Talk:Alt-right/Archive 14

milo
Isn't milo the main person for the alt right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.25.238 (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Only if "main person" is determined by a karaoke contest. Do you have a suggestion for how to improve this article? Grayfell (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Mind providing sources?--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Claremont Institute
You wouldn't guess from reading the article, but this seems related. See "The think tank is ostensibly dedicated to fusing conservatism with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Why is it flirting with alt-right authoritarianism?" Doug Weller talk 20:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The title is misleading since the alt-right is not mentioned in the article. In fact the article does not necessarily represent the views of the Institute, but of a contributor.  And all the contributor said was that conservatives should vote for Trump to stop Clinton.  So a conservative organization publishes an article that recommends voting for the Republican candidate and that makes them part of the alt-right?  TFD (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, I just thought there might be some relevance. It's not alt-right. Doug Weller  talk 18:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

William Regnery II - the man who spent years funding the racist right
See this article. Perhaps he should be mentioned here. He's the guy who funded the National Policy Institute. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It'd be best to have more sources. Here's a few possible ones:
 * Mother Jones article about him personally.
 * Daily Dot article about him personally.
 * Relevant mentions and quotes in Rolling Stone, The Guardian, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and Newsweek.
 * I think that that's enough to support at least a mention or two as the founder of the National Policy Institute. --Aquillion (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed is a clickbait site, highly biased, and not a legitimate news site or trustworthy source.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Consensus established on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard views Buzzfeed as a reliable source; the site has improved its practices significantly from prior years and now hss a relatively solid journalistic reputation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed's news division, which is separate from their clickbaity side, is a reliable source and can be used. What is the text looking to be added? PackMecEng (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And one of the authors is Aram Roston who looks solid. I think there may be enough for a section on the way he's funded the alt-right and the institutions that helped give it birth. Doug Weller  talk 18:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Additions to the template
There have recently been quite a few additions to Template:Alt-right footer that don't seem appropriate. If interested, please join the discussion at Template talk:Alt-right footer. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Meaningful difference between the alt-right and far-right?
Is there a meaningful difference between the alt-right and far-right? As far as I can tell, the name is nothing more than a rebranding for these beliefs (and indeed was created because Spencer didn't think the Republican party was racist enough for him) and it's used to lump them together. The only common thread seems to be white supremacism (either of North American or Pan-European varieties) and even then some of the 'alt-right' seem to be traditional ethno-nationalists (primarily in Europe where ethnic groups are the main divider rather than race per se). Should neo-Nazism actually be under the alt-right when it's already a member of the far-right? Seems redundant

Thus I wonder if perhaps a merger should be considered or something, because aside from getting extensive media coverage thanks to the US 2016 election, the alt-right doesn't seem to be that different in the substance of its ideology (its techniques sure but all ideologies update their techniques). Thus should it instead by merged with the far-right page and made a subset of that? It would be entirely viable in my view. Sdio7 (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is one of essentially aesthetics.  Volunteer Marek   04:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy merchant aka Shlomo Shekelstein
I am a bit surprised why this isn't included in the list of memes. This is arguably the second most popular one in alt right circles after Pepe itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.126.73 (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There aren't really enough sources for it. The best I could find in a quick search is this Wired article, which mentions the alt-right and the image you're talking about in passing and references this Buzzfeed article about its origins (which doesn't itself mention the alt-right, since it's from before the term was really a thing.)  That's not really enough to add it here.  More recently, coverage of antisemitic memes on the alt-right has focused on this. In terms of antisemitism among the alt-right in general, we already have several sources in the article, but for memes the focus of coverage seems to be on the triple-parenthesis echos rather than Bougas' caricature.  If you've got better sources connecting it to the alt-right specifically, though, go ahead; I agree that it does seem to be popular with certain sections of the alt-right. --Aquillion (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No unbiased sources, and it does not have a concrete definition. Personally, I feel that the memes section should be removed entirely and placed into a separate article, as it doesn't really fit the tone of this page.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest getting rid of all refferences connected with VICE as they are left-wing and are known to sometimes expand the truth or lie about things. Also, Pepe the frog isn't just used by the alt-right, the alt-right barely have any hold on Pepe, and most of the memes there are something that started on 4chan. It's a bollocks subject and I don't even know why we need to know about the alt-rights use of memes.
 * If you object to specific sources, I suggest going to WP:RSN. I don't think you'd get any traction trying to convince people Vice doesn't pass WP:RS, though.  Overall they clearly have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS and WP:V requires. --Aquillion (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Have these sources been discussed?
- sorry, I haven't paid close attention to this article. I do think that the changes in terminology of white nationalists/separatists belongs somewhere. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Earlier relevant usage of the Alt-Left term
The Alt-Left term has been prominently noted prior to the Charlottesville protests and prior even to the Clinton speech that made 'Alt-Right' a household name. The term was originally used to denote somebody who is skeptical of the contemporary consensus on racial differences, but otherwise favors liberal/leftist politics. It has been used for a few years now as a self-identity within the subculture built up around an obscure podcast. This loose ideology includes including Brandon Adamson ('Rabbit' in the Salon article), Robert Lindsay, HAarlem VEnison (whom I stumbled upon through a video on CNN of him chasing the man who punched Richard Spencer), and Ryan England. Lastchamber (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This would need much better sources to go into any depth. Both the Salon article and The Week article mention the concept as something which didn't catch on, so this might warrant a sentence or two but probably not more. The Salon article links this older "alt-left" to Strasserism and Aleksandr Dugin, who's work has been translated by Richard B. Spencer's wife, with Spencer as publisher. (This was coincidentally recently added to Spencer's Wikipedia article). This seems like a good indicator that this isn't a large or distinct movement, and is still part of the walled-garden of pseudointellectual white supremacists.
 * That blog is completely unreliable (and painfully bad writing), but it also indirectly supports that the "alt-left" it describes is just fascism with training wheels. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

the first bloggings of the term  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1151:CD00:44B0:C701:5CF8:B6D2 (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A blogger with a WordPress account rambling for three short sentences amounting to "there's an alt right so why not have an alt left" doesn't exactly meet the criteria for a reliable source, especially given that the body text (and what little there was of it) was actually self-contradictory and supported either a centrist or third-way proposal. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Group sections, sockpuppets, NPOV, and madness
Hello, recently User:Grayfell and I have gotten into an argument about whether a group section is needed. This occured because of a previous user using stockpiles to disruptly edit. It is currently getting reverted by him because of WP:BE. (The sockpuppet had created a similar section himself.) The rule cited also states that "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor".

Is this not a case of Ignore all rules? It seems insane that an important part of the article is being left out because of a previous editor.There is already a faction section in the alt-right template. A lot of those factions are not even mentioned in the alt-right article. Instead, we are stuck with a list of beliefs and buzzwords that contradict each other. How are Steve Bannon and Jack Posobiec alt-right under the current definition?

This article needs a LOT of work for NPOV. A faction section should be added, or we should remove all alt-lite members such as Bannon. If this is a white nationalist article, only list white nationalists in it. Currently this is not the case. OhOhCanada (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is very obviously the same editor, using the same evasive language as before, convincing nobody who is familiar with their history. The way for PerfectlyIrrational to edit the article is for that editor to log into their original account and resolve the issues which led to them being blocked. This would also require that the stop creating sock-puppets, and also stop insulting everyone's intelligence by pretending to be someone new. Being blocked isn't intended to be an invitation to create a new account and pretend nothing happened. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Confirmed as another sock, so striking his post. Doug Weller  talk 14:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is calling someone a sock puppet the new tool of the left to silence views? Mantion (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Mantion (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

"Monarchists"?
One of the opening sentences mentions monarchists as part of the alt-right movement. While I would guess that any monarchist movements would probably be considered "alt-right' in modern American society, should they really be listed here? Are there actually any significant monarchist movements in America? The sentence in question is :

"The concept has further been associated with several groups such as American nationalists and monarchists, men's rights advocates and the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump."

The wording suggests monarchists are as integral a part of the American alt-right as men's rights, Donald Trump, and nationalism, which it definitely isn't. Sure, one article cited does mention monarchists as a part of the movement, but none of the others do. I suggest deleting "monarchists" from this sentence.

PS: I would do it myself, but I'm not auto confirmed yet Dr Roach (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alt-right. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161114173631/http://www.dailystormer.com/kikeservative-milo-attacks-daily-stormer-and-fash-the-nation-says-alt-right-is-only-2-5-of-the-alt-right/ to http://www.dailystormer.com/kikeservative-milo-attacks-daily-stormer-and-fash-the-nation-says-alt-right-is-only-2-5-of-the-alt-right/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Kekistan?
Is it fair to say/is there evidence that Kekistan is an alt-right thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshah26 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pepe the Frog's page nearly says exactly this:
 * "Since late 2016, the satirical ethnicity has been used by U.S.-based alt-right protesters opposed to what they view as political correctness. These 'Kekistanis' decry the 'oppression' of their people and troll counter-protesters by waving the 'national flag of Kekistan' (modeled after the Nazi War Flag, with the red replaced by green, the Iron Cross replaced by the logo for 4chan, and the swastika replaced by a rubric for KEK)."
 * Lukacris (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

List paragraph in the lead.
It seems like there's been some back-and-forth over the inclusion of a few relatively lightly-sourced items in the list paragraph in the lead (eg. catholic traditionalism.) Looking back, I feel that the real problem is this edit, which replaced a carefully-established list that relied on multiple independent sources for every point in order to establish relevance with a single sweeping cite to the SPLC (plus a few other things tacked on further down.)  I feel that this was a mistake - while I have nothing against the SPLC, this is one of the most important paragraphs in the lead, so it's important that it offer a representative and balanced view of the sources, while also summarizing the article as a whole. I know it's tempting to draw on one authoritative description of the group, but I don't think it's workable in this case - as the disputes showed, since we ended up lending undue weight to a lot of fairly idiosyncratic descriptions of the Alt-Right (seriously, catholic traditionalism isn't even mentioned in the article), while downplaying aspects that are given more weight across the sources as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, although rather than simply reverting to the previous version, I think the two versions should be blended. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Catholic Traditionalism does play a role in the alt-right (see "DEUS VULT" meme). They even have a meme flag on /pol/ (although, so do LGBT and democrats, so that on its own doesn't really prove anything). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.186.113 (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

AE note
If an editor is using "consensus on the talk page" as a rationale for making a change, they'd better be able to point to the discussion where the consensus was clearly formed. --Neil N  talk to me 23:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center
I don't think it's useful to have the Southern Poverty Law Center used as a reference for the definition of the Alt-right because they have a track record of accusing a very broad range of society as extremist, as documented on this wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.101.148 (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The SPLC is generally considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. I do not see anything on that page which would be specifically relevant here, but the broadness of their definition doesn't really matter one way or the other. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC has been caught lying several times so maybe they're not the most reliable source, especially when they usually don't source their sources Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If we disqualified every political outlet which had been vaguely accused of lying by unnamed sources (or random Wikipedia editors), we would not have any articles on recent politics. If they have been caught lying about the alt-right, bring forth reliable sources which discuss this. Who, exactly, "caught" them? Without this info, this is just another unsupported aspersion among many. Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * They are considered reliable and regularly cited by academics, news media and in legal proceedings. TFD (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of this article is extremely biased and non-objective, and citing the ADL and the SPLC just makes that worse. I get the sense that the primary motivation for doing that is either to troll the alt-right or control the narrative, neither of which is appropriate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.186.113 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * My personal understanding is that the SPLC is highly cited and reliable for its assessments of who is a hate group and related issues, but the SPLC is rarely if ever cited for its factfinding/journalism and is therefore unreliable for who did what when etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree that SLPC has a track record of controversial assessments of groups on the political right. I've no conclusion on precisely how that should bear on this article's citation standards. But a grain of salt may be in order. Lukacris (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The only "controversy" is claimed by those groups and their allies. Please provide a citation from an truly neutral reliable source that says that SPLC's assessments of hate groups are inaccurate or "controversial" to anyone in the mainstream.  That the SPLC is biased or inaccurate is an alt-right trope which is unworthy of being repeated in a fact-based encyclopedia.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Except there is a thorough section on this exact issue at Southern Poverty Law Center § Controversies over hate group and extremist listings. Lukacris (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that most of that is mere churn and stuff brought up by Republicans, Conservatives and alt-righters. You do what the SPLC does, and you make enemies, and those enemies are not shy about trying to deep-six you. I see only one legitimate article there, the one from Politico, the rest is mostly chaff. The entire section needs extensive pruning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That section appears to be the consensus of a robust discussion.. Republicans and Conservatives are not per se unreliable sources about bias against them- at least that's my understanding of WP's policy, journalistic norms, and standards of academic research. Lukacris (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for us all, the modern Republican Party is largely a one-note orchestra, having ejected its liberal wing entirely, been almost usurped by the Tea Party, and moved steadily and quickly to the right ever since the Reagan years. There are very few high-ranking Republicans who can be counted on to be actual centrists. Similarly, Conservatism has moved away from any intellectual roots it had at one time to be part of the hard-core right, albeit neither as hard-core nor as right-wing as the alt-right.So, no a Republican or a conservative is not necessarily, in theory, unreliable per se, but in actual fact, in reality, what they say, and, in particular, who it is that says it, needs to be very carefully considered. (As, to a certain extent, does anything said by a politician in modern America.) That Republicans and conservatives are antithetical to the SPLC's mission, and that many of them see it as "left-wing" can hardly be denied, considering. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether the SPLC is a reliable source has been discussed and decided a number of times:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * It's a perennial subject on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and the result are always the same: the SPLC is a reliable source. If you want to adjudicate the question again, you're welcome to start a new thread over there.  I'm sure the regulars will welcome you with open arms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm content to stand here by my original claim that the controversy does, in fact, exist. Lukacris (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and I'll stand by the statement that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the SPLC is a reliable source, despite whatever "controversy" about it has been ginned up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed paragraph
, are you certain that you wanted to delete this sourced paragraph from the article?

"Fields was charged with second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding and failure to stop following an accident resulting in death, and held without bail. On August 18, Fields was charged with three additional counts of aggravated malicious wounding and two additional counts of malicious wounding. The murder charge was changed to first-degree murder on December 14."

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I assume they deleted it because it was a bit of a digression, especially framed as its own subsection (after all, the article isn't about Fields.)  But it's probably worth summarizing what happened to him, and three sentences is probably a reasonable amount of weight for that.  So I've put it back in, but as an addition to an existing paragraph rather than its own section - it could possibly be trimmed down a bit more, but we should probably mention that he was charged, at the very least (especially since the next few sentences don't make sense without that information.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right terrorism section
The alt-right has been considered as being similar to terrorist networks. Should a seperate section be included in the article about it? I feel like a section on people like Heather Heyer, Taylor Michael Wilson, and the Aztec High School shooting would be WP:Due. MichiganWoodShop (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. My error, I read the page backwards and thought you were deleting, not adding. My understanding is that I can self-revert under 1RR, so I'm going to do that now.However, on the larger issue, this is a controversial article, and large-scale changes should be discussed here before editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have restored your edit, with the exception of the deletion of the Antipodean Resistance poster, which is appropriate and has been discussed on this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Related Question: Does "alt-right" cover domestic terrorism in the 1990s by white-nationalist, white-supremacists, and tangentially-related religious cults? (For instance, the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Waco Branch Davidians) Lukacris (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since those events predate the creation of the phrase "alt-right", I would say no, but that they are related. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I feel that all of these are given way too much weight in this article, which should not become a waste bin or laundry list of every person, issue linked to the alt-right. Per Summary style (and decent writing principles), articles should heavily defer to existing sub-articles, not needlessly overlap content. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Antipodean Resistance poster image
As at the time of this comment, the article currently includes produced by an Australian neo-Nazi group, Antipodean Resistance. The caption under the image here is "An alt-right poster calling for the legalisation of genocide against Jews. The occult Black Sun is seen in the background."; no source is referenced for this caption.

The image is used here and at Antipodean Resistance, which is described in that article's lead section as "a neo-Nazi, fascist, and alt-right group". The single source for that statement is an article in the Stawell Times News, a local newspaper published by Fairfax Media.. That source describes Antipodean Resistance as "neo-Nazi", not as "alt-right"; but does use the term "alt-right" 3 times: a) in a subheading "Links to ‘alt-right’ and extremist online subcultures"; b) in an image caption "An member of Antipodean Resistance on a training camp in the Grampians wears a shirt with the image of US comedian Sam Hyde (insert), who became an unofficial mascot of the ‘alt-right’ online political extremist movement."; and c) in the text "The only face visible is on a t-shirt worn by one of the members as he marches through the Grampians. The image is of US comedian Sam Hyde, who became an unofficial mascot of the ‘alt-right’ online political extremist movement."

Of the other 10 sources at Antipodean Resistance, only one includes the term "alt-right" (with or without hyphen), an article on Twitter suspensions in The Daily Mail; stating "Kline, also known as Eli Mosley, was suspended by Monday evening. Kline became a leading figure in the racist alt-right during the summer, when he helped Kessler organize the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville."; this is separate from the section on Antipodean Resistance which has: "In Australia, the neo-Nazi facist group Antipodean Resistance were also suspended." The terms "neo-Nazi", "pro-Nazi" and "white supremacist" are broadly & widely used to describe the Antipodean Resistance group; but "alt-right" is not.

So, the only verified link between this image and the alt-right is that someone who was a member of the neo-Nazi group which produced the poster wore a T-shirt which featured a comedian who is popular with the alt-right.

That doesn't really justify inclusion. Thoughts to the contrary? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) So, you are contesting the fact that a neo-Nazi group is part of the alt-right?
 * (2) What does "c.s.n.s" mean? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: (1):
 * The Australian appears to believe that Antipodean Resistance is part of "Australia's own alt-right".
 * This article treats AR as part of the alt-right
 * New.com.au describes the groups as "alt-right"
 * This newspaper treats them as part of the alt-right
 * ...as does this.
 * Need I continue? Neo-Nazi groups are inherently part-and-parcel of the alt-right, as much as the alt-right might like to maintain that they aren't. There's no particular reason to distinguish this particular collective of deviant individuals from the other very similar ones throughout the world. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the image (it's likely a copyright violation anyway), and highlighting one or two propaganda posters gives WP:UNDUE prominence to the organization. Whenever editors have to quibble about how many sources say "alt-right" vs how many don't, it's inherently subjective. If neo-nazi = alt-right, than why not just combine articles?? --Animalparty! (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Alt-right
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Alt-right's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "HeimWaPo": From Unite the Right rally: Joe Heim, Ellie Silverman, T. Rees Shapiro & Emma Brown (August 12, 2017), "One dead as car strikes crowds amid protests of white nationalist gathering in Charlottesville; two police die in helicopter crash", The Washington Post. From Timeline of antisemitism: Joe Heim, Ellie Silverman, T. Rees Shapiro & Emma Brown, "One dead as car strikes crowds amid protests of white nationalist gathering in Charlottesville; two police die in helicopter crash", The Washington Post (August 12, 2017). 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Inceldom
Per http://abcnews.go.com/US/documentary-alt-sheds-light-movements-alleged-roots/story?id=52420449 this source, could someone add "incels" to the second paragraph in the lede after "The concept has further been associated with" ? 92.13.138.57 (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not done I don't think a single documentary is sufficient to establish this. Further, we have no article incel or incels, so inclusion at this time would be premature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018
In line 11, delete monarchists. I know it might be backed up by a citation, but that's one measly citation - the article doesn't mention anything else about monarchists. From the other citations alone, it seems silly to say the alt-right is associated with monarchists in the same way it's associated with menimists and Trump. Even if there are any serious American monarchist groups, they have received hardly any media coverage to my knowledge. Since American monarchists aren't even discussed in the Wikipedia article (except another use of the word from the same source), this word should be deleted, or at least mentioned in a way that doesn't seem to make it as important as Trump, nationalism, and men's rights to the alt-right. Sentence in question below for easy reference:

"The concept has further been associated with several groups such as American nationalists and monarchists, men's rights advocates and the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump." Dr Roach (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is sourced, to a The New Yorker article, so I have not removed it. I have, however, changed it to "neo-monarchists", which is what the source actually says. Beyond My Ken (talk)


 * There are monarchists in the alt right, although some do not consider themselves alt right specifically, but are lumped in there because their other political views are more nationalistic and not mainstream "conservatism". Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiculturalism
So i think it's false to say that the alt right opposes multiculturalism. Because from what i've understood they basically want an white ethno state where all europeans would be welcome. How would they have an white ethno state without many cultures? The alt right might say they are against it but they don't seem to understand that they basically advocate for a multicultural state Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While race and culture aren't exactly the same thing, I think it's fair to conceptualize white nationalism as antithetical to multiculturalism. Lukacris (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @Lukacris I know that race and culture aren't the same thing obviously, but what i meant is that ultimate goal for the alt right is the ethno state where ALL whites would be welcome. If all whites with many different cultures are welcome then they're for multiculturalism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is general discussion of the topic -- i.e. WP:NOTAFORUM -- and not about how to improve the article. If Jack123... has a reliable source that says that the alt-right is not opposed to mutliculturalism. he should provide it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * @Beyond My Ken Don't you think that the alt right advocating for an ethno state is evidence enough? Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, nowhere near enough. In fact, your stretching of their position strains credulity, since it's completely bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken so them openly advocating for a multicultural state is not enough? Ok then Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Citation, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No, the alt right is firmly opposed to multiculturalism. Listen to any alt right commentator on YouTube and they talk about it. Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"How the alt-right wields and weaponises accusations of paedophilia"
A New Statement article. See this also. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller Did you read the article it's filled with inaccuracies Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What are they? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Given the recent revelations, and in years past, about people like Weinstein and other higher profile figures being involved in sexual misconduct and pedophilia, speculation from alt righters and others is not unreasonable. The first article also lists Mike Cernovich as "alt right" — which is laughable, since most alt righters regard him as an alt-lite cuck who does not adhere to basic alt right values. Romanov loyalist (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Given the recent revelations ... about people like Weinstein ... being involved in sexual misconduct" it's OK to publish wild speculation from alt-righters -- that's your position, is it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"White Supremacist" Richard Spencer & source issues
The term white supremacist is used as a prefix to Spencer's name twice throughout the article, which I feel is not only inaccurate but unneeded. Adding white supremacist prior to Spencer's name is not needed because it is irrelevant to the alt-right. He is simply a prominent member, not everyone replicates his views, and the reader can find information on Spencer himself by going to his Wikipedia page. The sources cited that "prove" (specifically citation 3, 48, 49, and 50) he is a white supremacist are inadequate at providing reasonable evidence that he puts peoples that aren't white below him. A few actually contradict themselves and call him and the National Policy Institute white nationalist throughout the source, which I find as a much more fitting title anyways.

A quick run through of the articles and why they are inadequate:

Citation 3,

https://apnews.com/70541105d2f149cc9b7b6951d8a13e7a/energized-white-supremacists-cheer-trump-convention-message The article simply labels groups attendees of a GOP convention, including Richard Spencer, "white supremacist" without providing actions they have committed that express them being a white supremacist. Them being white supremacists is clearly only the authors views, and one persons views do not prove anything, especially if the person who holds them fails to provide evidence into why they label people white supremacists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/us/white-supremacists-extend-their-reach-through-websites.html This article maintains the same problems as the other. Labeling people as supremacist groups is not an effective way of proving how they are supremacist groups. The times the article mentions Richard Spencer, they do not even refer to him directly as a white supremacist, and his think tank as white nationalist, thus showing this source as improper means of proving Spencer a white supremacist.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/11/jared_taylor_richard_spencer_and_american_white_supremacists_in_europe_why.html This source is in fact worse than the other two as proving Spencer a supremacist. It actually says the words white supremacist only twice, once in the subtitle, and the other in accusation of Jared Taylor being one, not Richard Spencer. It also fails to prove Taylor of being a supremacist, and only uses nationalist or white nationalist throughout the rest of the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/06/politics/richard-spencer-interview-texas-am-speech/ This article is very, very clearly biased anti-Richard Spencer, but does a better job providing evidence to him being a supremacist. However, they fail to provide quotes and or video of himself valuing whites over other races. They only cite his views to make America only white, and things like it, which are in accordance with his other nationalist views, not at all supremacist. You can maintain, while a bit silly, a belief in a group of people being racially homogeneous without hating or viewing yourself above other races.

The next three sources in citation 3 are not actually linked in any way, and are behind pay walls when you find them independently or cannot be found at all (except for on, but it holds the same issues as mentioned), but given the quotes provided from those sources, they do not give evidence to his supremacist ideals, and only call him names like supremacist. What they think of him is not a depiction of his actual ideas and do not validate that he is in fact a supremacist. This is without mentioning the possibility of the quotes being out of context.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1123/Donald-Trump-again-disavows-so-called-alt-right-supporters Once again, no proof provided as to how. What is the point in citing an article that doesn't give evidence, and just throws out labels?

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1120/White-supremacists-convene-in-celebration-of-Trump-victory Same issues. No proof, random labeling, and doesn't directly refer to Spencer as a supremacist, just the NPI.

Citation 48,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/21/what-the-alt-right-really-wants-according-to-a-professor-writing-a-book-about-them/?utm_term=.4e972d7a7508 The article refers to him as a white nationalist, and clarifies that he prefers identitarian. It doesn't even contain the word spremacist, supremacy, or anything like it in it. Not in any way proof of a white supremacist Richard Spencer, and this source should be removed regardless of a change in the words used prior to Spencer's name.

Citation 49,

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/meet-the-alt-right-spokesman-thrilled-by-trumps-rise-w443902 This citation does not contain anything related to white supremacy, same as the other. It calls the alt-right racist, but not Spencer himself, and just as the other should be removed regardless of any other changes made.

Citation 50,

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/ Does not contain anything about racism, white supremacy, or anything of the sort. It actually calls, in the title of the article, Spencer a white nationalist. This source should be removed, just as the other two.

I suggest either the removal of white supremacist before Spencer's name entirely, or it's replacement with white nationalist. I think the more appropriate option is to remove it in entirety, because it is an unneeded piece of information, and the title white nationalist is just as unnecessary. I am curious as to what others think, however, and don't want to go willy nilly changing things.

(This is my first time doing anything on Wikipedia, so sorry if I'm doing something wrong, especially with the links. I went to the external links page and was very confused so if I did something wrong please help out by fixing it.) ARandomHippo (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The above is this editor's -- or, rather, this account's -- first and only edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A complication here is that mainstream news outlets are using "white supremacy" and "white nationalism" interchangeably, although they are slightly different ideas that don't always overlap. White Nationalism advocates for a white ethnostate. If achieving that state is a goal paired with subjegating non-white people, then it's also white supremacy. Segregationism in general is often pretensed with white-supremacy but is not inherently so. Lukacris (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Lukacris
 * I suspect that most media outlets are aware of the difference and are choosing their terms very carefully. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The AP put out guidelines on this terminology around the the time Charlottesville debacle and cited these concerns-- maybe it's not an issue in more recent articles. Lukacris (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's pretty obvious the leftist and mainstream conservative corporate media deliberately use terms like "white supremacist" and "Neo Nazi" to invoke certain images and preconceptions in the reader's mind. Certainly, there are people who consider themselves National Socialists within the movement, but there are also people of all sorts of different political views that are part of the alt right, or dissident right, so using these broad labels and buzzwords as this article does — imitating the oh-so unbiased CNN and NYT — is inaccurate and misleading. Romanov loyalist (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No doubt, it's a normie conspiracy. All bow to the mighty Kek! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So, the article needs to be rewritten without relying on MSM sources is my point. Romanov loyalist (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've proposed an addition to § etymology that, I believe, would address your sourcable concerns (it's lower down in the Talk page). I think the issue is best addressed in this frame: "Alt-Right" is a term of unsettled breadth whose use, according to some, has been strategic and disingenuous. There's certainly a core constituency of the movement, but others have been roped in amid the cloudiness of the language and also for political reasons. Lukacris (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Key reason for Trump's win"?
Is there a source that states that it was a key reason for Donald Trump winning? WhySoSeriousMate (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Unless someone objects, this should definitely be removed. MichiganWoodShop (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"Many alt-right Republicans"
This may be somewhat obvious, but it is fair to say that dozens of "alt-right Republicans" are running in the 2018 election? The only one I could find is Paul Nehlen, and he only got 15% of the vote against a heavily unpopular Paul Ryan. It feels like an interpretation of the source, which does not say anything like that at all. All of them simply state that Paul Nehlen is a GOP nominee against Paul Ryan on the ballot, and Nehlen is being unanimously denounced by Republicans. WhySoSeriousMate (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I partially agree. It should be replaced with just attempted alt-right nominees instead of Republicans. A giant paragraph on Paul Nehlen in the main paragraphs is WP:Undue.MichiganWoodShop (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Useful article
This SPLC article seems like an excellent resource for the violence section. If someone could add this stuff, it would be greatly helpful.

Source: https://www.splcenter.org/20180205/alt-right-killing-people

MichiganWoodShop (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made a start on a new section: . Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)