Talk:Alt-right/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

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 (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 188#Buzzfeed, Mother Jones for BLP's., Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 189#May Buzzfeed sometimes be an RS? (Article about Chris Epps), Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)

Except that the left-leaning "weak source" in this case is in the lead and quoted 10 times throughout the article and the right-leaning "bad source" is nowhere to be found. Wikipedia in a nutshell XD. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  19:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As I say below, I'm happy with using the Daily Stormer. Doug Weller talk 19:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You are fine using "Daily Stormer" but not Breibart? -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  20:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Amazing. Now you are misrepresenting me. Where did I say that please? Doug Weller talk 20:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliability depends on use. It does not apply to individual sources, but to specific usages of sources for specific claims. For example, Ken Ham is a reliable source for the official position of Answers in Genesis on an issue, but is not reliable for claims about the nature and reliability of radiocarbon dating. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The Buzzfeed article isn't exactly a high caliber of journalism, and - more importantly - it ultimately amounts to nothing more than just poisoning the well. What exactly are the prominent figures in the alt-right who are white supremacists? Troianii (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2016 (U

Both the RSN and this page's editors have come to the consensus that you're wrong about the source, and your question is answered in the article itself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Although there's consensus, it's not unanimous. There are some editors (myself included) who have voiced the opinions that Rosie Gray's BuzzFeed article is too biased for its inclusion in the lead of this encyclopedia article. And no, there are no prominent figures in the alt-right who are white supremacists. Alt right shares more similarities with the structure of Anonymous (group than with the Black Panther Party or the KKK -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  16:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't require unanimity. Nor is it a simple vote. Basically, when there are numerous people on both sides, the consensus goes to whichever side manages to convince more people to switch sides (note, that's a heuristic, not a rule). More formally, consensus belongs to the position which makes its case most clearly, simply and logically. If the objections of one side boil down to their interpretation of policy, that doesn't override consensus. In this case, the objections of one side boil down to their interpretation of policy. There's been no debating Ms. Grey's merit's as a journalist, nor the factual nature of her claims (beyond implying that they're wrong without supporting it). There's been no contradicting reliable sources provided. So while there's still an argument, one side of that argument clearly has the much weaker case. Ergo, consensus to include.

On another note, thank you for re-inserting the Ian Tuttle quote. As it is formatted currently, I find it to be a highly helpful addition to the lede, and I didn't notice its removal. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not mention the word unanimity because I imply consensus requires unanimity, but because it's an ideal result--and has not been achieved per WP:CON. It's fine that it hasn't but saw the need for it to be stated. The back and forward we've been having is part of the consensus-building process and a positive aspect of the improving articles on controversial topics. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  17:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support the removal of Buzzfeed as a source. The journalistic integrity of Buzzfeed and many new media websites that are in the form of content aggregation websites does not fall into the category of secondary sources but more as special interest blogs or single purpose blogs (to take and aggregate information pertaining to what the target audience wants to see comfortably within their world view - using extensive ad campaigns Buzzfeed and other media outlets (incl. Facebook, ironically enough) tailor information to what their audience wants to hear not what is the news)). It is not an encyclopedic resource, nor is it in any way a primary or secondary source on this subject. If you cited The Daily Stormer on the subject of say the Southern Poverty Law Centre you would have a comparative of ideologies and pseudo-journalistic blog sources butting heads. The difference being Daily Stormer users are braindead dimwits lampooning neo nazi's whereas Buzzfeed is braindead dimwits lampooning journalists. The level of expertise involved in most bulk-publishing journalism outlets is as low as 'having an opinion' and thus doesn't have journalistic integrity. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 00:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Lampooning? You're saying that Daily Stormer is like a neo-Nazi version of The Onion? That would make its popularity a lot more palatable, but I don't think so. Also, what does WP:SECONDARY have to do with being a blog? Anyway, this has already come up many times before, and the gist is that Buzzfeed's reporting is not aggregate content. Journalistic articles from the site (as opposed to listicles and similar) can at least be considered based on their own merits. Virtually every news outlet tailors their content to what their audience wants to hear, at least to some degree, but that doesn't by itself make the source unreliable. Grayfell (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

He seems to argue that both are so bad as to be parodies, not that I think either is intended as such. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

And we are now getting close to a BLP violation, maybe there. BLP applies everywhere, and we are using a named reporter. Please make it clear that you aren't calling her a braindead dimwit. Note that she was also used in another of our sources. We are using Rosie Gray, not some anonymous blogger. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, calling buzzfeed "braindead dimwits lampooning journalists" is the closest thing to an actual argument against including it that's come up until now. Of course, to be completely fair, it's also a laughably simplistic, ignorant and childish argument. If that's the best argument for removing this source, then I think there's a clear consensus to keep it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear sir, calling the great scholarly journal BuzzFeed "braindead dimwits lampooning journalists" is racist and homophobic and you should check your privilege. It's not passive aggressiveness, but up until now, this is the most skillful argument right-wing fascist editors like you have been able to mount on The Truth® since it evidently has a left-wing bias. Like seriously, how you don't agree that Drumpf and Hitler are like literally the same person... like seriously? Checkmate. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  02:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

How do we feel about the Vox article, then? They seem to be deeply interested in the movement's Trump fans. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I also support removing the Buzzfeed sources. More generally, this article is a disaster of bias, along with most other articles in this group. I'd love to see a statistical analysis of how often "ist" and "ism" terms arise in these articles compared to other political articles. Many of the sources are written in a scolding and/or opinionated tone without references. Exercisephys (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, an article about a polarizing political movement named by a white nationalist is going to have a lot of "ist" and "ism" words. I'm not sure why that is surprising or relevant. As a new political movement, sources are largely newspapers and similar, which are free to include journalists' analyses. Such articles seldom contain formal references, although the Buzzfeed ones do include many links to supporting sites and similar. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The point is that these articles are used to attach as many nasty labels as possible to polarizing political movements while rarely discussing their more concrete and specific beliefs, demographics, and organizations. Articles like world communism cover very polarizing subjects, but still manage to consist of more than just a patchwork of withering accusations from social justice tabloid journalists.

If the information in this article were neutral, you'd be able to cite more neutral sources (e.g. the New York Times, Washington Post). It's not like those sources publish less frequently. Exercisephys (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed clearly gives platform to very serious journalism. 24.103.114.235 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The NY Times has some stupid articles too. Doesn't destroy their entire credibility. I think the crowd here would gain more if it simply pointed out the discrepancy between the Buzzfeed reporting and other reports, and as I do below, break it down bit by bit into which statements are actually sourced to something reliable and which are simply parroting nonsense like anonymous radio callers. I think the bigger issue is whether the statements in the Buzzfeed are in fact an accurate representation of the alt-right and the way to argue that is not simply screaming that Buzzfeed is wrong but by pointing out other examples of what is appropriate and whether it actually is accurate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Not since the GamerGate article has (is, rather) an article been so ludicrously biased and full of ridiculous falsehoods.

This isn't productive. If you literally have no other comment than just stating that everyone is wrong, then go rant on twitter. If you have an actual serious comment, then state it without sounding like a stereotype. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It makes my head spin to see such an absurd set of sources (Buzzfeed, Huffington Post; are you mad?). It's comparable to citing Fox News's interpretation of the merits of a hypothetical Clinton Administration the day before the election. Tagging the Alternative-Right as a sexist, anti-immigrant, white supremacist, far-right, hate ideology, and every other Tumblr buzzword used to demonize non-contemporary progressives is positively loathsome. Even the most elementary observation would reveal that the "alt-right" is a classical liberal ideology that wishes to re-brand the left-right politics as authoritarian-libertarian. This is why you see so many centralist and syndicalists in this "far right" group. Indeed one needs to look no further than self-proclaimed socialist Sargon of Akkad and his networks to see how this ideology is not based on the traditional left-right dynamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.167.146 (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Got any WP:RS to add? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC) By "Sargon of Akkad" I'm assuming you're referring to this individual (via RationalWiki). As a curious aside, RationalWiki doesn't have an article on the "alt-right" as we do here (they do have one for Alternative Right), preferring instead to relegate the term to a subsection on their article on the so-called "neoreactionary" movement, or Dark Enlightenment. Laval (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC) LOL Sargon of Akkad literally just tried to get a petition passed on Change dot org (can't link it because it's blacklisted but it's easy to find) to get universities to ban all "social justice" courses because he believes that "[s]ocial justice professors are indoctrinating young people into a pseudoscientific cult behind closed doors that is doing damage to their health, education and future." He's a demagogue who literally named himself after a figure that is regarded as the first emperor in the West (a shaky claim, but popular nonetheless) and spends all day imitating Coughlin on youtube. Ogress 19:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Membership?

The wording of this statement in the lead comes across as awkward to me: "The membership of the alt-right is demographically younger than mainstream conservatism." "Membership" is a problematic term as it implies the movement is deliberately and coherently organized, like the Tea Party. This does not appear to be the case here, even more so considering the wide disparity of views, such as The Daily Stormer, which calls itself the most popular alt-right website, but which many, if not most people calling themselves or labeled by others as "alt-right" would dispute or vehemently disagree that it is such. I've noticed the discussion above concerning Rosie Gray, of whom I have no knowledge, but certainly The Daily Beast is far from a reliable source to be using to make statements of fact regarding the alleged or perceived demographics and so-called "membership" of what is a very loose, very decentralized and unwieldly network of bloggers and such who are not part of any coherent organization with actual leaders and so forth. In other words, a source like the Beast doesn't offer any real evidence that can actually be verified. It is pure opinion. I understand this is one of those subjects which divides people into absolute for or against, but come on, I think most here are mature enough to keep their biases and personal views in check just enough to present facts rather than conjecture, which is the bread and butter of blogs like The Daily Beast. It would be more appropriate to state that the Beast believes this or that, since we're dealing in conjecture rather than verifiable facts -- and as any academic will state, not even enough time has passed time to form any solid facts as to the demographics and nature of the so-called "alt-right" -- but this talk of membership and demographics as fact, without even any proper context or background as to where this perception or data is coming from is totally wrong, even more so considering that it is right there in the lead. I won't bother editing this part because I feel it would be futile to do so, but I hope those editing regularly here can take a step back and really consider my objection. Laval (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you too narrowly interpret "membership". In this context it means "constituent part of a whole" not "member of a political party".Mduvekot (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it should be removed. The sources [1][2] are both quoting a caller on the Limbaugh radio show for that point. Argue all you want about Buzzfeed and the DailyBeast that they are reliable sources for the fact that a caller said that but the caller itself is not a reliable source about that claim. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't need the word defined for me, and I'll assume good faith that you're not trying to be condescending. As I clearly elucidated, the implication of the term "membership" in this particular claim is that there is the "alt-right" coherently organized movement, similar to the Tea Party. This is a fallacy and myth unsupported by any evidence. What the current evidence available demonstrates is that the "alt-right" is a very loose collection of bloggers and pundits from across the conservative spectrum, with a particular concentration of those on the far-right (where it originated) but increasingly entering the mainstream among those opposing the mainline neoconservatives of the Republican Party. All the legitimate sources used in this article point to this conclusion. Again, The Daily Beast is not a reliable or useful source in this regard, and their conclusions are flawed, if not wholly unsupported by any concrete evidence. It is a pop news and opinion rag like its ideological opponents on the right The Daily Caller, Drudge Report and Breitbart. To state as fact that "The membership of the alt-right is demographically younger than mainstream conservatism", you're going to have to use a reliable source, which in this case The Daily Beast is not. The threshold for reliability is how verifiable and accurate the information is. There is nothing presented by the Beast that is in any way verifiable. Laval (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Beast isn't the actual source: the source is allegedly a caller on the Rush Limbaugh show. At the very least, it should be "according to an anonymous caller on the Rushabh Limbaught show, ...." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case if this anonymous caller is the sole source and there is no actual research to back this claim up, it definitely does not belong here at all. Given the arguments above regarding Buzzfeed and Beast, I was under the impression there was a bit more to this than an anonymous caller on the Rush Limbaugh Show (!), but given this fact, there is no argument. This is an open and shut case. I cannot fathom why any veteran editors would even be arguing for its inclusion. Laval (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Because most people don't actually read the explicit details of who is being cited and analyze it layer by layer. Buzzfeed and the Daily Beast may be considered reliable sources but they are journalists and journalists at least cite something. As I said below, just follow the links for the story: it links directly to the Limbaugh transcript. From there, there's no further analysis being done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• To clarify, BuzzFeed states that it is a caller and cites the Daily Beast which cites the Rush Limbaugh show transcript. I've clarified the citation but it's overall complete unreliable. This is not a reflection on those sources, it's a reflection on the lack of an actual source other than them parroting anonymous callers. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Consult TDS with extreme caution; it does claim to be part of the alternative to conventional right-wing politics, but we must critically analyze whether or not that affiliation is bidirectional. One alternative, if we want to cite the claim that alt-right membership skews younger, is to refer to Milo's readership and to Trump's fanbase, for which there are various corroborating sources. Shrigley (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
    • So you want to string together that (1) Mile and Trump are part of the alt right and (2) based on their fanbases being younger, the alt right itself is younger? That is classic WP:SYNTH and why this should have been removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Please notice the fact that I want to delete this article, and have been a consistent advocate for the use of quality sources against synthesis in all these talk page discussions. I also have read the scant best sources on the subject, and am aware that neither man affiliates himself with "the alt-right", and one explicitly rejects the label. I think there is no basis for speaking in broad brushes about the alt-right as a demographic; I only point out bad and worse (paraphrasing an anonymous caller into a radio talk show) options for making such generalizations. Shrigley (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Well the anonymous caller statement is gone. The only detailed source that even connects them is the New Yorker piece who doesn't even believe the alt-right is an actual movement. I'd say we let it go entirely under there's more serious sources on the subject and I doubt that will be within this political cycle. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

One source that we could possibly use in a better, rewritten article is James Kirchick's account in National Review of a National Policy Institute conference in October 2015 at the National Press Club. His snarky tone detracts from his credibility, but there is some useful demographic information (paywall) "The crowd was almost entirely male, many of them (apparently taking advantage of the under-30 registration discount) young. A conspicuous number sported the Hitler Youth–inspired hairdo known as an “undercut,” short on the sides with a long part on top." Idk if Kirchick ever uses the term "Alt Right" in the article, but he is cited for that demographic information in another article on the VDARE which discusses some terminological issues and history within "Alt Right", as well as some more demographic clues:

The reality is that the movement is moving offline. When I first attended an Alt Right meet up, I didn’t expect “idiots” or “thugs,” but I would not have been surprised to find a bunch of socially awkward program-coders. But while there were quite a few people who worked in IT (though they weren’t socially awkward), most worked in politics, law, finance and other high status professions, many with degrees from elite institutions. The Beltway Right would be troubled to know several had positions within Conservatism Inc. or the Republican Party.

On average, they were better looking and in much better physical shape than the stereotypically fat and/or weak conservative functionaries (and, pace the pasty Kirchick, pictured above, this observation is not driven by latent homosexuality). Their age ranged from the early 20s to late 30s, and the majority of those over 30 were married (including NPI’s Richard Spencer, married with a baby daughter).

Shrigley (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this business of demographics is that so far, it's all based on conjecture and speculation by individual pundits rather than any actual polling organizations or academic sources, both of which would provide actual verifiability. The way the issue of demographics is being written about is essentially the equivalent of someone hanging around a Trump rally and seeing a bunch of people with blond hair and blue eyes, concludes that most of Trump's supporters tend to be demographically blond and blue. It's an observation and opinion, but it isn't a fact. I personally view such observations as inherently unencyclopedic, but I'm in the minority, so if such claims are kept, they certainly need to be identified as such to conform to policy. But it's a slippery slope, since a news outlet could do some surveys and find that the actual demographics of those identifying themselves as "alt-right" is very different than what anti-Trump pundits have been asserting. It's a can of worms at this stage, and I don't see any compelling reason to include this information until some actual demographic surveys and analyses have been conducted, which is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Laval (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Like the Rick Wilson statement that the alt-right are childless single men who masturbate to anime, name the people behind the statements and you can see the lack of reliability and how nonsensical the claims are when done like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Why was Rick Wilson removed?

Why was this analysis removed? It's a political commentary and a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.59.201 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. I'd advise reading through the current discussions on the talk page to find out why. clpo13_(talk) 15:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are we saying the al-right exists in Europe?

It's in the lead but nowhere is it mentioned in the body. I've always thought it was purely an American phenomena. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It's because this is a mess of OR and other nonsense. There's not even a coherent source on what the alt right is in the US, let alone that it exists in Europe. I'm guessing it's taken as "anti-immigration". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Origins

As discussed in detail at the MFD, I don't see how this 2008 speech and these two blog pieces[3][4] have any connection other than it uses the words "alt right". There is no policy connections I can tell and no one linking them to the current Buzzfeed/Weekly Standard/Newsday definition of the term. I think it's pure WP:OR to claim that this version originated from that. Say it originated with Trump if you will but there's no source connecting Trump to Buchanan and Paul (who are wildly different conservatives). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole issue of referring to Trump and his campaign as "alt right" is bizarre. It's one thing if he (or anyone associated with his campaign) had been going around describing himself and his policy views as such, but there's no evidence of this, and it's always been used against him as a term of scorn. This is original research on my part, but the whole Buzzfeed affair seems to have started around the same time neo-Nazi blogger and self-proclaimed troll Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer started promoting his blog as "alt right" -- much to the chagrin of Richard Spencer who originated the term -- and not long after started voicing his support for Trump. Rick Wilson also may very well have had Anglin and Daily Stormer readers in mind with his anime quote, since prior to becoming a neo-Nazi, Anglin exclusively dated East Asian women, going so far as to even backpack around the region, and was (and remains) an anime fanatic. There are at least a few bloggers who've written about all this weirdness, so there is a possibility someone may find a New York Times article or from some other reliable source digging into this area. It just goes to show just how much of a mess this article is and how irresponsible it is to just accept Buzzfeed and nonsensical vulgarity from someone like Rick Wilson at face value as reliable sources. Laval (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable removing RSs that show some of the earliest uses of the term. I agree that there's no clear link here, but the etymology matters, so I'm making an etymology section to restore them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no dispute over the etymology. It is a concrete fact that "alt-right" originated with Richard Spencer and his website Alternative Right, as has been discussed extensively here and elsewhere. I don't believe anyone is contesting this fact. What is being contested is the use of Buzzfeed, Daily Beast, the Rick Wilson quote, etc as being reliable and verifiable, which they clearly are not. Your recent edits in creating an etymology section are not in dispute at all -- just to be perfectly clear, it is an absolutely concrete and undeniable fact that Richard Spencer originated the term "alt-right", and this is precisely why there have been attempts to redirect or merge with Alternative Right, since that is where it all started. Laval (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we just stay on the topic of the 2008/2009 pieces? There is zero justification for a "etymology" header which implies that it is the actual origin of the current usage, when there is literally no source that states that it is and absolutely nothing connects them. Tying it together with the Buzzfeed or Spencer I consider pure WP:OR and at best you can say those were other separate irrelevant meanings to the terms that don't matter. Separately, is Taki's Magazine an actual reliable source about anything? It seems like a blog post. Note that according to the Taki's Magazine wikipedia page, the same Richard B. Spencer was the editor there before creating Alternative Right. You're tying together a 2008 HL Meinken speech to two blog posts who's executive editor left to create another website titled Alternative Right and and then five years later Rosie Gray says that the 2010 website creator is somewhat the source of the term merged with Donald Trump in a piece where people later basically point to Gray as having found the connection. The amount of nonsensical strings put together to avoid just admitting that this whole routine was created in December 2015 is ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There is zero justification for a "etymology" header which implies that it is the actual origin of the current usage, when there is literally no source that states that it is and absolutely nothing connects them. I think you might want to re-read the section. There's no OR there. The WP:SYNTH that you seem to be referring to isn't stated or even implied by the section. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The word "etymology" refers to the study of the word. If the other items are not related, why are they included here? And it is SYNTH to it was used "sporadically" based entirely on a single 2008 speech and two 2009 blog posts. Second question, do you actually think the Taki Magazine posts qualify as reliable sources about the "use" about the term or is this pulling primary sources that use the term and then saying "it's used sporadically" based on them? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not seeing any evidence that the "H.L. Mencken Club" is notable (although Gottfried is). The speech is from the same Taki Magazine blog website so we basically have three sources from the website that, prior to a split, was a precursor to the current website that defines what the Alternative Right is (according to this, Gottfried and I'd guess the others joined in the split). Shouldn't we have something at least remotely independent and not just pure promotional parroting of what they claim to be? I see don't see that Taki Magazine is a reliable source and while Gottfried is the only name I can tell of some note, it's not like this was some academic paper or something, it's literally a blog post by him and other blog posts from the same website citing itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The word "etymology" refers to the study of the word. No, Etymology is the study of the history of words. There is an important distinction there. The etymology of the word "faggot", for example is not limited to its meaning of a stick, nor to it's use as an insult, but encompasses the entirety of its meanings over time. Now, as an encyclopedia, we don't need to give history of the term 'alt-right' as it pertains to relative direction, or in the sense of variances of humans rights for individuals in the justice system or military, or in any other non-political use of the term. But when the term is used to describe a political movement, then that's germane. Even if the movement has changed over time, or died out and replaced by a different movement using the same name.

I see don't see that Taki Magazine is a reliable source and while Gottfried is the only name I can tell of some note, it's not like this was some academic paper or something, it's literally a blog post by him and other blog posts from the same website citing itself. The etymology section only concerns itself with the use of the word, not the precise meaning. There's literally no such thing as a non-reliable source to establish that a phrase was used (except for forgeries, obviously). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

{od} We do need some evidence that they are talking about the same thing though. That's why we are supposed to be looking for secondary sources since we're not political science experts on whether these people saying "alt right" are talking about the same thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

For the history of the movement, absolutely. But for the etymology? It's fine. We're talking about the history of the term, not the movement. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

PSA: The Donald Trump subreddit, 4chan's neo-nazi board, and other Alt Right and Neo-Reactionary hubs have been linking directly to this talk page with the goal censoring the topic, removing mentions of racism, and so on.

Just a public service announcement to everyone that they are brigading heavily, and do not have good intentions in mind. Right now there's a post with 60 upvotes on the Trump subreddit titled "Any Wikipedia editor centipedes willing to uncuck the Alt-Right entry?" /pol/ (4chan's neo-nazi board) has also been linking here multiple times as well: https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/71074235/#71077121 https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/73335171/#73335171 https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/72918855/#72921694

This behavior has to be against rules. Ryuudou (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add that the alt right supports fascism. As MjolnirPants as extensively shown, there's obvious reliable sources to support that claim. 107.77.228.230 (talk)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Discussions are on-going. Please wait until consensus or compromise is reached. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a consensus. One editor's refusal to see it doesn't mean it's not there. We follow what the reliable sources say and the source says That the alt right has fascists 107.77.228.23 (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There's not deadline here... please wait for others to comment on the discussion and for there to be consensus. Please don't reactivate this template until then. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Official website

Can we add [5] as the official website? It's stated right on the site. I

That site gave me cancer. In the interest of public health, it shouldn't be linked anywhere.

Seriously, though, it says the it's "the world's most visited alt-right web site" not the official site. clpo13_(talk) 22:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, toggled per above. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

Is the Darlene Powers article [6] a reliable source at all about the alt right? First, it feels more like an opinion piece than an actual article. Second, the entire discussion is about the Trump campaign, citing another opinion piece, and notes that "anti-Semites have flocked to Trump" and then mentions the #AltRight hashtag ("banner"?). Is citing a hashtag really a reliable source about what the members of the group think? The only other source was the New Yorker piece which didn't even mention the antisemitism. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not even a proper news article, but as with most of other unreliable and inconsistent sources, any attempt at removing them or identifying them as based on allegations rather than facts will get one reverted almost immediately, as I was here [7], by someone not even actively bothering to involve themselves with the discussion here. It's clearly obvious this article is going to have a difficult time digging itself out of the garbage and gutter. I've never understood why Wikipedia always has to end up being an ideological battleground when our purpose here is neutrality, not punditry and partisanship, as with most of the other editors insisting on all these absurd sources and falsely claiming them as "reliable." Absurd. Laval (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Laval, your edits looked like punditry and partisanship not only to the editor who reverted you, but to me as well. I'm not suggesting you were intentionally trying to discredit the sources, but the effect of your edit was to minimize their views, as was explained in the revert. Your complaints about neutrality could just as easily come from my lips or the lips of the editor who reverted you, and been just as well supported by the available evidence. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your argument would make more sense if the sources in question were actually reliable and legitimate. Buzzfeed makes claims and accusations, Rick Wilson makes claims and accusations, Daily Beast makes claims and accusations – all in relation to this subject. They are not facts. If you want to argue facts, then use reliable sources. Until then, don't accuse me of punditry or partisanship. I've been going out of my way with various articles on Wikipedia to achieve NPOV, which includes articles on white supremacists and other figures widely hated in society. NPOV -- and BLPand -- are absolute and inviolable on Wikipedia. Your edits here and your arguments for the inclusion of obviously unreliable sources indicate your bias against the subject and your inability to keep that bias in check. If I oppose unreliable sources, it isn't because they're biased against the subject or because I disagree with their views -- it's because they're unreliable. Laval (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

And by the by, with a controversial article like this, it isn't very appropriate for another editor to engage in reversions and edit wars without even bothering to discuss such changes before or after. They clearly did not. Yet, according to your logic, I'm the one at fault. Do you also believe I'm a "member" of the "alt-right"? Laval (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You have literally just argued that sources must be biased because they're critical. That is neither rational, nor a policy-based argument. Also, BLP applies to Living People, not to amorphous groups. Finally, your repeated accusations of bias are crossing the line into WP:NPA territory, in that they are not furthering the discussion, but rather interfering with it. Please stop and continue to discuss this civilly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Claims of antisemitism need to be supported by strong sourcing, and this article was anything but. Also, it does not accurately make the claim it was being used to support. As you say, it is about the Trump campaign and only mentions a hashtag in passing. I have removed it for now unless consensus decides it should be in. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You know what? I'm done with this page. From all I've seen here, I am quite literally the only editor who's ever stood up for both political sides of this, and I just can't win against those who clearly have an their own idea of what the article should look like. Ya'll have fun. I'm sure the lefties will be along in a few weeks to start this cycle of POV volleyball back up again. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't blame you. I more or less gave up a while ago. BLP can't apply to a phenomenon, which this is - with of course the exception of any individuals who publicly identify as alt-right. It isn't a group or a party, you can't join or leave it. Like you I'm also tired of people claiming reliable sources are absurd and unreliable. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You think this opinion piece is a reliable source for claiming that alt-right is antisemitic? It is literally an opinion piece stating "anti-Semetics are running to a particular politician based on who is using a particular hashtag? Questioning this source is enough to make you quit? -- Ricky81682 (talk)

Vikor Orban

In addition to Trump (I've seen arguments both for and against Trump from AltRighters, I agree overall with the existing entry), ought Hungarian PM Viktor Orban to be added to the lost of AltRight-liked politicians? I've heard Orban admired by the movement far more than Trump. I have sources below. Thanks very much! CharlesFrontroyal (talk)

Of those sources, the first is barely more than a blog and I don't see where there is even an implication that Orban = alt-right, the second is a reddit comment and I don't need to go further on the issues and the third is another blog that while it states that Hungary has let the alt-right down, its leader allegedly look to the interests of Hungary and then quotes Orban. For a BLP headache like saying Orban is a member of a political movement that is first defined as white nationalist, none of those convince me it's enough to be considered not a BLP violation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC: is it appropriate to include two blog posts as part of the word's etymology citing the posts themselves?

Following up from the discussion at Talk:Alt-right#Origins, is it appropriate to include notes 8 and 9 here citing two posts at Taki's Magazine for the etymology of the word on the two posts themselves?

Oppose inclusion

• Oppose. Explained in detail below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Note that the article has both an etymology and an origins section. As I explained above, to me the wikt:etymology relates to the origin of the term as now used and thus any etymology section must include a connection to the current usage. To me, it's quite absurd to just have "here's people who used the words alternative and right together the first times we found it but thus this is separate though from the actual 'origins' section." Even then, that interpretation of an etymology section also does not mean that this should be determined by a WP:PRIMARY source, in this case, just linking to the pages that use the term. It's giving WP:UNDUE weight to those sources as examples of the term except in the most literal meaning of examples, especially in terms of whether the term is actually connected to the later claimed uses of the term and especially considering that the Taki's Magazine page barely shows that Taki's Magazine online magazine (although those two entries are barely more than blogs) is notable itself. Pinging MjolnirPants for a response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Should we state that this is just a white supremacist term?

According to this Daily Beast piece, the quote from the co-director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism (which is probably a much more reliable sources than most of the sources here), the alt right is "basically a term that white supremacists use who see themselves as part of a new movement...." So should the introduction reflect that this is a neologism by white supremacists rather than outright calling it a new movement? Even the main buzzfeed citation citation states that this is a term coined by a white supremacist group leader. There is a distinction between "white supremacists call this a movement" and "it is actually a movement". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, in my earlier comment I did mention there is something to this; see this recent article from the New Yorker, for instance. The actual source of the term is specifically Richard B. Spencer. I don't think Trump has ever labeled himself or his campaign as being "alt-right." I could be wrong about that. But according to the New Yorker, the actual source of the claim that Trump and the alt-right represent some kind of new conservative movement is Buzzfeed, with no evidence whatsoever to back up its assertions. It does appear that ever since Buzzfeed made this claim, the term has increasingly come to be used in the media and even by some populist pundits opposed to neoconservativism to refer to those on the right who are fed up or frustrated with the Republican Party mainstream, but I'm doubtful as to how prevalent this actually is at the moment, based on currently available evidence. Ultimately, the use of the term started with a far-right and self-proclaimed "radical traditionalist" pundit, Richard Spencer, and quickly became very popular among other "radical traditionalists" and "third positionists" and the like, presumably as an attempt to popularize their ideas in the mainstream. Then it got picked up by monarchists and other fringe elements on the right, as well as more well-known pundits like Yiannopoulos and others. But again, the Buzzfeed claims are looking more and more like propaganda rather than anything remotely based on fact, and according to the New Yorker article referenced above appears to have no legs. Laval (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I should clarify that Buzzfeed may not have intended its labeling of Trump as "alt-right" as some kind of propaganda, but that it could easily have just been one of their bloggers coming across Richard Spencer's website or The Daily Stormer and discovering the term and considering their zealous support of Trump, deciding it made good copy to dump this on his campaign. Such speculation aside, Spencer is the original source of the term itself, while Buzzfeed is the original source of the claim that it is actually a new "movement" among conservatives opposed to the status quo within the Republican Party. Ultimately, I do think that you are correct that the ADL source is as close to the truth of the matter as we're going to get, that it is a neologism created by a white supremacist (Richard Spencer) in an attempt to mainstream his ideas. Laval (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone of propaganda. I cite the ADL because the ADL is going to be more neutral in what white supremacists are trying to do than one with a clear COI. The issue is that Buzzfeed is helping Spencer get what he wants, which is publicity for his movement. From there, we have basically political people saying "there's an alt-right, it's people who use Nazi symbols and support Trump." My concern is that this is literally an idea from five months ago, excluding Spencer pushing it. That is precisely the kind of stuff an encyclopedia should not touch until there's at least someone with an academic background on this material and the people who do seem to have one classify this as a neologism from the white supremacists. I mean, we are literally quoting a journalist who met anonymous vbloggers and then parrots them for complex philosophical discussions. It's been added to Template:Conservatism US, do any of the other topics basically stem on "a vblogger says the movement is about X and since there's a reliable source for the fact that said vblogger said it's about X, we should treat it as the movement is about X." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is precisely why I consider Buzzfeed, The Daily Beast, The Daily Caller, Rush Limbaugh, etc and other such pop news and pundit sources inherently unreliable by nature, though they may offer reliable information at times. But I'm apparently one of the few who vehemently disagree with using such sources to build an encyclopedia. Britannica (hopefully) wouldn't use them, why would we? That aside, I do agree with your points, and I've pointed out that "alt-right" is basically a Spencer propaganda tactic in a comment or two many weeks ago when it was being debated whether or not the article itself should be kept or merged with Alternative Right. The inclusion of "alt-right" on the conservatism template is problematic, but unless this article does indeed get merged with the one on Spencer or his website, I suspect there would be enough opposition to its removal. Personally, I also don't agree with using the elephant as a generic symbol of American conservativism, since that is specifically tied to the Republican Party and not US conservatism in general. I doubt most conservatives unaffiliated with the Republican Party would agree that the GOP symbol is a generic symbol of conservativism in the US. Then again, I could be wrong about that. Laval (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Others have said this, but I don't think this is actually the case. Based on what I've read, it seems like there are several distinct groups who identify as "alt-right", which makes sense when you consider the general nature of the term. The Breitbart piece covers these groups well. However, left-wing media sources will use the hateful and extreme groups to taint the label. This is a common approach for all partisan media.

I find the connection of alt-rightism as a concept to white supremacy and white nationalism tenuous at best, although some white supremacists and white nationalists identify as alt-right. Exercisephys (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thing is, the term was coined by Richard B. Spencer as a way of popularizing his views and that of his associates among the conservative mainstream, and he is widely viewed as a white supremacist. Thanks to outlets like Buzzfeed and Daily Beast and their constant use of the term as part of their anti-Trump campaigning, it does appear to be evolving beyond the fringes of neoreaction and white nationalism, but it did all begin with Spencer. Laval (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

According to this article, it was coined in 2008 based off a speech. There's no evidence of this but that's why the article is a mess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm Asian and consider myself alt right. Am I, according to you, a "white supremacist"? This article is already an utter cesspool full of tumblr buzzwords, with the "criticism" section as long as the rest of the article combined (isn't it absurd to have so much criticism when the article has failed to even make it clear what exactly is the phenomenon being criticized?), without you drawing biased claims from biased media (note I didn't say biased left leaning media, many right leaning media are also biased in this case) that seeks to oversimplify and thus discredit this phenomenon.Ingebot (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• • If you can provide a coherent reliable source on what the alt right is, that would be helpful. According to the ADL, the "alt right" is a term created by white supremacists to separate themselves from mainstream conservativism. From there, it could have been taken over by Trump and Yiannopoulos and others to not have anything to do that but according to Rosie Gray and others, the alt right is a mix of white supremacist/racist/antisemitic ideology with conservatism itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem is that alt right is such a new phenomena that there are few reliable sources. It is also problematic to let media describe a group that are an enemy of media (at least "leftist media"). It would be more reasonable to let them describe them self. And tbh, I am not sure this should even be an article yet.62.182.1.106 (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2016

This entire article is untrue.

206.210.81.114 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2016 (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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)