Talk:Alt-right

The term alt-left is not described correctly

The terms alt-left and alternative left have have been used by leftwing activists since at least the 90s. The term does not originate with the alternative right.

Happy merchant aka Shlomo Shekelstein

I am a bit surprised why this isn't included in the list of memes. This is arguably the second most popular one in alt right circles after Pepe itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.126.73 (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There aren't really enough sources for it. The best I could find in a quick search is this Wired article, which mentions the alt-right and the image you're talking about in passing and references this Buzzfeed article about its origins (which doesn't itself mention the alt-right, since it's from before the term was really a thing.) That's not really enough to add it here. More recently, coverage of antisemitic memes on the alt-right has focused on this. In terms of antisemitism among the alt-right in general, we already have several sources in the article, but for memes the focus of coverage seems to be on the triple-parenthesis echos rather than Bougas' caricature. If you've got better sources connecting it to the alt-right specifically, though, go ahead; I agree that it does seem to be popular with certain sections of the alt-right. --Aquillion (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No unbiased sources, and it does not have a concrete definition. Personally, I feel that the memes section should be removed entirely and placed into a separate article, as it doesn't really fit the tone of this page.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest getting rid of all refferences connected with VICE as they are left-wing and are known to sometimes expand the truth or lie about things. Also, Pepe the frog isn't just used by the alt-right, the alt-right barely have any hold on Pepe, and most of the memes there are something that started on 4chan. It's a bollocks subject and I don't even know why we need to know about the alt-rights use of memes.

If you object to specific sources, I suggest going to WP:RSN. I don't think you'd get any traction trying to convince people Vice doesn't pass WP:RS, though. Overall they clearly have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS and WP:V requires. --Aquillion (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed minor edit for tone.

The first sentence of this article is that "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism.", which is a greatly contentious claim which is denied by many on the alt-right. Would you all be okay with "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who often reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism." being the new version of this line? While I agree that the alt-right has a well-documented racist undercurrent, stereotyping everyone as a white nationalist comes off a bit too strong.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't edit with regard to how the feelings of a particular group are going to be hurt. Adding "often" is a version of WP:WEASEL, and I would not support such a change, primarily because reliable secondary sources describe the alt-right exactly as currently written. Primary sources are less relevant. Rockypedia (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Policy aside, from a reader's perspective the word "loosely" already gives me an accurate sense that the people within the group may have differing ideologies and various levels of affiliation with others who identify as or are identified as alt-right. I think the current wording already addresses this concern adequately. Edaham (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

May we then change loosely-defined to loosely-defined and loosely-affiliated? I believe that doing so would help improve clarity, especially for non-native English speakers. Although I am fluent in English, I was still unable to catch that connotation from the usage of the word loosely-defined, and it is my personal opinion that such a connotation is also not readily apparent to people who, unlike me, grew up in primarily English-speaking countries. Loosely-defined, although it carries such a connotation, does not have such a denotation, and should then be used in conjunction with loosely-affiliated in the context of this article.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Confusion caused by unclear definition of the term "Alt-right"

The term "alt-right" as well as the alt-right movement is pretty loosely defined, and means different things to different people. For example, quoting the article:

"The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism. White supremacist[1] Richard Spencer initially promoted the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism, and did so according to the Associated Press to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, neo-fascism, and neo-Nazism"

"The Trump administration includes several figures who are associated with the alt-right, such as former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon.[37] In 2016, Bannon described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right", with the goal of promoting the ideology.[38]"

The obvious conclusion from these two parts would be that Bannon is an outspoken white nationalist. After all, he runs a website of promoting the ideology, and the ideology "rejects mainstrema conservatism in favor of white nationalism."

Yet this is not what Bannon believes, or at the very least not what he claims to believe, as is easily shown by statements such as these.

As it stands right now, at the very least the introduction is severely flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.74.60.39 (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Misleading visual aids- Conservatism and Neo-Fascism

The fact that there are two sidebars in such close proximity to each other almost suggests that these two terms may mean the same thing, or that you cant have one without the other. Conservatism and neo-fascism are not the same thing. While both of these terms can be linked to the alt-right, there are many conservatives that do not believe in fascism or neo-fascism. Fascism can also encompass other issues such as an authoritative dictatorship and control of industry and commerce. The average conservative does not want a king, who suppress or oppresses people.Robert george lambert jr. (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Robert George lambert jr.

Angela Nagel

Shouldn't we be using her? [1] and [2] give a different insight. In the first link she says that some of her book has been superceded by changes "Significantly, the alt-lite and the entire broader milieu around the white nationalist alt-right proper have now distanced themselves permanently from the most volatile leaders of the Unite the Right in Charlottesville, and it seems likely that this crucial nexus of political affiliation is permanently sundered for the disaffected online legions of the alt-right." "the anonymous online trolling culture, the constant evasions and ironic styles, the hodge-podge of disparate groups united by the “anti-PC” crusade—is over and a new one has begun. The alt-right in the strict sense will now become more isolated, more focused and unambiguous—and perhaps more militant." Doug Weller talk 15:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Earlier relevant usage of the Alt-Left term

[3] [4] [5] The Alt-Left term has been prominently noted prior to the Charlottesville protests and prior even to the Clinton speech that made 'Alt-Right' a household name. The term was originally used to denote somebody who is skeptical of the contemporary consensus on racial differences, but otherwise favors liberal/leftist politics. It has been used for a few years now as a self-identity within the subculture built up around an obscure podcast. This loose ideology includes including Brandon Adamson ('Rabbit' in the Salon article), Robert Lindsay, HAarlem VEnison (whom I stumbled upon through a video on CNN of him chasing the man who punched Richard Spencer), and Ryan England. Lastchamber (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This would need much better sources to go into any depth. Both the Salon article and The Week article mention the concept as something which didn't catch on, so this might warrant a sentence or two but probably not more. The Salon article links this older "alt-left" to Strasserism and Aleksandr Dugin, who's work has been translated by Richard B. Spencer's wife, with Spencer as publisher. (This was coincidentally recently added to Spencer's Wikipedia article). This seems like a good indicator that this isn't a large or distinct movement, and is still part of the walled-garden of pseudointellectual white supremacists.

That blog is completely unreliable (and painfully bad writing), but it also indirectly supports that the "alt-left" it describes is just fascism with training wheels. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

milo

Isn't milo the main person for the alt right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.25.238 (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Only if "main person" is determined by a karaoke contest. Do you have a suggestion for how to improve this article? Grayfell (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Mind providing sources?--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

William Regnery II - the man who spent years funding the racist right

See this article. Perhaps he should be mentioned here. He's the guy who funded the National Policy Institute. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It'd be best to have more sources. Here's a few possible ones:

• Mother Jones article about him personally.
• Daily Dot article about him personally.
• Relevant mentions and quotes in Rolling Stone, The Guardian, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and Newsweek.

I think that that's enough to support at least a mention or two as the founder of the National Policy Institute. --Aquillion (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is a clickbait site, highly biased, and not a legitimate news site or trustworthy source.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Consensus established on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard views Buzzfeed as a reliable source; the site has improved its practices significantly from prior years and now hss a relatively solid journalistic reputation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed's news division, which is separate from their clickbaity side, is a reliable source and can be used. What is the text looking to be added? PackMecEng (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

And one of the authors is Aram Roston who looks solid. I think there may be enough for a section on the way he's funded the alt-right and the institutions that helped give it birth. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Claremont Institute

You wouldn't guess from reading the article, but this seems related. See [6] "The think tank is ostensibly dedicated to fusing conservatism with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Why is it flirting with alt-right authoritarianism?" Doug Weller talk 20:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The title is misleading since the alt-right is not mentioned in the article. In fact the article does not necessarily represent the views of the Institute, but of a contributor. And all the contributor said was that conservatives should vote for Trump to stop Clinton. So a conservative organization publishes an article that recommends voting for the Republican candidate and that makes them part of the alt-right? TFD (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I just thought there might be some relevance. It's not alt-right. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Additions to the template

There have recently been quite a few additions to Template:Alt-right footer that don't seem appropriate. If interested, please join the discussion at Template talk:Alt-right footer. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Meaningful difference between the alt-right and far-right?

Is there a meaningful difference between the alt-right and far-right? As far as I can tell, the name is nothing more than a rebranding for these beliefs (and indeed was created because Spencer didn't think the Republican party was racist enough for him) and it's used to lump them together. The only common thread seems to be white supremacism (either of North American or Pan-European varieties) and even then some of the 'alt-right' seem to be traditional ethno-nationalists (primarily in Europe where ethnic groups are the main divider rather than race per se). Should neo-Nazism actually be under the alt-right when it's already a member of the far-right? Seems redundant

Thus I wonder if perhaps a merger should be considered or something, because aside from getting extensive media coverage thanks to the US 2016 election, the alt-right doesn't seem to be that different in the substance of its ideology (its techniques sure but all ideologies update their techniques). Thus should it instead by merged with the far-right page and made a subset of that? It would be entirely viable in my view. Sdio7 (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the difference is one of essentially aesthetics. Volunteer Marek  04:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Old version

I was using this to create a paper. Sadly, it was reverted due to the editor being a sockpuppet. Can someone restore it in some form? The newer version is far worse in quality, confusing, and a list of contradictory buzzwords. The new version somehow lumps everyone from Steve Bannon, Lauren Southern, and Laura Loomer as white supremacist. Does "Breitbart allied itself with the alt-right" make sense under this version? Wikipedia seems to be implying that Breitbart is a white nationalist website, compared to the old article which showed it as a faction of the "broader alt-right". CornFlakes (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)