Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:29, 27 January 2017

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

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Linguistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

Archives

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

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

what is this???

How can a term coined by someone in 2010 have its roots on 4chan and 8chan around the time of the Trump campaign? This is contradictory and makes no sense.

The whole article is contradictory and makes little sense, it tries to link a very amorphous political current to very specific ideas.

Also: ctrl+f "nazi" gives 24 results. That much linking of a political current to nazism doesn't seem serious at all.

This whole article needs to be thoroughly revised or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.133.14.185 (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The term was coined, and then became more popular later, which is pretty straightforward. Yes, it's hard to pin-down, that doesn't mean we should ignore sources which try to describe it using specific terms and concepts, even if they are unflattering or even offensive. Do you have any actionable suggestions on how to improve the article? Grayfell (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. "alt-right" is a made up term to make white nationalists-white supremacists seem as not so "out there". The term alt-right should not have its own article and just link to the white nationalism article BronzeCheetah44 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)BronzeCheetah44

I hope someone will enact BronzeCheetah44's suggestion. Earthscent (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@BronzeCheetah44: Feel free to nominate the article for deletion or for merging, though I would oppose such efforts per WP:NOTCENSORED. _Gravity 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying censor it, I am saying it should just link to the white nationalism article, there could be a section there explaining how the "alt-right" term was coined BronzeCheetah44 (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)BronzeCheetah44

What if the sources we are using that try to describe this term are not politically neutral? By using these sources and their characterizations, aren't we promulgating a particular point of view? Redirecting this article to the white nationalism article. Alternatively, if this term is associated with an individual, we could redirect it there. If it's associated (in a neutral way) with several individuals then I can see providing a brief description of that association along with links to their articles. Rklawton (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there really any doubt that this is a notable topic? If so, the article can be nominated for deletion I suppose. If there is a problem with a particular source having a documented bias, we should try to find a more neutral one. Of course no one will agree about what constitutes a neutral source, so the best we can do is use a variety of known reliable sources, and represent as many prominent view points as are available.- MrX 23:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have doubt that this article is somehow distinguishable from white nationalism. Rklawton (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article is about a specific white nationalist movement, not about white nationalism in general. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

From what reading I have done, the term "alt-right" encompasses a broad variety of white nationalistic movements. It is not a movement in and of itself BronzeCheetah44 (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)BronzeCheetah44

This is a notable topic and there are plenty of RS to support a stand alone article. I would oppose a merge/redirect/delete. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Query

How does one use Breitbart to convey their message in the way they would use Twitter ( a social network )? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A06:2E01:B30E:1013:0:0:0:1008 (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

How "loose" can a group be, before one can conclude there is no "group" but only a label used for political reasons?

The current version of this article starts with: "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States." What follows are many claims which start like "alt-right beliefs have been described as" or "The concept has further been associated with", where the provided sources are left-wing websites.

Reading the article critically, the purpose seems to be to, on the one hand, link "alt-right" with racists who use this term to whitewash their racist beliefs while, on the other hand, link the term to Trump and his supporters, thereby linking racism with Trump. In other words, racists and Trump's supporters are all "grouped" into the "alt-right movement", which apparently is justified given that this is a "loose" group of people...

The only sensible claim in the article, is that "alt-right" is quite clearly a label used for political motives. However, the article now only mentions the political motvies of racists who use this term (whitewash their racist views); to be complete and objective, the article should also mention the left-wing motives for using the term (group people together to damage (the reputation of) some of them).

CtrlAltDel(enSnel) (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says the left is using this term to further their political agenda, then sure, we should include that information. We can't simply add this idea based on our own conclusions. wp:or and/or wp:synth Rklawton (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Alt-Right has been associated with men's rights advocates?

In the intro it says "The concept has further been associated with multiple groups from American nationalists, neo-monarchists, men's rights advocates, and the 2016 campaign of Donald Trump."

Is associating men's rights advocates with this really necessary? I mean the only source for this claim from the linked sources is an opinion piece from the Boston Globe. And here's the comment: "it’s a wide-open virtual state fair for white nationalists/nihilists, misogynist “men’s rights” dweebs."

You might as well replace "men's rights advocates" with "misogynist men’s rights dweebs" as it says above. At this point I would say only one person has "further associated this concept with men's rights advocates", but this Misplaced Pages page will give people enough cause to cite this over and over again until it becomes "true".

--93.146.44.129 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

, , , , etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Damn! Guess I'm late by a month or so. Oh well, at least link one of these instead, they at least have the decency to use the whole phrase "men's rights advocates" instead of "misogynist men’s rights dweebs". 93.146.44.129 (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we remove this part of the article entirely? Im not an MRA fan...but there is no credible source linking MRA and the Alt-Right. The person above is correct about the Boston Globe article...and that is hardly a source. Until proper evidence is found linking Alt-Right policies and MRA policies, this part of the article has no place. It just feels like I am reading someone's opinion when I make it to this part of the article. (I actually learned more about the Alt-Right by reading the talk page than I did reading the article itself. lol)

Volunteer Marek provided 4 decent sources. That you disagree with it is not grounds for its removal. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2017

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

Change: White supremacist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism. To: White nationalist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism.

Since he doesn't not fall in to the White supremacy definition, as stated on wikipedias definition: white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people. Rather he falls in the white nationalist definitionHe advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture.

As according to his own page: Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white nationalist Ztaqev2 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you- MrX 14:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Poorly written...full of opinion.

What is the deal with this article? This is very poorly written, and the sources are a joke. This entire article needs to be reviewed, possibly even deleted. It has some valid points, but also a lot of very broad assumptions, and seems to be more about linking this movement to racism, and then linking the "movement" to Donald Trump. Is this a Misplaced Pages article? Or is this an opinion piece for The Onion?? Let's get some credible sources in here...and leave our feels at the door when writing articles for what is supposed to be an "online encyclopedia".

Anyone out there with a little journalistic flair that can maybe turn this article around..or at least find reliable sources other than left-wing media sites?? Newpapers...actual interviews...anything??FacePunchYou (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"left-wing media sites"... I think therein lies your problem with the article. Please see WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If the alt-right's support of Trump is mentioned in the lead of the article, so should the fact that he has disavowed them. EvergreenFir should take a look at WP:NPOV, which apparently supersedes WP:RS as well as WP:RS. 73.248.58.65 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are aware of a reliable source that contains info about Trump's disavowal of the alt-right, you should add it yourself. This encyclopedia doesn't run on random IP addresses complaining on talk pages - it runs on users volunteering their time and effort in editing pages to improve them. Rockypedia (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe Trump ever disavowed the alt-right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right, meet Draft:Alt-left

199.119.232.214 (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the term "alt-left" is occasionally used by reliable sources. It's sometimes a tongue-in-cheek counterpoint to "alt-right", or just a bratty attempt at mockery along the lines of "no u", but also some more substantial uses. I'm not sure if it's notable enough as a discrete concept to warrant an article or not. Either way, there are so many major problems with that draft it's hard to know where to start. The massive amount of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, the use of Facebook posts as sources, the editorializing... If an article can be made out of this, WP:TNT would be a good foundation. I think a subsection of regressive left (where alt-left currently redirects) might be a better starting point, also, since there's clearly a connection between the two concepts. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

As the notice on the article says, it is not written in a way consistent with content policies. An article about the subject should state that it is a neologism originating on WND and CNS and now used by some Republicans as a response to criticisms of the alt-right. As an epithet, rather than a description of an existing ideology, it is poorly defined and supposedly includes both Wall Street Bankers and Occupy Wall Street activists, supposedly all taking their marching orders from George Soros and the New World Order. However first you need to show that the term has been covered extensively in actual news stories or academic papers. So for now, I would say ctl-alt-delete. TFD (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Too many citations in lead section

I understand the need for citations for the highly contentious subject matter in the first paragraph of the lead section, but it's really quite distracting. I prefer not to edit this article, but can I make a suggestion here? Either (a) collapse all sources for a given sentence into a single footnote (I personally don't like this style), or (b) copy this content into the body and move the citations along with it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to collapsing, or even reducing anything more than three sources for each chunk of content. I am opposed to simply blindly trimming citations, especially good sources like the SPLC, The Nation, and The Week while leaving inferior sources like Taki's Magazine and Salon.- MrX 01:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the SPLC is a reliable source for determinations of political ideology. They're the leading authority on identifying hate groups, not on deciding who falls where on the ideological spectrum. But that's really an aside for the purposes of this discussion. My main concern here is clutter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly favor a version of option (a), collapsing all sources for a given assertion, clause, or term, as doing so better reflects standard academic practice, providing clear and relatively pleasing support for individual assertions. I think some of the references can be further broken up and associated with their corresponding individual claims, clauses, and terms. I do think the material is important enough for the lead, though somehow reflecting the material in the rest of the article, as I understand these matters, would eliminate the need for citations in the lead. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Alt-Right, Breitbart and Israel?

From Alt-right:

"White nationalist Richard Spencer coined the term and spoken critically of the Jewish people."

From Breitbart:

"Andrew Breitbart during a visit to Israel in summer 2007, with the aim of founding a site "that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel","

What gives? Are the alt-right pro- or anti-Jews? MidAtlanticRidgeback (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's possible to be both "for" and against Israel. Some fundamentalist groups support Israel in hopes of triggering the Armageddon - an event that believe will result in the destruction of the Jewish people. Rklawton (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

And there are groups like J Street that support Israel while criticizing some of its policies. Just like there are some people who express their patriotism by criticizing their own countries. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral point of view

This article clearly asserts a non-neutral point of view. Even though I agree with the facts that are in this article, there is alot of opinions for liberal focusing media outlets that are used like facts. Misplaced Pages is not the place assert your views on the topic but to include all points of view. That includes the assertions by the movement itself in a neutral way and other views from conservative outlets. ++ 02:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you give some specific examples? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Literally the whole header of the article is so heavy handed and backed only by liberal news outlets. These should be included as a liberal point of view, but the way it comes across is that whoever wrote it really wanted to persuade their views influenced by liberal-leaning media outlets about "alt-right". I mean really, each sentence has like 6 or so sources from tons of different liberal news outlets? It's very intense and doesn't give me confidence in a well-rounded view of the subject. I think from here on out we need to write about where the sources came from. Not to say that those aren't legitimate views, but they're handed out way to assertively and give no room for conflicting views. The article includes next to no views from people in the alt-right (which actually includes lots of non-racist, African-American, as well as LGBT people), as well as no views from conservative Republicans, libertarians, and impartial liberal Democrats. Through studying, I've learned that there's many "alt-right" identified people who would never consider themselves racist, but they identify with valuing the "alt right's" freedom of speech. Obviously Richard Spencer views his own definition of "alt right" (which he coined) as a white identity movement, but there's other people who identify with it completely in contrast with that. This article needs to include - in the text - where the sources come from so that readers can make their opinions for themselves as well as all views on the subject. ++ 04:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• Start-Class American politics articles
• Mid-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Start-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• Start-Class Linguistics articles
• Low-importance Linguistics articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles
• Start-Class culture articles
• Low-importance culture articles
• WikiProject Culture articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Low-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics