| Revision as of 04:58, 6 February 2016 editGrayfell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers83,129 edits These sources are too flimsy← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:02, 6 February 2016 edit undoConnor Machiavelli (talk | contribs)978 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| :Regardless, there's nothing 'regular' about a single source. It also reads like an attempt at false balance. If sources are in general agreement (which they aren't) then this should just be stated as is. Since they are not, it's not appropriate for the article to divide sources into supporters and detractors just to create the illusion of consensus. This should be removed from both this article, and the New Right one. | :Regardless, there's nothing 'regular' about a single source. It also reads like an attempt at false balance. If sources are in general agreement (which they aren't) then this should just be stated as is. Since they are not, it's not appropriate for the article to divide sources into supporters and detractors just to create the illusion of consensus. This should be removed from both this article, and the New Right one. | ||
| :As for the age, I don't think anyone is contesting that the alt-right skews young, but these sources are flimsy. I think the Weekly Standard one must be a mistake, as it doesn't appear to be discussing the alt-right at all, and the Daily Beast one only mentions age in relation to the Limbaugh caller, which is nothing worth mentioning. It does, however, repeatedly emphasize that this is a ] movement, not just a "]" one. ] (]) 04:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | :As for the age, I don't think anyone is contesting that the alt-right skews young, but these sources are flimsy. I think the Weekly Standard one must be a mistake, as it doesn't appear to be discussing the alt-right at all, and the Daily Beast one only mentions age in relation to the Limbaugh caller, which is nothing worth mentioning. It does, however, repeatedly emphasize that this is a ] movement, not just a "]" one. ] (]) 04:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| I'll edit what's been inserted and we'll review it so we can reach a consensus on this. ] (]) 05:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:02, 6 February 2016
Sourcing
Sources are a mess, I'd appreciate if someone who knew how could clean them up. Thanks. Denarivs (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Reaction
May I include this in the article from New Right on the Alt-right?
Proponents are said to use culture jamming and memes to promote their ideas. One leading proponent records parodies of Disney songs (such as I'll Make A Man Out Of You, from Mulan) "with their discussions of white supremacy and generally racist and sexist lyrics". Adherents also refer to themselves as identitarian, and criticize National Review and William F. Buckley for "not openly espousing, among other things, white nationalism, or white identarianism" such as in the video which is titled “The National Review” and is set to the tune of “The Bells of Notre Dame.” Supporters and detractors alike regularly describe the alt-right as young and intellectually diverse,
References
- "A YouTube account is rewriting Disney tunes to be racist".
- http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2016/1/20/what-is-the-altright
- http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-2015-fueled-the-rise-of-the-freewheeling-white-nationali
- http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/beyond-pale/724717?nopager=1
- http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/03/rush-limbaugh-s-favorite-new-white-power-group.html
- http://www.toqonline.com/blog/richard-spencer-launches-alternative-right/
- These sources do not support that this is regularly describing as intellectually diverse. Neither The Occidental Quarterly nor AlternativeRight.com (Radix) are reliable for statements of fact, nor are they independent of the movement, so labeling them "supporters" is misleading at best. The Buzzfeed source doesn't really say that the movement is diverse, merely that it's "loosely connected", and that several followers' "political projects are a little hard to pin down". Calling that intellectual diversity is absurdly flattering. Otherwise the Buzzfeed article mostly reflects what figures in the movement say about it, and very little about what detractors say. Popehat and the ADF said the alt-right are white supremacists. That has nothing to do with diversity, intellectual or otherwise.
- Regardless, there's nothing 'regular' about a single source. It also reads like an attempt at false balance. If sources are in general agreement (which they aren't) then this should just be stated as is. Since they are not, it's not appropriate for the article to divide sources into supporters and detractors just to create the illusion of consensus. This should be removed from both this article, and the New Right one.
- As for the age, I don't think anyone is contesting that the alt-right skews young, but these sources are flimsy. I think the Weekly Standard one must be a mistake, as it doesn't appear to be discussing the alt-right at all, and the Daily Beast one only mentions age in relation to the Limbaugh caller, which is nothing worth mentioning. It does, however, repeatedly emphasize that this is a white supremacist movement, not just a "white nationalist" one. Grayfell (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll edit what's been inserted and we'll review it so we can reach a consensus on this. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)