Talk:Alt-right/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Gamergate

I'm not sure whether gamergate belongs in the see also. Typically, see also is reserved for articles closely tied to the subject, but which don't quite deserve their own section. Gamergate is related to conservatism generally, and is somewhat political, but I don't see a connection with the "alt right" specifically. Maybe it is; do we have a source for that?   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sure a source could be dug up with a bit of effort. Both are (arguably) right-wing reactionary movements which skew young and center on the internet, so that seems like a sufficient enough overlap to meet WP:EL and be useful for readers. Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Here's a source from Buzzfeed linking the alt-right with Gamergate through Milo Yiannopoulos.

This op-ed from Weekly Standard defines Gamergate as a product of the alt-right (a "success" of the alt-right, no less. Not sure what it succeeded in accomplishing, but anyway...)

This article from Washington Post links Gamergate to "cuckservative", which is attributed to the alt-right

Admittedly these are not rock-solid sources for this point. It's all indirect stuff, but it seems ample to demonstrate there's something there. Enough for a see also link, anyway. Grayfell (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Grayfell. It seemed plausible to me they were related, but checking several sources I didn't see them mentioned together. If the weekly standard article is correct, they are actually closely tied, and gamergate might even merit direct mention in the article. Anyway, see also is probably fine for now. I already added it back. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I've read a fair amount about these topics and there does seem to be link between GamerGate and the alt-right, which is why I added it to "see also". I added a see also link to Manosphere as well, for similar reasons (a large number of manosphere bloggers, like "Heartiste", Vox Day, and Dalrock) are also alt-righters, and Roosh V identified as a supporter of the alt-right until a few days ago when he severed his ties with it.

However, the biggest link tying the alt-right, GamerGate, and the manosphere together is chan culture, and 4chan and 8chan in particular. All three movements are closely tied to the chans. This explains some of the seemingly contradictory behaviors displayed by AltRighters (such as using anime-style pictures to illustrate white supremacist slogans, for instance). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point about chan culture. I wish we could find a more reliable source on this. We Hunted the Mammoth is a blog, so it's not usable for BLP content. 4chan is still a blindspot to news-outlets, unfortunately, so choices seem limited. Related to the discussion above, it's not clear from sources just how much real diversity there is in this movement, but there are strong signs that it overlaps heavily with chan culture, which overlaps heavily with the manosphere, etc. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree generally and if we could find a good source talking about chan culture, it'd be worth adding into the article. For what it's worth the specific image you linked seems to be semi-ironic. Denarivs (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I just reverted the inclusion of these. There may be an extensive cross section of manopshere bloggers and PUAs with the alt-right, but there are plenty of left-wing 'manosphere' bloggers and PUAs, as well. See the youtube channel Thunderf00t for example. He's left wing, but certainly part of the manosphere. The issue isn't one of no correlation, it's one of overlapping magisteria, to steal a phrase. PUAs and the manosphere are cultural phenomenon, with no dedication to or requirement of political views. the ant-right is a political phenomenon, with no dedication to or requirement of the sort of anti-feminism which defines those two groups. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's exclusively right-wing, or exclusive to the alt-right. It should be included in See also. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No. And you just added "ideological" (which I removed), and these aren't ideological phenomena. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Ideological is an adjective that describes political, cultural, or religious beliefs. An ideology is a body of ideas, and those who agree with the main idea of something take an ideological stand to support it." Connor Machiavelli (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

THe Washington Post Article quotes a Buzzfeed author as the source of GamerGate being "alt-right". WP sources Buzzfeed, which is an unreliable clickbait blog, fullstop. Whereas "The Weekly Standard" is a self-described conservative opinion magazine, and thus should not be considered reliable for anything more than their opinion on any matter.Granarkadis (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So we have two reliable sources (this and the New Yorker) using Rosie Gray, suggesting to me that her article passes RS. Agree that the WS should only be used for their opinion, will look at wording tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 22:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. In those articles it is only mentioned that she associates the alt-right with donald trump. The new yorker simply states that a [buzzfeed blogger] by the name of Rosie Gray calls a certain subset of trump supporters Alt-right, and gives no mention of antisemitism. This does not by necessity validate all of her opinions on the matter of the alt-right, as the New Yorker does not make any value judgements on wether or not all of her opinions on the "alt-right" are factual or editorialized rubbish. Agreeing with somebody on one aspect of policy or social issues does not automatically mean agreeing with that person on all aspects of that policy or social issue. As such the inherent un-reliability of buzfeed is not changed.Granarkadis (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Granarkadis: That other traditionally reliable sources picked it up suggests to be it's fine as a source. There's no blacklisting of Buzzfeed to my knowledge. Recommend you ask at WP:RSN if you're concerned. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is not inherently unreliable. All sources need to be judged by context, and while it has an understandable reputation for listicles and clickbait, Buzzfeed also does substantial journalism. Both the Rosie Gray article, and these two by Joseph Bernstein are bylined as being by "Buzzfeed News Reporters". Dismissing the entire site as a blog is a misrepresentation. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling somebody a "reporter" does not make them inherently reliable due to the intentionally broad definition of that word to prevent massive negative consequences (read:1984). In the context of buzzfeed, it simply means that they focus on slightly more news-based blogging and what would very generously be refereed to as "columns" in any reputable journalistic publication. It should also be mentioned that the three sources that are cited, one is buzzfeed (basically a clickbait blog), the second is a conservative opinion magazine (i.e. paper equivelant of a blog) and it should be noted that "The Fix" section in the Washington post is a "politics blog" written by one of their election correspondents, and thus should not be taken for the same validity as a true piece. As such all sources used to cite this section are only usable in the context of their authors' opinions, because they are all, as we would say here: WP:NEWSBLOG . Not to mention that all three blog pieces in paper form, a notice board, some pins and a bunch of string are needed just to concoct that one sentence mentioning gamergate.Granarkadis (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, how is following WP:NEWSBLOG POV pushing? Please, help me understand the true way to source blogs such as buzzfeed, the Fix, and The Weekly standard. Surely not like normal articles that go through at least a minuscule editorial overview. Or has that become irrelevant when dealing with certain publications (i.e. buzzfeed). To my understanding of WP:NEWSBLOG, the articles mentioned can only be used in referance to their authors' opinions, which is what I did. If you want a discussion, I am here, but so far all I see @Grayfell: is one user trying to push me into an edit war so he may have some sort of WP:BOOMERANG case on me in the future.

Connor Machiavelli blocked as sock and "not here"

Interesting but not surprising. Doug Weller talk 20:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm shocked! Scandalized! I'm aghast that such a thing could happen! I'm... Lying.

Are there any other editors who are pro-alt-right? I'm not complaining about this block, mind, but I am a little concerned that most of the people participating here seem to be decidedly left-wing. It hasn't been a problem yet, but it might become one. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you have to be left-wing to be against white supremacism and anti-Semitism, let alone "decidedly left-wing". You could be a traditional conservative to be against those beliefs and indeed the alt-right. National Review is, for instance. And I'm sure it's founder, Bill Buckley, who I visited a couple of times when I was young, would have been against it. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that all right-wingers (or even all alt-right-wingers) are anti-Semitic white supremacists. I'm just saying that we seem to have a bunch of people who are at the other end of the political spectrum from the alt-right. Information that may seem obvious and non-controversial to us might, due to our own biases, be less clear to someone who's more open minded about the alt-right.

Now, I don't think any of the work done on the article in the past few weeks has been all that bad, mind. I just think we ought to keep in mind that we might not be as objective as we could about this group. Of course, I could be wrong. Any of the editors here might be quite conservative, but very objective about this article, so it hasn't been obvious to me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

DubiousAnon was a sock of the same user. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sur-prise, sur-prise, sur-prise! Grayfell (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism?

The only source used for this piece in the article that an actual official belief in the alt-right is anti-Semitism, is in this article here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-2015-fueled-the-rise-of-the-freewheeling-white-nationali#.uv4qg3lVZ which says "But it’s not all so high-minded as that. Take a glance at the #altright hashtag on Twitter or at The Right Stuff, an online hub of the movement, and you’ll find a penchant for aggressive rhetoric and outright racial and anti-Semitic slurs, often delivered in the arch, ironic tones common to modern internet discourse. Trump is a hero on the alt right and the subject of many adoring memes and tweets." "Immediately, a stream of anti-Semitic tweets came my way, without a word of this story having yet been written or published: “Oy vey! Look at that nose! I can’t imagine this ending well,” read one. “She looks like she echos,” read another, using a slang term on the alt right for being Jewish (see: The Right Stuff’s glossary)."

Let's just be logical here, mentions of some anti-Semitism in the movement is already included in this article, but I don't think it warrants enough to be significant due to lack of, from what I've seen, reporting of anti-Semitism being an alt-right belief, but something that's just mentioned a few times, instead. Some don't represent all and it doesn't seem to be significant enough as a considered belief to be included in the lead and as an official belief they hold, due to lack of significance attributed in this article, despite sources not saying it as significant. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's be logical here: I've yet to find a form of bigotry that doesn't hold a special place in the alt-right's heart. Sorry to argue from personal experience, but quite frankly what you are saying does not at all jive with anything I've ever seen, personally or in RS's. If you think this needs another source, then I can get behind that. But if you think this is untrue.... Well, I'm sorry to tell you, it's not. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I've about had enough. Anyone who thinks there is an "official belief" held by the alt-right should not be editing this article. And I note this editor's attempt to keep mentions of certain terms as minimal as possible. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if you're including me in this or not, but I want to point out I wasn't suggesting there are any official beliefs. Just widespread beliefs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it was CM who mentioned "official belief" twice. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, but I kind of glossed over it. I just wanted to be clear I wasn't just saying "yeah they do!" to CM's "no they don't!" MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Prove it's a widespread belief from the sources we've used. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Why? No need to do that, but you might want to look at the sources again. Doug Weller talk 21:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::::Because why would you include something in Wikipedia as being true if you can't even prove it? I want you look at the sources again and show me your claim is true. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

we don't "prove" stuff, we source it, and that's been done. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::Article material that is not in the source may be removed on Wikipedia, from what I've seen very often, even on this article here from other editors. If you want a piece in an article, you don't just type up some mumbo-jumbo then throw a source beside it, it should be provable if you even want it mentioned in the article. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Good thing I haven't done that then. This isn't getting anywhere. Doug Weller talk 21:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can see it's in this article, though. This should be getting somewhere if some more editors were interested in the progress of this article. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm very interested in the progress of this article, even if I confine myself to working on it from this end (trying to help resolve disputes on the talk page). What I'm not interested in is whitewashing the subject. If an RS says "anti-semitism", then we include "anti-semitism". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

And antisemitism isn't some mumbo-jumbo, it's evil. Confusing though when an editor seems to be suggesting that it's too insignificant to include but (by implication as it's only anti-Semitism that's been singled out) that monarchism is ok to include. Doug Weller talk 21:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

::Okay then? I never said not to include anti-Semitism anywhere in this article, it's actually included in this article outide of being listed as a (unduly so) majority belief in the alt-right. Oh yeah Mjolnir, of course we include that for the Wikipedia article, right. My concern though is that anti-Semitism hasn't been shown to be a widespread belief, so we should represent this article more fairly per WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what are you suggesting? You've been very unspecific. And while you're being specific, what beliefs have been shown to be more wide-spread? Doug Weller talk 21:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we remove anti-Semitism from the lead and such from what are listed as common beliefs. The right-wing ideologies and such. Sources actually list them as being common beliefs in the alt-right, not as just some people who have some sort of emotion or belief like anti-Semitism but it not ever being listed as widespread. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it's sourced and mentioned several times in the body of the article, do I need to quote what we say about it? And you didn't answer my 2nd question. Good night. Doug Weller talk 22:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::You should quote what the sources say that you suppose proves that anti-Semitism is a widespread belief among the alt-right. I answered the second question where I said right-wing ideologies and such, then I elaborated more. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have very different definitions of the word specific, please answer using the dictionary definition. As for quotes about anti-Semitism, are you sure you've read the whole article? Doug Weller talk 06:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is not, by any means or definitions, a reliable source. It and anything connected to gawker (who were shown to be unreliable in a court of law) should immediately be removed from this page, and all pages on Wikipedia.As such any mention of "antisemitism" must be removed untill confirmed by an actual news source and not some blog. Buzzfeed "news" are a series of editorial clickbait blog posts masquarading as real newsGranarkadis (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is whether we can use Rosie Gray, and I note that The New Yorker mentions even if only briefly[1] which suggests that she has some credibility, and of course she isn't the only source. Doug Weller talk 22:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really, agreeing with somebody about one aspect of a policy/event/movement does not automatically confer agreement or credibility on all aspects of that policy/event/movement. The context of the New Yorker[2] piece in which she is cited is piece is associating trump supporters with the alt-right, and even then they make sure to point out that this is not absolute but rather her opinion. All the New Yorker confirms is that Trump supporters might be alt-right, not that they are all deep anti-Semites as well.Granarkadis (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

:::I'm a bit confused here. How is anti-Semitism a right-wing ideology? DubiousAnon (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think its because it is often a white nationalist ideology, and some sources (although buzzfeed is the only one cited) attribute white nationalism to some aspects of the Alt-Right. Although it would be very preferable that that "news" blog is removes from this article in its entirety, and I believe that if this is to stay, it be made clear that it is author X's opinion on the subject. Because that's all Buzzfeed is good for, random people's opinions.Granarkadis (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::It's an ideology and it's white nationalist? I agree that Buzzfeed is unreliable as a source of fact. It should be stated that anti-Semitism is a mere opinion about this group or otherwise removed entirely from the lead. DubiousAnon (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Are either of you seriously confused about why antisemitism is associated with the right wing, or are you just trolling? No, it's not exclusively right wing, but it's not like the connection is all that obscure, what with the Nazis being the archetypal right-wing extremists and all. Yes, you both have made it clear that you dislike Buzzfeed, but neither of you has really explained why beyond reddit talking points. As has already been discussed, you can take it to RSN if you think you have a case, but don't be surprised if boomerangs on you. Grayfell (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::::I'd take it to RSN, but I've never done that myself before. DubiousAnon (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a first time for everything... I guess I should warn you that this source has already been brought up at RSN and made it through. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::I would rather not do it myself. The problem is it isn't reliable for factual statements, only those of opinion. DubiousAnon (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

One: he was speaking about what he knew of mainstream US conservativism (it being very pro-israel) and you know it. I share no love for the alt-right, but the length of time buzzfeed stays as a "reliable" *laughs uncontrolably* source is directly proportional to the decrease of my hope for this wiki's adherance to WP:NPOV. Two, @Grayfell:, Please refrain from implicitly threatening to try and sanction me or any other editors in the future. If you want me banned for not agreeing with you, come out and say it to my face instead of hiding behind a passive-agressive mask. (as a sidenote, it had honestly just slipped my mind that yes, horeseshoe theory and nazis are a thing. However because this article deals with the Alt-right and not "right wing" my mind did not go that far into how horribly man can be wolf to man. It also astonishes me that you missed the whole part of my posts on this talk page that almost blatantly said "find a non-blog source for this and I will withdraw my complaints")Granarkadis (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Offering you advice ("...don't be surprised if it boomerangs on you.") is a far cry from threatening you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

BuzzFeed publishes both opinions and real journalism (and yes, an astonishing amount of empty filler), and their reporters have won numerous journalism awards, including a Peabody Award shared with WNYC, NPF awards, a Livingston Award, etc. You may not think they are real journalists, but their colleagues disagree. Dismissing this by laughing at, using scare quotes, or calling it a blog over and over are unpersuasive tactics. If you continue to beat a dead horse, don't be surprised if everyone's patience wears thin. Horseshoe theory? For real? Nope, not even going there. Good lord. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the Fact that @DubiousAnon: turned out to be a sockpuppet, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is the potential discovery of an account as a sockpuppet that you were refering to (and given the fact that two of the accounts posting on this section were sockpuppets, I will not begrudge your suspicion that I was one as well, given that sockpuppetry is the only potential negative consequence I can see for challenging something as a reliable source). IN any case @Grayfell:, I have found two more sources that link Anti-semitism to Donald Trump supporters/cuckservative/alt-right. One is an opinion piece, however, but given the fact that the large portion of this article is based on opinion pieces, blogs or columns, It shouldn't be that out of the ordinary. The Other is a regular newspiece from the Telegraph.[3] [4]. I believe these two provide a much better and more reliable source than buzzfeed, and it would be much better source. Cathy Young's piece also shows that centre-right or libertarian persons also dislike the Alt-right in a very vocal fashion.Granarkadis (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, kind of as a sidenote, the far-left also has a history with antisemitism (thus my mention of horseshoe theory). I will take examples from my personal field of interest: Russian History. Exhibit one: Leo Trotsky, and his failure to rise to power. Because of his Jewish heritage, a large ammount of the bolshevik (that is to say, communist) party resented and distrusted him, beliveing him to be the second coming of Napoleon who will opress the goy with his jewishness once the revolution is over. So blind the bolsheviks were because of that antisemitism, they allowed Stalin to do the exact thing that they feared Trotsky would do (i.e. opress them all). Exhibit 2: The jewish autonamous oblast. The USSR under Stalin tried to lure jews into the soviet union by giving them their very own province! completely seperate form the rest of the country! Located in beautiful beautiful Siberia! Basically they created a pretty large ghetto and tried to send all the jews in the USSR into it. So yes, while this was not as bad as the Nazi's version of antisemitism (read: the haulocaust), this does show that the far-left does have a tendancy towards antisemitism as well.Granarkadis (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Most political views include various forms of religious bigotry. The irony of your example is the number of people who consider Bolshevism a Jewish conspiracy. But that has nothing to do with this article. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny but true, but then again, when has bigotry even been logical?Granarkadis (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Just for a relevant mention, the Left has this too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#Anti-Semitic_anti-Zionism DubiousAnon (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, dung beetles held a special place in Egyptian mythology. That's what scarabs are. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DubiousAnon was another Bozo33 sock (as was Connor), struck through his edits. Doug Weller talk 06:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And through Connor's to show the disicussion was started by a sock. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Aww, but we were having fun stating random things that had no bearing on the discussion! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the term Alt-right

So I found an article explaining why "Alt-right" is a much vaguer word than this article pupports.

http://ppq.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/10/07/1354068810380091.abstract

It says " the Left–Right dimension is time- and country-specific"

Let's get consensus on this, unless you think anyone the established right wing party is just fine and anyone who disagrees is a racist. Refer to the page history for information about my post.

Consensus on what exactly? Mduvekot (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources need to discuss the subject of the article, as I said. That source doesn't discuss "alt-right". Doug Weller talk 16:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it does. "alt" is simply a suffix for which I hope you understand the meaning, "right" was clearly implicated. The consensus is the negation of assuming collective punishment. This is no different from tea partiers making "The left" synonymous with communism and calling officers pigs.

Lumbering in thought (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it has to specifically discuss the American political movement/whatever called the Alt-right, you can't interpret it. In any case it was written in 2011, too early to be discussing the current phenomenon and was analysing data from the Manifesto Project Database which is about political party manifestos, and this isn't a political party. "assuming collective punisment" makes no sense. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually there is nothing allowing one to define the alternative to the established right, unless a misnomer is what you're after. Maybe an etymology section would be in order.Lumbering in thought (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

We go by what the sources say. As this is basically a neologism, I don't understand how we could have an etymology section other than what we have in the "Origin" section. Doug Weller talk 21:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

As we can see it's an abbreviation https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alt-right. So in case it wasn't clear before, Alt stands for alternate and Right stands for established right. There's also a nifty little etymology section, you should probably delete that if you're staying true to your word.Lumbering in thought (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't bother with wikitionary, and it isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This is simply a matter of etymology. This article mentions "Forever described as racism" and "Only in the US" for the alt-right, that is antithetical to the etymologyLumbering in thought (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Merging issue

I have no opinion on any potential merge, but if done, it would make more sense to merge with the article on Spencer's website Alternative Right rather than his own bio article as currently suggested since the term originates with and is inextricably tied to the advent of that specific publication. Just my two cents worth. Laval (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As well, there were other individuals aside from Spencer himself who were involved in the founding of Alternative Right and who contributed to the development of the so-called "alt-right" ideology through that website, so it is not something he developed and promoted all on his own. Laval (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Beliefs

"Members of the alt-right use social media and the internet to organize and share their beliefs, particularly on the /pol/ of image boards such as 4chan and 8chan."

I propose the removal of the 4chan and 8chan mentions of the /pol/ board from the beliefs pages. The first source mentions the Angry Bird movie and how some users of the boards turned the characters' description to fit a certain narrative. The evidence presented in the first reference indicates that it was shared, but doesn't show that extensive organization of alt-right beliefs constantly occurring on the high traffic boards such as /pol/ with averages of 100 threads and 4000 messages per hour. More evidence is required to prove that indeed the boards hosts a large alt-right community. The board /pol/ hosts a variety of different opinions and it is unfair for all the other users to be labeled as belonging to the alt-right community. The second source makes no mention of 4chan or 8chan.

For all the previously cited reasons I have edited the sentence to the following:

"Members of the alt-right use social media and the internet to share their beliefs on certain boards of 4chan and 8chan."

Ralphw (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

RfC: Merge to Richard B. Spencer

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.

---

The term seems to be tied entirely to Spencer's website "Alternative Right". Which perhaps presents itself as the center of a movnment, but which is not described as such by the sources. For that reason I suggest we merge this article to the article on Richard B. Spencer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Oppose will discuss why. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Struck through banned editor. Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Support as proposer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose This appears to be a bad-faith attempt by an editor exhibiting battleground behavior [5] [6] to delete this article. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on the subject do not connect it to Richard Spencer, or do so only to state that he coined the term. There are no reliable secondary sources that suggest that Richard Spencer runs the alt-right or that it is a subset of his work. Secondary sources clearly show that the alt-right is independently notable and distinct from Spencer. Denarivs (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
3. Support the merger. I agree that the reliable sources do not back up the assertion that alt-right is "a right-wing movement different than mainstream conservatism that is identified by the term 'alt-right'"; it does appear that reliable sources are all about Richard Spencer's website. Rockypedia (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Despite the references to what sources say or don't say, so far only Connor Machiavelli has actually provided any concrete evidence either way (below). Having reviewed some of the sources, I have to agree with him that the assertion made by the nom and Rockypedia does not seem justified. The first reference from Buzzfeed seems to focus on Spencer (link), but the Weekly Standard reference (link), which is also one of the principal sources for the article, mentions "Alternative Right" only once in passing and Spencer himself not at all. Indeed, it seems to justify precisely that the alt-right is not limited to Spencer and his website, viz.: "As an example of how truly diverse the alt right is, major and proverbial watering holes for them include everything from Breitbart and the libertarian-leaning Taki Mag to Alternative Right—a blog that openly supports white nationalism." This recent article on the alt-right, again, mentions neither Spencer nor his blog. —Nizolan ^(talk) 02:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose The alt-right movement has grown beyond the internet, and has been mentioned in several mainstream news stories. It has also gained prominence with the rise of Donald Trump, and it's safe to say that many of his supporters would identify as such. If the alt-left came up, I wouldn't try to remove the article just because I didn't agree with their politics. Get off your ideological high horse and stop creating partisan divides on Wikipedia. Redflorist (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment Summoned by bot, is this the RfC? Cannot form an opinion on this subject as arguments are not very clearly laid out by either side. Agree with some below that "umbrella term for the designation of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism" , is a) vague to the point of being nearly meaningless, especially the 'alternative to', everything on the planet except Main Con is 'an alternative' to it, what is distintive about this 'alternative' (if the description must be used, it should be clearly a self-description) … b)the sentence is also very 'clunkily' phrased. Please ping if further input wanted. Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose Per User:Redflorist and User:Nizolan. Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  23:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Richard Spencer coined the term. However, "Alternative Right" the website has been closed since 2013, whereas this article relates to an active political movement still rising in prominence, which belies the claim that it's "tied entirely to Spencer's website." And for the reasons given by Nizolan. DrQuinnEskimoWoman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The alt-right has become something completely different than a term on a website, nor is Richard Spencer the leader of the movement. It is classified as a right-wing movement different than mainstream conservatism that is identified by the term 'alt-right', since it is an alternative, not mainstream conservatism. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Except, the reliable sources do not support this idea, and all draw the term back to the website. Several use the term "movement" in scare quotes, and others not that it is just a loose web of far-right and neo-reactionary ideologies. What is notable here is the website, not the term as applied to the "loose movement" of neo-reactionaries. The SPLC source for example specifically defines the term as referring to the website.[7]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This claim that "all" reliable sources source the claim back to Richard Spencer is bizarre and wrong. The usage of the term in reliable secondary sources is probably greater than either the website or Spencer. The SPLC source you mentioned focuses on the website, and not on the movement at all. I strongly agree with Connor Machiavelli's critique above. Denarivs (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

For some reason some editors here disagree with sources being used to support that the alt-right is an alternative right-wing movement. It's in the name itself, folks. Also, we have more than one RS that shows it's an alternative right-wing movement that is not mainstream conservatism, and is not exclusively white nationalist. The reliable sources used show that the alt-right is broader than Richard Spencer even used in this article here, and the list would go on: http://www.weeklystandard.com/what-exactly-is-the-alternative-right/article/2000310 http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/domestic-extremism-terrorism/c/alt-right-a-primer-about-the.html?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/ http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/domestic-extremism-terrorism/c/alt-right-a-primer-about-the.html?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/#.Vtz1bZwrLIU http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-2015-fueled-the-rise-of-the-freewheeling-white-nationali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 03:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What a group tries to call itself is irrelevant, or at least misleading. Do we just accept that World's Best Donuts are in fact, the world's best donuts just because it's in the name itself? Saying that the alt-right is an alternative right wing movement is basically saying nothing at all. As we've already discussed, it's a tautology. If the only thing these sources agree on is that the alt-right is the alt-right, than what, exactly, is 'alternative' even supposed to mean? There can certainly be more than one alternative to something, right? The term's vagueness is unlikely to be an accident, as I'm sure Spencer was fully aware that people would react badly to something that was obviously a euphemism for white nationalist/supremacist/racist or whatever. Examples of usage outside of this context exist, but are very limited from what I've seen. I'm not sure if that's enough to warrant an article. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What a group calls itself is relevant, especially if it's true. If it's a fact that World's Best Donuts does in fact, have the world's best donuts, then we accept that as a fact, because it's been proven. This isn't just their own words. Alternative in the context of right-wing politics means it is not mainstream conservatism. This is the alternative movement to mainstream conservatism, the alt-right is not an ideology or a belief. WP:POV that term is vague, it's very clear what it means, and it does not mean "nationalist/supremacist/racist or whatever." I don't know what you're talking about that the usage is very limited outside of this context, you haven't seen that much then, if that is true. The article should exist. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: The fact that a variety of news sources have reported on them over quite a while of time makes them notable and the fact that "alternative" is in their name doesn't mean that they have to be "alternative" from "regular right-wingers", much like how American "conservatives" aren't actually trying to conserve anything names in politics are absolutely meaningless, and having an (")incorrect(") name doesn't disqualify this article from existing either, the fact is that "the movement" (well the political ideology in this case) exists and is notable enough because plenty of news sources have reported on them both in respect to and independent of Richard B. Spencer. If we merge it now now with Richard B. Spencer's article then we'll have to eventually split it again as it has already been proved notable, how the group calls itself and if that is an accurate description of itself is irrelevant to a neutral point of view as first party sources are discouraged on Wikipedia anyhow, and the majority of the secondary and tertiary sources listed in the article give an accurate image of the article and very few even mention Richard B. Spencer so the merger would counter-productive at this point.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused about why you are specifically responding to me. I do not have strong opinions on the merger, and part of my point was that the name "alt-right" should not be taken as literal per Connor Machiavelli's comments about it being "in the name itself, folks". It seems like we generally agree on that point? If you are instead responding to Connor Machiavelli, that user has been blocked for sock-puppetry and other reasons, so it might be better to make your case afresh, rather than build of off old drama. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your intent, though. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2016 (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.

Milo Yiannopolous' take on what the Alt-right really is

Here is a man who is a part of the Alt-Right, explaining it to outsiders. Please turn this into factual information on the article, as i cannot. This is perhaps the most comprehensive source available to date. [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.64.42 (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither Breitbart.com nor Yiannopolous are particularly reliable for journalism or for opinions, and as has already been explained here, Wikipedia favors independent sources over non-neutral insider accounts. It is far beyond any mortal Wikipedia editor's power to turn that link into factual information. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a valid primary source for what members of the alt-right think their beliefs are? The article specifically mentions Yiannopolous by name already as an alt-right personality. On a side note, I'm a little surprised Buzzfeed is being used so heavily when it's on the weak end of reliable sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As I mention above, Buzzfeed has won many awards for journalism, regardless of its (understandably) poor reputation. While Breitbart may not be quite as awful as Radix Journal, it's still a flimsy source, and an involved one, and should be avoided when possible. We should stick to independent sources for commentary, and reliable sources for opinion. Breitbart is neither. There is no "official" spokesperson for the alt-right, so there's no reason to dip into otherwise unusable sources for this kind of thing. If Yiannopolous' opinions are published or summarized in more reliable outlets, that would be an indication that they are a useful reflection on the larger movement, and we should use those sources as the starting point. There are a massive quantity of questionable or unusable sources stumbling over each other to describe what the alt-right is in flattering terms, so we should stick to independent coverage, here. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

So now we base evidence from sources on "awards" which are essentially meaningless ways of liberals to pat themselves and each other on the back? There is not a single source on this page that speaks from the Alt-right's perspective; not a single one that defends it or explains it's beliefs from anyone in the Alt-right itself. Every single source on this entire page is from a leftist, social justice warrior media outlet who's only goal is to demonize the alt-right for being against their own political agenda. I propose a valid & extremely comprehensive PRIMARY source from a well-known media outlet and self-identified Alt-right writer (yes, Breitbart is a respected news outlet), and your only reason for not including it is "well, Buzzfeed is more respected" as if there is any truth in that (Buzzfeed is no more respectable or un-biased than Breitbart). You claim "There is no 'official' spokesperson for the alt-right", yet you take OPINIONS from outsider, politically biased media organizations which are no more respectable than Breitbart and whose sole intent it is to attack & demonize the Alt-right? You take THAT over a firsthand explanation from someone with vastly more experience in the ideology itself? Your hypocrisy and ridiculous anti-alt-right bias is astounding. Someone like you has no room to be editing this page if you refuse to take a neutral stance and be open minded (even with perspectives you personally don't agree with) in the name of gathering comprehensive and accurate information; or at the very least both sides of a subjective movement without any established leaders or organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.64.42 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2016

This rant conveniently ignores the WP:PRIMARY concerns, which are ultimately more important than someone praising Buzzfeed. clpo13_(talk) 20:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You conveniently missed the point & only chose to pick one piece out of a larger issue which i addressed: The hypocrisy of what sources are accepted by the people editing this page in order to promote their own personal viewpoints, as well as the lack of pro-alt-right sources on a controversial, subjective, and relatively unknown ideology. It's very clear from reading the article that no one who made it seems to have any personal knowledge of the Alt-right, only basing their information on weak, extremely politically biased, and more often than not incorrect sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.64.42 (talk • contribs)

That's because WP:PRIMARY is the issue. You're so focused on the evil liberals that you're not getting that a primary source is not a good source of information on this subject. We need secondary sources. If you find secondary sources that describe alt-right in a favorable manner, then we can talk. But Breitbart won't work because it's too connected to the issue and won't be neutral. clpo13_(talk) 20:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That's the point! Buzzfeed and every other source on here are the political OPPOSITE of Breitbart. How is a source whose political bias & intent is to demonize conservatism and anything politically opposed to them accepted? They are just as "connected" to the issue as Breitbart. You act so naively as to think Buzzfeed has no dog in the show, or other un-biased interests in the Alt-right (which they clearly do). And i'm not bashing "evil" liberals (ironic because Alt-Right ideology is actually very classical liberal/libertarian), i'm simply pointing out the very obvious hypocrisy in the sources accepted if an article from Breitbart isn't seen as valid. Buzzfeed and almost every single source on this page is not "neutral" in any way, shape or form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.64.42 (talk • contribs)

Fine, let's just delete the article altogether, since only people who even care to talk about alt-right are those who embrace it and those who demonize it. Since none of those sources are neutral, there can be no article!

I would prefer a more balanced view of alt-right (if only to avoid discussions like this), but, as I said, the only people who write about it either represent the alt-right and write about it favorably (Breitbart) or those who oppose it and criticize it (Buzzfeed). There's no middle ground. If you find a more moderate take on it, feel free to present it. But this is a polarizing issue, so there's likely always going to be biased sources one way or the other. clpo13_(talk) 20:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

172... WP:TRUTH and WP:BIASED might help you understand the issue here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Buzzfeed isn't the best of sources, it might help to compile and perhaps add some other sources. That said, it seems Buzzfeed is one of a few sources used throughout the article. In fact, I don't think it is the sole source for any statement in the article. Anyway, here's what a quick search found:

• "... anti-Semitic white nationalists (a large subset of the “Alt Right”)." - MTV News citing the ADL
• "People who identify with the Alt Right regard mainstream or traditional conservatives as weak and impotent, largely because they do not sufficiently support racism and anti-Semitism. Alt Righters frequently disparage the conservative movement by using the derogatory term “cuckservative,” popularized in 2015. The term “cuckservative,” a com­bi­na­tion of “con­ser­v­a­tive” and “cuck­old,” is used by white supremacists to describe a white Chris­t­ian con­ser­v­a­tive who pro­motes the inter­ests of Jews and non-whites over those of whites. Though not every person who identifies with the Alt Right is a white supremacist, most are and “white identity” is central to people in this milieu. In fact, Alt Righters reject modern conservatism explicitly because they believe that mainstream conservatives are not advocating for the interests of white people as a group." - Anti-Defamation League (has a ton more info on the topic too)
• "Bokhari and Yiannopoulos guide their readers through the various constituencies of the often Trump-supporting “alt-right” movement, those ideological factions whose open embrace of white identity politics... The authors also touch on “The 1488rs,” actual Nazis and white supremacists who, we’re told, do nothing more than tarnish the reputation of the rest of the alt-right. Pay no attention to them, the authors urge." - Tablet Magazine (certainly has a pro-Jewish POV but appears to pass the basics of RS)
• "The relationship between the Trump campaign and the so-called “alternative right” or #altright, which has a strong white nationalist component, is one way in which we can see the effects of this. - Opinion piece on The Guardian

Not sure this is much help, but it's what's recent. I'm sure more will come as the election progresses. Let's keep trying to upgrade our sources as we get better ones. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This recent (April 4) Vox article looks like it may be useful for this: The alt-right encompasses a range of views. It includes among its ranks people who’d traditionally be just called white supremacists or white nationalists, people like Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute (who coined the term "alt-right") or American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor. But it also includes people who reject bigotry, at least in its overt forms, but whose views are still too reactionary for the conservative mainstream. followed by Regardless, racism and sexism are essential elements of the alt-right movement; it could not exist in its current form without them... The article also quotes from Yiannopolous's Breitbart article mentioned above, but it specifically emphasizes that it's full of internal contradictions and says Yiannopoulos's defense of the alt-right is just obviously untrue. which is one (of several) reason I think we should require secondary contextualization. Grayfell (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what is being listed here are not a reliable sources. Breitbart and Yiannopoulos are far more reliable sources than Buzzfeed in this context, and easily worth of inclusion. The various other sources mentioned here appear to parrot Buzzfeed's interpretation, and only appear to use the primary evidence Buzzfeed uses. They repeatedly point to the "National Policy Institute" as the source of alt-right's white-nationalist associations, rightly so since the term was coined by its founder Richard Spencer. But the commandeering of the term by other movements on the right, which Breitbart, Yiannopoulos, and others appear to cover, is ignored, and instead wild labels of "monarchism" and "identitarianism" and "racialism" are thrown in.

This is just an outsider's perspective, but after stumbling upon it and inspecting its citations, this article has a severe NPOV problem.—wing gundam 01:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

So what about all the other sources? Is clickbait so infectious that agreeing with Buzzfeed make them now also unreliable? Even if I accepted that Buzzfeed was not usable, sometimes bad sources produce usable content, and in this case, that's supported. There are so many other, usable sources in general agreement, which suggests that this is one of those cases. Also, Breitbart and Yiannopoulos aren't separate here, Yiannopoulos writes for Breitbart, and Breitbart is the closest thing to a reliable outlet that publishes his writing. Grayfell (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Discrimination

I propose editing the sidebar from Conservatism in the United States to Discrimination. The under-categories in Discrimination seem to fit the Alt-Right page much better, since it includes terms like Segregation, which, to my understanding, is one of the core principles of this movement, one ethnicity for each country. The "Cleanliness of Blood" or Limpieza de Sangre also ties into this, and is also part of the Discrimination sidebar. White supremacism is part of the Discrimination sidebar and is mentioned as part of the Alt-Right's beliefs. This would be the neutral option, I would argue.

The closest topic in the Convervatism in the United States sidebar to the Alt-Right would be Paleoconservatism, but it would be far fetched to argue that Paleoconservatism is anywhere near a White Nationalist or Supremacist movementm, infact they do not seem to be focused on race or ethinicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidstar032 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... The alt-right is called that because it's intended to be an alternative to mainstream conservatism. That's is one of the few points that everybody here seems to generally agree on (maybe). This connections is clearly described in the article, so the conservatism sidebar seems reasonably straightforward. Note the "Part of a series on..." line at the top of the sidebar. The sidebar is for articles in Category:Conservatism in the United States, which this is.

None of the articles listed in the discrimination sidebar are for movements or organizations, (with the exception McCarthyism if we want to be very generous), so this would be setting a precedent. The discrimination sidebar (Template:Discrimination sidebar) is for the article series on discrimination. The sidebar is also limited to articles in Category:Discrimination, which this article is, but buried deep in subcategories like Category:Anti-immigration politics in the United States. That does qualify, but it's taking a long road to get there, so for navigation and convenience purposes it seems overly complicated. Grayfell (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You're both right. It was the wrong side-bar, but Discrimination isn't correct. I've replaced it with one that includes variants of conservatism, including New Right. Now I'll add Alt-right to it. OK? Doug Weller talk 10:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Good call, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The Alt-Right is not one single coherent movement. For some alt-right members, the alternative to mainstream Conservativism is Donald Trump, and other right-wing populists, and for others it is out and out white supremacism and white nationalism. Some are some sort of conservative/post-fascist hybrid others are neo-nazis.

Conservatives in the West have accepted the Enlightenment for a very, very long time, these people do not. This is why I would argue that they have little to do contemporary Conservatism.

I understand that this would be controversial to change and would most likely challenge NPOV, I just feel like a movement/group/whatever that presents itself as an alternative to mainstream Conservatism and has a lot of members that one would not typically call Conservatives, at least in the way it is commonly used, cannot be considered part of the Conservative movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidstar032 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the alt-right is a part of the conservative movement exactly as much as reliable sources say it is, no more, no less. Most reliable sources I've seen are clear that this is an alternative to "mainstream" conservatism. I don't see any fundamental contradiction between being in the far-right and being on the fringes of conservatism, nor for being a white supremacist and supporting Donald Trump, although how Trump feels about that is another issue for another article. While it also includes neoreactionaries and others who arguably reject the enlightenment, there again, that is considered by source to be at least partially part of conservatism. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016

This page needs some serious bias and opinion removal. 172.10.233.11 (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)