Talk:Alt-left

No consensus on deletion
Per an existing consensus of editors, a merge discussion has followed the closing of the deletion discussion as no consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

how do i vote? 2001:8003:117E:6D00:4D16:66C5:793E:541E (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like you figured it out.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that the closer correctly recognized that most of the delete !votes weren't based on policy and were basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The closer recognized both like and dislike towards the subject, linking to WP:ILIKEIT. Wikipedia is not “fair,” it is netural, and articles are not kept or deleted because editors like or dislike a subject. The comments made without a rationale based in policy have been discounted. The closer also addressed the policy-based arguments of both sides and in the end they were equal enough to produce a no consensus closure; please do not carry over bitterness towards a certain position from previous discussions into this one. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Except there were a bunch of delete !votes based on policy? Maybe your vote was WP:ILIKEIT? :) NoMoreHeroes (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal discussion
Should the Alt-left article be merged into the Alt-right article in the section Alt-left and expanded there?

Editors are reminded of the closing admin's comment about !votes at that AFD; "Many of the comments in this discussion are not based upon Wikipedia policy; they are merely a reflection of trying to be “fair” or trying to delete an article about a term that the editor finds politically disagreeable. Wikipedia is not “fair,” it is netural, and articles are not kept or deleted because editors like or dislike a subject. The comments made without a rationale based in policy have been discounted." Please remember to be civil and maintain Wikipedia policy: There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Pay particular attention to Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Please, also remember that this may apply to some groups.

While normal mergers may be closed uncontroversially by any editor, because of the controversial nature of the article and the AFD, a request for admin closing will be made. --Mark Miller (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support or Redirect to Antifa (United States) for being a protologism that was created in order to balance out the left-right paradigm in America and the criticism received by the alt-right in the wake of the recent alt-right attacks. The majority of sources contain the word as a report on what Donald Trump said rather than reporting on the word as a legitimate subject. PBS: "As for the 'alt-left,' researchers who study extremist groups say there is no such thing." WP:NOTNEO & WP:TOOSOON apply here as well. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 08:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Those on the far right who use the term "alt-left" have stated that it refers to all opponents of Donald Trump; therefore a redirect to a very small hard-left movement such as Antifa (United States) would be wholly inappropriate. The opponents of Donald Trump are basically everyone who aren't part of the far right, from conservatives to the political left. --Tataral (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  A standalone page would be easier to edit than a merged one also there is evidence that trump is malicious in his use of the term and that the experts are wrong too there are those who call themselves altleft, the word has multipe uses and histories , i think the media has failed need broader histories and context   2001:8003:117E:6D00:4D16:66C5:793E:541E (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC) — 2001:8003:117E:6D00:4D16:66C5:793E:541E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - For a closing editor or admin not to discount this !vote, arguments to oppose the merge must be within Wikipedia guidelines and should be a discussion about how to determine consensus on the merge proposal, not arguments about the content itself. Try not to simply reflect your opinion of the subject. Be as specific as you can about policy and guidelines. If you are unsure about specific policies and guidelines as a new editor, you can always remove your current opinion for the moment, and read the other arguments and links provided to get a quick overview of the pertinent ones to look at. As more arguments and links appear, someone may support the same view you have but perhaps worded better. You can always just agree with another editor's assessment by posting something along the lines of "Oppose per [editor's name]. You can even add more by stating anything specific in their argument that you agreed with.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  With advice for future development. From WP:NEO Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. - I didn't previously support anything other than the mention of this term in a related article or a deletion if the term falls out of use or becomes irrelevant. However, virtually during the course of this debate, the term has gained enough usage that concepts have formed in reliable media which satisfy the above policy, i.e. There is reliable material which describes the term as a concept as opposed to simply using it (i.e. Trump). Differentiating between sources which contribute to an understanding of the term and sources which merely use the term when talking about a subject will be a key factor in avoiding synthesis in future contributions to this article. Edaham (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this. Many of the articles that specifically discuss this term (Politico for instance), discuss the coining of the term itself instead of using it to describe a tangible, non-abstract idea. Because of this, it is in my view certainly a neologism. Buffaboy  talk 04:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Meaning is wider than just the narrow scope of the antifa movements, and would seem to encompass many non-mainstream liberal (e.g. democrat) alternative leftist movements.Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC) For instance, this guy - - is claiming this started in the 1990s in usenet forums.Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -, is it possible this is simply discussing or reflecting your view of the subject. Could you elaborate on a reasoning why the article need not be merged? Are you perhaps arguing notability?--Mark Miller (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually misread the proposal and was responding to the Antifa suggestion, which I see as too narrow in scope. Regarding the proposal to merge alt right and alt left, well that would be akin to merging far left with far right, and makes even less sense. Alt left is a distinct concept and is widely used, so despite being new it should have a separate article. And probably the best thing to do witn this article is WAIT, and see what we have in a couple of months.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "that would be akin to merging far left with far right" – I do not agree. There is a far-left, and there is a far-right. There is not, however, any such thing as "alt-left;" that is merely a term invented by Trump in response to criticism of the self-identified alt-right. "Alt-left" wouldn't even exist as a neologism without the term "alt-right" having already existed and risen to prominence. Master of Time   ( talk ) 18:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification Icewhiz.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

have you read? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#The_Alt-Left_already_existed_prior_to_reinvention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.141.68.184 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The article was created simply to "even out" the fact there is an Alt-right article. However, "Alt-left" is just a neoclassicism without an actual meaning that has been caught in the media cycle and this much detail on it is WP:UNDUE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Alt-left is a neologism only notable for being used by some "alt-right" individuals/websites. It doesn't refer to a real movement that is notable independently of "alt-right." --Tataral (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Nearly all coverage mentions it exclusively in the context of the Alt-right (or in a single usage by the president); it has no independent notability and not enough independent coverage to support its own article. --Aquillion (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I see "alt-left" commonly defined in terms of its opposite (the radical fringe, just on the left instead of the right). I have not seen the term applied to an actual group of people whose members, activities, and goals can be discussed. - Brian Kendig (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A paragraph about the neologism at alt right would be enough. TheValeyard (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

altleft was used YEARS before trump by the self identified altleft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#The_Alt-Left_already_existed_prior_to_reinvention 110.141.68.184 (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This topic is independently notable and given the widespread coverage by reliable sources, there's plenty of material on which to base an article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This article reads like an expanded version of Alt-right. Since the term seems to be used almost entirely in relation to the alt-right, and it does not describe a political movement, there is no need for it to have an article of its own, especially when said article cannot seem to say anything new. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 23:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge / redirect to Alt-right where this section already exists. Oppose redirect to Antifa. The "alt-left" neologism only exists as defined by the Alt-right (and President Trump), so a discussion in the Alt-right article would be appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Because I hate articles that are two million lines long, and the topic seem deep enough to warrant its own article. ImTheIP (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Like User:ImTheIP I find that sort of double article unweildy. But also because the sourcing on the origins and use of this term: as a self-descriptor in a minor way, then - primarily - as an epithet to be extensive and an article therefore useful.  And also because I do not see it as confined to antifa.  Overall, I suggest that we let the article develop and see how definition develops over the next several months, keeping in mind the tendency for dismissive labels ("queer") to be be "flipped."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#The_Alt-Left_already_existed_prior_to_reinvention 2001:8003:117E:6D00:4C6C:DF57:410C:23B9 (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support There is no such thing as the Alt-Left. It's a concept used as part of the political language game. Because the Alt-Right has come in for criticism, they've decided to create the term. However, as a definable group of people, it doesn't exist. So yes it should simply be a paragraph on the Alt-Right page. Garageland66 (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 *  Oppose , it has a wider meaning than just the Antifa (United States) group. It should be a stand alone article, given the wider coverage. Kierzek (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, this article fits okay under the alt-right article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose term has multiple meanings, and has been extensively covered in reliable sources even before Trump's comments. The topic is independently notable and easily flies over the GNG, given its extensive coverage in reliable sources. CJK09 (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge. The main section Alt-right is not very long. There is plenty of remove in that section for the content. Before creating a new article the main article should be expanded first and become too large for the main article. This has not happened yet. What is the reason to have two pages for largely the same content? See WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The article was created by a sock. Thank you for considering my comments regarding these matters. Much appreciated. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 13:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: the last revision of Alt-left submitted by the banned sock puppet appears to have no prose in common with the current version. CJK09 (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support merge A quick Google news search, shows that there is almost no usage of this phrase, other than in local media. What little I can find, simply refers to being said by a speaker with a questionable history of word usage in the past. There would be no usage of this term, if it weren't for the existing alt-left article about white nationalists/supremacists/antisemites/neo-nazis. Nfitz (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. The alt-left is independently notable as per weight of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Zigzig20s Do you have some of those sources that make it notable? Everything I've seen merely theorizes upon it, says it doesn't exist, or is extreme-right or white-nationalist non-RS claiming that the centre-right and centre is the alt-left. By comparison to the alt-right being armed neo-nazis, white nationalists, and such, the alt-left would presumably be armed Marxists, communists, Sandanistas, etc., which might exist, but don't even talk English, let alone user that phrase. Nfitz (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see 20 RS already. We're not here to make judgement calls here. We simply relay content from reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The 20 in the article? I've opened several, and they discuss the term "alt-left", with phrases like "made-up" "there is no alt-left", etc. They might support that the term itself, is in use among fascists, but you are saying THE alt-left is notable. Which sources User:Zigzig20s make THE alt-left notable - because without an actual alt-left group, all that's left, is a merge to alt-right. Nfitz (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the phrase is notable as per weight of RS (20 here but I'm sure we could find more). We have Basket of deplorables and Binders full of women, so let's keep some perspective here.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are metaphores. The first one was deleted at AFD - I'm not sure why it hasn't been speedied. The second hasn't been discussed in so long, I'm not convinced it would survive a merger discussion to the campaign now it's long forgotten. Also this is about an actual group - that doesn't exist. Where are these far leftists, that would be the equivalent to the supremacists, white nationalists, neo-nazis, and militias that we've seen at far-right rallies? While alt-left is notable, so was Beckham's right foot; however Beckham's right foot doesn't have it's own article, for it doesn't exist without Beckham - the same way the alt-left doesn't exist without the alt-right. Nfitz (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#The_Alt-Left_already_existed_prior_to_reinvention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:34BB:C64A:BF90:EFDE (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - Per WP:APPNOTE, an appropriate, neutrally worded notification has been made on the WikiProjects whose scope this article falls under for a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to help form consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - To prevent excessive repetition, I encourage all editors to read in full if they haven't already |the discussion regarding deletion. To quickly filter the comments most relevant to this discussion, I recommend pressing CTRL+F and searching for "Redirect". BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, there's no need for a separate article here, and there isn't sufficient evidence that this is an independently notable word in its own right. Robofish (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support if it's just a neologism, not a real movement being described. Earthscent (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: keep in mind that rationales based in "I like it" or "I don't like it" are no less invalid in merge discussions than in deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Sources rarely discuss alt-left except in its connection to or as a counter to the alt-right- it's dwarfed in comparison to the alt-right, and is more better discussed as a subtopic of it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The subject is very shallow and lacking in serious examination by sources. It can easily be covered encyclopedically in a couple of paragraphs in the article that covers the subject that spawned this neologism. Including the alt-left material in the alt-right article frames it in the appropriate context, per WP:MERGEREASON.- MrX 13:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the topic is never going to be any more than a phrase as a counter-cultural-attack, or dog-whistle. The subject is inevitably associated solely with the "alt-right" topic to such an extent that it doesn't actually have any logical sense outside of a single article. Koncorde (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * support the proposal or to Antifa (United States). This term is completely RECENTISM driven by Trump's reaction to Charlottesville.  We don't do this.  See Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian for example which had way more RS, over a much longer period of time, than "alt-left".  Really, read the AfD.  Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. The alt-left is notable independently on it's own per a large number of RS. Merging makes no sense. 2605:E000:8412:4A00:A989:6384:80C7:26FE (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC) — 2605:E000:8412:4A00:A989:6384:80C7:26FE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Support Per Koncorde, PetertheFourth, and MrX. This is only "a thing" (to the extent that it even is "a thing") as a foil to the alt-right. That's where it should be discussed (briefly, since there's not much beyond that to say). Fyddlestix (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Independently notable and growing movement that is no long just notable because of their ties to the alt-right. Also NEO no longer applies, with the large and continued coverage by RS. Especially with the growing antifa (or anteefah depends on who you ask) movement, which has been tied by RS to the alt-left. PackMecEng (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Source for "movement"? Anti-fascist (and Antifa by extension) is standard left opposition to right wing populism. If anything "Alt-Left" is a casual attempt to rebrand Antifa with a neologism / pejorative. Koncorde (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was mentioning the link this article made to it here. But there are other souces like here and here. PackMecEng (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Those sources suggest that when people say alt-left they are referring to Antifa, which we already have an article on. They could be used to support a redirect there, but they don't demonstrate that alt-left is anything other than a synonym for something we already have an article about. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is correct, the sources I listed say antifa is one of the groups that is associated with the alt-left. I brought them up as a notable example and expanded when asked to. Not that they are the alt-left or the only group with them. Which is why its own article is warranted, that it is a broad term for several groups. PackMecEng (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles you list, starting with the Salon, specifically say the use of "Alt-Left" makes no sense and then explain why. Koncorde (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not list a Salon article? I listed a The atlantic, Vox, and NY Times. The atlantic states the use of the term in relation to the alt-left but says there is not a "moral equivalence". Vox says "alt-left exists, it’s probably best represented by antifa". Finally NY Times mentions "centrist liberals have taken to using this term" for alt-left. Hope that clears it up for you, but again its a term used for describing not just antifa, but the larger group of the alt-left. PackMecEng (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant the Atlantic which is blatant in dismissing the link. You have left out the important "if" from your Vox quote, and the article is about Antifa and specifically says that people didn't know (nor did Trump) what he was talking about. Meanwhile you have avoided the bulk of  the Times article that states "Researchers who study extremist groups in the United States say there is no such thing as the “alt-left.” Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League, said the word had been made up to create a false equivalence between the far right and “anything vaguely left-seeming that they didn’t like.”. I'll leave it at that. Koncorde (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The "if" does not change the meaning. Also since the mention by Trump, it is pretty clear by RS sources, they know what it means now if they did not at the time. Which shows expanding and continued coverage. The Times article is pretty weak on it, probably not the best choice. But again shows RS coverage of the subject. So in summary, lots of coverage by reliable secondary sources, no longer a neologism, grown to a independent subject from Alt-Right with its own distinct groups covered that are not related to them. Ticks all the boxes for WP:GNG. PackMecEng (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Asking "If aliens exist" is very different to stating "aliens exist". Your sources are still specifically all refuting the Alt-Left link, no matter how powerfully stupid someone is to repeat it. Koncorde (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point very few are refuting alt-left exists. For example here and here reguardless of your POV on how "powerfully stupid someone is to repeat it" ignoring the history of the term and how RS view it does not help. PackMecEng (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per the essay Does deletion help? Merger of information into a parent articles may also cause problems. A few questions to ask are; will said info be accessible with out having to read a huge amount of unrelated info beforehand, will a merger of information lead to less information because of the overview nature of parent articles, will the information on said topic in a parent article lead to less updates because of our undue weight policies? --Moxy (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, 's argument, and WP:MERGEREASON (specifically reason 2 [overlap] and 4 [context]). As has been noted by other contributors to this discussion, the alt-left term cannot be separated from the alt-right concept. While obviously not fully equivalent, the "overlap" element of MERGEREASON suggests that "flammable and non-flammable can both be explained in an article on flammability". As the alt-left term only exists in its use as a foil to alt-right, it would seem to make sense to cover it in that article. Similarly, the "overlap" element of MERGEREASON suggests that, if a "short article requires the background material or context from [another] article in order for readers to understand it [it is best merged]". As the alt-left term can really only be explained in the context of the alt-right concept, it would seem to make sense to cover it in that article. In short, a merge/redirect would seem appropriate. Guliolopez (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Object. It is more informative to have a direct entry on it. As long as it is notable, it's ok. If you think it is not, ping me with an argument and I'll reconsider. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge - Per my pledge to support a merge if there was no consensus on the AFD, here I am. Jdcomix (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: please read these parts of the altleft talk page
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#The_Alt-Left_already_existed_prior_to_reinvention
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-left#irl_altleft_movement 2001:8003:117E:6D00:34BB:C64A:BF90:EFDE (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sources Even as editors continue to argue that this should be metged, public intellectuals like Gil Troy continue to publish new articles in WP:RS publications like Time (magazine), Why the 'Alt-Left' Is a Problem. I don't know Troy, or wehter he readw Wikipedia, but right at the top he writes that the term "alt-left",  "has stirred silly arguments. Claiming there is no “alt-left” because no one calls themselves “alt-left,” ignores the long, colorful history of political nicknaming...."  He continues, engaging this neologism in terms that satisfy WP:NEO on all points.  As I have done above, I urge that we close this as keep and move on, secure that serious essays on this topic provide the sources for a good article - once emotions calm down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge to Alt-right, since it is a pejorative derived from that term, and having a separate article unhelpfully removes it from that context. Recent sources, following the only notable usage, pointing out that the word is rarely used and is basically meaningless (plus the article mentioned above claiming that it *actually* means what the writer assumes Trump meant), do not suggest it needs a separate article. Can always be split if the situation changes, and there is something else to add. zzz (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The wiki article needs further development and corrected content with facts. see < *I was in the original 'alt-left' and this is what we really stood for, The Independent. > Let us eat lettuce (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This wiki still under-developed, needs new antifa section. And alt-left is now notable enough to have its own wiki. Policypolicy (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support merge. Per the sources, this pejorative term is almost exclusively described in relation to the "alt-right" - can be handled best as part of that article. Neutralitytalk 22:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I request that the anonymous IP editor stop repeatedly spamming the article asserting that the term existed before the popularization of the term by the alt-right. Once is enough, posting it five times does not validate it. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose As stated by others, this term has been discussed by countless mainstream publication and the term has been used way before Trump's press conference. It certainly should have its own standalone article. It's also debatable whether this term was created by the alt right. This term had been used frequently by some liberals to demean Bernie supporters. Truthsort (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge as it's mainly known via the alt-right. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as it's a neologism introduced and mainly harped upon by far-right sources, it's a false equivalence for it to have its own article. Rockypedia (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Alt-right is a widely used, mainstream, notable term used by both sides of the coin. Alt-left is WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and had only brief mentions in MSM when Trump said it. Article is quite short and unlikely to expand given that the media has stopped talking about it (again, recentism). Like other comments said, "alt-left" has been mostly discussed by RS in the context of alt-right, not independently. This is not worthy of its own article. It's best described in a subsection in Alt-right. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Pickavage quote
Is this DUE, particularly for the lede? Thinking it is better in the body of the article...2600:1012:B045:6F26:74E3:53D:B921:3695 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * take a look at the edit summaries in the edit history. The source is at least valid and the quote is from a reputable academic. I was keen to revert it back to the body on reviewing the way that worded it initially, but the user was quite insistent that it remain there so I reworded it a bit per wp:attribute. In its current form it is at least attributed, devoid of NYT editorializing and relevant to an understanding of the term. Should it be removed? Further cited? Flip a coin Edaham (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - what did I tell you ;) Edaham (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember you specifically telling me that an IP with 2 edits would not be happy with your changes to my work ; ) Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If I'd left it as it was we'd have had up to nine IPs... some of them with up to four or five edits. Edaham (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you hear the one about the IP who couldn't find their house because their address kept changing. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Interestig that you can't be bothered to participate in the discussion at hand, but have time to discuss the fact that I edit from a cell phone (as I've stated multiple times). Curious if you have any commentary on the quote being UNDUE. 2600:1012:B04C:4EDD:EC38:434E:3AB6:808C (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * why did the ip editor cross the road? To make his fifteenth vote in an.....censored:AGF Edaham (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting that no one is willing to discuss the issue at hand, but has time to talk about the fact that I edit from a cell phone (which Ive disclosed). Any comments on the Pickavage quote being UNDUE? 162.194.160.55 (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well since we wrote it, clearly the two of us are comfortable that we've sufficiently satisfied policy to the point that we can put it there - I perhaps more tentatively so - as I think it requires further citations. An enormous number of the sources we have debate (and attempt to refute) the existence of an "alt-left", so it is certainly within due weight to address the topic of non-existence in the lede. Personally I'd like to see one or two more good quality sources, remove the attribution and return to something similar to the previous wording. I didn't notice your "disclosure", what's the name of your regular account with which you edit the encyclopedia? ... incidentally, did you hear the one about the IP editor who had fifty barnstars in his account? - he lost them all on the sock market....Edaham (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not even sure what your comment means. I don't have an account - I edit from my cell phone and occasionally work/home computer.  My understanding is this is entirely acceptable.  If I am required to register an account in order for my edits to be taken seriously, then I suppose I can do so.  Regarding the article, yes there are many sources debating the existence of the alt-left, just like there are many sources stating the term was coined back in 2016 by the left-wing.  My intention from the beginning is to simply make sure the article doesn't state contentious opinions as fact in WPs voice.  There is a decent amount of coverage for this term regarding its origins and whether it does or does not exist.  Some of the sources are in conflict with each other.  Is there a good reason as to why we can't represent these differing opinions, provided they aren't fringe? 23.120.44.158 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * you seem to be changing tack; first you were concerned about wp:due, now you are talking about wp:wiki voice. I think having a quote from an academic and researcher on the subject satisfies due. I personally added attribution, having had the same concerns about wikivoice. It sounds like you have a source to present containing a differing statement, which will pass wp:false balance because it is also from a similarly accredited academic or the like. Why don't you put it here in the talk page and then we can work out how to include it in the lede. If it's a new source we don't need a consensus for that, we can just follow wp:brd. The benefits of creating an account (or possibly a seventeenth), can be read about here Edaham (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your advice is very good, I will put it here on the talk page. Regarding the "seventeen account" thing, not sure why you are convinced I'm pretending to be multiple accounts.  If you notice, 90% of my edits have been to the talk page, not the article itself, and I've been pretty clear that it's been me every time on the talk page.  Im genuinely asking you to AGF.  Just because I am an IP does not mean I'm a vandal/sock. Thank you.  2600:1012:B007:CB14:E48C:AEF:7DC0:C6D1 (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was under no such conviction. I'm horrified that you might have thought I was referring to you as an item of foot aperatus! I'd simply gotten into the rhythm of suffixing my posts with a garment related quip. I will be sure to darn this hole in my otherwise unfrayed woolen.....sorry. Look forward to examining your stocking ... source! I mean source. Edaham (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am asking the question in good faith. Why are you convinced I am a sock? 2600:1012:B007:CB14:E48C:AEF:7DC0:C6D1 (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I already told you I don't think that. What was the specific edit you wanted to make again? Edaham (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. As you are obviously a more experienced editor than I, appreciate your willingness to discuss.  This was an edit I attempted to make earlier.  It is supported by the sources, let

me know your thoughts: (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch the above. This was the quote I was originally looking for - it is from a Time Magazine article entitled "Why the 'Alt-Left' Is a Problem".  I was thinking of placing it in the lede below the Pickavage quote: Claiming there is no “alt-left” because no one calls themselves “alt-left,” ignores the long, colorful history of political nicknaming. And claiming there is no “alt-left” because all leftists hate Neo-Nazis mistakenly defines the “alt-” modifier as being about racism not fanaticism. With 100 goons from the Left having attacked peaceful demonstrators from the Right as recently as this Sunday afternoon in Berkeley, we must stop viewing the growing epidemic of political brutality through myopic, partisan lenses. Let me know what you think.  2602:30A:2C2A:370:AC5C:7894:E929:DA9 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Any feedback or objection to placing this quote in the lede? 2602:301:772D:62D0:8459:26E1:98B8:79DE (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌  proposal is unworkable per wp:Newsorg. Revised reason after googling your source: Quote seems to be an editorial comment. Also please save time by providing the actual link to your source with the proposal otherwise it just looks like wp:synth 
 * I think we'll probably stay with the quote from an academic source. If there's nothing else, may I close the thread? Thanks! Edaham (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. One more question: Would the Time quote be suitable for the body of the article itself?  I was also thinking about including something from this story, please let me know what you think (and thanks again for taking the time to give me feedback on this, it is truly appreciated). https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/why-the-alt-left-is-a-problem ETA: Sorry, one MORE question = Why is Time considered NEWSORG, and the New York Times considered academic?  Just curious..(talk) 06:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new york times isn't considered academic. They are both news sources. as mentioned in the link I provided at wp:newsorg, news sources contain facts, which are drawn from events that actually happened and quotations from people who are notable authorities on subjects. They also contain editorial opinions which are written by the editorial staff themselves, or by people who write op-eds. The quotation we've used is from the NWT, but it comes from a researcher on the subject. This kind of quote is to be preferred over editorial pieces in which the editors themselves may opine and draw conclusions based on their feelings about a subject. I'll look at the other source you provided. Edaham (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Far-left politics
Should the Alt-left link change to the Far-left politics?Paul Lincoln (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)