Talk:Alt-right: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:03, 30 April 2017 editCornerstonepicker (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users39,510 edits →Can we remove the 'notable individuals' section?← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:04, 30 April 2017 edit undoThe Four Deuces (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,510 edits →Can we remove the 'notable individuals' section?Next edit →
Line 160:		Line 160:
	: 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)		: 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)		::We should. It seems like an accusation board, most of them have denied these affiliations. ] (]) 17:02, 30 April 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)

Revision as of 19:04, 30 April 2017

Before you edit this page:

This page relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Your behaviour on this page is subject to special rules. You must follow:

the purpose of Misplaced Pages,
expected standards of behaviour, and
Misplaced Pages policies and editorial norms.

If you do not follow those rules then you may be banned from editing on the topic or blocked from editing entirely.

This restriction is authorised by the Arbitration Committee. Before making edits in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the contentious topics policy.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alt-right article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

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 page is not a forum for general discussion about Alt-right. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Alt-right at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 May 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

 Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Culture Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

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.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

Stop Normalizing Alt Right Chrome extension was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 January 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Alt-right. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Questionable Sources

There are many source issues on this article. Mother Jones, Gizmodo, Kotaku, to name a few WP:QUESTIONABLE. ~~Source 132 is also broken~~ 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 WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Likewise I have qualms about the reliability WP:RS 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.HessmixD (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Spencer in lead section

Reply to question tag:

I'm not the OP here, but I came to this article to read about an ideology. The founder should be in a section on the page, but I'm not interested in him and, if it's an umbrella term, he, being one person, can't represent all of the alt-right. Having info about him right near the top is confusing and clearly presented in such a way as to demonize this umbrella ideology to readers before they have a chance to understand what this is about.

So, whoever is good at editing things around here should have one, short sentence about Spencer at the top, without mentioning his specific brand of alt right (which is completely irrelevant to a page that is meant to describe all of the alt-right) and then, maybe, if they still want to demonize the alt right with a scary example, they can be more surreptitious about their propagandizing of an encyclopedia and make a section about him below.

67.233.210.194 (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree about anyone trying to demonize anyone or anything, but I agree that there was an overemphasis on Spencer in the lead section, so I removed a sentence about him. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I know right OP? It's almost like elitist editors on this page completely ignored WP:COI and WP:NPOV. And why so passionately too? Oh I think I know: $$$. :) ++ 08:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Active arbitration remedies

This article is now under WP:1RR and discretionary sanctions apply. --NeilN 16:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hyperallergic

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. . GamerPro64 03:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I've seen it pretty frequently in arts circles, and Hyperallergic 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 (CNN etc.). Grayfell (talk) 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". Mduvekot (talk) 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. — Confession0791 06:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"Roman salutes". PeterTheFourth (talk) 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. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 Princess Kitten (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 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.) Liberivore (talk) 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.UserDude (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you checked the sources cited next to their names? PeterTheFourth (talk) 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 Jkeller4321 (talk) 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 Jkeller4321 (talk) 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 Jkeller4321 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Jkeller4321 You are participating in bad faith. It was Luminism 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. HessmixD (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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? Tannlos (talk) 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. JaroV (talk) 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:

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.)

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.

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.

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

And in his response afterwards he apologises and says he is a "rookie comedian" and that these jokes were mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evales (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

--Evales (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

References

False accusation of Alt-Right Members

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 TheCasualJJ (talk) 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. Tannlos (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that for all people mentioned in the list clear and unequivocal "membership" must be documented by reliable sources for them to be included (see WP:BLP). The one example I focused on (PewDiePie) 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 WP:BLP since "AltRight membership" is contentious to say the least. I am tempted to request full protection of this page (and a report to WP:BLP/N) since the edit-war seems to be continued. Please knock it off and discuss the issue here. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:XCON should be enough based on those making the edits. — IVORK _Discuss 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.- Mr X 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.Jariola (talk) 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.- Mr X 21:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed a few of these, including Roosh V based on this .- Mr X 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 . Jariola (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

My reading is that he shares some of their ideas, and this stood out: "Their need for sexual control went against the interests of myself and my readers of all races, since it’s not dissimilar to feminism, so I announced a formal split with them in February, even though I was never formally in the alt right." 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.- Mr X 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.249.38 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.184.124 (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The men's rights link to the alt-right is sourced to this article. I have to wonder how many people who come to this talk page actually follow the sources before complaining about something. clpo13_(talk) 20:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we remove the 'notable individuals' section?

There was a time when the article Chain Smokking 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. Derick1259 (talk) 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. John Derbyshire'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. Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 28 April 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. --Aquillion (talk) 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 BLP issue. — Confession0791 00:16, 29 April 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. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We should. It seems like an accusation board, most of them have denied these affiliations. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:02, 30 April 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. TFD (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Categories: