Talk:Alt-right/Archive 13

RfC on Lede Section
Which of these three versions should be the basis of the lede section on the alt-right article? Power~enwiki (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Option A: - the previous consensus version

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism, principally in the United States, but also to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe. Paul Gottfried is the first person to use the term "alternative right", when referring specifically to developments within American right-wing politics, in 2008. The term has since gained wide currency with the rise of the so-called "alt-right". White supremacist *
 * Chris Welch and Sara Ganim, White Supremacist Richard Spencer: 'We reached tens of millions of people' with video, CNN, December 6, 2016. "Now Spencer, a 38-year-old white supremacist and founder of the so-called alt-right movement, is taking his rhetoric on the road..."
 * Mangan, Katherine. "A push to 'expand white privilege': Richard B. Spencer president, National Policy Institute, a white-supremacist group." The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 9, 2016, A6+.
 * Zalman, Jonathan. "Neo-Nazi Website Tells Readers to 'Take Action' Against Jews on Behalf of Richard Spencer's Mother in Montana." Tablet Magazine, December 19, 2016. "Critics of Richard Spencer the white supremacist, alt-right leader who dreams of an "ethno-state"are making their voices heard..."
 * "Campus clashes as US white supremacist gives speech." London Evening Standard [London, England], December 7, 2016, p. 22. "Hundreds of demonstrators clashed with riot police at a protest against a white supremacist's speech at a leading American university. Richard Spencer, who gained notoriety for holding a so-called "alt-right" meeting celebrating Donald Trump's election triumph with Nazi rhetoric, told students attending the speech at the Texas A&M University last night: 'At the end of the day, America belongs to white men.'"
 * Gretel Kauffman, "Donald Trump again disavows so-called alt-right supporters", Christian Science Monitor, November 23, 2016. "Richard Spencer, coiner of the term "alt-right" and head of the white supremacist National Policy Institute..."
 * Gretel Kauffman, "White supremacists convene in celebration of Trump victory", Christian Science Monitor, November 20, 2016. The annual conference of the National Policy Institute, a white supremacist think tank, experienced a rise in attendance this year... 'It's been an awakening,' Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute, said at the conference."  Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused by some media publications of doing so to excuse overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.    The term drew considerable media attention and controversy during and after the 2016 US presidential election.
 * Gretel Kauffman, "Donald Trump again disavows so-called alt-right supporters", Christian Science Monitor, November 23, 2016. "Richard Spencer, coiner of the term "alt-right" and head of the white supremacist National Policy Institute..."
 * Gretel Kauffman, "White supremacists convene in celebration of Trump victory", Christian Science Monitor, November 20, 2016. The annual conference of the National Policy Institute, a white supremacist think tank, experienced a rise in attendance this year... 'It's been an awakening,' Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute, said at the conference."  Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused by some media publications of doing so to excuse overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.    The term drew considerable media attention and controversy during and after the 2016 US presidential election.

Alt-right beliefs have been described 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. The concept has further been associated with multiple groups from American nationalists, neo-monarchists, men's rights advocates, and the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump.

The alt-right has its roots on Internet websites such as 4chan and 8chan, where anonymous members create and use Internet memes to express their ideologies. It is difficult to tell how much of what people write in these venues is serious and how much is intended to provoke outrage. Members of the alt-right use websites like Alternative Right, Twitter, Breitbart, and InfoWars to convey their message. Alt-right postings generally support Donald Trump   and oppose immigration, multiculturalism and political correctness.

The alt-right has also had a significant influence on conservative thought in the United States, such as the Sailer Strategy for winning political support, along with having close ties to the Trump Administration. It has been listed as a key reason for Trump's win in the 2016 election. The Trump administration 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," with the goal of promoting the ideology.


 * Option B: - a version by User:Power~enwiki

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.


 * Option C: a version by User:Don1182 as suggested above.

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.

!Votes

 * Option B as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option A. While Option A could benefit from some stylistic tweaking, I fear the alternatives are merely attempts to water down what reliable sources have to say so as to better fit reality to some editors' worldviews. Option B is the less offensive of those alternatives, but it removes too much information. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option A. Strongly agree with everything stated by, above. Option B appears to remove way too much sourced content from the lede intro section. Agree with Antinoos69 that this seems like attempts to water down what reliable sources have to say so as to better fit reality to some editors' worldviews. Sagecandor (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option A - For now. See my comments below. Would rather see a trimming and reordering of the current lead. For example, the second sentence can be removed and the part about anti-immigration can be moved to the second paragraph.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option A. The other versions don't accurately summarize the sources or the article; in particular, omitting or minimizing white nationalism (which virtually all reliable, mainstream sources identify a defining feature of the movement, often the defining feature) is clearly not workable.  Version B in particular is simply unusable for this reason - it reads like it was written to avoid offending people rather than to accurately summarize what the sources say.  It's important to underline that WP:NPOV is about accurately summarizing the sources with weight appropriate to their reputation and focus - it isn't about removing or minimizing something simply because some readers might find it controversial. --Aquillion (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option A - see no benefit to other options and plenty of downsides. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option B For a more fair and unbiased lede. I've commented in-depth below. Bigdan201 (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option B - The only version that fairly describes reality, regardless of how well-sourced the propaganda currently posted is. This is an information site, not a media site--and there is documented proof of the media's left-wing bias (which is what is being 'cited' as if they were facts) . Provide accurate information and let the reader interpret their view. It should be mentioned that there are radical elements, but they are not the core. Bferg317 (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So, a brand new account created solely to vote here? Gives "liberal media propaganda" as their reasoning? Fascinating.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * don't knock it. Votes from accounts created by those invested in a POV in order to vote on a specific RfC by calling fundamental wp:5p policies into question are very valuable in establishing consensus. They don't change the veracity of the currently used sources, but they cast a great deal of light on the motivation behind the RfC and destroy more shrewdly disguised efforts to insert POV into the encyclopedia.
 * I'm not trying to insert POV as much as trying to keep it out. Note the confusion between alt-lite and alt-right. also, here's a source for you: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-alt-right-branding-war-has-torn-the-movement-in-two this describes the controversy between the white nationalist elements of the alt-right and those who oppose Spencer and his ilk. Bigdan201 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Option B - is best of the three at meeting WP:LEAD. Option A has missteps at start and way too much.   Option C goes astray in second para. Markbassett (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Summoned by bot Option A, and strongly so. It is not ideal, but is far better than the alternatives, and accurately reflects the reliable sources. Option B mentions a few very specific things, and the choice is very strange: Hillary Clinton's views, as a politician, should not be given more weight than the views of reliable secondary sources. The mention of Pepe is totally undue weight. Likewise, the first sentence should identify the subject of the article and mention its most relevant aspects; Trump's 2016 campaign is not a defining characteristic. Option C has similar problems. Rejection of political correctness is very far from the first characteristic identified by reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option B, because the criteria for being a "reliable source" isn't being "mainstream", whatever that undefined term means. It's being accurate as a reliable source for what the truth is, that truth in our case reflecting what prominent viewpoints are on a certain subject. Breitbart, for example, reflects accurately on the views of many in the alt-right. The view that the alt-right is not inherently "white nationalist" is widely held among many prominent adherents. Take this Breitbart article. It doesn't overemphasize white nationalism, which is what should be the stance of the lede too. One cannot simultaneously refer to the presidents chief strategist and his news organization as "alt right" or at least being associated with such while simultaneously denying their opinions any weight whatsoever. Breitbart et al are prominent voices, and reflects a large segment of the population. WP:DUE exists, and dare I say it, maybe the people with a significant hand in electing the president of the United States should perhaps be considered an important source in their own right, or at least their perspectives shpuld be mentioned in the lede of the Wikipedia article on their own movement. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 18:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Some comments and concerns: Just my initial comments. Something between A and B would be ideal (trim A to be closer to B).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option A is the most detailed, but a bit overly so. It could use some detail trimming at the very lease.
 * Option B - Feels watered down overall. Other issues are: (1) can we really call this a movement when the body of the article explicitly questions it? and (2) it's not just prominent supporters who are FUBARphobes, but rather is a sizable chunk of entire set of people who adhere to this ideology.
 * Option C - even more watered down and casts the white supremacists as somehow fringe to the alt-right, despite RS.


 * More concerns.
 * Just tidy up the existing version where necessary. Both of the other versions are veiled attempts to distance AR supporters from various unsavory concepts, in spite of the fact that RS predominantly views the distance between AR and various elements of fascism as being measurable on the Planck scale.


 * In summary, the point of the revision seems to be to imbue the reader with the idea that reliable sources are on the fence when it comes to portraying this group, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth. The options suggested are relatively shrewdly written compared to the usual whitewashing attempts on this article, but I think that in no way should the results of the above vote be seen as a binding consensus on the final outcome of the lede.
 * Edaham (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an RfC, requested specifically to be binding based on previous discussions. Apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, why don't you think the results of the RfC should be a binding consensus? Power~enwiki (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have been more explicitly clear in my summary: It's an effort to replace what reliable sources actually say, with a version which makes it seem like they say something else. In the tiny chance that I have not been clear, other editors will make up their minds. "I don't like it" is precisely why this article is being subjected to this process in the first place. The lede does need stylistic modifications, but not to the point that the way it presents the sources on which it is based needs to be altered.Edaham (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You said "in no way should the results of the above vote be seen as a binding consensus on the final outcome of the lede." I am assuming that was intended purely as rhetorical flourish, and you're not objecting to the concept of the RfC process? Power~enwiki (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not rhetorical, neither was it objecting to WP policy. You yourself subjected this issue to a vote in your styling of the opening paragraphs of your thread on this page. If you believe this to be a binding part of an RfC then you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. Since this is a complicated area of Wikipedia, I invite people involved in this thread not to take your, or my word for it but to familiarize themselves with the processes here, here and here. Edaham (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine, if other editors don't disagree with your view, I'll close this RfC and go straight to Dispute Resolution tomorrow. There's no point in a month-long process if the editors at this page will continue to object afterwards. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To clear up what may be the mis-conception: this is not a "majority" vote. However, the consensus as determined by an uninvolved admin is binding.  If the editors on this page do not accept that, the RfC should be closed. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Option B looks good. Option C is decent, but feels more like internal content than a lede. In any case, a shift away from A is highly recommended. While wiki is based on sources, I still think editors should use their discretion in using them, especially when it comes to a current political issue with alot of controversy. It's fine to state that the alt-right has been accused of certain things, it's another thing to state definitely what they are. This sort of obsequious attitude towards sources can undermine the integrity of wiki, especially on an issue like this. The idea is to proceed with caution, rather than applying strong labels haphazardly. Bigdan201 (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is of note to the discussion that those invested in it, while quick to defend their erroneous understanding of Wikipedia's policies when it comes to mediation, are fine with the idea of portraying the (fundamentally important) accurate presentation of reliable sources as obsequious and haphazard. Whilst the subject of Alt-right it's self, as spectacle of debate, may provoke controversy, the way it has been portrayed in a preponderance of reliable sources cited in this article is not controversial. It is not a good idea to change the wording to give the impression that any perceived negative elements of the alt right derive from the accusations of its detractors when the majority of sources simply don't say that. Edaham (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that reliable sources are fundamentally important. On many topics, there is only a minimal need to question reliable sources, especially a preponderance. However, I'm arguing that current political developments require greater caution, especially in a turbulent situation like ours. I'll come out and say it, I think many sources are biased and/or inaccurate in their understanding of alt-right ideology. It is not primarily white supremacist/nationalist. There may be overlap, but the alt-right is primarily about anti-establishment conservatism, radical populism, ethno-nationalism, and opposition to the Left (especially Social Justice) and political correctness. Of course, much of this is original research, and I'd have to pull sources together, but this is my understanding. I'm not saying I should be able to dictate, I'm saying that in light of all this, you should be cautious and avoid committing to strong labels, even if there are many supporting articles and blogs. I'm outweighed here, but I'm writing all this because I value accuracy, and I see accuracy being swept aside in favor of blindly following a popular misunderstanding. Bigdan201 (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as the "white nationalist" comments; I'd love to see a section in the article with the title "White nationalism". If it is as close as various editors suggest, there should be ample material for such a section. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with the analysis of Edaham, the proposed changes attempt to cast the alt-right in better light portraying controversial core issues into non-core issues (White nationalism, Antisemitism, islamophobia, etc.). I found it quite of a an irony the movement that criticizes so much "political correcness" is now proposed here to be portrayed in such manner that it fits "political correctness". I suggest the older pre RfC version should be kept until a new consensus arrives on place. Lappspira (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Option B is good and best follows WP:LEAD - the flow is logical, with definition per WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, history, themes, and a neatly attributed bit from Clinton speech about them. The other two seem wrong length and also content not good for LEAD of an article.  Option A also has some problems beyond just being overly long.  First, the definition line seems a bit incomplete/incorrect/internally conflicted in showing it as too organized/focused to white racism yet linking it to Far-right politics.  Winds up entirely missing that it is a loose collective term and any internet tie-in.  The cites there are about unrest in France/Canada rather than about what alt-right is, and it seems at odds or excluding some of the article content and external RS usages.  Elsewhere, we have definitions like these:
 * [Oxford https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/alt-right] "(in the US) an ideological grouping associated with extreme conservative or reactionary viewpoints, characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate deliberately controversial content."
 * [Cambridge http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/alt-right] "people with extreme conservative views, including extreme views about race, who reject ordinary politics and use the internet to spread their opinions. Alt-right is an abbreviation for "alternative right" "
 * [NBC http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-delivering-speech-alt-right-what-s-n637701] covering the Clinton speech "The alt-right, shorthand for “alternative right,” is the blanket term for a loose gathering of conservatives primarily based online that can include everyone from critics of so-called “political correctness” on college campuses to hardcore white supremacists and neo-Nazis."
 * [Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/24/whats-the-alt-right-a-primer/?utm_term=.b6fe700f4937] "the movement remains elastically defined, harboring some terms and personalities that remain obscure or impenetrable. This is a guide — which can and will be updated — to the basics."
 * Second big issue seems that as a political labeling or vague pejorative, it not only is vague and in flux but needs caution about WP:LABEL and straying into being ad hominem attacks or guilt by association. The use of 4 and 5 cites seems a possible reflection of contentious POV, especially with many offbeat ones.  (Quillette? Tablet? Christian Science Monitor? Rolling Stone?  Taki's Magazine? Salon?  New Statesman? Mother Jones?)  And the every-single-paragraph of 'Election, Campaign, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Bannon, Bannon' seems overkill both on WP:WEIGHT and running astray on WP:LEAD structure and length when compared to Option B does a single mention at the end in context that is neatly attributed.
 * Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Edaham

 * movement... promoted mainly through Internet activism. the alt right are supporters of movements, not a movement. They are nothing so romanticized as activists.
 * I disagree that "internet activism" is a romantic term, but that's not relevant. As a political movement, the main distinguishing feature of the alt-right is their use of the internet.  If you have a better wording, I'm happy to replace it.


 * The movement 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. thus dividing the less attractive attributes of supporters as having originated as criticisms from their detractors, rather than (as has been demonstrated) being things they espouse directly.
 * Correct. Specifically with anti-semitism, it's clearly inaccurate to call the entire movement anti-semitic, most references say the alt-right also includes some Jews, as well as people who are against all religions.  For other terms where there is controversy, it's best to not paint with a broad stroke to avoid WP:BLP issues.


 * 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". again taking controversial components of the alt right ideological makeup and casting them as being accusations of a political adversary. RS shows these components as having originated with prominent alt-right figures themselves as well as being claims made by detractors
 * The problem with writing about the alt-right is that nobody wants to admit to any definition at all. Hillary Clinton, as a national political figure not associated with the alt-right, is as neutral a person I can find to give a definition of the alt-right in her own words.


 * More extreme elements include white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and fascists. yet another way of obliquely saying we're not all bad, when it could be plainly stating what RS states, which is that these elements are associated with AR.
 * I'm not sure it's possible to use the phrase "neo-Nazi" in the lede at all without violating NPOV or giving them WP:UNDUE promotion.

Power~enwiki (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for your reply and for contributing to the discussion so throuroughly. It's one thing to say that the movement consists of some people who are antisemetic and white nationalist (which is verifiable) and another to say that the group has been accused of being so (which is also verifiable). It would be better to mention both, rather than to omit the first. Edaham (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This looks likely to be "no consensus" at this time, favoring keeping the existing lede. I do still feel that a bunch of details in the lede (entirely un-related to the white supremacy discussion) are excessive; such as mentioning Paul Gottfried in the second sentence. If Edaham or someone else supporting Option A has a proposal to remove some of that cruft that isn't viewed as a violation of NPOV, I'm happy to withdraw my proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Google memo and Charlottesville rally
Google's Ideological Echo Chamber and 2017 Unite the Right rally both are described as the "alt-right" doing things in multiple news sources. Should these be discussed in this article? Power~enwiki (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this should be mentioned in the article. The event was organized by various alt-right groups. Allinallisallweallare19 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Did you read the google memo? It went against alt-right views Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * re|Allinallisallweallare19|Jack1234567891011121314151617}} Its article doesn't mention it. The Mercury News source doesn't mention the Unite the Right Rally. The organisers of the planned rallies against Google made it clear (listen to the interview)this has nothing to do with the alt-right and was planned before the rally. There's no point in telling people to read the memo, we wouldn't use it as a source about the alt-right or this rally. Please read no original research. Doug Weller  talk 10:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm an idiot,failed to preview and didn't notice I'd formatted the ping correclty. Jack, you messed up yours as well, and once messed up and saved, you have to start a new ping and sign it. You can't fix it. Doug Weller  talk 10:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The term is so new the article suffers significanty from a lack of secondary sources. A few new ones have appeared in the past month (and I suspect more pieces are being worked on now); perhaps there will be enough for a full-scale re-write in September. I'm still not sure whether the "Pepe the Frog / Kek" people are generally considered part of the alt-right or if they are a separate movement. The "neo-reactionaries" are another group that is known among Wikipedia contributors but possibly not considered notable enough to mention when describing the alt-right. Power~enwiki (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

kekistan was literally created to mock the alt right Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of memes
This article is so just wrong.... It was obviously written by someone who does not browse memes pages or understands them. So i will go over everything and tell you why it's wrong, also i'm sorry i just deleted it yesterday it was so horrible to look at.

The alt-right's use of Internet memes to express and advance its beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan, 8chan and The Daily Stormer, has been widely reported.[14][28][124][125] Among the most widely used are the following terms: I think it's silly to always think that there is a motive to the memes most of them just want to make jokes that's what i have understood from talking with these people on reddit mainly. When they talk about 4chan/8chan they are talking about /pol/ which is not a alt-right page it's just a anti political correctness page. I occasionally browse pol and i never see a 'alt-right' thread but i see 'National socialist' threads quite often

Cuckservative, a portmanteau of "cuckold" and "conservative". Alright the cuckservative is a alt-right meme that i can accept

Triple parentheses or "echoes" to identify and target Jews online, which originated on the neo-Nazi podcast The Daily Shoah.[10][14][128][129] This one is mostly people just joking, it's unfair to say all of them are trying to 'express and advance its beliefs'. Many people use it as a joke to mock the alt-right by always blaming them when something goes wrong

Variations of the Pepe the Frog and "Emperor Trump" memes popular in alt-right circles, leading to references of "Nazi Frogs" in the media.[131][132] These variants of the Pepe the Frog meme attracted significant media attention after the meme was criticized in an article published on Hillary Clinton's campaign website.[133][134] No, Pepe the frog is not a symbol of the alt-right.

Satirical worship of the Ancient Egyptian deity Kek has become associated with alt-right politics, as well as satirical nationalism of the nonexistent nation of "Kekistan".[135][136][137] No no non no no no. Kekistan was created to mock the alt-right people in the alt-right hate kekistan because it's making fun of identity politics

"Remove kebab" as a euphemism for calls to kill or ethnically cleanse Muslims.[138][139][140][141] This one comes from the strategy game Europa universalis where the ottomans are always killing everybody, it's not a alt-right meme. Just go to https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/ and see how many 'remove kebab' posts are posted each day

The use of Moon Man, a character based on Mac Tonight, to promote white separatism and race war.[142][129] I'm not familiar with these memes i will browse them and come back

The use of alt-right music such as Trumpwave and fashwave, which is a right-wing subgenre of vaporwave.[143] I'm not familiar with this either i will come back

The use of "Deus Vult!" and various other crusader iconography as a means of expressing Islamophobia.[129][144][145] no, people use this ironically and it's not even a alt-right meme it's just a meme.

Ironic support of the Black Egyptian hypothesis, often using stereotypical African-American vernacular such as "We wuz kangz n shieet."[146] Not a alt right meme

The use of the phrase "dindu nuffin," a bastardization of "Didn't do nothing," in reference to claims of innocence for African-American victims of police violence, especially about Eric Garner and Michael Brown.[147] not a alt right meme

Pinochet's and the Argentine junta's practice killing of leftists by throwing them off helicopters has been the subject of numerous alt-right internet memes that endorse the killings.[148] not a alt right meme

Stuff like this is difficult to source because it's mostly my own experience browsing memes, but i assure you it's more accurate then what buzzfeed or the nytimes reports about them because they simply don't understand them. However i will try so source all of this later — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Your own experience is not necessarily accurate. FWIW, there are "two alt rights", the Alt-right and the alt-lite. It is confusing, including to me, but the more hardcore alt-right is much more explicitly racialized, and frankly, seems to have a larger range of memes, mostly emanating from chan culture. If you are not a literal racist, you may not be aware of this aspect. Granted, it is very difficult and awkward to write about "memes" on an encyclopedia when only relying on referenced sources, but this is our only option on Wikipedia - we can't just insert our original research. However, if you are able to find more/better sources, please do DoctorPaveleer (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah i found a good source, well as good a source as you can find when talking about... memes http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cuckservative not alt-right. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/triple-parentheses-echo not only used by alt right. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-the-frog. Pepe has existed for such a long time i don't think it's fair to characterize 'him' as a symbol of the alt-right just because some of them use it. Also people who tweet out pepe as trump are not alt-right that should be obvious. Satirical worship of the Ancient Egyptian deity Kek has become associated with alt-right politics, as well as satirical nationalism of the nonexistent nation of "Kekistan". This one is just wrong Kekistan is about making fun of the alt-right because it's making fun of identity politics http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/kekistan Remove kebab" as a euphemism for calls to kill or ethnically cleanse Muslims. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/serbia-strong-remove-kebab The use of Moon Man, a character based on Mac Tonight, to promote white separatism and race war. You can't know the people posting racist memes of this are racist they might just be making memes furthermore if we assume that the majority of the memes are made by racists how can we know they are alt right http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/moon-man The use of alt-right music such as Trumpwave and fashwave, which is a right-wing subgenre of vaporwave. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultures/fashwave-trumpwave Alright this one i hadn't heard of before (because the alt-right is not that big) but it seems to be geniunely alt right The use of "Deus Vult!" and various other crusader iconography as a means of expressing Islamophobia. This meme is way too popular for the alt right https://ifunny.co/tags/deusvult also http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/deus-vult Ironic support of the Black Egyptian hypothesis, often using stereotypical African-American vernacular such as "We wuz kangz n shieet." http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-wuz-kings not alt right The use of the phrase "dindu nuffin," a bastardization of "Didn't do nothing," in reference to claims of innocence for African-American victims of police violence, especially about Eric Garner and Michael Brown. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dindu-nuffin used by a lot of racists(butnotaltrightersonly) probably as the article says but probably used ironically also by normal people. Pinochet's and the Argentine junta's practice killing of leftists by throwing them off helicopters has been the subject of numerous alt-right internet memes that endorse the killings http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/free-helicopter-rides not exclusively used by the alt right used by a lot of normal people ironcally. My suggestion is to remove the meme section altogether because it's wrong to paint people who use these memes all as alt right and because it's quite hard to know who uses these memes and with what intention Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC) No one seems to oppose this? So can i delete the meme section Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Misleading information
We should switch into "Opinion B" of the above discussion -- the "movement" is way too broad and loose to be classified as white nationalist, as many supporters of the "movement" reject the label. Or, at least, the article should make a distiction between the white nationalist part and the non-white nationalist "alt-lite". --Tiiliskivi (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems, from all of the sources I have seen, that "alt-right" is now firmly associated with white nationalism/white supremacy. The label used for the broader "alt-right", which is essentially civic nationalist/ant-progressive/anti-globalism, is now "alt-lite". The Anti-Defamation league has also taken up this classification, as have figures on both sides of the alt-lite/alt-right divide (https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/from-alt-right-to-alt-lite-naming-the-hate) DoctorPaveleer (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Additionally misleading is the list of associations. For instance, "Members of the alt-right use websites like Alternative Right, Twitter, Breitbart, and Reddit to convey their message." implies, unfairly, that Twitter, Breitbart, and Reddit are somehow racist organizations. Can we add USPS to the list? How about AT&T? No. The answer is to eliminate sentences like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.92.86 (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Incorporation of the "Alt-lite" concept
This article has in the past been subject to disputes over whether the alt-right ought to be defined as a white supremacist/white nationalist movement. I think it is clear at this point that the association is well documented; the article reflects this, and should stay this way.

However, upon having read dozens of sources on the topic, it appears to me that there is a widely recognized offshoot of the alt-right - the "alt-lite", or "alt-light", which rejects openly racist, racialist, and antisemitic views in favor of a certain brand of "civic nationalism."

Various media figures who were previously associated with the "alt-right" (perhaps under an even looser definition of alt-right than is currently used) are now seen as "alt-lite" by the | Anti-Defamation League, and, it seems, by many of figures involved with these movements themselves. There are multiple independent sources in the alt-lite article using and explaining this distinction.

Currently there is no mention of the "alt-lite" anywhere in this article. I think that this is quite a glaring omission, and has caused many complaints from confused users on this page. In my opinion, first of all, a brief mention should be given to this concept in the article's introduction, and after this a section titled "alt-lite" should be added (which would effectively merge the two articles).

I would like to hear any thoughts on this proposal. DoctorPaveleer (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Tbh this whole article should be deleted the biggest alt right youtube channels have like 30k subs.... It's such a tiny movement that it's not worth a entire section of Right-wing_politics Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds of independent sources discussing this topic and acknowledging it as a significant phenomenon. At the time of your comment, there was an alt-right rally so big that it caused a state of emergency to be declared in Virginia. I think you are under-informed, or trolling. DoctorPaveleer  (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to separate the two topics completely, given there are multiple individuals who thread the line between the two. The issue is that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and most reliable sources say both that 1) Milo Yiannopoulos, Mike Cernovich, Alex Jones et al are alt-right (the 'alt-lite' term is barely used except within alt-right or 'alt-lite' circles); and 2) the alt-right is white nationalist. However, reliable sources overwhelmingly do not specifically identify the 'alt-lite' individuals as white nationalists. A fair compromise would be that the alt-right is is a far-right rejection of mainstream American conservatism, and then separately mention, perhaps in the following sentence, the fact that many publications have referred to it as white nationalist without stating definitively that it is a white nationalist movement.--Jay942942 (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Meme 2
So i wanted to redo this because last one was a mess but Sjö wont let me so i just made a new section instead

So the 'Use of memes' is unfair and written by someone who does not browse memes because if you did you would understand that these memes are not alt-right memes but just memes in general.

Cuckservative, a portmanteau of "cuckold" and "conservative".[127][128] the second source does not even mention the alt-right so it's false and the first one does not include a poll about percentage of people that use cuckservative so it's unfair to say that they all are alt-right

Triple parentheses or "echoes" to identify and target Jews online, which originated on the neo-Nazi podcast The Daily Shoah.[11][15][129][130] This one does not include a poll about percentage of people who use this meme that are alt-right

Variations of the Pepe the Frog and "Emperor Trump" memes popular in alt-right circles,[131] leading to references of "Nazi Frogs" in the media.[132][133] These variants of the Pepe the Frog meme attracted significant media attention after the meme was criticized in an article published on Hillary Clinton's campaign website.[134][135]. This one does not include a poll about percentage of people who use this meme that are alt-right

Satirical worship of the Ancient Egyptian deity Kek has become associated with alt-right politics, as well as satirical nationalism of the nonexistent nation of "Kekistan".[136][137][138]. This one was literally created to mock the alt-right.

Remove kebab" as a euphemism for calls to kill or ethnically cleanse Muslims.[139][140][141][142]. Wrong and This one does not include a poll about percentage of people who use this meme that are alt-right

The use of Moon Man, a character based on Mac Tonight, to promote white separatism and race war.[143][130] This one does not include a poll about percentage of people who use this meme that are alt-right

The use of alt-right music such as Trumpwave and fashwave, which is a right-wing subgenre of vaporwave.[144] This one does not include a poll about percentage of people who use this meme that are alt-right

The use of "Deus Vult!" and various other crusader iconography as a means of expressing Islamophobia.[130][145][146] This one does not include a poll about percentage of people who use this meme that are alt-right

Ironic support of the Black Egyptian hypothesis, often using stereotypical African-American vernacular such as "We wuz kangz n shieet."[147] This one does not include a poll about percentage of people who use this meme that are alt-right

The use of the phrase "dindu nuffin," a bastardization of "Didn't do nothing," in reference to claims of innocence for African-American victims of police violence, especially about Eric Garner and Michael Brown.[148] This one does not include a poll about percentage of people who use this meme that are alt-right

Pinochet's and the Argentine junta's practice killing of leftists by throwing them off helicopters has been the subject of numerous alt-right internet memes that endorse the killings.[149] This one does not include a poll about percentage of people who use this meme that are alt-right Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC) So does anyone oppose removing the meme section? Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be removed entirely right now. I might support that in the future, though.   It definitely needs to be reduced in size. Having to "include a poll about percentage of people who use this meme that are alt-right" is too high a standard, if a reliable source attributes it to the alt-right, and it is sufficiently notable overall, it can stay. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * While I agree that this section needs to be trimmed to just the more notable memes, it is clear that they are all "alt-right memes." Many of them incorporate overtly racist, anti-Semetic, and Islamaphobic imagery/slurs or have very clearly been adopted by members of the alt-right(Pepe/"Emporer Trump.") Wikipedia articles about social movements or memes do not require "a poll about percentage of people who use this meme that are alt-right," since these all have multiple citations already. I myself am "a person who browses memes," and I can clearly see that these are alt-right memes because 1. I have seen many of these memes produced and shared by self-proclaimed members of the alt right, and 2. they clearly espouse the hateful rhetoric characteristic of the movement. Anyway, I think this section should remain because memes are a big part of the alt-right's identity, but one Vice article shouldn't be the be-all end-all for which are notable enough for Wikipedia. Personally, I think it should retain Pepe/"Emperor Trump,' the triple parentheses, and Kek (with an addendum about the phrase's original meme origin (sigh). All the rest, while I am unsurprised to see that they originated with the alt-right, aren't as characteristic of the movement, as they create all sorts of racist drivel and Wikipedia certainly doesn't need to list all of them. Mooeena ● 💌 ● 🖋️ 20:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Major problems in tone
This reads like journalism. Documentation of Chrome extensions and specific subreddits have no place in an Encyclopedia, unless it's Dramatica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:43:2:CC49:899D:ECB2:8869:A011 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The article seems to equate the alt-right with white nationalism.
 * Edit: It's improved somewhat.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Alt-left term isn't exclusively used by the alt-right
The Section should reflect that. Truthsort (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Confusion caused by unclear definition of the term "Alt-right"
The term "alt-right" as well as the alt-right movement is pretty loosely defined, and means different things to different people. For example, quoting the article:

"The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism. White supremacist[1] Richard Spencer initially promoted the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism, and did so according to the Associated Press to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, neo-fascism, and neo-Nazism"

"The Trump administration includes several figures who are associated with the alt-right, such as former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon.[37] In 2016, Bannon described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right", with the goal of promoting the ideology.[38]"

The obvious conclusion from these two parts would be that Bannon is an outspoken white nationalist. After all, he runs a website of promoting the ideology, and the ideology "rejects mainstrema conservatism in favor of white nationalism."

Yet this is not what Bannon believes, or at the very least not what he claims to believe, as is easily shown by statements such as these.

As it stands right now, at the very least the introduction is severely flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.74.60.39 (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed minor edit for tone.
The first sentence of this article is that "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism.", which is a greatly contentious claim which is denied by many on the alt-right. Would you all be okay with "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who often reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism." being the new version of this line? While I agree that the alt-right has a well-documented racist undercurrent, stereotyping everyone as a white nationalist comes off a bit too strong.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't edit with regard to how the feelings of a particular group are going to be hurt. Adding "often" is a version of WP:WEASEL, and I would not support such a change, primarily because reliable secondary sources describe the alt-right exactly as currently written. Primary sources are less relevant. Rockypedia (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Policy aside, from a reader's perspective the word "loosely" already gives me an accurate sense that the people within the group may have differing ideologies and various levels of affiliation with others who identify as or are identified as alt-right. I think the current wording already addresses this concern adequately. Edaham (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * May we then change loosely-defined to loosely-defined and loosely-affiliated? I believe that doing so would help improve clarity, especially for non-native English speakers. Although I am fluent in English, I was still unable to catch that connotation from the usage of the word loosely-defined, and it is my personal opinion that such a connotation is also not readily apparent to people who, unlike me, grew up in primarily English-speaking countries. Loosely-defined, although it carries such a connotation, does not have such a denotation, and should then be used in conjunction with loosely-affiliated in the context of this article.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Misleading visual aids- Conservatism and Neo-Fascism
The fact that there are two sidebars in such close proximity to each other almost suggests that these two terms may mean the same thing, or that you cant have one without the other. Conservatism and neo-fascism are not the same thing. While both of these terms can be linked to the alt-right, there are many conservatives that do not believe in fascism or neo-fascism. Fascism can also encompass other issues such as an authoritative dictatorship and control of industry and commerce. The average conservative does not want a king, who suppress or oppresses people.Robert george lambert jr. (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Robert George lambert jr.

Angela Nagel
Shouldn't we be using her? and give a different insight. In the first link she says that some of her book has been superceded by changes "Significantly, the alt-lite and the entire broader milieu around the white nationalist alt-right proper have now distanced themselves permanently from the most volatile leaders of the Unite the Right in Charlottesville, and it seems likely that this crucial nexus of political affiliation is permanently sundered for the disaffected online legions of the alt-right." "the anonymous online trolling culture, the constant evasions and ironic styles, the hodge-podge of disparate groups united by the “anti-PC” crusade—is over and a new one has begun. The alt-right in the strict sense will now become more isolated, more focused and unambiguous—and perhaps more militant." Doug Weller talk 15:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)