Talk:Alt-right/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Change the Alt-right definition

The Alt-right refers to itself as a 'race-realist'organisation and not a 'white supremacist' organisation as it has been labeled as on WIki. It is important to distinguish the two: Race realism is of the belief that people psychologically identify with their culture, community and race. These people want to preserve their heritage by creating a 'homestead' which sustains it.

A race supremacist is of the belief that one race is superior to another race and should get preferential treatment based off that premise.

The important difference between the two is that race realism does not advocate violence towards other races, but asks for an ethno-state for people of a particular ruace to be able to live in their culture with out the influence of 'globalization' which seeks to destroy it through multi-culturalism. Also important to note is that a race realist is quite willing for people of other races to create their own ethno-states to preserve their own culture and lifestyle with out the influence of multiculturalism as well.

I understand that the media, news agencies and social media in general are generally more liberal and view the Alt-right as a terrorist organization out to harm people of other races, but at the very least in conjunction with the 'left' view could you also include the alt-rights definition of their own organization so people can at the very least see their perspective

Kind of difficult to source alt-right.com as it has just been removed from the internet...

Thanks

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Befairandhonest (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the article. It's "a loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined[1] grouping", not an organisation that can refer to itself. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like just laziness for detail. Honestly this page came off like the author(s) was really salty about conservatism in in general. Nothing but vitriol. Was a fun read though, Its not often you see so much salt on one page- I know this site is pure dogma rather then fact but that page was embracing to read. If you wish this page to be less cringe u should have an actual conservative write it. Not some bigot- just saying.~ Rawman 420 5/14/18 11:44 AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawman 420 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's had 571 editors. Few of our articles are written by one editor. If you don't think it meets our neutral point of view policy, tell us exactly how it fails it. But I think you've come here with your mind made up. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Various experts have pointed out that "alt-left" is a made-up term"

I get it, Wikipedia is only allowed to parrot sources, but I do wonder what is meant by "a made-up term". All terms are made up by somebody. "Alt-right" certainly didn't descend from God; it was made up too. Equinox ◑ 03:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I tweaked the statement a bit. The point is that whereas "alt-right" is a phrase created in self-description by an alt-righter, "alt-left" was not created by anyone on the left. In fact, it was created by the mainstream right in an attempt to counter-balance the negative press that the alt-right was receiving by implying that there was an existing equivalent on the left, which did not exist then, and does not exist now. The closest thing to an "alt-left" in the US occurred in the 60s with the so-called New Left, which hasn't existed in many decades. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right in Canada

We should have a section on this, I see sources discussing it. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Doug Weller talk 11:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Too many images in lead

MOS:LEADIMAGE has a provision for 1 image in the lead.

1. Somedifferentstuff removed "One graphic is enough here"
2. Beyond reverted "disagre (sic)"
3. Lionelt reverted "Only 1 image allowed per MOS:LEADIMAGE"
4. Beyond reverted "News flash: MOS is not mandatory"

Beyond has not submitted any policy reason for keeping the image. Not only that, Beyond chooses to ignore MOS. Not only that, two editors disagree with Beyond and he does not have consensus. Because Beyond has no reason and no consensus for keeping, the image must be removed. – Lionel^(talk) 08:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS is not policy, MOS is a guideline only. It is not mandatory. If you want to remove the second image, get a consensus from the editors on this page to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Lionelt in that 1 image is sufficient for the lede. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Too many images in lead: current status

Here is the status of the current dispute regarding having multiple images in the lead (diff):

Policy based position of Lionel and Somedifferentstuff	Policy based position of BeyondMyKen
Only 1 image allowed per MOS:LEADIMAGE	MOS is not policy, MOS is a guideline only. It is not mandatory.

– Lionel^(talk) 06:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

Policies are the governing rules under which we operate. Guidelines are the best practices we use to create a consistent and valuable information resource here. Unless there is a good reason to deviate from a guideline, we shouldn't. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason for ignoring a guideline.

So pick one image that best represents the subject of the article. Both can be kept in the article, but only one should be in the lead. The more illustrative image, in my view, is the second one showing a crowd of demonstrators with swastika flags and such, because that seems more representative of "alt right" than the photo of Trump supporter. The photo in the lead should be relevant any time the article is viewed; the photo of the Trump supporter is really only relevant to now. I think that photo should be moved elsewhere. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The 3O does not deal with any practicalities at all -- such as Lionelt's POV wish to remove an image from the top of the page in order to de-emphasize it -- but simply says, in essence "It's a guideline so you should follow it." This is not an acceptable option. When a guideline is treated as if it is mandatory, it becomes a de facto policy. The guideline against more than one lede image has never been elevated to be a policy, so it remains a non-mandatory suggestion. As such the decision about whether the lede should have one image or two should be determined only by a WP:CONSENSUS discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Anachronist thank you all of your efforts to render a policy-based finding. You hit it on the nail: what this is really about is WP:ILIKEIT. Right now the consensus is 3-to-1; but we've moved from WP:ILIKEIT to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. – Lionel^(talk) 10:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope, we've moved to an RfC, where a consensus gathered over 30 days will determine what will be done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW, right up there at the top of WP:3O, inside a big obvious box, it says This process is neither mandatory nor binding. I really think you should learn what "mandatory" means and doesn't mean, as you treat guidelines as if they were mandatory, and now you're citing 3O as if it wee mandatory and binding. Some day you'll quote an actual mandatory policy, and I'll probably drop dead from shock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken: I gave my opinion, grounded in Wikipedia's rules, that one image should be in the lead. So far no one has stated a reason why there should be two. While guidelines aren't mandatory, what purpose does the second image serve that's valuable enough to deviate from the guideline? As for practicalities, did you read my opinion? I also stated my opinion as to which of the two is more appropriate, because I don't find the image of the Trump supporter as useful for illustrating the topic as a whole. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Alt Right being Libertarian

The Sidebar for the Alt Right page says how it's a neo-Fascist movement. I completely disagree, as I think that the Alt-Right is (mostly) a Libertarian movement (even this article itself states that it is). I have attempted to change it, but had it reverted and told to get a general consensus here. Therefore, I want to check if everyone here can get a general consensus on whether I should change it to the Libertarianism sidebar or keep the current neo-fascist sidebar (we can also have it so we have both sidebars if we want middle ground). Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The alt-right cherry-picks their positions from multiple platforms opposed to libertarianism, as well as from the libertarian platform, to suit them. The article doesn't describe the alt-right as libertarian, it uses the term paleolibertarian (among several others) which isn't the same thing. The article even make a point to describe Jeffrey Tucker's position that the alt-right is opposed to libertarianism because the alt-right is less concerned with individual liberty than group identity. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And Paleolibertarianism is a variety of Libertarianism. The article also says and/or implies its libertarian ideals. Also, the page cites the AP, which in of itself says how the Alt Right supports limited government and free markets, which are ideals not supported by Fascism. There are also many supporters of libertarianism, Classical Liberalism, and Paleoconservatism (in fact, most do). Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Since Kianiolcat99 was removing the "Neo-Fascism" template and replacing it with the "Libertarianism" template, the real question here is which template ismore appropriate. I don't think there is any doubt that the alt-right "ideology" (which, like Nazism before it, isn't in any way consistent, but is a hodge-podge of things drawn from many different sources, and which differs somewhat from group to group) is much more closely related to neo-Fascism than it is to libertarianism. They may have picked a couple of things from the libertarian column, but they took significantly more from the Fascism and Nazism columns. Kianiolcat99 claims in an edit summary that "There are tons of sources that agree that the Alt-Right is a mostly Libertarian movement." Well, I want to see those sources, so they can be evaluated not only for what they say, but for whether they qualify as being reliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think either template is appropriate. There is no "alt-right" organization or governing school of thought. Some people use the term as an insult, and others adopt the term to apply to whatever ideology they happen to have. It's so nebulous that applying either template would violate wp:synth. Rklawton (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Not if reliable sources describe the alt-right, in general, as neo-Fascist (or libertarian). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit late. I do have my sources, and I will post them in a bit. But I think that the large portion of the Alt Right would be categorized under the "paleolibertarian" label. There are definitely many things that do connect the Libertarian ideology and the Alt right, and hence why many talk about a "pipeline" between them. There are definitely Fascists in there, I think it is wrong the call the movement, in large part, fascist.I would say the opposite of what you said. The Alt right is Libertarian, but with pieces of their movement from Fascism. Furthermore, many people who have been self-proclaimed Libertarians now subscribe to the label "Alt right", "White Nationalist", or "Identitarian". I can definitely go more on why the Alt Right is Libertarian, but I'll leave it here. Here are my sources anyways. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/19/libertarians-have-more-in-common-with-the-alt-right-than-they-want-you-to-think/?utm_term=.46d9b9bf6e71 https://blog.ap.org/behind-the-news/writing-about-the-alt-right https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37021991 Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Bump, please, does the sources supplied above by Kianlolcat99 (Can I Have Cheezburger) satisy consesus to add that the Alt Right supports some libertarian positions?? No one has answered this and he supplied to sources from reliable publications (Washington Post and BBC). Please reply JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No. Having some parts of their ideologies "in common" doesn't make the alt-right libertarian any more than it make libertarians part of the alt-right. Totalitarian states of both the left and the right have aspects in common, but it doesn't make them the same. The article already sayst that the alt-roight has commonalities with "paleolibertarianism", and that is sufficient. Anything more is too much WP:WEIGHT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional references needed

Currently the last sentence in the second paragraph in the lead supports six associations with six inline references, and three associations with one reference. This should be improved. Notice that the previous sentences in the paragraph have up to four inline references supporting an ideology connection. wumbolo ^^^ 19:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

As long as the three ideologies are supported by the one reference, and that reference is from a reliable source, there is no requirement for additional references. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's due enough for the lead, since it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article. wumbolo ^^^ 11:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Anti feminism section

DoubleHammy added content to the anti feminism section listing names of alt right women. However, women in the movement isn't necessarily related to its misogynistic and anti feminist stances. I had removed it but DoubleHammy readded it. I don't think it belongs. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If the names are sourced as being part of the alt-right movement, then it's legitimate to list them, especially since the writing doesn't say that they are anti-feminist, but simply points out that, despite the anti-feminist tilt of the alt-right in general, there are female members of the movement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

One thing that is concerning is the poor sourcing for the section. The Atlantic article is broken, Harpers magazine and PBS seems fine, Open Democracy is broken and not a good source, Wheat and tares appears to be a blog, and Babe is broken and probably not a RS. PackMecEng (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Additionally looking at the rest of the section is not so good either. Misogynistic is not supported by the source for that part and the anti-woman part is a quote from Hillary Clinton, not NPR saying it but we do not clarify that. After that Political Research Associates from what I can tell does not seem to be a suitable source either. I think at this point the section should either be removed or a completely redo. PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: But that's not the topic of the section. Either rename the section or move the content elsewhere. There are antifeminist women... that's not new or frankly notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree, the point is clear in the writing, and the section title is appropriate. An African-American who was a member of the KKK would be similarly notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that just a list of names or "it has women" is worth mentioning (and is WP:SYNTH if we try to use it to imply something without relying on the source.) Three of the sources seem immediately unusable, since they're blogs. However, I think it's worth reading the remaining sources in more detail; they talk a lot about the relationship the alt-right has with gender and what it means. It's also important to point out that all these sources emphasize that there the alt-right is broadly unpopular among women and has few female leading figures, which is obviously an important detail (the Atlantic says that There has been a lot of theorizing on why the white nationalism of the alt-right is more popular among men than women. The prevailing theory is that women are turned off by its stark anti-women rhetoric, which is obviously relevant for that section.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Your re-write is acceptable to me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's silly to equate the KKK with anti-feminists. There are liberal anti-feminists as well. Feminism is a political ideology which one can fairly and reasonably criticize without being considered misogynistic. The KKK, on the other hand, actually is a racist hate group and offers no comparison or equivalent to anti-feminists, who are not a sexist hate group. It's a backwards, old-fashioned way of thinking that just because one criticizes feminism, or some aspects of feminism, it must mean one is misogynistic. Anywhere this is stated or suggested in the article should be duly changed. Alialiac (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Please name some liberal anti-feminists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Including men’s rights movement in with alt-right and far-right groups is problematic, inaccurate, and misleading

There are many liberals who support the men’s rights movement or at least some of its issues, and who are anti-feminist at least to some extent. Some of the biggest names in men’s rights, such as Warren Farrell and Fred Hayward, are liberals; Farrell even ran for the democrats in 2003. Men's rights activists and advocates are against the instances where feminism has diminished the legal rights of men (ie, mandatory arrest policies, rape shield laws, etc) which had been put in place by historical liberals (ie, due process) and impeded the progress of what many would consider egalitarian liberal ideas (such as shared parenting). Some feminists have also advocated laws and policies that categorize all men as sex predators and child molesters, such as airline policies in New Zealand and some other places that don't allow men to sit next to children, or busing rules such as those in India which put men at the back of the bus to keep them away from women. These instances exemplify ideological feminism's own bigotry, hatred, and sexism which go against liberal ideas of progress, fairness, and egalitarianism.

Even though there is a more conservative contingent to the men’s rights movement, it is problematic, inaccurate, and misleading to equate the men’s rights movement with the alt right and far-right groups, especially hate movements like white nationalism or neo-nazism. Therefore, I have removed the references to men’s rights. Alialiac (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources say. And they make the connection. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"Defined" or not?

An editor is seeking to remove from the lede the language about thw alt-right being "somewhat ill-defined" on the basis that the list of various attributes which follows it defines the alt-right "pretty well". I have reverted on the basis that the list of attributes is not really a "definition" per se, but -- necessarily -- a disjointed, disconnected, and sometimes contradictory list of the ideological beliefs of the various organizations which are considered to be part of the alt-right, either by themselves or by reliable third parties. Not every organization holds all these beliefs, yet every organization is considered to be "alt-right", so the list is not a definition of what "alt-right" is, and that is because, as the article says, the alt-right is "somewhat ill-definied".

Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You have to remember that wikipedia is a neutral viewpoint. Referring to it as disjointed or incoherent or contradictory would come off condemning rather than "ill defined" which is a neutral description. It doesn't help that this is such a contraversial topic that most editors are by default playing it safe for good reason. It takes all of four words worth of minor revision to start an edit war here. Jyggalypuff (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

How is it disjointed? How is it disconnected? How is any of it contradictory? You can't just call it these things and not be able to say why. Not every organization holds all of these brliefs? It doesn't have to. Neo-Nazism is under what the alt-right believes in, but that doesn't mean Neo-Nazis have all the positions that are listed under what the alt-right follows. Here's the lede under Left-wing politics:

"Since then, the term left-wing has been applied to a broad range of movements[11] including civil rights movements, feminist movements, anti-war movements and environmental movements"

You can be be apart of the feminist movements, and not be apart of the anti-war movements, vice versa. Does this mean this list is not a list of what left-wing politics includes? It still is. And the same can be said for the list of what the alt-right is. Do you see how your reasoning just falls apart? What do you think it means to define something? It means to tell you what it is, especially when you're speaking of party politics. This article does exactly that and in great detail in the lede. If the alt-right were ill-defined, you would have an unclear explanation of what it is with varying sources claiming inconsistent things. Instead, we see a very clear explanation of ideologies that are all in line with people that go against human rights and equal treatment of others along with beliefs that go against what is mainstream. I don't think anyone can say that the list is debatable and I think everyone is in agreement with that list, even the alt-right.

SwegWrestlur (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You just reverted back to your preferred version again. You haven't been here long, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. When a disputed edit is under discussion on the talk page you DO NOT revert to your preferred version. A WP:consensus discussion on the talk page will determine what is to be done. In the meantime the article stays as it was. I hope that's clear: do not restore your version again without a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the version because you haven't responded to my argument, so I'm pretty sure we're done here. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and if you can't show that you're right about something, you're not. Information here should be accurate and so far it looks like I'm successful in explain how it's not. I don't need a consensus to fix inaccuracies, especially when you fail to provide a counter-argument. SwegWrestlur (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi SwegWrestlur, I wanted to explain why I agree that describing the alt-right as ill defined is appropriate. The alt-right is a part of the right wing of the political spectrum; it is possible to be right-wing, but not alt-right. Is there a way to definitively say what is alt-right, and what is 'regular' right wing? The term is used to describe a range of different movements and ideologies, but as far as I'm aware there isn't a cut-and-dried way to say whether a group/person/ideology is alt-right. Therefore, the description 'ill defined' seems to fit.Girth Summit (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes there is a way to definitively say that something is apart of the alt-right and not apart of the right as a whole. That's how subcategories work and it goes a little like this: "The alt-right believes this, and the right as a whole may not." I hope that was easy, I was a little confused that you were having trouble understanding that, but moving on. People on the right-side of the spectrum are often incorrectly associated with conservatism, when in actuality it simply means that someone believes that the government should not have a lot of control over the economy. Politics as a whole has a lot of "gray area", but that doesn't mean what is identified is ill-defined, because when you define something you tell what it is and the alt-right is clearly defined. If the overlap suggests anything it suggests that the word should be "often-confused" or "semi-related" not "ill-defined".SwegWrestlur (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

SwegWrestlur: Please do not restore your change, as of yet there is no consensus to do so on this page. Only after a consensus of editors agrees with your change should the change be restored to the article. Do not take this decision on yourself, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

SwegWrestlur The example you (facetiously?) suggested doesn't really work. If the alt-right believes something, and the right as a whole 'may' not, then it's not well-defined - if you find a group that believes in that thing, you can't say whether or not it is alt-right, since it might just be regular right. What you would need would be 'the alt-right believes X, Y and Z, views which are rejected by the traditional right wing' - or words to that effect. If there are high-quality sources saying definitively what the alt-right believes in, in a way that sets them apart from the rest of the right wing of the political spectrum, it would be useful for you to suggest them in order to further this discussion. Girth Summit (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The right as a whole may not have the same views as the alt-right because the alt-right is a subcategory of the right. The right is a very broad term, and the alt-right is less broad and more narrow. That's why views that are associated with the right will be held by people in the alt-right, while the inverse of that might not be true. That has absolutely nothing to do with being ill-defined because when something is ill-defined one cannot say what it clearly is. There are 'high quality' sources in this article and the article clearly lists what is associated with the alt-right. You've failed to provide a counter-argument and telling me you don't agree and failing to telling me why is not grounds for reverting my edits. Return to this talk page when you've demonstrated a fundamental ability for understanding categories because so far you have demonstrated a clear inability. As far as I'm concerned consensus has been reached because you given me zero reason to leave ill-defined because we have established that this article clearly defines what it means to be alt-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwegWrestlur (talk • contribs) 19:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@SwegWrestlur: If you remove "somewhat ill-defined" from the article once more without a consensus to do so from the editors on this page, you will be reported to WP:AN/I for editing against a consensus. I would advise you stop trying to force your preferred version of the article onto others, and instead mount an argument which will convince other editors of the rightness of your position. So far, that has not occurred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Tell me why I'm wrong then, telling me you're not convinced does about just as much good as "because I say so."SwegWrestlur (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No. There is no requirement that discussion be carried on ad infinitum simply because one editor refuses to recognize consensus when they see it. The argumentation is over, the consensus is in, and so is the language you disputed. Change it, and you;ll be editing against consensus, and I will report you for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@SwegWrestlur: You aren't convinced by the arguments we've put forward - that is clear. It is also clear that you have not convinced anyone with yours. So far, four users have commented in this section - three want to keep 'ill-defined', and one (you) wants to remove it. With the best will in the world, it's very hard to believe that you genuinely believe to have reached a consensus - you must know that you edited against consensus, and the fact that you raised it suggests that you know what is not allowed. Please follow BMK's advice. Girth Summit (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Not only am I not convinced I refuted them. It doesn't matter how many of you disagree until you refute my argument you are under no grounds to revert my edit. I failed to convince no one, you just don't like the truth.SwegWrestlur (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if you are convinced or not, or whether you think that you have refuted the arguments of others, the fact remains that the consensus of editors on this page is not convinced by your arguments. Therefore, as per WP:CONSENSUS, we go by what the consensus says. If you're not willing to follow that, you're not going to last long editing Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lede continue to show the current two images?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lede of this article continue to contain the two images which are there now, the status quo state of the article since 9 April 2018? [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey (no threaded discussion, please)

• Yes- The lede section is long enough that it easily supports two images -- in fact, two images and the Neo-fascism sidebar still leaves a blank space before the beginning of the article proper. The two images give greater context to the lede than the original one image (the top one) did. As stated in the discussion above, "one image only" is a guideline and not a policy, and is therefore not mandatory. To treat it as such is antithetical to the purpose of having mandatory policies and suggested guidelines: once one starts treating a guideline as mandatory, it has become a de factopolicy, without having been approved as policy by the community. Such a backdoor approach to policy-making is not properly Wikipedian.
  The purpose of this RfC is to determine what editorial consensus on this issue is, rather than having it be decided by a random 3O opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• No: per the neutral 3O opinion: "The more illustrative image... is the second one showing a crowd of demonstrators with swastika flags and such, because that seems more representative of "alt right" than the photo of Trump supporter. The photo in the lead should be relevant any time the article is viewed; the photo of the Trump supporter is really only relevant to now." – Lionel^(talk) 10:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• No per my opinion above. This RFC asks a general question that could be answered "yes" but the real question concerns two specific images, not two images in general. The fact that there is room for two images doesn't mean that we should fill the space with inappropriate images. The lead image (or images, if we deviate from guidelines) should be illustrative of the topic as a whole. The image of the Trump supporter is illustrative of only a narrow cross-section of the topic, and therefore serves no useful purpose in the lead section. An image that illustrates the topic better would work better, if a second one were present. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes both to the question as stated and to the implied question. A single image of only the Nazi flag wielders is an NPOV violation. One of the defining characteristics of the Alt-right movement is that it consists of more than the typical far-right neo-Nazi types. By using what is essentially far-right imagery we are misrepresenting the character of the movement and by shying away from its direct, documented and significant role in the Trump movement we are denying reality in a POV manner. Jbh ^Talk 15:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Since two images fit, why not have two? Chisme (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: both are informative and representative; I don't see a reason to remove either. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• No: I don't think that the combination of these two specific images is helpful in this lead. However I disagree with the other existing no votes and think that the Trump supporter photo is more appropriate as it certainly Alt-right whereas the Unite the Right says in its article that it included other groups such as militias and neo-Confederates who may not be Alt-right, this would be fine in a section about the Unite the Right but it seems questionable for it to be in the lead to me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes: per Chisme and K.e.coffman, both images are informative and they fit; likewise, given the lack of a perfect definition of the "alt right", it could be argued that such a definition would encompass all the persons (and their affiliations) as is currently shown. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• No First off what is with the Trump supporter caption? I see that the source from flickr says it is but there is no way to tell if it is accurate. As pointed out above, it is also too narrow of a cross section to be informative. The unite the right rally picture seems okay, might be better in the section for it but fine I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes I believe that the two images taken together illustrate quite well the range of iconography of the alt-right, and the first image in particular, with the with Pepe cartoon, shows the alt-right's attempts to connect with the broader base of Trump supporters. The "deplorables" wording of the sign makes it crystal clear that this person is an alt-right Trump supporter. As a Giants fan, I do not much like the fact that the image includes the San Francisco Giants logo, but so be it. This is the reality of our times. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, but only until a single representative image can be found. The MOS is a fairly weak guideline, but it's a good one. My preference would be to have a single image that represents the subject—something like Richard Spencer Hitler saluting Milo Yiannopoulos[2][3] at the White Civil Rights Rally would be perfect. In lieu of that, the two current lead images do a fair job of representing the movement.- MrX 🖋 12:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. If we remove the Unite the Right photo, readers would be mostly focused on Pepe, which is copyrighted, so it wouldn't be de minimis anymore. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 15:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Yes, per Cullen, JBH, and Chisme. Vanamonde (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Yes but switch, the bottom photo is a better representation in my view, but the top one is at least reasonably relevant, though a better photo might be preferable if it can be found. In the meantime I think the two photos should be switched Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Yes but switch. I agree with Nosebagbear, the second image is the better but the top one is still good and the content does support having two images. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes but switch, I personally agree with this stance. The Pepe meme has become deeply threaded into alt right ideals to the extent that Donald Trump himself has retweeted it on at least one occasion. While the unite the right rally also featured many of the same people there was enough dissonance that using it as a primary point may be mildly inappropriate. That said I wouldn’t go far enough to suggest removing it as it was featured heavily enough on major alt right hubs and forums that it was very clearly either popularly supported or at least supported by organizers of the alt right community. Jyggalypuff (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just as a point of fact, the images have already been switched. The order you see them in now is the opposite of the order they were in at the beginning of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Nope. The "context" you're referring to relative to the Trump photo is narrow and not representative of the entire article. The Trump photo fails WP:10YT. Fails WP:LEADIMAGE. – Lionel^(talk) 10:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• The alt-right is by its very nature a thing of now, so to invoke 10YT is completely ridiculous -- we have no idea if in 10 years time the alt-right will have withered away into nothing, or shall be in full control of the reigns of government, or anything in between. If the Trump image (and the fact that it is an image connecting Trump support to the alt-right is actually the only reason you want to get rid of it) becomes irrelevant, then it can certainly be removed or replaced at that time, but at this moment in an article about a political and social movement of this moment, it is entirely relevant, as the article itself makes abundantly clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There you go again... First MOS:LEADIMAGE. Now WP:10YT. Haven't you learned that ignoring policies and guidelines never ends well? WP:ENFORCEMENT. smh. – Lionel^(talk) 13:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you haven't learned is that it does the encyclopedia no good to edit like a robot. We're human beings, and we're supposed to use our powers of rational thought and judgment to make decisions about what works and what doesn't. Ultimately, that's why those things are guidelines and suggestions, and are not mandatory: to allow us to use our common sense and adjust for circumstances. Didn't you learn that lesson when you brought me to AN/I recently over some similar complaints and were unanimously told you were wrong? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'll just say if we have two images, the Trump one should be second (although there should be something more representative of the subject than that). The most representative image should be first. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have no problem at all with reversing the image order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think this would be a slight improvement.- MrX 🖋 12:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• I feel like before jumping to an RFC, we need more discussion about what the alternative is to keeping both in the lead (which image would remain in the lead, what would happen to the other one, etc.) I'd be open to moving one of them to elsewhere in the article, but we'd have to decide which and where, then, ideally, run an RFC on that. This RFC seems like it would lead to confusion and further conflicts if it were to close with a consensus to reduce it to one image, since it suggests a change without enough details to immediately implement it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• That's simply not true, the RfC is perfectly clear. If the consensus is "Yes", both images stay in the lede, and we can discuss in what order. If the consensus is "No", then further discussion can occur about when one of the images should go. This RfC is about a carefully circumscribed question. RfCs which attempt to cover too much ground are what cause confusion, not a straight-forward one such as this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Question: So if the RFC has no consensus, what would be considered the status quo? The Wikipedia guideline, or the fact that the article happened to have 2 images in it when the RFC was created? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Guidelines do not create a status quo, since they are merely editing suggestions. Policies, on the other hand, must be followed, so a policy violation would justify breaking the current status quo and starting a new one, or restoring to an old one. The status quo of this article is the long-standing state of the article, which has had two images in the lede since 9 April, and in that time, only one editor has objected to that status. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What Beyond is claiming is incorrect when he writes "in that time, only one editor has objected"added later

1. The editor who originally removed the 2nd photo is Somedifferentstuff. In addition Somedifferentstuff posted on talk--in an above section--that they supported 1 photo.
2. Just before the RFC was opened, in the preceding section, Anachronist also supported 1 image.

Including myself that makes THREE editors against your position. – Lionel^(talk) 04:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that's simply not the case, and that has nothing to do with my position in this dispute.

If the editors who commented before want to re-comment here, as you and Anachronist have already done, that's fine, there's absolutely no problem with that, but this RfC will determine what the official consensus is, not the previous discussion, and that decision will be made by whoever closes the RfC. If they close it as "Yes", the two images will remain. If they close it as "No", one of the images will have to move elsewhere. If they close it as "No consensus", then the status quo ante will be maintained -- that is, the state that the article was in before the dispute began, i.e. with two images -- so, no, "Beyond" is not wrong, and "Beyond" usually knows what he is talking about -- Lonelt should have learned that when he brought "Beyond" to ANI on another issue and was firmly told that he was wrong, that his interpretation of the rules wasn't correct. That is also the case here. Lionelt may not like it, but that's the way it works, and I've been on both the "winning" and the "losing" side of RfCs, so I know whereof I speak.

Let's just say this, if this RfC is closed with the consensus that there should be two pictures, and any editor ignores that consensus and takes matters into their own hands, it will be something that will be brought to the noticeboards for adjudication, since editing against WP:CONSENSUS is a serious behavioral violation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It most certainly is the case that when you wrote "in that time, only one editor has objected" you were wrong. Between April 9 and your RFC THREE editors have objected. In fact a new consensus was formed on June 18 as shown here [4]. I implemented new consensus here [5]. You reverted against consensus here [6]. I agree with Beyond: editing against CONSENSUS will result in sanctions so you should be more careful. – Lionel^(talk) 05:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The situation changed when I started the RfC. It stands as I described it above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. Very relevant. Allow me to elucidate... When consensus changed on June 18, so did your so-called status quo. If the RFC results in "No consensus" then the article defaults to the last consensus which was on June 18. – Lionel^(talk) 05:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope, status quo ante refers to the existing physical form of the article, not to the potential form of the article based on a temporary consensus -- if what you say was true, then every time a new opinion was posted, the status quo might change, and that's obviously not the case, nor is it remotely logical. But you can continue to think that way if it makes you feel better. However, if you act on it once the RfC is over or even during the RfC, it will be brought to AN/I. Consider yourself warned. Feel free to re-post your (incorrect) opinion again, I'm not going to bother to answer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion about consensus is irrelevant. The closing admin will see that this discussion led to the consensus Talk:Alt-right#Third_opinion on June 27 which was implemented in this edit [7] The fact that you reverted against consensus doesn't change the fact that three editors achieved consensus: it just means that you are disruptive. And if you take me to ANI, I will take you to AE for editing against consensus, and where your ANI clique will be ineffective with the admins there. – Lionel^(talk) 05:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2018 Unite the Right rally?

Should we add the upcoming White Civil Rights Rally into this page? It seems pretty notable. IcierJacks (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Is Atriot Prayer involved in organizing it or sponsoring it? This is not an article about the alt-right in general. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(Actually it is...) I think it's probably premature to add a section for this, especially keeping WP:NOTNEWS in mind. Looking at the current list, which is messy, each entry is notable for an easily-explained reason. Keeping this in perspective, at this point we know that a future event may or may not happen, which isn't much. Sources suggest that a lot of prior attendees are actively avoiding this next one, as well, so it's WP:CRYSTAL-ball gazing to guess how significant this will be. There would have to be a specific reason this one is notable or will be notable. There have been many rallies, protests, events, etc. associated with the alt-right. This one might be notable, or it might not be. Grayfell (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Donald Trump alt-right supporter (32452974604).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the image has been kept at Commons, but only with the copyrighted "Pepe the Frog" character removed from the sign. In my opinion this was an absurd result, as the sign was displayed in public, and the drawing was a de minimua aspect of the image - but the closer of the discussion at Commons obviously felt otherwise. It also rather rubs against the grain of WP:Not censored to display an image with part of it deleted, even if it's for copyright reasons -- it falls squarely into "fair use" in my opinion.

In any case, I've added a note to the image telling the reader that the image has been altered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It's possible the unaltered image could be uploaded locally and used on this article. WP:Not censored is a policy on English Wikipedia, not Commons, though I'm not sure how that would factor into any fair-use or de minimus arguments here. ^Falling_Gravity 19:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought about it, but I don't think it qualifies under NFCC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Is including the photo really a suicide pact? The RfC above occurred before Pepe was erased from the sign. wumbolo ^^^ 19:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• What suicide? Who's dying? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• I was referring to WP:PACT not an actual suicide. There are hundreds of alt-right photos on Commons, yet somehow everyone on this talk page wants to keep the Pepe photo. wumbolo ^^^ 18:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Most of them are either not very good, or not very relevant. There are actually very few good images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken's assessment that the Wikimedia Commons discussion was "an absurd result"; I think that we could put together a good case for having an image of Pepe on this article. He is the mascot of this movement, after all, and we have plenty of good RS sources to back that up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Addition to the "Anti-feminism" section

I would like to propose the addition of the following text, which is properly referenced, to the "Anti-feminism" sub-section of the article. It gives a far better overview of the Alt-Right's views regarding women and feminism, and the relationship that it has with Men's Rights Activism and the broader manosphere, than is currently present in the article:

The Alt-Right is anti-feminist and favors a more patriarchal society. Unlike many U.S. conservatives, it does not argue this point from a perspective rooted in traditional Christian perspectives, but claims its position is rooted in what it calls "sex realism", arguing that as a result of their biological differences, men and women are suited to different tasks in society. Lyons commented that the Alt-Right was misogynistic and presented women as irrational and vindictive. The Daily Stormer for instance banned female contributors and called for reduced female involvement in the white nationalist movement, producing an angry response from various white nationalist women. The Alt-Right intersects with the manosphere, an online anti-feminist subculture. There is overlap between the Alt-Right and the Men's Rights Activist movement, a part of the manosphere which believes that men, rather than women, face more oppression in Western society. It also adopts the Men's Rights movement view that feminism has undermined and emasculated men, and believes that men should aggressively reassert their masculinity so as not to become "beta males" or "cucks". There has been some clear influence between the two movements; prominent manosphere ideologue RooshV for instance attended an NPI conference and quoted anti-Semitic material from white nationalist sources in his articles. Some Alt-Right figures have distanced themselves from the manosphere and its proponents; Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents Publishing was of the view that "the manosphere morally corrupts men" because it does not promote "the resurgence of traditional and biologically based sexual norms" but rather encourages rape culture.

Unless there are any objections, I shall proceed with the addition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

In that same section (which perhaps could be retitled), I would also like to propose the addition of the following information on Alt-Right attitudes to homosexuality and abortion, issues which have been major points of contention in U.S. political discourse. Presently, the article does not deal with either of these topics in sufficient detail.

On social issues like attitudes to homosexuality and abortion, the Alt-Right is divided; in contrast to the great attention U.S. conservatives have given these issues, they have been of little interest to the Alt-Right. Hawley suggested that the Alt-Right was more broadly pro-choice than the conservative movement. Many on the Alt-Right favored legal abortion for its eugenic purposes, highlighting that it was disproportionately used by African-American and Hispanic-American women. Some on the Alt-Right consider homosexuality to be immoral and a threat to the survival of the white race. Others adopt a more tolerant stance and have praised homosexual white nationalists like Jack Donovan, an early contributor to Spencer's AlternativeRight.com. This reflects a broader trend among white nationalists to denigrate gay culture while being more tolerant of gay writers and musicians like James O'Meara and Douglas Pearce whose views they sympathize with.

Again, I'd like to go ahead with the addition unless there are any serious objections. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

References

It seems OK to me, except that you should make an effort to incorporate more of the sourced material that's currently in the article, and the sources used -- you seem to have left it out almost completely. Otherwise, there are small issues with grammar, style etc., which are not worth going through here -- I'll just copyedit them if and when you post the section. Rather than a separate section for your second paragraph, perhaps the main section should be entitled "Anti-feminism and sex-related issues", or something along those lines, and both paragraphs included. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-feminism and sex-related issues" works for me. I will also include most of the sourced material that is currently in the article; one of the current sentences (the one that references Lyons' report but does not give any page numbers) should be scrapped, but the others are all pertinent and can be retained, IMO. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You can use the Lyons reference, just include it with a "page number needed" tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't you have access to Lyons? Can't you find the page number? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh I do, Lyons is available online for free. My point being that the text merely made a statement and then provided a generic reference to Lyons' entire report. My altered prose uses Lyons' work far more judiciously, following what Lyons says more closely and citing the precise pages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Addition to the "Etymology and Scope" section

I would like to propose the addition of the following text to the "Etymology and scope" section:

The anti-fascist researcher Matthew N. Lyons defined the Alt-Right as "a loosely organized far-right movement that shares a contempt for both liberal multiculturalism and mainstream conservatism; a belief that some people are inherently superior to others; a strong internet presence and embrace of specific elements of online culture; and a self-presentation as being new, hip, and irreverent." The political scientist George Hawley noted that, under the "loosest definition", the Alt-Right could apply to "anyone with right-wing sensibilities that rejects the mainstream conservative movement" in the United States. This was how the term was often used when first coined in 2008 and could apply to a range of libertarians, localists, paleoconservatives, and right-wing populists as well as white nationalists. By 2010, when the AlternativeRight.com website was launched, it was clear that it was being used by white nationalists engaged in entryism, and by 2013 the term was "explicitly associated" with white identity politics. Right-wingers who were not white nationalists widely abandoned the term, however in 2016 Hawley noted that he could still find individuals using the broader definition. As a result, "alt-right" is claimed by a range of political groups, from neo-Nazis to self-described "cultural libertarians" protesting at what they regarded as the stifling impact of political correctness on public debates about important topics. The philosophy Philippe-Joseph Salazar sought to differentiate between when he called the "Alt-right per se", being the political movement associated with Spencer, and the "alt-right" in the broader sense, meaning the use of the term to describe a wide range of far-right groups in the U.S. media.

Although the Alt-Right had an antagonistic relationship with mainstream conservatism, there are figures on the right more sympathetic to it. Spencer and others termed this group the "Alt-right-lite" or the "Alt lite". Hawley referred to these individuals as the Alt-Right's "fellow travelers", while Lyons characterised them as "apologists" for the Alt-Right who helped spread its message "without embracing its full ideology". The preeminent example of the Alt-Lite was Breitbart News. The website's former editor, Steve Bannon, declared it "the platform of the Alt Right", while maintaining that white nationalists were marginal to the Alt-Right. Spencer described Breitbart as "a 'gateway' to Alt Right ideas and writers". The Alt-Lite journalist Milo Yiannopoulos employed what he called the "broadest possible definition" of the Alt-Right, covering a "large portion, if not the majority" of those who supported President Donald Trump, wanted tighter immigration restrictions, and "loathed political correctness."

To clarify, I propose these as additions to this section, rather than replacements for the material already present there. Editors could then tinker around with the prose and maybe edit some of the paragraphs down a bit, however I think that my proposed wording helps delineate the controversies over definition in a manner clearer than the present text in this section, which does not utilise academic studies of the Alt-Right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Again, Hawley and Lyons, WEIGHT and FRINGE. You're basically attempting to re-write the article to be a precis of a very small number of sources. I don;t think that's acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm going straight to many of the best quality sources (of which there are comparatively few). However, I can appreciate your concerns about WEIGHT and will seek to bring in a broader range of sources before including this material in the article itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't get to decide, on your own, uniltareally, what the "best quality sources" are. Your "Forbears" section didn't augment the current material, it replaced it, which is not how this is going to happen. If you don't start including existing material in your proposed new sections, I cannot in good conscience agree to their inclusion.

The current material represents the work of many editors over time, your sections reflect your work, your evaluations, only. You need to start editing in a collaborative manner with the existing material, or this is not going to be an easy process for anyone.

I suugest you re-post proposed sections with the inclusion of existing material, and note that consensus here for the inclusion of a particular section is not consensus for additional wholesale changes to the article, as you undertook when adding the "Forebears" section. Please add the material that has consensus only. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Academic sources, alongside those of more respectable mainstream journalists, are the best quality sources according to our WP:Reliable Sources policy. That's not my opinion; it's policy. The fact that many editors have contributed time to adding material to this article in the past is not a reason for retaining poor material when it can be replaced with better sourced, and better written text. Let's be perfectly clear: a lot of the present material is terrible. It's badly written and it's poorly sourced. It's a massive turn-off for readers. I don't want to be mean or hurt anyone's feelings by saying that, but it's true.

Forgive my eagerness, Beyond My Ken; I am happy to work alongside you and certainly don't want an antagonistic relationship. But it is frustrating to simply have my changes or proposed changes removed or rejected purely on the issue of WEIGHT, which really is not a very strong argument for rejecting academically sourced material. Again, forgive me if I appear to be cocky or obnoxious, but look at my track record here at Wikipedia. Look at politically contentious articles like National Front (UK), Heathenry (new religious movement), Vladimir Lenin, and Nelson Mandela. I have a long history of taking poor quality articles and transforming them (of course with the input of others) into properly referenced, well written articles that reach GA and FA. I have access to the necessary resources and I know what I'm doing. I'm not trying to push you away, but would really hope that you come to trust me and my alterations. I'm very happy to discuss major changes with you, but if I have to stop and open a Talk Page discussion every time I want to delete or add a sentence, then we would be here for forty years. This is a very politically pertinent and important topic. It needs to be drastically improved, and the sooner the better. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No one is denying that academic sources are good sources, but they are not the only reliable sources, nor are they the only acceptable sources. We are not an academic encyclopedia, we are a popular encyclopedia, and the purpose of citations from reliable sources is to verify the information presented. This can be done with a variety of different kinds of sources. Your eagerness is noted, and admirable, but it cannot come at the cost of an article written by the collective editors of Wikipedia based on a wide variety of sources, and not an article written by Midnightblueowl based on a small number of academic sources.
Now, please, I ask you again to restore the material that you eliminated when you added your "Forbears" section, which I then restored, and you again reverted (I think in violation of the 1RR sanction). If you have concerns about that material, it should be discussed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You wouldn't be so frustrated if you:

• (1) Included existing material in your proposed re-writes;
• (2) Relied on more than a small number of academic sources (which would be helped by including the existing material, which would broaden the sources used);
• (3) Post the proposed change here for consensus discuss; and then
• (4) Put only the approved material into the article, and not interpret consensus for a particular piece of material as carte blanche to make changes at will.

Again, editing Wikipedia is a colllaborative experience, not a unilaterial one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the 448 byte deletion. I presume you'll ve doing the 898 byte deletion next? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)