Template talk:Alt-right footer

Add National Conservatism as a related idea.
I think National Conservatism needs to be added as an idea, likely under the related ideas tab, especially when more US Conservative thought leaders are praising Orban's government and Eastern European conservative parties. What are others' thoughts? 2600:8806:6204:EA00:E529:63BA:56F0:5180 (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2022
Derek Chauvin Imaqueer7 (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2022 (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. Cannolis (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Kanye West
Should Kanye be added to this category? He's embraced Nazism and openly endorsed Hitler on Alex Jones' podcast, he's basically alt-right. Flossingjonah (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

No. He hasn't described himself as alt-right, nor has any publication I've seen described him as alt-right. He's antisemitic for sure and has praised Hitler, but he's outside the historical context of the alt-right.Bartholomite (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Truth Social
The core content policy WP:NOR says: "Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

I would like to point out that your addition of Truth Social does not conform to the aforementioned policy due to going beyond what your source expresses. The source only refers to Truth Social as an alt-tech (which is already mentioned in the lede of the Truth Social article) and does not consider it alt-right.

Also, Truth Social does not position itself as a right-wing platform. In fact, people of any political stance can use the platform, and that's why the left-winger Gavin Newsom can use it. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Matt Smith: Please check, for instance, here: Russian operators linked to election interference in the United States have been identified manipulating audiences on alternative right-wing social media platforms, including Donald Trump’s Truth Social. Hildeoc (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What that source says is "right-wing". And alt right is, as the article describes, a "far-right" movement. Please be advised that right-wing is not far-right, just like left-wing is not far-left. Therefore, that source is not usable in this case.
 * By the way, I think that source is wrong to say that Truth Social is a ring-wing platform because that's not how Truth Social works or positions itself. Please check here: Truth Social claimed to be a platform free from political discrimination. ... this app claimed to be completely unbiased and free from political censorship or discrimination. Matt Smith (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Matt Smith: Alt-right: "The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a far-right, white nationalist movement." Are you sure you really want to argue about Trump's movement and its platform not being far-right and white nationalist? By the way, it doesn't actually matter what the platform or rather its representatives claim it to be, and how they describe it themselves – just as it would be irrelevant what a spade would call itself, given it's a spade ... Hildeoc (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How Trump opposers characterize Trump and his allies is not something I have a desire to argue, and it also is not the topic of this discussion. Anyway, is there any reliable source explicitly saying that Truth Social works or operates in a far-right, white nationalist fashion? If not, would you be so kind as to do self-reverts? Matt Smith (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already linked several references to passages pertinent to your question above. Happy New Year! Hildeoc (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you did not. You haven't been able to provide a reliable source which explicitly says that Truth Social works or operates in a far-right, white nationalist fashion.
 * Also, do not remove an inline citation and verifiability dispute template again unless the dispute is resolved. Matt Smith (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please confer the definition of alt-tech: Alt-tech are social media platforms and Internet service providers that have become popular among the alt-right, far-right, and others who espouse extreme or fringe opinions, in the belief that these alternatives moderate content less stringently than mainstream internet service providers. Truth Social is the alt-tech social media platform of the Trump movement (which is characterized by the traits in question as is scientifically evidenced by the references linked above: far-right, white nationalist, being the essence of alt-right). Hence, the pertinence to this template is clearly evident. Hildeoc (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please pay attention to who or what the definition refers to. When the definition mentions alt-right, etc, it refers to users rather than the tech itself. That is, the definition does not say an alt-tech operates in an alt-right fashion.
 * Secondly, your associating the so-called Trump movement with Truth Social constitutes synthesis of published material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Put simply, you cannot conclude that Truth Social is alt-right by combining multiple sources which each does not explicitly state so. Matt Smith (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "When the definition mentions alt-right, etc, it refers to users rather than the tech itself." Sorry, but you're being either mistaken or rather deliberately quibbling here. In any case, the article Truth Social itself characterizes the platform as such as alt-tech, which is the pertinent category of the respective section (Online culture) within this template. Seriously, this has really nothing at all to do with OR on my part, sir. Hildeoc (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Matt Smith, @Hildeoc's statement above reflects my take as well: "In any case, the article Truth Social itself characterizes the platform as such as alt-tech, which is the pertinent category of the respective section (Online culture) within this template." It's a simple and parsimonious categorization, not an aspersion.-- Quisqualis (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So the reason of the addition becomes the row named "Alt-tech" within the template and the addition now has nothing at all to do with OR (as Hildeoc said)?
 * Since my main point is that it's OR to regard Truth Social as alt-right, I think how the row was named is questionable because the naming automatically allows all such techs to be included into this "Alt-right" template. For this reason, I'm planning to start a new discussion querying the rationality of the naming of the row. Would you mind letting me know whether that type of discussion is viable or not? Matt Smith (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Matt Smith, in Alt-tech, there are citations to may sources, which qualify as reliable. Truth social was founded by Trump and/or his associates, with an aim to have a different set of moderation standards from FB, Twitter and the like. News-type media have noticed that it is evolving to the right. What more do you need? TS doesn't seem to stand alone on a pedestal in the middle of the social media field. If it does, would you please cite a few reliable sources for that? My impression is that you would rather not have Truth Social anywhere in the footer, but reliable sources have already placed it there.
 * Please note that No Original Research is for article content, not for the inner workings of Wikipedia. Our policies and principles are all the product of OR, so please don't wield that cudgel on this discussion page.
 * I have to ask, @Matt Smith – do you have any connection to Truth Social and the people who run and control it? I'm beginning to wonder if you might have a conflict of interest.-- Quisqualis (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me which aspect the "is evolving to the right" refers to exactly. Does the source explain that in details? But in any case, I think it's safe to say that "is evolving to the right" is different from "is far-right", just like "is evolving to the left" is different from "is far-left". Because we are discussing the content of this template (Template:Alt-right footer), what I was trying to do is getting a consensus on removing Truth Social from this template because I think placing it in this template can mislead readers into believing that Truth Social itself is alt-right.
 * My apology if any of my wordings accidentally implies imposing WP:NOR on this discussion. I knew the policy is not for inner workings.
 * In response to your question, nope, I do not have any connection to Truth Social and the people who run and control it. I'm an Asian conservative who thinks the current arrangement in this template is unfair to Truth Social. I will start a new discussion to discuss that. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Matt Smith, to answer your question, you may start another discussion, but you'd be wise to first determine from the footer's history which editors created it and made the specific contributions you question, and whether they still edit Wikipedia. Be sure to WP:PING them in your post.-- Quisqualis (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do that. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Actually, it makes more sense to discuss the rationality of including the template in the Truth Social article first. I'll do that instead. Matt Smith (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles do not rely on what the subjects of the articles say about themselves, but what reliable sources say about the subjects. It would not be an encyclopedia otherwise. 74.64.73.24 (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Putting it in a template which calls it alt-right, and calling it alt-right in article space, are both fundamentally labeling it as alt-right, so we should require the same confidence in sourcing. Our article on Truth Social doesn't mention the label, and all you've presented here is an article from an obscure blog which doesn't even call it alt-right; it said "alternative [right-wing social media platforms]", i.e right-wing social media platforms alternative to the normal platforms. Additionally, your argument that Truth Social is alt-right because Trump is a white nationalist doesn't make sense for multiple different reasons, the easiest one being that we don't even call Trump a white nationalist. Endwise (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Endwise: As before, I would ask you to confer the definition of alt-tech in the first place. TS is undoubtedly alt-tech, as is already stated and referenced in the introductory sentence. The articles also unambiguously states and references: The platform has been described as a competitor in the alt-tech field that includes Parler and Gab in attempting to provide an uncensored alternative to Twitter and Facebook. Both, Parler and Gab have already been included here. And as Quisqualis explained above, this is not about slander or anything but simply about a pithy, consistent categorization. Quisqualis, what do you think? Hildeoc (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hildeoc, I am in complete agreement with you here. I'm not going to be redundant and post here any more, as it seems to be giving them food. Per WP:Bludgeon, WP:wikilawyer and WP:ICHY.-- Quisqualis (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "giving them food" Seriously? Please understand that making such an offensive implication can be considered bordering WP:NPA. Citing guidelines to express your thought is okay, be it valid or not, but making that kind of implication is not only unnecessary but can also cause unpleasantness. Matt Smith (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically, you are suggesting that the whole alt-tech line (4chan&thinsp;·&thinsp;(/pol/)&thinsp;·&thinsp;8chan&thinsp;·&thinsp;BitChute&thinsp;·&thinsp;Epik&thinsp;·&thinsp;Gab&thinsp;·&thinsp;Gettr&thinsp;·&thinsp;Minds&thinsp;·&thinsp;Parler&thinsp;·&thinsp;Terrorgram&thinsp;·&thinsp;Voat (defunct)) should be removed from the template. After all, apart from our article on Epik, these articles don't mention the term. But why should that be a requirement? The alt-right article makes it clear that alt-tech is an important aspect of the alternative right-wing scene, and as such it should be included in the template. Also, while our article on Truth Social does not currently use the term, there are enough sources characterizing it as an "alt-right" social media platform, like here, here and here. --Lambiam 17:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lambiam: Thanks a lot, especially for providing additional references. I fully agree: There's absolutely no point in making an exception here with regard to the other platforms already included. Hildeoc (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Matt Smith: Can you agree? Hildeoc (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * After reconsideration, I can agree with your edit to this template. As for your edit to the Truth Social article, I don't think I can object to it because of the existence of those left-leaning sources, despite my considering their characterization of the social media platform incorrect. Matt Smith (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to see some consensus. Of course, the software behind the site is an (originally illegal) fork of Mastodon. But a social network is always mostly defined by the user and the content, not the source code. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)