Talk:Alt-right/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Bias

This article is blatantly biased against those on the Alt-Right, especially in regards to the claims of racism. We all know these kind of generalizations would never fly on any other type of article, so why is it allowed on this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwharllee (talk • contribs) 07:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The claims, however ridiculous, are sourced. Wikipedia is known to have a liberal bias, but there's no use just complaining about a problem, start editing and trying to improve the encyclopedia. Zaostao (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be easier to edit if the biased article wasn't locked until after the presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfadude (talk • contribs) 23:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

From the very paragraph you linked to: "There are no data or surveys to back that." Just thought you should know what you're citing. Rockypedia (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to respect the opinion of Jimmy Wales, although maybe you think he doesn't know what he's talking about and that he's not aware of the state of wikipedia—which would be quite a strange opinion for you to hold, but not one for me to comment on. Zaostao (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is the one who said "There are no data or surveys to back that." I tend to respect high levels of reading comprehension. It would be strange if you didn't, but that's not for me to comment on. Rockypedia (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

See "opinion of Jimmy Wales". Your respect for high levels of reading comprehension doesn't seem translate into application, but I suppose we can admire high standards while not adhering to them ourselves. Zaostao (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop talking in riddles and actually say what you mean for once. A real man would do that. Jimmy Wales is the one who said "There are no data or surveys to back" the opinion that Wikipedia is slightly more liberal than the average American, because Wikipedia is a worldwide site and the rest of the world leans a little more liberal than the average American. That's very different from what you said, which was "wikipedia has a liberal bias" - You're clearly far to the right of the average American, based on how you've been blocked for your POV edits attempting to make white supremacists appear more palatable. The closest you've ever come to admitting your bias was your claim that "Wikipedia is known to have a liberal bias" while citing a link that says a similar thing, but is in fact quite different in substance. It's the same thing you do all the time - try to find something that's close to what you need in order to push your right-wing POV. It's too bad you won't just own it and state your real intentions. Not surprising, considering the way you've tried to sneak around 3RR multiple times in your edit-warring. Rockypedia (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A conservative bias would be as harmful as a liberal bias. I'm simply trying to improve the encyclopedia. Anyway, this tangent you've created has descended to pig in the mud levels, which isn't very kosher, so i'm not going to reply to this again and you can have the last word if you want. Zaostao (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Could the page (if expanded instead of repeatedly shortened) included sections such as "Criticism from the right" and "Criticism from the left"? I think that could solve the problem pretty well. User:JosephFrontroyal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Criticism sections should be avoided if possible, per WP:CSECTION. Additionally, separating the section into two categories would be false balance, would require us to make subjective judgments about where sources fall, and would imply that criticism has only come from politically aligned sources, all of which are problems. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The page already has criticism sections (just not named "criticism"). Most problems with false balance can be avoided by only used sources which are forthright about their argument, weather for, against the movement. Milo's manifesto in Brietbart, for example, could be included in a alt-right general belief's section while National Review's "Moral Rot" piece would obvious be put under the "criticism" section, and if need be under the sub-section "criticism from the right."

The issue could be cleared up if the page weren't insistently re-shortened. The "Beliefs" section has been shorted many times while the "Origins" section has been removed as many times. Someone should expand the page and expand/clarify where necessary. Cutting and re-cutting doesn't help anyone.

I can upload a general first draft of both if need be. The "origins" section is ready now. User:JosephFrontroyal (talk)

There's an error in the beginning of this article that states that alt-righters are 'opposed' to immigration. Actually, the overwhelming majority of alt-righters aren't opposed to immigration at all; rather, they support it in a selective and limited style. Numerous figureheads of the movement such as John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow have confirmed this. I'm sure this mistake won't be rectified because it jibes with some sort of narrative, which, of course, is much more important than factual accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.33.111 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That "error" is supported by reliable sources. If you have sources that back up your statement, please provide them. clpo13_(talk) 03:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The "realiable source" is an opinion column titled "Donald Trump’s hate for political correctness is comfort food to racists", sounds pretty biased to me. That source is as reliable as me writing a blog post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.159.101 (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2016‎

Cathy Young is a controversial but noted columnist who's opinion is being cited as an opinion, and that's source isn't used in the lead. The statement in the lead is supported by sources from CNN and Financial Times, and there are plenty more where that came from. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

First line on origins: "Origins According to economist Jeffrey Tucker of the Foundation for Economic Education, "The movement inherits a long and dreary tradition of thought........"

Pretty clearly unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.32.233 (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This description of the "Alt-Right" is on the border of being slanderous. This notion of associating any conservative movements with white-supremacy and hate groups clearly indicates a very prejudice and hostile takeover of this webpage to push a certain political narrative. The goal of Wikipedia is to inform the reader and to spread information for all to see, not to push your own highly delusional interpretation(s) of the information given. The Soothsayer (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As said over 9000 times already, find some sources and suggest changes. Reliable sources by and large describe the alt-right as nationalist and white supremacist. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

What EvergreenFir said. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Commentary

The following could be included in the Commentary:
According to Eric Hananoki writing for Media Matters for America the Trump Campaign accepted donations from White Nationalist Leaders, e.g. Michael Polignano, webmaster for Counter-Currents, and Peter Brimelow, editor of VDARE, both virulently racist publications.

References

~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.4.66.210 (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Navboxes

This article transcludes navboxes Template:Conservatism sidebar, Template:Nationalism sidebar, and Template:White nationalism, none of which link back to this article. According to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL

"Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional."

These navboxes should either be removed from this article, or a link to this article should be added to the ones that are kept. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here! This is about your removal of navboxes in these difs with the sole justification in the edit note being WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I reverted here, as BIDIRECTIONAL doesn't speak to whether the navbox should be on a given page or not.

With regard to the notion that the article should be in the navbox, that is easily fixed, as I did here, here, and here. Now what is the reason for not using each of those navboxes in this article? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue is resolved, as far as I'm concerned. When article and navbox content disagrees, one always has to assume that either of them is wrong. I tend to assume it's the article, because articles are more volatile and less centralized by nature. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

great. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

White Nationalism primary source

While doing some research for another article I found the most popular alt-right podcast, Fash The Nation (part of what RS call alt-right media hub The Right Stuff. FTN and the other publications in its immediate family are seen by many as the definitive word on the alt-right. This week, in Week 58: Alt-Right vs. Alt-Wrong [1] there was an entire segment specifically about what the alt-right is. Of particular interest is this statement by host Jazzhands McFeels at 1:15 "One of the things I want to point out very clearly is that we are white nationalists. Period. And without white nationalism the alt-right is nothing...this is extremely important. We're not going to walk back from these principles." There's more discussion for nearly an hour reinforcing that, and previous episodes of FTN and its sister podcast, The Daily Shoah, have also reflected this viewpoint. Of course basing something this controversial on primary sources is very shaky, but we already have secondary sources saying that they are white nationalists and white supremacists. Combined with an explicit statement and even embrace of that label by one of the major alt-right leaders, that would seem to be enough to cross the threshold. Even if not enough to label the entirety of the alt-right in Wikipedia's voice, that primary source from TRS combined with the Guardian article which calls TRS "a major hub for the dissemination of alt-right materials" should be enough to attribute the opinion to McFeels. I could probably find more examples of this kind of statement, but listening to a dozen hours of podcasts and reading white supremacist blog posts for hours isn't exactly appealing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The same is true for The Daily Stormer and its editor Andrew Anglin: "Kikeservative Milo Attacks Daily Stormer and Fash the Nation, Says Alt-Right is Only 2-5% of the Alt-Right". You could read the article but it's more of the same of what's in the title and reaffirms statements made on FTN.

@The Wordsmith: What type of change would you be proposing though? Zaostao (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zaostao: Thanks, I hadn't seen that. The Stormer is a little too much for me to subject myself to. As to what I'm proposing, it would be best in the Beliefs section. Something along the lines of "While the label of white nationalism is disputed by some political commentators including Milo Yiannopoulos and Allum Bokhari, prominent alt-right leaders such as Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer and Jazzhands McFeels of Fash The Nation have embraced the term as the core philosophy their movement is based on." Obviously the wording needs some polishing, but it might end the constant talkpage arguments and low-level edit warring over the WN label. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: That would be fine, as alt-right is essentially just a rebranding of white nationalism by the looks of it, although giving prominence to one thing will probably cause lots of 'nuh-uh x, y or z is the main thing'—which was sort of seen earlier by the tag team edit warring to reinsert "antifeminism" without any discussion on the talk page. Zaostao (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zaostao: That's exactly what I'm trying to avert here. If we have both their major leaders and their major critics using the same label to describe them, there really isn't much room to argue that they're not. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: Oh, okay, in that case would a wording such as "The alt-right has no official ideology, although various sources and alt-right figures have stated white nationalism to be fundamental to the movement. It has also been associated with white supremacism, antisemitism, right-wing populism, nativism and the neoreactionary movement." in the lede with the detail about Yiannopoulos and other Breitbart types commenting in the beliefs section? Zaostao (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"formal" or "organized" would be better than "official" as for there to even be an expectation of something being "official" there needs to be an office - an organization - to issue it. The list does not include "anti-feminist" or MRA, and needs to, based on the preponderance of reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Though I question if we need both White Nationalist and White Supremacist, they're basically the same thing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: Okay, so "The alt-right has no formal ideology, although various sources and alt-right figures have stated white nationalism to be fundamental to the movement. It has also been associated with antisemitism, right-wing populism, nativism, (whatever else), and the neoreactionary movement"? Would you be going ahead and making this change or are you unable to because of INVOLVED? Zaostao (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia-running trolls part of the Donald Trump-supporting alt-right?

I'm curious to know whether the trolls running Wikipedia, as Larry Sanger says last November are part of the alt-right, which is supporting the Republican nominee Donald Trump, especially with the hiring of the Breitbart News staffmember Stephen K. Bannon as campaign manager. For example, BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs) is part of the alt-right, given the fact he makes statements that suggest a kinship with Trump, and by extension, his friend, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Is it possible to add the mention of "Wikipedia" into it, and the word "alt-right" to be included in Criticism of Wikipedia? 2001:E68:542D:19FB:F8E4:9753:F327:F2E3 (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources. I suspect, however, that you do not have reliable sources for that claim. Kleuske (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, beware of assigning political views to specific editors. Chances are you are wrong, but even if you're right, it has no place on Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• That source doesn't mention the alt-right at all (which isn't surprising given its date, which is way before the term became common.) We'd need sources specifically mentioning the Alt-Right and Wikipedia to go anywhere with that, ideally high-quality ones. --Aquillion (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

List of isms in the lead

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.

---

Zaostao, you've tried to remove antifeminism and anti-Islamism a few times now ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). Please stop edit warring and discuss this. The sources clearly support the inclusion of both. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

There already is a discussion above. islam mention is about Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders attending the RNC, not about the "alt-right", unless you're going off the title, in which case "homosexuality" is an ideology of the alt-right as well. Zaostao (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

don't see where islam/zeller are discussed above. The Nation article makes it clear in its loose coalition alt-right includes anti-islam, and enthusiastically. added an additional ref as well. Because alt-right is so loose you have almost no leg to exclude any of these elements. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

the nation article doesn't state geller or wilders are "alt-right" and it only mentions islam when speaking of them. anyway, i was referencing the section titled antifeminism. and there's basic commonsense which would suggest you'd try to avoid terms which are redundant—in the lede at the very least, like anti-capitalist socialist or anti-feminist traditionalist/reactionary. Zaostao (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I never said that the nation article states that geller or wilders are alt-right. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that the source didn't support the material? If so, why did you revert? Zaostao (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I said it does support - please slow down and read what i wrote two comments ago. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

And I responded by pointing out it only mentions Islam when talking about Geller and Wilders, it doesn't actually link alt-right to it. It's helpful to read beyond the headline, although with the nation, maybe not. Zaostao (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

read the whole article. added quotes from it to the ref, as a matter of fact. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• it mentions both islam and alt-right in the same article, but not in the same sentence at any point other than the headline—just as it does with gays, yet "homosexuality" isn't taken as an association. anyway, there probably are sources that actually support the material, but being deliberately obtuse is easier than trying to improve an encyclopedia, I suppose. Zaostao (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

no, it does not. it talks about this being "the alt-right convention", describes the people at the side talk as alt-righters, and describes how they react to the speakers. it is plain as day. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

that's your synthesis of the source. while i'm sure you're an adept reader and good at piecing things together, you're not actually a citing a sentence that supports your position. Zaostao (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We summarize sources, we don't parrot them. And btw, you are the only one - the only one - contesting this. I won't be responding further as this is pointless. adding some refs too Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

So you can't cite a sentence that actually supports your position from the nation ref? Okay, so I was right to remove it in the first place. Good to have confirmation. Zaostao (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you were wrong. I look forward to your reply here. Rockypedia (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

i added quotes from the article that support the content to the ref. there are now several other refs as well. you have leg here; again "alt-right" is a big tent with vague boundaries and the burden is going to be on you to exclude pretty much any form of hatred for any group outside of white men. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2016 (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.

Fundamentally wrong about this so called "movement"

Just a disclaimer, I'll use the terms "4chan, and "alt right", rather interchangably.

Having spent years on image boards large and small, the specific nature of the alt right is most certainly rooted in an almost militant nihilism. A desire to collectively cause chaos and stir the pot while caring naught for the consequences.

I think specifically, I would recommend reading "Die Fröliche Wissenschaft" (best in the original German for those who know the language).

It has grown from an existential alienation from society at large. I believe, in a more specific sense, the propagation of the psychological intersubjectity.

They really do hold no beliefs. Not that they may not exspouse certain views, but those specific views are subject to rapid change. The dominant political ideologies of 4chan (at dace value) in the past were more often socialist anarchism and capitalist minarchism (chomsky and ron paul were, paradoxically, favorites). As the appeal of the website grew broader, however, it attracted a great number of similarly dissatisfied far right individuals, who assimilated into 4chan's nihilist culture.

As society at large (at least in the opinion of 4chan's user base) becomes increasingly opposed to unrestricted freedom of speech, the racist and extremist views grow (which have always been present to some degree, because 4chan allows for more or less unrestricted content creation), simply because it is "trendy", or "edgy" to express them.

The attraction towards donald trump lies in his use of aggressive and catchy slogans. Saying like "Build The Wall" are short, sweet, and, antagonistic. In other words perfect. He's unified people who have a deep hatred for society, yet without even mere desire to change the status quo, only destroy it.

I think that's what most people havent put in the tens of thousands of hours into these communities like I have (narcissism, I know, but that is one of the tenants of the alt right) fail to understand, it isnt about ideology or policy, it's about rejoicing in upsetting order while putting in as little effort as possible. Pietrus69 (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Based on everything I have read, I think you are right. But everything in WP needs to be based on what we call reliable sources. Are you aware of any reliable sources that speak to this? That would be extremely valuable. (Your general reflections, while interesting, are not useful in WP - please don't write here with more of that... there are no end to people's opinions and WP is not driven by them). Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

There is some coverage of this already in the article (eg. Benjamin Wallace-Wells' article questions how serious some of this is; the CJR piece says that much of it is just intended to get a reaction.) But it's also important to remember that it's not an either-or thing. It's safe to say that Richard B. Spencer, who coined the term, is serious about White Nationalism, which he has more-or-less devoted his life to; and many parts of the beliefs and origins section cite what seem to be serious beliefs regarding race, nationalism, etc. That doesn't mean that everyone on 4chan who posts alt-right memes is serious about it, but they're also not the entire alt-right. If we can find sources for it, it might be useful to break down the alt right's individual threads in more detail than the somewhat cursory "composed of" list we rely on now. --Aquillion (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"specific nature of the alt right is most certainly rooted in an almost militant nihilism" - that's an interesting point that I hadn't seen before. A quick search reveals this Salon article. It's not a perfect source, as it's an opinion piece, but I thought it might prove useful. Rockypedia (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I added content about this to the body here and updated the lead here (that dif looks more dramatic than it is - i took the last sentence and made it the second sentence, then added a bit) What do you think? I really do think the OP had an important point, and it is supported by sources. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Troy Southgate

I thought I would post this here, since I'm not well versed in the far-right topics. The section in the above article (Troy Southgate#Academic coverage) appears to mix mainstream academic sources with what seem to be neo-Nazi publications, such as "The West Reborn" by David J. Wingfield or (insidiously sounding) Charles Lindholm's The Struggle for the World: Liberation Movements for the 21st Century.

If someone can help untagle this or provide any guidance, that would be much appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Question

this is a joke and why cant i edit it??

Kolovrat19 (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is semi-protected because we have a lot of drive-by vandalism. This happens to articles that discuss topics that have passionate online communities. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

i want to edit it. needs to be changed doesnt make sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolovrat19 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

In order to request a change, use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template along with the specific changes you want made. clpo13_(talk) 23:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing needs changing, why does it say that its just a joke on 4chan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolovrat19 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

it says what it says, based on what we call reliable sources. if you want to work in Wikipedia, you need to learn and follow the policies and guidelines here - this is not 4chan where you can do what you want. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

if you read what I asked I said why it says its just a joke on 4chan and then you say im on 4chan? it doesnt even make sense.. did you write this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolovrat19 (talk • contribs) 00:06, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

Please reread this entire conversation. Your questions have already been answered. Earthscent (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The new "Public opinion" section

I must question the current content of this section, consisting of a single poll in which a plurality (45%) of respondents claims to be too ignorant to form an opinion! The cited source itself is incorrectly written. 34% and 21% of the remaining 55% of respondents with opinions should translate to 18.7% and 11.55% of all respondents, respectively, but those don't add up to 55%. 34% and 21% do. Furthermore, this same poll yielded a 58% majority holding favorable views of the BLM movement. Clearly, most respondents had no idea what the alt-right is. I recommend deleting this section until useful and meaningful polling can be included. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd be more in favour of removing the section if the sourcing is inappropriate, rather than putting your own POV on the results. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That said, the source doesn't really support a section of its own- your points are perfectly correct, I just think the chosen action was wrong (editing rather than removing.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the section did need to go. The poll was too ridiculous, and even the source reporting on it was problematic. Thank you. However, my edit, made in the event editors insisted on keeping the section, was not POV or "editorialising," as one of your edit summaries indicated. I was correcting the original misrepresentation of what the cited source actually said, using language closely paraphrasing that source. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. I was a bit tired at the time and may have not read as closely as I should have. My mistake. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

In the Origins section there is the sentence "In March 2016 Breitbart News writers Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos published a piece on the alt-right, which CNN described as being similar to a manifesto." Please add the citation to the article being cited. It is: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

Bvschwartz (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The article is already cited. It's the cite at the end of the next sentence which describes the article. — Strongjam (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

See also section

If a link is that important, ideally it can be added to the body of the text rather than this section becoming a "list". --Malerooster (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This article calling Breitbart News a "Social Media" source is an example of why Wikipedia is not considered credible and not accepted in many colleges as a legitimate source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexcrouch (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rexcrouch: This is not a relevant section to bring up your concerns. That aside, you would be hard-pressed to find any website with coverage as in-depth / up-to-date as Wikipedia, and (often short-lived) mistakes are the cost. I have already removed the "social media" part from the lead. If you see any other issues, bring them up in a separate section on this talk page. Dustin (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Alt-right = Everything Democrats don't like and find deplorable

The list seems to include everything the Democrats find to be bad, from people working for men's rights in society, to nationalists.

Is this really a movement or a figment of Clintons imagenation? Since it were she and CNN who first started defining the term in this way.Jacob3939 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If you read the article and its sources, it's clear that this predates Clinton's current campaign and that it was not defined by her or CNN. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

But it were not defined in this way before Clinton started speaking about it. It is more or less Clintons word right now, and is defined as anything the Democrats don't like. Jacob3939 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton made her speech on August 25, 2016. Here is the article as it was on August 21. The definitions were already present. clpo13_(talk) 18:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

But prior to Trump's seizing the nomination, Republicans didn't like any of these things either! FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... Parsley Man (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I do think some changes could be applied to the lead section, as it almost over-emphasizes the negative traits associated with the alt-right for that one sentence (by virtue of being a very long list). It should be shortened, and the overlink / overref dealt with, especially considering it already exists below (and there, too, there are issues). Dustin (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Disputed accuracy

While yes the article uses reliable sources, I contest the accuracy of the article. The article paints members of the alt-right as bigots, and uses sources like CNN and NPR. Both sources the alt-right, in their own words, claims misrepresents them to promote hatred against them. This is likely OR, and as such I won't actually add it to the article, but as a person who watches many self-proclaimed alt-right channels on YouTube. I don't see white supremacism (sp?) in their message. Nor do I see anti-immigration. As such, I fully dispute the accuracy of this article, it reads like a hit piece against the alt-right. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 02:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have no policy-based reason for disputing the accuracy of the article. Verifiability in reliable sources is all that matters. Sources in this article include The Weekly Standard, The Federalist, and a range of other publications that represent a broad set of perspectives. - MrX 03:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Question about sources and quotation

This article contains the following sentence:

She [Hillary Clinton] identified this radical fringe with the alt-right, and noted that Trump's campaign chief executive Stephen Bannon has described his Breitbart News Network as "the platform for the alt-right."

The verb noted implies not only that this statement was made, but also that it was true. Thus we say, "John noted that it was now past noon," but we do not say, "Robert Welch noted that Eisenhower was a member of the Communist Party". The latter claim, being controversial, should use a verb such as "asserted" or "claimed", rather than "noted".

The sentence above includes a source [8]. This source indicates that Clinton quoted Bannon as having used these words, but it does not indicate whether Bannon actually used these words. So I think that we should either change the word "noted" to something else, or we need a second source that supports the claim that Bannon actually said this. I have found one such source online: [9]. But before I add this source, I'd like to check to see whether there is any additional data on this quotation -- for example, did Bannon ever confirm or deny that he described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right"? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The Mother Jones source makes sense as a supplemental reference, since it clearly supports the quote, but I don't think it's strictly necessary. Whether or not Bannon actually said this is not an opinion, so this isn't a case of editorializing. Regardless of the content of the quote, that he said it is fairly straightforward, right? Lacking evidence to the contrary, we should assume it's an accurate quote. If he had specifically denied saying that, or some fact-checkers had called this into question or something, of course we should consider rephrasing to clarify. Otherwise we don't really need Bannon to weigh in on this specifically. Grayfell (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the Mother Jones link as a second reference, just to be careful -- WP:BLP applies even though this article isn't about Bannon specifically, so it seems better not to use a political opponent as the sole source for the quote. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Should VOX really be included as a source? That would be like Breitbart getting to cite positive things about this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.243.156 (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Lede/Lead/Opening

I have moved the order of information in the opening of the article based on importance of content produced by alt-right bodies, previous version privileged information about where alt-right news/information is published and with the phrase "...difficult to tell how much of what people write in these venues is serious" mitigated the seriousness (and danger) of alt-right views in the next paragraph.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There remain some issues with the lede. Is the alt-right a heterogenous mixture of people? What are the commonalities? The lede seems to suggest that it is both heterogenous and unitary. As with many politically salient articles, it's particularly important not to allow its enemies to define it. This is particularly the case after the Clinton speech on the alt-right, which was, needless to say, politically motivated - and her elevation of the racist element of the movement was followed by many of her supporters in the media. Needless to say, we need to be particularly careful of what qualifies as a RS in this matter. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

As with many politically salient articles, it should not be defined by its apologists.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is criminally short given the controversy the alt-right has generated. My first statement was in no way meant to assert that the article, or even the lede, are finished products.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, we should not privilege the definitions of alt-right defenders, but self-understanding is relevant. The problem, of course, is that the alt-right is such a nebulous and diverse movement, so it's hard to know who can speak for it, and not just a faction of it. My perception is that the racist faction of the alt-right is loudly yelling that they are the core of the movement in an effort to gain adherents, and much of the media is happy to echo that perception for its own reasons. What the real proportions are is difficult to know. Just for the record, I didn't mean to criticize your work on the lede, just wanted to add my two cents in on what problems, imho, remain. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016

Near the end of the second paragraph it is said that members of the alt-right are against immigration as a whole. Milo Yiannopoulos, a prominent figure of the alt-right, has confirmed in a BBC interview that the alt-right is strongly against illegal immigration, not immigration as a whole. Thank you for the time and consideration. 108.45.52.165 (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: For one thing, this needs a citation, and the article about the interview does not mention Milo's statement about the alt-right's position on immigration. Even within the alt-right, Milo is a controversial figure as he has been accused of downplaying alt-right beliefs. Additionally, he has recently distanced himself from the movement. If there are sources which note this emphasis on illegal immigration in alt-right beliefs then it should be changed. ^Falling_Gravity 05:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Over the weekend a group of white nationalists were caught on camera doing Sieg heil at a conference for Spencer and his National Policy Institute. These people of the alt-right are creepy. White Nationalists and Nazi-Saluting Tila Tequila Toast ‘Emperor Trump’ in Washington, DCPhoto of the Day: Tila Tequila and White Supremacist Pals Give Nazi Salute at NPI ConferenceAlt-right celebrates Trump’s election at D.C. meeting 97.76.210.20 (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Also covered in The New York Times.- MrX 16:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm requesting that the section about Spencer be changed to include that he is in fact a white nationalist and white supremacist. This is not in dispute, see http://www.npr.org/2016/11/20/502719871/energized-by-trumps-win-white-nationalists-gather-to-change-the-world

Good luck. White supremacists have a history of "white washing" wikipedia pretty constantly, aided and abetted by corrupt admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.155.210.91 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see something added in this article about the abuse women online receive from some of the members in this group. I could look for sources, but I'm not positive about your rules on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C401:18CE:6964:C663:BAA9:CECE (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"people" section in the side bar

Alphabetical list perhaps would make it much easier to see who is there, who is missing and who might have been put there in error. Edaham (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

A Huge Omission

While the subject of this article has clearly established notability for Wikipedia's purposes, this article fails entirely to address one of the two most significant issues with this (or pretty much any) group: size. How big is this "alt-right" movement? It's big enough to garner press coverage and national discussion, but how many people? 100, 1,000 - 10,000 - 100,000? This article gives nary a clue, and I find that highly problematic. Ten thousand people might be annoying. Ten million people gives notice. One-hundred million people and I'm looking for another country to live in. But I hope you see the point. Can someone please find some reliable sources that give some indication of scale? Thanks! Rklawton (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The term is a confusing because it refers both to conservatives and libertarians who reject the Republican establishment and to a very small group of neo-fascists as described in the SPLC article.[10] The first group was large enough to get Trump elected, the second group is fairly small. TFD (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, any segment of the population comprising a percent or so could be said to be "enough to get Trump elected." I don't think the musings of a pundit should be given much credence for size estimation, nor does it actually provide a size estimation. Indeed, the definition of a "loose group of people", if they don't self-identify, seems to indicate that this term is no more significant than something like the "soccer moms" who "elected" Clinton in 1992. At any rate, at least we had census data for the soccer moms that could help us identify that group's size and exit surveys to determine which way they voted. We really need something like that for the alt-right - or the term "alt-right" is simply a label with no indication of significance. As far as I can tell, no such data exists, and we should probably make note of that in the info-box, e.g. "Membership count: undetermined" Rklawton (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It's awfully difficult to give even an approximate membership figure of a heterogenous movement lacking a formal structure, the very definition of which is under considerable dispute. I will mention that Slatestarcodex did attempt a quantification: [11] but it's far from precise and relies on some questionable assumptions and a restrictive definition. Gabrielthursday (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

True, but it would be useful to know if we're dealing with a thousand people or a hundred thousand (or more). I briefly looked at the link, but I couldn't tell if it was self published. I'm not familiar with the website. Is Alexander a credible source? If he's credible, then maybe we should post his estimates as a starting point. Thoughts? For what it's worth, the term "alt-right" has only recently entered my consciousness. Prior to that I had a vague feeling it was some sort of newsgroup. At any rate, I listened to an NPR interview of a leader in the movement and then came here for background - only to find an article that isn't very clear on the subject and devoid of numbers. When I have time, I'm going look up Breitbart next... Rklawton (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

General Edit Requested

I want to request an addition to the origins section of the alt-right to include a newer perspective which will help to make the articles narrative reflect a more neutral point of view, perhaps by giving some balance.

Rationale

Regarding the origin of the alt-right, there are some commentators starting to draw parallels between the alt-right and left-wing intersectionality.

Effectively, these theorists see the alt-right as the right wing equivalent of intersectional left-wing politics. The following source sums both of them up as "a big-tent movement of varying ideologies that have all coalesced around accepting [a central] idea". The central idea (philosophical tenet) in intersectionality is a social constructivist idealism, where-as for the alt-right it is a form of biological realism which many consider to be the antithesis of the former. For people who draw this parallel, the alt-right is a type of knee-jerk reaction to intersectional politics. Effectively, they have defined themselves as the polar opposite of intersectionality (while utilising the same generic structure which enables the overlap of different ideologies) because of a tendency to distance themselves from what they (the alt-right) perceive to be a radicalised worldview.

https://dissidentright.com/2016/08/11/right-wing-intersectionality/

This is currently the only 'layman' friendly source specific to the presented parallel, and there aren't many others that are published yet.

Apologies for any poor formatting, still getting familiar with how to write. Please let me know if there is any more sources/evidence required for this addition.

EDIT: It appears that my post might touch on other issues in 'talk' sections instigated by other users. I see some comments saying there needs to be an established consensus for proposed additions, or that the article in its current narrative fails to reflect the perspective of people part of the alt-right and is politically biased in favour of those on the left. While I don't see my proposed addition as being particularly friendly to the alt-right, I feel it might be able to mend this 'perspective' gap that others seem to think exists in the article.

Specific edit request

Tucker, an anarcho-capitalist, has said the alt-right is opposed to libertarianism because the alt-right focuses on group identity and tribalism instead of individual liberty.[43] It is on this focus that there is some discussion attempting to identify a parallel between the alt-right and left wing intersectionality, where it has been proposed that the alt-right are a form of 'Right-wing Intersectionality'. Under this perspective, the alt-right can be seen as a structured effort to create a political reverse of intersectional politics in a way that mimics its structure, which is characterised by an organised collective of distinctive, yet overlapping ideologies . However, where left-wing intersectionality see's equal outcomes for minorities as fundamental to a successful society, it has been claimed by Ben Shapiro that central to the alt-right (right-wing intersectionality) is the idea that the success of western society is predicated on having people of European descent in power. The differences can also be explained as a difference in philosophical perspectives. While left-wing intersectionality is founded on a social idealism, alt-right (right-wing intersectionality) perspectives might be seen to reflect a biological realism. Despite this, many feel that the alt-right lineage can be traced back to South Park Republican.[49] Obikankenwalker (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Hello. Regarding the template: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Regarding the proposed changes: dissidentright.com is not a reliable source. It's bizarre and ironic to read a source commenting on how supposedly difficult it is for "normies" to understand alt-right rhetoric, while so badly failing to understand the concept of intersectionality. Regardless, there are some reliable sources already used in the article commenting on the alt-right's claims to being "big tent", but most of them reject it as empty strategy (as Ben Shapiro does in the Slate article you cite). Sources need to be held to a high standard, and if that's the best source you can find, it's way too soon to add this to the article. Much of this is original research also. Other Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources, per WP:CIRC. Grayfell (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, at the risk of incurring "forum" wrath, I must admit to being struck by how thoroughly dissidentright.com "misconstrues" (i.e., intentionally misrepresents) the concept of intersectionality. Of course, the site's alt-right rhetoric or jargon is merely a barely covert attempt to dress up or disguise bigotry in more palatable garb. The attempt fails miserably and ostentatiously. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016

Add the following relevant and important definition on ALT RIGHT political position. It is nececssary to balance this wiki page by including additional tenets of the alt right, as revealed from their own writing:

The Alt-Right is a movement founded on the need to reject the false political dichotomy that favours an increasingly Leftist and globalist world. The Alt-Right rejects the simple binary form of the two party Democratic or Republican / Liberal or Conservative model of politics for the following reasons: (i) It is a false dichotomy (ii) It ignores the metapolitical dimension (iii) It embeds false premises in the political debate

Sondrad (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Regarding the rejection of this edit - Pioneers of the movement are not reliable sources however, People Magazine, CNN, The New Yorker, VOX, The Nation and Salon are reliable sources. The very antithesis of the subject. If 'Alternative Right Blog' is not a reliable source than there is no reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.230.63.36 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Additionally, blogs are almost never reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, and that one is no exception. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

Change "coining of the term" to "etymology" 193.180.165.207 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Done 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016

In the opening paragraph, "homophobia" should be removed. The sources for this claim do not provide any evidence that homophobia is associated with the alt-right. If anything, it appears to be embraced by the movement because the alt-right typically rejects a lot of the typical conservative social issues. Thegreengoob (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - The content is sourced. If you think there is a point of view that is not represented in the article, please provide reliable sources.- MrX 15:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/09/08/milo-cnbc-world-run-alt-right-much-fun/ https://www.thenation.com/article/islamophobes-white-supremacists-and-gays-for-trump-the-alt-right-arrives-at-the-rnc/

Consider that the leader of the movement, Milo Yiannopoulos, is gay. The Ghost 02:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon1122334455 (talk • contribs)

Milo Yiannopoulos is the leader, now? He describes himself as only a sympathetic reporter and "fellow traveler". As this article explains, there is no single leader or ideology associated with the movement, so having a handful of gay people involved doesn't invalidate other sources. Gay people can belong to homophobic movements, also, and Yiannopoulos isn't a shield. Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Well said. Yiannopoulos is not the leader of anything; he's a self-confessed troll. Also, Breitbart is not a reliable source.- MrX 03:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Appearance of bias

It seems wrong to focus on negative opinions of what alt-right is from critics of "various sources" in the first part of the article. I don't think that would be tolerated in other articles. For example, I don't think the definition of any political party in wikipedia includes what would best be described as demagoguery or smear from competing political parties. This is effectively allowing people subscribing to competing ideologies to define what alt-right is. This phrase is repeated under "Beliefs" which is somewhat more reasonable. I suggest removing that section from the first part of the article and leaving it under "Beliefs", if not moving it to a section entitled "Criticism" which would be more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.111.58 (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Bias in Wikipedia articles is covered under "Neutral point of view". The objective is not to be even-handed in coverage but to present opinions about them in proportion to their weight in reliable sources. In your example, if political parties offend accepted social values, then they are not portrayed in a positive light. TFD (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be good to clairify the history and or evolution of the notion of the "alt-right." From searching around, it appears to be a term that was not used before Q2 2016, and the article does not help me make a determination about that. ~~Gatkinso315~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatkinso315 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gatkinso315: did you miss the etymology section, where it's established the term was in use as early as 2008? Breitbart published their "An Establishment Conservative's Guide to the Alt-Right" in March 2016, which arguably popularized the term outside of the alt-right itself, but it's certainly been around longer. clpo13_(talk) 00:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I find it suspiciously convenient that this website has been made impossible to edit and the info across it is all biased toward the left. Zrayz10 (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zrayz10: It's not impossible to edit. It's just semi-protected. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Membership

The page occasionally refers to 'members' of the alt-right, but it's much too amorphous to have any real 'membership'. You ideologically align with the alt-right or you don't. The same can be said for imageboards like 4chan. There's no sign up. You post/lurk or you don't. Fullmetalalch (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What would you propose it be changed to? Adherents? Devotees?- MrX 20:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Relationship to the Manosphere and other precursors

I've removed a section titled "Relationship to the Manosphere and other precursors". There is a connection, but the section used very poor sources such as wordpress blogs and other Wikis. These sources only vaguely supported the connection, and only as examples, instead of as explanations, making the original research. The language was also too vague and included a lot of opinions and comparative assessments which were not supported by any reliable sources at all. Grayfell (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's no way to actually provide reliable sources in the way that you or Wikipedia desires, since there is no academic research on the Alt-Right that will support the information I've given. I can only say it happened that way because "I was there." (Which is true.) I was involved with the Manosphere starting around Spring-Summer 2013, and read Return of Kings as well as all related blogs. Alt-Right and TradCon sentiments were present around all these blogs and marginally related to them. This was way before the whole, very popular anti-SJW, anti-Tumblr fad emerged in the past year (2015-2016). The Alt-Right is the reason why Trump was elected, but its Manosphere precursor was the reason why there is now a "theredpill" subreddit on Reddit and so on and so forth. Asking for citations at this point won't do any good, since I also can't give a citation for the fact that I went to the bathroom today, or that God exists, even though both are true. Even if I cite the Bible, the Qur’an, all of Muhammad’s (S.A.W.) predictions that came true, or even give convincing geographical, historical, and interlinking textual arguments in favor of God's omnipresence, it simply won't be accepted. Similarly, I cannot give citations that the Alt-Right "isn't racist," or whatever. The truth is in the de facto understanding, which has no citable existence. But yes, that's how it happened. PUA (late 90s) -> popularization of seduction community (Strauss, 00s) -> Roissy (Roissysphere) -> Roosh V. (Return of Kings) -> everything else, Trump, etc. Cheers! BboyYen (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Return of Kings? The website owned by Roosh V? Its copyright informations suggests establishment in 2012. Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

IIRC I'd say that's accurate yes. It wasn't until fall of 2013 that Return of Kings really began to take off. At the time it called itself, or was a part of, the "Manosphere" and the "red pill" movement. Other involved people were Roissy (Chateau Heartiste) and Rollo Tomassi (The Rational Male). Other movements like the Christian manosphere, the Alt-Right, the TradCon, and so on and so forth were tangential to the core of the sphere which was mainly "red pill." This includes the MRAs and the MGTOWs. Articles: Roosh V. on the Alt-Right, TradCon on Reddit, RoK on the TradCons. The Alt-Right was not central to the Manosphere, but was closely related because they talked about feminism, sexuality, and so on and so forth. Most "red pill" men were interested in "game" and self-improvement, as well as social critique. TBH, I have no idea what Roosh is saying in that article I linked, but the generic way I remember it was that there was this bubbling community that took off in 2012-2013, and that the Alt-Right was somewhat linked to it. Obviously the Alt-Right ballooned when the whole Trump thing happened. BboyYen (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Crazy string of 20 notes

Currently, there is a crazy string of 20 (no, that was not a typo) notes at the end of the first paragraph of the lead. Obviously, most if not all readers just won't wade through 20 sources to verify a single "ism" in a longish list of them. I know with absolute certainty that I will not, be it for reading or editing purposes. The easiest way to fix this absurd abomination is to revert to the last version of the page without the crazy string and have the originally contributing editors copy and paste their material back in. There have been only two major edits since the appearance of the string. Of course, if some editor with an overabundance of both time and patience wants to painstakingly rematch the notes with their corresponding content, well, by all means, have at it! Without me. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I support reverting to the stable version of the article before Plumber's unexplained rearranging. I'm surprised this is even a question: having twenty notes at the end of the paragraph instead of placed with the sentences or clauses they support is absurd and makes them useless for verifiability. The minor edits following Plumber's mess can easily be restored manually. Rebbing 13:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible solution. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

German idealism

Why does this article not mention German idealism? The whole point of the so-called alt-right is to complete the system of German idealism. Why is this key fact omitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by German Idealist (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a big stretch to me, but the first step would be finding a reliable source linking German idealism to the alt-right. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This is just a joke, a reference to the "Is Trump a German Idealist?" video/meme. BeŻet (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)