Talk:Alt-right/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

New Sources

Here's some more independent reliable third party sources for research and to prove notability when this article is inevitably nominated for deletion:

Denarivs (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Reaction

May I include this in the article from New Right on the Alt-right?

Proponents are said to use culture jamming and memes to promote their ideas. One leading proponent records parodies of Disney songs (such as I'll Make A Man Out Of You, from Mulan) "with their discussions of white supremacy and generally racist and sexist lyrics". Adherents also refer to themselves as identitarian, and criticize National Review and William F. Buckley for "not openly espousing, among other things, white nationalism, or white identarianism" such as in the video which is titled “The National Review” and is set to the tune of “The Bells of Notre Dame.” Supporters and detractors alike regularly describe the alt-right as young and intellectually diverse,

References

These sources do not support that this is regularly describing as intellectually diverse. Neither The Occidental Quarterly nor AlternativeRight.com (Radix) are reliable for statements of fact, nor are they independent of the movement, so labeling them "supporters" is misleading at best. The Buzzfeed source doesn't really say that the movement is diverse, merely that it's "loosely connected", and that several followers' "political projects are a little hard to pin down". Calling that intellectual diversity is absurdly flattering. Otherwise the Buzzfeed article mostly reflects what figures in the movement say about it, and very little about what detractors say. Popehat and the ADF said the alt-right are white supremacists. That has nothing to do with diversity, intellectual or otherwise.

Regardless, there's nothing 'regular' about a single source. It also reads like an attempt at false balance. If sources are in general agreement (which they aren't) then this should just be stated as is. Since they are not, it's not appropriate for the article to divide sources into supporters and detractors just to create the illusion of consensus. This should be removed from both this article, and the New Right one.

As for the age, I don't think anyone is contesting that the alt-right skews young, but these sources are flimsy. I think the Weekly Standard one must be a mistake, as it doesn't appear to be discussing the alt-right at all, and the Daily Beast one only mentions age in relation to the Limbaugh caller, which is nothing worth mentioning. It does, however, repeatedly emphasize that this is a white supremacist movement, not just a "white nationalist" one. Grayfell (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard source is a typo of some sorts. The correct Weekly Standard source [1] describes the alt-right as "highly heterogeneous", which is a very close synonym for diverse, and is the best source for this point. The claim is backed up by an article in fusion.net [2] which calls the alt-right "a loosely defined coalition" and an article in NRO [3] which describes the alt-right as a "motley group". The claim that the alt-right is younger than mainstream conservatism has a number of sources. Because of this, I'm going to add the sentence back to the first paragraph. Denarivs (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How about holding off until this discussion is resolved. Multiple editors have given concerns about the quality of these sources and the weight of these claims. Even if we accept these sources, which I'm not saying I d0, "ideologically diverse" is not the only way to describe this characteristic. Also, Wikipedia's talk pages are obsolete, and not well suited to this style of discussion, so it may be easier to post responses at the bottom of the section, per WP:TPG, otherwise they are likely to be overlooked. Grayfell (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I added the line before seeing your comment but I've since removed it. You can see the sources here [4] and if there's no problem with it I'll add the sentence back some time. Denarivs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine to add. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I removed some of this passage because it was poorly written and gave undo weight to a low-notability article about a single person. I've kept some of the text and integrated it into the rest of the article. Denarivs (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll edit what's been inserted and we'll review it so we can reach a consensus on this. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I cut the sentence down to "The alt-right is described as young and diverse." Also, The Weekly Standard said "WPC14’s own website declares that “the WPC has become a venue for fostering difficult and critical dialogues around white supremacy, white privilege, diversity, multicultural education and leadership, social & economic justice, and the intersecting systems of privilege and oppression.”" and "The typical garb for WPC14 attendees ranged from hippie (old folks) to hipster (young ’uns), with common elements of rubber soles on every shoe and green-conscious water bottles dangling from every backpack." Connor Machiavelli (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In this case, "diverse" by itself is far, far too vague and "has been described as" is a WP:WEASEL, so that's not going to work. Poor quality sources can be found to support just about anything, so this would need to be either genuinely ubiquitous among reliable sources, (which has not been demonstrated) or it needs to be clearly attributed.

What on Earth does the demographics of the white privilege conference have to do with the alt-right? From that article it's clear that conference is ideologically opposed to the alt-right, and even that connection is WP:SYNTH. I'm still not seeing how that article is related to the alt-right at all. Grayfell (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, let's throw out the wPC14 source. Instead of "has been described", let's just have it say "It is young and diverse.", I mean, even from just looking at the websites this movement dominates, such as 4chan's /pol/, you get quite an impression of who the alt-rightists averagely are. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Check out this source. http://www.weeklystandard.com/what-exactly-is-the-alternative-right/article/2000310 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Using 4chan to deduce that kind of thing is WP:OR, and those sites aren't independent, neutral, or reliable. That members of the movement consider it ideologically diverse, or that a handful of mainstream conservatives agree, isn't the only problem. "Diverse" is relative. From a neocon perspective like (a writer for) the Weekly Standard, Taki's Mag, Breitbart, and AlternativeRight may all be diverse, but they would still be within a narrow scope if judged by a more liberal source. We also have the ADF and others saying essentially that the movement is just part of the Euphemism treadmill for white supremacy, which is itself just another way of saying white racist. Obviously not everyone agrees that this is simply "diverse", so that word isn't going to work. Whatever is used needs more nuance and context, otherwise it's puffery. Grayfell (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How about "ideologically varied"? Would that work? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. Denarivs (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. That is better, but it still doesn't address the presence of differing viewpoints. There are few 'detractors' who are actually agreeing with the description, and even the 'supporters' are flimsy on this. Welton lists "neo-reactionaries, monarchists, nativists, populists, and even a few self-declared fascists" as the example of the movement's diversity, which overlooks that all of those things are compatible with each other and very frequently overlap to a large degree. Mussolini had a king, after all. It's a baffling statement that only makes sense from a very granular and exclusionary view of conservatism that is not supported by outside sources or common sense. Additionally, this is an opinion which should not be used to support a generalized statement.

It would be better to describe what the variety actually is. The article attempts to do that already, and I don't think anyone is likely to take away the idea that an Internet-based movement is going to have hard and fast rules. I don't understand what is clarified by emphasizing this ideological diversity point, other than perhaps making the movement look less race-obsessed, which doesn't seem all that neutral. All movements have some ideological variation, so this needs real context, not just a thesaurus.

I don't think "loosely defined" or "motley" are convincing on this point, either. "Loosely defined" is used in "..a loosely defined coalition of self-described racists." Motley is used in the context "...they're a motley group of white nationalists and wanna-be fascists." That doesn't mean that they are ideologically diverse, it just means that they share a common focus on power and racism. Grayfell (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Because that's about the Alt-right movement, that's why it matters on this article. Ok, "Ideologically mixed"? "Ideologically divergent"? Pick one or help think one up. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's go with the sentence "The alt-right movement is younger than mainstream American conservatism and is ideologically mixed." How about that? Denarivs also sourced that it's younger than mainstream American conservatism. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said, this isn't a thesaurus game, and picking different words totally ignores my point. I don't see why the point belongs at all based on the sources provided. Grayfell (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It belongs because it's interesting and relevant to this article. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not neutral, and not well supported by sources, so being interesting and relevant aren't good enough. What does "ideologically mixed" mean? It's still far too vague. Who is actually saying it's ideologically mixed? It's adherents? Secondary sources are weak on this, and this seems like cherry-picking to support a POV. Grayfell (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The movement itself as you can read is ideologically inclusive of alternative right-wing ideologies, I could put that it is, or remove the diversity part. I could also restore that the movement is young, are you fine with that sourced claim as material for this article, that's it's a young movement? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Edited sentence with sources "However, there are some commonalities shared across the ideologically inclusive alt-right movement." Connor Machiavelli (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"Ideologically inclusive" has exactly the same problems. The alt-right is not especially inclusive by objective, outside standards, only by inside accounts. The alt-right ignores or disagrees with issues outside of a narrow focus on race and nationalism, but calling that inclusive is misleading. The article should not imply a broader range of positions than is supported by independent sources. Outside of tribalism and infighting, the actual substance of these 'ideologies' is pretty consistent and narrow in scope. Being vague about preferred terms isn't the same as true ideological diversity. I've rewritten the content to incorporate it into the surrounding sentences: "The alt-right encompasses neo-reactionaries, white nationalists, nativists, and many other political position. Commonalities shared across the otherwise loosely defined alt-right include anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist views, disdain for mainstream politics, and strong support for Donald Trump." Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding a sentence to the first paragraph of Reaction, "The alt-right is inclusive of alternative right-wing ideologies." Sources included. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you joking? We just discussed those exact same sources, and why they are not usable for that point. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I disagree for this sentence. It sounds as if you are WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the sources for this point. I'd like to see what Denarivs thinks about this. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

So what qualifies as an "alternative right-wing ideology"? Isn't that just another way of saying "alt-right"? So basically this is saying "the alt right includes alt-right ideologies", which is a tautology. The sources don't support that this universally accepted as any synonym of diverse. Among other problems, those sources are either primary from within the movement, or they are quoting people within the movement, or they are opinions which have not been given proper attribution. I am trying to give you multiple specific, policy-based reasons this won't work, and you are responding with "well, I disagree", and that it should be included because it's interesting. Is WP:IDONTLIKEIT really the right accusation for you to be making here? Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll remove the tautology. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me like this is an important and well cited claim for the article. It's useful both intrinsically for describing the subject, and also for explaining the article's general lack of specific claims about the alt-right. It's well sourced (the Weekly Standard source is particularly explicit) and we can clearly state who makes the claim (liberals, conservatives, and self-identified alt-right people), which avoids WP:WEASEL. The line before it was removed had 5 reliable sources supporting it, which seems to be plenty, and is much more than any other part of the article. The specific phrase used doesn't seem to matter very much, but "ideologically varied" seems particularly neutral and specific. Also, I've gone ahead and added back the line "The alt-right is younger than mainstream conservatism" since it was removed accidentally, is well sourced, and doesn't seem to be under dispute. Thanks, Denarivs (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard article is the most explicit in this point, but it's also an opinion piece which should not be used to make generalizations. As described above, I don't believe the attached sources actually supported the general point, and not all are even usable. WP:CITATION OVERKILL doesn't make bad sources good. Labeling commentary as liberal, conservative, etc. is dicey, as it's essentially subjective, and therefore makes the weasel problem worse. Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

We should incorporate some of this article into a new section we can make, Alt-right, on the Donald Trump page. Let's discuss how we should do it. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the alt-right is notable, compared to Donald Trump. Denarivs (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

When I edited Alt-right in to See also on Donald Trump, and it was reverted, I got "rv good faith edit, maybe work into article if appropriate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 10:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Archeofuturism

Neither the single source for archeofuturism, Richard B. Spencer's Radix Journal, nor the wikilink's target article, Guillaume Faye, clearly explain what the oxymoronic term archeofuturism means. They also don't clearly establish that it's significant to the alt-right. I don't accept that Radix Journal is a reliable source, so while it could arguably be used as a primary source from within the movement, it would still definitely need to be clearly attributed: Something like Alfred W. Clark, writing for the alt-right Radix Journal has connected the movement to Guillaume Faye's pan-European philosophy of archeofuturism. To be clear, I'm NOT proposing that as an edit, that's just an example of the level of context and detail that would be needed. Weighing the source, I don't think this one connection is worth including at all, but it really, really doesn't seem helpful to include it in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what archeofuturism means either; by adding it in I was just trying to be as descriptive as possible. I can't seem to find any other source on it, and given its sole usage in one alt-right source it seems like it would be WP:UNDUE to give it any more exposition. I'll remove it from the lead and perhaps it should be removed from the body of the article as well. Thanks for pointing this out. Denarivs (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Slightly OT - AlternativeRight.com

For some reason this article wasn't just about AlternativeRight.com but about another website as well - at least according to the lead (I couldn't find any discussion of it). I've removed mention of the other website and a source that doesn't discuss AlternativeRight.com. Editors interested in this (the one whose talk page I'm posting to) might be interested in this other article. It's got a big hole in that it doesn't say what happened to the website - it's written in the past tense and the website seems gone. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've moved the page to a more appropriate location and added citations to the ADL and the SLPC to better flesh out the article. Denarivs (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem now is that if someone searches for something on the Alternative Right they won't find this article, they'll find your renamed one. But I need to look at your new version and I'm off to bed. Doug Weller talk 22:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That's possible, but the article includes a notice at the top referencing the alt-right. Hopefully that will take care of anyone looking for the wrong article. Denarivs (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right on pol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:4chan#Alt-right Connor Machiavelli (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant here, and even there WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Problems

The article seems to be a synthesis of different sources about different right wing movements that attempts to lumpt them in under a neologistic ;label that is not yet widely accepted. It also has source problems, where the sources are not adequate for the claims (an ADL blog for example is not a reloiable source for what this "movement" is or isnt). Indeed I am not sure the synthesis of coverage does even demostrate notability of this neologism. Probably the article should be merged and redirected into some other article about the current wave of neo/paleo/alt/dark/etc-conservatism - or perhaps better into the article on Richard Spencer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If the article is lumping different alt-right groups together under one banner, that's just a synthesis made by reliable secondary sources. The article is reflecting what they say. For notability, the article has over many citations to reliable independent secondary sources over a period of five years. The most notable sources are National Review, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post, as well as sources like New Republic. Most sources identify the alt-right as an ideologically distinct movement - Rosie Gray in Buzzfeed is a good example of this – and most sources don't connect the alt-right to Richard Spencer, though of course he did coin the term. I'm curious, though, why you say that the ADL isn't a reliable source? Denarivs (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This guy Maunus should calm down with the edits on this article here, he keeps trying to fit in WP:POV (garbage) but without edit warring. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Maunus has over 53,000 edits more than you, maybe not a good idea to attack him in this way. Everyone has a pov - Maunus, you, me. I'm also not sure about the ADL blog not being an RS. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I meant, I meant on this article. Look at the history of this article and my and Denarivs reverting of him. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are editwarring to maintain a definition that is not supported by any actual sources. I am trying to find a definition that actually his, but you keep reverting to the one that sounds nice but which is not in fact backed by the sources you try to use. The way that you are misusing sources is called "tendentious editing" and people have been blocked from editing when they do this systematically. You cannot use a source to support a viewpoint that it does not in fact contain. In this case the idea that "alt right" is a unified movement is not supported by any of the sources you have tried to use. They all describe it as a proposed label for heterogeneous array of far right movements and ideologies. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The movement isn't far-right, nor are any of the ideologies contained within are far-right, as seen being listed in the article. I'll remove the unified by racial nationalism, then we'll see.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs)

Almost every external source describes the site and the "movement" as White Nationalist. And yes it clearly is far-right, for one SPLC watches only the far right. (heh, a google search brought up a stormfront user defining alt-right as the people "too alpha for mainstream right and too beta for the far-right")·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Radix Journal/blog post

This is an H:EC which touches on something similar to the above thread.

Like I said at Talk:Cuckservative, after looking at it more closely, I don't think the Radix Journal page is a usable source here. I don't think it's a generally reliable source at all, as it's part of a walled-garden of racist publications with little outside input and no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The post is even less useful because it's specifically identified on the site as a blog post, not an article published by the journal. Any statements about the beliefs of the alt-right should come first from independent outside commentary and second from established experts within the movement which can be clearly attributed. This doesn't appear to be either, and is basically a WP:SPS. It was reposted from Alfred W. Clark's sporadically active Wordpress blog, "Occam's Razor". I could not find any indication that Clark is an expert or significant figure in the movement, although he apparently played a minor part of the rise of the term "cuckservative" and a previous blog post of his has been briefly quoted by a few sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be hesitant in taking any action on this. The term seems to be in rising popularity and has likely passed the point of a neologism by now. I recommend waiting, also from what I can see it seems that Radix is more professional than a few blogposts and several independent sites and newspapers mention alt right and Radix on my search engine. I also did not see anything explicitly racist in an objective sense. Assumptions should not be made yet.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 03:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If you know of any coverage indicating the Radix blog is reliable, bring it forth, but I also have access to search engines, and I don't see it. I do see crossover with Occidental Observer, American Renaissance, and VDARE, but those aren't reputable either, and that only underscores that it's part of a walled garden. Radix is part of the National Policy Institute, who's founder is now the current editor of Occidental Observer, and both share similar connections American Renaissance and VDARE. As for racism, the name "Radix" is specifically tied to the word "race" by the journal, and the site is full of scientific racism, presents an absurdly romanticized vision of a monolithic European culture, and includes matter-of-fact characterizations of entire minority groups as rapists and invaders out to destroy "European" and "European-American" heritage. Grayfell (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see exact objective evidence of these accusations if possible, otherwise you are acting biased.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 16:47, 6 March 2016

I agree, untill the term gets taken up by mainstream media outside of the far right sources it is just another attempt by the far right to rebrand itself with terms of its own choosing, like using white nationalism to avoid the label of white supremacy etc.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In the future, please refrain from stating your opinion as if fact.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 16:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In the future please stop misrepresenting sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

At the time being, the clear majority of sources about the alt-right come from outside it. Almost all sources used are either left-wing, moderate, or conservative. Only a handful of other sources (Unz Review and Taki's Mag) could arguably be classified as alt-right, a designation that I have not seen made by any reliable sources (or anyone, really). Even those sources are just used to provide factual dates. The Radix Journal source is the only source used in the article that is clearly within the alt-right. Moreover, the piece was published by the journal of the guy who also created the term, and it's talking about what the alt-right is; it's exactly on topic. The article needs at least one source from within the alt-right, and this is probably the most topical and reliable there is. It's also posted by a guy who got quoted in a few clearly WP:RS articles on cuckservative. Right now, the article makes extensive use of sources like the SPLC and ADL, which are progressive organizations with a heavy bias against these kinds of movements. Given our substantial use of these non-independent references, perhaps the question to ask is whether the article needs more content from alt-right sources. Denarivs (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This is what the ADL blog actually says "Many white suprema­cists using the term “cuck­ser­v­a­tive” are from the “alter­na­tive right” a term used by white suprema­cists to refer to rene­gade con­ser­v­a­tives who have adopted white suprema­cist view­points and have essen­tially removed them­selves from main­stream conservatism." (i.e. using scarequotes to show that this is what they call themselves). The SPLC source simply mentions that Spencer launched the site, and does not even suggest that the site has any relation to an "alt right"movement - just that certain far right activists are using it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There are so many bad sources, and misused sources, and a lot of half-assed whitewashing going on here. This looks like a case of editors who believe they know what the alt-right really is, and then go and find sources, even sources that predate the term by decades, to add a veneer of verifiability to what they already know. This is a trainwreck.

Saying we need more alt-right sources is nonsense. There is no valid reason we "need at least one source from within the alt-right," and there's not valid reason it should be this one. There is no policy that says article must include a false balance. The article should not go out of its way to sample from unreliable sources just because they belong to a movement, or because other reliable sources are unflattering. We don't try and 'counter' bias by including bad sources, we reflect what reliable sources say and leave it at that. Like it or not, SPLC and ADL are independent. They may not be entirely relevant, but they are certainly independent. If not, what do you think independent means? That a source may be WP:BIASED is irrelevant, again, because articles aren't built on false balance. How many times do we have to go over this? Grayfell (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm detecting agitation here that is unwarranted, Grayfell. Please calm down. My plan was far from ludicrous; we need to wait and see and research more as I see no need for this article to go in the dumpster where it will inevitably be resurrected. Even though the SPLC and ADL are evidently against the alt right on all fronts, the mere fact of the movement being notable enough to garner their watch given their massive influence on politics is enough to meet WP:N to me. See Dark Enlightenment.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 16:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is unwarranted agitation here, namely the agitation for this movement that someone is trying to make into a wikipedia article based on highly dubious synthesis and misrepresentation of sources. But wikipedia is not a place for agitation, but for information. Also the "movement" has not "garnered the watch" of SLPC. The SLPC wrote an entry about Spencers website, which they do not in any way describe as the center of a "movement". Please stop misrepresenting sources here, because that is a serious abuse of wikipedias process which requires good faith - if editors repeatedly misrepresent sources in order to advance a viewpoint then maintaining good faith is impossible. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not made a single edit I am a third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigehelmus (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 March 2016‎

Thanks for clarifying. Appreciate it. Denarivs (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

White genocide?

Mentioned here[5] and in the ADL source.[6] Doug Weller talk 14:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Include in the article? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd give it a sentence if we can find another source. It doesn't seem very well represented in secondary reliable sources. Denarivs (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism has precisely zero to do with Donald Trump or any opposition to multiculturalism and immigration. It may not be democratic, but unlike all other listed ideologies, it doesn't support "strong state" but rather "no state". Also, it's not found anywhere in references [1] and [4]. I believe its inclusion is completeley unwarranted, this is more of an extension of libertarianism rather than some subsection of alt-right. Also, anarchocapitalists, in my experience, don't self identify as alt-right (unlike supporters of other listed ideologies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.144.6 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It sounds like an attempt to make the alt-right sound even more "loose", despite the alt-right basically being authoritarian/collectivist. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I searched and couldn't find any sources at all that linked anarcho-capitalism to the alt-right. Support removal of the phrase. Denarivs (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I already did it. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard

See WP:RSN#Herding cats: Alt-right & sources mentioning white supremacy being challenged. Please, the term "herding cats" isn't aimed at anyone, it just expresses my frustration with this talk page. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources redux, confusion in lead, no mention of white supremacism even though that's how one of the sources defines it

I'm not at all happy with "The alt-right includes beliefs such as neoreaction, monarchism, nativism, populism, fascism,[7] racialism, identitarianism, white nationalism, and Southern-secessionism" particularly as written and sourced. What makes Rosie Gray a reliable source for this article? Why are we stating all this as fact rather than attributing some of it to Ben Welton, who has more claim to be a reliable source I believe. And in any case, the sources don't say that it includes those beliefs. Welton says "this amalgam includes neo-reactionaries, monarchists, nativists, populists, and even a few self-declared fascists." These are people, not beliefs. Fascism isn't alt right, although Welton's probably right that some self-declared Fascists are alt right. Gray defines it as "white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times" although she's the source for neoreaction, racialism, identitarianism, white nationalism, and Southern-secessionism. Yes, she says it "draws upon relatively obscure political theories like neoreaction or the “Dark Enlightenment" but that doesn't mean it includes the belief. She doesn't mention identitarianism. And what's really weird, the lead avoids using the term that Gray uses to define it, white supremacism.

In other words, that sentence needs to be reworded to that it refers to people who hold those beliefs, as there must be many people who hold those beliefs who aren't alt right, and probably better sourced. And the lead needs to mention white supremacist. I mean seriously, the term was introduced by a white supremacist and we don't have the word in the lead?

Doug Weller talk 19:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT? White supremacism is defined as a form of white nationalism, what's the point when white nationalism is already included? Alt-right and white supremacism aren't mutually exclusive nor does it only include that form of white nationalism. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't like what? The lead? Yes, I've said what the problems are. And many white nationalists deny being white supremacists, the originator of the term is a WS, one of the sources defines the alt right as white supremacist. Please reply to my specific points. I certainly didn't suggest salt right and WS are mutually exclusive, quite the opposite and I can't figure out why you suggest I did. Doug Weller talk 22:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right doesn't identify with that form of white nationalism known as white supremacism, so what's the point? Alt-right encompasses white nationalism in general, they aren't exclusively white supremacists or white separatists. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

And the lead should say that the alt right includes them all, not just one category. What it shouldn't do is suggest that all white/whatevers are alt right. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't have to be complicated. Do we have a RS that identifies alt-right as including white supremacists? It appears we do, so we should represent that. Most white supremacists don't use the label to self identify, but that doesn't change the independent sourcing, so that doesn't matter.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh okay well go ahead and add white supremacism if you want, it's redundant though because white nationalism encompasses white separatism and supremacism even according to Wikipedia, anyways just don't take white nationalism away if so, or I object. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Making a distinction between, for example, white nationalism and white nationalists (or neoreaction and neoreactionaries) seems very arbitrary and runs contrary to other articles on political movements (Conservatism uses "conservative" dozens of times for example). Rosie Gray is a reliable source for this article because the Buzzfeed article is part of Buzzfeed's shift [7] towards longform journalism, and looking at the article shows it's detailed and reliable (quotes with relevant parties, an in-depth focus on the alt-right, etc). The current opening sentence is a compromise between left wing sources, right wing sources that dislike the alt-right, and right-wing sources that are sympathetic to or support the alt-right. Describing the alt-right in the lede as white supremacy is not a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and gives WP:UNDUE weight to sources opposed to the subject. Thanks, Denarivs (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, Denarivs. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

On wikipedia, when we say something is "not neutral", we mean it does not represent the reliable sources adequately. Our sources appear to say that the alt right includes white supremacy, so that appears to be neutral. Do we have any sources that say alt right does not include white supremacy? The edit in question does not identify all of the movement as white supremacists (despite some of our sources doing just that), but only says it "includes beliefs such as...white supremacy".   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I inserted "white supremacist" because Connor Machiavelli said go ahead. The inclusion, I believe, meets [{WP:NPOV]]. So now I've added a quote from Rosie Gray saying that it's been described as "white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times". That does after all seem to be one of the main points she's making, and echoes another source mentioned in the body of the text. There's always the WP:NPOVN board if someone feels that the lead doesn't meet NPOV. "White nationalists" often deny that they are supremacists or even separatists - see a recent news article and this book, so it's clear that white nationalism on its own is insufficient. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The evidence I laid out below shows clearly that the clear majority of sources, over 75%, do not identify the alt-right with white supremacy. Because of WP:NPOV we shouldn't use this phrase to describe the alt-right. Denarivs (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

How about we move that quote from Rosie on white supremacy in the alt-right to somewhere else, like Rosie in Reaction? Just because I said you could go ahead doesn't mean you should actually do it, I'm not an expert on this, I just didn't really care what you do because Wikipedians get WP:POV on alt-right related things from what I've seen. Denarivs made this article though and he has been presenting good points forth, so I'm definitely deferring to his opinions on this matter, out of respect for him and trust of his handling on the article, Denarivs seems to be the expert on alt-right related matters, he's been studying very much from what I can see. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Connor, please read WP:OWN. No one editor owns an article, and the first editor to contribute to an article has no special rights or privilege. We defer to the sources, not to editor knowledge. Always.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said he owns the article, I am just saying what the wise course of action would be for the article to be properly represented in a WP:NPOV way. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Again... WP:NPOV refers to sources. What sources represent alt right as explicitly not including white supremacists? Several sources indicate it does, and it is not "neutral", per NPOV, to fail to represent them.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

My point is he sources always actually, he doesn't defer to his own editor knowledge. White supremacy is represented already by the mentioning of white nationalism, so it's pointless to have it be mentioned twice in the same place of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 18:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No, white nationalism and white supremacy are different things. That's why we have two articles instead of just one. Doug provided sources above that show other differences between the two (nationalists often reject the "supremacy" label).   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are different things. But white supremacy is white nationalism, white nationalism isn't white supremacy. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

So you concede that they should both be in the article. White nationalists can be supremacists as well, as our article makes clear: "It ranges from a preference for one's ethnic group, to feelings of superiority and forms of white supremacism, including calls for national citizenship to be reserved for white people". Doug Weller talk 16:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think because those in the alt-right don't identify as white supremacist that it shouldn't be in, but I don't think this is going to be changed unless more people object. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Color me gob-smacked. You know everyone in the alt right? Where did you get this information from that no one in the alt-right identifies as white supremacist? And are you saying that if a white supremacist calls themselves a white nationalist they aren't a white supremacist? Doug Weller talk 18:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that if a white nationalist calls himself a white nationalist, he's a white nationalist; not a white supremacist. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

And if say I'm the Ambassador from Mars, I'm the Martian ambassador. We know and have sources about this issue. Do you tally think people always tell the truth about their beliefs? That's not the way the world works. Doug Weller talk 06:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright then, carry on, gotcha. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Connor Machiavelli but I'm just an editor like any other. With that said after looking through the sources most do not seem to describe the alt-right as white supremacy, which confirms my earlier belief. Denarivs (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A bit late to this discussion but I want to add my thoughts. I decided to look through the sources of this article and there was a clear pattern: the vast majority of sources do not describe the alt-right as white supremacist. These 21 sources, making up over 75% of sources for this article, do not mention white supremacy (or white supremacist) at all: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. Two more sources [29] [30] do not describe the alt-right as white supremacist. Even sources that do describe the alt-right as white supremacist tend to use the phrasing "white nationalist" more frequently: [31] [32] [33] Based on this clear evidence from reliable sources across the ideological spectrum, I strongly oppose use of the descriptor "white supremacy" to describe the alt-right per WP:UNDUE. Reliable sources provide unambiguous evidence that the alt-right does not include white supremacy. If the phrase is included at all, it is best included in a quote in the article's body, as in the previous version of this article. Denarivs (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What sources say no members of the alt-right are white supremacists? We gpt ", Cathy Young writing in Newsday called the alt-right "a nest of anti-Semitism" inhabited by "white supremacists" who regularly use "repulsive bigotry".[20]" and of course Rosie Gray. Are those sources unreliable? Some people in the alt-right are clearly white supremacists - seriously, you're happy with neo-reaction and monarchism and not this obvious one? I've reinstated it- go to NPOVN but it's well sourced. WP:UNDUE isn't meant for this sort of situation. Doug Weller talk 22:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this should be included. Plenty of sources use the term white supremacist, especially considering that many of the other sources listed are of questionable reliability and relevance. An 'A vs. B' edit count is of very limited use for something like this, and the existence of sources which don't say 'supremacy' don't invalidate the sources which say it. The SPLC, ADL, and others are fully aware that there is a difference between white supremacy and white nationalism. Since these distinctions are apparently important within the movement, and are reported by knowledgeable sources outside the movement, they should be listed in the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of sources actually means a fringe minority of marginally reliable sources with a clear idoelogical bias calling the alt-right white supremacist. Meanwhile there are no SPLC sources that link the alt-right, as a movement, to white supremacy, just one article that calling the website of the same name white supremacist. Simply put, reliable sources as a whole choose not to categorize the alt-right as white supremacist. Denarivs (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There aren't any sources yet that describe that, but a clear majority of sources do not describe the alt-right as white supremacy, which would be a very strange distinction to overlook. The Newsday source is of very marginal reliability–it's just an editorial and probably should be removed from the article–and the ADL source that most strongly linked the alt-right to white supremacy was removed for being non-reliable. Reliable sources simply do not show that the alt-right is white supremacist. Denarivs (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents here to add on what others such as @Connor Macchiavelli: said: I believe it violates WP:NPOV to tie alt-right with white supremacy, especially considering the current political establishment. If it should be mentioned AT ALL, proper context should be supplied.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 15:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

No source that actually identifies the ideologies in the alt-right includes white supremacy, as far as I've read. Not by name, at least, regardless of your beliefs. So why include it? There's not even a source used for it in the article where we have it. We have to take into account like Sigehelmus said, considering the current political establishment, and that is since the alt-right opposes it. So it sounds like WP:OR that the alt-right as white supremacy is anything more than just that it is for the alt-right, a label. White nationalism and white separatism are different things, as we have said before. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Um, why should we care that no source that tries to identify all the ideologies includes white supremacy? That's not how we work, and in any case it clearly isn't true as Rosie Gray identifies a number and is used as a source both for those and for white supremacy.[34]. I don't know what "So why include it? There's not even a source used for it in the article where we have it." means. Everything in the lead needs a source but those sources don't have to be in the lead, although in fact Rosie Gray is used as a source in the lead. There's no original research (the policy is at WP:NOR as the phrase is sourced, now to 3 sources. As for the relationship between white nationalism and white separatism, I'm not suggesting we use the phrase "white separatism." You may be thinking of "white supremacy". Let me clarify once again. In theory you could be a white nationalist while fully respecting other cultures. You couldn't be a white supremacist and give equal respect to other cultures. But you can be a white nationalist and a white supremacist (and a separatist). Since "white supremacy" is harder to sell than white nationalism, many white supremacists call themselves white nationalists (that's not original research, you can find sufficient sources). Doug Weller talk 12:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

A source where it says an ideology in the alt-right is white supremacy? Where? Isn't it just saying alt-right is white supremacy? That would be incorrect to say that. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't expect the word "ideology" to be used do you? And "incorrect" is your interpretation. If reliable sources say that then we can so long as we do it appropriately. The lead is a summary of the article, remember. We have three sources linking an ideology called "white supremacy" to the alt.right. How can we not mention it in the lead. If you'd prefer the lead to simply say that the alt.right is described as white supremacist. Reading Gray's article again, she writes "hough this has not gone unnoticed: “It’s definitely something we’re aware of and tracking,” said Marilyn Mayo, director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. “There are more white supremacists who are defining themselves as part of the alt right.”" "White supremacism" belongs in the lead. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

How about the word "belief". That it belongs in the lead, listed with the alt-right ideologies, is your interpretation. It seems like white supremacy is just used as a label for the alt-right, not a serious analysis of the alt-right ideologically, the beliefs contained within it. We have more information, and that information shows the ideologies contained within the alt-right are not white supremacy or white supremacist. White nationalism is not white supremacy and that's what is being tried to get across here if go by the sources saying alt-right is white supremacy. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just weighing in as an outsider, called in from the RS noticeboard. Apologies for the long-winded post, but I have a lot to say. There are a lot of reasons why many sources would discuss the alt-right movement without mentioning white supremacy. In some cases, the author will be influenced by their own bias to 'whitewash' the movement. In other cases, the author will make a point of not mentioning it so as to avoid the appearance of bias, and in some (I believe, the majority of) cases, it will not be relevant to the piece being written. That being said, if even one reliable source links it to white supremacy, the question arises as to whether we include it. Right now, there is more than one RS linking the two, so the question of whether to include it is answered. Now comes the question of weight. To that, there are two ways of looking at it that I can see.

1. We may ask what society as a whole thinks of it. This could be tricky, because it edges towards synthesis, but I believe when synthesis of information is used to answer a question about content, it's fine, just as long as it's not being used to generate content (if you care to debate this point, please do so on my talk page, not here). So, if you accept this, then the question becomes "how closely linked are members of this movement and elements of this movement to white supremacy? Well, Donald Trump's supporters are generally considered to be members, and they include white supremacists. The term alt-right is often expanded and defined as 'alternative, right-wing politics,' to which any far-right group belongs by definition, though sources describing white supremacy as far-right should not be used to support claims that it is alt-right. In this case, the two should be linked clearly and unambiguously, in the lead and in the article. Further information on that link and the ideological underpinnings should also likely be included, though not to the point of giving the link its own section.
2. We may simply look to the preponderance of sources to answer the question. The majority of sources don't make the connection, so it must not represent an important aspect of the alt-right. This is the simpler method by far, though I believe it slightly less accurate with respect to anything this new. In this case, we would want the link stated in the voice of those who made the link, without any particular emphasis on it. It would be best to find sources which explicitly disagree to contrast the two, but I haven't been able to find any RS's which clearly state that the alt-right excluded white supremacy.

So that's what I think. There are sources at White supremacy, Far-right politics and Right-wing politics that might be of use. I seem to recall that some of the sources at far-right use that term and alt-right interchangeably, and I wouldn't be surprised if sources from the other articles do, as well. I think splitting hairs about whether some white supremacists are alt-right vs whether alt-right includes white supremacy is pointless and pedantic. The only questions that really matter are: "Is there a link between the two?" and "If so, to what extent?" MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)