Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 18 April 2016

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

Politics 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Conservatism 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Sociology 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Linguistics 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Culture 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

RfC: Merge to Richard B. Spencer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The term seems to be tied entirely to Spencer's website "Alternative Right". Which perhaps presents itself as the center of a movnment, but which is not described as such by the sources. For that reason I suggest we merge this article to the article on Richard B. Spencer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Oppose will discuss why. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Struck through banned editor. Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Support as proposer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose This appears to be a bad-faith attempt by an editor exhibiting battleground behavior to delete this article. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on the subject do not connect it to Richard Spencer, or do so only to state that he coined the term. There are no reliable secondary sources that suggest that Richard Spencer runs the alt-right or that it is a subset of his work. Secondary sources clearly show that the alt-right is independently notable and distinct from Spencer. Denarivs (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
3. Support the merger. I agree that the reliable sources do not back up the assertion that alt-right is "a right-wing movement different than mainstream conservatism that is identified by the term 'alt-right'"; it does appear that reliable sources are all about Richard Spencer's website. Rockypedia (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Despite the references to what sources say or don't say, so far only Connor Machiavelli has actually provided any concrete evidence either way (below). Having reviewed some of the sources, I have to agree with him that the assertion made by the nom and Rockypedia does not seem justified. The first reference from Buzzfeed seems to focus on Spencer (link), but the Weekly Standard reference (link), which is also one of the principal sources for the article, mentions "Alternative Right" only once in passing and Spencer himself not at all. Indeed, it seems to justify precisely that the alt-right is not limited to Spencer and his website, viz.: "As an example of how truly diverse the alt right is, major and proverbial watering holes for them include everything from Breitbart and the libertarian-leaning Taki Mag to Alternative Right—a blog that openly supports white nationalism." This recent article on the alt-right, again, mentions neither Spencer nor his blog. —Nizolan 02:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose The alt-right movement has grown beyond the internet, and has been mentioned in several mainstream news stories. It has also gained prominence with the rise of Donald Trump, and it's safe to say that many of his supporters would identify as such. If the alt-left came up, I wouldn't try to remove the article just because I didn't agree with their politics. Get off your ideological high horse and stop creating partisan divides on Misplaced Pages. Redflorist (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment Summoned by bot, is this the RfC? Cannot form an opinion on this subject as arguments are not very clearly laid out by either side. Agree with some below that "umbrella term for the designation of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism" , is a) vague to the point of being nearly meaningless, especially the 'alternative to', everything on the planet except Main Con is 'an alternative' to it, what is distintive about this 'alternative' (if the description must be used, it should be clearly a self-description) … b)the sentence is also very 'clunkily' phrased. Please ping if further input wanted. Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose Per User:Redflorist and User:Nizolan. Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  23:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Richard Spencer coined the term. However, "Alternative Right" the website has been closed since 2013, whereas this article relates to an active political movement still rising in prominence, which belies the claim that it's "tied entirely to Spencer's website." And for the reasons given by Nizolan. DrQuinnEskimoWoman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The alt-right has become something completely different than a term on a website, nor is Richard Spencer the leader of the movement. It is classified as a right-wing movement different than mainstream conservatism that is identified by the term 'alt-right', since it is an alternative, not mainstream conservatism. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Except, the reliable sources do not support this idea, and all draw the term back to the website. Several use the term "movement" in scare quotes, and others not that it is just a loose web of far-right and neo-reactionary ideologies. What is notable here is the website, not the term as applied to the "loose movement" of neo-reactionaries. The SPLC source for example specifically defines the term as referring to the website.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This claim that "all" reliable sources source the claim back to Richard Spencer is bizarre and wrong. The usage of the term in reliable secondary sources is probably greater than either the website or Spencer. The SPLC source you mentioned focuses on the website, and not on the movement at all. I strongly agree with Connor Machiavelli's critique above. Denarivs (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

For some reason some editors here disagree with sources being used to support that the alt-right is an alternative right-wing movement. It's in the name itself, folks. Also, we have more than one RS that shows it's an alternative right-wing movement that is not mainstream conservatism, and is not exclusively white nationalist. The reliable sources used show that the alt-right is broader than Richard Spencer even used in this article here, and the list would go on: http://www.weeklystandard.com/what-exactly-is-the-alternative-right/article/2000310 http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/domestic-extremism-terrorism/c/alt-right-a-primer-about-the.html?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/ http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/domestic-extremism-terrorism/c/alt-right-a-primer-about-the.html?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/#.Vtz1bZwrLIU http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-2015-fueled-the-rise-of-the-freewheeling-white-nationali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 03:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What a group tries to call itself is irrelevant, or at least misleading. Do we just accept that World's Best Donuts are in fact, the world's best donuts just because it's in the name itself? Saying that the alt-right is an alternative right wing movement is basically saying nothing at all. As we've already discussed, it's a tautology. If the only thing these sources agree on is that the alt-right is the alt-right, than what, exactly, is 'alternative' even supposed to mean? There can certainly be more than one alternative to something, right? The term's vagueness is unlikely to be an accident, as I'm sure Spencer was fully aware that people would react badly to something that was obviously a euphemism for white nationalist/supremacist/racist or whatever. Examples of usage outside of this context exist, but are very limited from what I've seen. I'm not sure if that's enough to warrant an article. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What a group calls itself is relevant, especially if it's true. If it's a fact that World's Best Donuts does in fact, have the world's best donuts, then we accept that as a fact, because it's been proven. This isn't just their own words. Alternative in the context of right-wing politics means it is not mainstream conservatism. This is the alternative movement to mainstream conservatism, the alt-right is not an ideology or a belief. WP:POV that term is vague, it's very clear what it means, and it does not mean "nationalist/supremacist/racist or whatever." I don't know what you're talking about that the usage is very limited outside of this context, you haven't seen that much then, if that is true. The article should exist. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: The fact that a variety of news sources have reported on them over quite a while of time makes them notable and the fact that "alternative" is in their name doesn't mean that they have to be "alternative" from "regular right-wingers", much like how American "conservatives" aren't actually trying to conserve anything names in politics are absolutely meaningless, and having an (")incorrect(") name doesn't disqualify this article from existing either, the fact is that "the movement" (well the political ideology in this case) exists and is notable enough because plenty of news sources have reported on them both in respect to and independent of Richard B. Spencer. If we merge it now now with Richard B. Spencer's article then we'll have to eventually split it again as it has already been proved notable, how the group calls itself and if that is an accurate description of itself is irrelevant to a neutral point of view as first party sources are discouraged on Misplaced Pages anyhow, and the majority of the secondary and tertiary sources listed in the article give an accurate image of the article and very few even mention Richard B. Spencer so the merger would counter-productive at this point.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused about why you are specifically responding to me. I do not have strong opinions on the merger, and part of my point was that the name "alt-right" should not be taken as literal per Connor Machiavelli's comments about it being "in the name itself, folks". It seems like we generally agree on that point? If you are instead responding to Connor Machiavelli, that user has been blocked for sock-puppetry and other reasons, so it might be better to make your case afresh, rather than build of off old drama. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your intent, though. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopolous' take on what the Alt-right really is

Here is a man who is a part of the Alt-Right, explaining it to outsiders. Please turn this into factual information on the article, as i cannot. This is perhaps the most comprehensive source available to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.64.42 (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither Breitbart.com nor Yiannopolous are particularly reliable for journalism or for opinions, and as has already been explained here, Misplaced Pages favors independent sources over non-neutral insider accounts. It is far beyond any mortal Misplaced Pages editor's power to turn that link into factual information. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a valid primary source for what members of the alt-right think their beliefs are? The article specifically mentions Yiannopolous by name already as an alt-right personality. On a side note, I'm a little surprised Buzzfeed is being used so heavily when it's on the weak end of reliable sources. —Torchiest _edits 03:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As I mention above, Buzzfeed has won many awards for journalism, regardless of its (understandably) poor reputation. While Breitbart may not be quite as awful as Radix Journal, it's still a flimsy source, and an involved one, and should be avoided when possible. We should stick to independent sources for commentary, and reliable sources for opinion. Breitbart is neither. There is no "official" spokesperson for the alt-right, so there's no reason to dip into otherwise unusable sources for this kind of thing. If Yiannopolous' opinions are published or summarized in more reliable outlets, that would be an indication that they are a useful reflection on the larger movement, and we should use those sources as the starting point. There are a massive quantity of questionable or unusable sources stumbling over each other to describe what the alt-right is in flattering terms, so we should stick to independent coverage, here. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

So now we base evidence from sources on "awards" which are essentially meaningless ways of liberals to pat themselves and each other on the back? There is not a single source on this page that speaks from the Alt-right's perspective; not a single one that defends it or explains it's beliefs from anyone in the Alt-right itself. Every single source on this entire page is from a leftist, social justice warrior media outlet who's only goal is to demonize the alt-right for being against their own political agenda. I propose a valid & extremely comprehensive PRIMARY source from a well-known media outlet and self-identified Alt-right writer (yes, Breitbart is a respected news outlet), and your only reason for not including it is "well, Buzzfeed is more respected" as if there is any truth in that (Buzzfeed is no more respectable or un-biased than Breitbart). You claim "There is no 'official' spokesperson for the alt-right", yet you take OPINIONS from outsider, politically biased media organizations which are no more respectable than Breitbart and whose sole intent it is to attack & demonize the Alt-right? You take THAT over a firsthand explanation from someone with vastly more experience in the ideology itself? Your hypocrisy and ridiculous anti-alt-right bias is astounding. Someone like you has no room to be editing this page if you refuse to take a neutral stance and be open minded (even with perspectives you personally don't agree with) in the name of gathering comprehensive and accurate information; or at the very least both sides of a subjective movement without any established leaders or organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.64.42 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2016

This rant conveniently ignores the WP:PRIMARY concerns, which are ultimately more important than someone praising Buzzfeed. clpo13_(talk) 20:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You conveniently missed the point & only chose to pick one piece out of a larger issue which i addressed: The hypocrisy of what sources are accepted by the people editing this page in order to promote their own personal viewpoints, as well as the lack of pro-alt-right sources on a controversial, subjective, and relatively unknown ideology. It's very clear from reading the article that no one who made it seems to have any personal knowledge of the Alt-right, only basing their information on weak, extremely politically biased, and more often than not incorrect sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.64.42 (talk • contribs)

That's because WP:PRIMARY is the issue. You're so focused on the evil liberals that you're not getting that a primary source is not a good source of information on this subject. We need secondary sources. If you find secondary sources that describe alt-right in a favorable manner, then we can talk. But Breitbart won't work because it's too connected to the issue and won't be neutral. clpo13_(talk) 20:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That's the point! Buzzfeed and every other source on here are the political OPPOSITE of Breitbart. How is a source whose political bias & intent is to demonize conservatism and anything politically opposed to them accepted? They are just as "connected" to the issue as Breitbart. You act so naively as to think Buzzfeed has no dog in the show, or other un-biased interests in the Alt-right (which they clearly do). And i'm not bashing "evil" liberals (ironic because Alt-Right ideology is actually very classical liberal/libertarian), i'm simply pointing out the very obvious hypocrisy in the sources accepted if an article from Breitbart isn't seen as valid. Buzzfeed and almost every single source on this page is not "neutral" in any way, shape or form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.73.64.42 (talk • contribs)

Fine, let's just delete the article altogether, since only people who even care to talk about alt-right are those who embrace it and those who demonize it. Since none of those sources are neutral, there can be no article!

I would prefer a more balanced view of alt-right (if only to avoid discussions like this), but, as I said, the only people who write about it either represent the alt-right and write about it favorably (Breitbart) or those who oppose it and criticize it (Buzzfeed). There's no middle ground. If you find a more moderate take on it, feel free to present it. But this is a polarizing issue, so there's likely always going to be biased sources one way or the other. clpo13_(talk) 20:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

172... WP:TRUTH and WP:BIASED might help you understand the issue here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Buzzfeed isn't the best of sources, it might help to compile and perhaps add some other sources. That said, it seems Buzzfeed is one of a few sources used throughout the article. In fact, I don't think it is the sole source for any statement in the article. Anyway, here's what a quick search found:

• "... anti-Semitic white nationalists (a large subset of the “Alt Right”)." - MTV News citing the ADL
• "People who identify with the Alt Right regard mainstream or traditional conservatives as weak and impotent, largely because they do not sufficiently support racism and anti-Semitism. Alt Righters frequently disparage the conservative movement by using the derogatory term “cuckservative,” popularized in 2015. The term “cuckservative,” a com­bi­na­tion of “con­ser­v­a­tive” and “cuck­old,” is used by white supremacists to describe a white Chris­t­ian con­ser­v­a­tive who pro­motes the inter­ests of Jews and non-whites over those of whites. Though not every person who identifies with the Alt Right is a white supremacist, most are and “white identity” is central to people in this milieu. In fact, Alt Righters reject modern conservatism explicitly because they believe that mainstream conservatives are not advocating for the interests of white people as a group." - Anti-Defamation League (has a ton more info on the topic too)
• "Bokhari and Yiannopoulos guide their readers through the various constituencies of the often Trump-supporting “alt-right” movement, those ideological factions whose open embrace of white identity politics... The authors also touch on “The 1488rs,” actual Nazis and white supremacists who, we’re told, do nothing more than tarnish the reputation of the rest of the alt-right. Pay no attention to them, the authors urge." - Tablet Magazine (certainly has a pro-Jewish POV but appears to pass the basics of RS)
• "The relationship between the Trump campaign and the so-called “alternative right” or #altright, which has a strong white nationalist component, is one way in which we can see the effects of this. - Opinion piece on The Guardian

Not sure this is much help, but it's what's recent. I'm sure more will come as the election progresses. Let's keep trying to upgrade our sources as we get better ones. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This recent (April 4) Vox article looks like it may be useful for this: The alt-right encompasses a range of views. It includes among its ranks people who’d traditionally be just called white supremacists or white nationalists, people like Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute (who coined the term "alt-right") or American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor. But it also includes people who reject bigotry, at least in its overt forms, but whose views are still too reactionary for the conservative mainstream. followed by Regardless, racism and sexism are essential elements of the alt-right movement; it could not exist in its current form without them... The article also quotes from Yiannopolous's Breitbart article mentioned above, but it specifically emphasizes that it's full of internal contradictions and says Yiannopoulos's defense of the alt-right is just obviously untrue. which is one (of several) reason I think we should require secondary contextualization. Grayfell (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what is being listed here are not a reliable sources. Breitbart and Yiannopoulos are far more reliable sources than Buzzfeed in this context, and easily worth of inclusion. The various other sources mentioned here appear to parrot Buzzfeed's interpretation, and only appear to use the primary evidence Buzzfeed uses. They repeatedly point to the "National Policy Institute" as the source of alt-right's white-nationalist associations, rightly so since the term was coined by its founder Richard Spencer. But the commandeering of the term by other movements on the right, which Breitbart, Yiannopoulos, and others appear to cover, is ignored, and instead wild labels of "monarchism" and "identitarianism" and "racialism" are thrown in.

This is just an outsider's perspective, but after stumbling upon it and inspecting its citations, this article has a severe NPOV problem.—wing gundam 01:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

So what about all the other sources? Is clickbait so infectious that agreeing with Buzzfeed make them now also unreliable? Even if I accepted that Buzzfeed was not usable, sometimes bad sources produce usable content, and in this case, that's supported. There are so many other, usable sources in general agreement, which suggests that this is one of those cases. Also, Breitbart and Yiannopoulos aren't separate here, Yiannopoulos writes for Breitbart, and Breitbart is the closest thing to a reliable outlet that publishes his writing. Grayfell (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Discrimination

I propose editing the sidebar from Conservatism in the United States to Discrimination. The under-categories in Discrimination seem to fit the Alt-Right page much better, since it includes terms like Segregation, which, to my understanding, is one of the core principles of this movement, one ethnicity for each country. The "Cleanliness of Blood" or Limpieza de Sangre also ties into this, and is also part of the Discrimination sidebar. White supremacism is part of the Discrimination sidebar and is mentioned as part of the Alt-Right's beliefs. This would be the neutral option, I would argue.

The closest topic in the Convervatism in the United States sidebar to the Alt-Right would be Paleoconservatism, but it would be far fetched to argue that Paleoconservatism is anywhere near a White Nationalist or Supremacist movementm, infact they do not seem to be focused on race or ethinicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidstar032 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... The alt-right is called that because it's intended to be an alternative to mainstream conservatism. That's is one of the few points that everybody here seems to generally agree on (maybe). This connections is clearly described in the article, so the conservatism sidebar seems reasonably straightforward. Note the "Part of a series on..." line at the top of the sidebar. The sidebar is for articles in Category:Conservatism in the United States, which this is.

None of the articles listed in the discrimination sidebar are for movements or organizations, (with the exception McCarthyism if we want to be very generous), so this would be setting a precedent. The discrimination sidebar (Template:Discrimination sidebar) is for the article series on discrimination. The sidebar is also limited to articles in Category:Discrimination, which this article is, but buried deep in subcategories like Category:Anti-immigration politics in the United States. That does qualify, but it's taking a long road to get there, so for navigation and convenience purposes it seems overly complicated. Grayfell (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You're both right. It was the wrong side-bar, but Discrimination isn't correct. I've replaced it with one that includes variants of conservatism, including New Right. Now I'll add Alt-right to it. OK? Doug Weller talk 10:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Good call, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The Alt-Right is not one single coherent movement. For some alt-right members, the alternative to mainstream Conservativism is Donald Trump, and other right-wing populists, and for others it is out and out white supremacism and white nationalism. Some are some sort of conservative/post-fascist hybrid others are neo-nazis.

Conservatives in the West have accepted the Enlightenment for a very, very long time, these people do not. This is why I would argue that they have little to do contemporary Conservatism.

I understand that this would be controversial to change and would most likely challenge NPOV, I just feel like a movement/group/whatever that presents itself as an alternative to mainstream Conservatism and has a lot of members that one would not typically call Conservatives, at least in the way it is commonly used, cannot be considered part of the Conservative movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidstar032 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages, the alt-right is a part of the conservative movement exactly as much as reliable sources say it is, no more, no less. Most reliable sources I've seen are clear that this is an alternative to "mainstream" conservatism. I don't see any fundamental contradiction between being in the far-right and being on the fringes of conservatism, nor for being a white supremacist and supporting Donald Trump, although how Trump feels about that is another issue for another article. While it also includes neoreactionaries and others who arguably reject the enlightenment, there again, that is considered by source to be at least partially part of conservatism. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Does labeling people white supremacist and other insults violate BLP?

I am curious about the ethicality of Misplaced Pages calling Donald Trump, Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, and others white supremacists. Doesn't this violate your policy of BLP? 108.46.38.116 (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

For the first and third of the cases you mentioned, given that they don't use the term, and there seem to be secondary sources that dispute the label, the answer appears to be yes, that labelling them violates WP:BLP. Feel free to edit and remove the label.—wing gundam 01:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree: I have yet to hear a "leader" in the alt-right movement make a comment that could be reasonably interpreted as being a white supremacist. — Preceding ] comment added by Papathesmurf (talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

There are already many sources explaining the link between the alt-right and white racism and white supremacy. Nowhere does the article say that Trump, Spencer, and Yiannopoulos are white supremacists, and the article bends over backwards to explain that the alt-right is loosely defined and contains multiple POVs. Furthermore, describing someone as something unflattering isn't always a WP:BLP violation, because in some cases it can be supported by sources and presented in a NPOV way. Misplaced Pages uses reliable sources, instead of self-described leaders. That you find it helpful to put scare quotes around the word "leader" should demonstrate why Misplaced Pages doesn't always include the opinions of leaders. If anyone can claim to be a leader, and anyone can refute that claim, the term is meaningless, so we must rely on independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Seeing all the single-purpose accounts there is either a campaign or sock/meat puppeting going on here. Doug Weller talk 06:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"I have yet to hear a 'leader' in the alt-right movement make a comment that could be reasonably interpreted as being a white supremacist." Are you kidding? Um what. I tried to link to the actual article but the website is blacklisted by Misplaced Pages directly ("Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Misplaced Pages's blacklist"). Ogress 19:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It says edits must be made conservatively and with respect for privacy. You can't be sensationalist, for example by labelling people as white supremacists. BLP even extends to talk pages when it applies.108.46.38.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

None of the individuals listed are named as white supremacists in this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of BuzzFeed articles as they are not encyclopedic per WP:QUESTIONABLE

I propose the removal of articles from highly-controversial clickbaiting company BuzzFeed. This new source is highly unreliable (as found to be by the Pew Research Center) and non-encyclopedic with little to non editorial oversight, that acts more like a glorified blog than a reliable news source. Thank you. Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  15:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The consensus from various discussions at WP:RSN (Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 188#Buzzfeed, Mother Jones for BLP's., Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 189#May Buzzfeed sometimes be an RS? (Article about Chris Epps), Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 179#BuzzFeed) suggests Buzzfeed articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not excluded entirely. clpo13_(talk) 16:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion you linked talks about biographies of living persons. Furthermore, the BuzzFeed article they refer to (and found to be somewhat reliable for the context) was used in a non-controversial claim. I believe that the highly-controversial and extremely-politicized nature of this topic calls for high-quality sources for highly-critical claims (e.g. calling a movement "white supremacist"). This claim made is made by junior level journalist Ms. Rosie Gray. Ms. Gray's academic background is a B.A. degree from NYU in Journalism. The nature of both the topic and claims, in my opinion, call for an academic figure of higher stature. Best regards. Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  16:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's right. Rosie Gray is a well known reporter. I could for instance show you her being interviewed on CNN's Reliable Sources program but it would be a copyvio link, so I won't. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

And we don't have academic sources, yet. I disagree about your characterisation of Rosie Gray. And no one is calling the movement white supremacist, so that's a red herring. The article says it includes such beliefs as white supremacism. Are you really denying that? Doug Weller talk 16:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an authoritative figure to affirm or deny that, and should not matter. The scope of Misplaced Pages as a project is not to include beliefs but established facts. Ms. Rosie Gray is not a social scientist and her opinions on this subject should be taken as that. Her beliefs, should not be in the lead of the article for that matter. By the way, her interview on CNN was on smartphones... Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  18:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw the interview. You don't have to be a social scientist to report on politics. And we say "described". Ah, I missed the bit about established facts. No, that is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages, not at all. Many, perhaps most of our articles include opinions. As an aside, social scientists deal with opinions. And don't get me started about economists - the old joke is put 10 economists in a room and you get 11 opinions. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Then, a brief mention under an opinion sections should suffice. Not one of the leading sentences in the leading paragraph, right? -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  20:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The editor pretending to raise this issue of ethics in game journalis- i mean WIKIPEDIA has a huge polemic on his "about me" page about controlling the narrative on Misplaced Pages, methinks he needs to turn his big microscope on his own work. Ogress 19:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh dang, cultural Marxism gets a mention! Well, that doesn't indicate a major POV. clpo13_(talk) 19:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see you on my user page. Plenty of fodder for other ad hominem should be in there. Have a nice day!-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  20:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Your user page is saying that Misplaced Pages is being manipulated by "Social Justice Warriors" and other groups (or pretend groups) who are repeatedly demonized by those in the alt-right. That directly relates to your behavior here, and labeling that an ad hominem changes nothing. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

My contention is that Ms. Gray's opinions should have a mention in the appropriate opinions section--not the leading paragraph--as she is not an authoritative figure in the topic. Strong claims deserve strong sources (which BuzzFeed is anything but). -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  21:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Saying over and over again that Buzzfeed isn't a reliable source doesn't make it so. The Pew research poll is utterly useless, as n = less than 3,000. Of those, about 60 people trusted it and about 230 people distrusted it, which is not all that meaningful. Beside, it's a measure of popular opinion, not an academic assessment of journalistic integrity. Might as well count how many downvotes they get on reddit. If you want to actually make a case here, you're going to have to do a lot better. As I said before, Buzzfeed and its reporters have won numerous journalism awards, including a Peabody Award shared with WNYC, NPF awards, a Livingston Award, etc. You may not think they are real journalists, but their colleagues disagree. The source needs to be assessed on its own merits and not thrown away just because it's unpopular with the people it's covering. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Off the topic but there nothing wrong with the sample size... Even a cult hundred is fine. Small N just increases standard error. Sampling method matters more. But frankly the pew poll isn't an issue here. Lack of knowledge of a source doesn't make it unreliable. This matter belongs on RSN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but with numbers this small it hardly matters. 2% trust it, but only 8% distrust it. I don't think there's anything wrong with the survey, but it's way over-reaching to use it to claim that Buzzfeed is fundamentally unreliable, or even that most people view it as unreliable, since 90% don't seem to have a strong opinion at all. Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

haha buzzfeed as a reliable source wow wikipedia is utter garbage 108.46.38.116 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"I'm not saying you beat your wife, I'm saying your actions may include beating your wife." 0/10 108.46.38.116 (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• This particular question has been brought up at RSN and resulted in a consensus that it was reliable. Ms. Grey's decision to publish through Buzzfeed doesn't retroactively render her work unreliable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think the source from Buzzfeed is overly used throughout the article. Buzzfeed is not the best objective sources when it comes to things not pleasing their narrative, if better and more objective sources can be found maybe the current tone can be rendered more neutral. Ralphw (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart News Network offers a counter to it, and it's as slanted to the right as BuzzFeed is to the left. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  17:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Something comes to mind, will it be possible to take info from both and try to portray it objectively? Ralphw (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That seems like it could be false balance. Giving equal weight to two sides assumes there are only two sides, and giving validity to a fringe source just because it's on one side of a spectrum doesn't solve the underlying problem. WP:BIASed sources aren't necessarily unreliable sources, and inserting a bad source to "compensate" for a weak source is not a solution. Grayfell (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian Tuttle was misrepresented, hence my revert

How in the world did a statement that he clearly said was the view of Bokhari and Yiannopoulos get claimed to be by him? "The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and anti-Semitic online presence. But for Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, the Alt-Right consists of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring intellectuals — and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, but there are only a few of them, and nobody likes them anyways. In other words, anyone familiar with Yiannopoulos’s theatrics, or Breitbart’s self-appointment as Donald Trump’s Pravda, will not be surprised to learn that the article is a 5,000-word whitewash. But it is valuable, in this way: It exhibits, albeit inadvertently, the moral and intellectual rot at the heart of the Alt-Right." And "And it’s worth noting that the favorite slur the Alt-Right flings at conservatives they dislike is at bottom about miscegenation" and "There is, then, contra Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, continuity on the Alt-Right, from the more interesting thinkers to the “1488ers.”" (neo-Nazis). Any objection to adding a quote from him that reflects what he actually thinks? Doug Weller talk 18:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And it's been added again, despite it not being what the article says. This is now becoming a BLP violation, attributing ideas to Tuttle when he really thinks that ""The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and anti-Semitic online presence. " - which is what the article should say. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If you feel inclined to write that, please do so, but don't merely erase the quote altogether. As it is, this article is left-leaning garbage from BuzzFeed anyways, so deleting quotable looks horrible coming from a sysop.-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  18:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I deleted what I and another Administrator considered to be misrepresentation of the source. In this case you took a quote out of context making it look as though Tuttle or the National Review had a certain opinion when in fact the article itself was saying something quite different. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it. I haven't reverted, just put the bit quoted in the full context so it's clear that Tuttle thinks and who thinks that it's fun-loving etc. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That Bokhari and Yiannopoulos essay, incidentally, was infamously immediately rebutted by the highly-influential Daily Stormer. (I wish to God those four words don't go together, but they do). Ogress 18:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow... Bokhari and Yiannopoulos just can't win. They're not intellectual, knowledgeable and honest enough for mainstream conservatives, and nowhere near racist enough for the (self-proclaimed) alt-right. On a side note, thank you for posting that link; I literally laughed my way through it. From the headline, to "Why didn't talk about the jews?", to the breathless declaration that the "lulz are a weapon in the race war," it was an absolute riot, from start to finish. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Unassessed sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• Unassessed Linguistics articles
• Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles
• Unassessed culture articles
• Unknown-importance culture articles
• WikiProject Culture articles