to_reinvention
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#irl_altleft_movement 2001:8003:117E:6D00:34BB:C64A:BF90:EFDE (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sources Even as editors continue to argue that this should be metged, public intellectuals like Gil Troy continue to publish new articles in WP:RS publications like Time (magazine), Why the 'Alt-Left' Is a Problem. I don't know Troy, or wehter he readw Wikipedia, but right at the top he writes that the term "alt-left", "has stirred silly arguments. Claiming there is no “alt-left” because no one calls themselves “alt-left,” ignores the long, colorful history of political nicknaming...." He continues, engaging this neologism in terms that satisfy WP:NEO on all points. As I have done above, I urge that we close this as keep and move on, secure that serious essays on this topic provide the sources for a good article - once emotions calm down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge to Alt-right, since it is a pejorative derived from that term, and having a separate article unhelpfully removes it from that context. Recent sources, following the only notable usage, pointing out that the word is rarely used and is basically meaningless (plus the article mentioned above claiming that it *actually* means what the writer assumes Trump meant), do not suggest it needs a separate article. Can always be split if the situation changes, and there is something else to add. zzz (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The wiki article needs further development and corrected content with facts. see < *I was in the original 'alt-left' and this is what we really stood for, The Independent. > Let us eat lettuce (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This wiki still under-developed, needs new antifa section. And alt-left is now notable enough to have its own wiki. Policypolicy (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

— Policypolicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support merge. Per the sources, this pejorative term is almost exclusively described in relation to the "alt-right" - can be handled best as part of that article. Neutrality^talk 22:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I request that the anonymous IP editor stop repeatedly spamming the article asserting that the term existed before the popularization of the term by the alt-right. Once is enough, posting it five times does not validate it. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As stated by others, this term has been discussed by countless mainstream publication and the term has been used way before Trump's press conference. It certainly should have its own standalone article. It's also debatable whether this term was created by the alt right. This term had been used frequently by some liberals to demean Bernie supporters. Truthsort (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge as it's mainly known via the alt-right. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as it's a neologism introduced and mainly harped upon by far-right sources, it's a false equivalence for it to have its own article. Rockypedia (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Origins of the alt-left term - Additional sources

• I was in the original 'alt-left' and this is what we really stood for, The Independent.
• The alt-right didn’t invent ‘alt-left.’ Liberals did., Washington Post.

--Merkasso (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Pejorative?

user:BrendonTheWizard curious as to what sources specifically state alt-left is a pejorative. I've looked at them, and none seem to say this. I believe calling it a pejorative is not only OR but unsourced as there are people who self-identify as alt left. 2605:E000:8412:4A00:A989:6384:80C7:26FE (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

here. It is widely described as a pejorative. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected, CBS does use the term - other sources don't. Accordingly, we should work to have consensus before making a significant change such as this one. 2605:E000:8412:4A00:A989:6384:80C7:26FE (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"I've looked at them" ~ no you haven't. You're obviously not that curious. I was "curious" about whether you'd really read what you said you had read and found (within a minute) that the first two links expound in meticulous detail how this is a political slur term. Don't remove sourced content from articles. Cheers! Edaham (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Where do the first two links use the word "pejorative"? If they do, I am of course willing to concede this entire discussion. 2605:E000:8412:4A00:A989:6384:80C7:26FE (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Last paragraph of 2nd bolded section: [10]. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That is the CBS source previously discussed. I was asking what other sources use the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:8412:4A00:A989:6384:80C7:26FE (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

NY Times calls it an "epithet". PBS and Daily KOS call it a pejorative. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The PBS source has a commentator quoted as saying the term is in "some ways a pejorative". Dally Kos is an opinion piece 2600:1012:B02F:BCBF:5572:4B6C:3359:2BD (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

if there's an entire articles two entire articles, cited at the top of the Wikipedia article, dedicated to explaining how the term is being used as a political smear we are at liberty to describe the term as a perjorative. We aren't using ctrl-c - crtl-v to write articles. Edaham (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one, pretty clear-cut: "But the alt-left label, having been invented exclusively by the “other side,” can only be understood as a pejorative term."

Again an opinion piece. I am comfortable with "sometimes used as a pejorative" thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:F112:1B7B:22A3:5F2 (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

yes, I'm glad you're comfortable.

sources

• 1) And it's apparently a pretty potent thing, given conservatives now want to use the inverse as a political attack.

  2) But the "alt left" is not a thing. It's just an insult," wrote Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the ADL center, on Twitter.

  3) "alt-left" originated as centrist criticism

  4) Troy claims that the “alt-left” is full of mean people that disagree with his Neoliberal leanings. The embodiment of pure evil, equivalent to the alt-right (or whatever Nazis call themselves nowadays)

  5) Much of the media spotlight has been on the “alt-right.” But the “alt-left” provides a mirror image distortion:

  6) "It’s a movement of phony self-righteousness and ‘compassion’ that it uses to gain power,” WorldNetDaily pundit Joseph Farah wrote of the alt-left. “It will do anything and say anything to achieve its goal of hammerlock control not only of government, but every significant cultural institution – from schools, universities and the press to churches, foundations, Hollywood and unions."

  7) a graver sin is the adoption of a term that was created by conservatives to smear the left and discredit criticisms of the growing clout of the racist right. Richard Spencer coined the term “alt-right” for his own movement. In very stark contrast, “alt-left” is a strawman invention of far-right websites.

Taken from the first seven sources of the article - note. That any of these are opinion pieces does not invalidate them from being used as reliable sources, nor does it stop them from contributing to an understanding of the neologism.

Edaham (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

A relevant policy and guideline, WP:NEO states: Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. If you have an issue with the way the sources are being used to summarize that it is a pejorative in the lede, then this is the policy which applies, and which you should draw attention to if you think there's a problem. Edaham (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• I would ask that the IP editor stop hopping IPs. We've had at least 3 different IPv6 from southwest California... """:::EvergreenFir (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Make an account and join the Wikipedia adventure!. See my user page for more details! If you take the adventure you get badges! Edaham (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's obviously a pejorative. No reason to pretend otherwise. Earthscent (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all, not IP hopping- I'm on a cell phone. Secondly my concern about using an opinion piece to state something in Wikipedia's voice. There are a number of ways to approach the issue "Prinarily used as a pejorative" for example, or "commentators have criticized the term as a pejorative". But to call the term as a pejorative in WPs voice I feel is rather extreme and more importantly inaccurate. Now instead of snark, how about realize I am a novice user, NOT an "alt-righter", but rather someone who wants an accurate article. Just because I don't jump all over every opportunity to discount the term DOESNT mean that I don't personally feel it is a joke. But there is a right way to go about doing this. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a pejorative. It is not anything else. If the article says "sometimes" the article is false. Earthscent (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all there's nothing snarky about taking the Wikipedia adventure (or signing in, for that matter) Secondly - seven articles aren't "an opinion piece" and thirdly while those sources may opine about the alt-left, they are fairly congruent per wp:neo as to how they talk about the term and their reasons for characterizing it as such. Your suggestion of saying "sometimes used" is Original Research by implying that sometimes it is not. That would require proper sources - and lots of them too in order to satisfy wp:due. Your second idea is wp:weasel if not accompanied by proper attribution - ideally in the form of a list of links bundled into a single citation, which is unnecessarily messy in this case since it's an uncontroversial issue regarding the term. - I might support alternative wording as the style doesn't seem very fitting. The use of the term pejorative among the first five words of the lede makes it seem like it's an established dictionary classification, and it's still very much a vague term. A rewording would have to make clear the political intentions of the use of the term, which are well sourced/documented and clearly negative in their intent. This is very much a stylistic choice however, not a policy based suggestion. Edaham (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

User is same IP user that contributes at Political Correctness. I have recommended signing up for an account but user so far has a not. Prior IP's logged in my sandbox for comparison of edit patterns. Koncorde (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

In response to the original statement: it was in good faith that I added the term "pejorative" as seemingly every news article refers to it either as a pejorative, as a neologism, or both; this was a significant topic of conversation in this article's nomination for deletion. As I stated in the edit summary, this article itself further describes its use as a pejorative in later sections such as its background and use just as it further elaborates on where the neologism came from. If we are to have an article on this term due to its general notability gained from news, then it's certainly beneficial to give a most accurate summary of the term based on what the reliable sources that made the case for a no consensus result have said. I still prefer a merge to alt-right#alt-left, but that's a different discussion. In short, the idea that the term "alt-left" is a pejorative neologism is as well-sourced as the article itself as that is what most coverage of the term refers to it as. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

user:Edaham Do you have a suggestion for how it might be better phrased? The primary reason I'm uncomfortable defining strictly it as a pejorative is the history of the term prior to the rally. That and the fact that the term has been used sporadically to self-identify. The Political correctness article refers to the term as being "primarily a pejorative". Might be something to consider here. 2602:30A:2C2A:370:41E6:9A8C:58C:CBD4 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

but what about those bloggers from 2015?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#The_Alt-Left_already_existed_prior_to_reinvention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#irl_altleft_movement

2001:8003:117E:6D00:34BB:C64A:BF90:EFDE (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

user:Edaham (of anyone else for that matter), owing to the fact that the origin of the term is not as a pejorative, do you have any suggestions for how the lede sentence might be phrased more accurately? As I mentioned before, the Political correctness article uses the wording "primarily a pejorative". Are there any objections to this rewording?2600:1012:B001:9D0C:DDE9:C7A4:1211:1C02 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The lead sentence is accurate and should not be changed.- MrX 01:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The term as we know it came into existence when the current President spouted it in a speech. Happenstance, throwaway usage of "alt left" a few years ago, dug up after the fact and having no lasting effect is irrelevant. The term is a pejorative slur, promulgated by the alt right. Period. TheValeyard (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

With use shown well prior to 2017, neologism in the lead does not apply, even if most of the wide spread usage began with Hannity. Pointing out that it is a pejorative is no more necessary than pointing out the alt-right is a pejorative. Basically redundant and not the primary use of the word. Especially when the groups defined by the word narrow. Also looking at the earliest uses of the phrase it does not appear to of been introduced by the far-right, but left wing splinter groups. PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. Unfortunately, emotions are running too high around this term for an accurate article to be written at this time. Attempts to add well-sourced, accurate information have been immediately reverted by POV pushing editors who hate the term and refuse to intelligently discuss ways to improve the article. it's a shame, but thats the way WP works with political terms. 2602:30A:2C2A:370:353A:9204:B9F7:101F (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As demonstrated by the discussion regarding the deletion nomination of this article, both those that supported and opposed the article demonstrated not only examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT but more importantly examples of genuine policy-based concerns. To simply assume that all Wikipedia editors that disagree with you are "POV pushing" motivated by "hate" for the term or "refusing to intelligently discuss" improvement is itself the very kind of mentality and approach that you're describing your own distaste for. Wikipedia policy requires that we attack the substance of arguments, not the editors that made them. Instead of mass-labeling people as "POV pushing editors" I would encourage you to in good faith put forward a more substantive and direct refutation regarding why you believe this is a problem. As was largely discussed by both those that supported keeping and deleting the article before, use of this term as a pejorative and a neologism was the consensus of the sources. The no consensus result was because the discussion was not about the fact that it is a pejorative and a neologism, but because pejoratives and neologisms can be relevant on Wikipedia. As for what PackMecEng stated, the earliest use of the term appears to be by neoliberals referring to progressives as recently as the last election, though any widespread use or notability did not at the time catch on. Its use as a pejorative has not changed, and neither has its status as a neologism. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe there is some confusion. Some sources refer to the term as a pejorative, others do not. My only qualm is defining the phrase strictly as an unqualified pejorative aa it does not accuratley reflect what the sources state. There are well sourced instances of the term not being used as an pejorative. Regarding a "refusal to discuss", I made several attempts on this page to civilly engage other editors, inclduing directly pinging user:Edaham, and for the most part was ignored. Finally, here are some of the "reasons" other editors are using to keep the lede sentence as stating the term is a flat-out pejoraitve:

• It's obviously a pejorative. No reason to pretend otherwise.
• It is a pejorative. It is not anything else. If the article says "sometimes" the article is false.
• The term is a pejorative slur, promulgated by the alt right. Period

I have made what I feel is a reasonable suggestion, but more importantly it accurately reflects what the sources say, and that is the term is "often/widely (or even primarily) used as a pejorative.". Not s single editor has replied as to why or why not this is wording might work. Instead what I've seen are comments like the bulleted ones above. My only interest is in having an accurate article. I am not an alt-righter or Trump fan or anything of the sort. If someone can give a policy based argument as to why some variation of the words "widely labeled as a pejorative" is inaccurate, I would certainly let the whole matter drop. 2605:E000:8412:4A00:193F:2122:1DAB:A512 (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't ignore you. I couldn't think of a better wording. Edaham (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Please remove Neologism template tag

The admin who closed the AfD discussion specifically rejected the neologism argument on the basis that plentiful reliable sources have now been referenced in the article, which was not true when this template tag was applied:

The remaining comments have focused on whether the term should be deleted as unencyclopedic per the policy regarding neologisms--I address those here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should not serve as a platform for new terms that have not received notice. Many editors have made this point clearly in their comments. On the other hand, some neologisms can be considered a valid encyclopedic subject if the word or phrase has been “the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources.” This point has been made by the opposition. Simple Google searches reveal that the phrase is covered by significant, independent sources, qualifying the term as valid for inclusion in Wikipedia per our general notability guidelines. Those invoking the policy on neologism have tended to ignore these qualifiers in the policy; however, they raise a good point that this coverage may be reflecting mere sensation. On this, only time will tell.

This argument, with its supporting facts, seems more than sufficient to justify removing the template tag. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

An admin's closing of a deletion discussion is not binding for all-time once that discussion closes. If, via discussion editors agree that it is a pejorative neologism, then that's how it goes. TheValeyard (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There was no consensus formed from the discussion. If you note the part about; "Those invoking the policy on neologism have tended to ignore these qualifiers in the policy; however, they raise a good point that this coverage may be reflecting mere sensation. On this, only time will tell" Some, like myself did raise the issue of a lack sources and even explained exactly why. There is only media sources and no book or academic papers. The closing admin never defined what is considered the proper number of sources needed because the guideline is vague on purpose. Consensus determines that and it was not established by the discussion. To remove a tag like this the following is the how to guide on removal per WP:WTRMT;

Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template in any of the following circumstances:

1. When the issue has been adequately addressed;
2. Upon determining that the issue has been resolved (perhaps by someone else);
3. If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error. Discussing the matter with the original placer of the template is advised, though if the user is no longer active this becomes moot. In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page;
4. When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue. (It is best to note the location of the consensus in the edit summary accompanying your removal, ideally with a link to the location);
5. When it can reasonably be concluded that the template is no longer relevant, such as a {{Current}} template appearing in an article that no longer documents a current event;
6. If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. Some neutrality-related templates, such as {{COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) and {{POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy), strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed;
7. There is currently no consensus for age-related removal of maintenance templates, with the exception of POV-related templates (as addressed immediately above). In this regard, some templates relate to matters that are binary and unambiguous—the problem the maintenance template flags is plainly required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and therefore persists until addressed (e.g., the lack of any citations). As with the POV exception, age alone may be relevant where a lack of edits or of discussion addressed to the issue may be interpreted as a form of "silent consensus", that the issue isn't worth fixing. This invariably involves matters implicating an exercise of judgement and subjective elements.
8. Lastly, there are times when a person attempting to address a maintenance template that flags some fundamental matter may find that the issue cannot actually be addressed. For example, if an article is flagged as lacking citations to reliable, secondary sources, written by third-parties to the topic, and a user seeing the maintenance templates discovers that such sources appear not to exist, that usually means the article should be deleted. In such cases, it is not so much that the template does not belong and should be removed, but rather that flagging the page for maintenance will never address the more critical issue that the page itself does not belong on Wikipedia at all.

--Mark Miller (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done!

Regarding the tag - the following words are of importance:

This article may document a neologism or protologism in such a manner as to promote it.

The article is a neologism, but it isn't promoting the usage of the term. Required improvements aside, the article establishes evidence of a wide-spread usage of the term and passes wp:neo (just), on the basis that its sources talk about the term and hopefully don't unduly push other theories based on its usage. The neologism tag is therefore not required at this stage per the following guideline:

WP:WORDISSUBJECT:When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject - In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term.

My understanding of WP:NEO is that it is designed to discourage 1) Using Wikipedia as a platform to promote the use of a term and 2) Using the existence of a neologism to promote theories or concepts that surround it. This article appears to do neither of these things. Finally Malinaccier's closing arguments appear to support the idea that conflict with wp:neo is not sufficient to justify deletion of the article. I am therefore removing this tag.

The merge discussion remains open and the tag should not be removed until consensus is formed. Edaham (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I support the removal as long as no one else objects.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017

Before suggested edit: "Alt-left is a pejorative neologism introduced by far-right online media in 2016, suggesting the existence of an ideological fringe movement on the political left, as a direct opposite of the alt-right. The term began being used by Sean Hannity and Fox News to describe groups, outlets, or individuals who were perceived as being critical of President-elect Donald Trump. Trump used the term during remarks on the Charlottesville rally on August 15, 2017."

After suggested edit: "Alt-left is a pejorative neologism introduced by far-right online media in 2016, suggesting the existence of an ideological fringe movement on the political left, as a direct opposite of the alt-right. The term began being used by Sean Hannity and Fox News to describe groups, outlets, or individuals who were perceived as being critical of then President-elect Donald Trump. Later as President Donald Trump used the term during remarks on the Charlottesville rally on August 15, 2017."

The way it is currently phrased suggests President-elect is his current title. Second sentence could be used as a way to clarify that the term began in as a counter term to those perceived as critical to a then President-elect Donald Trump, and was later used in a press conformance by a President Donald Trump. 2601:282:8300:B4B9:F96A:B76E:3881:DBFB (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"introduced by far-right online media in 2016"

No, it wasn't. It was introduced by centre-left Dems who used the term to describe (far-)left Dems. See this part from the alt-right article:

The term originally circulated on social media during the 2016 presidential campaign as a disparaging term used by moderate and conservative Democrats against progressives and others to their ideological left (particularly, those who were skeptical of the candidacy of Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton) for their beliefs of socialism and radical social and economic change, and opposition to incrementalist policies associated with neoliberalism. Its usage later spread around some conservative circles,[...]

The first sentence begins with "Alt-left is a pejorative neologism introduced by far-right online media in 2016,...". I think we need a source for that. The exact origins may be unknown. Without a source it is unknown to our readers. QuackGuru (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

user talk:QuackGuru I agree and tried to bring this up previously (see above). Labeling the term as an unqualified pejorative is inaccurate. I had suggested phrasing similar to that used in the Political Correctness article "primarily used as a pejorative" , to no avail. Unfortunately, emotions are running very high in regards to this term which makes it difficult to have an article that is neutral/accurate. My suggestion is to step back for a couple weeks and then revisit. 162.194.160.55 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

According to this,[11], "The term "alt-left," however, did not originate as some sort of similar, self-claimed title by the far-left. Rather, its earliest usages on social media (which ultimately led to a write-up in Vanity Fair, among other places) came from centrists and establishment Democrats drawing an equivalence between the "alt-right" and the progressive left that was skeptical of former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton."

So, what should we do? When reliable sources disagree with one another, we are supposed to document the dispute, not take sides. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We do exactly what you suggested - we document what RS say. IF they are in dispute then we document the dispute. My entire objection to the whole "pejorative" thing, is the fact that there are well sourced instances of the term not being used as an pejorative. As I mentioned earlier, emotions are simply running too high around this term, and involved/based editors will continue to successfully edit-war to have their version represented, even if that version is wholly inaccurate. If you look at the arguments for defining the term strictly as a pejorative, you will notice most of them have no basis in policy:

• It's obviously a pejorative. No reason to pretend otherwise.
• It is a pejorative. It is not anything else. If the article says "sometimes" the article is false.
• The lead sentence is accurate and should not be changed
• The term is a pejorative slur, promulgated by the alt right. Period

Saying that some sources refer to the term as a pejorative is accurate. Saying the term is widely used as a pejorative may be accurate. Saying (in Wikipedia's voice) that the term is a pejorative is neither accurate, nor policy-based. 2602:30A:2C2A:370:353A:9204:B9F7:101F (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

See "It is unclear if Hannity himself coined the term, but we could not find widespread use of the term on reddit or 4chan, a web form popular with the “alt-right,” prior to his 22 November 2016 use of it."

See "According to the Washington Post, the term “alt-left” was first used on conspiracy theory-pushing websites like WorldNetDaily. As early as August 2016, that site published an op-ed entitled “Let’s look at the alt left” that argued that the Democratic party was as racist as the right, and that it should be considered extreme because it welcomed into its ranks communists and socialists."

See "The term isn't brand new, but it has just now gradually worked its way into the mainstream. It started with alt-right websites like World Net Daily and has graduated to the airwaves of Fox News and Sean Hannity, who has been using it for a couple of weeks now. And Trump, who has distanced himself from the alt-right term, may have played a major role in pushing it into the conservative lexicon."

See "The term “anti-left” began being used by the online media in 2016 before it slowly migrated to more mainstream conservative voices, like Fox News’ Sean Hannity. The phrase popped up on WorldNetDaily in August 2016 after Hillary Clinton’s alt-right speech." QuackGuru (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC

Agree that sources support this term is not a neologism and was in use as early as mid-2016. Not sure how they demonstrate whether or not it is a pejorative. Again, my concern is accuracy - not pushing a "side". I will once more refer you to the above "reasons" for labeling the term as such, eg: "It's obviously a pejorative. No reason to pretend otherwise". Funny how longstanding editors would consider this an appropriate reason for the label.2605:E000:8412:4A00:9C5C:94B8:732A:F28C (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

How it was used originally is different than how it is used today. To complicate the matter different people use it differently. QuackGuru (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, clearly the current text is inaccurate and needs to be fixed. If someone wants to be WP:BOLD, and try to fix it, go ahead. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I support the change as well. As I am an IP editor I cannot make it on a protected article. However, I feel at this ppoint it may be a waste of time, as you will most likely be reverted by a POV pushing editor who refuses to discuss or read the very salient points you raised above. 2605:E000:8412:4A00:193F:2122:1DAB:A512 (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

So far no specific change was proposed. In order to improved the wording many sources would have to be read and more content about its origins would have to be added. The article is unclear about its origins. QuackGuru (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It's occurred to me that maybe we shouldn't even cover etymology of the term. Most/all of the people writing about this are journalists. Etymology is not their field of expertise. We need linguists, or whomever studies etymology, as reliable sources. in order to cover the etymology. If there are no reliable sources (i.e. where etymology is their field of expertise), let's just remove the etymology until reliable sources emerge? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. 100%. 2600:1012:B01B:68B0:1B7:FE20:4953:2D4D (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There was an editing attempt to change the term as not always being used as a pejorative. As I feared (and mentioned above), it was reverted by POV pushing editors who refused to even participate in the discussion above. Unfortunately, some editors will not be happy unless the article refers to the term as a "pejorative neologism" full stop. It does not matter what the sources say.2602:301:772D:62D0:408B:FF6D:6144:566D (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

user:TheValeyard I noticed you reverted an edit - did you read the discussion above? 23.242.67.118 (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I see discussions between 2 editors and some random IPs who are probably the same person. No support for such an edit, though. TheValeyard (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The edit was taken directly from the discussion. Do you mind clarifying? 2600:1012:B06C:FADD:2954:9739:2961:17C3 (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

user talk:QuackGuru and user:A Quest For Knowledge your input is requested re the above discussion. 2600:1012:B06C:FADD:2954:9739:2961:17C3 (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, it's occurred to me that maybe we shouldn't even cover etymology of the term. Currently, the sources we have disagree with one another. Some say it originated with the right, others say it originated with the left. Normally, we shouldn't take sides and simply document the dispute. But most/all of the people writing about this are journalists. Etymology is not their field of expertise. We need linguists, or whomever studies etymology, as reliable sources. in order to cover the etymology. If there are no reliable sources (i.e. where etymology is their field of expertise), let's just remove the etymology until reliable sources emerge. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

100 percent agree with the above. The definition of neologism in this case precludes the usefulness of any etymological dissemination. I agree that it may be attributable to various sides of the political spectrum per the sources offered. I also strongly advise editors to consider that any additions per the origins of the word prior to the events or reasons for its current popularity are a massively undue focus and false balance. Roughly speaking, the article got writ when it did because the word became a neologism when it did. I'd rather find a source which clarifies when the word became popular enough to fit the definition of neologism, than speculative sources which say "ah yes! But actually..." with regard to its origins. Edaham (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree as well, so I removed the etymology component from the lede, let me know what you think. In the meantime, the body of the article needs a massive overhaul, as a large component of it focuses on the origin of the term. One other note, there actually was a previous attempt, months ago, to start an alt-left article. The article was actually written and then deleted (I can't remember why). So there is evidence both in the press, and on WP of the term being used long before the current events happening now. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed additions to the article and rewording on the lede

diff. Lizzius, EvergreenFir, could you elaborate on what the opposition to the changes are? Perhaps we could agree on things to be left out, to be left in, or changed? Although not a fundamental part of the changes I'm specially curious as to the Rolling Stone article misrepresentation mentioned in the edit summary. I have read it again after the mention, but I still don't see how it was misrepresented. It says Though it began as an insult within the left – a way to further deride the far left and so-called "Bernie Bros" during and after November's election – the right has adopted the phrase, as well. Sean Hannity and other, fringier monsters of the far-right media ecosystem have been, for at least a year now, pushing the idea of the "alt-left" as some sort of answer to the charge that the "alt-right," a very real political entity, has hijacked and poisoned the Republican party. The Washington Post best described it in 2016 as "The GOP's response: I know what you are but what am I.". This was used in two places: To mention that the term had some usage within the left - and if this is the issue I wouldn't mind removing it since it seems to be the only source about it - and in the lede to support, among other refs such as from TIME, that some use the term to describe antagonists of the alt-right, in this case Hannity. Moreover the article says But there is an actual active and growing group that Trump refers to. However, it's incorrect to name-check it as the alt-left and it's downright wrong to morally equivocate it with the neo-Nazi and white supremacist scum that stormed Charlottesville. But it does exist. Only it's called "antifa," short for anti-fascist, and it far predates Donald Trump., and for that I used it to reference a phrase already present in the article (attributed to another author with whom the Rolling Stone one concurs) regarding the term describing antifa rather than something else. The rest of the article goes on about antifa and their methods of protest. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your edit has a few issues as I see it. First, it makes it sounds like some don't think it's a neologism, but I see evidence of that in the sources. Second, the FEE source should be ascribed to the author as it's not a mainstream RS (assuming it's reliable...). Third, you altered the lead sentence to reflect that it's not always pejorative, but I don't see the reflected by sources either. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious, what do you think of Alt-right regarding the points you raised? I do intend to actually respond to the concerns you raised, I'm just curious to hear your opinion first. Actually nevermind, I don't really care anymore. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

user:EvergreenFir Did you read the discussion above? The term is not always a pejoratively and this is very well-sourced. That's why there was a discussion agreeing on the phrase "primarily used as a pejorative". Any thoughts on this phrasing? 23.114.214.45 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

user:Saturnalia0 Thank you for your edits, for what it's worth I feel they were well done and accurately reflected the sources. Unfortunately, users like user:EvergreenFir refuse to discuss any of this as you can see in the above sections. There were almost 5 paragraphs of comments as to why it is inaccurate to refer to the term Alt-left as a "pejorative neologism", and you will notice that EvergreenFir never once participated in this discussion, but was extremely quick to revert your change. That's the problem with this article. A flat out refusal to discuss by editors with a bias. Don't believe me? Here are some of the reasons that have been stated by editors who want to keep the term labeled as a pejorative neologism:

• It's obviously a pejorative. No reason to pretend otherwise.
• It is a pejorative. It is not anything else. If the article says "sometimes" the article is false.

And now, today, we have the following justification (by EvergreenFir) ss to why "commonly referred to a neologism" is inaccurate

• you altered the lead sentence to reflect that it's not always pejorative, but I don't see the reflected by sources
• (your edits) make it sound like some don't think it's a neologism, but I see evidence of that in the sources.

If user:EvergreenFir were to read any of the discussion above (instead of ignoring it), he/she would notice that there are FIVE paragraphs of justification as to why your edits are indeed reflected in the sources. Sadly, it's much easier to just say "the sources don't reflect it" rather than actually reading the sources you cited. I understand why you "don't care anymore", the article is currently a lost cause. 2602:301:772D:62D0:47E:16BF:1AD6:6AF (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind the "primary" language you (or one of the other SW California IPs you're using) added. It's better than the "often" version. That said, you sure like to copy-paste that same thing over and over... and maybe I'm just slow but I don't see these 5 paragraphs of comments other than your own comments above. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The Alt Left as the 'left-wing' of the Alt Right

The following YouTube video may be of interest. It's a discussion in early 2016 among members of the Alt Right about the Alt Left, except they define Alt Left as the left-wing of the Alt Right:

"The Alt Left"

I think the article needs a section mentioning this interpretation of the Alt Left, especially as it does seem to predate the current mainstream media use of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:861A:9C00:1D77:2233:5F7A:3D3A (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment mark up at head of article

Why has a comment tag concerning wp:lead_cite been added to the head of the article? This will appear in all edit diffs and is mildly tangential to general lede-cite guidelines. Have I missed something in the discussion? I think the comment tags should refer users to the above noted lead-cite section rather than arbitrarily enforce a citation policy. Edaham (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe it has something to do with the fact that some editors are pushing to have the term defined as a "pejorative neologism" full stop, rather than accurately reflecting the sources which sometimes, commonly, or even primarily refer to the term as such. As I have been saying from the very beginning, it is inaccurate and not supported by the sources to strictly define the term as an unqualified pejorative neologism. I have made several unsuccessful attempts to discuss, and then when a change is made to accurately reflect the sources, the same editors who refuse to discuss immediately revert the change. 2602:301:772D:62D0:47E:16BF:1AD6:6AF (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

ok in that case I will remove it because 1) we already have policies which cover wp:POV wp:neologism and wp:lead_cite. Adding a partial portion of a policy to require that that part is enforced arbitrarily is just going to confuse newcomers. If someone edits it in such a way that their edits conflict with consensus they can follow wp:brd like everyone else on every over article. Wikipedia should be made easy to fix, not difficult to "break". 2)WP:COMMENT States: Comment tags should not be used to instruct other editors not to perform certain edits, although where existing consensus is against making such an edit, they may usefully draw the editor's attention to that. Telling editors via a comment tag not to edit in a certain way isn't an effort to draw attention to consensus. I don't think there is (as of yet) a consensus for the issues raised in this article. They're still under discussion. Therefore the current use of this markup is not recommended by WP:MOS. Edaham (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)