Talk:Alt-right/Archive 21

Recent Expansion of the Opening Sentence.
I'm a little concerned by the change in the established lede sentence ("is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement based in the United States") to the longer, expanded variant ("is a loosely connected far-right, white supremacist, white nationalist, anti-immigration and antisemitic movement based in the United States.") As the change is controversial it needs to be discussed here first, as per the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. No more unilateral changes, please, as that would be edit warring.

First, there are some factual inaccuracies with the additions. As the reliable sources cited in the article make clear, the alt-right is not, in its entirety, an anti-Semitic movement. It is a movement with strong anti-Semitic elements, but there are alt-rightists who seem to have no anti-Semitic intent and who identify the Jewish people (or most of them at least) with the "white race". This is already made very clear in the lede and the article body. Moreover, there also remains some dispute regarding the tagline "white supremacist". Some sources happily apply that term to the alt-right; others suggest that the term applies only to the more extreme elements of the alt-right. This may reflect different understandings of what the term "white supremacist" actually means; the term has a longstanding usage in political science but in recent years has been given a much more amorphous definition by proponents of critical race theory.

The second concern is one of simply overburdening the opening sentence. Calling the alt-right a "far right, white nationalist movement" is clear and to the point. It gives the reader the central, underlying ideology and political position of the alt-right. It echoes other well-written articles on far-right topics, like for instance the GA-rated National Front (UK) article. Adding "white supremacist", "anti-immigration" and "anti-semitic" is just overkill at this juncture; it throws too much descriptive language at the reader. Moreover, if we add many of these terms, then there is no reason not to also add "misogynist", "anti-feminist", "biologically racist" etc. Then it would just be a real mess. Related to this is my third point; we already explain the alt-right's take on anti-Semitism, immigration, and white supremacism in the lede, specifically in the third paragraph. That being the case, adding it to the opening sentence just is not necessary.

So please, no more unnecessary additions to the lede, and especially no edit warring without Talk Page consensus. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Alt-Right, as a term was coined by neo-nazi Richard B. Spencer, wasn't it? Because we have a preponderance of sources to support the alt-right are a white supremacist movement; I don't think it strains WP:NPOV to say so in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Spencer wasn't a neo-Nazi. Not trying to defend the guy here, but he is not labelled such in any of the political science literature on the alt-right that I have come across. He's a white nationalist certainly, but doesn't refer to himself as a "National Socialist", utilise unambiguous Nazi imagery, or focus on the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that were a hallmark of Nazism. On the other point, even if we keep "white supremacist", that isn't a reason to keep "anti-Semitic" (which is flat out incorrect) and "anti-immigrationist" (which isn't really necessary and potentially has some misleading elements; I doubt many alt-rightists oppose white immigration). If you agree, could you please partly revert your revert by removing "anti-Semitic" and "anti-immigration" at least? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll revert anti-Semitic but I'm not going to willingly self-revert anti-immigration. And as for Spencer, from a Wikipedia perspective there's a plethora of reliable sources that call him a neo-nazi. And frankly whether he says, "I am a nazi" or not is irrelevant - you can tell a nazi is lying because their mouth is moving. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ehh, I agree that it's fine to call him a nazi colloquially, but he's really a different flavor of fascist. Just as dangerous and evil, mind you, but technically different. If you're coming at it from an academic perspective the distinction is important. Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean you're not wrong. But it's getting to the point of a distinction without a difference when you begin asking whether a specific white supremacist authoritarian ethno-nationalist should rightly be called a neo-nazi or not based on the Routledge Companion definition. Also Wikipedia lets people use American newspapers for this stuff for some fucking reason, so academic definitions are not where we're at here. And either way, Alt-Right is a big tent for crazies and most of the neo-nazis rebranded that way basically immediately, so my point about including that definition still stands. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * My addition of the terms in question was not based on Richard Spencer's ideology, but on the groups that have been identified by reliable sources as being part of the alt-right, that explicitly identify themselves as "alt-right", or which tend to congregate in rallies and events organized by alt-right organizations. The reliable sources we have used in the various articles for these groups are quite clear in what these groups stand for, despite their own self-serving descriptions of their ideologies (which quite often deny those descriptions).  Given this, I do not think it is unreasonable to list those beliefs in the lede as part of the overall driving philosophy of the "alt-right", bearing in mind that there's no organizational structure which defines or certifies what is or isn't "alt-right" -- i.e. there's no Alt-Right.com to say that this group is and that group isn't "alt-right.  We go primarily by the identifications made by reliable sources, not just academic ones, but those in the press.  I see no reason to remove the descriptions given these facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:LABEL. You can't include this without attribution.  Galestar (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone have any firm objections to the launching of an RfC on this issue to get more input on which opening sentence we should go with? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the current version only got there through persistent edit-warring and ignoring content guidelines, probably a good idea. Galestar (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the opening sentence
What should the opening sentence of the lede look like:

Option A: The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement based in the United States.

Option B: The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white supremacist, white nationalist, white separatist, anti-immigration and sometimes antisemitic movement based in the United States.

The former has been in place for several months; it was expanded to the latter in the past few days beginning 10 days ago. There is some Talk Page dispute as to what is best. Further input would be appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Votes

 * Option A, for multiple reasons. First, it is clearer and to the point; it does not bombard the reader with a long list of terms as soon as they get onto the page. In its directness and brevity it mirrors other, more advanced articles on far-right political movements, like English Defence League or the GA-rated National Front (UK). Because of this, it is more reader-friendly and more likely to encourage the reader to continue rather than putting them off. Second, Option B creates excessive repetition in the lede. The lede already discusses the alt-right's views on white supremacism, immigration, and Jewish people; we don't need to mention these things repeatedly in short succession. Third, the terms listed in Option B are potentially arbitrary: the alt-right is vehemently anti-feminist and yet this wording does not include "anti-feminist"; the alt-right is largely "protectionist" and yet this wording does not include "protectionist". Why give six descriptive words rather than eight or ten? It's an arbitrary selection. Fourth, some of the terms included in Option B could potentially mislead: the "white supremacist" nature of the entirety of the alt-right does seem to be under debate among RS; the alt-right is not completely "anti-immigration" as it has no objection to white migration; some alt-rightists promote white numerical dominance in the US but might not necessarily be seen as "white separatists". All in all, option A does a better job of opening the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option B. First, it is incorrect to say that the lede sentence was changed "a few days ago" - the expansion began on July 13th, 10 days ago. .  Second, and most importantly, the lede sentence should give the reader an immediate summary of the subject under discussion.  By saying only that the alt-right is "far-right, white nationalist", Option A gives the clear implication to the reader that is all that it is, while the body of the article {which the lede is supposed to be summarizing) makes it abundantly clear that there are other very important ideological aspecst to the alt-right which Option A neglects to mention.  Listing those aspects in the lede sentence gives the reader a very clear sense of what the alt-right is about, which Option A does not do.  Option A is, in fact, deceptive, and does our readers a distinct disservice, while Option B is encompassing, and properly summarizes the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A Avoid the run-on sentence, and avoid the WP:UNDUE WP:LABEL in the first sentence. There are certainly some other possible options as middle ground though - add some of the new terms but not others.  Galestar (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * From WP:LABEL: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. (emphasis added)" These descriptors are all widely used, and are all adequately confirmed and supported by citations to reliable sources in the body of the article.  Per WP:LEAD, information in the lede, which is a summary of the article, does not need to be supported by citations as long as the information is supported by citations in the body of the article.  Hence, there is no "UNDUE LABEL".  Questions about whether the sentence is run-on or not are not relevant to this RfC, which is about content and not grammar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yikes you didn't even read the guideline you quoted (and bolded-underlined nonetheless): in which case use in-text attribution Galestar (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. When multiple reliable sources describe a fire as hot, one does not have to say "According to The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, Underwriters Weekly, and Fire: That Thing that Burns You, among many other sources, fire is hot." Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Fire is hot" is not a WP:LABEL so not sure what you're trying to say with that ridiculous false analogy. Galestar (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah...... I'm pretty much at a loss for words as to what to say to someone who seems not to understand the basic concept of what an analogy is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much at a loss for words as to what to say to someone who seems not to understand the basic concept of what a false analogy is. Galestar (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides, you keep citing LABEL as if it were a mandatory policy - it is not, It is a style guideline, which is neither policy. nor mandatory. I rather think WP:Common sense comes into play here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that there's no dispute about whether the terms apply, LABEL seems to be a non-issue in regards to wording. If someone feels like the lede should duplicate the in-text citations that also appear in the body, that's not really undue. Sometimes you've got to be a little extra when it comes to controversial topics. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RS is not the only guideline we need to follow here. Just because there's a source somewhere that says sometimes the subject of the article can be X, doesn't mean that should be in the first sentence.  That's the very definition of WP:UNDUE (and in this case WP:LABEL).  Galestar (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Reliable sources is not a "guideline", it is policy, and therefore  mandatory , it must be followed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is a guideline and it doesn't necessitate that you include anything but rather what shouldn't be included. RS guideline has no opinion and what should be in the first sentence of the lede, that's rediculous.  Galestar (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But again, WP:LABEL is not policy, it's a MoS recommendation. So WP:RS certainly takes precedence. As for WP:DUE that is a legitimate question to raise, but the response so far appears to be that it certainly is due. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RS doesn't says what 'absolutely must be included in the lede, there's no "precendence" question here. Galestar (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this distinction between policy and guidelines is getting a little lost. Both guidelines and policies are present for a reason. Guidelines describe best practices. If someone thinks that a guideline shouldn't be followed, they should articulate a reason why, not cross their arms and say that it's irrelevant to consider the arguments made at a guideline page because one does not have to follow said guideline. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 100% agree. There are some editors here acting like RS is the only thing that matters, and trying to POV-push into the first sentence without regard for any other guideline.  There has never been a question about RS in this thread either, no-one is disagreeing on the basis of RS, yet it still keeps being dragged out as we can write whatever we want as long as it doesn't contradict RS.  Just NO.  Follow the other guidelines.  Galestar (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option B is more accurate, more informative and well supported by WP:RS whereas Option A appears to be attempting to water down the nature of the group. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option B - Describing an extremist movement as what it is, is a necessary part of Wikipedia. That the alt-right is these things is indisputable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of all the WikiProjects listed above -- although I'm not quite certain on what grounds WikiProject Linguistics claims the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option C: Participant of WP:POLITICS My preference is for something in the middle: The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white supremacist, white nationalist, and anti-immigration movement based in the United States. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article clearly shows that many alt-right groups are anti-semitic. That being the case, what is your argument for not including that descriptor in your adjusted list? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * from WT:LING I am not opposed to option B, but I think option A is better prose per Midnightblueowl. I'm not sure how much is gained by the laundry list that isn't already covered or at least strongly implied by far-right and white nationalist. Wug·a·po·des​ 16:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC) (Elaborating based on thread below) I doubt to a casual reader the distinction between white nationalism and white separatism is particularly salient. Similarly, I feel comfortable saying that groups which are white nationalist are also white supremacist (and vice versa). For the first sentence, I don't think we need to list 6 items to impress upon readers that this is a racist ideological grouping; they'll figure it out pretty quick. A flying pig is interesting because pigs don't usually fly, and for that same reason, our article on penguins mentions in the first sentence that they are flightless birds; we expect birds to fly, so it is remarkable when some species don't. Compare that to our article on pigeons which doesn't even mention that they can fly until the third paragraph because, having defined them as birds, it is expected that they fly unless otherwise stated. Pigeons are birds that fly, and the alt-right is white nationalist and white supremacist; in both cases the former strongly implies the latter. So while accurate, the latter doesn't add much without additional context. A, B, and D are all adequate summaries of the article just at different levels of detail. I don't think a typical reader really cares about the nuances of racist ideology, and so I have a weak preference for those distinctions to be made later in the lead. If others think a more detailed description is warranted, that's fair, and I would support that too. When I say weak preference for A, I really mean weak; there's a reason I didn't bold anything. I could live with D, which might be the best compromise for everyone, but despite my gratuitous use of semi-colons here, I feel that it's a cop-out since everything after the semicolon is its own matrix clause; it is only part of the previous sentence because of typography. I don't have a huge problem with that, I just find it a little ironic that in an RfC about the first sentence, the compromise is to move everything to the second sentence but change the punctuation. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I like your analogy with birds (it reminds me of prototype theory), but I suspect an important difference between birds and white nationalists is that the former's association with flight is common knowledge, whereas the latter's association with white supremacy (or most of the laundry list of items we've been considering) is not quite as intrinsically understood. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 13:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We're an encyclopedia. While the quality of our prose is certainly important, it is not as important as the quality of our facts. 17:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And those "facts" are included in the article. We don't need to include every single bad thing that has ever been said about the subject or ("sometimes" the subject) in the first sentence.  Galestar (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And the lede is a summary of the article. We're not including "every bad thing", we're including all the salient attributes of the alt-right, as shown by the article. We don't leave appropriate descriptions out of the summary because you think there are too many of them.  If an article describes a "yellow and blue flying pig", we describe the pig as "yellow and blue", "able to fly" and as "a pig". If the description is in the article, you have to give a damn good reason for it not to be in the lead (and, no LABEL, is not a  damn good reason). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If your "yellow and blue flying pig" had in the article that it "sometimes has spots", "lived to 100 years old", "NYT described as 'silly looking'", "CNN journalist said it was 'a racist'", "loved by neo-nazis", "lives in Australia, Canada, and some parts of Brazil", would you then write some silly first-sentence like "X is a yellow and blue flying pig that lives to 100 years in Australia, Canada, and some parts of Brazil, is silly looking, loved by neo-nazis, and is racist"? No, you probably wouldn't because that's ridiculous - just like the newly added first sentence of this article is. Galestar (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option D: The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right movement based in the United States; alt-right views include white supremacism, white nationalism, white separatism, anti-immigration, and sometimes antisemitism. I don't like bombarding the reader in the first sentence, but I think it is important to be clear up front what the alt-right is. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  16:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I still prefer option B, this would be my second choice. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My second choice as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I still favour A, I think that D is a better option than B. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option B with D also my second choice. Doug Weller  talk 06:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * B, D 2nd choice, as due and pertinent. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option D - Yes, bombarding the reader with hyphenated terms in the first sentence is less than ideal, but it's also very important to give a good idea of what the article is going to be about. It's important to make very clear what the alt-right stands for and the terms "far-right, white nationalist" are just not enough, especially nowadays, when there are strong efforts (even here on Wikipedia) to redefine those terms so that they don't appear unsavory anymore and become part of the political mainstream.  PraiseVivec (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In between A & B: I'd say "white supremacist, white nationalist, white separatist" heavily overlap to the point of redundancy. They should be combined - probably as "white nationalist". While "anti-immigration" is almost inherent in white nationalist, I'd say it is so significant as to warrant listing it. "sometimes antisemitic" is also distinct enough to include. Alsee (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option D seems best. We should avoid a too many adjectives before a noun, but listing the views in the lede like this is good. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A, On second thought, option A is best, "far-right, white nationalist" is accurate and covers "white separatist, anti-immigration and sometimes antisemitic". Bacondrum (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A as long-term status quo, better prose per Midnightblueowl, better abstraction, and I have read that it is moving away from being diverse positions into just meaning white-nationalism. Second choice is Option D or other reworking among varying and ill-defined definitions out there for what is largely a LABEL usage.  Worst choice seems option B, wrong in trying to say it 'is' all those things at once combined or conflated, instead of saying a definition for alt-right label which is characterized as generalization as applying for any of a variety of extremely conservative or reactionary groups and various positions.  (A white supremacist is not necessarily also a nationalist, and if a person is red or yellow or black doesn't mean they couldn't be anti-semitic or anti-immigration or one of the other alt-right positions.)    Perhaps something more like a definition followed by typical examples.
 * The alt-right, short form of alternative right, 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. Ideologies that are characterized as within this generalization include white nationalism, white supremacy, anti-semitic, neo-Nazi, racism.
 * Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Option E: The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white supremacist, anti-immigration and sometimes antisemitic movement based in the United States. Many sources explain how "white nationalism" and "white separatism" are euphemistic terms which are functionally redundant with "white supremacy". In some limited cases it makes sense to treat them separately, but not when used for a broad, loosely defined movement such as this. For pragmatic reasons, B would be fine as well. D also works. Anti-immigration and anti-Semitism are both defining traits according to a mountain of sources. If sources reflect a change, cite them, and the article can be updated, but not until then. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Option F: The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white supremacist/nationalist/separatist, anti-immigration and sometimes antisemitic movement based in the United States. Please forgive yet another option but this one shortens option B while retaining its content. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that really gets around the concern people have with excessive adjectives. It also goes against WP:SLASH, which recommends that we avoid using slashes. Even if we did allow the use of slashes, their use implies an "or" not an "and". — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This sounds weasely: "and sometimes antisemitic movement"...Are they antisemitic or not? I personally support option A, but if the consensus is to keep the long list of adjectives can we at least leave out the "sometimes" bit? Bacondrum (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is a bit complicated - there's basically three camps. There's the straight-up antisemites. That's easy. There's then a middle group who see Israel as an ideal of the ethnostate. They say, "look, the jews have their own country and it's going great, we should do the same thing for WASPs" - and that's actually pretty antisemitic TBH. They are fine with Jewish people existing. As long as it's somewhere else a long way away. And then there's a third group who just really hate Arabs and Persians, and who kind of like Israel for killing and generally making life miserable for the Palestinians. And again, that's actually antisemitic from a technical perspective since Palestinians are a Semitic ethnicity, but that's not what's normally meant by antisemitism so it's largely not seen as counting. That third group doesn't really have any problem with Jewish people, per say. And, of course, there's the confounding factor: you can tell a Nazi is lying because their lips are moving. So alt-right figures from groups 2 or 3 might actually be in group 1 but not willing to reveal their "power level" just yet. Furthermore, some people might present as being of group 2 in one circumstance, group 3 in another and group 1 in yet another, making it even harder to know how antisemitic they are. And all this has caused confusion in the media, that just isn't equipped to handle Nazis TBH, and so a lot of RSes are like, "Jim-Bob just hates Muslims or Latinos, not Jews." And per WP:V and WP:RGW we report what we can verify, not what is true. Thus, "sometimes antisemitic". It's not weasel words - it's literally the best possible summation of a complicated situation poorly communicated outside of academic sources and antifa blogs that are not considered reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, yes indeed, I agree with all that you've said thanks for the well reasoned response...but I still have an issue with the "sometimes antisemitic" claim...I don't think anyone can sometimes be antisemitic, you hate Jews or you don't. It's a weird turn of phrase, we should assert what they are or assert nothing IMO...If we have to be that vague, then the claim is simply unverifiable. I personally don't think people join groups that march with swastikas if they're only occasionally antisemitic or they're the stand alone member who doesn't actually hate Jews, but the rest of the group does. Do we have a source that called the group "sometimes antisemitic"? If not then that claim is no more valid than calling them outright antisemitic. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, except it's saying that the alt-right movement is sometimes not antisemitic, not that any given individual within it is. Again, it's a lede, its job is to summarize a complex topic succinctly. A more complete discussion of the complicated relationship of the alt-right movement to Jewish people and the state of Israel should be in the body. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it always explicitly "white supremacism, white nationalism, white separatism, anti-immigration"? Perhaps it should be rephrased to something like: The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right movement based in the United States. The alt right draws support from a number of different far-right groups with varying ideologies including white supremacism, white nationalism, white separatism, anti-immigration, antisemitism and neo-NazismBacondrum (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote "sometimes antisemitic", so I should explain my thinking. The other characteristics listed are all generally true for the majority of groups in the alt-right movement -- bearing in mind that it is a movement of different groups and not a monolithic organization.  My impression - which could well be wrong -- was that somerthing less than a majority of those groups are inherently antisemitics -- hence "sometimes antisemitic" for a description of the movement as a whole. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I totally understand why, but I think it needs rephrasing. Bacondrum (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Any ideas about how to re-phrase it to put across what I intended? "Includes antisemitic elements", perhaps? Or is just plain "antisemitic" enough? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally think plain antisemitic covers it, photos of the rallies featured in the article show swastikas and Nazi symbols displayed throughout the alt-right crowds, that being said "Includes antisemitic elements" works too, and is more cautious. Either would be better phrasing than "sometimes antisemetic", IMO Bacondrum (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK,, let's see which description prevails in this RfC, A or B, and go from there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Option D. Option B is too verbose for the first sentence in my opinion; it's better to have a simpler first sentence and discuss this in more detail in subsequent sentences. --Tataral (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Option A. It is clearer and more concise. MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A - far-right and white-nationalist are both linked and both articles discuss the ideologies; the rest of the article also discusses racism etc.. I think that two adjectives is enough to avoid bloating. Nazism does not mention anti-semitism in the lead sentence but that doesn't mean the article is not discussing the issue. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  16:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A, for the reasons given by Midnightblueowl, and chiefly the first. Shorter is better at the very beggining. Lappspira (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Alt-left article and category?
I said it a week ago, but no body answered, so I said that here: Can we make a Alt-left article and category at the moment? 178.43.228.53 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * no.Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea came from that if we can speak about Alt-right, why we can't speak about Alt-left? This is hipocrisy. 178.43.228.53 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because we don't create articles about things that don't exist. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This article needs serious and radical changes immediately!
Dear Wiki community, I ask for your help in the editing of this article. After hearing that some of my favourite speakers were being called alt-right by the mainstream media news outlets I came here to wiki to see what it actually meant, and I was horrified by what I found.

I have not done any studies myself, nor do I know how to navigate the web well enough to be able to find the studies that apply to this issue or even where to look, but after hearing this term being blasted out around the world, and denounced by all public figures and news media my guess is that 99% of the people being referred to as 'alt-right' by mainstream sources do not espouse any racist or discriminatory beliefs at all. To me that would suggest that either nearly all of the mainstream media, news sources, and public opinion is 99% wrong about what 'alt-right' means, or Wikipedia is 99% wrong about what 'alt-right means.'

There are several things that the 99% of people referred to as 'alt-right,' who are direct contradictions of this article, espouse openly: 1. No governing body (elected by the will of the people or otherwise)should have the ability to further restrict freedom of speech. 2. No governing body (elected by the will of the people or otherwise)should have the ability to further restrict property rights. 3. No governing body (elected by the will of the people or otherwise)should have the ability to further restrict freedom of association. 4. No governing body (elected by the will of the people or otherwise)should have the ability to further restrict citizens ability to protect themselves from harm. 5. No governing body (elected by the will of the people or otherwise)should have the ability to redistribute the wealth of private citizens to corrupt individuals, special interest groups, members of specific identity groups, charitable donations, or foreign nations.

Here is a short list of some of the people who have been hurt indirectly through the information in the current Wikipedia article for 'Alt-Right:' Jordan Peterson (Liberal) Candace Owens (Conservative) Lauren Chen (Conservative) Carl Benjamin {Sargon of Akkad} (Liberal) Tim Pool (Liberal) Dave Rubin (Liberal) Ben Shapiro (Conservative) Steven Crowder (Conservative) Milo Yiannopoulos (Conservative) James Demore (Liberal)

The list is actually quite a long one; here I just have listed some of the more famous people, but this term is being used to silence and blacklist thousands of those who espouse, overall, quite reasonable and rational ideas about how society and/or government ought to be organized.

I move that we edit this article to either 1: change the meaning of 'alt-right' to represent what it is used to represent 99% of the time by the main stream - articles 1 through 5 listed above. Or 2: At least take out the nasty bits about the racism and the murders.

I spent an hour this afternoon checking the references in the current article. It turns out the studies used as references were bogus. This one in particular: https://www.splcenter.org/20180205/alt-right-killing-people

I researched every murderer they claimed to be members of a racist 'alt-right' and there was little to no evidence of any racist or 'alt-right' connections for over 40% of them, not to mention, the majority of victims killed by the killers on this list were white people.

Please help the thousands of people that are suffering because of a bad definition being used to define them as something they are not.

Thank you Wiki Community. I look forward to reading your feedback.

Guerrillagreg (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Snyder quote
Concur that it wasn't due in the lede, but Snyder is a holocaust expert, which makes his opinion on whether alt-right is a part of the Nazi movement kind of due. I've inserted the quote back in the body of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Alt-left
I propose deleting the Alt-left section, it's 100% undue fluff. There is no Alt-left, it's a stupid thing a couple of people have said during arguments. As the section states "there is no group that labels itself this way". The inclusion of an nonentity/nonevent is obviously completely undue. So much of this article is undue, we could start by removing things that don't exist, fluff. Bacondrum (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's entirely undue to discuss in an article about the alt-right. It's literally just a Republican talking point. Simonm223 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * C'mon, the section has like 10 sources in it. Just because it's a Republican talking point (about which I agree) doesn't mean it's not notable. Find a reliable source that says it's a RTP and put that in the section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The existence of an "alt-left" is obviously a WP:FRINGE view. As such we need to assess whether it has coverage outside of its own echo chamber to assess notability. Simonm223 (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * People say stuff, people report people saying stuff, that doesn't make it WP:DUE. There is no Alt-left, I agree with mentioning it in context, but not a whole section dedicated to something that doesn't exist. As pointed out, this is a WP:FRINGE far-right talking point. Bacondrum (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I found an academic paper from the monthly conservative—not alt-right—Quandrant, writing about the opposition between Alt-Right and Alt-Left. Secondly, the "alt left" is a rhetorical attempt to draw an equivalence between Antifas and the alt-right. The content should be kept, but maybe moved to the "tactics" section Azerty82 (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support reducing it to a sentence or two in the tactics section. As for Quadrant, it's a fringe outlet, generally unreliable for factual reporting. The publication is a biased and opinionated source (IMO that's being kind). It's an opinion outlet with a reputation for inaccuracy and bias, not an academic journal. Bacondrum (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * didn't know much about that magazine, thanks Azerty82 (talk)
 * No worries, they do make a serious effort to deceive, to present themselves as a reputable academic paper. Bacondrum (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Folks, there's no way it's UNDUE. It's less than 200 words in a 14,234-word article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Undue is undue, size is besides the point. Bacondrum (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Split into a new article: I'm not sure how useful a whole section on the "alt-left" is to this particular article. At the same time it is clear that the term "alt-left" has entered American political discourse, albeit usually as a pejorative term. I would propose moving it into a new article altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the suggestion above. "Alt-left" is notable enough to be included here, but not notable enough for its own article. The current situation is the right one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that iti doesn't warrant an article, for the same reasons I oppose it's inclusion here - the Alt-left doesn't exist. Bacondrum (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer we just ignore this WP:FRINGE belief. Especially as the only "academic" reference to it appears to have been another WP:FRINGE publication which is exactly what WP:PROFRINGE is all about. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Convert from a separate section into a note? Might this be the best option? It would probably require cutting down the actual content on the "alt-left" term. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the suggestion. There are indeed many academic papers mentioning the "alt-left", but all of them do not recognize it as a valuable concept but a rhetorical tactic (except the fringe Quadrant I had naively mentioned earlier). I'd prefer for my part, as I said above, to reduce the part to 2 or 3 sentences based on academic sources, and move it to the "tactics" section. Azerty82 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's much too long for a note. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I support Azerty82's suggestion - reduce the part to 2 or 3 sentences based on academic sources, and move it to the "tactics" section. Bacondrum (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Academic sources are not the only sources we use, so restricting ourselves to only academic sources in this case would be special treatment. We don't do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I had restricted to academic sources to avoid useless controversies/debates on the nature of the term "alt-left", but if we have reliable journalistic sources, I see no problem Azerty82 (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's still just a talking point, it doesn't actually exist, unless there is a source (academic or otherwise) that defines the Alt-left, and we can identify members etc then a section documenting a non-existent ideology is beyond undue, it's nonsense. Like much of this article, it's fluff, nothing more and thus it is completely undue. Bacondrum (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I remind people that this was merged here from Alt-left after Talk:Alt-left? I sympathise with your position, but I'd prefer this to stay here for reasons similar to the ones you see as a rationale to delete it. I think that popular fringe misconceptions need debunking and there should be a section here debunking this one.  Doug Weller  talk 15:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * We are not here to debunk fringe claims, we are here to create an encyclopedia. Mentioning that the term has been a talking point is one thing, dedicating a whole section to something that doesn't exist? Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as per User:Doug Weller as outlined at  Does deletion help?..don't leave our  readers having to  get their  information from the net.-- Moxy 🍁 21:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can anyone provide any evidence that the Alt-left actually exists? Sure, they may be some argumetnt for keeping the section if the subject is actually a real thing, but if not then it is the very definition of WP:UNDUE. Bacondrum (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The term is clearly used be it accurately or not and we should confront it and explain  it's usage. If it's all bs then explain that. -- Moxy 🍁 21:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then where do we stop? People say crazy stuff all the time. Bacondrum (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Does the Alt-left exist?
Can anyone provide any evidence that the Alt-left exists? It appears to be something someone said, rather than an actual thing. I'd love to see some evidence of its actual existence, not just the random use of the term by lunatic fringe right-wing pundits. Bacondrum (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The question that should be addressed is how is the term used regardless if is a factual statement or not...-- Moxy 🍁 21:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it widely used? I'd never heard of it before. A couple of Nazi's yelling "they're Alt-left" into cyberspace is not noteworthy, IMO.
 * Yes as outlined here....we only need a few sentence and perhaps quote the article "As for the “alt-left,” researchers who study extremist groups say there is no such thing".-- Moxy 🍁 22:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That article makes it clear that the Alt-left doesn't exist: "'As for the “alt-left,” researchers who study extremist groups say there is no such thing. Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League, told the New York Times that it “refers to no actual group or movement or network” and had been created as a term to make a false equivalence between the far right and left.'" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for pointing out that Trump is full of it (however full of it he may be). A sentence or two may be justified, but not a whole section dedicated to a nonexistent group or movement of less than no consequence that was merely mentioned by a handful of idiots. Bacondrum (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is meant to give an overview of knowledge and lead our READERS to reliable sources. We don't delete the World is Flat article just because we know it's not true.. what we do is confront the problem and explain it to our readers.Purpose.-- Moxy 🍁 22:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Millions of people once believed the earth was flat, a significant number of people still believe it is - a couple of Nazi's and Trump used the term Alt-left a couple of times...there's a massive difference. I agree it should be mentioned in the article, a sentence or two, not a whole section. like so much of the article it goes into massively undue detail. Bacondrum (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the question is whether it's discussed enough in reliable sources to justify the inclusion of a section saying it doesn't exist (which is what the article says now.) I vaguely recall that section being deleted before, but at some point it crept back in.  An additional issue - if we trimmed it down and de-sectioned it, where would we put what's left?  I suppose one option would be to put it under "reactions", since in effect the section is currently about one Trump quote and responses to it, and the sources seem to support the idea that Trump's quote is a reaction to the Alt-Right (by implying, falsely, that there's a comparable alt-left.)  So I'd support removing the header and merging it into the reactions section on those grounds. --Aquillion (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't exist. As the ADL said, the term was invented to suggest a false equivalence between the alt-right and their opponents. TFD (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Alt-right vs far-right
Can someone tell me, what is difference between alt-right and far-right? 178.43.244.206 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not much of a difference see Far-right subcultures. That seen most academics just see it as a rebranding .-- Moxy 🍁 15:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The word "far-right" is a general term to describe political groups in many different countries and across many centuries. One could for instance talk about the Black Hundreds as representing the far-right in early 20th century Russia, the Nazi Party as representing the far-right in 1930s/40s Germany, and extreme Hindu nationalists as representing the far-right in contemporary India. The term "alt-right" refers to a specific U.S.-based far-right movement arising in the 2010s. All alt-rightists are far-right, but most far-rightists have nothing to do with the alt-right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2020
change the "meme" link to an other article, for it to reach "internet meme" and not the current "meme" article. Manologue (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Thjarkur (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong, Wikipedia
Adding anti-abortion link to alt-right template is a negation of this quote: ''On social issues like attitudes to homosexuality and abortion, the alt-right is divided; in contrast to the great attention U.S. conservatives have given these issues, they have been of little interest to the alt-right. Hawley suggested that the alt-right 'was more broadly pro-choice than the conservative movement. Many on the alt-right favored legal abortion for its eugenic purposes', highlighting that it was disproportionately used by African-American and Hispanic-American women''.

Can someone fix it, please? 80.49.209.143 (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Based in the United States?
The first line of the article is "The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement based in the United States" right now. To me, this seems wrong, as the alt-right seems like an international phenomenon. For example, in my country, the Netherlands there are also alt-right organizations, like for example Erkenbrand. Maybe some of the key figures are located in the United States but the alt-right is mainly something on the internet, and the internet is not limited by national borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schenkstroop (talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Add holocaust denial as a category to the page
I would recommend that Holocaust denial be added as a category for various reasons

1. Many alt-right figures are holocaust deniers 2. The category "alt-right" has holocaust denial as a category applying to it 3. It's commonly associated with the white genocide, ZOG conspiracy theories, which are espoused by many alt-right people

Sergei zavorotko (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While there's no disagreement that the two circles overlap, we'd need a source that defines Holocaust denial as a key trait of the Alt-Right. We don't want to add a No true Scotsman label to it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The Alternative Influence Network on Youtube
It is a chart that studies what leads people to Alt-right Youtube channels (The Pipeline) based on Guest Appearances.Apha9 (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020
Can you please add fair content regarding the alt-left. We have full-blown communists in government now that need to be exposed the same way the media shames people as "alt-right." No, the left went so far that it sees anything normal as alt-right. 107.242.117.39 (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as the "alt-left". American politics has not had a viable counter-cultural left-wing movement (essentially what the alt-right is on the right-wing) since the "New Left" of the 1960s and 1970s. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Main Picture Appears to be Photoshopped
The nazi flag in the first picture appears to be photoshopped. I don't think that is an accurate way to represent the subject matter. PackerBacker75 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that? Examining the original on Flickr in detail, I don;t see any obvious indications that the flag has been photoshopped in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this a tendentious claim? I studied digital photography at university, and I've done digital photo editing for a living on and off for more than a decade. I just opened the original file in the latest Adobe PS, and there's absolutely no evidence what-so-ever of any kind of alteration. Bacondrum (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At least two news agencies have used this image, including Task & Purpose (twice, ), and the Virginia Mercury (once, ). Both of the Task and Purpose cases include associated captions, and both captions label the figures in the image as members of the alt-right. The Virginia article does not include a caption. Jlevi (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Pepe Removed
Why is Pepe removed from the second image? Wikipedia is not censored, so we need to use the image with Pepe. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean. Good question. Bacondrum (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's about copyright infringement. The alt-right stole Pepe from its creator, and any use of it is a copyright violation.   There was a discussion about it either here or on Commons, I'll try to find it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I know the discussion happened, because I participated in it, but I can't find it at the moment. Maybe someone else will have better luck.  But, basically, usinf it was a copyright thing, not a censorship thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Copyright wouldn't apply in that context here in Aus. I don't know what the law is in America regarding incidentally captured copyrighted images in public spaces. Bacondrum (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the decision was based on Pepe being a major element of the image, and therefore not de minimis. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the U.S. (although there should be) so photographs which include copyrighted elements cannot be re-published without the permission of the copyright holder, unless the copyrighted element is minimal enough that it's not considered an infringement. Wish I could find that discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See this discussion on Commons, where you'll note that I was in favor of not deleting the image and of keeping Pepe on it. Commons admins decided otherwise, and that pretty much sticks us with using this version of the image. It could be uploaded here with Pepe, which would by OK under the Fair Use doctrine, but would not pass muster under our own WP:NFCC policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's Aut-Right....
It stands for Authoritarian Right referring to the position on the political compass. It's not alternative right, alt came from people hearing people who are aware of the the compass saying "Aut" and assuming it's "Alt". There's right and left on the X axis of the compass and authoritarian and libertarian on the y axis. How is this a non public edit page with an error to it's title....all you have to do is Google political compass. This is where you get all the political nicknames...I'm libertarian and am quite aware of the lib-tard nickname. CarpeLipebrum (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — CarpeLipebrum (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Show reliable mainstream sources for your assertion, preferably while omitting the name-calling. Also, see WP:COMMONNAME.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah dude, you're wrong. Authoritarian Right is completely different from this topic, and the concept of Alt-Right is a very real and legitimate thing. There is a reason we block public edits on this page. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

also the nazi flag in the main picture appears to be photoshopped. I feel like there was clear political motive behind this article PackerBacker75 (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — PackerBacker75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hey look a conspiracy theory! I am gonna assume WP:GOODFAITH, abide by WP:CIVIL and not say anything more blatant then say, maybe you're a WP:Conflict of interest violation for this specific page. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV
This article contains largely characterization and framing from seemingly partisan writers in addition to a lot of unsourced claims. Where are the objective #facts? Why has Wikipedia become a venue primarily for opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.237.135.123 (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is unclear what change you are suggesting. If you have reliable sources describing facts that are left out, feel free to suggest them. If there are any specific claims that are unsourced, please point them out. As 'NPOV' on wikipedia differs somewhat from the general definition, it may be worth reviewing what that means here: wp:NPOV. Jlevi (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2020
Remove "dangerous" from description of carnivore diet, which is obviously POV. Also, the entire para is a one-liner (and a rather tendentious one at that), with hardly any real significance. Could be jettisoned entirely. 81.191.204.248 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅. The "dangerous" bit had to go per WP:MEDRS, so no problems there. I also removed the rest of the statement as well.  It was just kind of plonked down with no context or apparent significance with only a meh source to go on...a source which only even uses the phrase "alt-right" twice, focusing more on conservatism in general.  So it was really too much of a stretch for what was there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020
Change this: After the murder of a counter-protester at the Unite the Right Rally, President Trump stated at a press conference that there was "blame on both sides" for the violence, stating that some of the counter-protesters were part of the "very, very violent ... alt-left".[533] Various experts pointed out that the neologism "alt-left" was neither created nor adopted by any members of the progressive left.[534][535] The term "alt-left" has been criticized as a label that was not coined by the group it purports to describe; rather, it was created by its political opponents as a smear.[536][537] The historian Timothy D. Snyder stated that "'alt-right' is a term ... meant to provide a fresh label that would sound more attractive than 'Nazi,' 'neo-Nazi,' 'white supremacist,' or 'white nationalist.' With 'alt-left' it's a different story. There is no group that labels itself that way".[31] The scholar of public affairs Thomas J. Main commented on the alt-right by saying: "They don't think blacks and Jews should have equal rights. On the left, there is nothing analogous".[31] According to Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League, the term was invented to suggest a false equivalence between the alt-right and their opponents.[538] Since 2016, the term "alt-left" has also been used derisively to describe political views that lie within the left, as well as individuals perceived as adhering to those views, particularly within political discussions.[539][540]

To: After the murder of a counter-protester at the Unite the Right Rally, President Trump stated at a press conference that there was "blame on both sides" for the violence, stating that some of the counter-protesters were part of the "very, very violent ... alt-left".[533] Various experts pointed out that the neologism "alt-left" was neither created nor adopted by any members of the progressive left.[534][535] The term "alt-left" has been criticized as a label that was not coined by the group it purports to describe; rather, it was created by its political opponents as a smear.[536][537] The historian Timothy D. Snyder stated that "'alt-right' is a term ... meant to provide a fresh label that would sound more attractive than 'Nazi,' 'neo-Nazi,' 'white supremacist,' or 'white nationalist.' With 'alt-left' it's a different story. There is no group that labels itself that way".[31] The scholar of public affairs Thomas J. Main commented on the alt-right by saying: "They don't think blacks and Jews should have equal rights. On the left, there is nothing analogous".[31] According to Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League, the term was invented to suggest a false equivalence between the alt-right and their opponents.[538] Since 2016, the term "alt-left" has also been used derisively to describe political views that lie within the left, as well as individuals perceived as adhering to those views, particularly within political discussions.[539][540] An earlier incarnation of the term was circulated among web activists in the 1990s which invoked "alternative" political ideas (basic income, anti-work notions, etc). 198.8.7.70 (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

"Regressive conservatism" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Regressive conservatism. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 22:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021
The first three paragraphs have zero sources. Can the sources be put in or the paragraphs removed? This is like 2010 wikipedia... Cmsmith93 (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * . Leads generally don't include citations if we have the same citation elsewhere in the article. That being said, they are not exempt from verifiability requirements (MOS:CITELEAD). Please indicate which specific sentences should have a citation. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * From "The alt-right, an abbreviation" to "nationalism have been termed "alt-lite"." Cmsmith93 (talk)
 * That's the entire first three paragraphs. Indicate which specific sentences are not sourced from the body of the article. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. I thought a claim was made and then a source was given? Why not just write all wikipedia articles without the [1], [2] links to sources and then just leave the sources at the very bottom? Cmsmith93 (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Have a look again at MOS:CITELEAD. You do need inline citations, but a lead typically consists of content duplicated from the body of an article, so as long as the content it's repeating has inline citations there's no reason to repeat it in the lead and make it unnecessarily cluttered. Volteer1 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)