Talk:Alt-right/Archive 12

Suggested Lead
What is your thoughts on this suggestion? I felt like it would clarify it, as the alt-right isn't considered only about white nationalism. It's crazy that Milo Yiannopoulos, Lauren Southern, and the Jewish (!!!) coiner of the term could be considered white nationalists.

The alt-right is a loose group of right-wing activists that reject political correctness, feminism, globalism, egalitarianism, and multiculturalism. Once considered a fringe element among the party, the faction saw significant and profound growth during Donald Trump's run for President of the United States and his Presidency. The movement is made up of right-wing populists, neoreactionaries, national anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, paleoconservatives, national syndicalists, anti-Zionists, paleolibertarians, white nationalists, and members of the men's rights movement. More extreme elements include white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and fascists. The alt-right has had a significant influence on Republican thought in the United States, including using the Sailer Strategy for winning political support. This has been listed as a key reason for Trump's win in the 2016 election, due to Trump's massive gains among white men. The Trump administration also includes several figures who are associated with the alt-right, such as White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. In 2016, Bannon described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right". Notable members of the alt-right include Steve Bannon, Richard B. Spencer, Lauren Southern, Jared Taylor, and Milo Yiannopoulos. Don1182 (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - It's more accurate. Don1182 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support with copy-editing Power~enwiki (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Mostly support but I suggest adding a line or two about the origins of the group. –UserDude 19:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * We've already been over this, and Wikipedia content isn't decided by votes. This proposal goes against WP:CONSENSUS built over months, based on many reliable sources and lengthy past discussions. Please notice the 11 pages of archives in the talk-page header above. Please discuss and get consensus first. Grayfell (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not buying this. Your proposal does not reflect the viewpoint of the majority of reliable sources. If you'd like to start voting on stuff, start an RfC. (I think it's very funny you consider white nationalists as less extreme than white supremacists, and differentiate between neo-Nazis and fascists, but really don't think this would be supportable without bringing in something like Breitbart.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - It's way more fair. Perhaps you can take out the word "fascist" as it seems a bit out there. You could also add "Donald Trump" in the notable alt right figures. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Fair" on Wikipedia means neutral, and that's achieved through reliable sources, not false balance. The alt-right has a well documented connection to fascism. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Reference Move out of Lede
I would like to do my "duplicate the lede to the article body, and then remove 75% of the references in the lede" change again. Are there objections to this? Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I object to this. It might make sense for articles with very short ledes, but not here. Lede should summarize, not to repeat, and anyone reading top-to-bottom is going to find this redundant to the point of distraction. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are forty-eight references in the lede. That's absurd; there should be no more than 10 necessary.  This would be the first step in expanding on their contents in the body, or else deleting them entirely if they turn out to not say anything. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If they turn out to say nothing? That's a mighty big if. Sure, it's an obnoxious amount of refs, but they are there for a reason, and adding a large amount of redundancy doesn't solve this problem. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With there being so many references and so little narrative in the lede, the article currently does not say what those reasons are. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It's still ridiculous that 48 references are in the lede. Are there any other objections to this? Power~enwiki (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Grayfell.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The lead is well-cited because many users have demanded citations for it; the cites are, on the whole, high-quality, mainstream, and representative of many more sources saying the same things. Indeed, even with the citations, we occasionally have people removing parts of it that are well-cited while claiming they are uncited. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I stand by what Grayfell has said, a serious process should begin with a RfC. Also I found that the proposed new lede does not mention homophobia nor antisemitism. The "references problem" can be dealt with using footnotes that nests them.Lappspira (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

New lede
I'm working on a new lede on my sandbox page in an attempt to decrease the number of references in the lede to at most 15, and to improve its compliance with WP:NPOV. If you are unhappy with the current one, please suggest changes there. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A controversial wording proposal
Instead of "Alt-right beliefs have been described as isolationist ...", to have "Alt-right beliefs have been stereotyped as isolationist ...".

The biggest NPOV problem with the lede is the synthesis. It takes the referenced statement that some members of the alt-right have some of these views, and attempts to imply that all members (or at least all prominent members) have all of these views. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be a severe violation of WP:SAY, I think. When attributing a statement, we have to do as neutrally as possible; describing something as a stereotype is certainly not neutral. --Aquillion (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Describing a large group of people as "isolationist, protectionist, antisemitic, and white supremacist, frequently overlapping with Neo-Nazism, nativism and Islamophobia, antifeminism and homophobia, right-wing populism, and the neoreactionary movement." is neutral? The existing sentence is a run-on sentence and more biased than my proposed change. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The two things you are comparing don't relate. "stereotyped as", in this case, is a weasel word which implies the author's distaste with the ensuing description. We can't write like that in the encyclopedia. The other things with which you take issue are sourced, and would require solid sources if anything written contrary to that information were to be included. Edaham (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused... which sources used in the article refer to these as stereotypes?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm using the standard English definition of the word stereotype. The fact that you're listing 11 different descriptions of people in the alt-right, with (almost) 11 different sources, and implying through WP:SYNTH that all the descriptors apply to a set of people is what a stereotype is. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the term is not used by the sources, then they're not stereotypes. You calling them stereotypes would be WP:OR.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no point arguing this point; withdrawn. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

New book on alt-right
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/7/21/15998246/alt-right-donald-trump-angela-nagle-kill-all-normies-interview

"She sees the alt-right as a product of a hopelessly cynical age, one defined by skepticism and alienation. On the right, she argues, young men have latched onto a burgeoning counterculture that rejects social taboos around race and gender. On the left, intellectual culture has become increasingly insular, creating space for reactionaries on the right."

I'm not sure any quotes from the Vox article are relevant here, but the book may be useful. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If we keep adding every mainstream opinion on alt-right like this the page will get overcrowded with []marks soon... Zhenzhengyou (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Universal characterization as "in favor of white nationalism."
The first line of the article reads, abbreviated, "The alt-right is a group of people who reject x in favor of white nationalism."

This is a patently absurd statement in the context of an image like this. The term "alt-right" has been used to refer to much more than just ethnonationalists. There's other kinds of nationalists, civic nationalists in there, too. The current first line suggests none of this and instead implicitly paints anyone who's ever been called "alt-right" as being essentially racist.

That's silly!


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edaham (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Revision: Okay, regarding the "Not done" indicator, I'll just broadly say that I think the tone of the first line should be a lot more like "The alt-right is a term that has been used to describe a variety of generally nationalist alternative right-wing viewpoints ranging from white nationalism to civic nationalism."


 * I do think that across the alt-right there's a general theme of "political correctness is being used to sabotage our integrity" but the exact characterization of "us" varies. So I think they're broadly "nationalist" but have some significant variance in how they characterize the "nation."


 * That's my general argument, and at some point later I intend to come back here with a nice supply of sources. If anyone else who knows what I mean happens to see this, feel free to pitch in with sources. I'm not well-versed in Wiki policy, but I would imagine more examples of people being called alt-right who clearly aren't white nationalists would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brackass (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Brackass (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC) （moved to correct part of thread)


 * Wiki-policy relating to your reply in this thread wp:rs wp:notforum wp:soap. In a nutshell, the contents of wikipedia are not based on any editor's arguments, no matter how cogently formed they may be. Wikipedia requires that all content be based on a reliable source. The current text is based on a source. If you feel that there is disparity between the contents of the page and the cited source, you should make a specific note of this on the talk page and change the article accordingly. If you have a better source you can change the article and be prepared to follow the wp:brd cycle of editing, which often follows edits on pages where contention frequently arises. When ever you make an edit please leave an edit summary which states clearly and briefly what changes were made and why.
 * In addition to the above, I have also left a welcome guide and link to wp:welcome at your talk page
 * Please don'f forget to sign your posts with four tildes and reply on talk pages under the last thread with indent code ":" for easy viewing
 * Edaham (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As for a reliable source, I think it's explained pretty well by this Anti Defamation League description of Alt-Right. –UserDude 06:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In other words, it doesn't matter whether an article is true or accurate, so long as it is well sourced. That seems to be the argument here. Bigdan201 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that the alt-right is a current political phenomenon. It's common for people to be confused and wrong about current politics, especially in our current turbulent climate, e.g. 95% of polls being wrong about the 2016 US presidential election. With this in mind, I think Wikipedia should approach this topic with more caution. Usually, a statement from the ADL would be quite reliable, but in this case it may not be. From my personal observations, the alt-right DO NOT primarily identify with racism and white nationalism. Their prerogative is to be offensive, politically incorrect, and defy the rules of what they perceive as the left/liberal establishment. They support populism and nationalism, and oppose multiculturalism/diversity/affirmative action. Equating this with racism is an inaccurate oversimplification. When the alt-right uses offensive terms or racial slurs, they're doing it primarily to defy cultural taboos. When they criticize minorities, they're criticizing deferential treatment and a reluctance to deal with the fraction of minorities who cause problems. So you see, the alt-right is largely a backlash against the left and neo-liberalism. Of course, all this is original research, and it will be difficult to find reliable sources on a decentralized grass-roots movement that is fraught with controversy. But I'm telling you the truth, to the best of my understanding of it. When people who understand these points read the article, they will come away from it thinking less of Wikipedia as a neutral and accurate source. Ideally this article should fairly represent the pro and anti viewpoints. Bigdan201 (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Can't the numerous instances of articles listing groups and individuals who are not white nationalists as Alt-right count towards removing white nationalism from the first line? Even some of the sources on this page suggest that there are non-racist alt-right components. Don't take my word for it though. I'll come back with links later.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  19:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Elements of populistic left wing economics?
There are elements of some (mostly very extreme) left wing populist economic policies in conjunction with its' mostly socially right-far right policies among some alt-right figures, partially due in part to its' decentralized leadership, I was wondering if this should be mentioned at all in the article?

For Example:

"Single-payer socialism for basic stuff. On top of that could be a free market for more advanced, elective, boutique stuff." - Richard Spencer in response to what he would like obamacare to be replaced with on Twitter.

"Trump Aide Steve Bannon Apparently Wants to Impose a 44% Tax Bracket" - Time describing a statement Bannon made. It should also be noted that Bannon reportedly calls himself a "leninist".

The Daily Stormer Endorses Jeremy Corbyn - Andrew Anglin's sort of right wing manifesto site endorsed Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps as an "anti-establishment" sort of move.

Tariffs: Why Isn't Trump Cool Like Fellow Protectionist Alexander Hamilton? - Steve Sailery echoes a sort of economic protectionism in conjunction with anti-immigration philosophy that is common within the alt-right community.

These are just a few, and this isn't in any way meant to sound biased towards those on the left, or the right. Just a trend I have noticed. I will state that most of these beliefs work in conjunction with their stances on social issues, but then again, many alt-righters self proclaim themselves to champion "libertarian" economic ideas. Quite interesting to say the least.

Allinallisallweallare19 (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's original research. At various times the left and right have reversed positions on all these issues, hence the reference to Hamilton and Jackson, who represented the right and left of the U.S. spectrum in their times.  Populism isn't left-wing either really.  Instead of blaming the social, political and economic environment for problems, it focuses on corruption and parasites.  TFD (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no claim in the article that anyone on the alt-right supports main-stream right-wing economics currently. Emphasizing the fact that some members support left-wing economic proposals such as single-payer would be undue currently.  The Bannon "Leninist" quote is separately problematic; I'm fine with adding the rest if there's sufficient context. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You mean there is no evidence that anyone in the alt-right supports the same economic policies that the U.S. right supports today. And the evidence that they are left-wing is that they support the same health care program originally proposed by right-wingers like Bismarck, Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt and opposed by most Socialists until after the Second World War.  TFD (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that they support Trump and other right-wing politicians who have right-wing economic policies, I agree with you. Any additions here need references that I don't have. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You are assuming that support of neoliberalism is a defining characteristic of the Right, when in fact the Right's position on economics has changed many times. TFD (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Very good points brought up here! The variances in economic policies between "alt-righters" could be mentioned in the article though, perhaps not characterized as "left" or "right" wing, especially given the argument that "Nationalism" may supersede "left" and "right" wing economic ideologies all together and belong into its' own category. It's a very touchy subject given that there are very few definitive economic characteristics. After thinking about it, I would think that for the sake of this article, that specifics about economic policy should be avoided. Instead, we should perhaps stick to citing "variations in economic policies between self proclaimed members of the "alt right"." Allinallisallweallare19 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion
We could maybe add this:

According to a Pew Research Center survey, among American adults in December 2016, back then 54% said they had heard nothing at all about the alt-right, 28% a little, and 18% a lot.

The Etymology section would be a good fit.

--87.177.122.220 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Calling an RfC tomorrow
I'm calling an RfC on the lede tomorrow. I expect to have 3 proposals: the current lede, a version of the lede on User:Power~enwiki/sandbox (which is still being edited at this time; your constructive changes are welcome), and User:Don1182's proposal from earlier on this talk page.

If you have changes you want to make to any of these or have a separate proposal of your own, suggest them by 17 July 2017 23:59GMT and I will try to include your feedback in the proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's my (almost-finished) proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"The alt-right is a far-right political movement that rejects mainstream conservatism, promoted mainly through Internet activism. The term gained widespread use in the United States during the 2016 election to refer to some supporters of Donald Trump.

The term was popularized by white supremacist Richard Spencer and his website Alternative Right. It gained popularity through content on websites such as 4chan, Twitter, InfoWars, and Breitbart News. It is strongly associated with certain online memes, such as Pepe the Frog.

The movement generally supports isolationism, nativism and protectionism, and opposes immigration, multiculturalism and political correctness. It has been criticized for having prominent supporters who are antisemitic, Islamophobic, racist, sexist and homophobic. It is also associated with fringe groups such as the men's rights movement and the neoreactionary movement.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the alt-right strongly supported the Trump campaign. Hillary Clinton attacked the alt-right as "racist ideas ... anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-women ideas" and accused Donald Trump of taking the alt-right "mainstream". The Trump administration includes several figures who are associated with the alt-right, such as White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon."


 * As someone who has argued against bias on this particular topic, this looks good! Much more fair and balanced. Bigdan201 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I your version is very good.Patapsco913 (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No credible sources
Nearly all of the sources cited in this article are opinion-based far-left blogs that have no credibility whatsoever. It is so contaminated that it should be burned down and re-written. Examples:

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/pg7jbv/men-are-creepy-new-study-confirms

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files

http://forward.com/news/national/348370/is-the-alt-right-reaching-out-to-jews-and-why/?attribution=articles-article-related-1-headline ("Turns out, the “alt-right” is a loose affiliation of racists and others haters including, but not limited to, white supremacists and anti-Semites.")

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Temennigru (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree there is serious liberal-bias going around. Its quite ironic to claim neutrality while using sources that are clearly "alt left" in of itself. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh please, using half of an insult doesn't make a source unreliable. These are WP:RS. Your personal agreement with their ideology is neither necessary nor relevant. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * When researching the beliefs of a group, particularly a political one... You should always (in my opinion) listen to how the group describes itself and give little attention to how they are described by their political rivals. Most of the sources here are clearly leftist in perspective. - Jeff V
 * That's not how you sign a post. Please use four tildes. The option to insert these into your text is in the edit window if you can't find that button on your keyboard. That's also not how you make a talk page forum post. You need to provide a reliable source. Someone from the alt right who published something saying how lovely they all are would have to be verified and also quoted in context. Have a nice weekend Edaham (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This seems like the latest in a string of attempts by right-leaning users and IPs that wish to impose a view of the 'Alt-Right' that is unfortunately, against what many researchers and credible sources indicate. Please understand that Wikipedia is not 'rationalwiki' or 'conservapedia'--go to these more 'informal' wikis for opinions. In this case, I'd suggest the latter since it's unlikely the recent influx of right-leaning editors will ever be satisfied with the state of this article and those like it, in the near and long term. Bemoreinformed (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! Especially like that they claim ALT-right are anti-Semitic and then list that a Jewish person coined the phrase. I used to trust wickipedia - now I have to view anything I read on this site as suspect.

What an incredibly skewed and poorly written  Propaganda article. Virginia1954 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Copy editing
ie proofreading...you say Paul Gottfried first used 'alt-right' in 2008. Then you say Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010...you can't 'coin' a term that someone else already, er, invented 2 years prior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niccast (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Alt-left - a Proposed new wiki
Alt-left is a term coined by President Donald Trump in reference to the radicalized counter protesters that erupted into violence during a permitted protest rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Speaking at Trump Tower in Manhattan, Trump questioned "What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, the alt-right?"

Members of the alt-left typically do not support free speech and engage in premeditated rioting, fighting and demonstrating against persons with opinions that differ from theirs. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose just because Donald Trump says a word doesn't make it notable. Covfefe wasn't, and this isn't either. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Alt-Left is a political movement in the U.S. today. Trump merely called it out... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NEOLOGISM. And if we had an article it would have to be about what Trump said since the concept has no recognition in mainstream sources.  Maybe Trump supporters should set up an alternative to Wikipedia complete with alternative facts and terminology.  TFD (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NEOLOGISM, I understand. But give it time!  Let us eat lettuce (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 'AGREE, KEEP Trump did not create this term. This is an assumption some have made and some have been spreading that falsehood around such as the vice-mayor of Charlottesville. The term was user at least as early as 2016. Trump simply popularized the term. I would say here is a good a spot as any to prep references to make a section on this page. Alt-left is a derivative of alt-right so we should see how it does here and determine later if we ought to split the section into a new page. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

AP Guidelines
New article: with a definition and style-usage guidelines.


 * A political grouping or tendency mixing racism, white nationalism, anti-Semitism and populism; a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race in the United States.
 * Avoid using the term generically and without definition, because it is not well-known globally and the term may exist primarily as a public relations device to make its supporters’ actual beliefs less clear and more acceptable to a broader audience. In AP stories discussing what the movement says about itself, the term “alt-right” (quotation marks, hyphen and lowercase) may be used in quotes or modified as in the self-described “alt-right” or so-called alt-right.

Power~enwiki (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)