Talk:Alt-right/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Proper attention to the term's unsteady breadth [Addressed]

Addition to § Etymology adopted and added into the main article Lukacris (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The article's first sentence currently describes the alt-right as "loosely-connected" (true) but does not reflect the the immense disagreement about who and what fits within the label. For example, even white nationalists themselves believe the term applies to them. This goes for Neo-Nazis too. But the article should be careful about lumping the mainstream political right in with the alt-right (E.g., Trump is the president and of the governing party and so is not the alternative right- he is the right).

Additional confusion here comes from the fact that some (Brietbart and Yianoppoulos in particular) embraced the term "alt-right" before it was popularized as a reference to white nationalism and/or neo-fascism. Rather, they used it to mean something like "anti-left reactionism".

On a related note, several spots in this article use "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" interchangeably when they are distinct ideas. Supporting the establishment of a white ethno-state is white nationalism but not necessarily white supremacy. Supporters of Jim Crow-esque laws who are interested in subjegating non-white persons within the existing polity are white-supremacists. As a rule of thumb, white nationalists want to kick out non-white people while white supremacists want to oppress non-white people where those people are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukacris (talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

To categorize the alt-right as "ill-defined", you can't point to multiple sources which define it differently, that's WP:SYNTHESIS and not allowed. Instead, you need a single unbiased reliable source which says that the alt-right is "ill-defined". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no infatuation with that particular adjective, but here are sources to run with it directly or to stand for the same idea:

• From the New York Times: "Mr. Spencer, however you describe him, calls himself a part of the “alt-right” — a new term for an informal and ill-defined collection of internet-based radicals."
• Ben Shapiro told Slate.com in November of 2016 that "[The Alt-Right] been broadening the definition of alt-right."
• In the already outdated 2017 edition, the AP style guide offers a warning to avoid using alt-right without defining it, or using a broad brush 'because it is not well-known.' It’s time for AP—and newsrooms coast to coast—to stop using such a vague term. Lukacris (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Lukacris

References

We're not going to "stop using such a vague term", since we have an entire article about it, it exists and is clearly notable. Since you have sources -- well, actually, you have one source, the Times, the others are not on point -- you can add "ill-defined" to the lede or elsewhere in the article citing that source, or you can write a new section about the definition of what alt-right is, using whatever other sources you can find. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

To make sure we're not miscommunicating here: I'm not suggesting the term "alt-right" shouldn't be written about, only that it's disservice to not mention it's volatile scope. Understanding what "alt-right" means requires a reckoning with the fact that people disagree on its use and people with agendas within and outside the alt-right intentionally misuse it (By the way, that Columbia article was only advocating that the term not be used without defining it). There exist ample sources directly supporting the claim that the term Alt-Right is some manner of ill-defined, unclear, contested, volatile, vague, puppeteered, in flux, controversial, inconsistent, unsteady, fuzzy, and/or inexact. That being said, I'll put "ill-defined" in the lede. Lukacris (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia & Beyond my Ken Are we not in consensus about using "ill-defined" rather than "somewhat ill-defined" in the lede? The "somewhat" has snuck in there without any explanation or sourcing. Per the concerns (above), appropriate wording came directly from a NYT article and was debated and agreed to. Additionally, the word "somewhat" placed to qualify "ill-defined" is entirely superfluous-- "Ill-defined" means only somewhat defined. "Somewhat ill-defined" means... well, I actually have no idea what that means. My best guess is somewhat only somewhat defined, which is just word-salad. Lukacris (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No, there was no consensus for removing "loosely-connected", only a suggestion that "ill-defined" could be added using the Times source. What I didn't realize, though, when I wrote that, is that the Times citation is to an opinion piece, and not to a news piece. That decreases its value, and is the reason I added "somewhat", instead of removing it entirely, as I believe would have been justified by the nature of the citation. An Op-Ed column is reliable only for the opinion of the writer, and that opinion carries only as much weight as the writer does.

Christopher Caldwell (the writer in question) is, according to our article on him, "an American journalist and senior editor at The Weekly Standard" who also writes for the Times and WaPo and The Atlantic etc.. Being a senior editor at The Weekly Standard makes him a conservative, so what you've got here is basically a non-alt-right conservative commentator saying that the alt-right is "ill-defined". Since the alt-right sees itself as the proper flag-carrier for conservatism, there's a tension between old-line conservatism and the alt-right, which makes Caldwell something less than an unbiased opinion. Hence, my softening of the statement.

If "somewhat" is objected to as a weasel word, then I believe "ill-defined" needs to come out entirely, as one opinion column is not a sufficient basis for describing an entire movement, especially one which played an extensive part in getting the current President elected. (As I noted above, the other two citations you provided are not on target to support "ill-defined".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Forget the exact word "ill-defined"- there are a dozen other words that can convey the same idea, which is what I'm getting at here. Is your real objection to the terminology or the characterization? As far as that NYT article goes, any use by any writer in any forum of a qualitative adjective (like "loosely-connected" or "ill-defined") is necessarily an expression of subjective judgment. Further, a standard barring journalists with a known political ideology would disqualify nearly all of the sources in this article.

Even putting that aside, here are other sources directly supporting the idea that the term's breadth is unfixed:

1. The Anti-Defamation League says: "Alt Right is short for “alternative right." This vague term actually encompasses a range of people on the extreme right who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of forms of conservatism that embrace implicit or explicit racism or white supremacy."
2. KUOW, a Seattle Public Radio Station: "‘alt right’ doesn’t mean anything, and normalizes something that is far from normal. So we need to plain-speak it.' ... This may change. Alt-right may become better defined and understood by the general public. But until then, we will avoid vague words that neutralize anti-social and abnormal ways of thinking."
3. This National Review article directly stands for the idea that groups have engaged in intentional manipulation of the term's scope (Yeah, National Review is conservative but the ADL and public radio broadcasters in Seattle are not): "In response, right-wing media began tut-tutting the alt-right as victims of Antifa and focused exclusively on Antifa as a nefarious force; they also responded to the Left’s disgusting attempts to lump in the Right with the alt-right by accepting a broader, false definition of the alt-right that could include traditional conservatism."
4. A thorough dive into this exact subject in Mother Jones: "There has been fierce debate in recent weeks over how the media should refer to a loose-knit movement of far-right extremist groups that gained prominence with the election of Donald Trump...[I]s “alt-right” an acceptable term, or is it just vaguely cool-sounding code for age-old forms of virulent racism and anti-Semitism?" The entire article is on point.
5. The Atlantic: "Hillary Clinton gave a whole speech dedicated to the so-called “alt right,” a vague umbrella term for a loose coalition of people whose beliefs range from forthright racism and anti-semitism to bitter antipathy toward what they define as “political correctness.” And "Admittedly, the term “trolling” has become almost as vague a term as “alt-right.”"
6. Teaching Tolerance Magazine said, e.g., "Today, an online community comprised of entertainment-seeking trolls and true white nationalists find themselves mingling within this amorphous movement. This makes it difficult to land on a singular comprehensive definition of the alt-right."

Why not directly quote the Atlantic's "vague umbrella term for a loose coalition..."?

The ball is in your court, Beyond My Ken. This is getting silly. Lukacris (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

References

You keep saying stuff like "forget about 'ill-defined'" but that's what the concept you're referring to is, which is not the same thing as the "unsteady breadth" of the movement, which is what you were originally asking about. You seem to be trying to wrap too many different ideas up together and calling the result a single thing, when it is not.

As I said above, your best bet to to forget about the lede and expand the "Etymology" section to "Etymology and meaning" of the term, using as many of these sources as is appropriate (not all of them are, and your inability to see that is discouraging). The term exists, it doesn't look as if it's going to go away, and its definition becomes clearer the more it gets used (as is true of all neologisms), so marking it as "ill-defined" (however the idea is worded) in the lede is a disservice to our readers, whereas improving a process section in the body would be the opposite.

But, if you think that a consensus discussion is "silly", let's just drop the whole thing, in which case, without a consensus to proceed, the article will stay as it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

And, BTW, this is a consensus discussion, which means that any editor can participate, so the ball is not in my court, it's in the court of any anyone who wishes to comment.Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)'

I'm going to table this and give some others a chance to comment, since the goalpost shifting here is dizzying. As I see it, (a) diminishing returns abound when parsing at the subatomic (this coming from a lawyer besides); (b) disqualifying a source because the writer also works at a mainstream-conservative news outlet is an untenable standard and probably cuts in favor here because several of the sources I gave (among others) point to the alt-right itself for playing games with definitions; (c) there is a non-zero number of useful sources here and objections to the others should be made with specificity and without journalistic ad homenem; (d) describing a movement or ideology without a settled constituency must reckon with that fact; (e) Wikipedia is not a tool of lexicographic prescriptivism; and (f) nearly every piece I've read while on this tedious dig has mentioned how the term "alt-right" smacks of intentional confusion via language engineering. In the meantime:

1. Suggestions and Objections to sourcing
2. Whether the term "alt-right" is actually controversial in terms of breadth/constituency
3. Whether positive mention of this fact belongs in the lede
4. Whether the article elsewhere presents a false resolution of the breadth question

Lukacris (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please learn how to indent discussions properly, I'm tired of doing it for you. Add one additional colon for your response, so your response is indented one additional tab.

As for your summary, it is not necessary to lead Wikipedia editors by the nose as if they were children or idiots. The discussion here is perfectly transparent, and did not require you to sum it up with your own spin attached.

As for your charge of "goalpost shifting", well, I'm afraid that's pure rhetoric on your part. You started this discussion with a concern about the "unsteady breadth" of the term "alt-right", and that's been the focus all along, whether dealing with the specific issue of whether to categorize it as "ill-defined" or the more general issue of inserting information on the general meaning of the term. That you don't seem to want to accept the idea of putting sourced information in the body of the article, and are insistent on adding a categorical description in the lede is your problem, not anyone else's. Options have been presented, and you refuse to pick up on them.

Given that, and the lack of consensus at this point, I see no benefit in continuing to discuss this with you. I'll return if other editors have their say, but in the meantime, please be perfectly clear in your mind you do not have a consensus here to add a categorical description, whether "ill-defined" or anything else, to the lede of the article. You have a suggestion from me to add well-sourced material to the article, subject to the quality of the sourcing and the information you add.

That's the state of play, which I add for your benefit and no one else's, since you seem to have problems understanding what's been said here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll consider myself in your eternal debt for your intellectual generosity. Lukacris (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll be certain to collect that debt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure about this but my observation would be that "loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined" is an unfortunately negative statement, and I am not sure that is necessary. It sounds a little like carping. Can perhaps a related sentiment be stated in positive terms? Perhaps sources would support an assertion that the term's definition fluctuates with the setting in which it is used, with some usages embracing a wider range of characteristics and other usages assuming a more narrow definition? Bus stop (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sounds like it might be a little much for the lede, but it's an idea worth pursuing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Just came across this today and it left me somewhat dumbfounded. Not a term I was familiar with. It seems to tick all the boxes for Fascism, but there is no explanation as to how it relates to or differs from Fascism. The article really needs that. Early on. Also, "Alt" suggests "Alternative". Alternative to what? That really needs to be touched upon too. Otherwise, I don't know why this article exists. It may as well redirect to Fascism. Steve Lowther (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis and Neo-Facists are part of the movement, but alt-right is a discrete thing, even if it is broadly fascist (my impression is that some aspects of the alt-right are not fascist) Lukacris (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a fair description. Also, the "alternative" is to the traditional right-wing and conservatism in general. I believe that the idea is that the alt-right thinks that "paleo-conservatives" etc. have been too co-opted by the political system. It's much the same as the attitude of the New Left in the 60s towards liberalism, Socialism and the "old Left", i.e. Marxism, Communism, Trotskyism etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Addition to § Etymology:

The term is of variable breadth and its outer-constituency is not well-defined; however, the alt-right’s core of white-nationalist, white-supremacist, neo-Nazis, and other neo-Fascist groups is settled. The Associated Press advises journalists to not use the term without providing an internal definition . The Anti-Defamation League states that “alt-right” is a “vague term actually encompass[ing] a range of people on the extreme right who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of forms of conservatism that embrace implicit or explicit racism or white supremacy.” Conservative writer Ben Shapiro claims the American political left has attempted “to lump in the Right with the alt-right by accepting a broader, false definition of the alt-right that could include traditional conservatism.” . But other conservative activists have advocated for a broader definition of “alt-right.” For instance, Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos wrote in March of 2016 that “the Alt-Right was fundamentally about youthful provocation and subversion, rather than simply another vehicle for the worst dregs of human society”. Lukacris (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC) {removed one word for grammar after the fact Lukacris (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)}

• The proposed section as written is not acceptable, especially as it begins with a unsourced POV statement, but I do think it can serve as a basis for discussion. When I have some time (and don't have a bad head cold), I'll suggest some changes, so in the meantime I fook forward to what others have to say about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• (re: Beyond My Ken's critique (hope you're feeling better)) Let me know if this revision acceptable (or closer to the mark):

The unsettled breadth of the term "Alt-Right" has stirred confusion and controversy. For example, the Associated Press advises journalists to not use the term without providing an internal definition, due to its vague nature . The Anti-Defamation League states that “alt-right” is a “vague term actually encompass[ing] a range of people on the extreme right who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of forms of conservatism that embrace implicit or explicit racism or white supremacy.” Conservative writer Ben Shapiro claims the American political left has attempted “to lump in the Right with the alt-right by accepting a broader, false definition of the alt-right that could include traditional conservatism.” . But other conservatives have advocated for a broader definition of “alt-right.” For instance, Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart News described the Alt-Right in March of 2016 as "an amorphous movement" and continued "some — mostly Establishment types — insist it’s little more than a vehicle for the worst dregs of human society: anti-Semites, white supremacists, and other members of the Stormfront set. They’re wrong." On the other hand, the Southern Poverty Law Center states that "[t]he Alt-Right is intimately connected American Identitarianism, a version of an ideology popular in Europe that emphasizes cultural and racial homogeneity within different countries," and also notes that multpile Alt-Right leaders (including Richard Spencer) embrace explicit anti-semitism.

Lukacris (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Lukacris (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC) (added the last sentence shortly after posting the original revision).

I'll leave this up for 48 hours for critiques and/or rejections before going ahead and adding to main article. Lukacris (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

References

My apologies for not getting back to this. I am over my cold, but we went on a family vacation which is just now wrapping up, so I'll be able to look at it shortly to give my opinion.

As for "I'll leave this up for 48 hours for critiques and/or rejections before going ahead and adding to main article" - no, you won't. You'll wait until you have a consensus in favor of it, and then, and only then, will you add it to the article. It will be removed before then. Remember, There is no deadline to complete Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Not bad. Here's an edit:

The scope of the term "Alt-right" is, as of February 2018, still in flux. The Associated Press advises its journalists to not use the term without providing an internal definition, due to its vagueness. The Anti-Defamation League states that "Alt-right" is a "vague term actually encompass[ing] a range of people on the extreme right who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of forms of conservatism that embrace implicit or explicit racism or white supremacy." Conservative writer Ben Shapiro claims that the American Left has attempted "to lump in the Right with the alt-right by accepting a broader, false definition of the alt-right that could include traditional conservatism," but other conservatives have advocated for a broader definition. For instance, Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart News described the Alt-right in March 2016 as "an amorphous movement ... some — mostly Establishment types — insist it’s little more than a vehicle for the worst dregs of human society: anti-Semites, white supremacists, and other members of the Stormfront set." On the other hand, the Southern Poverty Law Center states that "[t]he Alt-Right is intimately connected [to] American Identitarianism, a version of an ideology popular in Europe that emphasizes cultural and racial homogeneity within different countries," and also notes that multple Alt-right leaders, including Richard Spencer, embrace explicit anti-semitism.

Comments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Thanks Beyond My Ken, I think that flows better and is clearer than my earlier draft. One minor qualm: your editing-down the Bokhari/Yiannopoulos quote may have muddied their point that the "establishment types" are (in the author's view) incorrect. A quick fix would be to insert "[wrongly]" and make it read "Establishment types — [wrongly] insist it's little more . . . ". If you disagree, it's not a hill I'm willing to die on. Lukacris (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Afterthought: I think the object AP's advisory shouldn't be "its" journalists, since it's a co-op of the entire industry that just suggests style guidelines. As with the other nitpick, it's not a big deal to me. Lukacris (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I took out "Wrongly" because it was the opinion of the authors which seemed like more of a dig at the "establishment left" then a serious remark about the scope of "alt-right." I could live with it going back in, but it would be better to put it where it was, rather than inserting it parenthetically within the quote. As for the AP, it definitely has its own reporters, who are often named, but sometimes anonymous. They also re-write stuff they get from member organizations, so the guidelines would go for the people doing the re-writes as well. I'm sure that the AP style guides carry some weight, especially with smaller newspapers, but the big papers and the chains are more likely to have in-house style books which override AP guidelines. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I disagree with your reading of the Brietbart quote, but I don't think the difference is all that important. So I'm with your latest draft as-is. Lukacris (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Lets give it some time to see if anyone else has comments, and if not, let's go ahead with a consensus of two. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Should alt-left section even be on here?

The alt-left section seems out of place to me. The phrase was basically made up by Trump to describe a non-existent phenomenon. What's more, this is a page about the alt-right. It would be like having the page on communism have a section on anti-communism at the end.

That said, I've suggested in the past that the alt-right page is unnecessary or that it should be merged with the white nationalist pages since it seems to be nothing more than a rebranding of those beliefs with no real differences (it was literally a poorly managed propaganda name to make white supremacism appear acceptable as far as I can tell, which failed), so I'm possibly not the best person to advocate on what should be in this article. Perhaps if people want to keep the whole page, perhaps reduce the section on the alt-left, since it otherwise feels like undue weight to me since it's a term to describe something that doesn't exist and is largely talked about because Trump spews nonsense when he opens his mouth to the press. If people still think it needs a place, perhaps reduce it to an explanation on the terms origins and a explanation that it doesn't exist as a thing and is just something Trump made up? Going into detail about it's lack of an existence seems unnecessary given it's made up and it wasn't what the article.

I'll wait a few days and if I get no responses, I'll go ahead and remove the section based on the above reasoning. If people disagree, maybe we can push ahead with my second suggestion or maybe I can be convinced it should remain in full. Sdio7 (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So after a unsuccesfull AFD a while back here, it was decided to merge here from the talk page here on the principle that alt-left was a neologism that only exsisted because of alt-right. So it was by a well participated merge discussion that alt-left info ended up here. PackMecEng (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah right, didn't know about that, cheers. It should probably stay then. Any thoughts on it being trimmed under undue weight or leave it as it is? Sdio7 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, it has not really received much coverage since the main speech outbreak. But not sure how I would go about trimming it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure about trimming it. I'll start that now. Rockypedia (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The edits look good, I'm happy to wrap this up. Sdio7 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If it lacks notability for its own article, it doesn't deserve a long section here. I don't know why it ended up here, isn't there an article about all the new terms the President has invented? TFD (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah Trump has an article for something he invented already America. But seriously he did not invent it, just became widely know from his speech. PackMecEng (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the section was still too long. A lot of the sentences were pretty redundant, basically saying the same thing over and over again. So I trimmed it further by eliminating some of that. I think it's a good length at this point. Rockypedia (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Religion

I have removed material from the article which was supported by citations to non-reliable sources. I've left in the one bit sourced to The Atlantic, because it is a reliable source, but even that should probably not be there, per WP:WEIGHT.

I believe that the anti-religion anti-Christianity aspect of the alt-right is being blown up out of proportion with this material (and if it's not, it certainly should be able to be sourced to reliable sources). I do not think that your average neo-Nazi is anti-religion, or opposed to Christianity -- but I could well be wrong. There needs to be a discussion here to arrive at a consensus on whether any anti-religious aspect of the alt-right is significant enough to be included in the article.

WP:WEIGHT -- which anyone who wants to discuss this topic needs to read before contributing -- is the operational policy. Certainly, there are sources which say that some people or elements of the alt-right are anti-religious, but it's far from clear that this is a general property of the movement.

So, let's hear opinions about this. In the meantime, no one should restore the information to the article without a consensus to do so. Remember, this article is under Discretionary Sanctions, and misbehavior such as that can lead to being blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi BMK, per WP:Weight I just removed that sub-section but moved the Atlantic material to the "scope" section of the article which I think makes sense. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted you. No one should make changes to the religion section(s) until there is a consensus here as to what to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick look at some sources on religion and atheism in the alt-right. Salon talking about atheism within the alt-right. The Atlantic the views of the alt-right on religion, Christianity, and atheism. Vox Spencer's view on religion and his atheism. The Atlantic again on Spencer and religion and how its used in the alt-right. Finally Washington Post talking about atheist's views on alt-right taking over atheism online and the like. Hope that helps, I have to clear my browser history now. Thanks for that lol PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the cites. The question is whether antipathy to religion is a defining characteristic of the alt-right, and hence worthy of being included in the list of beliefs, or simply an aspect of some alt-righters. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

From the sources, seems something of the alt-right and it's leaders MO. In how it is used to promote and shape the alt-right and how it guides the figureheads. I have been seeing it spring up more in sources, what do you think of it? PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it should be included. I'm readying to readd it if no one has any objections. MichiganWoodShop (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I strongly object to the paragraph that was removed. The sources cited above do support some mention of the relationship the Alt-Right has with religion and the general observation that its rise correlated with a decrease in religiosity, but they absolutely do not support those broad, sweeping statements that the Alt-Right is overwhelmingly atheist or opposed to Christianity. Most of the sources cited above emphasize that the opposite, that the Alt-Right is comfortable with Christianity even when they don't believe. eg. from the Atlantic's write-up of Spencer: "Spencer wasn’t exactly defending Christianity; he said that he, like Hitchens, was an atheist. But he longed for something as robust and binding as Christianity had once been in the West, before churches surrendered their power to folk-singing liberals and televangelists." Those sources, when discussing the Alt-Right's anti-religious tone, note that it is opposition to Islam, specifically, and that the Alt-Right is generally "culturally Christian" in that respect and does not normally oppose it. The section that was removed absolutely does not reflect the sources we have - something completely new and unrelated would have to be written from the articles linked above instead. And I would also suggest starting with just a few sentences rather than an entire massive section; I don't feel that we have enough sources to give it more emphasis than that. But we absolutely do not have the reliable sources to say that the Alt-Right is generally anti-religious, broadly Atheist, or that it opposes Christianity; rather, those sources say that it is partially a result of religion being less important on the right beyond from serving as a cultural signifier. Whatever we add has to be much, much more cautiously-worded - I would suggest discarding the disputed section entirely and writing something new from the sources above, trying to adhere as closely as possible to their key points. --Aquillion (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to take a stab a writing a section and posting it here so that other editors have a chance to comment on it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Violance section and florida shooting

i thing we should add the florida shooting the suspect had far right views if it is confirmed can we add it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.139.197 (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not confirmed. In fact, at this point, it appears to have been a hack by alt-rigthters which was picked up by the media. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead too long

@MrX: You removed my lead too long tag, but your edit summary doesn't seem to mention anything about this. Could you please clarify if it was accidental or if you disagree with it? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently there was an edit conflict that the system didn't warn me about. I have restored your edit.- MrX 🖋 22:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It was now removed by Beyond My Ken. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Please get at least a rough consensus of editors here that the lede is too long before restoring it. At this point, it's merely an expresssion of your opinion.

Personally, I think that the lede is no longer then many of those on other articles about complicated and controversial subjects, and I don't see where it has a lot of information that can be sliced out. Remember that the lede is supposed to be a summary of all the salient information in the article. A reader should be able to grasp the broad outlines of the subject just by reading it and not delving into the body of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It could use a little trimming, for example this sentence: "Republicans and conservatives such as President Donald Trump, Ben Shapiro, Ted Cruz, Cory Gardner, and members of the conservative Heritage Foundation have condemned the alt-right for its racism, antisemitism, and prejudice." is not a significant point worthy of the lead. Also, the Ben Shapiro condemnation is unsourced, and the Heritage Foundation condemnation is poorly sourced. - MrX 00:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If there are things that could be trimmed, then by all means trim them - subject to the normal give-and-take of editing. Just don;t slap up a general tag, WP:SOFIXIT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so let's see. The lead isn't just too long, it's also organized in a slightly clunky way - it feels like people have been throwing stuff into it haphazardly. The third paragraph is the one that really seems to have gotten bloated, to the point that it's hard to say what it's about. Boiling it down, I think the important parts are... /pol/, list of websites (merge with sentence on 4chan?). The Breitbart sentence should possibly be merged into this, too. Also, "just joking bro" as a strategy (although it could be more concise). Is the "generally support / generally oppose" sentence redundant with the list of beliefs in the first paragraph? (For that matter, should the "just joking bro" sentence be connected to the list of beliefs?) The movement trajectory and connection to the Trump administration also seem worth touching on, but could be handled more concisely. So I think we could get it down to about 4-5 sentences. --Aquillion (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You wanna take a pass at it here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent disputed edits.

I concur with this revert (in fact, I was beaten to it and was about to do it myself.) This is too many changes packed into a handful of edits, many of which, at a glance, look like they're longstanding stuff that has been rejected in the past. Off the top of my head, my objections include:

• Too much focus on fringe or uncommon descriptions of the alt-right, in an already packed lead. Neo-monarchism and third-positionism are not prominent enough to go in the lead, especially compared to the extensive mainstream sourcing for the description that was bumped down to make room for this.
• "and other fringe hate groups that promote white supremacy and white nationalism" is incredibly awkward wording. Additionally, we already have a longstanding section that summarizes those aspects in much more detail and with better sourcing, which was inexplicably bumped down.
• The paragraph on Richard Spencer was bumped up and placed in the middle of the description of what the alt-right is, breaking up the flow of the lead and indirectly causing both the problems above.
• This change directly contradicts the sources and the text of the article itself, which emphasize Breitbart and Reddit (especially Breitbart.)
• It's unclear what the added sources contribute; the lead is already heavily-cited to the point of nearing overcite. If some are improvements, or cover stuff that isn't already there, that's one thing, but we'd need to discuss that (and possibly which sources to replace with the new ones) - and if it's something that isn't even covered in the rest of the article, adding it directly to the lead isn't usually the place to start, since the lead has to summarize the article; we'd want to add it to the body first, then add it to the summary in the lead if it seems important enough. But one thing at a time, please, not these huge sweeping changes to the lead of a very controversial article.
• The edit inexplicably replaced the ref to RichardSpencerWhiteSupremacist with a copy-pasted version of it called RichardSpencerWhiteSupremacist2. I don't understand why this change was made; the content of the two was identical (outside of some wiki-formatting changes that don't affect how it's displayed.) Doing this is bad because it means that any edits or updates to that ref in the future will have to be made twice, and also causes the entire thing to appear twice in the reflist. This part was the bit that confused me the most.

Anyway, it's possible there's some parts of this giant edit that would be uncontroversial, but combining everything into a fairly drastic rewrite to the longstanding lead makes it hard to parse out. Please go over the bits you feel are important (or which ought to be uncontroversial), and explain why. --Aquillion (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Logo

I'm not convinced we have strong enough sourcing to present that logo as an "official" alt-right symbol at the top of the page. It isn't as though the movement has formal leadership, and the coverage of the logo is extremely light (one of the three sources is making fun of it, and all three are from right after it was revealed.) It seems to have vanished afterwards, and doesn't seem to have gotten much use. Searching for "alt-right symbol" and the like, it comes up once but isn't particularly common. --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it once, but it was restored. I've also nominated it for deletion on Commons. I, for one, have never' seen it used. It may well be a failed attempt to establish a logo for the movement. My inclination is to take it our again until the sourcing is firmed up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

MichiganWoodShop

Since MichiganWoodShop has been blocked as a sock of PerfectlyIrrational, [1] and since MWS made 98 edits to this article (3.3% of the total), contributing 17.6% of the text [2], I think it would be a good idea to go over their edits to make sure that they're well-sourced and unbiased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

MotherJones and Breitbart Dispute the Ideology

The article offers no source for, Bannon described Breitbart as 'the platform for the alt-right', with the goal of promoting the ideology. The quote is properly sourced from the MotherJones article but there is nothing to substantiate the claim that Bannon or Breitbart have a goal of promoting the ideology; certainly not the ideology as defined by MotherJones or this Wikipedia article. Indeed, on 16-Aug-2017 in response to the MotherJones article, Tony Lee at Breitbart flatly denied that the website is alt-right and offered up a Harvard/MIT study as proof. Lee goes on to explain that Posner and Bannon had different definitions of alt-right ideology when Bannon noted “we’re the platform for the alt-right." Lee writes:

Bannon’s “alt-right” comment indicates he apparently thought it consisted mainly of computer gamers and blue-collar voters who hated the GOP brand associated with George W. Bush’s brand of “conservatism” or “Bushism” that sought nation-building adventures abroad while allowing crony capitalism to fester in D.C.

A description of this dispute and Tony Lee's editorial should be added to this Wikipedia article. The phrase, promoting the ideology, should be removed or at least marked, citation needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamfrantz (talk • contribs) 18:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart is not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope, since they have something to gain by it, they are not reliable, even about themselves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. I have no idea why so many editors don't understand this important aspect of our policies.- MrX 🖋 00:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

When did Wikipedia become a far-left echo chamber? 108.27.16.253 (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Never has been, never will be. Nor will it ever be a propaganda outlet for the far right, the alt-right, or neo-Nazis, try as they might to make it into one. Nope, our policies makes sure of that, which is why we follow them as strictly as we possible can. And one of our policies is that article talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM for general discussion, they exist to help improve the article. So, with that in mind, what are your suggestions for improving the article, aside from, say, copying text from Breitbart wholesale into it? Do you have any real suggestions, or are you just going to spout right-wing nonsense? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

contradicting term

If the term is defined by 30 characteristics, how useful is it? There are so many contradictions and bad citations. For instance, using a couple of media articles as a source doesnt actually make something true. Because something is printed somewhere on the internet doesn't validate it. It needs to be more than just an opinion piece in news. Another example, alt-right is defined as "identitarianism", "neo nazism", "neo-fascistm", "isolationism", and "protectionism" and ALSO identified as "paleolibertarianism", which pushes individualism (opposite of identitarianism), capitalism (opposite of nazism which is socialist), free trade open borders, opposite of isolationism and protectionism. Logic dictates it is impossible for alt-right to mean all of these things. So what exactly does it mean? Nothing as far as I can tell. It looks like this term has a lot more to do with perceptions and feelings than an actual concrete thing, and if the term doesn't describe something specific, then what is the point of it? what good is a term where a fascist, and a libertarian, basically two polar opposites, can both be wrapped in it?Vodka33 (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem lies not in our article, but in the inherent fuzziness of the term. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup. The "Nazis were socialist" meme will always kick credibility to the curb. Also, absolutely NOT all libertarians are fascists, but overlap between the two is well-documented. See Augustus Sol Invictus,[3] Christopher Cantwell,[4] Jason Kessler,[5] etc. This phenomenon has been acknowledged and discussed by libertarians themselves, as well as conservatives and liberals. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Alt Left as the 'Left' of the Alt Right

Alt Left and Alternative Left are also terms used to describe: (i). the left-wing of the Alt Right and (ii). a leftist meta-political approach to white nationalism. For sources on this, see: [6], [7], [8]. There is also a strong 'hipster racist' culture within the broader current of white nationalism that could be described as falling under the Alt Left sensibility: see for instance, [9]. This, I appreciate, is all quite fringe and obscure and merits only a brief paragraph, but it is important and may grow in importance as white nationalism evolves and tries to broader its appeal. I can draft a relatively brief paragraph and post it here for consideration and possible inclusion by an accredited editor, but I await agreement in principle on its relevancy. I can't just go ahead and post something as the article itself is 'semi-locked' and inaccessible to me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.65.42 (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"...as white nationalism evolves"? If you say so. If hipster racism is important, or is tied to the supposed "alt-left" more than is already explained in the article, first you would need much, much better sources explaining this directly. None of these sources are reliable at all. Altleft.com appears to be a wordpress site set-up by someone named Brandon Adamson. I don't know who that is, but he doesn't appear to be anybody significant, and the site should be treated as a WP:SPS, not a reliable source. Millennial Woes is not reliable for statements of fact, and his opinion would need reliable, third-party sourcing. Likewise Greg Johnson (white nationalist) is not reliable, and his opinion is not significant without reliable, third-party context. Do I even need to discuss "aryanskynet.wordpress.com"? Speculation about what might become more important doesn't belong in articles unless it is attributed and sourced. Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

But sources like the New York Times and the Southern Poverty Law Center ARE accepted as sources? Those are neutral and respected sources? The Southern Poverty Law Centre is not an unbiased organisation, yet you regard it as a proper source. Would you like me to go through a full list of all the obscure and tendentious sources used in the main article? There are at least several. The sources I gave in my comment above demonstrate that the term is used to describe a fringe of the Alt Right. I am not suggesting they should all be used, but they prove the assertion I make and the information is relevant to the article. The issue, I believe, is how sources are used and cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.64.200 (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Yes, The New York Times and the Southern Poverty Law Center both have "reputations for accuracy and fact-checking", as demonstrated through editorial oversight, recognition of peers (such as through repeated citations and industry awards), and good-faith practices such as issuing retractions and updates. They are not flawless, and no source is expected to be, but they are still largely respected by other journalists and academics.

Your proposed sources are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards, however. Your opinion that a source as biased doesn't actually make it less reliable. Wikipedia fundamentally has a "mainstream" bias, since this is a tertiary source, not a platform for advocacy. This means that articles will tend to reflect the mainstream academic or journalistic coverage of a topic. If this doesn't match the alt-right's own account of itself, well, good! It's to Wikipedia's credit that it provides a neutral overview of the topic. Grayfell (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest that anyone who claims that The New York Times is a biased and unreliable source can simply be ignored as living in an alternate universe. It is, of course, supremely unfortunate for all of us that some of our highest elected officials are living in the same universe, but, nevertheless, people with such views should take up no more of our time than necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Should be deleted

This article is garbage. Without taking the side of the people maligned, or even liking them, anyone who can read will recognize that this is not well-written, factual, or encyclopedic. It's more in the nature of a two-minutes-hate than anything else. It's not worth lining the bottom of a birdcage. Total removal would be the best option. 116.231.75.71 (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed delete and do-over. Or maybe merge with Vast right-wing conspiracy. Rklawton (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we please not have a deletion discussion here, where no matter what might be decided it can't be deleted with a WP:AfD? Doug Weller talk 15:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not going to be deleted, even at AfD, so this discussion is moot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Conservatism sidebar

Should the conservatism sidebar be listed in this article? The alt-right predominately hates conservatism to my knowledge, it's more reactionary than anything. FlowerRoad (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC) blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PerfectlyIrrational. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed it.– Lionel^(talk) 08:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit

{{{1}}} blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PerfectlyIrrational. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call that a change, I would say that it was many changes lumped together in a single edit. That makes it pretty hard to answer the question. Some of these changes seem very helpful, but at a glance I would object to the creation of additional very short subsections. The article should be an overview of the larger movement, and this expansion is a step in the wrong direction. Grayfell (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

::Would you be okay with a conspiracy theory section + Pizzagate picture? That was the main "meat" of the edit anyway. I thought that the images would also clarify the text. For the subsections themselves, it is not something I would strongly object to. FlowerRoad (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PerfectlyIrrational. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are conspiracy theories being tied to memes? What's the connection? There are many sources connecting the alt-right to multiple conspiracy theories, but the two sources used seem very weak for supporting an entire subsection. I'm not saying they aren't reliable, just not necessarily WP:DUE based on context. The Hatewatch article barely mentions the alt-right, and the Hyperallergic article doesn't mention "alt-right" at all, instead using "far-right". It also predates the QAnon stuff.

The picture could be appropriate once the article provides enough well-sourced context to explain it. Adding a photo to support a single-sentence subsection is lopsided, to put it mildly. Without this context, it is more confusing than informative. Grayfell (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I object to it, which is why I reverted it. Why did I revert it? Well, it sucked. It didn't improve the article in pretty many any respect, along the lines that Grayfell posted above.}}[arabr}}This is most definitely not an article for a newbie to be fooling around with. I suggest you move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

As others have said, I think that it's doing too much in one edit on a really controversial article... but with that said, it might be worth breaking up the ideas in it and discussing each one individually. I think a conspiracy theory section might be useful, although we'd have to discuss where to put it. And as for the connection between conspiracy theories and memes in the Alt-Right, this source discusses it in a really useful way, although ideally we'd want more than that. That source in particular seems like the ideal sort of thing we'd look for, though, in that it goes into depth on how prominent Alt-Right accounts push conspiracy theories into the mainstream. It's worth noting that many scholars and journalists seem to use the word "meme" to refer to any pushed hashtag, which is probably slightly differently than many of us use it. Either way, this article should definitely say more about Pizzagate, which has been a major point of coverage and research when it comes to the Alt-Right. --Aquillion (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Lede section length (was: Incels)

Incels have often been linked or considered a part of the alt-right, but is it notable enough to be in the lead sentence? I've added it, but if anyone has any objections I'd be open.FlowerRoad (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC) blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PerfectlyIrrational. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of material that appears in the body, not a dumping ground for miscellany. Furthermore, the lead in this article has become bloated and is too long. We must work to drastically trim the lead per WP:MOSLEAD. – Lionel^(talk) 01:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ledes are as long or as short as they need to be. MOSLEAD is a guideline, not a mandatory policy. Don't re-add the "Lead too long" tag until it represents a consensus viewand not just your opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Improper removal of a maintenance template is disruptive. You are in violation of WP:WTRMT. If you continue you will be blocked probably be topic-banned. – Lionel^(talk) 06:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at your block log [10], the longest I have ever seen btw, you are no stranger to disruptive behavior. – Lionel^(talk) 06:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Get a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

So trawling through someone's block log to throw around veiled threats at the first sign of a disagreement... does that count as disruptive? I'm going with "yes". I agree that the lead is long, but saying it's too long is subjective. BMK is right that tags are not badges of shame. If you have suggestions for how to trim it, let's hear them. Grayfell (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think talking about what we could remove would be more productive than arguing (or edit-warring) over tags. One thing I might say: The final paragraph seems like it gives WP:UNDUE weight to a single Washington Post piece. We already have a sentence higher up describing the broad scope of the Alt-Right's rise and decline (The movement grew in 2015 and 2016, but started declining in power and membership in 2017 and 2018 following a decline in popular opinion); perhaps that could be merged into a few additional words there. I'm not saying it's a bad piece, but it doesn't seem significant enough to demand an entire paragraph in the lead all to itself. --Aquillion (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to some streamlining -- in fact, I think I might even have said that in an earlier discussion -- but the problem here is that the subject is in may ways conceptually vague, and needs a fair amount of explication in the lede in order to give it any coherent shape at all. That said, I'm sure that some trimming is possible, and I think Aquillion's suggestion of merging the WapPo graf into the previous statement is a start. I'll make a go at that now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I've made that merge, see what you think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I've just re-read the lede, and I don't see anything that obviously screams to be taken out, except maybe the list of Trump-related people with alt-right connections. Possibly just the general statement in the lede, with the specifics in the body? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I reckon this could be shorter:

According to a Southern Poverty Law Center report published in February 2018, over 100 people have been killed and injured in 13 attacks by alt-right influenced perpetrators since 2014. Political scientists and political leaders have argued that it should be classified as a terrorist or extremist movement. The SPLC report expressed strong concern about the alt-right, claiming that its ideologies are radicalizing young, suburban white males and helped inspire the 2014 Isla Vista killings, the Charleston church shooting, the Quebec City mosque shooting, the vehicle ramming attack at the Unite the Right rally, the Umpqua Community College shooting, as well as other lower-profile attacks and acts of violence.[60] In 2017, terrorist attacks and violence affiliated with the alt-right and white supremacy were the leading cause of extremist violence in the United States according to the Anti-Defamation League.[61][62]

We should go for something closer to:

Over 100 people have been killed and injured in 13 attacks by alt-right influenced perpetrators since 2014. In 2017, terrorist attacks and violence affiliated with the alt-right and white supremacy were the leading cause of extremist violence in the United States.

That's a statement of the consensus view, we can put the nuance in the body. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(Oh, and your badge is in the mail. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC))

Adding together 43 deaths and 67 injured to get 100 is WP:SYNTH.– Lionel^(talk) 12:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest it complies with WP:CALC. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I also don't understand how it's SYNTH for us to report what sources say anyway. The source used to support the claim in the article proper specifically says "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) counted over 100 people killed or injured". If you believe the SLPC source is not reliable, that isn't a synth issue but an unreliable source issue. If you believe the article proper has to repeat the exact figure even if it's implied by the given figures in a way that is probably compliant with calc, and it should be obvious what the source is for the lead figure in the article proper, that seems to be a lead styling and referencing issue, not a synth one. We could always ref tag the claim in the lead if you feel it's that important. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I would agree with Aquillion that the lead, as it stands, is dreadful, and I'm afraid I also agree with Lionelt that it is probably too long, although I appreciate that it's difficult to summarize the content succinctly. Many of the individual sentences are too long and involved, and some of the wording is not exactly NPOV: "The alt-right has its roots on Internet websites...". I also feel like it's daunting for the reader to have all those concepts introduced at once, in the first paragraph, particularly with the citations attached. We don't need that long list of shootings in a summary (as Guy says above) - wouldn't it be enough to mention one example? I'd like to see a much more general introduction to the subject that gives readers some motivation to read further. And if it's a "largely American phenomenon" as argued at ANI, then that should be clearly stated in the lead. Deb (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I just attempted a chainsaw trim by yanking the third paragraph. I'm hoping the bot comes along and fixes the references so I don't have to resurrect them manually... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Sarek, but I think that's much too drastic. I have no doubt that the paragraph could be trimmed, but eliminating it altogether gets rif og some important stuff, such as the description of the kinds of policies alt-right organizations support. To take that out of the lede requires, I think, a consensus, so I've reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted myself, because I got caught by the 1RR restriction. To me, I go to sleep, I wake up, it's a new day.

Anyway, I think the edit is as I described it above and needs to be more nuanced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. Somewhere in the discussion, it was brought up that there should be only 4 paragraphs instead of 5, so rather than gut two and push them together, I looked for one that I thought didn't need to be in the lead, as long as the material was in the article somewhere. That felt to me like the one that could most fairly be removed, but I definitely won't object if someone wants to put it back. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look when I have a little more time, but I think it's possible that the first half of the paragraph could be cut, and the second half integrated elsewhere. If anyone else wants to have a go at that idea, BMG Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Patrick Little

Inclusion is sourced to Al Jazeera which according to RSN is reliable.– Lionel^(talk) 22:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera may be reliable in a general sense, but it's not the best possible source for information on U.S. domestic politics. If this information is actually true -- which I hold no position on one way or the other -- it should be easy to source it from a domestic US source which has a better grasp on American politics than Al-Jazweera is likely to have. HuffPost, for instance, does a regular series on all White supremacists running for office. Considering that this is a WP:BLP issue, the source for the information must be above reproach. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)