Talk:Alt-right/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Disputed source for sentence

Reference source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/what-exactly-is-the-alternative-right/article/2000310 Source quotes: "Indeed, the true conflict facing Republicans is not with the social democrats who've taken over the American left, but within the soul of American conservatives. Namely, a new, highly heterogeneous force in right-wing politics is taking hold, and they have their sights set firmly on the Republican "establishment." Known collectively as the "alternative right," this amalgam includes neo-reactionaries, monarchists, nativists, populists, and even a few self-declared fascists. They mostly congregate online, with a large swath of blogs and websites dedicated to their concerns. As an example of how truly diverse the alt right is, major and proverbial watering holes for them include everything from Breitbart and the libertarian-leaning Taki Mag to Alternative Right—a blog that openly supports white nationalism." "The end result: Trump, the darling of the populist alt right (and its cousin, conservative talk radio), is miles ahead of his challengers, while the right-wing blogosphere is everyday gaining ground against the left and converting plenty of American voters along the way." It's obviously more than white nationalism, the alt-right has even been called heterogeneous, listed different ideologies than white nationalism within it, and has been called populist, which is an ideology within it, populism. Requested sentence: The alt-right is a right-wing movement of ideologies that are an alternative to mainstream conservatism. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are taking one source of not particularly high reliability and basing your request for a definition on a rather specious interpretation of this single source (since the sources does not call it a movement of ideologies but an "heterogeneous amalgam"). Meanwhile a handful of other sources clearly link the "movement" (scarequotes) to the website and to White Nationalism. So no, your proposed definition is not acceptable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Still an RS, and other sources say it is a movement simply without scare quotes. By 'force' is meant 'movement', if you understand it. "heterogeneous amalgam" is referring to how it contains all these ideologies that are alternatively right-wing. Do not edit like you WP:OWN, wait for editors to respond. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You cant just cherry pick one source that gives a definition you like and then ignore all the other sources with different definitions. When you say "by force is meant movement" that is what I call a specious interpretation. And you are the one who has behaved like an article owner, reverting all edits without discussion untill it became clear that too many editors were against you on the talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

We're going by what's official and also what agrees with how the alt-right defines itself. It's called context, it says a force in right-wing politics, that means a political movement. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No we are not. First of all there is nothing "official" that unites the "movement" except for the website. Secondly we do not prioritize a political movements own self definition above the definition given in reliable movement-external sources. If we did that then all terrorist groups would be freedom fighters for example.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You are not, everybody else has been trying to an extent. You don't know what you're talking about saying that the movement is officially united by that website, where is your reference source to back that up? I'm talking about official meaning what is agreed upon about the movement, and it agrees to an extent with how the alt-right defines itself, not your WP:POV. This isn't about prioritization, it's about the facts, not saying a terrorist = a freedom fighter. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You have now reinserted the OR definition for a fourth time. I will now have to report you for editwarring and tendentious editing at ANI.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not reused the source you removed for it, though. Everything else in the article supports it. You can do that, but in my defense, I haven't done anything wrong to this article. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not a defense but a denial. You have editwarred and tendentiously misrepresented sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You're lying. You were edit-warring also. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2016 (UT

I have tried to bring the definition in line with sources. You have reverted all my suggestions to your same unsupported definition. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Outdated sources for the alt-right that fit your WP:POV narrative. I have reverted edits, more than mere suggestions. The definition is supported by the source and other editors. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I must agree with Connor Machiavelli that you are being hostile and a bit WP:POV here. I find nothing explicitly objectionable in that sentence or sourcing.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 20:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure I am being hostile. That happens when ones contributions are repeatedly reverted without argument. It is good that you express your view on the sourcing. Can you please also say how you think the sources support the current definition? And why for example we should exclude the website and the white nationalist aspect from the definition in spite of these aspects figuring prominently in the definitions given by several sources?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like your two cents here if you mind, Sigehelmus (talk · contribs), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Editwarring_to_insert_OR_definition_at_Alt-right Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG, opinion pieces like the Weekly Standard are mainly usable as primary sources on the opinions of the author, and rarely for statements of fact. Making factual statements about the highly controversial definition of the alt-right based an opinion piece is not going to work. This source should only be used with proper attribution like in the 'reaction' section. Right now the source is badly over-used here. It's just one obscure opinion piece with nothing else supporting it. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There's other primary sources that back it up. "Highly controversial definition"? Huh? It's widely agreed to be an alternative right-wing movement that is not mainstream conservatism. What's that mean, "nothing else supporting it"? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing else supporting the significance of this opinion piece. No other reliable sources citing it as crucial or historically significant, or mentioning Welton as an expert. It's just one guy's opinion being presented in the article as a fact. With that in mind, I don't see any reason to rely on this source as heavily as this article currently does. If its alternative status is so obvious that you don't understand where the confusion is coming from, than why does the article need to make it explicit? There are many groups that could be defined as "alternatives to mainstream conservatism" but are not considered part of the alt-right. Hell, isn't Marxism ultimately an alternative to mainstream conservatism? It's an almost meaningless statement which tells us little about the alt-right, and underscores how nebulous the term actually is. Using this one opinion source is not going to work for this. As I've said multiple times, it's not a point that needs to be made, but even if it were, this is not a usable source to make it. Grayfell (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay then? We could just use more sources along with it that agree with the article's statements. Marxism isn't classified as a movement, nor is it a right-wing alternative to mainstream conservatism though, Marxism is left-wing. 19:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Connor Machiavelli (talk)

We should not use more sources along with it, piling good sources on top of bad is not helpful. We should remove the Weekly Standard source from all statements of fact, and, if good sources exist, rewrite those statements so they actually mean something instead of being platitudinous filler. I know that Marxism is left, that's my point. The edit doesn't say it's a right-wing alternative to something, it says it's an alternative to the right wing mainstream. Literally every position that isn't the mainstream right is a hypothetical alternative to the mainstream right, including the left. As Dimadick persuasively points out below, even 'mainstream conservatism' is too vague to be meaningful by itself, so emphasizing that it's an alternative to something without clearly explaining that something looks like self-important filler.

Not to get to bogged down in a rhetorical example, but calling the alt-right a movement while saying that Marxism somehow is not is playing unsupportable word-games. Marxism certainly has been classified as a movement, because "movement" sounds good but is very vague, with many different interpretations. Calling the alt-right a movement doesn't give it even a tiny shred more credibility than it otherwise would have. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Not my requested edit, which is better than the edit you referred to. Marxism is an ideology, not a movement, but it has manifested as movements. Reliable sources show that the alt-right is a right-wing movement of multiple ideologies that are not mainstream conservatism. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Rewording request to put into article with sources: The alt-right is a movement of right-wing ideologies that are an alternative to mainstream conservatism. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

Sources are a mess, I'd appreciate if someone who knew how could clean them up. Thanks. Denarivs (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but I've templated the bare urls and fixed the ref names. If I've done anything wrong, please inform me. Me, Myself & I (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was looking for. Thanks so much. Denarivs (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Sourcing: There is a significant intellectual problem that Wikipedia is contributing to by seeking traditional (mainstream) sources that supply editorial filtering of content, when the ascent and increasing dominance of political discourse is conducted outside of those traditional circles precisely because those traditional editorial filters have demonstrated consistent bias. And where we see today's political movements as extremely reactionary, on all three points of the political compass. The contemporary version of Paris in the 20's is taking place on the internet, and instead of pamphlets that compete against newspapers, we are producing internet content against television, radio, magizine and newspaper. Precisely to overthrow the previous generation of thinkers and the political strategies that they advocate on both sides.

I'm probably the most influential alt-right philosopher, and my generation of thinkers does not even bother with traditional publications. We work entirely on the net. Because we reach the audience without editorial interference from the status quo. A status quo which both right and left are demonstrably rejecting in the current election.

- Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.123.114 (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but this talk page is only for discussing the article itself. Sources, whether the text or sources meet our policies and guidelines, layout, wording, whatever. Your comments are interesting but irrelevant here, and this isn't a forum page. I think you know that are articles are meant to be based on quality sources and not the opinion of editors. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Circular. The question is whether or not you are in fact relying upon quality sources, or making excuses with which to intentionally bias the content. When you use the term 'quality', what you mean is 'sources requiring physical capital to produce'. This is in fact the criteria. The quality of the material is not in fact a criteria. The truth content is not in fact a criteria. Only that it cost someone something to produce it. That is your criteria. In any event. I have better things to do. But falsehood is still falsehood. And in the current era, capital is not relevant. Author and survival of theory from criticism is. -Curt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.93.216.179 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with The Truth, only with the truth. And Wikipedia certainly doesn't concern itself with your search for the truth, no matter how truthy it may be. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"The term became more frequent after it was introduced"

Really? It became more frequent after it was introduced? Do some terms become less frequent after they've been introduced? I've already said that Spencer didn't introduce the term, but this just makes the lead look silly. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure (okay, I'm absolutely positive, lol) that the sentiment here is accurate, but I wholeheartedly agree that it's one of the worst phrasings I've seen in a while.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It works. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I changed the word "introduced" to "used" to fix it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

" It has "more in common with European far-right movements than American ones""

This needs to go. The 2nd source[1] doesn't back it, and one comment isn't enough for it to be in the lead. Connor added it first with the Rose Gray source, it was removed by someone and replaced by User:Denarivs with the Washington Post source. And we can't have two sources for a quotation, only one person said it. So the only source we have is Rosie Gray. In other words, not enough sources to even mention it, and certainly not in the lead which is meant to be a summary of the article, not introduce material not discussed in the article. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I repeat, it needs to go. We can't state it as a fact based on one reporter's article, and it certainly doesn't belong in the lead even if attributed and not stated as a fact. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's moved. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"This support is largely based on the heavy value the alt-right places on strength and authority."

This is about Trump, sourced again to the Washington Post article[2] and to Betsy Woodruff's article.[3] Neither source uses the words strength or authority. Woodruff only casually mentions Trump saying that they like him but gives no reason. The Post article does quote Spencer saying "Why Trump is attractive to Identitarians and the alt Right is: a) he is a tougher, superior man than 'conservatives' (which isn’t saying much)," but that's not enough to back the text. Hm, before the current version the sources were Betsy Woodruff and the Cornell Review.[4] In fact, that was the only source (and attributed) in the first version of this article. So the text was kept and 2 new sources added. I don't know who added them. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

So what Spencer said should be a quote attributed to him? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction as to origin

The lead says the term was introduced in 2010. The body of the article says earlier. Again, the lead should summarise the main body of text, and certainly not contradict it. Doug Weller talk 11:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed that. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Originated in America implies it exists elsewhere

Which more or less by definition it can't. It's an alternative to American mainstream conservatism. Doug Weller talk 21:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternative to mainstream conservatism generally. It includes the European New Right also. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No it does not. Alfred Clark can say what he wants to, that doesn't make it true. Even our article on the European New Right doesn't make that claim. It relates it to the Second New Right in the US. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Zeitgeist? NPOV?

First, why mention NPOV when restoring WP:UNDUE material? Our NPOV policy is a reason for removal. The word was used by a minor blogger on a minor fronge website, there is no evidence it is a significant view discussed in several reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Even being generous, the alt-right is not much of a zeitgeist. By definition, that would mean that it's not an alternative. They may wish they were the zeitgeist, just like every political movement, but that's not what the word means. Saying that it "has been described as" is WP:WEASEL, since the person describing it as such is not attributed, reliable, or neutral. It's a pretentious buzzword anyway. Pretentious language from Radix? I know, I know, what a shocker. Grayfell (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

How many sources should we need to mention a 'belief'?

Let's look at policy (policy, not guidelines mind). WP:NPOV says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject"

So I'm going to start answering my question by saying more than one. And as an aside, I don't consider Alfred Clark to meet WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 06:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Compiling a long list of sources of individuals all stating the same thing, then attributing that view to a group to which they belong is synthesis. To state that X is a belief of the alt-right, we cannot use (for example) 50 alt-right sources saying "I believe X", we need a reliable source that says "the alt-right believes X."

So to answer your question: Ideally, only one. However, most sources writing about the alt-right will either be alt-right itself, or be opposed to the alt-right. So I think if we can find three or four reliable sources which are generally opposed to the alt right, we would be in good territory. If we can find two or three reliable alt-right sources, we would be good, as well. The best case scenario I can imagine actually happening is that we get one or two anti-alt-right sources, and one or two pro-alt-right sources. Provided they all say "the alt-right believes X", that should be enough. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that examples would be synth, but as I've said before, I don't get why were are trying to divide sources into "pro" and "anti". Either a source is reliable for a point or it isn't. When discussing a fringe political movement, we shouldn't be obligated to second guess a source just because it acknowledges its opposition to the movement's racism/anti-semitism/facism/whatever. Some sources seem to embrace parts of the alt-right while distancing themselves from others, also. WP:BIASED sources are not unreliable sources. If a source is otherwise reliable for statements of fact, the opinions of the reporter aren't invalidated just because they are obvious. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell about sources. My real point is that if something has only been discussed by one source it simply isn't significant enough per WP:UNDUE, and we shouldn't be using beliefs only mentioned by Clarke. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't explain myself about that. I divide sources into 'pro-' and 'anti-' because it helps determine their reliability for a given claim. For instance, a positive claim (such as the claim that the alt-right gives more money to charity, not that I'm saying they do) which came from an anti- source which was otherwise reliable would, itself be considered reliably sourced, whereas a negative claim (such as the claim that they commit more hate crimes, which again, I'm not saying they do) from an otherwise reliable 'anti-' source would be suspect, due to their ideological bias. The inverse would be true of 'pro-' sources. If there were a claim which were made by both 'pro-' and 'anti-' sources, then whether it was positive, negative or neutral, we could take that as true. That's all I was getting at; the question of reliability for the specific usage in question. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think we need to keep in mind that leaderless movements leave an 'out' for members to distance themselves from negative comments or activites. If a source attributes an ideology to movement, than a refutation by a member of that movement needs to be weighed critically. We can't use specific examples for what they believe, nor for what they don't believe. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Alfred Clark

Put bluntly, he fails WP:RS. He should be removed and any claims of his for which he is the sole source also removed. The Voice Herald only mentions anti-Semites, and so far I can't find anything that shows it meets our criteria. Leaving us with Rosie Gray who says "t draws upon relatively obscure political theories like neoreaction or the “Dark Enlightenment,”" and " undergirded by some of the ideas espoused by Dark Enlightenment or neoreactionary thinkers like the English philosopher Nick Land and the the American computer programmer Curtis Yarvin (aka “Mencius Moldbug”). Land and Yarvin have for years espoused a rejection of democracy and a return to traditional authoritarian structures. But the Dark Enlightenment thinkers are the definition of inaccessible; both Land and Yarvin’s writings are eye-glazingly verbose." - which doesn't mean that it includes believers in those, just that it draws upon theories such as theirs. She does mention anti_Semitism and white supremacism.

What else does she say it includes besides white supremacism and anti-Semitism? Is " monarchism, European New Right, populism, American secessionism, neoreaction, social Darwinism, nativism,reactionism, racialism, white nationalism, traditionalism, identitarianism, and archeofuturism" really based almost all on Clark? And why doesn't it mention anti-Semitism when all 3 sources mention it? Clark's saying there are diverse attitudes towards Jews still accepts that there are anti-Semites in the alt-right. Another source, Cathy Young, mentions it -"a nest of anti-Semitism". I'll add anti-Semitism to the lead and this description, but am waiting a while before removing badly sourced material. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no source for anti-Semitism being an ideology in the alt-right, it's WP:OR. That's not a reliable source to use for your point. Nor has a source being able to show how white supremacism is an ideology within the alt-right. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again I haven't a clue what you mean. We have several sources for each. Doug Weller talk 21:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It never said your points for this article. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

What does that mean? I've taken you to WP:ANEW. Doug Weller talk 21:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It means you're wrong. White supremacism is not a reliable terming in the article if we take into account all the political factors behind labeling the alt-right as such and sources defining the alt-right differently than other sources. We already have white nationalism mentioned, it'd be redundant to include white supremacism as an alt-right ideology. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

WS is more specific. It is sourced. We don't take into account political factors to determine what goes into an article, we use sources. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, it may be sourced but that's not what I meant. I meant political bias and POV, or even lies are told by mainstream political commentators such as in the USA. When sources are contradictory, we should try to understand. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No we really shouldnt start speculating, we should just go with the mainstream view and give any non-mainstream views the degree of weight that reliable sources suggest they are due.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• This source is like ground beef that's been soaked in motor oil: We can't eat it, we can't compost it, and we can't recycle it. It's time to throw it out. Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did 'leftist' replace "meaningless" in the text that read "The alt-right rejects terms like sexist, homophobic, racist, and bigot as meaningless"

This started as "Sources on the left and right note that the alt-right rejects terms like “racist” and “bigot” as meaningless and displays a contempt for political correctness". It now reads "The alt-right rejects terms like sexist, homophobic, racist, and bigot as Leftist, a proverbial badge of honor, and displays a contempt for political correctness" The Weekly Standard source says " Rather than concede the moral high ground to the left, the alt right turns the left's moralism on its head and makes it a badge of honor to be called "racist," "homophobic," and "sexist.""[5] Looking at the Newsday source,[6] have I missed a reason to use it as a source? It's the only one of the two that uses the word "bigot":". After making a post on Twitter last week mentioning the movement’s repulsive bigotry, I received such comments as, “I know, once goyim stop being corralled and browbeaten with the word ‘bigot’, the jews (sic) lose all their power. #DeportJewsNow.”" which isn't enough to use the word. And why was and is "reject terms like "racist" in our article when the source calls it a badge of honor to be called "racist"? User:Denarivs, you wrote the original wording, can you explain?

User:Connor Machiavelli, you added "leftist" just before the article was protected, could you please explain how the sources justify it? I'd like your take also on how rejected terms can be a badge of honor.

I doubt that this is the only problem with the use of sources in this article. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You yourself showed how The Weekly Standard can be used to justify it, since The Weekly Standard said those terms are used for leftist moralism. Rejected terms can be a badge of honor in this case, and this is because terms used to enforce political correctness/leftist moralism like 'racist', 'sexist', etc. being thrown at alt-righters would be considered by anti-PC, non-Leftist people such as adherents of the alt-right, as a success at getting their point across about their beliefs, which they often do, as mentioned in Newsday, and elsewhere, like on their connection to Gamergate. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You are interpreting the source, which does not say that the terms "racist", "homophobic" or "sexist" are leftist terms. Which is a good thing because they aren't. You can be conservative and still see those things as wrong, surely? I also note that you are introducing political correctness into this discussion despite its not being used by the source. I'm not sure what the connection between the text in question is with Gamergate. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The source does say they are terms used for leftist moralism. Leftists aren't historically who popularized the terms is what you're claiming? I'm not saying many conservatives don't see it as wrong, but why would a conservative see leftist moralism as right? Political correctness is used by another word in the source, and that word is leftist moralism. The extreme political incorrectness is the connection with Gamergate. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The source doesn't say the terms are leftist, it suggests that they are used by leftists as moral attacks. I don't understand " Political correctness is used by another word in the source, and that word is leftist moralism." How can a word use political correctness? Once again, the source doesn't mention political correctness (or incorrectness). Doug Weller talk 19:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but conservatives in general reject themselves being called these things. I think it'd be making more sense the other way around, political correctness using a word. Words such as 'racist', 'sexist', etc. promote political correctness, they utilize leftist moralism. Do you want me to grab a source that shows 'racist', 'sexist', etc. are those sorts of terms? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be asserting that one must be left-wing to accuse another of being racist, which is not true. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Or that conservative gays wouldn't use the word homophobic because they would think it left wing. And how do these words protect political correctness? This is confusion mixed with OR and worrying in an editor who had done just under half the edits in the article. Need to do some ref checking. Doug Weller talk 21:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Mjolnir, I'm just saying what is commonly known as political correctness is left-wing, that's common knowledge isn't it? Doug Weller, I never said not using the word homophobic at all in any sort of context, just that it's something part of leftist moralism. Also look at Milo Yiannopoulos, he's a gay conservative but he's what would be called a homophobe. I may have been a bit under half of all the edits on the article, but I have not contributed the bulk of the article, which is what Denarivs has done. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ummm.... Homophobia is generally held to be contempt or hatred for gay people. By definition, an openly and happily gay person cannot be homophobic. Also, I did a google search for the word "homophobic" and his name, and got no results on the first several pages calling him homophobic. I got no results at all for searching for his name with "homophobe". This is a torturous twist of logic. Also, political correctness is more strongly associated with the political left, but it's certainly not exclusive to the left. "Job creators" instead of "the rich," "class warfare" instead of "egalitarianism," "white nationalism" instead of "racism". "All lives matter," "intelligent design," "strong central government," etc, etc, etc... The only difference is that the political left applies their political correctness to a wider variety of people. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

He's not homophobic, even if he wishes he weren't gay he still has gay relationships. But he is always irrelevant. Connor, not only do you not understand the word, you don't seem to understand much of this. And your world view seems to be that if you aren't conservative or alt-right your're left-wing, and that only left-wingers see sexism, homophobia, etc as bad. Those words are not leftist and we shouldn't suggest that they are. They are not used exclusively be leftists. You talk about "political correctness" and even link to the article but you clearly haven't read it or if you have you've misunderstood it as it doesn't say political correctness is left-wing but a term often used to criticise the left (and not just the left). What I still see is you trying to interpret the source, which does not call these terms left-wing. And although someone else wrote the original article, you are still the major editor here. Doug Weller talk 06:31, March 10, 2016‎

For what it is worth, I can see what Connor Machiavelli implies about the use of the terms by the political left. The terms "racist" or "sexist" are far from exclusive to this part of the political spectrum, but are often used as terms of abuse to brand political or ideological opponents. In some cases this leads to a typical Reductio ad Hitlerum: You said something even remotely racist, that makes you a Nazi. In my country at least, Greece, this is a rather typical tactic of the Communist Party of Greece and other leftist parties.

But as our article on political correctness points, this kind of correctness is not exclusive to the left. "the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which – unlike the liberal version – has lots of power and money behind it. And the goal is very much the kind of thing Orwell tried to convey with his notion of Newspeak: to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order."

But we can not link either term to the "left" unless our sources say so. Dimadick (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

European new right

This is one of the problems of using Radix as a source. We are using someone called "Alfred W. Clark", whoever he is, as an authoritative source to state stuff as fact. But also cherrypicking which to use. He wrote " includes identitarians and archeofuturists, race realists and HBD bloggers, the European New Right (ENR), edgelords, neo-reaction (NRx) and reaction (Rx), trad Christians, neo-pagans, white nationalists, PUAs," - It makes as much sense to include the European new right as it does to include pickup artists (PUAs). Or edgelords, whatever they are. The source isn't a reliable source by our criteria and in any case we seriously need multiple sources, otherwise it isn't a significant view. Please read WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 21:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's reliable to include what the alt-right believes themselves, which is what is meant in the context of the sentence on this article. Significant view. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This assumes that Clark is an expert in what the entire alt-right believes, which absolutely needs some solid outside sourcing. Otherwise anyone could throw up a blog and claim to be an expert. Since the source is both an opinion piece, and is published on an unreliable platform, Clark's opinions about the alt-right are not automatically significant views. They are just one guy's opinions among thousands of Internet posters who identify as the alt-right. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What Grayfell said. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And we shouldn't choose which beliefs to include and which to ignore, why leave any out? Without multiple sources we shouldn't include any belief. Doug Weller talk 22:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, Radix is a big, popular resource for the alt-right. And what that article from Radix said on ideologies does basically agree with other sources from the alt-right and outside. What else could we use that is accurate about the alt-right from themselves? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Size and popularity are irrelevant for determining the reliability of a source, although they may sometimes lead to attention from reliable sources. This isn't one of those cases, though. If it agrees with reliable sources, use the reliable sources. The only reason to include Radix is to shoehorn in some additional details, which is a form of editorializing. Since we cannot assume that the Radix blog post is accurate, we cannot use it. If there are no reliable sources from within the alt-right, then so be it, we should rely on outside sources anyway. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Why can't we assume that Radix is a reliable source for what the alt-right believes? At the very least, what they say they believe? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I Why assume it is? As has already been discussed multiple times, it doesn't have the reputation for accuracy and fact-checking which is required by WP:RS. The reader is left with no way to understand who Clark is, or why he was reposted by Radix's blog. Why should we try so hard to include alt-right beliefs which are only supported by alt-right sources? Articles should be built on Wikipedia:Third-party sources, and trying to dig-up examples of what they truly believe is original research. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I already stated why to use it. What? Alfred W. Clark is a blogger. Radix agrees with the definition, so they posted it. Why not? On Wikipedia, we should show readers what the others who were written about actually believe, right? We should include what the alt-right believes entirely, it could be supported by outside sources. As if by necessity you say, why would that be original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 23:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

As I just said, being big and popular are irrelevant. Radix's (supposed) popularity as a resource for the alt-right doesn't make it usable. A blogger doesn't matter just because you say he does. There are hundreds if not thousands of alt-right bloggers out there. We are not trying to create a comprehensive list of every belief held by the alt-right. Even if it were desirable or possible to do that, why should we trust Clark to provide that list? As far as I can tell, the selection of this one blog is only supported by the opinion that it's relevant. That's not the standard Wikipedia uses. Since this person is not a recognized expert on the alt-right, his opinion is just one example among many. This one unreliable opinion piece should not be used to make factual statements about the movement at all. I'll re-explain the OR thing if you really want, but I've already given plenty of other reasons not to use this source. Grayfell (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, the policy on self-published sources that you linked to does not ban all self-published sources. After stating why they are suspect for Wikipedia purposes, it continues with the following:

• "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook." Dimadick (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

True, that's what our policy says. Related to this is the discussion at RSN about using the American Renaissance Magazine.[7] As User:JYTdog has said there, " One [issue]which has been surfaced is whether this is UNDUE (which is what folks are referring to when they say "notability" - notability is a criteria for whether articles exist, not for content within an article.) In my view, I wouldn't use this source for a statement unless that statement has been found to be important enough to be reported on by other independent secondary sources - they are what keep us sane - they are what guide decisions about WP:WEIGHT." And that's my attitude about using Clark. Another issue is that no one can actually speak for the alt-right, it isn't as though it's a membership organisation. We could attribute a statement to him but again we hit WP:UNDUE. For a movement like this I think we really need independent reliable sources. We could also perhaps use, attributed, notable figures stating that they are part of the alt-right. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller, RamZPaul is who the edgelord meme comment is meant for, it's just a comment on his personality. I know who he is and I clicked on that word in the article and was brought to his YouTube. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Nativism is redundant, and the source for it includes self-declared fascists

That's a dab page, but I presume it should be "Nativism (politics), a term used by scholars to refer to ethnocentric beliefs relating to immigration and nationalism". Isn't this redundant? What I assume is the source says "" this amalgam includes neo-reactionaries, monarchists, nativists, populists, and even a few self-declared fascists." If they used the normal meaning of nativist, they meant what our article on nativism means. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, will fix that then. Should we include Fascism? Denarivs disagreed with doing that. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is Nativism redundant? For what I can see it is the standard opposition to immigration, immigrants, and other newcomers, and has several centuries of history. By comparison "Fascism" is relatively recent. Dimadick (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

We already mention opposition to immigration and immigrants. I note that its first use is correctly sourced to the Weekly Standard, its second use is sourced to so far as I can see sources that don't use the term. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"strong focus on identity" sourced to an article on The Angry Birds movie on a website part owned by Disney

One source, an article in Fusion, the website of Fusion (TV channel) part owned by Disney, about The Angry Birds movie.[8] by a reporter specialising in the Internet and technology.[9] This was in the original version but worded " sources both within the alt-right and outside it have pointed out their strong focus on identity" with an additional source an interview with Richard Spencer on the Radix website. Anyone really think that an IT writer in a Disney owned website writing about a children' movie qualifies as a source? Besides Denarivs, and I hope no longer Denarivs. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

One could argue that this is simple journalism, and as such is acceptable via WP:NEWSORG. That being said, the article is about the reactions of people online to an animated movie. Furthermore, the title and the text conflate the terms "far-right" and "racist," which is very POVish. Finally, there's no sourcing for any of the statements the author makes about the alt-right (referred to in the article as "far-right") or even any indication of prior investigative work. All in all, it seems to pass the bare minimum standards for sourcing, but that's it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sufficient for a statement of fact. I forgot to add what the writer wrote: ", a broad set of internet-native, identity-obsessed provocative far-right wingers of varying stripes". There's another problem, how is a reader to know what "identity" means? The ADL[[10] says "Though not every person who identifies with the Alt Right is a white supremacist, most are and “white identity” is central to people in this milieu.", "Alt Right adherents identify with a range of different ideologies that put white identity at their center", "Alt Righters like to try to use terms such as “culture” as substitutes for more lightning rod terms such as “race,” or promote “Western Civilization” as a code word for white culture or identity." I wouldn't use that as a statement of act but would attribute a quote perhaps. Another source that briefly mentions identity politics links the alt-right with anime.[11] Should we use the source and make that link (I'd say now without more sources). This source (Vice (magazine)[12] interviews Richard Spencer who says he prefers to be called an identitarianist to white supremacist.[13] After writing this it seems pretty obvious we need to explain this word and can't just drop it into the article. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's sufficient for a statement of fact, so long as that fact is uncontroversial and simple (something between "the sky is blue" and "Republicans are conservative"). I'm not sure about this one, though. I think there might be a blowback from right-leaning editors who understand the connotations of "identity", and confusion from readers of any political bent who don't. I'm not opposing it, really. I just want to hear what some of our more right-wing editors have to say about it before I make up my mind. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I linked it to identity politics, but kept it as saying 'identity'. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

“Western Civilization” as a synonym to white culture? I though the term included both the minorities of European and European-influenced cultures, and other societies that have underwent Westernization. Dimadick (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It does refer to all of European (and surrounding areas) culture, but I have seen this with my own eyes. part of my family tends to be rather (read: extremely and embarrassingly) right-wing, and I have some white-supremacists relatives. I've heard them talk about how Jews, Persians, Mexicans, African-Americans and Eastern Europeans aren't part of "Western culture". I've seen the term used on stormfront.org, too. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Vagueness

There is much discussion above about the availability, quality, and reliability of sources, but I don't know if anyone has noticed how vague several sentences currently sound.

• "a group of right-wing ideologies that are an alternative to mainstream conservatism." What exactly is mainstream conservatism? Because the link points to the article on conservatism which covers various ideological strains around the world, starting with the appearance of the Tory movement in the 17th century.
• "It has "more in common with European far-right movements than American ones"" The movement itself is not said to be either European or American in origin. So the comparison leaves unclear whether it is simply an extension of the European far-right.
• "is unified by support for Donald Trump". If the movement is specifically tied to the United States presidential election, 2016, it might be too recent to have been noticed as a trend before 2015. The Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 points that Trump only entered the campaign game in June, 2015, less than a year ago.
• "The alt-right is younger than mainstream conservatism." Younger as a movement or younger in a demographic sense?
• "Jeet Heer of New Republic identifies the alt-right as having ideological origins in the paleoconservatism movement." So much for being alternative. Paleoconservatism already includes established views (mostly in opposition) to "military interventionism, illegal immigration and high rates of legal immigration, ... multiculturalism, affirmative action, free trade, and foreign aid." What is the difference here?
• "Some in the alt-right describe it as a big tent collection of belief systems which encompasses... archeofuturism". The latter is a term used by Guillaume Faye to cover his own views on "combining traditionalist spirituality and concepts of sovereignty with the latest advances in science and technology." Despite its name, I am not sure if it has anything to do with Futurism, the Italian artistic and social movement that glorified "speed, technology, youth, and violence". If they are connected, the connection might not be that alternative either. The Futurist movement was politically allied with the Fascism movement of Benito Mussolini and mostly went extinct with the end of his regime.
• "sources ... note the alt-right's strong opposition to both legal and illegal immigration and their hardline stance on the European migrant crisis." While I suppose the other political movements support "illegal immigration"? Last I checked the opposition to immigration is widespread.
• "In addition, the alt-right has a strong focus on identity." Which means what exactly?
• "Members of the alt-right use social media and the internet to organize and share their beliefs" And the difference with just about any 21st-century movement and fan community is?
• "The alt-right rejects terms like sexist, homophobic, racist, and bigot as Leftist, a proverbial badge of honor, and displays a contempt for political correctness." And what is exactly the difference with the average right-winger here? Our article on Political correctness is virtually a list of people and movements who display "a contempt" for the very concept.
• "reporter Rosie Gray describes the alt-right as "white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times", and notes that it uses "aggressive rhetoric and outright racial and anti-Semitic slurs"." Now that is a modern concept. White supremacy and Antisemitism in the 21st century. The main problem is that both movements are quite old and never really died out to begin with.
• "the alt-right are not neo-Nazis, although often some hold similar beliefs, such as Holocaust denial, which they also identify as historical revisionism." So they are not classic Neo-nazis but are still influenced by rather familiar 20th-century ideologies.
• Jay Nordlinger criticized the movement's "artistic homoeroticism". The article does not speak at all about art produced by the movement, so it is unclear what homoeroticism Nordlinger is even talking about.
• "Some sources have connected the alt-right and Gamergate, such as through Milo Yiannopoulos." Gamergate as in modern sexism and misogyny? If the alt-right is male-dominated and misogynist, this the only source that implies it.
• "Michael Dougherty writing in The Week describes the alt-right as radical working class white people who are dismayed by globalization and contemptuous of "permanent members of the political class"." A decent description as it stands, but if the dismay on globalization is a unifying theme, one should note there is already an anti-globalization movement. As for contempt for the "political class", call me biased but I thought that was not a recent phenomenon.
• Rick Wilson described the alt-right as consisting of "childless single men who masturbate to anime". He might be confusing anime with hentai pornography, though I am rather surprised to see mention of the sexual life of the vaguely-defined movement.

I read the whole article, and I still don't have the foggiest clue about what makes the "alt-right" alternative to begin with. All the vague sentences add up to the movement holding a number of traditional and/or widespead ideologies but somehow being new. Are we sure this is not a rebranding of decisively familiar concepts? Dimadick (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to get a fresh perspective. This has been nagging me. Yes, what I see is rebranding. But it's not paleoconservativem and (original research as it's my opinion) I think Heer is wrong in suggesting it has ideological roots in paleoconsrvatism. I think Rosie Gray has it right, this is repackaged white supremacism/white nationalism, yet another attempt but a more successful one to rebrand something that is much less acceptable under a label that has "white" in it. The only thing new here is the name. As you've noticed, the article is also a bit of a hodgepodge (appropriate I guess). Archeofuturism is basically a European thing, picked up by some of the more intellectual pushers of the alt-right term but I wonder how many Americans who generally share this group of beliefs have ever heard of it, let alone identify with it.

But the term is discussed enough I guess to make it notable. It will be interesting to see any academic analysis of it. Meanwhile any suggestions for improving the article? I think that arecheofuturism and artistic homoeroticsm should go. I note that when that was added, Rosie Gray's comment "According to Rosie Gray, "The alt right’s targets don’t include just liberals, blacks, Jews, women, Latinos, and Muslims, who are all classified a priori as objects of suspicion...The alt right’s real objective, if one can be identified, is to challenge and dismantle mainstream conservatism." was removed as WP:UNDUE. Which seems very odd. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

So there is more information needed for this article, and not less? Clarifying this article would be good, but I don't think we can have that if this article is deleted/merged into Richard Spencer. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dimadick is suggesting that some material should be removed, I believe. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, like on the Neo-Nazi one for example, it appears he's suggesting more information is needed there on that, but I don't know. Let's see what he says. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I am suggesting is that despite the use of sources, the article fails to define both what the movement is about and what makes it alternative. The sources above do not define it as American, European, or international, which makes it uncertain what it is being contrasted with. And several of the ideologies linked with it are actually familiar 20th-century ideologies or even older, so it is unclear what is new or "alternative" about it. As the article was when I last checked it, I could not even tell if the sources are talking about the same subject. Dimadick (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Dimadick would you like to make some specific proposals? It seems to be alternative to American main stream conservatism. But the article does need clarity. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see whether the sources treat it as an American movement, rather than a Wikipedia-assumption that it is. That at least would define the political and geographic scope. And to see some restrain from making this article a list of unconnected sentences lifted from various sources. What the average source may assume is common knowledge to its (usually local) readers, is probably not so for Wikipedia's international audience.

When I see Monarchism among the ideas connected to the alt-right, I am instantly reminded of several old European political movements and their representatives. In several European countries, monarchy had substantial support in their population and had an effect in their political course. In Greece, for example, much of its 20th century history was shaped by conflict and rivalry between pro-monarchy and anti-monarchy forces (Venizelism, socialism, communism). In the Greek republic referendum, 1974 which finally resolved the situation, monarchists represented 30.82% of the total voters. While that support has dwindled demographically in the following decades, hero-worship of the Greek monarchs and their supporters is still a traditional element of right-wing politics. Dimadick (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, sources for it being American. The ADL source says "Identitarians espouse racism and intolerance under the guise of preserving the ethnic and cultural origins of their respective counties. American Identitarians such as Richard Spencer claim to want to preserve European-American (i.e., white) culture in the U.S."[14], while Rosie Gray says " The white nationalists of the alt right share more in common with European far-right movements than American ones." and quotes Spencer:"The alt right is “radically different from George W. Bush, the conservative movement, etc. It really was a notion of an alternative.” The New Republic says "Many of these [American] writers seeded the ideas that helped form the alt-right, which is the faction on the right that is most enthusiastic for Trump.[15] The New Yorker, speaking of Trump, says that " His slumming among what the journalist Rosie Gray has called the “alt right” is by necessity."[16] - which gives more credibility for using Gray, by the way. Al-Jazeera[17] writes about American politics of the left and right including the alt-right. It's beliefs include American secessionism. The Weekly Standard source says "Indeed, the true conflict facing Republicans is not with the social democrats who've taken over the American left, but within the soul of American conservatives. Namely, a new, highly heterogeneous force in right-wing politics is taking hold, and they have their sights set firmly on the Republican "establishment." Known collectively as the "alternative right,". I wouldn't expect many American sources to state explicitly that it was American. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps these sources should be quoted and emphasized on the article to make this clear. Particularly the one which distinguishes it from George W. Bush. It is the clearest indication to what the "mainstream" that they reject is. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"or alt-conservatism"?

I'm not seeing the sources for this identification. The source Connor presumably has in mind is the Washington Post article[18] which says " "Alt conservatism" is hard to pin down but easy to define: It rejects modernism and libertarianism. It's generally more isolationist than mainline conservatism, and it's certainly much more cool to multiculturalism. In European multiparty politics, this kind of conservatism usually forms the basis for a splinter party. In the United States, where third parties are largely irrelevant, alt conservatism has sought out occasional champions within the GOP. In 2007, Spencer himself was a founder of the Robert F. Taft Club, which hosted speeches and debates by politicians like then-Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.). In 2015, it's Donald Trump and the "Make America Great Again!" message that appeals most strongly to alt-cons."

This clearly doesn't try to define "alt conservatism" but suggests it's been around quite some time, unlike the alt-right.

This source doesn't mention "alt-right" other than in 2 quotes from Spencer. ""#Cuckservative” is a full-scale revolt, by Identitarians and what I’ve called the 'alt Right,' against the Republican Party and conservative movement," and "Why Trump is attractive to Identitarians and the alt Right".

IMHO we don't have nearly enough to use "alt-conservatism" as an alternative name. The source itself is ambiguous at best and we'd need multiple reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I forgot: at Alternative Right we have "Conservative critiques include E.D. Kain's contention at True/Slant, that "the far-right-wingers at Alternative Right represent the ugly – and yes racist – underbelly of 'alt' conservatism. This is white nationalism, folks, dressed up in faux-intellectualism."" So there's a mention of "alt-conservatism", correct? With a redirect to this article which I will probably take to MfD. The problem is that it doesn't suggest that alt-conservatism is another name for the "alt-right" movement - it's discussing a website and not only that making a distinction between the website and alternative conservatism by calling it the "under-belly". Doug Weller talk 09:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

References