Talk:Alt-right/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Project of improvement

Having previously had quite a bit of success with far-right themed articles like John Tyndall (politician), National Front (UK), and English Defence League, earlier today, I was WP:Bold and embarked on a quite significant reworking of much of the article. I introduced a wealth of academically referenced material into it, in many cases replacing other parts that were already in the article. It was not, I acknowledge, perfect, but it was a work in progress and it was an improvement. User:Beyond My Ken reverted everything I had done, not (as far as I can tell) because he thought any of it was necessarily bad, but because "This is much too much editing at one time to be easily taken in", which is a not unreasonable point. He suggested that I take the issue to Talk, which is what I have now done. Now, the truth is that this this article is a mess. It has a lot of very serious problems and isn't very comprehensible to the average reader. And yet, it is on a really quite important subject. It is imperative that we improve it, and improve it relatively quickly. The sort of improvement needed will not be achieved by incremental edits here and there; it will be achieved by hard work and significant alteration by one or two dedicated editors who have access to the best quality sources (which can then of course be assessed and tinkered with by a far wider range of editors). Beyond My Ken, unless you object, I would very much like to restore some of the material as a starting point. I for instance added sections on the "Structure" and "Demography" of the movement to the article, using academic sources. These are both topics that the article presently overlooks. Are there any objections to such a move? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold once more and re-insert the "Structure" and "Demography" sections back into the article. This will involve adding academically referenced information covering material that is otherwise not present in the article. I cannot foresee any concern about these from other editors; if anyone has any strong concern about these specific sections and the information that they contain they can of course revert. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

These sections are very weak. The "Structure" section is based on a single source (Hawley), and the "Demographics" section is 80% based on the same source, with a single short paragraph based on another source. These sources may be academic, but being published adademic studies is no guarantee that they represent the consensus of academic opinion.

I suggest that you remove these sections until you can support them to a variety of different sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I also put together a useful few paragraphs about the ideological forebears of the Alt-Right, again using academic sources as a basis. Are there any objections to me restoring these in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the weakness of the two sections you restored on the assumption that no one could possibly disagree with them, I suggest you start a new section on this page and post those few paragraphs before for add them to the article.

Also, please take note of the 1RR sanction on this article, something that almost tripped me up just moments ago, and be careful not to violate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that "This is much too much editing at one time to be easily taken in" is a good reason for a revert. Per WP:AGF, we should assume that edits are improvements unless there is a specific reason to think that they are not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

That is a misinterpretation of AGF, which is about editors' behavior and their purpose in making edit and not about the content of those edits:

Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such.

I have attributed absolutely no malice or any bad motive to Midnightblueowl, I merely felt -- and continue to feel -- that such a massive re-write of a highly controversial article without consensus or, at the very least, input from other editors, is not a good idea. Such a voluminous amount of changes made in (as it were) one fell swoop is very hard to take in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

If we make "the assumption that editors' edits are made in good faith", it ought not to be difficult to make the further assumption that edits are improvements in the absence of reasons to think that they are not. As far as I'm concerned, a "massive re-write of a highly controversial article" is fine if there are no specific reasons to think the re-write is bad. It isn't necessary to elaborately establish a consensus for every edit one wishes to make. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It may not be difficult to do so, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with AGF. I do not doubt thet MBO intends to improve the article, but that, again, has nothing to do with whether his edits actually improve it or not, in the opinions of other editors. Let's focus, please, on the contents of MBO's edits, started with the two sections that he boldly restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm rather biased on this matter, but I really think that my edits were—perhaps even in an objective sense—an improvement. Surely longstanding, experienced editors who look at my edits will think that the majority of them are certainly improvements, particularly if they take into account my track record of improving articles on far-right and other political topics? This article is presently a messy, jumbled collection of statements that has been put together over the past three years by a broad range of editors each citing free online sources, often of dubious accuracy. As a result, its structure is confused. It gives far too much attention to certain issues; far too little to others. Important information is missing. My edits replaced a lot of this with a more clearly structured article, one which removed a lot of the trivia and randomly selected journalistic quotations, and in its place substituted cleaner text that was cited to the primary academic texts on the Alt-Right. In what way was this not an improvement? I can fully appreciate that you think I just did too much too soon, Beyond My Ken; that's a reasonable position to take. I also appreciate that you have been a gatekeeper of sorts for this article for some time, and that my sudden presence here may make me look like some Johnny-come-lately. But please, actually look at my edits; I'm sure that you'll agree that, in the vast majority of cases, they represented improvement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the trouble to read the entire article. I imagine that few people would bother, because it does come across as a "jumbled collection of statements". There is a problem with repetitiveness, material on the same topics and people (eg, Richard B. Spencer) tends to be scattered through the article rather than organized into dedicated sections, there is an issue with inconsistent spelling, and one or two other things struck me as particularly eyebrow-raising. I'll quote a couple of examples. "As of February 2018, the scope of the term "alt-right" is still in flux" is falling afoul of WP:RECENTISM. "One observed oddity is that many leaders of the alt-right movement are married to or romantically connected with women with Asian backgrounds" is, among other things, inappropriate editorializing; Wikipedia should not express opinions by describing something as an "oddity". Both of those things are still in Midnightblueowl's version of the article visible here; I suggest they need at least modifying. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, I am still reading your version of the article. Its version of the lead has little in common with the existing lead, which is something some editors might have a problem with. To me, it reads more coherently, though there are some things one can question about your version, for instance, I am not sure why "Alt-Right" and "Alternative Right", are better than "alt-right" and "alternative right". I am not an expert on these matters and I am sure you know far more about the subject than I do, but I am not sure your spelling is preferable. The current lead includes a fairly lengthy list of groups said to be associated with the alt-right ("The concept has further been associated with several groups such as American nationalists, paleoconservatives, anarcho-capitalists, national-anarchists, paleolibertarians, Christian fundamentalists, neo-monarchists, men's rights advocates and the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump"); your version edits that out, which may be an improvement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that my changes to the lede were probably going to be the most contentious, but like you I thought them an improvement. The present text in the lede is very off-putting for the reader and gives them far too much trivia. I don't think that it really matters whether we use "Alt-Right" or "alt-right". Some sources use one; others use the other. Hawley's book uses the upper-case and, given his is the main authoritative academic study presently available, I followed his lead. But I'm not particularly precious about which we employ. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I would not describe anything in the current lead as trivia necessarily, but the lead section should certainly focus on the most important aspects of the subject rather than trying to mention absolutely everything that might be associated with it somehow. Your version is preferable insofar as it focuses on the key aspects of the alt-right instead of providing a list of things said to be associated with it, leaving readers to assume that they are all equally important. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I call it trivia because I think it is not pertinent to actually understanding the Alt-Right and its core features; perhaps trivia was the wrong word to use. The lede presently gives a list of five different members of the Trump administration and their job descriptions, all of whom are reportedly linked to the Alt-Right (this is actually disputed in the academic literature). It then lists five acts of far-right violent which are alleged to be linked to the Alt-Right (again, this is an area of debate in the academic literature). This lede is heavily prone to simply listing things, and that is likely to be of little use or interest to the reader interested in actually learning what the Alt-Right is. The lede just isn't user friendly. I also have concerns that the lede has been put together in a very politically slanted and biased manner; to me it reads like an attempt to simply batter the Alt-Right by repeating words like "white supremacist", "neo-Nazi", and "neo-fascist" again and again, providing a long list of violent acts, and then being slightly melodramatic by seeking to tie it closely with the Trump administration. This doesn't come across as a useful description of the Alt-Right; it reads like a conscious attempt to defame it. Now I'm not calling for this stuff to be totally omitted by any means; the lede should contain the words "white supremacist" and "neo-Nazi", it should mention the movement's role in encouraging violence, and it should briefly outline the movement's relationship with Trump. But it needs to do so in a way that is informative and engaging; what we have at present is a messy ball of hyperbole. This being said, right now I'm more concerned with actually improving the main body of the article; the lede can be improved at a later stage. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, I tend to agree with your assessment of the lead, including its political slant. I will look through your version of the article more carefully and return with more comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Demographics and Structure sections

@Beyond My Ken: What is it about these sections that you explicitly object to barring the fact that they rely largely on a single source? The fact is, the Alt-Right has only attracted public interest since 2016 and the first academic studies of it appeared in 2017. At present, there is not a great deal of academic research on the subject, but more will no doubt be forthcoming. Hawley's book is (at present) the foremost academic study of the subject; it is totally reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. Of course, said sections can be fleshed out with reference to further research as it appears; Wikipedia is a work in progress. I would ask that you allow those sections to be restored if you find nothing explicitly wrong with the contents of them. @FreeKnowledgeCreator:, what are your thoughts on this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The "demographics" section in your version of the article is based on two sources, Hawley and Kelly. There should not be any objection to using them if they are high-quality sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This is strictly correct, but does not actually well-represent the section's sourcing. All of the section, except for one paragraph, are based on a single source. The other paragraph is based on a different single source. That is not, to my mind, sufficiently sourced, and in combination with the "structure" section, puts a lot of WEIGHT on Hawley's opinions, which I'm not sure is justified. I'd want to see hat Hawley represents a broad consensus of scholars in this area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I very much want further sources to be included in these sections, Beyond My Ken, and will endeavour to ensure that this happens. But right now there really aren't many good sources on the demography of the movement; no social surveys or sociological examinations of the alt-right's participants have yet to take place. In that case, Hawley—who has at least interviewed a handful of members and spent a lot of time examining their online discourse—is probably our best bet for accurate information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If there "aren't that many good sources", then we cannot include the information. Please see WP:FRINGE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It is completely incorrect to suggest that because there are few sources, those sources that do exist are "fringe". Fringe views are those rejected by the scholarly community. There is nothing "fringe" about a small number of respectable scholars writing about something. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Forebears Section

@Beyond My Ken:; @FreeKnowledgeCreator:: are there any objections should I restore the "Forebears" sub-section (as it existed here?) to the "History" section. It is appropriately sourced to Hawley and Niewert's books on the subject (and can of course be fleshed out with further RS sourcing in future) and gives a good outline of the Alt-Right's ideological forebears and socio-cultural context, a topic that the article presently lacks in any meaningful way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The idea of the section is good (although the title is awful), but, again, you rely very heavily on a small number of sources for a relatively large section -- Hawley (again!) and Niewart bear the brunt of the entire section. Before you re-post the section, I'd recommend doing some more research and broadening the supporting citations - the pre-history of the movement isn't a difficult thing to search for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to change the sub-section title from "Forebears" to something else. I'll call it "Forebears" for now (not sure "Prehistory" would quite work) but you are welcome to rename it. I'll add the text into the article; I'll put some material from Lyons' report in there too. However, Hawley and Niewert are good quality sources, and help to put the meat on the bones, as it were. Other good quality sources can of course be added in future; we should never be afraid of relying heavily on a small number of sources if those are the best quality sources, i.e. academic monographs or textbooks on the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have looked through this section, which you recently restored. The current version differs from the one you linked to above in some respects. You have changed "The idea of white supremacy had been dominant across U.S. political discourse throughout the 19th century and the first half of the 20th" to "The idea of white supremacy had permeated U.S. political discourse throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries", which is a not insignificant change of meaning. "Permeated" could be considered vague. "Far-right groups that retained such ideas—such as George Lincoln Rockwell's American Nazi Party and William Luther Pierce's National Alliance—remained marginal" has been changed to "Far-right groups retaining such ideas—such as George Lincoln Rockwell's American Nazi Party and William Luther Pierce's National Alliance—remained marginalized". In this case I think the previous version may be better: I dislike the term "marginalized", while "remained marginalized" implies that groups such as the American Nazi Party underwent a process of being "marginalized"; presumably it would be more accurate to say that they were always marginal? In general, I think the section is good; there are just these minor criticisms that can be made of it; I also think a different title might be better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi FreeKnowledgeCreator; the discrepancy arises from the fact that in both cases I copied the text from my sandbox but then copy-edited it while it was in the article body itself, resulting in differences of wording. I'm happy to change "permeated" back to "had been dominant" and "marginalized" to "marginal". Will action those now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That reads more clearly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding "Trolling and Harassment" sub-section

I'd like to propose the formation of a "Tactics" section, into which we could have such sub-sections as "Use of memes", "Violence", and "Trolling and harassment". That would help bring a little more order to the page, giving it a firmer structure. As to the contents of the Trolling and Harassment section, I would like to include the following, part of which is new, and part of which is drawn from material already in the article but (oddly) included in a section about "Liberal" responses to the Alt-Right:

Hawley noted that the Alt-Right is "a subset of the larger Internet troll culture". Prominent Alt-Right website The Right Stuff promoted trolling, publishing articles on how to troll most effectively and how to use it to convert readers to white nationalist ideas.

Another tactic employed by the Alt-Right is the harassment of opponents in an attempt to silence them. This is a tactic drawn from the 2013 Gamergate controversy. Those most regularly targeted were Jewish journalists, mainstream conservative journalists, and celebrities who publicly criticized Trump. Such harassment is usually spontaneous rather than pre-planned, but in various cases many members of the Alt-Right pile on once the harassment has begun. Some on the Alt-Right believe that in targeting journalists, they pushed many in that profession to magnify the size and threat of the Alt-Right, thereby giving the movement greater attention than it would otherwise have attained. The conservative journalist David French—who is white—received much abuse referencing his white wife and adopted black daughter after criticizing Trump and the Alt-Right; "I saw images of my daughter's face in gas chambers, with a smiling Trump in a Nazi uniform preparing to press a button and kill her. I saw her face photoshopped into images of slaves. She was called a "niglet" and a "dindu." The alt-right unleashed on my wife, Nancy, claiming that she had slept with black men while I was deployed to Iraq, and that I loved to watch while she had sex with "black bucks." People sent her pornographic images of black men having sex with white women, with someone photoshopped to look like me, watching."

In December 2016, artist Arrington de Dionyso, whose murals are frequently displayed at the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria, described the alt-right's on-line campaign of harassment against him in detail and averred of the attacks in general: "I think it's a very deliberate assault, which will eventually be a coordinated assault on all forms of free expression". The Pizzagate conspiracy theory which inspired said harassment has drawn comparisons with the Gamergate controversy. A wave of threats against Jewish Community Centers starting in 2017 were blamed on the alt-right in a January 2017 article by Slate's Elissa Strauss, who said members of the alt-right viewed them as "a practical joke".

It also orchestrated pranks, again to cause alarm among its opponents. For instance, during the 2016 presidential campaign Alt-Right members presented claims that they had a plot to send representatives posing as officials to voting booths where they would suppress ethnic minority turnout. There was no such plot, but press sources like Politico picked up on the claims and presented it as fact. Such incidents reflect how the Alt-Right were willing to lie shamelessly to advance their interests. This tendency toward trolling renders it difficult for journalists to learn more about the Alt-Right because those members they talked to were willing to deceive them for their amusement.

This can of course be expanded with the addition of further sources and what not, but I think it provides a good basic overview of a topic that the article presently neglects. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Again, this seems to put a lot of WP:WEIGHT on Hawley. If all these sections were included, the article would be, in very large part, based on a single academic source, when, by your own admission, good academic soureces are hard to come by. That's a WEIGHT and FRINGE concern to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the article should rely only on Hawley. But Hawley's book is—at present—the foremost academic monograph on the Alt-Right. For that reason, the article should rely on it quite a bit. Not exclusively, of course. We can keep the better journalistic sources. And as more and more academic studies are published, we should cite them. But at the moment, Hawley's is the single major study of the subject. I can appreciate your concerns about WEIGHT, but that issue will fade as more good publications appear. Moreover, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with citing Hawley. His book is not just a Reliable Source; it's the very best kind of Reliable Source. Adding material drawing upon his book is particularly important given that the present use of sourcing in this article is not particularly good. Most editors have used what sources are freely available to them—i.e. free web sources. That's totally understandable when editors don't have access to (often horrifically expensive) academic sources. But a lot of the journalistic material is of dubious veracity; most journalists have to cover a large number of events every month and rarely have any expertise in the subjects that they discuss. They don't often have time to do in-depth research. Academics do. Their publications should thus take precedence. Quality of sourcing is far more important than quantity of sourcing. Unless you actually have a significant problem with Hawley's work itself (and I cannot conceive of any reason why that would be the case), I think that this material should be allowed into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

While I can see your point about potential WEIGHT issues, I must admit that I really don't think there's a valid argument about FRINGE here. Hawley is, for instance, an a professional political scientist who published his monograph with a major academic publisher. That's hardly the stuff of fringe theories. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Beyond My Ken's concern about the "fringe" nature of the source seems baseless. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"Origins" section has become bloated and repetitive

@Beyond My Ken: - I appreciate your concern not to remove information from the article which other editors have spent time composing and writing, and I also appreciate your concerns about WEIGHT through my heavy use of academic sourcing, but I think that the current state of affairs with the "Origins" section is problematic. If I may, I'll raise the issues in bullet point form to make them clearer:

• Breibart is not considered a Reliable Source by Wikipedia (I've had a slap on the wrist for using it once before!). We should not be citing it here. Moreover, the article by Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos in question has been criticized as deliberately underplaying the role of white nationalism in the Alt-Right (both my white nationalists and political scientists), so we need to be even more cautious about how we use it. I think it appropriate to mention the publication of the article at some point in the History section—after all, it was influential in helping bring the movement to broader awareness—but we should not consider its contents to be reliable. So let's remove the sentences about the Bokhari-Yiannopoulos article here.
• Much of this is section is repetitive, and I suspect that this is partly because some of the editors who have been working on this page haven't know a great deal about the far-right more broadly. "An analysis by The Guardian described the ethno-nationalism of the New Right as the alt-right's progenitor.", "American professor and scholar Benjamin R. Teitelbaum compares the alt-right in the United States to identitarianism in Europe and notes that both were influenced by thinkers in the French New Right or Nouvelle Droite." "Other right-wing currents also influenced the Alt-Right. One was the Nouvelle Droite, a far-right movement originating in late 1960s France". We are literally mentioning the influence of the Nouvelle Droite/French New Right three times in a single section. This is totally superfluous; we need only do it once.
• Some sentences, like "Notable current promoters of alt-right ideology include Vox Day,[136] Steve Sailer,[137] Richard B. Spencer[138] and Brittany Pettibone.[1", literally appear in both the "Origins" section and the ensuing "Emergence" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Much of the old prose is clunky. "An analysis by The Guardian described the ethno-nationalism of the New Right as the alt-right's progenitor.[24][118] Writing in The Washington Post, Matthew Sheffield said the alt-right has also been influenced by anarcho-capitalist and paleolibertarian theorist Murray Rothbard, specifically in regards to his theorizing on race and democracy and had previously rallied behind Ron Paul in 2008.[119]" This could be so much smoother: "The Alt-Right has been influenced by the Alt-Right and the anarcho-capitalist writer Murray Rothbard." This doesn't necessarily have to be the wording we use (we can do better), but I think you can see my point. Things need to be concise and to the point.
• Some of the sentences here are just unnecessary: "Anarcho-capitalist Jeffrey Tucker has said the alt-right is opposed to libertarianism because the alt-right focuses on group identity and tribalism instead of individual liberty." Why is that relevant at this point in the article? Perhaps we could move it into the section on Alt-Right opposition to neoconservatism; that would be a better fit.

These are just a few of the issues that really need to be fixed. I don't want to edit war (and don't intend do) but I really hope that you will appreciate my point and agree that action needs to be taken here. Too much of this material is poor; I know people put effort into writing it in the past, but that isn't a good enough reason for retention. We need to improve it, not merely curate it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Please restore the 898-byte edit you have yet to restore, then we can discuss the contents of the section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'd missed that one. I've stuck it back in. But it's a naff paragraph; we really don't need a whole paragraph telling us what some chap from a libertarian think tank thinks about the Alt-Right. It's unnecessary. I strongly advise being rid of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• OK. I was quite aware that in restoring the original material the way that I did, the section would not be well-organized or well-written, but you really gave me no choice because you eliminated it completely. Some re-writing is certainly necessary, but -- and please do not take this personally, because I do not mean it that way -- I am not very comfortable with the idea of you doing the re-write, because you have shown that you are prejudiced against any sources except the few academic ones which you rely on. Your evaluations of other sources is, frankly, a bit suspect. Breitbart, for instance, is not a reliable source per se, but because it is part of the alt-right, it is a reliable source about what the alt-right thinks about the alt-right!
  Now, despite my concerns, if you'd like to have a go at re-writing the "Origins" section -- keeping all the material and sourcing but smoothing out the repetition -- I would have no problem with that, if you posted it here first for a consensus discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• And just to reiterate: "eagerness" is fine, but one of the points of the 1RR sanction is to slow things down, so that the editing process can take place. Please keep that in mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Breitbart, for instance, is not a reliable source per se, but because it is part of the alt-right, it is a reliable source about what the alt-right thinks about the alt-right" - I agree with you in one sense (i.e. you make a fair point), but I have previously found that other editors have opposed the use of Breitbart even for references about Breitbart and its editors' own thoughts. Go figure. (And whether Breitbart really is part of the alt-right or not remains an issue of debate; there's the whole alt-right/alt-lite controversy, which this article doesn't currently deal with). Also, you say that I deleted much original material; I don't think I deleted anywhere near as much as you think. What I think happened was that I moved quite a bit of it into "Emergence", after which you thought I'd removed it altogether so re-added much of it into "Forebears/Pre-history/Origins"; that's why we now have several sentences actually reappearing twice. But no matter. I'll have a go at rewording the "Origins" but please seriously consider my argument that some of these sentences should really just be scrapped altogether. Don't keep things just for the sake of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Why don't you do the rewrite, and mark the sentences you think should be deleted in some way, perhaps preceded and followed by asterisks, ** as like this **? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you object to me removing the two paragraphs from "Origins" which directly copy two paragraphs from the ensuing "Emergence" (where they fit more nicely)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you also have any objection to me fully formatting some of the cited journalistic citations? A lot of them are missing access dates, publication dates, that sort of thing. I'd like to get cracking on some of that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And as for the text on the Nouvelle Droite/paleoconservatives etc, how about this, at least as a start? :

The Alt-Right drew upon a range of other older currents of right-wing thought. One was the Nouvelle Droite, a far-right movement originating in late 1960s France. Many Alt-Rightists adopted the Nouvelle Droite's views on pursuing change through such "metapolitical" strategies; it thereby shares similarities with European identitarianism, which also draws upon the Nouvelle Droite. From paleoconservatism, the Alt-Right took an antipathy to neoconservatism and an anti-immigration stance. The anarcho-capitalist and paleolibertarian theorist Murray Rothbard also proved an influence, specifically in regards to his theorizing on race and democracy. The Dark Enlightenment, or neo-reactionary movement, emerged online in the 2000s, pursuing an anti-egalitarian message. This movement intersected with the Alt-Right; many individuals identified with both movements. The Dark Enlightenment however remained distinct in not embracing white nationalism, deeming it too democratic.

References

• Removing the duplicated material is fine with me.
• Fleshing out the formatting of the refs is also not a problem (in fact, never a problem) for me.
• And, yes, that re-write does seem like a good start.

Thanks for taking my concerns to heart, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Beyond My Ken. Will crack on with those bits for now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Tucker's views

The "Origins" section presently contains the following paragraph:

Anarcho-capitalist Jeffrey Tucker has said the alt-right is opposed to libertarianism because the alt-right focuses on group identity and tribalism instead of individual liberty.[117] According to economist Jeffrey Tucker of the Foundation for Economic Education, the alt-right "inherits a long and dreary tradition of thought from Friedrich Hegel to Thomas Carlyle to Oswald Spengler to Madison Grant to Othmar Spann to Giovanni Gentile to Trump's speeches". He states that alt-right proponents "look back to what they imagine to be a golden age when elites ruled and peons obeyed" and believe that "identity is everything and the loss of identity is the greatest crime against self anyone can imagine".[117]

I'm really not sure that we need this much detail from Tucker, nor do I think that we need this paragraph in this section at all, where I do not think it a comfortable fit. Could I get support for moving it, perhaps to the "Reactions" section? It seems to reflect a libertarian response to the Alt-Right more than anything else. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I would split it up. Put the first sentence into the "Beliefs" section, and leave the rest in the "Origins" section, since it's definitely appropriate there, as Tucker is claiming Hegel, Carlyle and Spangler as alt-right "Forbears". Alternately, the whole thing could be moved to the introductory section of "Beliefs". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll stick the first bit in the "Beliefs" section (in the "Anti-interventionism and opposition to neoconservatism" sub-section), which is in dire need of some love and tender care. However, when it comes to the rest, is Tucker's opinion really notable in the first place? He's a (professional) libertarian economist, not a historian of the far-right. He might think Hegel et al are forebears of the Alt-Right—and who knows, maybe he's right—but are there academics or other experts who echo this view? If there aren't, then I'd say his analysis of its origins is borderline WP:Fringe, and at the very least doesn't warrant being promoted on Wikipedia. I really think we should scrap his comment on the Alt-Right's antecessors. As I've said before, I think we need to avoid keeping text in the article just for the sake of it. If a sentence doesn't make a clear and meaningful contribution, it should be removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I think he's notable enough to have his views included. Again, we use a wide variety of sources, not just academics. If needs be, a "However..." can be appended to the statement to show that it's not a view that has wide support. We include WP:FRINGE views, we just don't give them a lot of WP:WEIGHT. Two sentences in an article of this size and scope seems reasonable to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to briefly having Tucker's views on the Alt-Right itself included at some point in the article (in his capacity as a prominent libertarian talking head), but really don't think that his views of the movement's origins are warranted. It's easy to say that it's just two sentences, but every unnecessary sentence just contributes to the clogging up of the article, resulting in a right mess that really puts readers off. Maybe we could get a third opinion on this? Or an RfC? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably the easiest thing to do is to ping @FreeKnowledgeCreator:, since he's been the third person involved in these discussions, and see what he thinks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of this discussion, but I have not had the chance to review it carefully yet. I'll get back to you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've reviewed the discussion now, but I am not 100% sure what if anything is being disagreed about. The material on Tucker is now only a single sentence, "Anarcho-capitalist Jeffrey Tucker has said the alt-right is opposed to libertarianism because the alt-right focuses on group identity and tribalism instead of individual liberty." Is anyone objecting to that? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

{@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Oh no, I don't think so. That sentence can stay. What I think is superfluous and potentially FRINGE is the following short paragraph in the "Origins" sub-section: "According to economist Jeffrey Tucker of the Foundation for Economic Education, the alt-right "inherits a long and dreary tradition of thought from Friedrich Hegel to Thomas Carlyle to Oswald Spengler to Madison Grant to Othmar Spann to Giovanni Gentile to Trump's speeches". He states that alt-right proponents "look back to what they imagine to be a golden age when elites ruled and peons obeyed" and believe that "identity is everything and the loss of identity is the greatest crime against self anyone can imagine"." In my view, Tucker's comments—aside from having an in-your-face bias ("a long and dreary tradition")—add nothing of value to this section. Tucker is not a historian of the far-right nor any form of expert on far-right politics; he's a libertarian economist. His quote comes not from a mainstream media source but from the website of the Foundation for Economic Education, i.e. the advocacy group he works for. Thus his views on the Alt-Right's potential predeceessors are not noteworthy and potentially not even accurate. Certainly, we shouldn't be giving him a whole paragraph just to himself. Literally hundreds if not thousands of politicos, talking heads, and journalists have publicly commented on the Alt-Right over the past few years; we musn't go around quoting them willy-nilly. This is just one example of the serious problem that this article has with WP:QUOTEFARMing and poor quality sourcing. I favour removal. Beyond My Ken favours retention. Your view would be appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Very well, thank you for clarifying the issue. I agree the paragraph in question is completely superfluous. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the "White nationalism and white supremacism" section

I'd like to propose the following additions to the "White nationalism and white supremacism". It draws on the work of both academics (Hawley, Barkun, Atkinson, Kelly), and good quality journalistic sources (Niewert) and can of course be further supplemented in future.

The Alt-Right is a white nationalist movement and is fundamentally concerned with white identity. Not all members of the Alt-Right, however, actively embrace the term "white nationalist" in reference to themselves. Hawley commented that the Alt-Right is, "at its core, a racist movement"; similarly, the historian David Atkinson stated that the Alt-Right was "a racist movement steeped in white supremacist ideas". Attitudes to non-white people vary within the Alt-Right, from those who desire tighter restrictions on non-white immigration into the U.S. to those who call for a violent ethnic cleansing of the country. The Alt-Right promotes scientific racism, making the claim that—in contrast to the majority of scholars, who regard race as a socio-cultural construct—racial differences represent distinct biological differences. For the Alt-Right, this view is referred to as "race realism".

The Alt-Right contains both anti-Semitic and non-anti-Semitic elements. Many in the Alt-Right believe that there is a Jewish conspiracy within the United States to achieve "white genocide", the elimination of white people as a racial group and their replacement with non-whites. They believe that a Jewish cabal controls the U.S. government, media, and universities, and is pursuing its aim of white genocide by spreading anti-white tropes and encouraging African-American civil rights groups. As evidence for this supposed white genocide, these far-right figures point to the depiction of mixed-race couples or children on television and the publication of articles discouraging women from having children early in life.

This anti-Semitic conspiracy theory is not new to the Alt-Right, but has recurred among far-right groups in Western countries since the 19th century; it was the reason for the Holocaust and various anti-Semitic pogroms in European history. Andrew Anglin, one of the most prominent Alt-Right ideologues and a member of its neo-Nazi wing, stated that "the core concept of the movement, upon which all else is based, is that Whites are undergoing an extermination, via mass immigration into White countries which was enabled by a corrosive liberal ideology of White self-hatred, and that the Jews are at the center of this agenda." He added that for the Alt-Right, "the goal is to ethnically cleanse White nations of non-Whites and establish an authoritarian government. Many people also believe that the Jews should be exterminated." Other Alt-Rightists, like Spencer, welcome the involvement of Jews within their movement.

Sources

@Beyond My Ken:; @FreeKnowledgeCreator:, what are your thoughts on this? I'm not suggesting that we remove anything currently present in that section (at least, not yet), but I would propose placing these paragraphs at the top of this section. I think that they provide a much cleaner and clearer introduction to the Alt-Right's views on this issue than that section currently offers. Because of the varied use of sources, there shouldn't be the concern about WEIGHT that has been raised about some of my other proposed additions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

In general it looks good. I think it could be written a little differently. "The Alt-Right contains both anti-Semitic and non-anti-Semitic elements" may not be the best way to phrase things; I would prefer to avoid a term such as "non-anti-Semitic". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: - "Some elements of the Alt-Right are anti-Semitic, although others are not."? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You really don't need the second phrase, since it's implied in "Some elements of the Alt-Right are anti-Semitic" that the others are not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the above paragraphs are intended as an addition, and not a replacement, yes? The material currently in the article would be preserved? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: For now, yes. Although I think that we do need to do some trimming and tidying of the prose in that section. That, however, can wait till later; I'll open up a Talk Page section specifically to discuss the issue. Are you otherwise fine with my proposed addition going into the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm good with it as an addition, or even with the current material integrated into your added text, as long as there's (at this time) no significant deletion of pertinent material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Tendentious edits

I recently made a series of edits to the page. Most of them were minor edits to make the article consistent as to whether the term "alt-right" is capitalized or not (I un-capitalized it, if that is a word). I did make a couple of light phrasing changes, and I added an inline "dubious" tag relating to a statement about many people on the Christian right being racially prejudiced. I made one substantive edit regarding Richard Spencer that I summarized as follows: "rearrange sentences; remove AP's characterization of Spencer's motives. the characterization may be 100% correct, but the encyclopedia does not need to repeat opinions about a person's motives." I have no axe to grind regarding the topic of this article, but I don't believe that the encyclopedia should repeat assertions about a person's motives--even if that person holds white nationalist/white supremacist beliefs that I find appalling.

Another editor has reverted the entire series of edits that I made and baselessly described them as POV. I can only surmise that this editor took issue with my substantive edit regarding Richard Spencer; however, the editor did not just revert that edit, but also the sixteen (16) other edits that I made (most of which were minor) and directed me to the talk page. I don't believe that talk page consensus is needed for capitalization issues. I have undone the revert and invite input from other editors regarding the tendentious edit. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi SunCrow, I've done a more careful revert of your changes - I've left in the capitalisation stuff, but reverted the change to the sentence in the lede about Spencer, and removed the dubious tag. Can you provide policy-based reasons for these changes? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 17:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It might be worth us having a discussion here at the Talk Page to ascertain whether the article should use "alt-right" or "Alt-Right" (or even "Alt-right"). As part of that it might be worth examining what appears to be the most common use of capitalization in the Reliable Sources and following their example. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - I have a vague sense that uncapitalized usage is more common, so was happy to include SunCrow's changes on that, but my impression is based on nothing more than my own reckoning of stuff that I've read, so I am entirely happy for anyone to revert to BMK's last version if they disagree with that usage. If this descends into a vote, consider me weak support for uncapitalized alt right. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no - my unformed impression is a half-arsed way to contribute to a discussion - apologies. Support discussion of this question with reasoned arguments supported by sources; oppose inserting opinions based on general impressions. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I will set up an RfC on the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@SunCrow:; @Girth Summit:; I have launched an RfC on this issue below, should either of you decide to express your views there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, GirthSummit. Regarding the Richard Spencer information in the lede, I tried to check all three of the cited sources. One source did not contain any information about the "alt-right." I removed it. The other two are dead links, so I have marked them accordingly and called it a day. My main concern has to do with the following sentence: "The alt-right typically despises the Christian Right for officially espousing racial equality despite the racial prejudices displayed by much of its white support base." This is the sentence that I had tagged as being dubious. The sentence is sourced to a book by an author named Hawley. I am not going to be able to chase down that book. My policy-based objections are: Vagueness; weasel words; lack of encyclopedic tone; questionable neutrality and factual accuracy, depending on what the source says. SunCrow (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the 'dubious' tag on the sentence, I have not read the source, but as I read the sentence, it isn't that there is racial prejudice in the Christian right's white support base, rather it is describing the perception of the alt-right - that the alt-right believes there is racial prejudice amongst the Christian right's support base, and it despises its perceived hypocrisy in its espousals of racial equality. Assuming that's what it says in the source, then I believe the sentence is fine, but you could propose a reword if you don't think that's clear enough. Regarding the dead links, there are a number of alternative sources in the body of the text that seem to support that assertion - could you take a look in the White supremacy and white nationalism section, and see what you think about the ones listed there? GirthSummit _(blether) 06:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

GirthSummit, I read the sentence differently. To me, it wasn't clear that the sentence referred to the perceptions of the alt-right rather than an established fact about a large group of people. SunCrow (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I added the information from Hawley which seems to have caused some concern. So, in the hope of clearing things up a little, I'll supply the quote from Hawley directly: "it is clear that there was at least some racial angle to the rise of the religious right—fury at being forced to integrate schools appears to have [been] one reason the religious right exploded onto the political scene in the 1970s". He then adds that most white evangelicals remain on the political right and voted for Trump, while the leadership of many Christian Right groups have become much more welcoming toward refugees and supported amnesties for undocumented migrants. Now, I can appreciate why some people may be uncomfortable facing the idea that much of the Christian Right expressed racial prejudice (much as some are uncomfortable facing the fact that many sectors of the Left in Western countries have exhibited anti-Semitism) but that does not make it any less true. As the New Christian Right emerged in the 1970s, it drew most of its support from white communities in the American South, including many of the same individuals who had been deeply invested in racial segregation. We can't overlook that. At the same time, I'm happy to discuss altering the prose in the article itself. I've looked at Hawley and we could probable paraphrase what he says in a more accurate manner. How about something like "The alt-right typically despises the Christian Right, regarding it as a hindrance to the white nationalist cause; despite the Christian Right's conservative stance on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, white evangelical leaders of the Southern Baptist Church have angered the alt-right by expressing support for refugees entering the U.S., called for measures to help undocumented migrants gain legal status, and urged members not to display the Confederate Battle Flag." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Midnightblueowl. Your proposed sentence is fine with me with two minor exceptions: "Called" should be changed to "calling" and "urged" should be changed to "urging." To be clear, I would also be fine with including language about the Christian right and racial issues, provided that the language is clear, reliably sourced, and distinguishes between facts and opinions. SunCrow (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll make the change accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)