Talk:Alt-left/Archive 2

"Severely criticized"
user:Mark Miller I am curious where you came up with "severely crtiticized". I see this term no where in any of the cited Sources. Please help me understand. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did I add that? At any rate lets look at it.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The full line in question is;

""Both the term itself and the concept of an "alt-left" as a sort of opposite-but-equal mirror of the alt-right have been severely criticized for "likening" the "socialist critics" of neo-Nazism "to neo-Nazis". And the term has been criticized as a label that, unlike alt-right, was not coined by the group it purports to describe, but, rather, was created by political opponents as a political smear implying a false equivalence. ""

The content was added by at 07:37 on 16 August 2017 with this edit. I have done a quick review of the sources and cannot find such a claim or similar and feel this might be original research added from the first sources use of multiple criticisms. How would you like to proceed. Did you wish to remove it, attempt to source it or discuss it with the contributing editor?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Silence can be seen as consensus, for now we should lose this part of the text. As it draws attention.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Read those 2 sources and you will see that it is a fair summary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was unable to verify "severely criticized". See "In my view, a strong case can be made for a popular front. But few are actually making it. Instead, some liberals who claim to favor unity are going out of their way to exaggerate the left’s divisions — and likening their socialist critics to neo-Nazis." No mention of severely criticized or the new content generated controversy using the source I mentioned. Maybe there is another source to verify the content. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That was removed from the lede but I thought it had also been removed from the article. At any rate, that works for me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The part "Instead, some liberals who claim to favor unity are going out of their way to exaggerate the left’s divisions — and likening their socialist critics to neo-Nazis." does not verify the part have generated controversy or for "likening" the "socialist critics" of neo-Nazism "to neo-Nazis". Both versions fail verification using the content I mentioned. Am I missing something? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds rather biased. I can't imagine that would be written as a fact. What do you suggest? Feel free to make a bold edit to correct that.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The part "Instead, some liberals who claim to favor unity are going out of their way to exaggerate the left’s divisions — and likening their socialist critics to neo-Nazis." is not specifically about alt-left. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it should be removed entirely.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Scholars have noted..."
user:Mark Miller again can you show me where the sources state this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.67.118 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please remember to sign your post with the four tilde; ~ . I think that one is from something I did read. Again, let's look at it.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems to have been an issue with at least two parts~
 * Please do not edit your version in after you have already begun a discussion to gain consensus. Let's look at it first.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The content was added by with this edit.
 * I started up a wrong path so some editors were pinged and can add input but those particular issues are not really related to this issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of the content has been removed from the lead. I say we just lose this portion for now as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

a case of expert failure
The usage of the term is made in contradictory ways, with many scholars noting that there is no equivalent to the alt-right on the hard and far political left.[1][2][3] Unlike the term "alt-right" (which was coined by those on the extreme right who comprise the movement), as noted by Washington Post writer Aaron Blake, "alt-left" was "coined by its opponents and doesn't actually have any subscribers".[4] According to George Hawley, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, no such label has been adopted by any members of the progressive left.[5][6] While acknowledging that there are anti-fascism activists on the left who engage in physical confrontation against members of the far-right, Oren Segal, director of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, concurred that no equivalent to those who identify as being part of the "alt-right" exists, stating that anti-fascist groups were not consciously aiming to brand themselves in the manner that white supremacists, neo-Nazis and other members of the far-right had undertaken to mainstream their ideology.[6][7][8] a question? so i need a journalist or a scientist or a organisation to make the claim! how does this work? i have proof in my posted links in my edits that you can read its all true well i have absoluteley shown that there is a expert failure here because i rememberd some guys on the internet who were actually making a "altleft?" movement so the talk that there is no such thing is false there is a altleft and trump is wrong it is not the antifa as he claims ive posted the proof the antifa is not the alt left it is these altleft guys so ive shown that the experts and trump are wrong so what happens when they are wrong wiki cant correct them? meow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:3158:C98E:9652:EA0D (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * While I do not endorse the content's use here, claims made must be attributed to a reliable third party and not directly to the subject mentioned. Facebook and personal blogs may not be used to source any claims. If the person has an official page, content from it may be used to reference only material about the subject themselves. If they are experts in the field being discussed their official site can be used to source content they have expertise in if used cautiously.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See Identifying reliable sources. The sections WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:ABOUTSELF are pertinent. Also Citing sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The content could be re-added if properly sourced. Here is the content as originally presented;


 * About this; " [I] rememberd some guys on the internet who were actually making a "altleft?" movement so the talk that there is no such thing is false there is a altleft and trump is wrong it is not the antifa as he claims ive posted the proof the antifa is not the alt left it is these altleft guys so ive shown that the experts and trump are wrong".

Well, see that's a problem. This is bias. You are editing with the thought that you know better than the experts and feel obligated to correct them with your own original research. Using original research (your own knowledge of events) on the talk page is perfectly fine. That is how editors make suggestions or propose direction and articles approach, but then one has to demonstrate that the sources actually reflect the same approach. I am not saying that you are incorrect. I am saying that editing this way is not neutral and can introduce that same bias into the article. Lets look at this as if it is far away and we are seeing it for the first time. Be dispassionate and willing to see content you may feel strongly about be edited or changed etc.. It makes working at Wikipedia much more enjoyable.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

i read you im reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research also can there be a timeline of uses of "altleft" there is timelines for other things here see a timeline would use primary sources without making original claims the media reads the timeline and then the media will write seconary sources from the posted primaries im tired its late bye for now 2001:8003:117E:6D00:3158:C98E:9652:EA0D (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good for you! I really should have suggested that but that shows absolute good faith that you took the initiative to locate and research that on your own.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Timelines are a common part of Wikipedia articles of this nature. A good way to find direction is to look at similar articles (of high rating or GA FA status) to see how such formatting has been done successfully. Let me see if I can locate a good example of a timeline section. Remember that sources are still required.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

About timelines
Some information on using timelines on Wikipedia; Timeline (standard layout) and Timeline standards to start. These are "how-to-guides" and are not policy or guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The syntax at Timeline syntax creates a unique display but is more complicated to use.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

... ive been thinking, yes im wrong goodbye 2001:8003:117E:6D00:8846:A4A6:2C55:FEC4 (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

More Reliable sources to use in the article.
I found a bunch more reliable sources which can be used for this article: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * NBC News
 * Rolling Stone Magazine
 * The Week
 * The Guardian
 * Washington Post
 * Slate
 * Seattle Patch
 * Chicago Tribune
 * Los Angeles Times
 * Politico
 * Wired
 * Time Magazine

a quick summary of those sources

 * NBC News Only mentions trump's usage of the term. Specifically mentions Antifa (United States) - on which we already have an article.
 * Rolling Stone Magazine Directly attempts to disabuse its readers of the "alt-left" terminology and, again, specifically mentions Antifa as the subject of its article
 * The Week quote from article: ''Let me start with the alt-right. This term was deliberately coined and adopted by white supremacist Richard Spencer, as something more sanitized and neutral-sounding than the traditional name for what he espouses — namely, white supremacy. As we all have seen, this movement — while still small — has significant numbers, and has been powerfully emboldened by the Trump presidency. So despite Spencer's branding effort, "alt-right" was quickly associated with racism.

As best I can tell, the very first people to use the term "alt-left" was a tiny faction within the alt-right''


 * The Guardian - quote from this one: ''those on the alt-right have recently begun to describe their opponents as the “alt-left” – a coinage that, asymmetrically, seems to be an attempt to rhetorically downgrade them to a fringe group of eccentrics, rather than a broad coalition of people who don’t like racism much. “What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging at the, as you say, the ‘alt-right’?” Trump asked, Solomonically, after the clashes in Charlottesville. “Do they have any semblance of guilt?"

Some of the people who actually protest against alt-right protesters in the US are from a group called “Antifa”, short for anti-fascist. Their opponents happily adopt the term''


 * Washington Post This article uses the term unambiguously as a term for a movement, but doesn't actually attribute it to anyone. It says that it was a slur term invented by the democrats.
 * Slate Op-ed which only mentions the Trump attribution
 * Seattle Patch does mention the concept of "better defining" the alt-left... by talking to two members of Antifa
 * Chicago Tribune essentially (insofar as it applies to this article) a quote from Jack Posobiec.
 * Los Angeles Times Trump/Bennett quotes
 * Politico Op ed, referencing centrist democrats as the originators of the term
 * Wired Opinion piece decrying the use of the term
 * Time Magazine can't open (China VPN issues)

feel free to further summarize as there's clearly a lot of material here and it needs to be processed into something - without synthesis. My feeling is that the material presented belongs in articles about Trump, Antifa and on the Alt-Right. As a body of source material it doesn't collectively really support the existence of an article about a specific movement or group in the same way that white supremacy doesn't. It also doesn't support the explanation of an ideology in the way our white supremacy article does as it seems to be connected too closely to antifa, on which we already have an article and too vaguely to a variety of things beyond that. It seems that either banausic* detailing of every facet of ongoing media diatribes or the need to have another name for a movement which hasn't quite emerged could be the only reasons for including this word at present.

I learned the word banausic (dictionary.com's word of the day) while searching for dictionary definitions of alt-left (its not there) Edaham (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Alt-left (neologism)
As per the deletion discussion, if this closes as keep or no consensus, it would be a good idea to move the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * An article as controversial as this will certainly need a move discussion should such be the case...which I would support. Another alternative could still be a merge request after the AFD if there is no consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's no consensus I'd certainly support a merge with alt-right. Jdcomix (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed here to the merge idea if the result is no consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Two sources that could be used
--Shrike (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2017/03/alt-right-v-alt-left/
 * http://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/Alt_Narratives_ICWSM17-CameraReady.pdf

coining of the phrase altleft
this seems to be when the term was coined, it should be mentioned in the article https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Wordpress is not a reliable source. TheValeyard (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

irl altleft movement
im sick of the endless "there is no self described altleft", "there seems to be no altleft", that is parroted here so here is the facts you guys just cant admit that you are wrong there is a media blackout on the altleft https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ "and, since there seem to be not actual self-identifying adherents," https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151119073815/http://altleft.com 2001:8003:117E:6D00:433:304F:CC39:2D5F (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Wordpress, blogspot, facebook, reddit, altleft.com are not reliable sources. TheValeyard (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

i think they are worthy because they contradict the articles references by 2 years please read each of them ,let me know if you did 2001:8003:117E:6D00:433:304F:CC39:2D5F (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

look im tired i give up bye 2001:8003:117E:6D00:433:304F:CC39:2D5F (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Origins of the alt-left term - Additional sources
--Merkasso (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was in the original 'alt-left' and this is what we really stood for, The Independent.
 * The alt-right didn’t invent ‘alt-left.’ Liberals did., Washington Post.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017
Before suggested edit: "Alt-left is a pejorative neologism introduced by far-right online media in 2016, suggesting the existence of an ideological fringe movement on the political left, as a direct opposite of the alt-right. The term began being used by Sean Hannity and Fox News to describe groups, outlets, or individuals who were perceived as being critical of President-elect Donald Trump. Trump used the term during remarks on the Charlottesville rally on August 15, 2017."

After suggested edit: "Alt-left is a pejorative neologism introduced by far-right online media in 2016, suggesting the existence of an ideological fringe movement on the political left, as a direct opposite of the alt-right. The term began being used by Sean Hannity and Fox News to describe groups, outlets, or individuals who were perceived as being critical of then President-elect Donald Trump. Later as President Donald Trump used the term during remarks on the Charlottesville rally on August 15, 2017."

The way it is currently phrased suggests President-elect is his current title. Second sentence could be used as a way to clarify that the term began in as a counter term to those perceived as critical to a then President-elect Donald Trump, and was later used in a press conformance by a President Donald Trump. 2601:282:8300:B4B9:F96A:B76E:3881:DBFB (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Please remove Neologism template tag
The admin who closed the AfD discussion specifically rejected the neologism argument on the basis that plentiful reliable sources have now been referenced in the article, which was not true when this template tag was applied: "The remaining comments have focused on whether the term should be deleted as unencyclopedic per the policy regarding neologisms--I address those here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should not serve as a platform for new terms that have not received notice. Many editors have made this point clearly in their comments. On the other hand, some neologisms can be considered a valid encyclopedic subject if the word or phrase has been “the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources.” This point has been made by the opposition. Simple Google searches reveal that the phrase is covered by significant, independent sources, qualifying the term as valid for inclusion in Wikipedia per our general notability guidelines. Those invoking the policy on neologism have tended to ignore these qualifiers in the policy; however, they raise a good point that this coverage may be reflecting mere sensation. On this, only time will tell."

This argument, with its supporting facts, seems more than sufficient to justify removing the template tag. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * An admin's closing of a deletion discussion is not binding for all-time once that discussion closes. If, via discussion editors agree that it is a pejorative neologism, then that's how it goes. TheValeyard (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus formed from the discussion. If you note the part about; "Those invoking the policy on neologism have tended to ignore these qualifiers in the policy; however, they raise a good point that this coverage may be reflecting mere sensation. On this, only time will tell" Some, like myself did raise the issue of a lack sources and even explained exactly why. There is only media sources and no book or academic papers. The closing admin never defined what is considered the proper number of sources needed because the guideline is vague on purpose. Consensus determines that and it was not established by the discussion. To remove a tag like this the following is the how to guide on removal per WP:WTRMT;


 * Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template in any of the following circumstances:


 * When the issue has been adequately addressed;
 * Upon determining that the issue has been resolved (perhaps by someone else);
 * If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error. Discussing the matter with the original placer of the template is advised, though if the user is no longer active this becomes moot. In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page;
 * When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue. (It is best to note the location of the consensus in the edit summary accompanying your removal, ideally with a link to the location);
 * When it can reasonably be concluded that the template is no longer relevant, such as a template appearing in an article that no longer documents a current event;
 * If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. Some neutrality-related templates, such as (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) and  (associated with the neutral point of view policy), strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed;
 * There is currently no consensus for age-related removal of maintenance templates, with the exception of POV-related templates (as addressed immediately above). In this regard, some templates relate to matters that are binary and unambiguous—the problem the maintenance template flags is plainly required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and therefore persists until addressed (e.g., the lack of any citations). As with the POV exception, age alone may be relevant where a lack of edits or of discussion addressed to the issue may be interpreted as a form of "silent consensus", that the issue isn't worth fixing. This invariably involves matters implicating an exercise of judgement and subjective elements.
 * Lastly, there are times when a person attempting to address a maintenance template that flags some fundamental matter may find that the issue cannot actually be addressed. For example, if an article is flagged as lacking citations to reliable, secondary sources, written by third-parties to the topic, and a user seeing the maintenance templates discovers that such sources appear not to exist, that usually means the article should be deleted. In such cases, it is not so much that the template does not belong and should be removed, but rather that flagging the page for maintenance will never address the more critical issue that the page itself does not belong on Wikipedia at all.
 * --Mark Miller (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the tag - the following words are of importance:
 * This article may document a neologism or protologism in such a manner as to promote it.
 * The article is a neologism, but it isn't promoting the usage of the term. Required improvements aside, the article establishes evidence of a wide-spread usage of the term and passes wp:neo (just), on the basis that its sources talk about the term and hopefully don't unduly push other theories based on its usage. The neologism tag is therefore not required at this stage per the following guideline:
 * WP:WORDISSUBJECT:When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject - In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term.
 * My understanding of WP:NEO is that it is designed to discourage 1) Using Wikipedia as a platform to promote the use of a term and 2) Using the existence of a neologism to promote theories or concepts that surround it. This article appears to do neither of these things. Finally u|Malinaccier's closing arguments appear to support the idea that conflict with wp:neo is not sufficient to justify deletion of the article. I am therefore removing this tag.
 * The merge discussion remains open and the tag should not be removed until consensus is formed. Edaham (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the removal as long as no one else objects.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the removal as long as no one else objects.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Pejorative?
user:BrendonTheWizard curious as to what sources specifically state alt-left is a pejorative. I've looked at them, and none seem to say this. I believe calling it a pejorative is not only OR but unsourced as there are people who self-identify as alt left. 2605:E000:8412:4A00:A989:6384:80C7:26FE (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * here. It is widely described as a pejorative. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, CBS does use the term - other sources don't. Accordingly, we should work to have consensus before making a significant change such as this one. 2605:E000:8412:4A00:A989:6384:80C7:26FE (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "I've looked at them" ~ no you haven't. You're obviously not that curious. I was "curious" about whether you'd really read what you said you had read and found (within a minute) that the first two links expound in meticulous detail how this is a political slur term. Don't remove sourced content from articles. Cheers! Edaham (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Where do the first two links use the word "pejorative"?   If they do, I am of course willing to concede this entire discussion. 2605:E000:8412:4A00:A989:6384:80C7:26FE (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Last paragraph of 2nd bolded section: .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the CBS source previously discussed. I was asking what other sources use the term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:8412:4A00:A989:6384:80C7:26FE (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * NY Times calls it an "epithet". PBS and Daily KOS call it a pejorative.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The PBS source has a commentator quoted as saying the term is in "some ways a pejorative". Dally Kos is an opinion piece 2600:1012:B02F:BCBF:5572:4B6C:3359:2BD (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * if there's an entire articles two entire articles, cited at the top of the Wikipedia article, dedicated to explaining how the term is being used as a political smear we are at liberty to describe the term as a perjorative. We aren't using ctrl-c - crtl-v to write articles. Edaham (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one, pretty clear-cut: "But the alt-left label, having been invented exclusively by the “other side,” can only be understood as a pejorative term."
 * Again an opinion piece. I am comfortable with "sometimes used as a pejorative" thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:F112:1B7B:22A3:5F2 (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, I'm glad you're comfortable.
 * sources


 * 1) And it's apparently a pretty potent thing, given conservatives now want to use the inverse as a political attack.
 * 2) But the "alt left" is not a thing. It's just an insult," wrote Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the ADL center, on Twitter.
 * 3) "alt-left" originated as centrist criticism
 * 4) Troy claims that the “alt-left” is full of mean people that disagree with his Neoliberal leanings. The embodiment of pure evil, equivalent to the alt-right (or whatever Nazis call themselves nowadays)
 * 5) Much of the media spotlight has been on the “alt-right.” But the “alt-left” provides a mirror image distortion:
 * 6) "It’s a movement of phony self-righteousness and ‘compassion’ that it uses to gain power,” WorldNetDaily pundit Joseph Farah wrote of the alt-left. “It will do anything and say anything to achieve its goal of hammerlock control not only of government, but every significant cultural institution – from schools, universities and the press to churches, foundations, Hollywood and unions."
 * 7) a graver sin is the adoption of a term that was created by conservatives to smear the left and discredit criticisms of the growing clout of the racist right. Richard Spencer coined the term “alt-right” for his own movement. In very stark contrast, “alt-left” is a strawman invention of far-right websites.
 * Taken from the first seven sources of the article - note. That any of these are opinion pieces does not invalidate them from being used as reliable sources, nor does it stop them from contributing to an understanding of the neologism.
 * Edaham (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A relevant policy and guideline, WP:NEO states: 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. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. If you have an issue with the way the sources are being used to summarize that it is a pejorative in the lede, then this is the policy which applies, and which you should draw attention to if you think there's a problem. Edaham (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I would ask that the IP editor stop hopping IPs. We've had at least 3 different IPv6 from southwest California... """::: Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Make an account and join the Wikipedia adventure!. See my user page for more details! If you take the adventure you get badges! Edaham (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's obviously a pejorative. No reason to pretend otherwise. Earthscent (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, not IP hopping- I'm on a cell phone. Secondly my concern about using an opinion piece to state something in Wikipedia's voice.   There are a number of ways to approach the issue "Prinarily used as a pejorative" for example, or "commentators have criticized the term as a pejorative".  But to call the term as a pejorative in WPs voice I feel is rather extreme and more importantly inaccurate.  Now instead of snark, how about realize I am a novice user, NOT an "alt-righter", but rather someone who wants an accurate article.  Just because I don't jump all over every opportunity to discount the term DOESNT mean that I don't personally feel it is a joke.  But there is a right way to go about doing this. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a pejorative. It is not anything else. If the article says "sometimes" the article is false. Earthscent (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all there's nothing snarky about taking the Wikipedia adventure (or signing in, for that matter) Secondly - seven articles aren't "an opinion piece" and thirdly while those sources may opine about the alt-left, they are fairly congruent per wp:neo as to how they talk about the term and their reasons for characterizing it as such. Your suggestion of saying "sometimes used" is Original Research by implying that sometimes it is not. That would require proper sources - and lots of them too in order to satisfy wp:due. Your second idea is wp:weasel if not accompanied by proper attribution - ideally in the form of a list of links bundled into a single citation, which is unnecessarily messy in this case since it's an uncontroversial issue regarding the term. - I might support alternative wording as the style doesn't seem very fitting. The use of the term pejorative among the first five words of the lede makes it seem like it's an established dictionary classification, and it's still very much a vague term. A rewording would have to make clear the political intentions of the use of the term, which are well sourced/documented and clearly negative in their intent. This is very much a stylistic choice however, not a policy based suggestion. Edaham (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User is same IP user that contributes at Political Correctness. I have recommended signing up for an account but user so far has a not. Prior IP's logged in my sandbox for comparison of edit patterns. Koncorde (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

In response to the original statement: it was in good faith that I added the term "pejorative" as seemingly every news article refers to it either as a pejorative, as a neologism, or both; this was a significant topic of conversation in this article's nomination for deletion. As I stated in the edit summary, this article itself further describes its use as a pejorative in later sections such as its background and use just as it further elaborates on where the neologism came from. If we are to have an article on this term due to its general notability gained from news, then it's certainly beneficial to give a most accurate summary of the term based on what the reliable sources that made the case for a no consensus result have said. I still prefer a merge to alt-right#alt-left, but that's a different discussion. In short, the idea that the term "alt-left" is a pejorative neologism is as well-sourced as the article itself as that is what most coverage of the term refers to it as. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * user:Edaham Do you have a suggestion for how it might be better phrased? The primary reason I'm uncomfortable defining strictly it as a pejorative is the history of the term prior to the rally.  That and the fact that the term has been used sporadically to self-identify.  The Political correctness article refers to the term as being "primarily a pejorative".  Might be something to consider here. 2602:30A:2C2A:370:41E6:9A8C:58C:CBD4 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

but what about those bloggers from 2015? 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) 14:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * user:Edaham (of anyone else for that matter), owing to the fact that the origin of the term is not as a pejorative, do you have any suggestions for how the lede sentence might be phrased more accurately? As I mentioned before, the Political correctness article uses the wording "primarily a pejorative".  Are there any objections to this rewording?2600:1012:B001:9D0C:DDE9:C7A4:1211:1C02 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence is accurate and should not be changed.- MrX 01:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The term as we know it came into existence when the current President spouted it in a speech. Happenstance, throwaway usage of "alt left" a few years ago, dug up after the fact and having no lasting effect is irrelevant. The term is a pejorative slur, promulgated by the alt right. Period. TheValeyard (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

With use shown well prior to 2017, neologism in the lead does not apply, even if most of the wide spread usage began with Hannity. Pointing out that it is a pejorative is no more necessary than pointing out the alt-right is a pejorative. Basically redundant and not the primary use of the word. Especially when the groups defined by the word narrow. Also looking at the earliest uses of the phrase it does not appear to of been introduced by the far-right, but left wing splinter groups. PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Unfortunately, emotions are running too high around this term for an accurate article to be written at this time.  Attempts to add well-sourced, accurate information have been immediately reverted by POV pushing editors who hate the term and refuse to intelligently discuss ways to improve the article. it's a shame, but thats the way WP works with political terms.  2602:30A:2C2A:370:353A:9204:B9F7:101F (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As demonstrated by the discussion regarding the deletion nomination of this article, both those that supported and opposed the article demonstrated not only examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT but more importantly examples of genuine policy-based concerns. To simply assume that all Wikipedia editors that disagree with you are "POV pushing" motivated by "hate" for the term or "refusing to intelligently discuss" improvement is itself the very kind of mentality and approach that you're describing your own distaste for. Wikipedia policy requires that we attack the substance of arguments, not the editors that made them. Instead of mass-labeling people as "POV pushing editors" I would encourage you to in good faith put forward a more substantive and direct refutation regarding why you believe this is a problem. As was largely discussed by both those that supported keeping and deleting the article before, use of this term as a pejorative and a neologism was the consensus of the sources. The no consensus result was because the discussion was not about the fact that it is a pejorative and a neologism, but because pejoratives and neologisms can be relevant on Wikipedia. As for what PackMecEng stated, the earliest use of the term appears to be by neoliberals referring to progressives as recently as the last election, though any widespread use or notability did not at the time catch on. Its use as a pejorative has not changed, and neither has its status as a neologism. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe there is some confusion. Some sources refer to the term as a pejorative, others do not.  My only qualm is defining the phrase strictly as an unqualified pejorative aa it does not accuratley reflect what the sources state.  There are well sourced instances of the term not being used as an pejorative.  Regarding a "refusal to discuss", I made several attempts on this page to civilly engage other editors, inclduing directly pinging user:Edaham, and for the most part was ignored.  Finally, here are some of the "reasons" other editors are using to keep the lede sentence as stating the term is a flat-out pejoraitve:
 * It's obviously a pejorative. No reason to pretend otherwise.
 * It is a pejorative. It is not anything else. If the article says "sometimes" the article is false.
 * The term is a pejorative slur, promulgated by the alt right. Period
 * I have made what I feel is a reasonable suggestion, but more importantly it accurately reflects what the sources say, and that is the term is "often/widely (or even primarily) used as a pejorative.". Not s single editor has replied as to why or why not this is wording might work.  Instead what I've seen are comments like the bulleted ones above.  My only interest is in having an accurate article. I am not an alt-righter or Trump fan or anything of the sort.  If someone can give a policy based argument as to why some variation of the words "widely labeled as a pejorative" is inaccurate, I would certainly let the whole matter drop. 2605:E000:8412:4A00:193F:2122:1DAB:A512 (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore you. I couldn't think of a better wording. Edaham (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The Alt Left as the 'left-wing' of the Alt Right
The following YouTube video may be of interest. It's a discussion in early 2016 among members of the Alt Right about the Alt Left, except they define Alt Left as the left-wing of the Alt Right:

"The Alt Left"

I think the article needs a section mentioning this interpretation of the Alt Left, especially as it does seem to predate the current mainstream media use of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:861A:9C00:1D77:2233:5F7A:3D3A (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed additions to the article and rewording on the lede
diff. ,, could you elaborate on what the opposition to the changes are? Perhaps we could agree on things to be left out, to be left in, or changed? Although not a fundamental part of the changes I'm specially curious as to the Rolling Stone article misrepresentation mentioned in the edit summary. I have read it again after the mention, but I still don't see how it was misrepresented. It says Though it began as an insult within the left – a way to further deride the far left and so-called "Bernie Bros" during and after November's election – the right has adopted the phrase, as well. Sean Hannity and other, fringier monsters of the far-right media ecosystem have been, for at least a year now, pushing the idea of the "alt-left" as some sort of answer to the charge that the "alt-right," a very real political entity, has hijacked and poisoned the Republican party. The Washington Post best described it in 2016 as "The GOP's response: I know what you are but what am I.". This was used in two places: To mention that the term had some usage within the left - and if this is the issue I wouldn't mind removing it since it seems to be the only source about it - and in the lede to support, among other refs such as from TIME, that some use the term to describe antagonists of the alt-right, in this case Hannity. Moreover the article says But there is an actual active and growing group that Trump refers to. However, it's incorrect to name-check it as the alt-left and it's downright wrong to morally equivocate it with the neo-Nazi and white supremacist scum that stormed Charlottesville. But it does exist. Only it's called "antifa," short for anti-fascist, and it far predates Donald Trump., and for that I used it to reference a phrase already present in the article (attributed to another author with whom the Rolling Stone one concurs) regarding the term describing antifa rather than something else. The rest of the article goes on about antifa and their methods of protest. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit has a few issues as I see it. First, it makes it sounds like some don't think it's a neologism, but I see evidence of that in the sources. Second, the FEE source should be ascribed to the author as it's not a mainstream RS (assuming it's reliable...). Third, you altered the lead sentence to reflect that it's not always pejorative, but I don't see the reflected by sources either.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, what do you think of Alt-right regarding the points you raised? I do intend to actually respond to the concerns you raised, I'm just curious to hear your opinion first. Actually nevermind, I don't really care anymore. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * user:EvergreenFir Did you read the discussion above? The term is not always a pejoratively and this is very well-sourced.  That's why there was a discussion agreeing on the phrase "primarily used as a pejorative".  Any thoughts on this phrasing? 23.114.214.45 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * user:Saturnalia0 Thank you for your edits, for what it's worth I feel they were well done and accurately reflected the sources. Unfortunately, users like user:EvergreenFir refuse to discuss any of this as you can see in the above sections.  There were almost 5 paragraphs of comments as to why it is inaccurate to refer to the term Alt-left as a "pejorative neologism", and you will notice that EvergreenFir never once participated in this discussion, but was extremely quick to revert your change.  That's the problem with this article. A flat out refusal to discuss by editors with a bias.  Don't believe me?  Here are some of the reasons that have been stated by editors who want to keep the term labeled as a pejorative neologism:
 * It's obviously a pejorative. No reason to pretend otherwise.
 * It is a pejorative. It is not anything else. If the article says "sometimes" the article is false.
 * And now, today, we have the following justification (by EvergreenFir) ss to why "commonly referred to a neologism" is inaccurate
 * you altered the lead sentence to reflect that it's not always pejorative, but I don't see the reflected by sources
 * (your edits) make it sound like some don't think it's a neologism, but I see evidence of that in the sources. 
 * If user:EvergreenFir were to read any of the discussion above (instead of ignoring it), he/she would notice that there are FIVE paragraphs of justification as to why your edits are indeed reflected in the sources. Sadly, it's much easier to just say "the sources don't reflect it" rather than actually reading the sources you cited.  I understand why you "don't care anymore", the article is currently a lost cause.  2602:301:772D:62D0:47E:16BF:1AD6:6AF (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the "primary" language you (or one of the other SW California IPs you're using) added. It's better than the "often" version. That said, you sure like to copy-paste that same thing over and over... and maybe I'm just slow but I don't see these 5 paragraphs of comments other than your own comments above.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment mark up at head of article
Why has a comment tag concerning wp:lead_cite been added to the head of the article? This will appear in all edit diffs and is mildly tangential to general lede-cite guidelines. Have I missed something in the discussion? I think the comment tags should refer users to the above noted lead-cite section rather than arbitrarily enforce a citation policy. Edaham (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe it has something to do with the fact that some editors are pushing to have the term defined as a "pejorative neologism" full stop, rather than accurately reflecting the sources which sometimes, commonly, or even primarily refer to the term as such. As I have been saying from the very beginning, it is inaccurate and not supported by the sources to strictly define the term as an unqualified pejorative neologism.  I have made several unsuccessful attempts to discuss, and then when a change is made to accurately reflect the sources, the same editors who refuse to discuss immediately revert the change.  2602:301:772D:62D0:47E:16BF:1AD6:6AF (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ok in that case I will remove it because 1) we already have policies which cover wp:POV wp:neologism and wp:lead_cite. Adding a partial portion of a policy to require that that part is enforced arbitrarily is just going to confuse newcomers. If someone edits it in such a way that their edits conflict with consensus they can follow wp:brd like everyone else on every over article. Wikipedia should be made easy to fix, not difficult to "break". 2)WP:COMMENT States: Comment tags should not be used to instruct other editors not to perform certain edits, although where existing consensus is against making such an edit, they may usefully draw the editor's attention to that. Telling editors via a comment tag not to edit in a certain way isn't an effort to draw attention to consensus. I don't think there is (as of yet) a consensus for the issues raised in this article. They're still under discussion. Therefore the current use of this markup is not recommended by WP:MOS. Edaham (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"introduced by far-right online media in 2016"
No, it wasn't. It was introduced by centre-left Dems who used the term to describe (far-)left Dems. See this part from the alt-right article:
 * The term originally circulated on social media during the 2016 presidential campaign as a disparaging term used by moderate and conservative Democrats against progressives and others to their ideological left (particularly, those who were skeptical of the candidacy of Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton) for their beliefs of socialism and radical social and economic change, and opposition to incrementalist policies associated with neoliberalism. Its usage later spread around some conservative circles,[...]

The first sentence begins with "Alt-left is a pejorative neologism introduced by far-right online media in 2016,...". I think we need a source for that. The exact origins may be unknown. Without a source it is unknown to our readers. QuackGuru ( talk ) 14:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * user talk:QuackGuru I agree and tried to bring this up previously (see above). Labeling the term as an unqualified pejorative is inaccurate.  I had suggested phrasing similar to that used in the Political Correctness article "primarily used as a pejorative", to no avail.  Unfortunately, emotions are running very high in regards to this term which makes it difficult to have an article that is neutral/accurate.  My suggestion is to step back for a couple weeks and then revisit. 162.194.160.55 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * According to this,, "The term "alt-left," however, did not originate as some sort of similar, self-claimed title by the far-left. Rather, its earliest usages on social media (which ultimately led to a write-up in Vanity Fair, among other places) came from centrists and establishment Democrats drawing an equivalence between the "alt-right" and the progressive left that was skeptical of former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton."
 * So, what should we do? When reliable sources disagree with one another, we are supposed to document the dispute, not take sides. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We do exactly what you suggested - we document what RS say. IF they are in dispute then we document the dispute.  My entire objection to the whole "pejorative" thing, is the fact that there are well sourced instances of the term not being used as an pejorative.  As I mentioned earlier, emotions are simply running too high around this term, and involved/based editors will continue to successfully edit-war to have their version represented, even if that version is wholly inaccurate.  If you look at the arguments for defining the term strictly as a pejorative, you will notice most of them have no basis in policy:
 * It's obviously a pejorative. No reason to pretend otherwise.
 * It is a pejorative. It is not anything else. If the article says "sometimes" the article is false.
 * The lead sentence is accurate and should not be changed
 * The term is a pejorative slur, promulgated by the alt right. Period
 * Saying that some sources refer to the term as a pejorative is accurate. Saying the term is widely used as a pejorative may be accurate.  Saying (in Wikipedia's voice) that the term is a pejorative is neither accurate, nor policy-based.  2602:30A:2C2A:370:353A:9204:B9F7:101F (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See "It is unclear if Hannity himself coined the term, but we could not find widespread use of the term on reddit or 4chan, a web form popular with the “alt-right,” prior to his 22 November 2016 use of it."
 * See "According to the Washington Post, the term “alt-left” was first used on conspiracy theory-pushing websites like WorldNetDaily. As early as August 2016, that site published an op-ed entitled “Let’s look at the alt left” that argued that the Democratic party was as racist as the right, and that it should be considered extreme because it welcomed into its ranks communists and socialists."
 * See "The term isn't brand new, but it has just now gradually worked its way into the mainstream. It started with alt-right websites like World Net Daily and has graduated to the airwaves of Fox News and Sean Hannity, who has been using it for a couple of weeks now. And Trump, who has distanced himself from the alt-right term, may have played a major role in pushing it into the conservative lexicon."
 * See "The term “anti-left” began being used by the online media in 2016 before it slowly migrated to more mainstream conservative voices, like Fox News’ Sean Hannity. The phrase popped up on WorldNetDaily in August 2016 after Hillary Clinton’s alt-right speech." QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC
 * Agree that sources support this term is not a neologism and was in use as early as mid-2016. Not sure how they demonstrate whether or not it is a pejorative.  Again, my concern is accuracy - not pushing a "side".  I will once more refer you to the above "reasons" for labeling the term as such, eg: "It's obviously a pejorative.  No reason to pretend otherwise".  Funny how longstanding editors would consider this an appropriate reason for the label.2605:E000:8412:4A00:9C5C:94B8:732A:F28C (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How it was used originally is different than how it is used today. To complicate the matter different people use it differently. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 08:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly the current text is inaccurate and needs to be fixed. If someone wants to be WP:BOLD, and try to fix it, go ahead.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the change as well. As I am an IP editor I cannot make it on a protected article. However, I feel at this ppoint it may be a waste of time, as you will most likely be reverted by a POV pushing editor who refuses to discuss or read the very salient points you raised above.  2605:E000:8412:4A00:193F:2122:1DAB:A512 (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So far no specific change was proposed. In order to improved the wording many sources would have to be read and more content about its origins would have to be added. The article is unclear about its origins. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It's occurred to me that maybe we shouldn't even cover etymology of the term. Most/all of the people writing about this are journalists. Etymology is not their field of expertise. We need linguists, or whomever studies etymology, as reliable sources. in order to cover the etymology. If there are no reliable sources (i.e. where etymology is their field of expertise), let's just remove the etymology until reliable sources emerge? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 100%. 2600:1012:B01B:68B0:1B7:FE20:4953:2D4D (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There was an editing attempt to change the term as not always being used as a pejorative. As I feared (and mentioned above), it was reverted by POV pushing editors who refused to even participate in the discussion above.  Unfortunately, some editors will not be happy unless the article refers to the term as a "pejorative neologism" full stop.  It does not matter what the sources say.2602:301:772D:62D0:408B:FF6D:6144:566D (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * user:TheValeyard I noticed you reverted an edit - did you read the discussion above? 23.242.67.118 (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I see discussions between 2 editors and some random IPs who are probably the same person. No support for such an edit, though. TheValeyard (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit was taken directly from the discussion. Do you mind clarifying? 2600:1012:B06C:FADD:2954:9739:2961:17C3 (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * user talk:QuackGuru and user:A Quest For Knowledge your input is requested re the above discussion. 2600:1012:B06C:FADD:2954:9739:2961:17C3 (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said above, it's occurred to me that maybe we shouldn't even cover etymology of the term. Currently, the sources we have disagree with one another.  Some say it originated with the right, others say it originated with the left.  Normally, we shouldn't take sides and simply document the dispute.  But most/all of the people writing about this are journalists.  Etymology is not their field of expertise.  We need linguists, or whomever studies etymology, as reliable sources. in order to cover the etymology.  If there are no reliable sources (i.e. where etymology is their field of expertise), let's just remove the etymology until reliable sources emerge.  Thoughts?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 100 percent agree with the above. The definition of neologism in this case precludes the usefulness of any etymological dissemination. I agree that it may be attributable to various sides of the political spectrum per the sources offered. I also strongly advise editors to consider that any additions per the origins of the word prior to the events or reasons for its current popularity are a massively undue focus and false balance. Roughly speaking, the article got writ when it did because the word became a neologism when it did. I'd rather find a source which clarifies when the word became popular enough to fit the definition of neologism, than speculative sources which say "ah yes! But actually..." with regard to its origins. Edaham (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, so I removed the etymology component from the lede, let me know what you think. In the meantime, the body of the article needs a massive overhaul, as a large component of it focuses on the origin of the term.  One other note, there actually was a previous attempt, months ago, to start an alt-left article.  The article was actually written and then deleted  (I can't remember why).  So there is evidence both in the press, and on WP of the term being used long before the current events happening now.  23.242.67.118 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sentence regarding 'researchers' (wp:weasel)
Please comment on this sentence as to why it belongs in the lead with emphasis on wp:v According to researchers who study extremist groups, there is no such thing as the Alt-left.[1] Edaham (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (cited source)
 * The material is sourced and NYT is a WP:RS. If you want to add NYT attribution I don't have a problem with that. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll edit it according to how I think it should be attributed and you take a look. I reverted it twice and still don't think it's suitable for the lead, but your insistence on pushing it to wp:3rr means that I'll have to try to give it more encyclopedic wording, rather than revert, until someone else comes along and messes with it. Also, there's a thread concerning the origins of the term, the soruces for which are all hotly contested. Suggest we wait until a firm consensus is drawn before adding content regarding origins of the term to the lede. Edaham (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ The citation you used has been attributed and expanded to give a proper background to the source you used. Other editors will determine whether or not Mark Pitcavage, a historian and analyst for the ADL is viable to provide context for the term in the lede of the article. Edaham (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Update, I've also removed the editorial commentary which was written by the NYT, the full statement reads, "Researchers who study extremist groups in the United States say there is no "alt-left." Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the...etc". Based on WP:NEWSORG: News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content....Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. - Since the cited text comes from a direct quote by an expert within editorial commentary, I'd rather use the part which quotes the expert directly, rather than use the commentary part and take the NYT's word that there are "researchers", plural. Edaham (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"According to researchers who study extremist groups, there is no such thing as the Alt-left."
The sentence above is what I added to the lede today and sourced it to this NYT article  --- It has now been changed to this / Edaham has already given his thoughts above  and I'd like to hear from some other editors on what they think about his changes. --- Here is a different source -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)