Jump to content

Talk:Alt-right

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.214.85.74 (talk) at 05:57, 18 July 2019 (→Do we need to list every little alt-right group ever). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Taki's Magazine

Our article on Taki's Magazine, the article where the term Alt-Right was coined (probably; the sources are slightly vague, with one carefully saying that Spencer was "credited" with it during his time there), is barely more than a stub. I've expanded its relation to the Alt-Right a little bit, but I thought I'd mention it here. Also, aside, somehow we referenced a Slate article on that point without citing it - for the past two years? I've added some additional cites for that there that could also be used here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I also thought the Taki's page was a bit lackluster. Bacondrum (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I have reverted your deletions and other changes to this article. Please use the talk page to discuss them, and do not make any other changes unless you have the consensus to do so Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken I was WP:BOLD, I'm allowed to be, you've reverted and now I'm discussing it with you - that's how this works (sorry, but other editors are going to make changes, I am going to make other changes, this page has a lot of problems common to these new far-right articles). So, Antipodean Resistance is not part of the Alt-right, they are minor, even here in Australia, they are on the fringe of the fringe. They are listed as a notable event: first, they are not notable. Second, they are a group not an event. Third, they are 80's/90's style skinhead/neo-Nazi's, not Alt-right. Read the article on the group, you'll be left scratching your head as to why an obscure Australian Nazi grouplet is mentioned on this page at all. Alt-righ is pretty much an American thing, we don't really have it here, we've just got boring old fashioned neo-Nazi's and White Nationalists. It needs to be removed.
Also, this claim by Gray that the left caused the Alt-right, is clearly partisan opinion, the same sentiment is expressed using more cautious language in the next two paragraphs, that second paragraph is partisan and should be removed, IMO
Cheers
Bacondrum (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat assertions

This article repeats information a number of times. Unless we are expanding on assertions made in the lede, assertions should not be repeated at all, once is enough. I haven't got time right now, but the article needs to be gone through and repeat assertions removed. If no one else does it I'll go through it on the weekend. Bacondrum (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Causal Factors

What causes the Alt-right? Who knows, is it the lefts fault? One guy thinks so. Is it the Nazi's own doing? I think that would be a reasonable assumption, people are generally responsible for themselves, their actions and beliefs, IMO. Is it because gays and lesbians want to get married? Is it becuase the Alt-right have hipster haircuts? Perhaps, I'm sure some think so. Is it because Daves gran called Steve a bigot? I dunno. Is it because American minority groups are sick of police brutality and racism? I'm sure some people think so. Is it because some people are just nasty, violent thugs and criminal low lives?...I think lots of people would agree with that. It's all opinion. Lets stick to the facts and the reader can draw their own conclusions about the causes of the Alt-right movement. Bacondrum (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without regard to the other issues under dispute, I tend to agree that, at a glance, we're giving WP:UNDUE weight to Grey. According to Google, his paper has only been cited four times, yet we're devoting two massive paragraphs to it, including one whole paragraph to a single page. --Aquillion (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Are there causal factors for a political movement? Causal factors just sounds odd, makes it sound like an illness or some such, like emphysema is caused by smoking. Political movements are developed rather than caused. How do we pin point the cause of Democracy, or Communism, or Socialism? I think the whole framing sounds tendentious. Bacondrum (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But those are specific ideologies as opposed to particular movements. I would agree it would be odd to talk about the "causes" of communism, but it would not at all be odd to talk about the causes of the communist movement in early 20th century Russia, for example. The same applies here. The alt-right is a specific historical movement arising in one particular place at one particular time. Providing information—properly cited to Reliable Sources like the work of professional academics—on the socio-cultural background that produced the movement is important for a Wikipedia article. We don't have to present Grey's arguments as if they are unequivocal truth, but I think it important that we provide them nonetheless. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in large part with what Midnightblueopwl says, with the important exception that academic sources are not the only reliable sources. There are many relaible sources in the press which have discussed the alt-right as a movement in this specific historical moment, and they are as valid as an academic study. Thety should be used whenever appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could make some prose alterations that I hope would deal with your concerns. For instance "The growing racial and social agitation within U.S. society was also a likely contributing factor, in particular the more militant activities of those whom alt-rightists labelled "social justice warriors"" could readily become "Grey argued that the growing racial and social agitation within U.S. society was a contributing factor, in particular the more militant activities of those whom alt-rightists labelled "social justice warriors"."? That way we make the clear that this is the opinion of a particular political scientist, rather than unequivocal fact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea if such an analysis comes from a reliable source, from academia or the press. I would not support adding it simply because right-wingers say that is the case, since it's far from clear that anything in particular changed in order society to provoke the alt-right movement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed a (very rough) summary of what Grey says (the academic in question in this section - his one paper makes up the vast bulk of the "causal factors" section.) I consulted his paper and he does in fact say that, but, as I said above, I think we're giving too much weight to one paper - two massive paragraphs for a paper which doesn't seem to have had much impact and whose findings are somewhat WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I would recommend summarizing it in a sentence or so, clearly attributed to the author with an in-line citation. --Aquillion (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillon: I would agree to a one or two {or three) sentence summary, as long as it hits the high points. Do you want to give it a try? Beyond My Ken (talk)
@Aquillion: Sorry, messed up the ping. See my comment before this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thought: it's important that any discussion in the article about societal conditions which might be causal factors not be perceived as justification for the existence of the alt-right. Also that the causal relationship be straightforward and clear-cut and not simply generalities which could have moved in many different directions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That'd all be fine, but the section lends to biased claims, all of the supposed "causes" are merely opinion. How do we quantify how much Black Lives Matter or angry feminists or any opposition group has upset these folks? We can't, Wikipedia should be dealing with facts, not opinion. Also, show me a similar movement which has a "causal factors" section? They don't because it is inherently going to involve guesswork. The October revolution has no similar section, like this article, the reasons that Bolshevism developed are detailed in the history section. The section appears to blame the left for the development of far right ideology, which is obviously absurd. 203.214.85.74 (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To summarise, the conditions and ideas that lead to the Alt-right belong in the history of the movement and should not focus excessively on trying to blame the movements opposition for its very existence. No one tries to claim that the Romanov's or Mensheviks "caused" Bolshavism, if you read the history one may conclude such a thing, but Wikipedia does not make such an assertion. Movements develop, they are not caused. 203.214.85.74 (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bacondrum: Please indent your comments to make it easier for readers to see the flow of the discussion. Each colon provides another tab, and each comment should be indented one more tab (i.e. one more colon) that the comment it is is response too.
If you'd like to know what other articles have sections titled "Causal factors", enter "Causal factors" in the search box. Of course, many other articles will have very similar sections which don;t use that exact terminology. ("Causes", for instance.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second para

Can we at least agree to remove the second para, it gives one conservative opinion undue weight and makes broad assumptions, is all merely this fella's opinion, and he is partisan. It's also weasel wordy. Bacondrum (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore status quo ante

I'm perfectly willing to talk with anyone about anything, but not until the article is restored to the status quo ante before the deletion with minimal explanation of 37K bytes of reliably sourced material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got no grounds for such a demand. Sorry. Feel free to report me if you believe I've broken any rules. Bacondrum (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do have grounds, it's a little thing called WP:BRD, and another little thing called "free will". I decide when I will or will not enter a discussion, and it's my decision not to discuss your unexplained mutilation of this article until it is return to the status quo ante, as required by BRD. Once it's returned to its original form, I'm willing to discuss anything and everything, mate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So revert it. I couldn't care less about your will, and drop the agro please, mate. Bacondrum (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I revert when challenged then I'm being disruptive, failing that I was being bold, as per guidelines. 203.214.85.74 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Expansion of the Opening Sentence.

I'm a little concerned by the change in the established lede sentence ("is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement based in the United States") to the longer, expanded variant ("is a loosely connected far-right, white supremacist, white nationalist, anti-immigration and antisemitic movement based in the United States.") As the change is controversial it needs to be discussed here first, as per the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. No more unilateral changes, please, as that would be edit warring.

First, there are some factual inaccuracies with the additions. As the reliable sources cited in the article make clear, the alt-right is not, in its entirety, an anti-Semitic movement. It is a movement with strong anti-Semitic elements, but there are alt-rightists who seem to have no anti-Semitic intent and who identify the Jewish people (or most of them at least) with the "white race". This is already made very clear in the lede and the article body. Moreover, there also remains some dispute regarding the tagline "white supremacist". Some sources happily apply that term to the alt-right; others suggest that the term applies only to the more extreme elements of the alt-right. This may reflect different understandings of what the term "white supremacist" actually means; the term has a longstanding usage in political science but in recent years has been given a much more amorphous definition by proponents of critical race theory.

The second concern is one of simply overburdening the opening sentence. Calling the alt-right a "far right, white nationalist movement" is clear and to the point. It gives the reader the central, underlying ideology and political position of the alt-right. It echoes other well-written articles on far-right topics, like for instance the GA-rated National Front (UK) article. Adding "white supremacist", "anti-immigration" and "anti-semitic" is just overkill at this juncture; it throws too much descriptive language at the reader. Moreover, if we add many of these terms, then there is no reason not to also add "misogynist", "anti-feminist", "biologically racist" etc. Then it would just be a real mess. Related to this is my third point; we already explain the alt-right's take on anti-Semitism, immigration, and white supremacism in the lede, specifically in the third paragraph. That being the case, adding it to the opening sentence just is not necessary.

So please, no more unnecessary additions to the lede, and especially no edit warring without Talk Page consensus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-Right, as a term was coined by neo-nazi Richard B. Spencer, wasn't it? Because we have a preponderance of sources to support the alt-right are a white supremacist movement; I don't think it strains WP:NPOV to say so in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spencer wasn't a neo-Nazi. Not trying to defend the guy here, but he is not labelled such in any of the political science literature on the alt-right that I have come across. He's a white nationalist certainly, but doesn't refer to himself as a "National Socialist", utilise unambiguous Nazi imagery, or focus on the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that were a hallmark of Nazism. On the other point, even if we keep "white supremacist", that isn't a reason to keep "anti-Semitic" (which is flat out incorrect) and "anti-immigrationist" (which isn't really necessary and potentially has some misleading elements; I doubt many alt-rightists oppose white immigration). If you agree, could you please partly revert your revert by removing "anti-Semitic" and "anti-immigration" at least? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll revert anti-Semitic but I'm not going to willingly self-revert anti-immigration. And as for Spencer, from a Wikipedia perspective there's a plethora of reliable sources that call him a neo-nazi. And frankly whether he says, "I am a nazi" or not is irrelevant - you can tell a nazi is lying because their mouth is moving. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My addition of the terms in question was not based on Richard Spencer's ideology, but on the groups that have been identified by reliable sources as being part of the alt-right, that explicitly identify themselves as "alt-right", or which tend to congregate in rallies and events organized by alt-right organizations. The reliable sources we have used in the various articles for these groups are quite clear in what these groups stand for, despite their own self-serving descriptions of their ideologies (which quite often deny those descriptions). Given this, I do not think it is unreasonable to list those beliefs in the lede as part of the overall driving philosophy of the "alt-right", bearing in mind that there's no organizational structure which defines or certifies what is or isn't "alt-right" -- i.e. there's no Alt-Right.com to say that this group is and that group isn't "alt-right. We go primarily by the identifications made by reliable sources, not just academic ones, but those in the press. I see no reason to remove the descriptions given these facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antipodean Resistance

Why is this group, which is an obscure Australian neo-Nazi grouplet, not Alt-right, included on this page at all? It's also listed as an incident, since when is a group an incident? It should be removed. Bacondrum (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a number of citations to the article Antipodean Resistance which indicate that although it is most often called "neo-Nazi", it has also been identified as "alt-right." The size of the group is irrelevant. The Nazi Party was tiny when it began, utterly insignificant even within the Nationalist Volkische movement it was part of, and look where they went.
Although reasonable edits will always be considered, I can assure you that this article is not going to be whitewashed by POV editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am editing in good faith, you are not giving me that assumption. You are attacking me not the edits. You are the one pushing a POV, add any little fringe group you can to the article to make the subject look as bad as possible. Interesting that these are your additions, defending your preffered version like you own the page. Grubby as mate. Bacondrum (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided the citations from reliable sources which answer your concerns. As for "fringe groups", for the most part, the alt-right consists of nothing but a lot of fringe groups. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to list every little alt-right group ever

I think this stuff is undue, we don't really have any Alt-right stuff here in Australia, and this group is on the fringe of the fringe of the fringe. Why not include everysingle minor group that's ever been called Alt-right? Because the list would be interminable and undue. Interested in hearing from editors besides Beyond My Ken as he is responsible for it's inclusion. Bacondrum (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don"t include "every little alt-right group", only those that have significant coverage. For instance, in the articles about the NSW Nationals banning their members from joining specified alt-right groups (see Atomwaffen Division), five or six other groups were mentioned, which we do not cover here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lads soc, UPF and TBC have recieved far more coverage, why not add them? Don't stop there, lets get a massive list going, hardly fair to arbitrarily name one small group. 203.214.85.74 (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atomwaffen Division

Why is this group, which is an American neo-Nazi terrorist network, not Alt-right, included on this page at all? It's also listed as an incident, since when is a group an incident? It should be removed. Bacondrum (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Atomwaffen Division provides 5 citations from reliable sources which describe the group as "alt-right." Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so how is a group and incident? Bacondrum (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "Atomwaffen Division" section describes a number of incidents, including a murder. All the incidents in the "Notable Incidents" section are arranged by the group they are connected with, which seems perfectly reasonable and logical to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone besides the editor that is responsible for their inclusion have an opinion on this

Actually, I don;t believe I was responsible for the inclusion of the Atomwaffen Diivision in the article. Unfrotunately WikiBlame doesn't seem to be working right now, or I'd give you the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. According to this, the first addition of "Atomwaffen" to the article took place on 2018-06-22 at 17:03, and was made by DoubleHammy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alt-right&oldid=906780483"