| Revision as of 00:41, 15 May 2017 editVexations (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users43,379 edits →Header rediculousness: there is no requirement to be unbiased← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:36, 27 December 2024 edit undoSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,309 edits →top: __FORCETOC__ |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
__FORCETOC__ |
|
{{Ds/editnotice|1=1RR|topic=ap}} |
|
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}} |
|
|
{{BLP others}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi | date = 10 May 2016 | result = '''keep''' | page = Alt-right}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi | date = 10 May 2016 | result = '''keep''' | page = Alt-right}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Stop Normalizing Alt Right Chrome extension|Stop Normalizing Alt Right Chrome extension|23 January 2017}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=Start|importance=low|American=Yes|American-importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=Yes|American-importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=Start|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WP LGBT}} |
|
{{WikiProject Donald Trump|class=Start|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=Start|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Linguistics|class=Start|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Culture|class=Start|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=Low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=Mid|importance=Low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=low}} |
|
|
| blp=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|1RR=yes|topic=ap}} |
|
{{afd-merged-from|Stop Normalizing Alt Right Chrome extension|Stop Normalizing Alt Right Chrome extension|23 January 2017}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{merged-from|Alt-left|September 26 2017}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|counter = 22 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 25: |
Line 30: |
|
|archive = Talk:Alt-right/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Alt-right/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{archives|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Nov 13 2016 (14th)|Nov 20 2016 (23rd)|Aug 13 2017 (15th)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Refideas |
|
== Questionable Sources == |
|
|
|
| {{cite journal |last1=Dafaure |first1=Maxime |title=The 'Great Meme War:' the Alt-Right and its Multifarious Enemies |journal=Angles |date=1 April 2020 |issue=10 |doi=10.4000/angles.369 |doi-access=free |issn=2274-2042}} |
|
There are many source issues on this article. Mother Jones, Gizmodo, Kotaku, to name a few ]. <s>Source 132 is also broken</s> a few names were removed from the list and this fixed the issue. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/silicon-valley-tech-alt-right-racism-misogyny this article is used to cite Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg as being Alt-Right but the article's opinion can not be verified ]. Likewise I have qualms about the reliability ] of the twitter post sourced for Tomi Lahren. She's obviously saying they she's accused of of being Alt-Right, not that she is. EDITED DUE TO NEW INFORMATION. Some of my points are mute after the lastest edit, but since there seems to be some Edit Warring going on in this article I'll leave all this up incase it reverts again.] (]) 12:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=Dixit |first1=Priya |title=Race, Popular Culture, and Far-right Extremism in the United States |date=2022 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-031-10820-4 |pages=135–172 |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-10820-4_5 |language=en |chapter=Memeing the Far-Right: Pepe and the Deplorables |chapter-url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-10820-4_5 |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=Jackson |first1=Sam |title=A Schema of Right-Wing Extremism in the United States |date=October 2019 |doi=10.19165/2019.2.06 |issn=2468-0486 |jstor=resrep19625 |jstor-access=free |publisher=International Centre for Counter-Terrorism |location=The Hague |url=https://icct.nl/app/uploads/2019/11/ASchemaofRWEXSamJackson-1.pdf}} |
|
== Hyperallergic == |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{xreadership|days=75}} |
|
I have never heard of this website before. Should this even be used for the article? Just seems to be used as an opinion in its respected section. . ] 03:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've seen it pretty frequently in arts circles, and ] does, apparently, have a positive reputation. The quote does seem a bit excessive, but the Pizzagate/Gamergate comparison isn't, by itself, difficult to source ( etc.). ] (]) 03:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I know Hyperallergic quite well. It is a respected site in the contemporary arts community with a reputation for fact-checking, editorial control, expert contributors, etc. It may look a bit like a blog sometimes, but it is excellent as a resource for arts-related articles. In this specific instance, I think the source is used correctly for saying that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory has drawn comparisons with the Gamergate controversy because Blair Murphy did indeed write that "a more useful comparison might be Gamergate". ] (]) 14:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Self-designation == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have issue with the fact that individuals who do not identify as alt-right are categorized as alt-right due to certain media outlets categorizing them as such. Notable individuals like Mike Cernovich, Lauren Southern, Alex Jones, and Paul Joseph Watson who do not identify as alt-right. |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a distinction to be made chronologically, as well. Immediately after Hillary's "alt-right" speech, there was an "I am Spartacus" moment where many conservatives felt that Hillary was trying to marginalize the populist Right. This is where Southern's tweet reference comes from, for example. However, when Spencer gave his "Hail Trump" speech in December 2016 (complete with Roman salutes), many of these aforementioned "Sparticans" quickly disassociated themselves from the alt-right, either branding themselves as "New Right" or "alt-light". Frankly, the core ideology of the alt-right is white ethnonationalism, and many of these individuals who are categorized as 'alt-right' do not support that ideology. Alt-righters most definitely refer to themselves as such, and a clear distinction should be made in the article for those who are externally categorized as alt-right, rather than by self-identification. — ''']''' ''']''' 06:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:"Roman salutes". ] (]) 07:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:This article certainly doesn't seem to define the political stance of 2 of the people you mentioned, Paul Joseph Watson and Mike cernovich, I don't know enough about the others to comment. Actually shocked at the info of this article, not sure how neutral it is. ] (]) 07:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Alt-right|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Hi, |
|
|
Please remove Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg's name from the Notable individuals section, as he clearly stated that he doesn't support alt-right groups or alt-right ideologies. |
|
|
Here is a link to one of his statements : |
|
|
http://pewdie.tumblr.com/post/157160889655/just-to-clear-some-things-up |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you ] (]) 05:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] ] 06:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi. Would this be a reliable source? http://uk.businessinsider.com/youtube-stars-rally-behind-pewdiepie-anti-semitism-row-wsj-2017-2 |
|
|
(P.S: I somewhat surprised to see that a figure that makes, at best, makes occasional jokes for them but has refused to support them is included when figures like Steve Bannon, Donald Trump and Robert Fisher didn't make the list.) ] (]) 12:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Notable individuals section == |
|
|
|
|
|
Four of the individuals mentioned in the "Notable Individuals" section (Jonathan Jafari, Stefan Molyneux, Nathan Damigo, and Paul Ray Ramsey) are either far-right conservatives or white supremacists. I couldn't find any sources calling them alt-right, so unless someone else can then I suggest we remove those four individuals.] (]) 05:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Have you checked the sources cited next to their names? ] (]) 09:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Jafari, Stefan Molyneux, Nathan Damigo, and Paul Ray Ramsey, and Andrew Augenhiemer should all be in this section as they are part of the alt right ] (]) 18:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally pewdiepie edited himself out cause he was embarrassed but he should still be in this section as we are an encyclopedia ] (]) 18:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg Jonathan Jafari Samuel Hyde Need to be readded as they are clearly associated with the alt right ] (]) 18:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] You are participating in bad faith. It was ] who removed Pewdiepie from the list. Furthermore opinion pieces are not a reliable source for ascribing political identity to individuals who reject that identity (as a very modern example, claiming someone is a Nazi does not make them one without evidence). And even further still Kjellberg can not be Alt-Right as this article defines because he does not live in the United States. Related, Stefan Molyneux is a self-professed Libertarian, the two sources list ascribed to him in the section just claim he's Alt-Right without a shred of proof. ] (]) 21:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
^Then the article needs to change, the idea that the alt-right is a US only movement is just plain wrong. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== YouTubers == |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think opinion pieces qualify as sufficient "evidence" that PewDiePie is alt-right. He has consistently denounced the movement. Perhaps consider removing him (and possible others) from the list? ] (]) 10:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Agreed, this is ridiculous. Since when are sensational opinion pieces proof of someones political affiliation? The "sources" provided take some jokes out of context to vilify Felix for who knows what reason - more clicks, perhaps? Anyone who actually watches Felix' videos knows he's not "Alt-right" and actually denounces the movement. ] (]) 11:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Agree plus sources ===== |
|
|
Agree, Felix Kjellburg is not alt-right, in fact I have looked through all of the 'sources' that were referenced next to his name and they do not even come close to providing evidence: |
|
|
|
|
|
Reference 121: |
|
|
<blockquote>Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg, whose "Pewdiepie" YouTube channel featuring Nazi-themed ''jokes'' has 54 million subscribers. ''(Last month Kjellberg apologized for the jokes and said he is not a Nazi.)''<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/silicon-valley-tech-alt-right-racism-misogyny</ref></blockquote> |
|
|
A poor taste joke, that they apologised for, does not make someone an alt-right figure. |
|
|
|
|
|
Reference 122/123: |
|
|
This reference is cited next to Felix's name but has nothing to do with him. <ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/22/the-race-realist-theory-of-how-trump-can-win-explained/</ref><ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263988/some-observations-man-who-created-alt-right-paul-gottfried</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Reference 124: |
|
|
This reference lumps PewDiePie in with JonTron and speaks about what was mentioned in Reference 121. It does not provide any evidence that PewDiePie is an alt-right figure or holds any alt-right views. <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/youtube-jontron-controversy-1.4050032</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, since two of these references speak about a certain event, here is PewDiePie's apology that was written about these jokes before the news wrote about it <ref>http://pewdie.tumblr.com/post/157160889655/just-to-clear-some-things-up</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
And in his response afterwards he apologises and says he is a "rookie comedian" and that these jokes were mistakes. <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwk1DogcPmU</ref> <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 11:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{talk ref}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== False accusation of Alt-Right Members == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Alt-right|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Hello I would like you to remove these individuals from the 'notable alt-right members': |
|
|
Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg |
|
|
Jonathan Jafari |
|
|
Samuel Hyde |
|
|
|
|
|
None of these individuals are alt-right members. The fact these individuals were added to the list counts as defamation, and it is disgusting behaviour that they are still on this list. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is some evidence that they aren't alt-right members: https://twitter.com/pewdiepie/status/857186633044701184 ] (]) 11:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hey man, I agree with you, I've made a section for it just above yours - but that's not evidence. It might even delegitimise your case. ] (]) 11:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree that for all people mentioned in the list clear and unequivocal "membership" must be documented by ] for them to be included (see ]). The one example I focused on (]) had at least two sources failing this completely, that is, they did not claim PDP is part of the AltRight. This is in clear breach of ] since "AltRight membership" is contentious to say the least. I am tempted to request '''full''' protection of this page (and a report to ]) since the edit-war seems to be continued. Please knock it off and discuss the issue here. Thanks. ] (]) 11:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I would suggest ] should be enough based on those making the edits. — ] <sub>]</sub> 11:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We cannot state that individuals are part of the movement without impeccable sourcing. That mean multiple reliable sources (or verifiable self identification).. An example that fails this is Curtis Yarvin sourced to ''The Verge''. This list need to be severely culled. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for gratuitous shaming.- ]] 12:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC) . |
|
|
:::::At this moment I would recommend either removing Peter Brimelow and Kevin MacDonald from list or expanding their sources. Currently, the only single source for their alt-rightness is a photograph caption refering to them as "alt-right supporters". Andrew Anglin on the other hand is a self-declared Neo-nazi rather than alt-right, so I don't think he belongs on the list. And as mentioned, declaring Curtis Yarvin as alt-right based solely on the current source is dubious at best.] (]) 21:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I'm going to start removing entries from the list. If anyone objects, they can explain their reasoning here.- ]] 21:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I have removed a few of these, including Roosh V based on this .- ]] 22:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I didn't think Roosh V's denouncement of alt-right was believeable, as he has since defended alt-right despite them having a "blind spot" with their "obsession with race", as per . ] (]) 22:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::My reading is that he shares some of their ideas, and this stood out: If we are going to list him as a member of the alt-right in Misplaced Pages's voice, I think we need at least a few strong sources that say that. New York Magazine is insufficient by itself.- ]] 23:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== False accusations - again == |
|
|
|
|
|
PJW and Molyneux are not alt-right. The sources linked provide zero proof that they are. Neither have come out saying they are alt-right, so this article is false. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:I've never heard either identify as such either. However PJW is associated with the crackpots on infowars, so not sure how you would define them. ] (]) 17:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== MRA link? == |
|
|
what exactly is the link given there? It seems like someone is just using this article to lump "everything I dont like" together. It's unencyclopedic and damaging to the reputation of Misplaced Pages. Noone wants another Ryulong. |
|
|
Also, does anyone have information on the size of this movement? |
|
|
|
|
|
I came to this page for information, and frankly, it's a very poor effort. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:The men's rights link to the alt-right is sourced to . I have to wonder how many people who come to this talk page actually follow the sources before complaining about something. ]<sub>(])</sub> 20:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Can we remove the 'notable individuals' section? == |
|
|
|
|
|
There was a time when the article ] had a burgeoning list of people who chain smoked, and it was removed because in essence it's just trivia being tacked on. I simply don't think that a 'notable individuals' section is really necessary. It is not possible to precisely qualify who and who isn't alt-right, even with the (pretty contentious) criteria given in the section. Evidently this section has caused quite a bit of, what I think is needless, kerfuffle on this talk page. ] (]) 19:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yeah, maybe so. The individuals' articles have more room to explain any link, and also explain ''when'' the link was made. Listing people who fully embrace the label, like Spencer, with the same weight as people who formerly embraced it and then backed off, like Cernovich, seems like a big problem. ]'s article doesn't even mention the alt-right at all, which is a bad sign. These sources are messy as well, with some redundant, trivial, and questionable sources being mixed in with more reliable stuff. That's not, by itself, a reason to remove the section, but it's a bad sign. ] (]) 20:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:: There are bad signs showing in this section indeed, and the problem is I don't think a lot can be done to clean up this section from the issues you point out. ] (]) 19:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
*I think that the ''driving'' members of a political movement are more important than who has chain-smoked - to the extent that they define the alt-right, it's important to cover them. However, more caution could be used when mentioning people to make sure they're really important to understanding the alt-right rather than just being people who had the label attached to them at one point or another; and I would tend to prefer putting a description of those key individuals in prose rather than a list, which would also allow us to provide a bit of context for each (and would discourage people from just drive-by dropping random people who aren't as important into it.) The important criteria for inclusion should be whether or not they are useful to understanding the alt-right (that is, do we have lots of high-quality sources that focus on these people as the iconic representation of the alt-right.) For people who do, we could include them even if they later denounced or discarded the label, provided we're careful to mention that - again, another advantage to covering them in prose rather than as a list is that we can provide that context for eg. people who haven't consistently considered themselves a part of it but who are regularly covered as iconic parts of it in reliable sources. --] (]) 23:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:: This is why I propose that a clear distinction be made in the article between those that self-identify as alt-right, and those who are described as alt-right by others. This term is comparable to "Nazi" in many people's minds, so this is a serious ] issue. — ''']''' ''']''' 00:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::: That is indeed the trouble with having a section that declares someone as 'alt-right', there is little room for any caveats or ambiguity for individuals. ] (]) 19:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
: My impression is that, for the most part, ''alt-right'' is something one is called rather than something one calls oneself—much like ''essentialist'' and ''social constructionist'' in the history of sexuality debate, to the extent there still is one. (Was that reference too obscure?) So I don't see self-identification as a useful criterion in that its absence doesn't really tell us anything about reality. With regard to my limited understanding of the matter, it seems designation by reliable sources is the key consideration. ] (]) 12:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::We should. It seems like an accusation board, most of them have denied these affiliations. ] (]) 17:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Indeed. Those who discover they are unfairly on this list are prone to spin up drama, perhaps accompanies by an influx of edits and vandalisation. ] (]) 19:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:It should be removed. The membership is not clearly defined and list provides no value. If someone is important to the alt-right, then they should be mentioned in the article, making the list superfluous. ] (]) 19:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I concur with this. Anyone who is really that notable to be mentioned in this this article would be mentioned inline with the prose sections. ] (]) 19:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==IQ chart in beliefs section== |
|
|
] <!-- This caption is copied verbatim from when it was added to the article, please don't change it. --> |
|
|
Seems like the blatant insertion of the chart simply to spread the idea rather than make a claim about alt-right beliefs. Does no one else agree?--] (]) 02:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Reply to|Wimdow2011}} Well, I won't speculate on the intent behind adding it, but it was added a little over 24 hours ago by {{user|PerfectlyIrrational}} (]). I didn't investigate the sourcing claimed on the image page, or accuracy of the data in it, so I have no idea how neutral the data itself is. On the other hand, it did not seem to obviously tie into or support the adjacent text, at least not clearly. On the basis that the illustrations should have some reasonable relationship to the adjacent text, I've reverted it. I have added a smaller size of it to this talk section, so that we can easily see what we are discussing. ] (]) 03:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Agreed, the chart seemed rather gratuitously inflammatory. ] (]) 12:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Not that it belongs here at all, but I see the source data here, just a table of averages and SD , original uploader has image here ]. And it was rejected there. Myself, I'd be more interested in showing actual distributions of male and female IQ, and we'd see there are more male idiots than female, and we might guess where some of the (mostly-male) alt-righters fit on the distribution. ] (]) 13:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Creator of the edit here. The purpose of the image was to show the belief among members of the alt-right that non-Western immigration is harmful. Perhaps someone can add that the causes are disputed? ] (]) 15:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::The issue is that we don't have any ] showing that it it related. I know that people like Spencer and Enoch do talk about the bell curve often, but without other people commenting on it we really can't put that in. If you could find, for example, newspaper or online news articles discussing how it was an important part of alt-right philosophy, that would be a different story. Even if you have something from Radix or altright.com written by Spencer, that ''might'' be allowable as the self-published opinion of an important person to the topic (no guarantees, though). <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The graph is based on a table in an academic book. Lots of reasons to exclude it. One of them is that we do not know what the distribution is. It is doubtful that 5% of blacks have IQs below 55 and none have IQs above 135. ] (]) 16:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Excessive references == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article seems to contain a large amount of ]. For instance, to support {{tq|Commonalities among the loosely-defined alt-right include a disdain for mainstream politics as well as support for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign}} there were nothing less than ''seven'' refs, including one from "SocialistWorker.org" mixed in with The Washington Post and The LA Times. I have addressed some of the issues, but the article may still be problematic and I don't have the time to read all the references to see what can and cannot be removed. I invite other editors to help with the clean up. PS: I'm not watching the page, please ping me for my attention. ] (]) 03:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Without commenting on the reliability of the removed sources, that does look a bit better. If any of these points become contested again, bundling multiple citations into a single ref tag might be worth considering. ] (]) 06:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Websites and the Use of Memes == |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Alt-right|answered=yes}} |
|
Generalizing 4chan or any other websites as alt-right is not correct as the user base is extreamly varied. Also, the majority of memes atributed to white supremacy are simply examples of black humor. Some may have been ulterioly adopted by the Alt-Right but the matter should be studied more from the perspective of non left outlets. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
Put antisemitic as one of the characteristics of the alt right movement in the top of the page. ] (]) 00:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Do you have a reference to a high quality reliable source that verifies what you want to add? The article, after all, says {{tpq|Some alt-rightists are antisemitic, promoting a conspiracy theory that there is a Jewish plot to bring about white genocide, although other alt-rightists view most Jews as members of the white race.}} ] (]) 00:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 04:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2024 == |
|
:The article does not make that generalization. The article doesn't say that 4chan is alt-right, it says that the alt-right came from 4chan. As for "black humor" if you have any ] on that, let's see them. The article explains that it's difficult to determine how sincere these memes are. Reliable sources I've seen commonly regard 4chan's "ironic racism" as a tool used by extremists to normalize racist ideas by making them more palatable to people who would otherwise reject overt racism ("red-pilling normies", etc.). Describing supremacist memes as black humor doesn't make them any more or less racist. Wherever they originally came from, sincere or not, they promote white supremacist ideas. ] (]) 21:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Alt-right|answered=yes}} |
|
== Is a "memes" section really necessary? == |
|
|
|
Please remove the phrase "has been declining since 2017". This is false, with people like Andrew Tate and the Identitarian movement becoming more prevalent. This claim has no source. ] (]) 00:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> I'm closing this request for now because this phrase is part of a much larger issue of this article that needs a lot more work and information to tackle. The reason that the claim has no source is because it's a lead section summary of the section ], but that section is now outdated, and is tagged as so. Nevertheless, you still need to provide a ] that states the movement is ''not'' in decline (or alternatively, reopen this request once editors have finished updating the section). ] (]) 00:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, it is particularly hard to find sources that are reliable due to how the political climate around such things are ''well what's the word...'' charged so couldn't the question really be is what sources could be appropriate to update the article to date while keeping up with Misplaced Pages standards? ] (]) 00:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is claiming that it ''is'' in decline without valid proof not misinformation? ] (]) 10:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== 2017 Jewish Community Center Bomb Threats == |
|
The section about Alt-Right Memes seems totally irrelevant, why is it even here? ] (]) 21:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Hold3172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The penultimate paragraph in the Tactics section contains the following passage: |
|
:It's here because it's supported by many ] which explain why it's relevant. ] (]) 21:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
” In 2017, a wave of threats began being made to Jewish Community Centerswhich some press sources attributed to the alt-right. Another Jewish target was the conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who was sent messages stating that he and his children "will go to the ovens". “ |
|
== Header rediculousness == |
|
|
'''The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with right-wing to far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism, principally in the United States, but also to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe. White supremacist Richard Spencer appropriated the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused by some media publications of doing so to whitewash overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism. Alt-right beliefs have been described as white supremacist, frequently overlapping with antisemitism and Neo-Nazism, nativism and Islamophobia, antifeminism and homophobia, white nationalism, right-wing populism, and the neoreactionary movement. The concept has further been associated with multiple groups from American nationalists, neo-monarchists, men's rights advocates, and the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This use of the passive voice, (“a wave of threats began to be made” who made the threats?) coupled with the immediately following sentence starting with “another Jewish target” strongly implies that the alt right was behind the community center bomb threats. |
|
Okay so how much money did Buzzfeed pay you guys to destroy the header with sources? Come on, isn't it a basic Misplaced Pages rule that you put the sources in the content, and the header summarizes the content? Call me a conspiracy theorist but you guys seem rather obsessed with this article, kinda seems like your protecting something for your own agenda. It kinda like seems like you guys are trying to make sure no one right-leaning can edit the header (hence the ridiculous amount of sources). I mean it's pretty reasonable assumption. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, if I actually click on the hyperlinked article about the 2017 Jewish Community Center bomb threats, I discover that they had nothing to do with the alt right. Instead, they were perpetrated by an Israeli Jew and a leftwing black journalist. |
|
So here's the thing I'm NOT alt-right or conservative (or whatever ridiculous generalization you guys probably think I am), but I know BS when I see it. And this is it. I know this may be mind-blowing for you guys but here it goes - you can listen to what a conservative group has to say with an open mind, disagree with them politically, and still value their point as a genuine political view. You can write about what they believe and be true to the source. You don't have to fight it because you disagree. I feel like nothing in this article has been written without the editor's own personal bias or two cents thrown in. <span style='color:white;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.9em 0.1em green'></span> ]] 06:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I propose the following edit: |
|
:{{tq|Call me a conspiracy theoriest}}... Yes, agreed. You're literally theorizing a conspiracy, based on no real evidence. Did you have something productive to say, or are you just here to condescend and cast aspersions? If so, ] and ] applies. ] (]) 07:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“In 2017, a wave of threats began being made to Jewish Community Centers which some press sources *wrongly* attributed to the alt-right; *these threats were actually perpetrated by an Israeli Jew and a leftwing black journalist, neither of which had any connection to the alt right*.” ] (]) 11:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Actually, {{u|QubixQdotta}}, the lead can have as many sources as necessary to verify contentious content. See ]. ]<sub>(])</sub> 07:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:If this edit or an edit like it cannot be made, I would suggest removing the hyperlink to the 2017 Jewish Community Center bomb threats so at least no Misplaced Pages reader will realize that this article and that article directly contradict each other. ] (]) 11:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: I can easily say the lead section is biased, as it is using liberal media as sources. ] (]) 00:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Sources in the lead include the New York Times, BBC News, the Washington Post, Associated Press, NBC News, CNN, Reuters, NPR, the LA Times, The Guardian, and the Boston Globe. In fact, everything in the lead is cited to at least one of those. As far as I know, those are top-quality mainstream sources. Which of them do you object to? What sources do you feel we should use instead? --] (]) 21:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I had marked some of the Vox and Salon sources as being unreliable, as they are heavily liberal biased, but Greyfall has reverted my edits. ] ] 23:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. See ] ] (]) 00:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
The penultimate paragraph in the Tactics section contains the following passage:
” In 2017, a wave of threats began being made to Jewish Community Centerswhich some press sources attributed to the alt-right. Another Jewish target was the conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who was sent messages stating that he and his children "will go to the ovens". “
This use of the passive voice, (“a wave of threats began to be made” who made the threats?) coupled with the immediately following sentence starting with “another Jewish target” strongly implies that the alt right was behind the community center bomb threats.
However, if I actually click on the hyperlinked article about the 2017 Jewish Community Center bomb threats, I discover that they had nothing to do with the alt right. Instead, they were perpetrated by an Israeli Jew and a leftwing black journalist.
“In 2017, a wave of threats began being made to Jewish Community Centers which some press sources *wrongly* attributed to the alt-right; *these threats were actually perpetrated by an Israeli Jew and a leftwing black journalist, neither of which had any connection to the alt right*.” Hoax Tree (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)