Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Hi @PaulCHebert:, you reverted my latest edit, but rationale you provided in your comment is wrong on two levels. 1) You said that revert was done "To conform with cited source" - since when we are "shaping" Wikipedia articles around the cited sources? If the source is not appropriate you can change the source, but , certainly , a single source should not dictate the content of the article, especially the opening sentence. 2) You also said "and no, political spectrua are not universal -- what counts as, say "conservative" differs in 2 countries as close together as Canada and the US", which is wrong statement again. Political spectrum is absolutely universal in a sense that no matter which country you will compare there will always be alt-right, at the end of the right spectrum. So the argument about "conservative " is absolutely irrelevant at this point. Alt-right is not America-specific ideology and you can see it across many other countries, including UK, France, Germany, Italy etc. Since this article is about ideology, it's fundamentally important to detach it from specific country in opening summary (Country-specific ideologies can be explained in a greater detail in other sections of the article). Naming America in an opening sentence would imply that alt-right exists only in America which is not true. I'll give you some time to respond to this comment, and just to let you know, I'll revert your last edit in the next 24 hrs, unless there is a need for a more detailed discussion. Thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk)

Okay. PaulCHebert (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on the verifiability of information, where information in an article must be supported by citations from reliable sources. If a reliable source, or multiple reliable sources, says "X", our article says "X". If someone wishes our article to say "Y" instead, they must provide a reliable source to support it, or it will be reverted. In this respect all Wikipedia article are "shaped" by what reliable sources say. For this reason, if you revert PaulCHerbert's supported edit, I will restore it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

sure I'll add different and more appropriate sources to confirm my above statement and revert the edit. Not sure about your tone and that "OUR" usage. It seems you just ignore the issue here in the first place: Alt-right is not America-specific ideology, but instead of improving on this you are in some weird defensive way protecting incorrectness.I know the Wiki rules and I'been long enough here. You don't have to be so narrow minded when more important questions arise. Jone Rohne Nester (talk)

You are incorrect in most of what you say. "Alt-right" is, for the most part, an American phenomenon. Anything you add without reliable sou4rces will be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jone Rohne Nester: instead of insisting you are going to revert (evidently no matter what), how about working with other editors here and first bringing your sources to this article so that we can discuss them. You say you know "Wiki rules" (you mean I presume Wikipedia policies and guidelines) - but you don't seem to know about assume good faith. And I can guarantee you that your 868 edits so far can't have given you the experience to know that much about how Wikipedia works. I've been here almost 13 years and have made 196,084 edits and I'm still learning. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Should we add this recent attack to the list and prose within this article? 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:9D62:4D85:AD95:1CAB (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

So long as we can find reliable sources that explicitly link the attack to the alt-right (and I'm sure we can), then yes, I think that makes sense. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a goal of conflating Trump supporters with "alt-right" on this page, particularly your use of the "altered" photo of a single man with a sign that claims by explanation, without any proof, that the person holding the sign is "A Donald Trump supporter"? How do you know that: did the person in the photo tell you he supported Trump? Could he be an alleged "alt-right" person trying to gain converts? And is the purpose of using this "Donald Trump supporter" on the same page as and just below a pic of full-on Neo-Nazis to make the two indistinguishable?

I can't find any pictures of Antifa over at Hillary Clinton's campaign page, why not?...certainly many Antifa members were present at Clinton rallies, and at least a good number voted Clinton, so aren't the two one and the same? Of course not! That would be silly to allege, right?

Don't look now, Wikipedia's Leftwing bias is showing...yet again...I love how you think it's OK to tar 63,000,000 Americans with the "alt-right" bias brush. You should consider finding a less objectionable photo, since you don't know if what you claim to be true is in fact, true, to say nothing of your need to insist on using an "altered" photo to achieve your bias projection aims. Thanks118.15.183.146 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The photo is from the March 4 Trump, and the article already explains why it had to be altered. Nowhere does the article say that all or most Trump supporters are alt-right. The alt-right has a well-documented history of publishing pro-Trump memes. If you are, or know, a Trump supporter and you find the term alt-right offensive, good, but your complaint isn't with this article, it is with the alt-right. Grayfell (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Curios article https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/27/opinion/gaming-new-zealand-shooter.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcerery (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The article contains the following sentence: "The concept has further been associated with several groups such as American nationalists, anarcho-capitalists, national-anarchists". Non of the references make any mention of "anarcho-capitalists" or "anarcho-capitalism". Only the article from the Pacific Standard contain the word "capitalist" although the word is used to communicate that anarcho-nationalism" and "anarcho-fascism" is anti-capitalist. I was further unable to find any source that supports the mention of anarcho-capitalists in the above mentioned sentence and therefore believe that the sentence should be modified to exclude "anarcho-capitalists". 2A00:801:280:772F:2CFA:7128:1270:41B1 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If this is the case then "anarcho-capitalist" should certainly be removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

An edit request was submitted to correct something that is both slanderous and simply not true. This article states in the present tense that I am a "gay white nationalist." I'm bisexual, I've never identified as gay (I wrote my first book about that actually) and I'm not a white nationalist, and never have been. Evidence was provided on the Talk page, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-right/Archive_18

Editors agreed that the change I asked for was reasonable, and recommended the change, but the changes were not made because it could not be determined that I was actually the person making the request. (It shouldn't matter, because the information was still clearly false and slanderous.)

The proposed edit agreed on was:

"Others adopt a more tolerant stance and have praised bisexual alt-right figures like Jack Donovan, an early contributor to Spencer's AlternativeRight.com"

This is fair, reasonable and accurate. I did contribute to Alt-Right publications and speak at some events before the Alt-Right officially became a WN movement during the Charlottesville period, after which I cut off contact with Alt-Right (now WN) publications, events and well-known figures.

I have emailed info-en@wikimedia.org regarding this matter from my personal email address that I use for business. Mrjackdonovan (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Without Reliable Sources explicitly stating it, we could not state that Mr Donovan is bisexual; what we could do is remove mention of him from this passage altogether. Would this be amenable to you? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Midnightblueowl, that would be ideal. I write about men and masculinity and I have a lot of black and latino readers. I'm not active in this world and don't need to be referenced as something I'm not on this page. "Association smears" belong on Buzzfeed, not Wikipedia. 2600:6C55:4000:126A:4425:9067:DE98:A7EC (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Midnightblueowl. Much appreciated. 2600:6C55:4000:126A:4425:9067:DE98:A7EC (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"They don't think blacks and Jews should have equal rights. On the left, there is nothing analogous". If you do not have anything measurable thinking about feeling oppression and if you have political support, you can this describe exactly as oppress other groups.

The phrase therefore should describe this more exact including what differs exactly from both identity groups. 1-line sentences as direct phrase are unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.211.224 (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Given too much credit for them. Lot of shitlords are not political actors they are just internet trolls who like to provoke outrage and reaction. Provocateurs if you will. The fact that alt right disseminated it does not mean they are behind it, same way Ilhan Omar is not KKK member even tho David Duke endorsed her.Sourcerery (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sourcerery. Bear in mind that this article follows the example of the WP:Reliable Sources. We report what they say about the alt-right and memes. (Indeed, I don't think that the article actually says that the alt-right necessarily created all of these memes, only that it utilised them to spread its message). I see that your account has only been active for a few days; if you haven't already, I'd recommend reading WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:NOTAFORUM. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed, even sources given say that they only utilized some memes to an extent, sources say that they also utilized that poor gorilla Harambe meme. Yet that meme is not included, so what I am saying is solid number of those memes aren't that closely related to alt-right and political actors. Accordingly I propose shortening that section a bit, while only maintaining those closely related, which of there isn't that many.Sourcerery (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

One way of shortening it might be to replace the present point-by-point list with three or four paragraphs which summarise the various instances that reliable sources deem notable enough for a mention. Obviously the Pepe meme is probably foremost among these. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good.Sourcerery (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I've now cut that section into shape; it now takes the form of three paragraphs, one covering the Pepe and Moon Mam memes, one covering terms like "cuckservative" and "normie", and one covering other slogans and terms favoured by the movement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Great job with lead and first paragraph, other is a bit of lower quality . 2nd paragraph goes way too much into term cuck. Snowflake and SJW is more of a mainstream right but if sources say than it's ok (tho SJW article has no mention of alt right because it is indeed more mainstream). This however - Another tactic the alt-right employed was to place triple parentheses around Jewish names; this started at The Right Stuff as part of an attempt to raise awareness of the presence of Jewish Americans present in the media and academia.[344][5][9][345][346] One alt-rightist created a Google Chrome plug in that would highlight Jewish names online.[344] Alt-rightists also employed the hashtag "#WhiteGenocide" on Twitter, highway billboards, and flyers, a reduction of the older white nationalist slogan: "diversity is a code word for white genocide."[347] Also used was the slogan "It's OK to be white" as a way of expressing a supposed reverse racism towards white people by minorities.[348] Additional online features of the alt-right included references to Fashwave, a neo-fascist subgenre of electronic music microgenre vaporwave.[353] - while it is part of larger internet activity it's misplaced in meme section. Maybe you want to rename it than Internet activity or something like that?Sourcerery (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm just gonna rename it internet activity, you've done lot of hard work and don't want it wasted. Other editors and I will fix minor issues down the road.Sourcerery (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The section focuses on the use of memes, though, which is extremely well-cited as being a major aspect of alt-right activity. It's not just about generic internet activity. --Aquillion (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, section does focus mostly on memes, but it goes wider than that. Maybe have section titled Internet activity and sub section titled memes where it would be consolidated? It's basically first paragraph and some sentences in last while rest is broader, like cuck and similar. Maybe you could consolidate Fortnite article and video games?Even Midnightblueowl says 2,3 are lingo and other stuff, couple paragraphs above.Sourcerery (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that the section is wider than that; it is (and has always been) specifically and exclusively about how they used memes as a tactic. This is heavily-covered in the sources (eg. the cites to Hawley are literally to a section he titled "Meme Magic".) "Internet activities" isn't a tactic, doesn't have the same specific focus in the sources, and doesn't reflect the content of the section. As a title it is vague and useless in a way that obscures something that a huge number of sources have identified as crucial to the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Gain consensus with editor that wrote the section, he himself said it's wider than only memes.Sourcerery (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that here. You're the one proposing re-titling and changing the subject of a long-standing section, so you're the one who has to gain consensus for your WP:BOLD changes. --Aquillion (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well if you read carefully, you will. Not my words, words of Midnightblueowl. Consult with him.Sourcerery (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see it at all. By my reading, the rewrite converted the existing section on memes to prose; but looking over the sources makes it clear all paragraphs are still entirely and exclusively about memes. Your WP:BOLD decision to try and retitle the section was completely unrelated to anything Midnightblueowl changed or said above, and does not reflect its contents at all. --Aquillion (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well then you are being disingenuous, it's right in this section, very easy to see.Sourcerery (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

They're editing this article extensively and have not weighed in at all; if they wanted to, it would be easy to do so. --Aquillion (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Meaning they support my change, you are only one reverting it and you should stop.Sourcerery (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Memes is the most appropriate title for the section as it more specifically reflects the content. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that there is a weakness in the article regarding the sourcing. A quick review shows that there are close to 125 references to books/studies by "Hawley" but, of the 25 references to that name in the text of the article there is no indication of who this Hawley is until the 22nd, where it only says "The political scientist George Hawley". Since there are no links to an article about this person and no reference to his credentials, why should any of these references have any weight? Please note that I am not saying that they shouldn't or that George Hawley isn't an expert on the subject, but given the state of the article there is no reason for the average reader to think that he is anything other than some regular person who wrote a book. Kaid (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right. We need to introduce Hawley at the very first mention. I'll rectify this situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The alt-right ARE hate-groups. So no, it doesn't need to leave. The alt-right needs to leave.

After having admitted that "alt-right" term is "ill defined", it goes on to use the vague term "associate", and makes the further vague assertion about "constituent groups" being "characterised as hate groups". Which "constituent groups"? All of them? Some of them? Is that characterization" biased? Do they actually admit "associating" in that way? Are standards provided for determining what that "associating" constitutes? And do those cites, 3 and 4, actually support the assertions made? This is an amazing NPOV problem. Slyfox4908 (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"Amazing"? Seems pretty tame to me. The article admits that this is a vague term, and then describes it in more vague terms. Expecting precision from a buzzword crafted to be intentionally vague and euphemistic is futile. Sources in the lede are provided for convenience, and there are many more supporting this connection to hate groups in the body of the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I hate practice that some editors have, and that it to respond to challenged intros by saying "plenty of sources in body of article". Same practice occurs on Fascism page, when intro is challenged and little bit controversial you have to provide quotes for it in appropriate place. You can't just say "there is some source, somewhere in body of article".Sourcerery (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The wording reflects the two sources used, articles from the ADL and SPLC. If you have sources that present alternative information, please present them. Looking at the first picture in the article, it seems uncontroversial that some people might view them as racist. TFD (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone here actually under the impression that the ADL and SPLC are unbiased, middle-of-the-road, NPOV sources? I'm not. Quite to the contrary. Let's not give the readers the idea that these organizations are NPOV. They are not. It's really not surprising that these two specific sources, and these two alone, are cited here. Slyfox4908 (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually wonder if said sentence is really necessary in the opening paragraph of the lede to begin with. I don't think the article would be harmed were it to be moved to another part of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the association between the alt-right and hate groups is supported by many sources, and seems like a defining trait. Grayfell (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The "association" you speak of might merely be a product of biased people asserting that there is an "association". Confirmation bias. Even "self-fulfilling prophecy". I propose that we remove the references to the SPLC and ADL, and certainly do that if they are not balanced by differing opinions. Slyfox4908 (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article misspells the word "antisemitic." I can't fix it because the article is locked."173.61.95.154 (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Macheath Messer

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ctrl-left. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletions and other changes to this article. Please use the talk page to discuss them, and do not make any other changes unless you have the consensus to do so Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I was WP:BOLD, I'm allowed to be, you've reverted and now I'm discussing it with you - that's how this works (sorry, but other editors are going to make changes, I am going to make other changes, this page has a lot of problems common to these new far-right articles). So, Antipodean Resistance is not part of the Alt-right, they are minor, even here in Australia, they are on the fringe of the fringe. They are listed as a notable event: first, they are not notable. Second, they are a group not an event. Third, they are 80's/90's style skinhead/neo-Nazi's, not Alt-right. Read the article on the group, you'll be left scratching your head as to why an obscure Australian Nazi grouplet is mentioned on this page at all. Alt-righ is pretty much an American thing, we don't really have it here, we've just got boring old fashioned neo-Nazi's and White Nationalists. It needs to be removed.

Also, this claim by Gray that the left caused the Alt-right, is clearly partisan opinion, the same sentiment is expressed using more cautious language in the next two paragraphs, that second paragraph is partisan and should be removed, IMO

Cheers

Bacondrum (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Our article on Taki's Magazine, the article where the term Alt-Right was coined (probably; the sources are slightly vague, with one carefully saying that Spencer was "credited" with it during his time there), is barely more than a stub. I've expanded its relation to the Alt-Right a little bit, but I thought I'd mention it here. Also, aside, somehow we referenced a Slate article on that point without citing it - for the past two years? I've added some additional cites for that there that could also be used here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, I also thought the Taki's page was a bit lackluster. Bacondrum (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This article repeats information a number of times. Unless we are expanding on assertions made in the lede, assertions should not be repeated at all, once is enough. I haven't got time right now, but the article needs to be gone through and repeat assertions removed. If no one else does it I'll go through it on the weekend. Bacondrum (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is this group, which is an obscure Australian neo-Nazi grouplet, not Alt-right, included on this page at all? It's also listed as an incident, since when is a group an incident? It should be removed. Bacondrum (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I have provided a number of citations to the article Antipodean Resistance which indicate that although it is most often called "neo-Nazi", it has also been identified as "alt-right." The size of the group is irrelevant. The Nazi Party was tiny when it began, utterly insignificant even within the Nationalist Volkische movement it was part of, and look where they went.

Although reasonable edits will always be considered, I can assure you that this article is not going to be whitewashed by POV editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I am editing in good faith, you are not giving me that assumption. You are attacking me not the edits. You are the one pushing a POV, add any little fringe group you can to the article to make the subject look as bad as possible. Interesting that these are your additions, defending your preffered version like you own the page. Grubby as mate. Bacondrum (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I have provided the citations from reliable sources which answer your concerns. As for "fringe groups", for the most part, the alt-right consists of nothing but a lot of fringe groups. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this stuff is undue, we don't really have any Alt-right stuff here in Australia, and this group is on the fringe of the fringe of the fringe. Why not include everysingle minor group that's ever been called Alt-right? Because the list would be interminable and undue. Interested in hearing from editors besides Beyond My Ken as he is responsible for it's inclusion. Bacondrum (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we don"t include "every little alt-right group", only those that have significant coverage. For instance, in the articles about the NSW Nationals banning their members from joining specified alt-right groups (see Atomwaffen Division), five or six other groups were mentioned, which we do not cover here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Lads soc, UPF and TBC have recieved far more coverage, why not add them? Don't stop there, lets get a massive list going, hardly fair to arbitrarily name one small group. 203.214.85.74 (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop using your IP, and edit with your account or I will be forcfed to ask an admin to intervene. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Go for it, bully. Maybe you should focus on content rather than making demands and trying to bully me. 120.21.50.58 (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Assuming this is Bacondrum, while WP:LOGOUT doesn't prohibit editing while logged out, it does caution editors that doing so in a way which might otherwise be inappropriate could lead to WP:SOCK action. I'd suggest if you are an editor who is active on this page under your username, that you either edit exclusively while logged in, or you should link the IP to your username to avoid the appearance of socking. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

i never intended to post while logged out, and I have no idea why the IP changed. My computer has been crashing regularly due to a failing battery, occasionally when it crashes I get logged out of everything, I don't know why it happens, but I assure it was not deliberate. Bacondrum (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to talk with anyone about anything, but not until the article is restored to the status quo ante before the deletion with minimal explanation of 37K bytes of reliably sourced material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got no grounds for such a demand. Sorry. Feel free to report me if you believe I've broken any rules. Bacondrum (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I do have grounds, it's a little thing called WP:BRD, and another little thing called "free will". I decide when I will or will not enter a discussion, and it's my decision not to discuss your unexplained mutilation of this article until it is return to the status quo ante, as required by BRD. Once it's returned to its original form, I'm willing to discuss anything and everything, mate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

So revert it. I couldn't care less about your will, and drop the agro please, mate. Bacondrum (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Bacondrum: I appreciate your interest in improving the article, but it would probably be prudent to discuss your proposed alterations here first. I for one would be happy to discuss these issues, one by one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If I revert when challenged then I'm being disruptive, failing that I was being bold, as per guidelines. 203.214.85.74 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Bacondrum: You have a Wikipedia account. Please sign in and edit with it. Editing with an IP when you have an account can be considered to be a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Bruh you're coming off as hysterical. It's just an article about a bunch of dumb nazis with bad haircuts. Chill. Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You're late to the party, that was yesterday's dramah. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What causes the Alt-right? Who knows, is it the lefts fault? One guy thinks so. Is it the Nazi's own doing? I think that would be a reasonable assumption, people are generally responsible for themselves, their actions and beliefs, IMO. Is it because gays and lesbians want to get married? Is it becuase the Alt-right have hipster haircuts? Perhaps, I'm sure some think so. Is it because Daves gran called Steve a bigot? I dunno. Is it because American minority groups are sick of police brutality and racism? I'm sure some people think so. Is it because some people are just nasty, violent thugs and criminal low lives?...I think lots of people would agree with that. It's all opinion. Lets stick to the facts and the reader can draw their own conclusions about the causes of the Alt-right movement. Bacondrum (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Without regard to the other issues under dispute, I tend to agree that, at a glance, we're giving WP:UNDUE weight to Grey. According to Google, his paper has only been cited four times, yet we're devoting two massive paragraphs to it, including one whole paragraph to a single page. --Aquillion (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Are there causal factors for a political movement? Causal factors just sounds odd, makes it sound like an illness or some such, like emphysema is caused by smoking. Political movements are developed rather than caused. How do we pin point the cause of Democracy, or Communism, or Socialism? I think the whole framing sounds tendentious. Bacondrum (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

But those are specific ideologies as opposed to particular movements. I would agree it would be odd to talk about the "causes" of communism, but it would not at all be odd to talk about the causes of the communist movement in early 20th century Russia, for example. The same applies here. The alt-right is a specific historical movement arising in one particular place at one particular time. Providing information—properly cited to Reliable Sources like the work of professional academics—on the socio-cultural background that produced the movement is important for a Wikipedia article. We don't have to present Grey's arguments as if they are unequivocal truth, but I think it important that we provide them nonetheless. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree in large part with what Midnightblueopwl says, with the important exception that academic sources are not the only reliable sources. There are many relaible sources in the press which have discussed the alt-right as a movement in this specific historical moment, and they are as valid as an academic study. Thety should be used whenever appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

We could make some prose alterations that I hope would deal with your concerns. For instance "The growing racial and social agitation within U.S. society was also a likely contributing factor, in particular the more militant activities of those whom alt-rightists labelled "social justice warriors"" could readily become "Grey argued that the growing racial and social agitation within U.S. society was a contributing factor, in particular the more militant activities of those whom alt-rightists labelled "social justice warriors"."? That way we make the clear that this is the opinion of a particular political scientist, rather than unequivocal fact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a good idea if such an analysis comes from a reliable source, from academia or the press. I would not support adding it simply because right-wingers say that is the case, since it's far from clear that anything in particular changed in order society to provoke the alt-right movement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That is indeed a (very rough) summary of what Grey says (the academic in question in this section - his one paper makes up the vast bulk of the "causal factors" section.) I consulted his paper and he does in fact say that, but, as I said above, I think we're giving too much weight to one paper - two massive paragraphs for a paper which doesn't seem to have had much impact and whose findings are somewhat WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I would recommend summarizing it in a sentence or so, clearly attributed to the author with an in-line citation. --Aquillion (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillon: I would agree to a one or two {or three) sentence summary, as long as it hits the high points. Do you want to give it a try? Beyond My Ken (talk)

@Aquillion: Sorry, messed up the ping. See my comment before this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Something like merging both Grey paragraphs down to... Political scientist Philip W. Gray cited several reasons for the emergence of the alt-right. In his analysis, New media reduced the ability of the conservative movement to enforce boundaries against the far right, while the increasing distance of the Second World War meant that pride in the U.S. victory over Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy provided less of a barrier to the American far-right than it had when there were still large numbers of people who remembered the conflict. He also argued that the alt-right was a reaction against increasing racial and social agitation on the left. This summarizes each of the key aspects of major points that overlap with other parts of the section in a sentence or so, without the WP:UNDUE depth that the second paragraph gives at the moment; it's more comparable to the amount of text we devote to other scholars in the section (Kelly, Hawley, Nagle, each of whom seem at least as prominent - Hawley is far more prominent - and who get about half a paragraph each.) I dropped the genetics sentence, which few other people seem to focus on, and trimmed the second paragraph down to basically just its summary because this is not only undue relative to the rest of the section but also undue within his paper (he doesn't give it drastically more focus than his other points, so we shouldn't, either.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Another thought: it's important that any discussion in the article about societal conditions which might be causal factors not be perceived as justification for the existence of the alt-right. Also that the causal relationship be straightforward and clear-cut and not simply generalities which could have moved in many different directions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That'd all be fine, but the section lends to biased claims, all of the supposed "causes" are merely opinion. How do we quantify how much Black Lives Matter or angry feminists or any opposition group has upset these folks? We can't, Wikipedia should be dealing with facts, not opinion. Also, show me a similar movement which has a "causal factors" section? They don't because it is inherently going to involve guesswork. The October revolution has no similar section, like this article, the reasons that Bolshevism developed are detailed in the history section. The section appears to blame the left for the development of far right ideology, which is obviously absurd. 203.214.85.74 (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

To summarise, the conditions and ideas that lead to the Alt-right belong in the history of the movement and should not focus excessively on trying to blame the movements opposition for its very existence. No one tries to claim that the Romanov's or Mensheviks "caused" Bolshavism, if you read the history one may conclude such a thing, but Wikipedia does not make such an assertion. Movements develop, they are not caused. 203.214.85.74 (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: Please indent your comments to make it easier for readers to see the flow of the discussion. Each colon provides another tab, and each comment should be indented one more tab (i.e. one more colon) that the comment it is is response too.

If you'd like to know what other articles have sections titled "Causal factors", enter "Causal factors" in the search box. Of course, many other articles will have very similar sections which don;t use that exact terminology. ("Causes", for instance.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Can we at least agree to remove the second para, it gives one conservative opinion undue weight and makes broad assumptions, is all merely this fella's opinion, and he is partisan. It's also weasel wordy. Bacondrum (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I certainly would not support its removal. Happy to discuss rewording, however. I'm also a little concerned about POV-pushing here. There are calls being made for the removal of one paragraph that proposes recent leftist activism as a cause of the alt-right, but no equal calls being made to remove the paragraph that proposes recent conservative trends as a cause of the alt-right. Please don't take this as a personal attack, Bacondrum, but can you see how it looks like you are trying to deflect any blame from the left (which you appear to support) while having no problem with placing blame on the U.S. conservative movement (which you don't)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Although I think we should summarize Gray's findings in some form, see my proposal and argument above - we are currently giving Gray significantly WP:UNDUE weight. Compare to Hawley, who I assume is the other one you're referring to - he's far more prominent, but gets only half a paragraph. I think we should trim Gray's coverage down to about half a paragraph (comparable to the other scholars in the section) rather than the two he gets now. And the absolutely massive second paragraph, which goes into extensive undue detail on every one of his arguments, is a big part of that - again, Hawley, who is much more prominent, just gets Hawley concurred that American conservatism was "at least somewhat responsible for the rise of the Alt-Right" because some individuals within the conservative movement, such as Ann Coulter, had "effectively delegitimized complaints about hate speech and racism" as part of their attacks on political correctness in the years before the alt-right's appearance. I'd have no objection to including Gray at a level roughly equivalent to that, but right now it feels like he's being given excessive weight. Repeating my proposal from above, but I'd suggest merging both Gray paragraphs into one which just reads Political scientist Philip W. Gray cited several reasons for the emergence of the alt-right. In his analysis, New media reduced the ability of the conservative movement to enforce boundaries against the far right, while the increasing distance of the Second World War meant that pride in the U.S. victory over Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy provided less of a barrier to the American far-right than it had when there were still large numbers of people who remembered the conflict. He also argued that the alt-right was a reaction against increasing racial and social agitation on the left. Even this is a little more than the other scholars in the section get (remember, his paper has only been cited a few times vs. Hawley's extremely high-profile book), but it covers his most salient points; people who want the full detail of his argument can search out his paper themselves. We're supposed to summarize its broad thrust, after all, not reproduce it entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm generally fine with that trimming back, Aquillion, although I've made a few smaller changes to your version. Some are simply for concision or grammar, but others include restoration of some of the specific examples that Gray gives of the events which (he argues) played into the rise of the alt-right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism is, of course, already mentioned further down the lead, but given that it has an entire subsection to itself, and given the heavy coverage that subsection shows, I think it's reasonable to include it as part of the initial definition (with the "sometimes" caveat, since the sources do note that.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism is a WP:LABEL and should only be used with attribution - even if RS use it. Galestar (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your comment in your recent revert-of-my-revert[1] (again disregarding BRD) "no indication of any objections on talk that I can see", the discussion is here[2] Galestar (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It's well sourced inthe article. Nothing to discuss. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No-one is disputing sourcing, and misrepresenting the objections is not helpful. There are policies and guidelines beyond just RS. Can we take this discussion to the already-existing section for it? Galestar (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've launched an RfC to discuss the recent expansion of the opening sentence, which people may be interested in contributing to. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is this group, which is an American neo-Nazi terrorist network, not Alt-right, included on this page at all? It's also listed as an incident, since when is a group an incident? It should be removed. Bacondrum (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The article Atomwaffen Division provides 5 citations from reliable sources which describe the group as "alt-right." Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so how is a group and incident? Bacondrum (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The "Atomwaffen Division" section describes a number of incidents, including a murder. All the incidents in the "Notable Incidents" section are arranged by the group they are connected with, which seems perfectly reasonable and logical to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I don;t believe I was responsible for the inclusion of the Atomwaffen Diivision in the article. Unfrotunately WikiBlame doesn't seem to be working right now, or I'd give you the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. According to this, the first addition of "Atomwaffen" to the article took place on 2018-06-22 at 17:03, and was made by DoubleHammy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I would also be a little hesitant about calling the Atomwaffen Division "alt-right" outright, because their MO is very similar to those of old neo-Nazi groups that were active in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, but as BeyondMyKen points out, there are press sources that call them "alt-right". In my view, that's in part because a lot of journalists (and leftist activists) have been very imprecise in how they have used these terms, effectively applying "alt-right" as a synonym for "far-right". However, those are Reliable Sources and for now at least we should reflect them. I'd be fine with the section on the Atomwaffen Division being shortened, but I think that it is important that we make mention of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It also helps to drive home the permeability of the alt-right with more traditional far-right organizations in the United States. In particular there's been a lot of movement between the alt-right, freemen of the land and neo-nazi groups. The presence of the (particluarly violent) Atomwaffen Division in so many RSes about the alt-right is an indicator of that. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The main article says "is considered extreme even within that movement" in the lead. If that is assumed a consensus version I think we can remove it without diminishing article quality. Dartslilly (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I think we should include mention of the Atomwaffen Division in the alt-right article. While not all alt-right groups are neo-nazis, most neo-nazis are part of the alt-right umbrella at this point. This is an example of that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I am neutral on inclusion, but I don't think a general article like this needs a "Notable incidents" section. A section like this is not found in other encyclopedias. If the group is notable it would already be covered in the history or beliefs section. Dartslilly (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with all the above, a mention in the article is fine, but the amount of attention given to it, it's members and tiny grouplets like Antipodean Resistance - which is literally 6 unidentified neo-nazi's in Western Victoria, Australia - is undue, it also serves to make the Alt-right look like more of a substantial, international movement than it is, IMO. I think the notable incidence section is unwarranted, also. Bacondrum (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I propose removing the BLM protest photo and this caption:

"The Black Lives Matter movement and the vilification of whiteness by some on the "intersectional Left" has been cited as a causal factor in the growth of the alt-right."

I'm open to keeping the image (though I think it is POV and undue, suggests that civil rights protests cause right wing extremism), but the assertion that "the vilification of whiteness by some on the "intersectional Left" has been cited as a causal factor" is completely POV, it's not in the source, it is opinion, a pretty wacky opinion to be honest. I'd also point out that is it undue and kinda ridiculous, as if civil rights protests cause Nazism and white supremacy...that's like claiming that Western Liberalism caused Maoism, ignoring the actual causes and blaming it on the opposition. Bacondrum (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

While I can't verify if that is in the source or not as I do no have access to read it, it is actually not that ridiculous to say that the escalation of rhetoric on one side might drive people to the opposite extremes. In this instance the decision to keep or not should ultimately come down to verifiability. Galestar (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but how does one verify such a claim, isn't it all a matter of opinion? I certainly object to this phrasing "the vilification of whiteness by some on the "intersectional Left" has been cited as a causal factor"...Who says whiteness is being vilified? That's a loaded and completely POV assertion, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh I mean verifiability in terms of the source provided (I don't have access to read it so can't check). Regardless of its actual truth I do see it as a fact-based statement as opposed to an opinion-based statement. It may be hard to "prove" but it is a statement about a fact (X leads to Y) rather than an opinion (I don't like Y). Galestar (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no source clearly stating that X leads to Y though. X (the Alt-right) is caused by Y(vilification of whiteness) is certainly not what the source claims. There also appears to be some synthesis going on here, "vilification of whiteness" by "intersectional Left" and BLM causes Alt-right...I reckon that's a well dubious claim, and even if it was true, does it warrant mentioning, let alone an image? Bacondrum (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

not what the source claims do you actually have access to read the Gray source that's cited? Galestar (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you are correct, I'm making a claim I can't verify, but seeing as it costs $300 to access the journal, none of us can. But I find it inconceivable that Gray would make such a claim and we have no evidence that he did. If he did it needs to be quoted, not in Wikipedia's voice. I'd want to see the quotemaking it clear Gray stated that "the vilification of whiteness by some on the "intersectional Left" has been cited as a causal factor"...I don't believe for one second that Gray would make such a claim.

This claim relies on the same source: "Gray also argued that the alt-right was a reaction against the left-wing racial and social agitation of the 2010s, in particular the Black Lives Matter movement and the popularisation of concepts like white privilege and male privilege, as well as events like the racial unrest in Baltimore and Ferguson and the shooting of police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge" This suggests that the Alt-right rose in opposition to BLM, and civil rights movements/ideas rather than being caused by the "vilification of whiteness", which sounds much more akin to the kind of language I'd expect from Gray. Bacondrum (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

If anybody would like to bypass the paywall, there's sci-hub (which I can't link to, apparently). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Aeusoes1 I'd love to have a look, can you DM me the link? Bacondrum (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Pop me an email and I'll reply with the pdf attached. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the Black Lives Matter photo, as it does nothing to amplify or explain the information in the article. It is therefore unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's way too WP:POV a statement to put unreferenced and un-attributed in a photo caption. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a vehicle for the "you pointing out systemic racism made me a nazi" defense. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 Yes, I couldn't agree more, it's 100% POV pushing. Bacondrum (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Even if the basic caption is supported by Gray (I suspect it is based on my recollection when I did read his paper), I feel that the image is WP:UNDUE, since he's not such a noteworthy source that he would require illustration. Additionally, I'm not sure the picture actually helps to elaborate on or clarify what he's saying there - especially since, even if Gray does call that out, it's still only one of many factors he mentions. --Aquillion (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is undue, it's also creepy and weird: "cuck" had also been popularized in reference to a genre of pornography in which men watch their wives or girlfriends have sex with another man, usually one who is black." Especially seeing as the previous sentence reads: "The term "cuckold" pertains to a man with an unfaithful wife or a man who is (consciously or not) raising another man's child; the alt-right saw this as analogous to the role of the U.S. conservative movement in assisting non-whites in the U.S.^[1] The term" it describes the same thing without getting into the details of racially fetishised porn. I'm no prude, it's just a weird inclusion. Bacondrum (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

for my part, I didn't want to remove the sentence for being "creepy". But because I think the explanation is too long: it's an article about the alt-right, not about the "3 definitions of cuckold". If readers want more information about the latter, they'll click on the internal link. Azerty82 (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I partly agree about the length. My first inclination was to combine the two sentences in some way, but I didn't see an easy way of doing so. If someone has an idea which maintains both concepts -- that of the traditional word "cuckold" and its contemporary offshoot "cuck" (which, as I said, are related but not quite the same) -- in a shorter sentence, (maintaining both refs), I'd be interested in seeing that. As for "creepy" - yeah, the sexual practice may be creepy, but there you are, it is what it is, and the prefix was chosen for "cuckservative" in order to express alt-rigter's views about traditional conservatives. That's pertinent and relevant, and we don't shy away from pertinent and relevant information simply because it's linked to something "creepy", per WP:NOTCENSORED. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean to say the phrasing is bad, it sounds creepy because it is poorly worded. Particularly this part "men watch their wives or girlfriends have sex with another man, usually one who is black." This has all been said, other than the race bit, which is a dubious claim, anecdotally...the whole way it's phrased simply sounds unencyclopedic, it's not about censorship, it's about encyclopedic tone...I'm not anti-porn or anything, I just think it should be worded better. Bacondrum (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, then why not have a try at combining and rephrasing, while keeping the concepts intact? I agree that the mention of a black man is gratuitous in this context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I've just tried putting the second sentence into a footnote. That satisfies me, what do other think of the idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is the right idea. I've just added "also" in your footnote. Azerty82 (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I saw - and I've fixed the referencing error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I would even have moved the sentence "or a man who is (consciously or not) raising another man's child" also in the footnote; as it's anecdotally in the sense that it's not the primary origin for the Alt-Right expression (the porn part being more relevant, as the "modern and digital experience" (in my words) the youth involved in the movement have had of the primary meaning.) Azerty82 (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, beofer I came up with the footnote idea, I was attempting to re-write & combine the two sentences, and one of the things I did was to remove that entirely. I'd have no problem with taking it out, since raising another man's child makes the man a cuckhold because of the unfaitfulness of his wife, so it's really just a re-statement of the core concept. Let me do that now and we'll see what people think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Works for me, reads much better now. Nice work. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM speculation on the definition of racism with no obvious edit request.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This raises an obvious questions: if the interest in keeping a white (i.e. European) majority is connected with racist attitudes, then, following simple logic, the support for a demographic development of a hispanic majority in parts of the US and even the applause for a shrinking white population per se, is as well racist. The would make a lot of Democratic support for a more "diverse" environment, particularly in the border regions (e.g. Texas and California) quite racist. Is that indeed the position that Wikipedia wants to take? --Felixkrull (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM for general discussions about the term "racism" and what it should, or should not, mean. We simply summarise what the WP:Reliable Sources say about any given topic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that the introduction to the article contains almost no references. The central claim "far-right, white supremacist, white nationalist, white separatist, anti-immigration and sometimes antisemitic movement" does not link any sources. "A largely online phenomenon" is not referenced, and seems dubious. "The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by various self-described "alt-rightists", media commentators, and academics" does not refer to any of the specific ways the term has been used by the parties described. (The first reference is to "Critics charged it with being a rebranding of white supremacism.")

I see that these points ARE referenced further down in the article, but should not the introductory paragraphs with the summary claims also be sourced? Or is this in line with Wikipedia policy? 84.52.244.159 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally the lede summarises the body. Indeed, the assertions you are asking about are referenced in the body of the article and therefor do not necessarily require citation in the lede. I hope that allays your concerns. Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.84.52.244.159 (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:CITELEAD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)