Jump to content

Talk:Alt-right/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 22

Addition of "Formation" sub-section to "History" section

I'd like to propose the following addition of a "Formation" sub-section to the "History" section. It would be placed just after the "Origins" sub-section and before the "Emergence" sub-section.

The Alt-Right began in 2008.[1] In November that year, the paleoconservative ideologue and academic Paul Gottfried gave a talk at his H. L. Mencken Club in Baltimore titled "The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right". Gottfried observed that, as the paleoconservative movement declined, a new cohort of young right-wingers were rising to take its place in challenging the neoconservative ideology then dominant in the Republican Party and the broader U.S. conservative movement.[2][3] One of those endorsing this idea was Spencer; at the time, he was also a paleoconservative,[4] having dropped out of his PhD programme at Duke University to take up a position at the American Conservative magazine.[5] After being fired from this job, in 2008 Spencer became managing director of Taki Theodoracopulos's right-wing website Taki's Magazine.[6] The website initially contained contributions largely from paleoconservatives and libertarians, but under Spencer also gave space to white nationalist writers like Taylor.[7] By 2010, Spencer had moved fully from paleoconservatism to white nationalism.[4] In 2009, Spencer used the term "alternative right" in the title of an article by white nationalist Kevin DeAnna;[8] he claimed that he had originally coined the term, although Gottfried maintained that they were its joint creators.[9] As the "alternative right" became a term associated increasingly with white nationalism, Gottfried distanced himself from it.[10]

Spencer left Taki's Magazine and in March 2010 launched The Alternative Right webzine.[11] Early issues featured articles by highbrow white nationalists like Taylor and MacDonald as well as the Heathen Stephen McNallen.[12] Spencer noted that "if you look at the initial articles for AlternativeRight.com, that was the first stage of the Alt-Right really coming into its own".[12] The webzine consisted primarily of short essays,[13] covering a range of political and cultural issues.[14] Many of these reflected the influence of the French Nouvelle Droite, although this declined as the Alt-Right grew.[15] Spencer later stated that he wanted to create a movement distinct from the explicit white power image of neo-Nazi and KKK groups, noting that their approach to white nationalism was "a total nonstarter. No one outside a hardcore coterie would identify with it".[16] In 2011 Spencer became the head of the white nationalist National Policy Institute and launched the Radix Journal to promote his views;[17] in 2012, he stepped down from the AlternativeRight website and took it offline in December 2013.[18] By that year, Spencer was expressing ambivalence about the "Alt-Right" label.[19]

It had however gained wider use in areas of the internet such as 4chan and Reddit, and in 2015 began to bloom in popularity.[20] It was on the internet that Spencer's term "alternative right" was picked up and abbreviated to "alt-right".[8] The "alt-right" tag was created with public relations in mind, allowing white nationalists to soften their image and helping to draw in recruits from mainstream conservatism.[21] It appears that people gravitated to the term out of unpopularity with the term "white nationalism".[22] Spencer thought that by this point, the "Alt-Right" had become "the banner of white identity politics".[23]

Sources

  1. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 50.
  2. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 51; Wendling 2018, pp. 17–20.
  3. ^ Gottfried, Paul. "The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right". Taki's Magazine.
  4. ^ a b Niewert 2017, p. 237.
  5. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 53.
  6. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 54.
  7. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 55.
  8. ^ a b Niewert 2017, p. 236.
  9. ^ Wendling 2018, p. 20.
  10. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 52; Wendling 2018, p. 19.
  11. ^ Hawley 2017, pp. 56, 57; Niewert 2017, p. 236; Wendling 2018, p. 20.
  12. ^ a b Hawley 2017, p. 57.
  13. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 19.
  14. ^ Wendling 2018, p. 21.
  15. ^ Hawley 2017, pp. 36–37.
  16. ^ Atkinson 2018, p. 312.
  17. ^ Niewert 2017, p. 238; Lyons 2017, p. 4.
  18. ^ Hawley 2017, pp. 63, 64; Lyons 2017, p. 4.
  19. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 65.
  20. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 67.
  21. ^ Niewert 2017, p. 243.
  22. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 69.
  23. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 68.

@Beyond My Ken:; @FreeKnowledgeCreator:, what are your thoughts on this proposed addition? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a very clearly written addition that looks useful. The one criticism I'd make is that there should be a better phrase than "bloom in popularity"; "bloom in popularity" is not a formal term to use. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with FKC, a better phrase than "bloom in popularity" needs to be found; a simple "grow in popularity" would be fine
  • More importantly, "Formation" is not the right word for the section title. The alt-right is not one organization, it's a movement, and "formation" is just not the right term for a movement coming together. We need something like "Coalescing of the movement", although that's not very good either.
  • "Highbrow" is not apt. "Mainstream", perhaps?
  • I'm not sure what "unpopularity with the term 'white nationalism'" means. Does it mean that that phrase was unpopular with white nationalists themselves, or that it had negative connotations for the general public? This needs to be clarified, and another term should replace "unpoplarity", something more precise; "discomfort with"?, "negative connotations of"?
  • Again, I'm concerned about the narrowness of the sourcing. Hawley is used extensively here, and with all the other citations from Hawley, the article begins to appear to be based too much on a single source. Niewart is also relied on to a significant extent, and you've started to use Wendling a lot as well. Surely there must be other sources that can be used here, or material drawn from other parts of the article which would be pertinent here. You still need to open yourself up to non-academic sources. This is an article in a popular encycllpedia, not an academic paper. Some Googling would help.
    I would prefer to see another re-write of this before signing off on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree there should be a better term than "formation". "Highbrow" seems to mean roughly the same thing as "intellectual" or "intellectually inclined". "unpopularity with the term 'white nationalism'" I assume means dislike of the term. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
That's not an unwarranted assumption, but our readers shouldn't have to decode what we're saying, let's just say clearly what is meant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator and Beyond My Ken and thanks for your comments. I'm more than happy for "bloom in popularity" to be replaced by "grow in popularity"; that's certainly more encyclopaedic. I'm also happy to change the title of the sub-section: "Early years"? "Spencer and AlternativeRight.com? Maybe this sub-section should be termed "Emergence" and the next (which currently bears that title) could be called something else, like "Spread"? I used the term "highbrow" because it was the specific term Hawley developed in reference to this form of white nationalism; I think the best bet would be to retain that term, but use it in quotemarks. Otherwise we might be creating our own terminology rather than following the reliable sources. On the issue of "unpopularity", I think that "negative connotations of" would work well here. As for my use of sources, I have to disagree again. (For what it's worth, while Hawley is an academic source, Niewert and Wendling are journalistic sources, so it's perhaps not fair to say that I need to open myself up to "non-academic sources"). What I have been doing is going straight to the best quality sources: i.e. monographs written either by political scientists or journalists who have spent a great deal of time studying the movement. I certainly don't reject the use of free web sources (and will endeavour to incorporate some into the text above), but we should still go straight for the best quality sources where they are available. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, your proposed section begins with, "The Alt-Right began in 2008", so perhaps it could be called "Beginning" or "Beginnings"? The first sentence identifies the topic of the section, so it might as well be named after it. It might seem confusing to place a section called "Beginning" after one called "Origins", but the "Origins" section could perhaps better be called something else, as it discusses influences on and precedents for the Alt-Right rather than its actual starting point as a movement, which is what readers might expect from a section on "Origins". I agree that it is important to follow sources closely, and use the same terms that they do, within reason. Placing "highbrow" within quote marks seems appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think "Beginnings" would work. "Origins" could become "Influences"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Fine. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've taken both of your comments into account, FreeKnowledgeCreator and Beyond My Ken, and amended the prose accordingly. I've tried to bring in web sources wherever I could find them, as per Beyond My Ken's suggestion. Is everyone okay if I add the following to the article under the title "Beginnings: 2008–2013"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The Alt-Right began in 2008.[1] In November that year, the paleoconservative ideologue and academic Paul Gottfried gave a talk at his H. L. Mencken Club in Baltimore; although titled "The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right", it did not contain the words "alternative right" itself. Gottfried observed that, as the paleoconservative movement declined, a new cohort of young right-wingers were rising to take its place in challenging the neoconservative ideology then dominant in the Republican Party and broader U.S. conservative movement.[2][3][4] One of those endorsing this idea was Richard B. Spencer, a fellow paleoconservative.[5] Born to a wealthy family and raised in Dallas, Texas,[6] in 2007 Spencer had dropped out of his PhD programme at Duke University to take up a position at The American Conservative magazine.[7][8] Spencer claimed he coined the term "alternative right" for the lecture's title, although Gottfried maintained that they were its joint creators.[9] As "alternative right" became associated increasingly with white nationalism in subsequent years, Gottfried distanced himself from it.[10]

After Spencer was fired from The American Conservative, in 2008 he became managing director of Taki Theodoracopulos's right-wing website Taki's Magazine.[11][12] The website initially contained contributions largely from paleoconservatives and libertarians, but under Spencer also gave space to white nationalists like Taylor.[13] In 2009, Spencer used the term "alternative right" in the title of an article by white nationalist Kevin DeAnna;[14][15] by 2010, Spencer had moved fully from paleoconservatism to white nationalism.[5] Spencer left Taki's Magazine and in March 2010 launched The Alternative Right webzine.[16][17] Early issues featured articles by "highbrow" white nationalists like Taylor and MacDonald as well as the Heathen Stephen McNallen.[18] Spencer noted that "if you look at the initial articles for AlternativeRight.com, that was the first stage of the Alt-Right really coming into its own".[18] The webzine consisted primarily of short essays,[19] covering a range of political and cultural issues.[20] Many of these reflected the influence of the French Nouvelle Droite, although this declined as the alt-right grew.[21] Spencer later stated that he wanted to create a movement distinct from the explicit white power image of neo-Nazi and KKK groups, noting that their approach to white nationalism was "a total nonstarter. No one outside a hardcore coterie would identify with it".[22] In 2011 Spencer became the head of the white nationalist National Policy Institute and launched the Radix Journal to promote his views;[23] in 2012, he stepped down from the AlternativeRight website and took it offline in December 2013.[24] By that year, Spencer was expressing ambivalence about the "alternative right" label;[25] he preferred to be called an "identitarian".[26]

It was on the internet that Spencer's term "alternative right" was adopted and abbreviated to "alt-right";[14] according to Slate magazine, the abbreviation "retains the former phrase's associations—the mix of alienation and optimism embedded in the act of proudly affirming an 'alternative' direction—but compacts them into a snappier package."[27] The "alt-right" tag was created with public relations in mind, allowing white nationalists to soften their image and helping to draw in recruits from mainstream conservatism.[28] Many white nationalists gravitated to the term to escape the negative connotations of the term "white nationalism".[29] Spencer thought that by this point, the "Alt-Right" had become "the banner of white identity politics".[30] It was on websites like 4chan and Reddit that the term gained wider usage, and in 2015 began to grow in popularity.[31]

Sources

  1. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 50.
  2. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 51; Wendling 2018, pp. 17–20.
  3. ^ Gottfried, Paul. "The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right". Taki's Magazine.
  4. ^ Nwanevu, Osita (August 31, 2016). "Is the Term Alt-Right a Euphemism?". Slate. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  5. ^ a b Niewert 2017, p. 237.
  6. ^ Cox, John Woodrow (November 22, 2016). "'Let's party like it's 1933': Inside the alt-right world of Richard Spencer". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
  7. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 53.
  8. ^ "Richard Spencer rose as foremost voice in alt-right movement". ABC News. October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
  9. ^ Wendling 2018, p. 20.
  10. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 52; Wendling 2018, p. 19.
  11. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 54.
  12. ^ Alm, David. "I See a Darkness". The Point. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  13. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 55.
  14. ^ a b Niewert 2017, p. 236.
  15. ^ DeAnna, Kevin (July 26, 2009). "The Alternative Right". Taki's Magazine. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
  16. ^ Hawley 2017, pp. 56, 57; Niewert 2017, p. 236; Wendling 2018, p. 20.
  17. ^ "Paleocon Starts New Extreme-Right Magazine". Southern Poverty Law Center. March 15, 2010. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
  18. ^ a b Hawley 2017, p. 57.
  19. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 19.
  20. ^ Wendling 2018, p. 21.
  21. ^ Hawley 2017, pp. 36–37.
  22. ^ Atkinson 2018, p. 312.
  23. ^ Niewert 2017, p. 238; Lyons 2017, p. 4.
  24. ^ Hawley 2017, pp. 63, 64; Lyons 2017, p. 4.
  25. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 65.
  26. ^ Cox, John Woodrow (November 22, 2016). "'Let's party like it's 1933': Inside the alt-right world of Richard Spencer". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
  27. ^ Nwanevu, Osita (August 31, 2016). "Is the Term Alt-Right a Euphemism?". Slate. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  28. ^ Niewert 2017, p. 243.
  29. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 69.
  30. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 68.
  31. ^ Hawley 2017, p. 67.
That seems like a good blend of media and academic sources to me. I don't see any problem with adding it to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Beyond My Ken. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Midnightblueowl. I think that in the sentence, ' "In November that year, the paleoconservative ideologue and academic Paul Gottfried gave a talk at his H. L. Mencken Club in Baltimore; although titled "The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right", it did not contain the words "alternative right" ' , "did not contain the words" should be replaced by "did not contain the phrase", which seems to make better sense. "Internet" seems to be correctly spelled with a capital "I", to judge from our article Internet. The rest looks good. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@FreeKnowledgeCreator:; sure thing, I'll make those changes now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about the lead image from the Unite the Right rally

At present, the article contains two images in the lead; one of a group of neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates at the Unite the Right rally, and another of a man holding a placard stating "Deplorables and Alt-Right Unite". Now, the second image is clearly pertinent to the subject of the article in that it explicitly references the alt-right. The other image, however, does not that. It is certainly possible that the individuals featured in this image are part of the alt-right, however it is just as possible that they are not. The alt-right helped to organise and publicise the rally, but (as its name suggests) the event was designed to "Unite the Right", bringing together different far-right factions, of which the alt-right is only one. As the reliable sources attest, the alt-right is a largely online phenomenon, and we have no evidence that these individuals hang around on the internet shitposting, trolling, and playing with Pepe memes. There are plenty of far-right activists who have little or nothing to do with the online world of the alt-right, and these individuals could well be among them. Given that we have a general paucity of appropriate images for this article, I do not suggest being rid of this image altogether. However, it should not be in the lead, presented as the very first image; it just isn't relevant enough to the article's contents to warrant that. Would anyone object if I moved it to a lower point in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Please check this page, above, where there was an extensive RFC about the photos, the result of which was that both photos were to stay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that discussion, but as far as I can see, no-one who engaged in it raised the fact that the image may well not depict members of the alt-right at all. The discussion only seemed to be on the issue of whether or not it was okay to have two images rather than just one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It is not at all probable that these are not alt-right "members" (whatever that means). They are carrying flags connected to the alt-right movement, and are preparing to join the Unite the Right Rally, an alt-right event (indeed, the ur-alt-right event). The photographer identifies the place, location, and circumstances. Remember that the alt-right is a movement and not simply a conglomeration of specific groups. People can identify with and affiliate themselves with that movement by their actions and behavior without having any formal "membership". As such, there is really no reason to doubt that these are alt-righters. The photo is legitimate and should stay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
For me it's the lack of any explicit alt-right images, such as Pepe or the Kekistani flag, that makes me think that this group's links to the alt-right are questionable. The swastika and Confederate battle flags are employed by some alt-righters, but they are of course far older symbols, and ones which can be employed by sectors of the far-right who are not aligned with the more limited, largely online alt-right movement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Those flags are explicit alt-right symbols. That fact that you don't recognize that is troubling to me. The alt-right isn't some isolated species, stranded on an island, it is part and parcel of the far-right. To a large extent the "alt-right" name is an attempt to separate themselves in the minds of others from the reputation of the far-right, but it's all smoke and mirrors, mere propaganda, and we should not allow ourselves to become a part of it. Neo-Nazism, White separatism, White nationalism, Neo-Confederatism, they're all part of the alt-right, and they're all also the enduring tropes of the far-right. Please disabuse yourself of the notion that there's a stand-alone thing called the alt-right which can be understood and described without reference to its antecedents which you yourself have written about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
They are symbols used by the alt-right, but they are not only used by the alt-right. That is my point. Not everyone in the U.S. far-right is part of the alt-right; it is possible that the individuals in this image are not. Of course, the boundaries are very blurred and it can often be difficult to ascertain where the borders between the alt-right far-right and the non-alt-right far-right lay (forgive the large number of hyphens there!), but at the same time I think caution is required lest we end up chucking anything and everything far-right in with the alt-right (particularly if editors are doing so in a conscious attempt to vilify the latter). The alt-right represents a particular manifestation at a particular time and place using a particular set of tactics. There are other far-right groups who co-exist alongside the alt-right inside the broader far-right movement but who are not using the same tactics as the alt-right; many of the Klan groups, the national anarchists, many Odinist groups and such like. We are possibly moving into hair-splitting territory here, but I would like to reiterate that I think caution and precision is required. My concern is that this image is just not of people who are involved in the alt-right itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Please stop this, it has now entered the realm of the absurd. The time, the place, the photographer's description, the content of the photo, all make it abundantly clear that these are alt-righters going to the Unite the Right rally. There are no "concerns" here, there is only your concern, and it is unfounded. You've made your point, it's totally incorrect, and it's been rejected. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not the demonstrators were members of the alt-right (and it is not clear what defines individual membership), the picture is relevant because it is an event organized by the alt-right. The same is true if we show a KKK rally. Some may be friends but not members. TFD (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal: clearly relevant as an event organised / promoted / headlined by the alt-right. Side note: ...I think caution is required lest we end up chucking anything and everything far-right in with the alt-right (particularly if editors are doing so in a conscious attempt to vilify the latter) [1]. Well, okay. Also see:
The alt-right can’t disavow the events of the Unite the Right rally, because that rally was a product of an environment they’ve spent years making. Wired
K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the reasoning given by Midnightblueowl. Moving the image of neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates out of the lead would be desirable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Why would it be desirable? K.e.coffman (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
A good question, considering that neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates are -- and are described in the article as being -- part of the alt-right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The reasons why it would be desirable were already stated by Midnightblueowl above. There is no proof the particular individuals in the picture are associated with the Alt-Right. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - The image with the Nazi and Confederate flags mirrors the first sentence of the lead. recent consensus supports inclusion as well: The rough consensus is that both images can stay in the lead section of the article and the photo with flags should be placed at the top. Looking through the RfC, respondents clearly evaluated the value of the photos themselves and not just whether or not there should be two images. –dlthewave ☎ 04:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Paul Joseph Watson is not alt right.

Hi,On the alt right Wikipedia page it says the following"Particularly when it comes to foreign policy and international politics, the alt-right is fundamentally opposed to neoconservatism, a standpoint the alt-right shares with paleoconservatism. This was particularly reflected by the reaction of the alt-right in the wake of the Shayrat missile strike, such as by Richard B. Spencer, Paul Joseph Watson and Mike Cernovich."athough it is accurate that Paul Joseph Watson is against neoconservatism and and believes in isolationism,it it is not correct in saying that he is part of the alt right as he has heavily criticised the movement in the past,It also says In this article in that same section"Anarcho-capitalist Jeffrey Tucker has said the alt-right is opposed to libertarianism because the alt-right focuses on group identity and tribalism instead of individual liberty."Paul joseph watson has described himself as a libertarian.[1],Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref>[2] Leonoc28 (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Mike Cernovich is not always seen as being Alt-right either, but rather "Alt-Lite". I think that this is another example of the problems that are currently prevalent within this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I double checked the source cited, and even it did not call Cernovich or Watson "alt-right". I have removed mention of the two of them from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 Already done by Midnightblueowl — Newslinger talk 10:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


Sources

RfC on whether the article should employ "Alt-Right" or "alt-right"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a broad consensus that the article should use he lower-case "alt-right" because this is more commonly found among reliable sources at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Question: Should this article employ the upper-case "Alt-Right" throughout, or rather the lower-case "alt-right"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Upper-case: First, "Alt-Right" is the example set forward by Professor George Hawley's Making Sense of the Alt-Right (2017) and—given that his is a monograph on the subject written by a professional political scientist—I would suggest following its example. (I do, however, acknowledge that other Reliable Sources, such as the BBC, favour the lower-case). Second, the Alt-Right is a political movement rather than an ideology and thus should grammatically follow the example of other recent political movements covered here at Wikipedia—such as Black Lives Matter, the Tea Party movement, the Occupy movement, the Arab Spring, etc—in being consistently rendered in capital letters. If we decide to render it in lower-case letters we must have a clear reason as to why the Alt-Right should be (grammatically) treated differently to these other, largely contemporaneous, movements. Third (and perhaps least significantly), the upper-case "Alt-Right" appears to be the form used by Richard B. Spencer, who created (or at least co-created) it in the first place. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for starting this discussion, Midnightblueowl. I don't have an opinion on this question. I just want the page to be consistent either way. SunCrow (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Lower case - the vast majority of media outlets use lower case in copy text. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Upper case per Midnightblueowl. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Lower case Although normally proper nouns should be capitalized, many computer terms, including "alt," are not. See alt.* hierarchy for its historical usage. Most reliable sources use lower case. See also k.d. lang for another article that breaks the rules of English spelling. TFD (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Lower case - I don't really have much background on this subject, but after a brief review of sources, it looks like the lower case option is standard practice in RS. Responding to User:Midnightblueowl's point; who the heck is George Hawley and why the heck should we care? I don't understand why we'd pick out one random scholar and follow that person's practice. We ought to reflect what the majority of RS do. Not what one person does. NickCT (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • My view is that Hawley is an academic political scientist, an individual who specialises in studying right-wing political phenomena in the U.S., and thus his view and example carries greater authority than that of journalists who aren't necessarily specialists in anything but zig-zag from story to story. But I do take your point that the lower-case is still widely used among the RS and is probably dominant among journalistic sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Midnightblueowl: - I appreciate your point. And I wouldn't be surprised if you're right (i.e. about Hawley being a greater authority than your average journalist). But frankly, that wouldn't matter. Wikipedia should not use jargon. We should use common, not academic, terminology/spelling/grammar. If a bunch of journalists use A and some academic uses B, we go with A. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Again, as I've said throughout discussions with you, academic sources are not the only sources we use, and for a subject so recent, they're probably not even the preferred sources, because a broad base of academic studies has not yet been established to judge what the consensus of scholars is on the subject. This increases the probability that any academic study cited could be a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. For events as recent as the naming and rise of the alt-right movement concept, the most reliable sources we have probably come from the mainstream media, which is why I have been insistent that in your re-writing of the article you do not displace media sources with the very few academic ones you're relying on. instead adding them.
    In respect to this question, even a cursory search of Google News will show that while "Alt-right" or "Alt-Right" shows up occasionally, the usual form appearing in the body of articles is definitely "alt-right". I could waste everyone's time with an extensive list of the articles which use it, or you could take a look for yourself and concede that reliable sources in the mainstream media use "alt-right" by and large. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 7 September 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.

Women with Asian backgrounds

One paragraph of the article begins with the sentence, "One observed oddity is that many leaders of the alt-right movement are married to or romantically connected with women with Asian backgrounds." I am not satisfied with the way that paragraph is written. "Oddity" is an inherently subjective term or an expression of opinion, and it makes the paragraph seem like editorializing in its current form. It needs to be rewritten to make it clear in whose opinion alt-right leaders being married to Asian women is an "oddity" or else replaced with some more neutral term. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the word and done some other spot-editing of the paragraph in question. PaulCHebert (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of quote box

While Donald Trump is neither a Traditionalist nor a White nationalist, he is a threat to the economic and social powers of the international Jew. For this reason alone as long as Trump stands strong on deportation and immigration enforcement we should support his candidacy insofar as we can use it to push more hardcore positions on immigration and Identity. Donald Trump is not the savior of Whites in America, he is however a booming salvo across the bow of the Left and Jewish power to tell them that White America is awakening, and we are tired of business as usual.

— Alt-rightist Matthew Heimbach of the Traditionalist Youth Network[1]

Midnightblueowl added the quote box at right to the article. I've removed it for several reasons: (1) I'm not certain that this is a representative view of how alt-righters see Trump; frankly, I think it overstates the depth of their analyses. (2) I think that the very fact that this viewpoint is isolated in a quote box gives the impression that Wikipedia is in some way supporting it as a piece of rational analysis, which it is not. Finally (3) it seems to me that quote boxes should generally show expert opinion about the subject matter, whereas this one shows the opinions of one of the subjects of the article, a fairly non-notable one at that. I don't see why we should be flagging this person's views as being significant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lyons 2017, p. 14; Wendling 2018, p. 199.
  • Should stay removed: this extended quote is undue. The box and large quotation is over-the-top and unnecessary. A snippet could be perhaps integrated into the narrative, but I don't see an urgent need. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I lean toward re-addition, but I'm not precious about it. I think the fact that two separate sources (Lyons and Wendling) both choose to quote it is a reflection of the notability of the quotation itself, so on those grounds I think there is a case to be made for its use. However, if there is clear majority opposition to using it in the form of a quotebox (and Beyond My Ken makes some fair points on that issue), then I would back K.e.coffman's suggestion that we instead keep part of it integrated into the main body of text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support re-addition as per Midnightblueowl. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Etymology unclear

The etymology makes no explanation as to what the "alternative" in alt-right refers to. An alternative to what? Extreme right? Central right? Left? 86.93.208.34 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

"Kekistan" is not associated with the alt-right.

All signs point to WP:NOTHERE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Kekistan meme is not associated with the alt-right. (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/kekistan) The Kekistan meme was created by Sargon of Akkad to troll the British census.


Trolls unfurl the Kekistan flag hoping that the media and/or dimwitted Wikipedia editors will identify them as neo-Nazis or the KKK. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA8auSZRW84)

The purpose of the Nazi-inspired Kekistan flag is to mock the right and and incite the left: (https://medium.com/@isaaciniowa/the-point-of-kekistan-is-to-mock-the-alt-right-51e4abe72882)

See also: "Is it racist to use the Kekistani flag? https://kekistan.news/racist-kekistani-flag/"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NOrbeck (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Those links are garbage, and including a hidden comment that says "fucking normies!" shows that this discussion is a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The Alt-left section is not politically neutral.

Hi, I agree that this page seems slanted to a leftist/progressive leaning opinion. Opinions are presented as facts, which needs to change in the interests of making it neutral. I am very disappointed and frustrated that people are undoing my edits, with no clear logical explanation of why my edits were wrong, other than they don't like the page to be neutral. I want to put quotation marks in the section on the Alt-left. There needs to be changes to the use of "false equivalence" in the two instances. Please understand the use of correct English in this instance. If a conservative (for example) uses "Alt-left" as a smear, they are probably not suggesting a FALSE equivalence to the Alt-right. They are probably suggesting an ACTUAL equivalence between the far left and far right groups, in terms of violent acts being supported. The suggestion of an equivalence is not "false" to the person making the suggestion. It is only "false" to an opponent of the suggestion, such as Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League (whom is obviously biased against the suggested equivalence). He calls it a "false equivalence" in the linked source. It should therefore be in quotation marks only. If you remove these quotation marks, you are making this page non-neutral, and slanted towards his opinion, making it appear as a fact. It is not a fact that the far left has no equivalence to the far right, in terms of violence. It is an OPINION only. Many will disagree with this opinion. The Far left are well known to use violence and direct action as a tactic, as are the far right. Quotation marks must remain for quoted opinions. The first instance of "false" should be simply removed, to read "equivalence", as this is not a direct quote. It is simply a statement with no factual backup.

The term "Alt-left" has been criticised because it was coined by right wingers as a pejorative label for far left groups (such as Antifa). This pejorative label suggests an ACTUAL equivalence between groups like Antifa and far right groups, due to both groups committing and supporting violent acts. People criticising this equivalence (such as Mark Pitcavage), would say it is a "false equivalence". This is a matter of their opinion ONLY. Not a statement of fact. Obviously, this section is saying that making an equivalence between the far left and far right groups is a falsehood. This makes this page biased to that specific opinion. So, either we put quotation marks round the quoted "false equivalence" statement, and delete the first "false" so it just reads "equivalence", or we keep this section in it's current biased state. I would like to read a proper disagreement with what I am saying here, but I don't think it's possible. I am making a very simple point about neutrality. Either we want neutrality on Wikipedia, or we don't. Thanks for your understanding. Transcendent28 (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Except that far-right terrorism is only rivaled by Islamic terrorism, while far-left terrorism barely registers. Even breaking it down into "right-leaning" and "left-leaning", there was a lot more right-wing terrorism last year. Also, far-right terrorists include neo-Nazis and other white supremacists, who by definition want anyone who isn't a white, heterosexual, cisgendered, gentile, non-Muslim killed -- Antifa, even at their most violent, just wants to get rid of the extreme far-right. People can choose to stop being Nazis, they can't choose to stop being gay, transgender, or Jewish, and it's as much a dick move to expect Muslims to stop being Muslim as it would be to expect Christians to stop being Christian.
Furthermore, the term "alt-right" was coined and used by the alt-right movement itself, and only after they realized that rebranding Nazism wasn't going to work did it become anything like derogatory. Meanwhile, the term alt-left was coined by members of the right trying to make out that the left also somehow had Nazis on their side, too.
Those are facts. What you're spewing is propaganda that was started by the far-right and watered down by bloggers, daytime radio hosts, and a couple of major news networks to rally old white men into abandoning traditional conservative values (represented by folks like John McCain) for extremist demagoguery. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
And I just realized that the title suggests that we be politically neutral. No, our neutrality policies do not mean that we create artificial balance through false equivalence, especially when it's not supported by mainstream sources. What neutrality means is that if an article subject calls himself as a white supremacist, we just report that he's "a white supremacist" instead of calling him "a subhuman degenerate Nazi fuckwad." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd also point out that the assertion in Wikipedia's voice is that the term has been criticised as implying a false equivalence - nowhere do we comment on whether the equivalence is false or real, we are describing what the criticism has said. There's no neutrality issue here. GirthSummit (blether) 15:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Just noting that the OP can't reply as they've been blocked for 60 hours. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Please edit Jack Donovan reference.

"Others adopt a more tolerant stance and have praised gay white nationalists like Jack Donovan, an early contributor to Spencer's AlternativeRight.com.[100]"

It is a fact that I contributed to Spencer's AlternativeRight.com, when I did not believe that it was explicitly WN. The Alt Right later became explicitly WN, and I eventually stopped contributing to WN publications and stopped allowing them to republish my work. It is inaccurate and slanderous to identify me as a White Nationalist, as I have never explicitly identified as such, and have made numerous public statements to the contrary. The source cited by Lyons actually doesn't even name me as WN.

More on this here:

http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2017/05/why-i-am-not-a-white-nationalist/

I identify as bisexual, not specifically gay, and I'm not a White Nationalist, so please correct this line, if it is still deemed necessary and relevant at all. Newspapers like the Seattle Times have edited their articles to clarify my position, and I it seems like Wikipedia should follow that example to maintain NPOV.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/report-washington-state-home-to-one-of-the-largest-cells-of-notorious-white-supremacist-group/

Mrjackdonovan (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply 07-NOV-2018

The question of whether the statement is accurate or not comes down to determining the timeframe for two seminal moments:

  1. The moment when AlternativeRight.com became implicitly identified with WN content
  2. The moment at which Mr. Donovan identified AlternativeRight.com as explicitly containing WN content

In between these two moments you have what is called the liminal phase. The state of being within this phase is difficult for one to assess, because it rarely is identifiable when one is within it; countless writers have approached this topic, and there are no easy answers.

Likewise, the claim in the article assigns to Mr. Donovan knowledge that he may or may not have had at a particular time. We have only his word against our own preconceptions of what a person should or should not know about the world around them, preconceptions which are often wrong or ill-conceived. The plain and simple truth is rarely plain, and never simple.

If there is a better way of identifying what occurred, then it should be suggested (and it has been—if only slighly suggested—in the post above). As a clarification requires references, the best way to insert information about a person is to locate a reliable publication in which the subject is quoted speaking about themselves (so Mr. Donovan's own website might only count in a Wikipedia article about him). Using the Seattle Times as a starting point, how might this passage then be reworded? Please advise on any verbatim suggestions. Ideas from other editors monitoring this request would also be appreciated.
Regards,  Spintendo  07:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the statement that I am objecting to explicitly states that I am a White Nationalist, in the present tense. That is false. The "liminal phase" is an anthropological term that I deal with a lot in my work, and it is stretched here. It is fundamentally about initiation rites where the living "die" temporarily and return in a new state (usually manhood/adulthood). The Huffington Post is not NPOV, it is "everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi," in precisely the same way that FOX news portrays everyone who opposes them as a radical communist. It's an extremely partisan media source. "Identified with WN content" is irrelevant. Someone either identifies as a person who is actively advocating for a white only nation-state, or they don't. The people who do this are generally the worst white people imaginable, and while they have some valid criticisms of mainstream discourse (as do black and hispanic nationalists, frankly), I do not now and have never considered myself a White Nationalist, because I think it's a foolish pipe dream and it makes no sense in America.

Here's a second source that added a comment from me:

https://patch.com/oregon/portland/oregon-hate-map-reveals-11-racist-separatist-hate-groups

If you edit out the "gay" and "white nationalist" and just acknowledge that I contributed to those publications, I think that is fair and accurate.

Mrjackdonovan (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text revision 09-NOV-2018

I agree with you that certain parts of the passage ought to be changed. My proposed revision is below, with the proposed additions and deletions marked where indicated:

Some on the alt-right consider homosexuality to be immoral and a threat to racial survival the survival of the white race.[1] Others adopt a more tolerant stance and have praised bisexual alt-right figures gay white nationalists like Jack Donovan, an early contributor to Spencer's AlternativeRight.com.[1] This reflects a broader trend among the alternative right and rightists in general 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.[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Lyons, Matthew. "Ctrl-Alt-Delete: The origins and ideology of the Alternative Right" (PDF). p. 10.
  2. ^ Antifascist Front (November 6, 2015). "Queer Fascsm: Why White Nationalists Are Trying to Drop Homophobia". Anti-Fasciist News.
Rationale for changes


  1. The passage in the Wikipedia article (WP) currently begins with Some on the alt-right consider homosexuality to be immoral and a threat to the white race. In the Lyons source, "white race" is not singled out, rather, Lyons uses the phrase "racial survival." This comports more with the views of homosexuality as supposedly conflicting with any race's survival, and not just the white race.
  2. Lyons qualifies Donovan's writings on WN as not being Donovan's main concern, rather, his interests are more nuanced:

    Donovan has written that he is sympathetic to White nationalist aims such as encouraging racial separatism and defending European Americans against "the deeply entrenched anti-white bias of multiculturalist orthodoxies." White nationalism dovetails with his beliefs that all humans are tribal creatures and human equality is an illusion. But in contrast to most Alt Rightists, race is not Donovan's main focus or concern. "My work is about men. It's about understanding masculinity and the plight of men in the modern world. It's about what all men have in common."[1]

  3. To undertand this nuance is to recognize that Donovan's beliefs find focus more so within a masculinity 'brotherhood' rather than white nationalism, with Lyons again stating:

    That 'brotherhood' is not culturally specific and he (Donovan) is happy to see men of other cultures pursue similar aims. "For instance, I am not a Native American, but I have been in contact with a Native American activist who read The Way of Men and contacted me to tell me about his brotherhood. I could never belong to that tribe, but I wish him great success in his efforts to promote virility among his tribesmen.[1]

  • In conclusion I believe that it may be appropriate to highlight Donovan's rightist beliefs over those of lesser intensity (WN) particularly because the paragraph in Wikipedia that we're talking about here is mentioning these items in relation to the alt-right's views on sexuality and abortion, rather than White nationalism.
  • In that same regard, I believe it may be important to leave in the assertions regarding the subject's sexuality[note 1] because this issue is directly relevant to what the passage is attempting to communicate: that the alt-right supports individuals who may diverge in certain aspects but whose views generally align to the alt-right's overall worldview.


Notes
  1. ^ The COI edit request which triggered this proposal originally asked to have both claims regarding WN and being gay removed from the passage in the article. The subject purportedly identifies as bisexual.

References

  1. ^ a b Lyons, Matthew. "Ctrl-Alt-Delete: The origins and ideology of the Alternative Right" (PDF). p. 10.

For the reasons listed in the collapsed section above I believe that the passage would benefit from carrying the revisions I've proposed. Additional comments on my proposal would be helpful and much appreciated.  Spintendo  16:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging editors who have recently edited the page @Vsmith, Doug Weller, Beyond My Ken, and Midnightblueowl: to garner their input on this proposal. Thank you in advance for any time you can spare on this.  Spintendo  13:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW I agree that the proposed edit above is fair and accurate. Mrjackdonovan (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Since it cannot be determined in this forum whether the request comes from the actual subject in question, the request cannot be implemented at this time. If the subject has questions or concerns about their description in the article, they are urged to contact WP:OTRS at info-en@wikimedia.org
Regards,  Spintendo  18:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Lack of Support and Neutrality

While this topic is rife with debate I've found that this article is lacking a neutral voice, it is clear what the authors point of view is. Specifically I call for the removal of the quote "Because of the nebulous nature of anonymous online communities, nobody's entirely sure who the alt-righters are and what motivates them. It's also unclear which among them are true believers and which are smart-ass troublemakers trying to ruffle feathers" which serves to discredit the just how organized and developed the Alt-right has become and reiterates the point in the paragraph following it. While this quote is supported by a credible website the author itself has no real research or basis to stand behind. I do think this section is important and shows a different aspect of the Alt-right beyond the repeated topic of "white nationalism" it shows how they represent themselves as a community on the internet and also the people who infiltrate it as a joke. Overall this section could just use more reliable sourcing and information. Jackelyn Salome (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I would use words much stronger than yours. This article is merely a collection of partisan opinions supported by cherry picked citations from like minded authors. This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and its most fundamental principles. The article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.141.117 (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
[[WP::AfD]], where we discuss whether articles should be deleted, is that way -- but you'll have to find an editor with an account to nominate it for you, IPs are not allowed to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Please ensure the opening bit accurately indicates "American" or "USA" to avoid conflagration overseas

The article is locked and may mislead readers. The BJP is not akin to this article.126.3.54.112 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"BJP"? "Conflagration overseas"? What, exactly, is being asked for here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Since the IP has also edited Bharatiya Janata Party, I assume that is what is being referred to, but there is not mention of that party in the article that I can find. Besides, the alt-right is primarily an American phenomenon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@BeyondMyKen, kindly manifest your statement "...American phenomena" in the lede of the locked article, thereby avoiding conflagration. Thank you for helping. It seemed you answered your own question. Oh, yes, might I recommend using "USA" rather than "America" considering South America and Central America? USA may be better126.3.17.188 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The adjective meaning "of the United States" is "American", so, no. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Although the alt-right certainly emerged in the U.S. and is associated primarily with that country, its online and nebulous nature has clearly led to exponents cropping up in other Western countries; indeed, the article presently notes this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It is still primarioly an American phenomenon, and the description should remain. Please do not change it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Huge rewrite to 'get word count down'

I don't have nearly enough energy to check through everything that's changed. One error I noticed - the editor (Midnightblueowl) claimed that Mike Cernovich was not alt-right here. Looking at Mike Cernovich's wiki page, we have 5 references for 'alt-right'. May want to revert that bit at least. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It is certainly true that one can find press sources that call Cernovich "alt-right", much as one can find press sources calling Milo Yiannopoulos, Steve Bannon, and (even) Donald Trump "alt-right", but this is often contested in the more specialist literature, which tend toward instead calling these figures "alt-lite" or "alt-light" to distinguish them from white nationalist "alt-rightists" like Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin. This is partially complicated by the fact that Bannon began toying with the term "alt-right" a few years back before rejecting and disassociating himself from it. For this reason, I think we need to be very careful about calling someone "alt-right" unless there is clear support across different sources for the use of such a term. If we fail to do that then we end up using the term willy-nilly for a very broad range of right-wingers and lose any precision. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to pop over to the Cernovich page (currently in a pretty bad state) and try to use some good quality sources to clarify Cernovich's ideological position and broader affiliations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Again I'll say it. You rely much too much on one or two academic sources, the "specialist literature" you cite, and this is simply not adequate for sourcing an article such as this about a very contemporary subject, for which few academic sources are available. By using only a limited number of academic sources -- as you did in your last attempt to re-write the article by yourself -- the article becomes skewed to the POVs of those specific academics, and does not represent the broader points of view available by citing reliable newspapers, magazine and websites. This was a constant problem with you last effort, and you had to be taken by the hand and, effectively, forced to not delete valid sources in favor of your favored academic ones.
Once again, I'll say it as strongly as I can, since you continue to ignore it, Wikipedia is not an academic encyclopedia, and the standards used for academic papers do not apply here. We have our own standards and norms, and they need to be followed, not ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
As I have said before, I do not—nor have I ever—claimed that this article should only use academic sources (and certainly I have never claimed that we should adhere to the standards of academic publication; there is of course no equivalent peer-review process here). I have simply argued that we should make good use of the in-depth monographs on the alt-right published by political scientists and other academics who have devoted many months if not years to studying the subject and its place in the broader right-wing milieu. I have not claimed that media sources should be excised altogether, and I have gone to effort to correctly format and in some places add additional media sources. We should recognise, however, that these academic specialists will have greater knowledge than most journalists will have, and weigh the respective sources accordingly; when a handful of press articles from 2016 say one thing and scholars publishing in 2017 or 2018 say another (as is the case in this instance), we should at the very least present this mixed picture rather than adhering only to what the press sources claimed. Please, do not misunderstand my position. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you claim, what matters is what you do, and what you do is, unless your arm is twisted, remove non-academic sources and replace them with citations from a very small number of academic sources. That's not going to fly, now or ever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
There may have been some instances where I did that several months ago. I have not done that at all in the past 24 hours and yet you have still reverted and attacked me; if you think that that is my general modus operandi then you are most certainly mistaken. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I really want to disavow you of this notion that I am somehow committed to removing any and all web citations from the article, so I'm going to point you to some articles that I have done a lot of work on. Please do take a look at them. Over at Suicide of Leelah Alcorn, which I brought successfully through FAC, you will see that I have used media sources almost entirely. Look also at the English Defence League article, which I've also had a big hand in; you'll see that it blends the use of press and academic sources. I'm not against using mainstream media sources in articles; I just think that it is really really important that we make strong use of high-quality academic sources too. 00:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't ping me, please. This article is clearly on my watchlist.
The problem is not using "high quality academic sources", the problem is overusing them, and favoring them over high quality media source. You do this. You did it then, and you continue to do it now. I assume this is because you are an academic, but that's irrelevant. We're an encyclopedia for everyone, not for academics, so save the exclusive use of "high quality academic sources" for your academic papers. When you write here, you write to our standards, not those of the academy.
And you don't mean "disavow". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
You imply that I haven't been writing to Wikipedia's standards but let's face it, with over 100 GAs and over 25 FAs under my belt, I'm better acquainted with Wikipedia's standards than most. Doesn't always mean I'm right but it does mean that I'm experienced and capable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, I think it's an illogical argument that you are presenting. Wikipedia is designed to be read by anyone not just academics, so clearly the language and the way that it presents information needs to be accessible (and my editing history shows that I am very capable of doing that). But this doesn't mean that we must ignore academic publications as valuable sources. They are usually among the highest quality sources; we don't limit their uses under the mistaken impression that they are only for other academics. Therein lies anti-intellectualism. No, we must take the best quality sources, both academic and journalistic, and use them as the basis of text which is as accessible as possible. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Please point to where I said that you should "ignore" academic sources. On many subjects, with a voluminous literature to draw from, academic sources are the best quality sources. That is not the case here. You constantly quote from a very small number of sources, and before you were reigned in, some paragraphs you intended to put into the article took out every existing media source and replaced them with citations from one or two books. That's just not acceptable. I can't answer for the reviewers who passed your GAs and FAs, but I do know that not all good articles are GAs, and not all GAs are all that good. Oh, they meet the standards, but the standards don't guarantee a good article, they're a mere checklist -- so don't be throwing your GAs and FAs into this conversation, I'm only concerned with what you're dong to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough, I agree wholeheartedly that not all GAs are particularly good; hell, not all FAs are either. I also appreciate your desire to focus on this article, but my work here cannot be decontextualized from my work elsewhere. I have proven myself as a Wikipedia editor, so it is really frustrating to have another editor constantly undermining my work at this article while at the same time being resolutely hostile at the Talk Page; you yourself have said that you will oppose any of my proposed edits simply because it is I who am making them. It's really not nice. Were I a vandal or POV-pusher or whatever it may be then your concerns would be valid, but as it is, I am none of those things, and my 'back catalogue' of GAs and FAs is proof of that.
I'm not claiming that you are saying that all academic sources should be ignored, although repeatedly you have removed academic sources, citing WP:FRINGE, including in various instances where that simply doesn't seem to apply. That concerns me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Your work here certainly can be "decontextualized" (nice academic buzz word there), because I have no idea what your other work is, and I could care less. I'm entirely focused on your work here, and my experiences with you here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alt-right/Archive_18&oldid=1164971654"