Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:Seems like it could be valid to add. <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">''']'''<span style="border-radius: 50%; border: 2px solid #073642;margin-top:-16px">]</span></span> 21:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
:Seems like it could be valid to add. <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">''']'''<span style="border-radius: 50%; border: 2px solid #073642;margin-top:-16px">]</span></span> 21:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
:"collection of racists, misogynists and Islamophobes" So, how are they different than the average right-winger? ] (]) 17:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
:"collection of racists, misogynists and Islamophobes" So, how are they different than the average right-winger? ] (]) 17:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
::Don't you think topics should be covered without bias? you thinking all right wingers are the same is kind of bias and shows you shouldn't be anywhere near the wikipedia article. Maybe you should learn a little about post-liberalism. In my opinion the alt-right isn't a racist movement it's a post-liberal movement, where clearly the liberal idea(what liberalism has come to mean, not what it started off meaning) has come to mean oppression by state of an ideology that is clearly only serving the people that believe in the ideology as a sort of performative salve. You have post-liberals of all political varieties too. You have the alt-right post-liberals who disagree with traditional rights(as in basically the party of liberalism), on the foundation of it just being a conception of the mind in the first place, you have the authoritarian left post-liberals who just think we have applied liberalism strongly enough and we have to further extend an ideology into more and more sectors, you have the libertarian left who believes that again liberalism is mind conception that people don't necessarily have to follow through in their daily lives.
::I recommend you just stick to editing wikipedia articles you know something about. ] (]) 16:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The contents of the Alt-left page were merged into Alt-right on September 26 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
First Two Sentences of the Lede are Glaring Contradictions
The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement. A largely online phenomenon, the alt-right originated in the United States during the early 2010s before establishing a presence in other countries and declining after 2017. The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by alt-right members, media commentators, and academics.
It's no more complicated than exactly what it says it is: "Alternative Right", which can literally be anything. If the term is "ill defined", then why does the first sentence make the claim that it's a "white nationalist" movement? What about White Identitarians? Traditionalists? Monarchists? Orthodox Christians that reject the vast majority of modern-day "conservatism"? Milo Yiannopoulos (who was gay at the time) was one of the most well-known members of the Alt-Right (the movement), while loudly proclaiming his love of "sucking black cock". Where's the "White Nationalism" in THAT? What about the non-white Alt-Right (which exist)? Yes, it's "ill defined" and the poor quality of the definition is hard-coded into the first sentence of the Lede. Why not put the 2nd sentence first? "It's "ill defined", but one definition is...." vs. first establishing a bad definition, and then weakly undermining that bad definition in the 2nd sentence? Further I dispute the assertion that it's only a "movement". It's a term used to describe an alternative to what is commonly accepted as the "right". There's no need to be part of an Alt-Right "movement" to have Alt-Right opinions (such as regarding the public acceptance of homosexuality, immigration and border security, funding of Israel, questioning the Holocaust narrative, etc.. IMO the common-sense definition(s) of this term have been deliberately sabotaged in this Article as a means by which to deny (meaning censor) it's objectively describable definition. The Alt-Right exists, because alternatives exist, no matter how the ideological opposition pollutes the term.107.195.106.201 (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Did you really just say "Milo... loves "sucking black cock". Where's the "White Nationalism" in THAT?" and expect anyone to take your twenty questions seriously? EvergreenFir(talk)20:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
So direct quoting someone's statement means your entire point is invalid because he's using bad words and talking about raunchy topics. Sounds completely reasonable and definitely not an excuse to avoid addressing legitimate criticism you cannot logically rebuke.
The main point of the post is clear and simple: The first and second sentence of this article contradict eachother.
If the term is ill defined then any label is speculative and should be removed. If it isn't ill defined the labels must be sourced, and they aren't at time of writing.
You have made no attempt to either provide sources for the lede or to rebuke the points made because you know well that he's right. So you have instead decided to derail the topic on the legitimacy/logic of Milo Yannopoulos' views and opinions, which have nothing to do with the issue of the lede having ZERO sources and being undeniably badly worded. 82.48.89.156 (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I've never edited this page so I'll leave whether to add it to more knowledgeable editors, but the NYT today defined the alt-right as "a loosely affiliated collection of racists, misogynists and Islamophobes that rose to prominence around the time of Mr. Trump’s first campaign" here. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
"collection of racists, misogynists and Islamophobes" So, how are they different than the average right-winger? Dimadick (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Don't you think topics should be covered without bias? you thinking all right wingers are the same is kind of bias and shows you shouldn't be anywhere near the wikipedia article. Maybe you should learn a little about post-liberalism. In my opinion the alt-right isn't a racist movement it's a post-liberal movement, where clearly the liberal idea(what liberalism has come to mean, not what it started off meaning) has come to mean oppression by state of an ideology that is clearly only serving the people that believe in the ideology as a sort of performative salve. You have post-liberals of all political varieties too. You have the alt-right post-liberals who disagree with traditional rights(as in basically the party of liberalism), on the foundation of it just being a conception of the mind in the first place, you have the authoritarian left post-liberals who just think we have applied liberalism strongly enough and we have to further extend an ideology into more and more sectors, you have the libertarian left who believes that again liberalism is mind conception that people don't necessarily have to follow through in their daily lives.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)