Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grayfell (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 26 February 2016 (→Gamergate: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but I've templated the bare urls and fixed the ref names. If I've done anything wrong, please inform me. Me, Myself & I (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was looking for. Thanks so much. Denarivs (talk) 00:45, 11 February 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

1. "A YouTube account is rewriting Disney tunes to be racist".
2. http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2016/1/20/what-is-the-altright
3. http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-2015-fueled-the-rise-of-the-freewheeling-white-nationali
4. http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/beyond-pale/724717?nopager=1
5. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/03/rush-limbaugh-s-favorite-new-white-power-group.html
6. 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)

The Weekly Standard source is a typo of some sorts. The correct Weekly Standard source describes the alt-right as "highly heterogeneous", which is a very close synonym for diverse, and is the best source for this point. The claim is backed up by an article in fusion.net which calls the alt-right "a loosely defined coalition" and an article in NRO which describes the alt-right as a "motley group". The claim that the alt-right is younger than mainstream conservatism has a number of sources. Because of this, I'm going to add the sentence back to the first paragraph. Denarivs (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How about holding off until this discussion is resolved. Multiple editors have given concerns about the quality of these sources and the weight of these claims. Even if we accept these sources, which I'm not saying I d0, "ideologically diverse" is not the only way to describe this characteristic. Also, Misplaced Pages's talk pages are obsolete, and not well suited to this style of discussion, so it may be easier to post responses at the bottom of the section, per WP:TPG, otherwise they are likely to be overlooked. Grayfell (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I added the line before seeing your comment but I've since removed it. You can see the sources here and if there's no problem with it I'll add the sentence back some time. Denarivs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine to add. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I removed some of this passage because it was poorly written and gave undo weight to a low-notability article about a single person. I've kept some of the text and integrated it into the rest of the article. Denarivs (talk) 06:50, 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)

I cut the sentence down to "The alt-right is described as young and diverse." Also, The Weekly Standard said "WPC14’s own website declares that “the WPC has become a venue for fostering difficult and critical dialogues around white supremacy, white privilege, diversity, multicultural education and leadership, social & economic justice, and the intersecting systems of privilege and oppression.”" and "The typical garb for WPC14 attendees ranged from hippie (old folks) to hipster (young ’uns), with common elements of rubber soles on every shoe and green-conscious water bottles dangling from every backpack." Connor Machiavelli (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In this case, "diverse" by itself is far, far too vague and "has been described as" is a WP:WEASEL, so that's not going to work. Poor quality sources can be found to support just about anything, so this would need to be either genuinely ubiquitous among reliable sources, (which has not been demonstrated) or it needs to be clearly attributed.

What on Earth does the demographics of the white privilege conference have to do with the alt-right? From that article it's clear that conference is ideologically opposed to the alt-right, and even that connection is WP:SYNTH. I'm still not seeing how that article is related to the alt-right at all. Grayfell (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, let's throw out the wPC14 source. Instead of "has been described", let's just have it say "It is young and diverse.", I mean, even from just looking at the websites this movement dominates, such as 4chan's /pol/, you get quite an impression of who the alt-rightists averagely are. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Check out this source. http://www.weeklystandard.com/what-exactly-is-the-alternative-right/article/2000310 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Using 4chan to deduce that kind of thing is WP:OR, and those sites aren't independent, neutral, or reliable. That members of the movement consider it ideologically diverse, or that a handful of mainstream conservatives agree, isn't the only problem. "Diverse" is relative. From a neocon perspective like (a writer for) the Weekly Standard, Taki's Mag, Breitbart, and AlternativeRight may all be diverse, but they would still be within a narrow scope if judged by a more liberal source. We also have the ADF and others saying essentially that the movement is just part of the Euphemism treadmill for white supremacy, which is itself just another way of saying white racist. Obviously not everyone agrees that this is simply "diverse", so that word isn't going to work. Whatever is used needs more nuance and context, otherwise it's puffery. Grayfell (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How about "ideologically varied"? Would that work? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. Denarivs (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. That is better, but it still doesn't address the presence of differing viewpoints. There are few 'detractors' who are actually agreeing with the description, and even the 'supporters' are flimsy on this. Welton lists "neo-reactionaries, monarchists, nativists, populists, and even a few self-declared fascists" as the example of the movement's diversity, which overlooks that all of those things are compatible with each other and very frequently overlap to a large degree. Mussolini had a king, after all. It's a baffling statement that only makes sense from a very granular and exclusionary view of conservatism that is not supported by outside sources or common sense. Additionally, this is an opinion which should not be used to support a generalized statement.

It would be better to describe what the variety actually is. The article attempts to do that already, and I don't think anyone is likely to take away the idea that an Internet-based movement is going to have hard and fast rules. I don't understand what is clarified by emphasizing this ideological diversity point, other than perhaps making the movement look less race-obsessed, which doesn't seem all that neutral. All movements have some ideological variation, so this needs real context, not just a thesaurus.

I don't think "loosely defined" or "motley" are convincing on this point, either. "Loosely defined" is used in "..a loosely defined coalition of self-described racists." Motley is used in the context "...they're a motley group of white nationalists and wanna-be fascists." That doesn't mean that they are ideologically diverse, it just means that they share a common focus on power and racism. Grayfell (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Because that's about the Alt-right movement, that's why it matters on this article. Ok, "Ideologically mixed"? "Ideologically divergent"? Pick one or help think one up. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's go with the sentence "The alt-right movement is younger than mainstream American conservatism and is ideologically mixed." How about that? Denarivs also sourced that it's younger than mainstream American conservatism. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said, this isn't a thesaurus game, and picking different words totally ignores my point. I don't see why the point belongs at all based on the sources provided. Grayfell (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It belongs because it's interesting and relevant to this article. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not neutral, and not well supported by sources, so being interesting and relevant aren't good enough. What does "ideologically mixed" mean? It's still far too vague. Who is actually saying it's ideologically mixed? It's adherents? Secondary sources are weak on this, and this seems like cherry-picking to support a POV. Grayfell (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The movement itself as you can read is ideologically inclusive of alternative right-wing ideologies, I could put that it is, or remove the diversity part. I could also restore that the movement is young, are you fine with that sourced claim as material for this article, that's it's a young movement? Connor Machiavelli (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Edited sentence with sources "However, there are some commonalities shared across the ideologically inclusive alt-right movement." Connor Machiavelli (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"Ideologically inclusive" has exactly the same problems. The alt-right is not especially inclusive by objective, outside standards, only by inside accounts. The alt-right ignores or disagrees with issues outside of a narrow focus on race and nationalism, but calling that inclusive is misleading. The article should not imply a broader range of positions than is supported by independent sources. Outside of tribalism and infighting, the actual substance of these 'ideologies' is pretty consistent and narrow in scope. Being vague about preferred terms isn't the same as true ideological diversity. I've rewritten the content to incorporate it into the surrounding sentences: "The alt-right encompasses neo-reactionaries, white nationalists, nativists, and many other political position. Commonalities shared across the otherwise loosely defined alt-right include anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist views, disdain for mainstream politics, and strong support for Donald Trump." Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding a sentence to the first paragraph of Reaction, "The alt-right is inclusive of alternative right-wing ideologies." Sources included. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you joking? We just discussed those exact same sources, and why they are not usable for that point. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I disagree for this sentence. It sounds as if you are WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the sources for this point. I'd like to see what Denarivs thinks about this. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

So what qualifies as an "alternative right-wing ideology"? Isn't that just another way of saying "alt-right"? So basically this is saying "the alt right includes alt-right ideologies", which is a tautology. The sources don't support that this universally accepted as any synonym of diverse. Among other problems, those sources are either primary from within the movement, or they are quoting people within the movement, or they are opinions which have not been given proper attribution. I am trying to give you multiple specific, policy-based reasons this won't work, and you are responding with "well, I disagree", and that it should be included because it's interesting. Is WP:IDONTLIKEIT really the right accusation for you to be making here? Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll remove the tautology. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me like this is an important and well cited claim for the article. It's useful both intrinsically for describing the subject, and also for explaining the article's general lack of specific claims about the alt-right. It's well sourced (the Weekly Standard source is particularly explicit) and we can clearly state who makes the claim (liberals, conservatives, and self-identified alt-right people), which avoids WP:WEASEL. The line before it was removed had 5 reliable sources supporting it, which seems to be plenty, and is much more than any other part of the article. The specific phrase used doesn't seem to matter very much, but "ideologically varied" seems particularly neutral and specific. Also, I've gone ahead and added back the line "The alt-right is younger than mainstream conservatism" since it was removed accidentally, is well sourced, and doesn't seem to be under dispute. Thanks, Denarivs (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard article is the most explicit in this point, but it's also an opinion piece which should not be used to make generalizations. As described above, I don't believe the attached sources actually supported the general point, and not all are even usable. WP:CITATION OVERKILL doesn't make bad sources good. Labeling commentary as liberal, conservative, etc. is dicey, as it's essentially subjective, and therefore makes the weasel problem worse. Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

New Sources

Here's some more independent reliable third party sources for research and to prove notability when this article is inevitably nominated for deletion:

Denarivs (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

We should incorporate some of this article into a new section we can make, Alt-right, on the Donald Trump page. Let's discuss how we should do it. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the alt-right is notable, compared to Donald Trump. Denarivs (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

When I edited Alt-right in to See also on Donald Trump, and it was reverted, I got "rv good faith edit, maybe work into article if appropriate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 10:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate

I'm not sure whether gamergate belongs in the see also. Typically, see also is reserved for articles closely tied to the subject, but which don't quite deserve their own section. Gamergate is related to conservatism generally, and is somewhat political, but I don't see a connection with the "alt right" specifically. Maybe it is; do we have a source for that?   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sure a source could be dug up with a bit of effort. Both are (arguably) right-wing reactionary movements which skew young and center on the internet, so that seems like a sufficient enough overlap to meet WP:EL and be useful for readers. Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Here's a source from Buzzfeed linking the alt-right with Gamergate through Milo Yiannopoulos.

This op-ed from Weekly Standard defines Gamergate as a product of the alt-right (a "success" of the alt-right, no less. Not sure what it succeeded in accomplishing, but anyway...)

This article from Washington Post links Gamergate to "cuckservative", which is attributed to the alt-right

Admittedly these are not rock-solid sources for this point. It's all indirect stuff, but it seems ample to demonstrate there's something there. Enough for a see also link, anyway. Grayfell (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Grayfell. It seemed plausible to me they were related, but checking several sources I didn't see them mentioned together. If the weekly standard article is correct, they are actually closely tied, and gamergate might even merit direct mention in the article. Anyway, see also is probably fine for now. I already added it back. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I've read a fair amount about these topics and there does seem to be link between GamerGate and the alt-right, which is why I added it to "see also". I added a see also link to Manosphere as well, for similar reasons (a large number of manosphere bloggers, like "Heartiste", Vox Day, and Dalrock) are also alt-righters, and Roosh V identified as a supporter of the alt-right until a few days ago when he severed his ties with it.

However, the biggest link tying the alt-right, GamerGate, and the manosphere together is chan culture, and 4chan and 8chan in particular. All three movements are closely tied to the chans. This explains some of the seemingly contradictory behaviors displayed by AltRighters (such as using anime-style pictures to illustrate white supremacist slogans, for instance). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point about chan culture. I wish we could find a more reliable source on this. We Hunted the Mammoth is a blog, so it's not usable for BLP content. 4chan is still a blindspot to news-outlets, unfortunately, so choices seem limited. Related to the discussion above, it's not clear from sources just how much real diversity there is in this movement, but there are strong signs that it overlaps heavily with chan culture, which overlaps heavily with the manosphere, etc. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)