Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:46, 5 March 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)

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)

I'd agree generally and if we could find a good source talking about chan culture, it'd be worth adding into the article. For what it's worth the specific image you linked seems to be semi-ironic. Denarivs (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Archeofuturism

Neither the single source for archeofuturism, Richard B. Spencer's Radix Journal, nor the wikilink's target article, Guillaume Faye, clearly explain what the oxymoronic term archeofuturism means. They also don't clearly establish that it's significant to the alt-right. I don't accept that Radix Journal is a reliable source, so while it could arguably be used as a primary source from within the movement, it would still definitely need to be clearly attributed: Something like Alfred W. Clark, writing for the alt-right Radix Journal has connected the movement to Guillaume Faye's pan-European philosophy of archeofuturism. To be clear, I'm NOT proposing that as an edit, that's just an example of the level of context and detail that would be needed. Weighing the source, I don't think this one connection is worth including at all, but it really, really doesn't seem helpful to include it in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what archeofuturism means either; by adding it in I was just trying to be as descriptive as possible. I can't seem to find any other source on it, and given its sole usage in one alt-right source it seems like it would be WP:UNDUE to give it any more exposition. I'll remove it from the lead and perhaps it should be removed from the body of the article as well. Thanks for pointing this out. Denarivs (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources redux, confusion in lead, no mention of white supremacism even though that's how one of the sources defines it

I'm not at all happy with "The alt-right includes beliefs such as neoreaction, monarchism, nativism, populism, fascism, racialism, identitarianism, white nationalism, and Southern-secessionism" particularly as written and sourced. What makes Rosie Gray a reliable source for this article? Why are we stating all this as fact rather than attributing some of it to Ben Welton, who has more claim to be a reliable source I believe. And in any case, the sources don't say that it includes those beliefs. Welton says "this amalgam includes neo-reactionaries, monarchists, nativists, populists, and even a few self-declared fascists." These are people, not beliefs. Fascism isn't alt right, although Welton's probably right that some self-declared Fascists are alt right. Gray defines it as "white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times" although she's the source for neoreaction, racialism, identitarianism, white nationalism, and Southern-secessionism. Yes, she says it "draws upon relatively obscure political theories like neoreaction or the “Dark Enlightenment" but that doesn't mean it includes the belief. She doesn't mention identitarianism. And what's really weird, the lead avoids using the term that Gray uses to define it, white supremacism.

In other words, that sentence needs to be reworded to that it refers to people who hold those beliefs, as there must be many people who hold those beliefs who aren't alt right, and probably better sourced. And the lead needs to mention white supremacist. I mean seriously, the term was introduced by a white supremacist and we don't have the word in the lead?

Doug Weller talk 19:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT? White supremacism is defined as a form of white nationalism, what's the point when white nationalism is already included? Alt-right and white supremacism aren't mutually exclusive nor does it only include that form of white nationalism. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't like what? The lead? Yes, I've said what the problems are. And many white nationalists deny being white supremacists, the originator of the term is a WS, one of the sources defines the alt right as white supremacist. Please reply to my specific points. I certainly didn't suggest salt right and WS are mutually exclusive, quite the opposite and I can't figure out why you suggest I did. Doug Weller talk 22:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right doesn't identify with that form of white nationalism known as white supremacism, so what's the point? Alt-right encompasses white nationalism in general, they aren't exclusively white supremacists or white separatists. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

And the lead should say that the alt right includes them all, not just one category. What it shouldn't do is suggest that all white/whatevers are alt right. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't have to be complicated. Do we have a RS that identifies alt-right as including white supremacists? It appears we do, so we should represent that. Most white supremacists don't use the label to self identify, but that doesn't change the independent sourcing, so that doesn't matter.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh okay well go ahead and add white supremacism if you want, it's redundant though because white nationalism encompasses white separatism and supremacism even according to Misplaced Pages, anyways just don't take white nationalism away if so, or I object. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Making a distinction between, for example, white nationalism and white nationalists (or neoreaction and neoreactionaries) seems very arbitrary and runs contrary to other articles on political movements (Conservatism uses "conservative" dozens of times for example). Rosie Gray is a reliable source for this article because the Buzzfeed article is part of Buzzfeed's shift towards longform journalism, and looking at the article shows it's detailed and reliable (quotes with relevant parties, an in-depth focus on the alt-right, etc). The current opening sentence is a compromise between left wing sources, right wing sources that dislike the alt-right, and right-wing sources that are sympathetic to or support the alt-right. Describing the alt-right in the lede as white supremacy is not a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and gives WP:UNDUE weight to sources opposed to the subject. Thanks, Denarivs (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, Denarivs. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

On wikipedia, when we say something is "not neutral", we mean it does not represent the reliable sources adequately. Our sources appear to say that the alt right includes white supremacy, so that appears to be neutral. Do we have any sources that say alt right does not include white supremacy? The edit in question does not identify all of the movement as white supremacists (despite some of our sources doing just that), but only says it "includes beliefs such as...white supremacy".   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I inserted "white supremacist" because Connor Machiavelli said go ahead. The inclusion, I believe, meets ]. So now I've added a quote from Rosie Gray saying that it's been described as "white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times". That does after all seem to be one of the main points she's making, and echoes another source mentioned in the body of the text. There's always the WP:NPOVN board if someone feels that the lead doesn't meet NPOV. "White nationalists" often deny that they are supremacists or even separatists - see a recent news article and this book, so it's clear that white nationalism on its own is insufficient. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The evidence I laid out below shows clearly that the clear majority of sources, over 75%, do not identify the alt-right with white supremacy. Because of WP:NPOV we shouldn't use this phrase to describe the alt-right. Denarivs (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

How about we move that quote from Rosie on white supremacy in the alt-right to somewhere else, like Rosie in Reaction? Just because I said you could go ahead doesn't mean you should actually do it, I'm not an expert on this, I just didn't really care what you do because Wikipedians get WP:POV on alt-right related things from what I've seen. Denarivs made this article though and he has been presenting good points forth, so I'm definitely deferring to his opinions on this matter, out of respect for him and trust of his handling on the article, Denarivs seems to be the expert on alt-right related matters, he's been studying very much from what I can see. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Connor, please read WP:OWN. No one editor owns an article, and the first editor to contribute to an article has no special rights or privilege. We defer to the sources, not to editor knowledge. Always.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said he owns the article, I am just saying what the wise course of action would be for the article to be properly represented in a WP:NPOV way. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Again... WP:NPOV refers to sources. What sources represent alt right as explicitly not including white supremacists? Several sources indicate it does, and it is not "neutral", per NPOV, to fail to represent them.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

My point is he sources always actually, he doesn't defer to his own editor knowledge. White supremacy is represented already by the mentioning of white nationalism, so it's pointless to have it be mentioned twice in the same place of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 18:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No, white nationalism and white supremacy are different things. That's why we have two articles instead of just one. Doug provided sources above that show other differences between the two (nationalists often reject the "supremacy" label).   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are different things. But white supremacy is white nationalism, white nationalism isn't white supremacy. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

So you concede that they should both be in the article. White nationalists can be supremacists as well, as our article makes clear: "It ranges from a preference for one's ethnic group, to feelings of superiority and forms of white supremacism, including calls for national citizenship to be reserved for white people". Doug Weller talk 16:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think because those in the alt-right don't identify as white supremacist that it shouldn't be in, but I don't think this is going to be changed unless more people object. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Color me gob-smacked. You know everyone in the alt right? Where did you get this information from that no one in the alt-right identifies as white supremacist? And are you saying that if a white supremacist calls themselves a white nationalist they aren't a white supremacist? Doug Weller talk 18:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that if a white nationalist calls himself a white nationalist, he's a white nationalist; not a white supremacist. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

And if say I'm the Ambassador from Mars, I'm the Martian ambassador. We know and have sources about this issue. Do you tally think people always tell the truth about their beliefs? That's not the way the world works. Doug Weller talk 06:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright then, carry on, gotcha. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Connor Machiavelli but I'm just an editor like any other. With that said after looking through the sources most do not seem to describe the alt-right as white supremacy, which confirms my earlier belief. Denarivs (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A bit late to this discussion but I want to add my thoughts. I decided to look through the sources of this article and there was a clear pattern: the vast majority of sources do not describe the alt-right as white supremacist. These 21 sources, making up over 75% of sources for this article, do not mention white supremacy (or white supremacist) at all: . Two more sources do not describe the alt-right as white supremacist. Even sources that do describe the alt-right as white supremacist tend to use the phrasing "white nationalist" more frequently: Based on this clear evidence from reliable sources across the ideological spectrum, I strongly oppose use of the descriptor "white supremacy" to describe the alt-right per WP:UNDUE. Reliable sources provide unambiguous evidence that the alt-right does not include white supremacy. If the phrase is included at all, it is best included in a quote in the article's body, as in the previous version of this article. Denarivs (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What sources say no members of the alt-right are white supremacists? We gpt ", Cathy Young writing in Newsday called the alt-right "a nest of anti-Semitism" inhabited by "white supremacists" who regularly use "repulsive bigotry"." and of course Rosie Gray. Are those sources unreliable? Some people in the alt-right are clearly white supremacists - seriously, you're happy with neo-reaction and monarchism and not this obvious one? I've reinstated it- go to NPOVN but it's well sourced. WP:UNDUE isn't meant for this sort of situation. Doug Weller talk 22:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this should be included. Plenty of sources use the term white supremacist, especially considering that many of the other sources listed are of questionable reliability and relevance. An 'A vs. B' edit count is of very limited use for something like this, and the existence of sources which don't say 'supremacy' don't invalidate the sources which say it. The SPLC, ADL, and others are fully aware that there is a difference between white supremacy and white nationalism. Since these distinctions are apparently important within the movement, and are reported by knowledgeable sources outside the movement, they should be listed in the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents here to add on what others such as @Connor Macchiavelli: said: I believe it violates WP:NPOV to tie alt-right with white supremacy, especially considering the current political establishment. If it should be mentioned AT ALL, proper context should be supplied.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 15:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

No source that actually identifies the ideologies in the alt-right includes white supremacy, as far as I've read. Not by name, at least, regardless of your beliefs. So why include it? There's not even a source used for it in the article where we have it. We have to take into account like Sigehelmus said, considering the current political establishment, and that is since the alt-right opposes it. So it sounds like WP:OR that the alt-right as white supremacy is anything more than just that it is for the alt-right, a label. White nationalism and white separatism are different things, as we have said before. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Slightly OT - AlternativeRight.com

For some reason this article wasn't just about AlternativeRight.com but about another website as well - at least according to the lead (I couldn't find any discussion of it). I've removed mention of the other website and a source that doesn't discuss AlternativeRight.com. Editors interested in this (the one whose talk page I'm posting to) might be interested in this other article. It's got a big hole in that it doesn't say what happened to the website - it's written in the past tense and the website seems gone. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've moved the page to a more appropriate location and added citations to the ADL and the SLPC to better flesh out the article. Denarivs (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem now is that if someone searches for something on the Alternative Right they won't find this article, they'll find your renamed one. But I need to look at your new version and I'm off to bed. Doug Weller talk 22:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Problems

The article seems to be a synthesis of different sources about different right wing movements that attempts to lumpt them in under a neologistic ;label that is not yet widely accepted. It also has source problems, where the sources are not adequate for the claims (an ADL blog for example is not a reloiable source for what this "movement" is or isnt). Indeed I am not sure the synthesis of coverage does even demostrate notability of this neologism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)