Talk:Alt-right/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

"Alt-right" Don't Exist

WP:DFTT. Sources clearly support article subject. Go to AfD is you think this doesn't exist and should be removed. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is ridiculous, there is no such a thing as "alt-right" ideology and "alt-right" personalities. And all the things and people shown here as examples don't claim to be it. Nonsense article made by clueless amateurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.35.81 (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC) No, it's based on a slew of reliable sources, mostly news stories. That's all we require. If you have a problem with that, then write to the editors who fact-checked and ran those stories. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC) That is just pushing the blame into somebody else, and these blogs don't carry any factual proof of anything but said theories shown in the article. There is no alt-right organization nor anything official. The whole article is just a gross generalization of several people who don't even acknowledge it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.35.81 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Says who? Why should we take your word over that of an army of journalists and newsroom editors? If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies and bedrock principles, you can start your own wiki. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Because I'm talking the objective truth. A million incompetent writers isn't a excuse to legitimize and actually help a racist movement into existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.96.93.223 (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC) You need to understand the purpose of Wikipedia. We document true things, and we also document false things as long as they are believed to be true by 99.9999% of humanity. Unlike you, we have no way to distinguish these two categories, so we have to document them both together. Wheat and tares, if you like. — Lawrence King (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Conservative and far right not consistent

The article appears to conflate conservative and far right. These are not the same, and in fact are diametrically opposed. Far right wing is a form of radicalism, not conservatism.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't, in fact it clearly distinguishes the two. TFD (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2017

Cite #26 simply is an indirect wrapper for #27 and should be omitted. 71.197.104.149 (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. 26 currently is Flegenheimer, Matt (August 25, 2016). "Hillary Clinton Says 'Radical Fringe' Is Taking Over G.O.P. Under Donald Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved September 17, 2016.. 27 currently is Posner, Sarah (August 22, 2016). "How Donald Trump's New Campaign Chief Created an Online Haven for White Nationalists". Mother Jones. Retrieved November 13, 2016.. I might be missing something here, but I don't see the "wrap". — Sam Sailor 00:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The Alt-Right's disdain for the United States Constitution

Can we add a section to this article with regard to how people in the Alt Right really couldn't care any less about the Constitution than progressives? The journal "Counter Currents" states that "The Solution is State Power"[1], impugning such ideas as "constitutionalism" and "individual freedom". Radix agrees with conservatives, in "Power is Power" that no deference was given to the "holy constitution" by the Obama administration, but that that power for "White interests first" should be pursued instead.[2] Radix makes the point that because Holder embraced power, and not the Consitution, he deserves respect. Radix even goes further, stating that readers of the Constitution are engaging in "paper worshipping".[3] Another journal, Occidental Dissident, in an article which talks down to the "Constitutional Cargo Cult"[4], says that when those on the Alt Right are "guilty as charged" in their "Constitution skepticism". Lastly, the journal "Right Stuff" has a mocking meme "At least I still have the Constitution", and is essentially a long dissertation about how the Constitution is outdated and "deified" by those who are constitution worshippers.[5]

Signed, a believer in the "holy Constitution". 97.76.210.20 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

When you begin your comments by saying that progressives couldn't care less about the constitution, you lose credibility as a neutral editor. TFD (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and also, none of those linked sources are reliable. Combining unreliable examples to imply something about the alt-right in general would be WP:SYNTH. There might be something to this, but this isn't the way to demonstrate it. Reliable sources need to spell it out. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the sources I linked to are reliable. The Alt Right is a reliable source about the Alt Right, just as Marxists are a reliable source for Marxism or Anarchists are a reliable source for Anarchism. How many times do the Marxism or Anarchism pages reference Marx, Lenin, etc; and the Anarchist pages reference Kropotkin and etc? Besides, let's just keep it within the Alt Right. Look at the main page. The Right Stuff has already been accepted as an Alt Right source, so why can't I use it then? Other Alt Right journals, such as Taki's, have also been accepted around here. And Richard Spencer is admittedly the father of the Alt Right. So how then is it somehow that his journal, Radix, is somehow unreliable. If Richard Spencer is the man of the Alt Right that everybody knows him to be, then there is no more reliable source on the planet about the Alt Right than Radix/Spencer, just as there is no more reliable source about Marxism than Marx himself. Just look at the references already used existing within this article. Breitbart is there and used and accepted as a reliable source, UNZ is there and used and accepted as a reliable source, The Daily Stormer is there and used and accepted as a reliable source; You don't have an argument with regard to reliable sources, otherwise we'd be deleting whole parts of many of these articles. These are mainstream, accepted, Alt Right sources. At the bare minimum, Radix is much more reliable than The Daily Stormer for crying out loud. And the rest of the sources I used are simply in agreement. At the end of the day, here's the most important point: There's no smearing going on here, there's no inaccuracy, I'm simply pointing out something that these people are quite proud of. They want people to know that's how they think, why else would so many of them put it out there? I do appreciate you stating that there is merit to the topic, because there is a here here. 97.76.210.20 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't use Marx as a source for articles on Marxism, but writings by experts who of course will from time to time quote Marx. There's a lot of disagreement over what Marx meant, his views actually changed significantly over his life and you would need to understand the social, political an economic environment of his times as well as knowledge of the various writers (such as Hegel) that he discusses. While alt-right literature is not on the same intellectuals plane as Marx, we would need an awareness of racial right-wing politics in the U.S. Furthermore no one person speaks for the alt-right and its members have different views on major issues. TFD (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I counted 8 times that Marx, Castro, Lenin, and Friedrich Engels are directly cited in the Marxism article.(Out of 57 total citations) Yes, you do and have used Marx as a source for the article on Marxism. I counted at least 6 times that Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, and Bookchin are cited in the Anarchism article. Godwin is also cited. But that's ultimately beside the point. These sources I referenced are in fact reliable sources, particularly in the context of Alt Right. This is something that these authors, many of these authors, many different authors and sources, are very proud of, all having the same view with only slight variations. The other contributor(Grayfell) said there may be something to this. Did you read the sources? Do you agree that there may be something to this?

And as to WP:SYNTH, this is not SYNTH. All five of my sources do directly state what I am stating. I have not synthesized anything that is not defacto written, it is not my new novel idea. 97.76.210.20 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Connections with GamerGate

The Gamergate controversy article mentions "Some in the gamergate movement went on to be part of the alt-right", with a citation to Business Insider, and "Gamergate has since become a notable cultural component of the so-called alt-right in the 2016 American presidential election" with several citations. Should this connection be expanded in the Alt-right article? Arided (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Paul Gottfried, not Richard Spencer

The term was coined in 2008 by Paul Gottfried — Richard Spencer merely created the website in 2010. Source: http://forward.com/news/national/348372/meet-the-jewish-paleoconservative-who-coined-the-term-alternative-right/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmaster69 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe Spencer coined the term "alt-right," whereas Gottfried first used the term "alternative right." Gottfried is already mentioned in the article for this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017

White supremacist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused of doing so to whitewash overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.[1][2][3][4][5] Spencer has repeatedly quoted from Nazi propaganda and spoken critically of the Jewish people,[5][6] although he has denied being a neo-Nazi. Alt-right beliefs have been described as white supremacist,[7][8][9]

DUMB. Alt-Right is much more than Richard Spencer. In fact he isn't even a big deal. Yet you have half of the first paragraph about him.

WTF?

SMDH 77.44.96.180 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Active arbitration remedies

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

Spencer in lead section

Reply to question tag:

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

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

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

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

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

Hyperallergic

I have never heard of this website before. Should this even be used for the article? Just seems to be used as an opinion in its respected section. [6]. GamerPro64 03:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I've seen it pretty frequently in arts circles, and Hyperallergic does, apparently, have a positive reputation. The quote does seem a bit excessive, but the Pizzagate/Gamergate comparison isn't, by itself, difficult to source (CNN etc.). Grayfell (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I know Hyperallergic quite well. It is a respected site in the contemporary arts community with a reputation for fact-checking, editorial control, expert contributors, etc. It may look a bit like a blog sometimes, but it is excellent as a resource for arts-related articles. In this specific instance, I think the source is used correctly for saying that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory has drawn comparisons with the Gamergate controversy because Blair Murphy did indeed write that "a more useful comparison might be Gamergate". Mduvekot (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Self-designation

I have issue with the fact that individuals who do not identify as alt-right are categorized as alt-right due to certain media outlets categorizing them as such. Notable individuals like Mike Cernovich, Lauren Southern, Alex Jones, and Paul Joseph Watson who do not identify as alt-right.

There is a distinction to be made chronologically, as well. Immediately after Hillary's "alt-right" speech, there was an "I am Spartacus" moment where many conservatives felt that Hillary was trying to marginalize the populist Right. This is where Southern's tweet reference comes from, for example. However, when Spencer gave his "Hail Trump" speech in December 2016 (complete with Roman salutes), many of these aforementioned "Sparticans" quickly disassociated themselves from the alt-right, either branding themselves as "New Right" or "alt-light". Frankly, the core ideology of the alt-right is white ethnonationalism, and many of these individuals who are categorized as 'alt-right' do not support that ideology. Alt-righters most definitely refer to themselves as such, and a clear distinction should be made in the article for those who are externally categorized as alt-right, rather than by self-identification. — Confession0791 ^talk 06:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"Roman salutes". PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This article certainly doesn't seem to define the political stance of 2 of the people you mentioned, Paul Joseph Watson and Mike cernovich, I don't know enough about the others to comment. Actually shocked at the info of this article, not sure how neutral it is. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

YouTubers

I don't think opinion pieces qualify as sufficient "evidence" that PewDiePie is alt-right. He has consistently denounced the movement. Perhaps consider removing him (and possible others) from the list? Tannlos (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this is ridiculous. Since when are sensational opinion pieces proof of someones political affiliation? The "sources" provided take some jokes out of context to vilify Felix for who knows what reason - more clicks, perhaps? Anyone who actually watches Felix' videos knows he's not "Alt-right" and actually denounces the movement. JaroV (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree plus sources

Agree, Felix Kjellburg is not alt-right, in fact I have looked through all of the 'sources' that were referenced next to his name and they do not even come close to providing evidence:

Reference 121:

Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg, whose "Pewdiepie" YouTube channel featuring Nazi-themed jokes has 54 million subscribers. (Last month Kjellberg apologized for the jokes and said he is not a Nazi.)

A poor taste joke, that they apologised for, does not make someone an alt-right figure.

Reference 122/123: This reference is cited next to Felix's name but has nothing to do with him.

Reference 124: This reference lumps PewDiePie in with JonTron and speaks about what was mentioned in Reference 121. It does not provide any evidence that PewDiePie is an alt-right figure or holds any alt-right views.

Finally, since two of these references speak about a certain event, here is PewDiePie's apology that was written about these jokes before the news wrote about it

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

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

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

Hi, Please remove Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg's name from the Notable individuals section, as he clearly stated that he doesn't support alt-right groups or alt-right ideologies. Here is a link to one of his statements : http://pewdie.tumblr.com/post/157160889655/just-to-clear-some-things-up

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

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Would this be a reliable source? http://uk.businessinsider.com/youtube-stars-rally-behind-pewdiepie-anti-semitism-row-wsj-2017-2 (P.S: I somewhat surprised to see that a figure that makes, at best, makes occasional jokes for them but has refused to support them is included when figures like Steve Bannon, Donald Trump and Robert Fisher didn't make the list.) Liberivore (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Questionable Sources

There are many source issues on this article. Mother Jones, Gizmodo, Kotaku, to name a few WP:QUESTIONABLE. Source 132 is also broken a few names were removed from the list and this fixed the issue. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/silicon-valley-tech-alt-right-racism-misogyny this article is used to cite Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg as being Alt-Right but the article's opinion can not be verified WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Likewise I have qualms about the reliability WP:RS of the twitter post sourced for Tomi Lahren. She's obviously saying they she's accused of of being Alt-Right, not that she is. EDITED DUE TO NEW INFORMATION. Some of my points are mute after the lastest edit, but since there seems to be some Edit Warring going on in this article I'll leave all this up incase it reverts again.HessmixD (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

False accusations - again

PJW and Molyneux are not alt-right. The sources linked provide zero proof that they are. Neither have come out saying they are alt-right, so this article is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.249.38 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I've never heard either identify as such either. However PJW is associated with the crackpots on infowars, so not sure how you would define them. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

False accusation of Alt-Right Members

Hello I would like you to remove these individuals from the 'notable alt-right members': Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg Jonathan Jafari Samuel Hyde

None of these individuals are alt-right members. The fact these individuals were added to the list counts as defamation, and it is disgusting behaviour that they are still on this list.

Here is some evidence that they aren't alt-right members: https://twitter.com/pewdiepie/status/857186633044701184 TheCasualJJ (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey man, I agree with you, I've made a section for it just above yours - but that's not evidence. It might even delegitimise your case. Tannlos (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that for all people mentioned in the list clear and unequivocal "membership" must be documented by reliable sources for them to be included (see WP:BLP). The one example I focused on (PewDiePie) had at least two sources failing this completely, that is, they did not claim PDP is part of the AltRight. This is in clear breach of WP:BLP since "AltRight membership" is contentious to say the least. I am tempted to request full protection of this page (and a report to WP:BLP/N) since the edit-war seems to be continued. Please knock it off and discuss the issue here. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:XCON should be enough based on those making the edits. — IVORK _Discuss 11:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

We cannot state that individuals are part of the movement without impeccable sourcing. That mean multiple reliable sources (or verifiable self identification).. An example that fails this is Curtis Yarvin sourced to The Verge. This list need to be severely culled. Wikipedia is not a platform for gratuitous shaming.- MrX 12:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC) .

At this moment I would recommend either removing Peter Brimelow and Kevin MacDonald from list or expanding their sources. Currently, the only single source for their alt-rightness is a photograph caption refering to them as "alt-right supporters". Andrew Anglin on the other hand is a self-declared Neo-nazi rather than alt-right, so I don't think he belongs on the list. And as mentioned, declaring Curtis Yarvin as alt-right based solely on the current source is dubious at best.Jariola (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to start removing entries from the list. If anyone objects, they can explain their reasoning here.- MrX 21:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed a few of these, including Roosh V based on this [7].- MrX 22:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think Roosh V's denouncement of alt-right was believeable, as he has since defended alt-right despite them having a "blind spot" with their "obsession with race", as per [8]. Jariola (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

My reading is that he shares some of their ideas, and this stood out: "Their need for sexual control went against the interests of myself and my readers of all races, since it’s not dissimilar to feminism, so I announced a formal split with them in February, even though I was never formally in the alt right." If we are going to list him as a member of the alt-right in Wikipedia's voice, I think we need at least a few strong sources that say that. New York Magazine is insufficient by itself.- MrX 23:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

MRA link?

what exactly is the link given there? It seems like someone is just using this article to lump "everything I dont like" together. It's unencyclopedic and damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. Noone wants another Ryulong. Also, does anyone have information on the size of this movement?

I came to this page for information, and frankly, it's a very poor effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.184.124 (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Can we remove the 'notable individuals' section?

There was a time when the article Chain Smokking had a burgeoning list of people who chain smoked, and it was removed because in essence it's just trivia being tacked on. I simply don't think that a 'notable individuals' section is really necessary. It is not possible to precisely qualify who and who isn't alt-right, even with the (pretty contentious) criteria given in the section. Evidently this section has caused quite a bit of, what I think is needless, kerfuffle on this talk page. Derick1259 (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe so. The individuals' articles have more room to explain any link, and also explain when the link was made. Listing people who fully embrace the label, like Spencer, with the same weight as people who formerly embraced it and then backed off, like Cernovich, seems like a big problem. John Derbyshire's article doesn't even mention the alt-right at all, which is a bad sign. These sources are messy as well, with some redundant, trivial, and questionable sources being mixed in with more reliable stuff. That's not, by itself, a reason to remove the section, but it's a bad sign. Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There are bad signs showing in this section indeed, and the problem is I don't think a lot can be done to clean up this section from the issues you point out. Derick1259 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think that the driving members of a political movement are more important than who has chain-smoked - to the extent that they define the alt-right, it's important to cover them. However, more caution could be used when mentioning people to make sure they're really important to understanding the alt-right rather than just being people who had the label attached to them at one point or another; and I would tend to prefer putting a description of those key individuals in prose rather than a list, which would also allow us to provide a bit of context for each (and would discourage people from just drive-by dropping random people who aren't as important into it.) The important criteria for inclusion should be whether or not they are useful to understanding the alt-right (that is, do we have lots of high-quality sources that focus on these people as the iconic representation of the alt-right.) For people who do, we could include them even if they later denounced or discarded the label, provided we're careful to mention that - again, another advantage to covering them in prose rather than as a list is that we can provide that context for eg. people who haven't consistently considered themselves a part of it but who are regularly covered as iconic parts of it in reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This is why I propose that a clear distinction be made in the article between those that self-identify as alt-right, and those who are described as alt-right by others. This term is comparable to "Nazi" in many people's minds, so this is a serious BLP issue. — Confession0791 ^talk 00:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed the trouble with having a section that declares someone as 'alt-right', there is little room for any caveats or ambiguity for individuals. Derick1259 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that, for the most part, alt-right is something one is called rather than something one calls oneself—much like essentialist and social constructionist in the history of sexuality debate, to the extent there still is one. (Was that reference too obscure?) So I don't see self-identification as a useful criterion in that its absence doesn't really tell us anything about reality. With regard to my limited understanding of the matter, it seems designation by reliable sources is the key consideration. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Indeed. Those who discover they are unfairly on this list are prone to spin up drama, perhaps accompanies by an influx of edits and vandalisation. Derick1259 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be removed. The membership is not clearly defined and list provides no value. If someone is important to the alt-right, then they should be mentioned in the article, making the list superfluous. TFD (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I concur with this. Anyone who is really that notable to be mentioned in this this article would be mentioned inline with the prose sections. Derick1259 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

IQ chart in beliefs section

Approximate observed WAIS-IV IQ scores and distributions for US racial and ethnic groups. The belief that large-scale immigration negatively effects the overall intelligence of western nations is a belief held by sections of the alt-right.

Seems like the blatant insertion of the chart simply to spread the idea rather than make a claim about alt-right beliefs. Does no one else agree?--Wimdow2011 (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wimdow2011: Well, I won't speculate on the intent behind adding it, but it was added a little over 24 hours ago by PerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs) (diff). I didn't investigate the sourcing claimed on the image page, or accuracy of the data in it, so I have no idea how neutral the data itself is. On the other hand, it did not seem to obviously tie into or support the adjacent text, at least not clearly. On the basis that the illustrations should have some reasonable relationship to the adjacent text, I've reverted it. I have added a smaller size of it to this talk section, so that we can easily see what we are discussing. Murph9000 (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the chart seemed rather gratuitously inflammatory. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Not that it belongs here at all, but I see the source data here, just a table of averages and SD p.118, original uploader has image here Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_87#Variance_table. And it was rejected there. Myself, I'd be more interested in showing actual distributions of male and female IQ, and we'd see there are more male idiots than female, and we might guess where some of the (mostly-male) alt-righters fit on the distribution. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Creator of the edit here. The purpose of the image was to show the belief among members of the alt-right that non-Western immigration is harmful. Perhaps someone can add that the causes are disputed? PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that we don't have any reliable sources showing that it it related. I know that people like Spencer and Enoch do talk about the bell curve often, but without other people commenting on it we really can't put that in. If you could find, for example, newspaper or online news articles discussing how it was an important part of alt-right philosophy, that would be a different story. Even if you have something from Radix or altright.com written by Spencer, that might be allowable as the self-published opinion of an important person to the topic (no guarantees, though). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The graph is based on a table in an academic book.[9] Lots of reasons to exclude it. One of them is that we do not know what the distribution is. It is doubtful that 5% of blacks have IQs below 55 and none have IQs above 135. TFD (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Excessive references

This article seems to contain a large amount of citation overkill. For instance, to support Commonalities among the loosely-defined alt-right include a disdain for mainstream politics as well as support for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign there were nothing less than seven refs, including one from "SocialistWorker.org" mixed in with The Washington Post and The LA Times. I have addressed some of the issues, but the article may still be problematic and I don't have the time to read all the references to see what can and cannot be removed. I invite other editors to help with the clean up. PS: I'm not watching the page, please ping me for my attention. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Without commenting on the reliability of the removed sources, that does look a bit better. If any of these points become contested again, bundling multiple citations into a single ref tag might be worth considering. Grayfell (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Websites and the Use of Memes

Generalizing 4chan or any other websites as alt-right is not correct as the user base is extreamly varied. Also, the majority of memes atributed to white supremacy are simply examples of black humor. Some may have been ulterioly adopted by the Alt-Right but the matter should be studied more from the perspective of non left outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rational Guy (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The article does not make that generalization. The article doesn't say that 4chan is alt-right, it says that the alt-right came from 4chan. As for "black humor" if you have any reliable sources on that, let's see them. The article explains that it's difficult to determine how sincere these memes are. Reliable sources I've seen commonly regard 4chan's "ironic racism" as a tool used by extremists to normalize racist ideas by making them more palatable to people who would otherwise reject overt racism ("red-pilling normies", etc.). Describing supremacist memes as black humor doesn't make them any more or less racist. Wherever they originally came from, sincere or not, they promote white supremacist ideas. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Is a "memes" section really necessary?

The section about Alt-Right Memes seems totally irrelevant, why is it even here? Holden3172 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Hold3172

It's here because it's supported by many reliable sources which explain why it's relevant. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Header rediculousness

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 alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with right-wing to far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism, principally in the United States, but also to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe.[1][2][3] White supremacist[4][5][6][7][8] Richard Spencer appropriated the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused by some media publications of doing so to whitewash overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.[9][10][11][12][13] Alt-right beliefs have been described as white supremacist,[14][15][16] frequently overlapping with antisemitism and Neo-Nazism,[17][18][19] nativism and Islamophobia,[20][21][22][23][24] antifeminism and homophobia,[17][25][26][27] white nationalism, right-wing populism,[28][29] and the neoreactionary movement.[14][30] The concept has further been associated with multiple groups from American nationalists, neo-monarchists, men's rights advocates, and the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump.[20][29][30][31][32]

Okay so how much money did Buzzfeed pay you guys to destroy the header with sources? Come on, isn't it a basic Wikipedia rule that you put the sources in the content, and the header summarizes the content? Call me a conspiracy theorist but you guys seem rather obsessed with this article, kinda seems like your protecting something for your own agenda. It kinda like seems like you guys are trying to make sure no one right-leaning can edit the header (hence the ridiculous amount of sources). I mean it's pretty reasonable assumption.

So here's the thing I'm NOT alt-right or conservative (or whatever ridiculous generalization you guys probably think I am), but I know BS when I see it. And this is it. I know this may be mind-blowing for you guys but here it goes - you can listen to what a conservative group has to say with an open mind, disagree with them politically, and still value their point as a genuine political view. You can write about what they believe and be true to the source. You don't have to fight it because you disagree. I feel like nothing in this article has been written without the editor's own personal bias or two cents thrown in. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 06:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Call me a conspiracy theoriest... Yes, agreed. You're literally theorizing a conspiracy, based on no real evidence. Did you have something productive to say, or are you just here to condescend and cast aspersions? If so, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:PERSONAL applies. Grayfell (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, QubixQdotta, the lead can have as many sources as necessary to verify contentious content. See WP:LEADCITE. clpo13_(talk) 07:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I can easily say the lead section is biased, as it is using liberal media as sources. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources in the lead include the New York Times, BBC News, the Washington Post, Associated Press, NBC News, CNN, Reuters, NPR, the LA Times, The Guardian, and the Boston Globe. In fact, everything in the lead is cited to at least one of those. As far as I know, those are top-quality mainstream sources. Which of them do you object to? What sources do you feel we should use instead? --Aquillion (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I had marked some of the Vox and Salon sources as being unreliable, as they are heavily liberal biased, but Greyfall has reverted my edits. LightningScout Samræða 23:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. See WP:BIASED Mduvekot (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Absurd description as "right-wing"

Once again an editor has come along and added "right-wing" to the lead, based on his own opinion. There has been consensus, since last year, that reliable sources overwhelmingly/universally consider "alt-right" to be far-right, not right-wing, and this matter had been settled. The alternative fact-style description of what this article describes as white supremacist and Neo-Nazi beliefs as merely "right-wing" is an absurdity. --Tataral (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: The burden is on you to show that consensus among editors and sources, but just assert it. But I did since digging and agree most call it far-right if they label it using right-left. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Better picture

Same guy in header, better picture: http://i.imgur.com/IAynpGh.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by AltrightMN (talk • contribs) 21:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

"Platform for the alt-right"

"Platform for the alt-right" in the lede was incorrectly cited to this BBC article which makes no mention of the claim, a quote from Sarah Posner's interview of Bannon excerpted in Mother Jones [10]. There were two instances where the "platform" quote was cited the original Mother Jones article and additional sources which reference the original. I left the sources but removed the citations as unnecessary. They provide no additional information or confirmation beyond the original. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Notable individuals section

Four of the individuals mentioned in the "Notable Individuals" section (Jonathan Jafari, Stefan Molyneux, Nathan Damigo, and Paul Ray Ramsey) are either far-right conservatives or white supremacists. I couldn't find any sources calling them alt-right, so unless someone else can then I suggest we remove those four individuals.UserDude (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you checked the sources cited next to their names? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Jafari, Stefan Molyneux, Nathan Damigo, and Paul Ray Ramsey, and Andrew Augenhiemer should all be in this section as they are part of the alt right Jkeller4321 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Additionally pewdiepie edited himself out cause he was embarrassed but he should still be in this section as we are an encyclopedia Jkeller4321 (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg Jonathan Jafari Samuel Hyde Need to be readded as they are clearly associated with the alt right Jkeller4321 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Jkeller4321 You are participating in bad faith. It was Luminism who removed Pewdiepie from the list. Furthermore opinion pieces are not a reliable source for ascribing political identity to individuals who reject that identity (as a very modern example, claiming someone is a Nazi does not make them one without evidence). And even further still Kjellberg can not be Alt-Right as this article defines because he does not live in the United States. Related, Stefan Molyneux is a self-professed Libertarian, the two sources list ascribed to him in the section just claim he's Alt-Right without a shred of proof. HessmixD (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

^Then the article needs to change, the idea that the alt-right is a US only movement is just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.204.223 (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"Notable Individuals in Congress" ought to be a section. Even if they aren't self-proclaimed members of the alt-right (which makes perfect sense they would not be), there can be made direct correlations from their political ideology and that of the alt-right. e.g., All members of the "House Freedom Caucus" might easily be cited as participants at least in the alt-right movement. No? ev (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

House Freedom Caucus

"Notable Individuals in Congress" ought to be a section. Even if they aren't self-proclaimed members of the alt-right (which makes perfect sense they would not be), there can be made direct correlations from their political ideology and that of the alt-right. e.g., All members of the "House Freedom Caucus" might easily be cited as participants at least in the alt-right movement. No? ev (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The Beginning of the article

I have read a countless number Wikipedia articles and this ones seems to disregard normal layout procedures. Normally, as I see it, when something is criticized negatively, and is up for debate, then that bit of information goes at the end of the article. Usually titled something like "Criticism" or "Reactions" (Which I am aware is in there). However the article states in the first paragraph "Alt-right beliefs have been described as...." and then a laundry list of insults are hurled at the group. NONE of which the group actually identifies with. I'm not saying remove the information, I'm saying since it's subjective and needs to be moved. Keeping it at the beginning makes the statements about the group appear to most readers as "defining". Usually definitions come first and readers read the first paragraph as a synopsis and relate it to definition. Please change this, its essentially falsely advertising the group in terms they do not associate themselves with. Also I'm not sure any of them oppose "legal immigration" as is suggested, you sourced an article ". "Donald Trump's rant against political correctness is comfort food to racists". How can this even be taken seriously? PayneAckerson (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, first, it's not true that criticism sections are the standard. See Wikipedia:Criticism; "integrated throughout the article" is usually considered ideal, when possible to do so while also avoiding WP:UNDUE weight and otherwise maintaining WP:NPOV. Second, more importantly, neutrality means reflecting all the major views in reliable sources, with the weight they're given in those sources; when the overwhelming majority of reliable sourcing says one thing, we're required to have the article reflect. Omitting it because some people consider it negative would be presenting a WP:FALSEBALANCE - omitting or downplaying facts that have been widely-reported and treated as central by multiple reputable sources (and which essentially no reliable source contests) isn't neutral. If you look at our article for, say, PETA, there is plenty of criticism in the lead. Which brings me to the third point - WP:LEADs are required to reflect the article (and the article is required to reflect the sources.) PETA's article has lots of criticism in it because that criticism is so prominent. Similarly, analysis of the Alt-Right's views is central to most coverage of it (so it dominates the article), and since there's broad agreement on the key points, we have to have that in the article and reflect it in the lead - we can't omit something from the lead while also having it form the central part of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure I will admit you formed a valid argument(If we only look at the sources listed).That being said upon investigating the so called "reputable sources" I would suggest that many of the 123 sources are not exactly reputable. Besides them being almost entirely left leaning they also are entirely opinion based. I don't recall my encyclopedias as a child having articles that were formed and presented out of nothing but opinions. I understand it may be hard to find actual "facts" due to the movement not having a platform. But I don't think it would be hard to be fair with the sources. I can tell you are very well educated and very well spoken just from what you have said above, but I'm no dummy. I can spot a bias article when I see one. Even out the sources and the lead will even out too. Thank you for taking the time to respond. 216.82.182.34 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart, The New Republic, The National Review, The Weekly Standard, BBC News, Reuters, People Magazine, USA Today, CNET, Christian Science Monitor are all left-leaning? Boy that will come as a shock to their editors. You'd better email them, then get back to us after you get their responses. Rockypedia (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well, what sources do you feel we should use instead? Every potentially-controversial point has a bunch of sources (which is why the article has so many despite being comparatively short), most of them crossing the political spectrum to an extent. I reworked the article's sources a long time back, and at this point I don't think there's any controversial point cited solely to sources I would characterize as left-wing, except maybe in the commentary section (where we can cover them as examples of their viewpoint.) Like... I think Vox and Vice easily pass WP:RS, but even if we pulled them out (and took out all the Huffington Post references as well), the article wouldn't really change, because all the important things have lots of other sources. There's one commentary bit cited uniquely to Buzzfeed (which I left in when I was replacing all the other Buzzfeed refs with higher-quality sources), but that's because that particular piece was important historically, so I didn't want to omit it entirely - while I was reviewing the sources, I found that it was heavily cited by early commentators on the topic, so it's worth at least mentioning; I think it was the piece that brought the term to mainstream attention. See eg. here, here, here, and here for examples. The CJR in particular says that: One of the first to highlight the alt-right was BuzzFeed in late 2015, describing the fringe group as “4chan-esque racist rhetoric combined with a tinge of Silicon Valley-flavored philosophizing, all riding on the coattails of the Trump boom.” To me, that's at least enough to show that the article is worth covering as commentary. But either way, we can add other perspectives, if you have sources that pass WP:RS and WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The beginning of the article contains a para starts with "Alt-right beliefs have been described as... (insert derogatory terms)", which seems kind of biased, as part of it is umbrella terms used by opposing groups. Perhaps there could be a paragraph explaining how the "alt-rights" view themselves place before that? Like, when introducing a certain person's political view, we could first elaborate on how this person views him/herself, then go on to who others view him/her. Zhenzhengyou (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

this is not right to categorized this people as neo-nazis

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
this people does not deserved to categorized as neo-nazis. the nazi ideology mentioned slavs, blcaks, gypsies, jews but it does not matter arabs and muslims otherwise this people dont give a fuck about this people(except the jews) and most of them dont support genocide they supporting deportation(although many do). hitler even said "The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France". it is unfair to categorized this people as neo-nazis lunatics i agree but neo-nazis they not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.138.132 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2017‎ Reliable sources say otherwise, and that's what Wikipedia uses. Hitler's pandering to the Middle East was entirely political. He viewed Arabs as an inferior race, describing them as "lacquered half-apes who are anxious to experience the lash". This is explained with many sources at Religious views of Adolf Hitler#Hitler on Islam. This is a distraction, though, because Hitler's views don't really matter that much for this discussion. Hitler is not a reliable source for neo-Nazis, who have a very tenuous grasp on history anyway, and especially not for the alt-right. The alt-right is disproportionately popular with neo-Nazis. This is supported by a very large number of sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC) ok but the nazi ideology including other people beside arabs, muslims and jews such as blacks, gypsies, asians, slavs most of them dont care about this groups. to be a neo-nazi you need to hate ALL the people that the nazis hated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.138.132 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2017‎ Reliable sources do not accept your strict definition of Nazi, and that definition is especially questionable for neo-Nazis. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC) the definition of nazi is one who hating slavs,blacks,asians,arabs,jews,muslims. and you need to think that jews are the most inferior race most of them think jews are the second inferior race and arabs are first or both equally inferior. you also need to support killing all the jews most of them dont want it they want deportation. it is unfair to compare them to this monsters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.138.132 (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Reliable sources define Nazism as belief in Ayran racial supremacy and Social Darwinism. Hatred of Arabs often falls under this category. –UserDude 23:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC) not every one who hating arabs and jews is a nazi there are another factors like hating other people such as slavs and blacks consider the jews as the most inferior race and the most important thing want to kill all the jews. they got agreements on nazis on some parts i agree but they are not 100% nazis. if you are not following the race theory of the nazis fully than you are not a nazi. this is like claiming that if someone hating arabs and asians but love the jews is a neo-nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.138.132 (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2017‎ closing: not forum. The initial post in this thread was brought forward with no sources, no specific requirements for changes and a strong emphasis on discussion wp:notforum.... again Edaham (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "Stop Normalizing"

It seems to me that the paragraph in /* Reactions */ about the group "Stop Normalizing" does not follow WP:POV.

1. The group is clearly not particularly popular, as Stop Normalizing just redirects to Alt-Right.
2. The Chrome extension did not go "viral," as it currently has fewer than 8,000 downloads.

There are six citations all saying the same thing, which does not follow WP:OVERCITE and this paragraph is too detailed for what amounts to a very minor and niche reaction.

^–User_Dude 06:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC) 01:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to remove that paragraph. ^–User_Dude 23:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I dunno. There are a lot of secondary sources there, are we sure this isn't worth a brief mention? Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand, it's WP:NOTNEWS, but on the other, it does suggest that this was semi-relevant to the perception of the alt-right as a euphemism which is discussed later in the article. I'm very tentatively leaning towards keeping it. Anybody else want to chime in? Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a better example of that type of reaction would be the reaction from Ian Allen of The Nation, or from Ian Haney-López.

^–User_Dude 04:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

References

'Ironic' or 'Satirical'

I changed some 'ironic' in the "Use of memes" section into 'satirical'. The external links use the word 'ironic' but I think they are using it wrong. If the people worship Kek for fun or to mock others it's Satirical, if they worship Kek for a purpose but it backfired on their faces, this backfiring is Ironic. The wikipage for Parody Religionsis an example, it calls parody religions 'satire' but not 'ironic', and it listed Kek as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhenzhengyou (talk • contribs) 03:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that worship of Kek should be considered satrical, but I think support of the Black Egyptian hypothesis should be considered ironic, because the purpose seems to be to oppose African culture/history "using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect." ^–User_Dude 04:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Brittany/Nicole Pettibone

Although sources claim that they are alt-right, they deny it.

It should be removed as they do not consider themselves such.

AmReady (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC) AmReady (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This article doesn't say they are alt-right, it says that they are alt-right writers and that Brittany is a "promoters of alt-right ideology." Is any of that not verifiable?- MrX 20:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideologies are ideologies, not some physical or biological phenomenons you can conduct an experiment and test it. If some major medias say you promote alt-right ideology then BAM you are. Cite the media articles and call that verified, this 'verifiable' works within rules, but carries the full potential of helping establish a new Reductio ad Hitlerum.

I think this is one of the main problem this entry is facing: unlike mainstream Right-Left, Conservative-Liberal, few public figures will admit "Yes I am alt-right and this is why I hold these views..." And since Wikipedia requires citations, most citations can only come from the other side. This make this entry filled with one-sided media reports and 'potentially' biased propaganda. I did came across a blog article claiming to be alt-right, and half of that article is filled with holocaust-denialing... makes me wonder if it's just trolling. Zhenzhengyou (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Southern Baptists Condemn ‘Alt-Right White Supremacy’

See [11][12][13][14] and many other sources. The Atlantic may have the fullest coverage. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, just because a white supremacist claims to be "alt-right" doesn't mean alt-right are white supremacists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.225.203 (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede

In the lede it says Spencer "appropriated" the term. Wouldn't "coined" be more accurate? Appropriated sounds more like he stole it from the person who did coin it, but that couldn't be true because it was he who coined the term. SpartaN (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

you are right. That is how it is written in this source left by UserDude above, "White supremacist Richard Spencer, who runs the National Policy Institute, a tiny white supremacist think tank, coined the term “Alternative Right" Edaham (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

And I've changed the article to state that he coined it with reference to its current usage, it might be worth clarifying it further, although I was reluctant to add, "according to the ADL", as repeated usage of "someone states" and "according to" etc. makes the lede seem a bit unwieldy. Edaham (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use in-line citations like "according to the ADL" here. As far as I know, it's not controversial that he coined the term. --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

agree. prefer current version as of signed date Edaham (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Alt-lite

Please note, there is an ongoing discussion about whether we should delete Alt-lite. You are invited to participate. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Article Bias

I can't help notice while reading this article that it's incredibly biased. It notes that the alt-right "reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism". I hate to say it but that's not the case at all and just further perpetrations political propaganda. Also, I don't think many [knowledgeable] people will take this article seriously after reading that statement. Can someone please create a more accurate description of alt-right? One that's not race based (or propaganda for that matter)? There are plenty of black alt-right members.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.225.203 (talk)

First off, please provide a reliable source for the claim that "There are plenty of black alt-right members." Second, plenty of reliable sources in the article show that many alt-right ideologies are race-based, and it wouldn't make sense to leave that out just because it may not apply to all members of the alt-right. Third, I agree that the alt-right is too large to say that the ideologies of the extremists in the group accurately reflect all members and the article should be edited to reflect that (as is being discussed in a section above), but I think it is also important to note that the alt-right is already an extremist group so I'm very tentatively leaning towards keeping the article as it is.^–User_Dude 04:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it shouldn't be added. Members often considered to be alt-right such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Lauren Southern, and others are not white nationalists. I just realized that this could smear people. The definition needs to be much wider. Don1182 (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"but I think it is also important to note that the alt-right is already an extremist group so I'm very tentatively leaning towards keeping the article as it is." BIAS DETECTED --Temennigru (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The mainstream ideology

no edit request made or source provided
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alt-right is now the global mainstream ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.109.46 (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC) More like the 'whats trending' ideoogy. -- Zhenzhengyou (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC) More like the "how the hell did we wind up surrounded by these whackjobs?" ideology. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)