Talk:Alt-right/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Does labeling people white supremacist and other insults violate BLP?

I am curious about the ethicality of Wikipedia calling Donald Trump, Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, and others white supremacists. Doesn't this violate your policy of BLP? 108.46.38.116 (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC) — 108.46.38.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For the first and third of the cases you mentioned, given that they don't use the term, and there seem to be secondary sources that dispute the label, the answer appears to be yes, that labelling them violates WP:BLP. Feel free to edit and remove the label.—wing gundam 01:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree: I have yet to hear a "leader" in the alt-right movement make a comment that could be reasonably interpreted as being a white supremacist. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Papathesmurf (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Papathesmurf]] comment added by Papathesmurf (talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC) — Papathesmurf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There are already many sources explaining the link between the alt-right and white racism and white supremacy. Nowhere does the article say that Trump, Spencer, and Yiannopoulos are white supremacists, and the article bends over backwards to explain that the alt-right is loosely defined and contains multiple POVs. Furthermore, describing someone as something unflattering isn't always a WP:BLP violation, because in some cases it can be supported by sources and presented in a NPOV way. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, instead of self-described leaders. That you find it helpful to put scare quotes around the word "leader" should demonstrate why Wikipedia doesn't always include the opinions of leaders. If anyone can claim to be a leader, and anyone can refute that claim, the term is meaningless, so we must rely on independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Seeing all the single-purpose accounts there is either a campaign or sock/meat puppeting going on here. Doug Weller talk 06:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"I have yet to hear a 'leader' in the alt-right movement make a comment that could be reasonably interpreted as being a white supremacist." Are you kidding? Um what. I tried to link to the actual article but the website is blacklisted by Wikipedia directly ("Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist"). Ogress 19:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It says edits must be made conservatively and with respect for privacy. You can't be sensationalist, for example by labelling people as white supremacists. BLP even extends to talk pages when it applies.108.46.38.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

None of the individuals listed are named as white supremacists in this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking, BLP doesn't apply to groups, at least not when they're of this size. See WP:BLPGROUP for details. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This just smacks of poisoning the well. I'm not going to say that unliked terms shouldn't be used just because they aren't liked. However, given that alt-right is a loose group, it may well be true that some white nationalists/supremacists support the alt-right, but such a term should not be used to describe the alt-right because the white nationalist is such a fringe group as to not even be a fair descriptor of alt-right. For comparison, American Communists largely support the Democratic Party (and the American Communist Party has come out encouraging its members to support Democrats), but they're such a fringe group that listing them in a similar manner would just be poisoning the well. Additionally, the sources used are dodgy. I also propose one additional change, removing the "...and anti-democratic thought" from the second sentence. Again, this is just poisoning the well, from unreliable sources, that hardly even support the claim at all. Troianii (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You're confusing different concepts. Both the Communist Party and the Democrats are organisations/groups. The Alt-right is not an organisation or a group that can be supported by anyone or any group. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Template:White nationalism

Is the Template:White nationalism appropriate? There is no link in the template to the article here and absent the few mentions, it's not clear to me that it's a major part of the topic. It's not an organization, media or opposition and I'm not sure it's really a related topic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal. The association between the alt-right and white nationalism is dubious, supported mostly or entirely by left-wing news sources. Also, almost all links in the template are explicit neo-Nazi groups, KKK-type groups, or forms of racism. Exercisephys (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, that can go. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL if nothing else. Grayfell (talk)

Done! Thanks. Exercisephys (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

SPLC says Breitbart News Network the main media outlet for the Alt-right

See[1]. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That's (meaning the statement used for the title of this section) probably worth adding, though I'm not sure exactly where. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I added it to the Reception section. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ian Tuttle was misrepresented, hence my revert

How in the world did a statement that he clearly said was the view of Bokhari and Yiannopoulos get claimed to be by him? "The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and anti-Semitic online presence. But for Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, the Alt-Right consists of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring intellectuals — and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, but there are only a few of them, and nobody likes them anyways. In other words, anyone familiar with Yiannopoulos’s theatrics, or Breitbart’s self-appointment as Donald Trump’s Pravda, will not be surprised to learn that the article is a 5,000-word whitewash. But it is valuable, in this way: It exhibits, albeit inadvertently, the moral and intellectual rot at the heart of the Alt-Right." And "And it’s worth noting that the favorite slur the Alt-Right flings at conservatives they dislike is at bottom about miscegenation" and "There is, then, contra Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, continuity on the Alt-Right, from the more interesting thinkers to the “1488ers.”" (neo-Nazis). Any objection to adding a quote from him that reflects what he actually thinks? Doug Weller talk 18:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And it's been added again, despite it not being what the article says. This is now becoming a BLP violation, attributing ideas to Tuttle when he really thinks that ""The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and anti-Semitic online presence. " - which is what the article should say. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If you feel inclined to write that, please do so, but don't merely erase the quote altogether. As it is, this article is left-leaning garbage from BuzzFeed anyways, so deleting quotable looks horrible coming from a sysop.-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  18:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You need to get off that high horse, trying to attribute the view to Tuttle was completely intellectually dishonest.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I deleted what I and another Administrator considered to be misrepresentation of the source. In this case you took a quote out of context making it look as though Tuttle or the National Review had a certain opinion when in fact the article itself was saying something quite different. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it. I haven't reverted, just put the bit quoted in the full context so it's clear that Tuttle thinks and who thinks that it's fun-loving etc. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That Bokhari and Yiannopoulos essay, incidentally, was infamously immediately rebutted by the highly-influential Daily Stormer. (I wish to God those four words don't go together, but they do). Ogress 18:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow... Bokhari and Yiannopoulos just can't win. They're not intellectual, knowledgeable and honest enough for mainstream conservatives, and nowhere near racist enough for the (self-proclaimed) alt-right. On a side note, thank you for posting that link; I literally laughed my way through it. From the headline, to "Why didn't [they] talk about the jews?", to the breathless declaration that the "lulz are a weapon in the race war," it was an absolute riot, from start to finish. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And they claim that with the possible exception of /pol/ they're the largest part of the alt-right movement. Pretty sure dear Daily Stormer is white supremacist and antisemetic. If people want a quote from a right wing source maybe that would be a good one? Doug Weller talk 19:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

We'll of course they are going to claim that. These old morons need something to revitalize their movement with and want to bandwagon on the surging alt-right movement--a movement they seldom understand and want to be part of to appear cool and hip. Milo Yiannopoulos is a great example of what alt-right is all about. He's a homosexual man who has a staunchly critical stance on political correctness, third-wave feminism, non-regulated illegal immigration, among other anti-liberal causes. Quote him!-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  19:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad thought at all. The only problem I can see is that if we use two sources which agree with each other to 'bolster' each other, that would be a form of synthesis. But if we have two statements, one that the left sees the alt-right as racist, and one that racists see themselves as alt-right, then it would be fine. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it's a bit weird to cite an opinion piece by Tuttle to summarize Bokhari and Yiannopoulos' views on the article's topic; if we were going to do it, the appropriate place would be in response to some statement of theirs. But regardless, the quote definitely doesn't belong in the lead; nothing about it makes it particularly more noteworthy than any of the other quotes in the article, so putting it there is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Without first explaining who Bokhari and Yiannopoulos are it's not just weird, it was almost nonsensically confusing. Even the National Review source being used here is only quoting them to refute their arguments, which seems to be a common thread among sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If so, I'd also suggest moving's Rosie Gray's opinions elsewhere in the article as her piece on Alt Right is biased (being published in the left-wing click-baiting BuzzFeed website) and is in the lead? What a joke, don't you think? -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  16:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that those descriptions aren't discussed in the article? Because they are, and the lead summarises the article. I note that despite the removal of the Tuttle quote being discussed here, you reinserted it asking for discussion. Which doesn't make a lot of sense. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I liked the quote in the lead (the way it was most recently formatted, anyways), because it provides two distinct views of the alt-right, the way many of them view themselves, and the way many on the left view them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Going back to Aquillion's suggestion, I am surprised that Bokhari and Yiannopoulos's "An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right" is not used as a source in this article at all, since it reviews many other articles on the subject, and because this article cites Yiannopoulos in particular and Breitbart in general as alt-right opinion leaders. Shrigley (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

New source in The New Yorker

Is the Alt-Right for Real?. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"Cuckservative" is racist?

I read the citation after "a neologistic racist epithet" but found nothing stating that "cuckservative" is racist. It might be many things (sexist, patriarchal, etc.) but how is it racist? My edit was rolled back with "many, many sources disagree" but the article cites no sources on how cuckservative is racist. It'd be helpful if the article would note how such a term is racist, as it is not apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.14.75 (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2016‎

The source says, in the very first paragraph, but the term, at its core, may be racist. It also say What is certain is that it fermented in the racist depths of the Internet... and But for the white nationalist movement, the term has come to represent much more – the ultimate insult to a politicians whose interests, they feel, should be closer in line with the mores and values of the ultra-conservative white nationalist right. If you need more sources, they are at the cuckservative article, which is a better place to explain the racist usage and origins of the term. Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. An online article saying something "may be racist" doesn't seem like much. The cuckservative article is also incorrect. It hinges the entire racism claim on the cuckold porn which often features a white couple and black man. Yet the cuckold article makes no mention of racism there.190.148.14.75 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading the cuckservative article, that article makes it clear that "racism" is in dispute with the word "cuckservative". Applying it as a summary in this article is not providing a accurate summary.190.148.14.75 (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with 190.148, but the source even says that the word cuckold is racist (white men watching their wives have sex with black men). Not sure how accurate that is though... I've never seen a source say it has a racial component to it (see cuckold's various sources). I honestly think we should remove the "racist" part as dubious. Without attributing it to a specific author, I don't think it belongs in wikipedia's voice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Cuck is absolutely racist. Google it if you're not sure. The first things I hit when I googled "cuckservative word origin" were images like this (it's safe for work but offensive as hell) http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/997/743/48c.png Ogress 07:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Need a better source than some image. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• The word "cuckold" may not have originated with racist overtones, and the dictionary definition may not mention race, but that doesn't mean it's not a racist pejorative. Words have connotations, and the strong connotations of the word as it is used by the alt-right is that the 'cuckservative' is one who would whore out his own wife for the support of African-Americans (in particular, but this generally also includes all non-whites), or one who is happily letting African-Americans take what is 'his'. That's extremely racist. Remember, if words had meanings, everyone would speak the same language. In fact, words have usages, and those usages inform the meaning we give them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that connotations and common usage may vary, but honestly I'd like to see some better sourcing for it I guess. I'll look around later. On a side note, I'm surprised we don't call it sexist too as it's far more clearly sexist than racist. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, right now the source is good enough, but I agree that better sourcing is desirable. I also agree that it's more sexist than racist (it's inextricably tied to the notion of wives as property). I'm sure a source can be found for both of those. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Cuck is a dog whistle for "race traitor". People have called me a "cuck" and I'm a woman and they knew I am a woman. I agree it's also sexist and should be added. Is The Baffler reliable? Ogress 18:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that's... Irrational. Not that I doubt it, mind. I've been called a race traitor to my face for daring to date a black woman, by people who constantly talked about how they should start dating black women. Well, mostly because they felt the reason they couldn't meet (white) women was because black men took them all. But still.

I don't know if The Baffler is reliable, but I'm pretty sure Salon is. [2] & [3] MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Our SPLC source which we actually use to call "cuckservative" racist (why is it necessary to analyze the term when it has its own article?) cites a writer—with no credentials to comment—from Buzzfeed, a website famous for its lack of journalistic integrity. Our own article on cuckservative notes the controversy surrounding whether the term—and really the heart of the issue is, whether cuckoldry itself—necessarily relates to race, and it's important to note that it is some critics of the term, rather than those who use the term itself, who try to create this connotation. Shrigley (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Gee, I'm starting to get the impression that Buzzfeed isn't very popular! Who knew? I still haven't seen any compelling reason to treat the Buzzfeed article as inherently unreliable, which has already been discussed to death here before. Briefly explaining the term cuckservative is reasonable because it's not well known, so a bit of background and context is helpful. If those who investigate a term find it to be racist or similar, should we discount their findings because they become 'critics' of the term? No, we should rely on independent sources, just like always. That means that outside observers of a neologism are more neutral than its users. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Some previous discussions of Buzzfeed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: users note that there is "wild variability" in article quality based on author, which is why I mentioned the author of the particular article on Cuckservative; he has not won any awards nor is he notable in his own right. There are links to Buzzfeed being rated bottom on journalistic trust; we are also reminded that Buzzfeed has major issues with keeping its advertising model and content separate. As a content aggregation website, Buzzfeed is not recommended by Wikipedians if there are alternative, more reliable sources.

Wikipedians have noted that with certain authors, Buzzfeed serves as a conduit of straight propaganda for policy initiatives. Buzzfeed gives a platform to writers who accuse living people of being White supremacists enough to make mainstream news sources (see the New York Times in link) uncomfortable; not just our more stringent BLP people. Please, let's be cautious. If there is an incontrovertible consensus of analysts that "cuckservative" always has a racial connotation, then it should not be hard to find a non-Buzzfeed source. But all roads lead to Buzzfeed on this "cuckservative is racist" meme. I do not understand the eagerness with which to use Wikipedia's voice to label controversial things as "racist", or to use similarly strong language. Shrigley (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I've seen all that before, and I bet most of the other people who've been discussing this source on this talk page over the past few weeks have also. Actually, several of them have participated. Citing the general opinions of other editors doesn't really help here, because context always matters with sources. The "wild variability" quote was about the distinction between Buzzfeed's clickbait and blogging and their journalism, which is not specifically relevant. The Pew poll is discussed above, and as I said there, it's a measure of popular opinion, not an academic assessment of journalistic integrity, and either way, it mainly shows that most people surveyed don't don't have strong opinions about Buzzfeed at all. Yes, Buzzfeed does aggregator content, and they also do original journalism, just like Forbes and Huffington Post, and many other sources which are at least sometimes considered RS. As for the "propaganda" outlet nonsense, it's wild speculation based on very flimsy evidence. The NYT article says nothing at all unflattering about Gray's journalism. The only thing it says about specific reporting she's done is this: When Ms. Gray, the BuzzFeed reporter, wrote about the “alt right” movement of white supremacists, she knew exactly what she would face, and she said she took it in stride. To me, that only supports that the alt-right is white supremacist, or at least that the alt-right's tendency towards harassment can be taken for granted. I see nothing else relevant in that article. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I see a few off-topic personal accounts of racist comments above, but no reliable source that this term is racist. As the person who started this thread pointed out, the currently cited source only mentions obliquely that it "may be racist". Where's the ref? Exercisephys (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

For real? Sources from Salon and The Baffler have already been proposed. How about The Guardian? The New Republic? The NYT reference is passing, but tangentially supportive as well. What exactly are you looking for? This isn't ancient history just yet, sources are going to be emotionally charged and opinionated, but both news and opinion-pieces agree that this is a word with a racist origin and a racially-charged usage. Grayfell (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed

Defining alt-right politics as racist under the excuse "But BuzzFeed said it" is completely biased. BuzzFeed is far left, Anti-Trump and create uninsightful border ridiculous arguments. This media outlet is the same one which tries to persuade people that they are cleaning their genitals incorrectly next to posting their political 'arguments'. They are not a fair or viable source and most of the statements cited by BuzzFeedare just accusations of Racism.

The pages for left-wing politics are not littered with "Communism", "Black Supremacy" , etc. So these opinion driven statements should be removed from this page for an unbias, fair Wikipedia.

The bias/reliablity of BuzzFeed has been discussed repeatedly, including in sections immediately above this one. clpo13_(talk) 18:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes but to no avail. The left-wing admins are refusing to do anything even though the anti-buzzfeed arguement has been won. They can't betray BuzzFeed or they will never know which Middle-Eastern Dictator they are most like. - BoeBee unsigned comment left by 109.148.20.219

Your true colors are showing here. Please SIGN YOUR COMMENTS Ogress 18:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention this and this. clpo13_(talk) 18:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Anti-feminism (and The Occidental Quarterly)

Do we have any sources for this? It's in the string of -ism's from the The Occidental Quarterly source. However, we never actually discuss or justify it and (aside from being a "bad anti-demographic -ism" to go along with the others) I don't recall finding any indication of it in other sources I've read.

I'm not sure if The Occidental Quarterly should be quoted here at all, honestly. It looks like a pretty patchy short blog post, and the author writes things like:

Steve Sailer’s article on “The Dispossessed Elite” indicates that Alternative Right will broach the Jewish question (having resolved my questions, I prefer to call it the Jewish problem).

Definitely seems like a primary source without much intrinsic authority. Exercisephys (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Steve Sailer seems to be a notable enough person to quote. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: He's just referring to Steve Sailer in passing. This source and the quote included in the Wikipedia article are by Greg Johnson. Exercisephys (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I'll try to look into more tomorrow and give a more lucid opinion. Trying to fall asleep ATM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm confident that that source is garbage, so I'm removing it before bed. Let me know if you think otherwise, but this is literally a charged 200-word personal blog post on a rinky-dink WordPress install. And it pulls in a whole bunch of really dubious bigotry tags. Exercisephys (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Qualifying social media comment

I'm pretty sure the alt-right movement isn't restricted to social media. Assuming not, "many" should be prepended to this sentence:

Members of the alt-right use social media and internet message boards such asreddit, 4chan, and 8chan to share their beliefs.

Also, as I've pointed out before, the source used for that statement is trash, to a comical degree. It also only gives one (1) example of alt-right people using social media. I'll spare you explanations of the other reasons why this source is ridiculous because they're obvious upon opening it (or even looking at the ref line). Exercisephys (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I put the Fusion source out of its misery. I may go ahead with adding "Many" and check back here for the unlikely case that anyone has a problem with it. Exercisephys (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that line was a compromise with a now-blocked sock-puppet. I am glad to see it go, but it's an example of why "compromise" doesn't necessarily fill the article's regulars with optimism that it's headed in the right direction. I don't question your motives, but making these bold statements about what is and is not helpful to the article hasn't gone well in the recent past, and these insinuations about other editors motives doesn't help either. Consensus isn't about waiting for someone who claims to know better to come along, y'know? Grayfell (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

ADL blog citation

I'm not certain about the ADL blog [4] citation. First, while it is from the ADL, it's still an anonymous blog on their site. Second, its usage here is inaccurate. The blog is about the term "cuckservative" and in terms of "alternative right", the term alternative right is said to be "a term used by white suprema­cists to refer to rene­gade con­ser­v­a­tives who have adopted white suprema­cist view­points and have essen­tially removed them­selves from main­stream conservatism." Unless white supremacists are considered the moderate non-WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV crowd, I don't think the fact that white supremacists call these let's say dog whistle white supremacist views the alternative right is relevant. Further, it really does not remotely support the statement at all (unless we say that this is a view from white supremacists) that the alt right is actually a separate segment since the statement indicates that (at least according to the white supremacists again) that these "renegade conservatives" aren't a part of mainstream conservatism at all and are distinct. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Serious bias problems

Guys, we can squabble over Buzzfeed and Fusion sources, but we need to face the larger fact: this article is trash. It needs to be revamped. It seems like a group of far-left editors have realized that they have majority presence here and therefore nitpick every change until outsiders get tired and give up.

It's easy to skirmish on details, but any reasonable editor will immediately realize that the article is partisan fluff, a patchwork of social justice tabloid tirades. The majority of the text is just disparate acidic blurbs from political commentators. I think the Reception section should be at most two paragraphs, given the current amount of actual descriptive content.

If we can't find reliable, objective, reserved sources, this article should be aggressively pared down until we find some.

I'm honestly going to try to be constructive. But until we realize that the existing material is garbage, it will accrete rather than improve. Exercisephys (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

"Any reasonable editor"? So if we don't agree, that makes us "far-left" and unreasonable? Veiled insults like this only poison the well for productive discussion. Have you seen the recent history of this article? You think trying to fix this article is easy or simple? Multiple times editors, including complicated sock farms, have been blocked followed by total meltdowns filled with trolling and juvenile garbage. So who's really wasting time here? Accusing us of POV pushing is oblivious to the history of the article. Nominate the article for deletion if you want, or bring forth better sources if you have them. Otherwise I fail to see what this is supposed to accomplish. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: For what it's worth: yes, I do think you are being far-left and unreasonable if you defend including quotes calling a political group "crazy ... childless single men who masturbate to anime" in an encyclopedia article. See my response to Mduvekot below for more on that.

I don't find this article's revision history particularly relevant to our discussion. Rather, I think that pointing towards past acts of vandalism and biased editing is a common tactic used to defend a biased article. I am simply saying that the article as it is (because that's what people read, not the revision history) is heavily biased.

In response to this:

You think trying to fix this article is easy or simple?

And this:

Nominate the article for deletion if you want, or bring forth better sources if you have them. Otherwise I fail to see what this is supposed to accomplish.

The initial approach I'm suggesting is simple and doesn't involve better sources (which don't exist): delete much of the article. Most of it is poorly referenced fluff. It can go. You guys can keep giving weak, long-winded defenses for what exists and end with "find us something better", but the fact is that this is not a well-documented (or particularly well-defined) political movement. You managed to usher in hundreds of words of accusations and talk show quotes; this does not mean I am obligated to replace them. Deleting them seems like a much better approach in this case. Exercisephys (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You are dismissing content by saying it's poorly referenced fluff, but where are you getting this from? These "long-winded" defenses on the talk page are a response to vague claims like this. The quote about anime was from Rick Wilson, a Republican strategist, and his behavior and the quote itself have discussed many times by multiple reliable sources (and yes, also junk like VDare and worse). News articles are sometimes reliable sources, even if they are open about having a personal or political position. This topic is covered by news sources far more often than by academia. Even the most ostensibly impartial newspaper is not going to pretend to be totally impartial about extreme racism, anti-antisemitism, or misogyny. Why should sources like this, which provide analysis by a respected journalist, be dismissed because... they're "poorly referenced fluff"? The Week source gives the anime quote as a specific example of establishment conservatives attacks on the alt-right, why isn't that worth including? I can see the appeal of TNT, but you'll need to make a much more compelling case. If you don't like long-winded responses, you need to make more concise, actionable suggestions. Grayfell (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Again, you are defending things in the small, going word-by-word or sentence-by-sentence. I have come across the anime quote in other sources too. However, it's inherent that a particularly crude and inflammatory insult made on a TV show will be discussed elsewhere. What's different (we're considering the article in the large here) is that other articles will give contexts, analyses, and critiques of the quote. This article just gives a condensed laundry list of the most biting statements.

In terms of actionable items, see the last section on this talk page. Exercisephys (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Above I link to two sources which give context and analysis of the quote. If you would like to include that, please do, but removing the quote entirely is destructive. My entire point is that making sweeping changes isn't appropriate here without first discussing the problems. Yes, the quote was crude and inflammatory, which is partly why it was covered. Some of that coverage can be chalked up to election cycle churn, but not all of it. Why is this a problem? That something is crude and inflammatory doesn't make it automatically unworthy of being mentioned. Just like everything else, we weigh the sources. Not every politically aligned source is unreliable. Taking a middle-path is a good thing for neutrality, but that only works if we guard against dogmatism. If we define neutrality as the average of all viewpoints, we end up giving power to those who can scream the loudest, which is the opposite of sensible. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's the thing: it seems like the only people who care about the alt-right and try to define it are a) part of it and view it favorably, or b) against it and view it negatively. Scholarly articles on the concept would be best, but I don't know if there's been time enough for decent research into it. I agree, though, that there's a definite problem in that if we cut out alt-right sources as being problematic per WP:PRIMARY, then we're left only with critical, obviously biased sources, though there are criticisms from both the left and the right.

As far as the reception section goes, the last paragraph could easily be cut out as a bunch of pile-on opinions. We should definitely keep the viewpoints from National Review and The Weekly Standard to show how even conservatives are divided on the alt-right. The BuzzFeed article ([5]) is quite comprehensive and I'm not willing to throw it out simply for being BuzzFeed. Reading the article, it's not as reactionary as, say, Cathy Young's Newsday article ([6]). It might not be as "accurate" a description of the alt-right as an description straight from Breitbart, but it seems balanced enough in explaining just what the alt-right is (with views from both the alt-right and its opponents) that it's worth including, though we certainly shouldn't rely heavily on it. clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Describing sources as "social justice tabloid tirades" doesn't convince me that you don't have a bias problem. Mduvekot (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: This article refers to its subjects through a quote as "crazy ... childless single men who masturbate to anime". Are you kidding? You really don't see the issue here? Can you pause for a moment and imagine what people would add to New Left if that were encyclopedic content? On that note, you really should look at New Left -- at least on a cursory scroll, it seems like a good example of an article on a political group that actually acknowledges the humanity and intents of its subjects.

My understanding of the context of the Rick Wilson quote is that it was provided by a conservative, and reported on by reliable sources. Nobody is misrepresenting Rick Wilson or the alt-right, except perhaps, Rick Wilson himself. I would prefer scholarly sources about the topic to Rick Wilson. I object to your suggestion that there is a group of editors who work together to create a biased article about the alt-right. There is clear evidence of efforts to remove sources that describe the alt-right as racist, and the people working to keep those sources ought to be assumed to be working in good faith, as long as the editors who remove those sources have not offered anything substantial. Mduvekot (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Because you seem interested, I'm something of a moderate or libertarian. I rarely read about or participate in politics and I only very rarely edit political Wikipedia articles. However, Alt-right and the related articles are probably the single worst instance of institutionalized bias on Wikipedia that I have encountered in the years and thousands of edits I've spent here. To reiterate, there seems to be a group of editors here who descend on anyone who touches the page, using nitpicking and tiresome reversion maneuvers to defend a completely indefensible article. Exercisephys (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I've seen worse, but this page is definitely very bad. Liberals and far-left don't like these people, and neither do mainstream moneyed conservatives. I think Wikipedia needs stricter guidelines on labeling living people as "racist"; or at least a more widespread recognition that words like "White supremacist" along with "fascist" are used as political insults against people who do not identify with actually White-supremacist views. Also, the obsession with calling this movement evil or racist 20 million times in different phrasing makes it a useless article for actually learning anything about what the alt-right stands for, from where it actually developed, or who actually identifies with it. Shrigley (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

We have a pretty good definition: a racist is someone who subscribes to the belief that the human population can be classified according to race. Mduvekot (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The definition you articulate is our lead to the article on racialism; racism according to Wikipedia requires some additional elements of "prejudicing, stereotyping, and discrimination". Anyway, the problem with this article (and other amateur articles on the internet) which try to paint the alt-right as racist, is that it requires an accusation of dog-whistle politics (i.e, secret, concealed racism), because race is on the third rail of politics in America and so is not openly discussed as such. Cf. our discussion in this talk page about whether or not to call "cuckservative" racist. Commentator George Ouzonian recently came out with a video which strongly criticizes the word "cuck" as an insult, but notice how he does not impinge a racial connotation to the word. Shrigley (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The entire article is absolute rubbish. I believe you would receive a more accurate depiction of Donald Trump from Hillary Clinton than you would of the Alt-Right from this article. One of the first things that one reads is that it's highlights are white nationalism, anti-immigration, male supremacy, far-right, and every other common buzzword used to demonize the ideological counterpart to the contemporary progressive. Need we truly look nowhere further than the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.167.146 (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing the last paragraph of Reception

clpo13 suggested this, and I think it's a good first step. This paragraph probably has the highest density of redundant vitriole:

Michael Dougherty writing in The Week describes the alt-right as radical working-class white people who are critical of globalization and contemptuous of "permanent members of the political class".[27] However, Rick Wilson, an opponent of Donald Trump, rejected this distinction, calling the alt-right "crazy ... childless single men who masturbate to anime," and who have "plenty of Hitler iconography in their Twitter icons."[28][29] Similarly, Cathy Young writing in Newsday called the alt-right "a nest of anti-Semitism" inhabited by "white supremacists" who regularly use "repulsive bigotry".[6] Likewise, Chris Hayes on All In with Chris Hayes described the "alt right" as a euphemistic term for "essentially modern day white supremacy."[30]

Any objections? Exercisephys (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal. Well, it's the three main sources for the topic but it seems uselessly name-calling without anything helpful to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• I object, per reasons discussed above and more. The quote is crude, but it's been covered by multiple reliable sources and cited as an example of the mainstream conservative reaction to the popularity of the alt-right. It would be better to include that context. As for the other quotes, it's important to underscore just how wide-spread this reaction has been among both liberals and mainstream conservatives. If you can figure out a way to do that without multiple examples, I'm all ears, but just removing this would be a severe shortcoming in coverage of the topic. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: In terms of a quote to contextualize all this, I like this one from the Breitbart piece:

[The alt-right] has already triggered a string of fearful op-eds and hit pieces from both Left and Right: Lefties dismiss it as racist, while the conservative press, always desperate to avoid charges of bigotry from the Left, has thrown these young readers and voters to the wolves as well.

It's biased too, but far more self-aware and informative than what we're getting from BuzzFeed et al. I think it's a good addition as long as we make it clear that it's from Breitbart.

However, I don't find it necessary for the anime quote to stay. There are a lot of cases in which someone pettily insults X on a talk show and starts controversy. That insult doesn't need to be included in X's Wikipedia article, especially not when the article's as anemic and charged as this one. I think the stubbornness about its presence is mostly just a power play or stone-walling. I don't think it adds value to the article, but because there's some semblance of a justification, people feel confident hitting "undo" every time someone removes it until the sun explodes. Exercisephys (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's tedious, isn't it? I assure you, you're not the first person to notice this, but that doesn't make you more right than the rest of us. You haven't actually explained why Buzzfeed is so unreliable, other than that it's 'left-wing', as though that mattered. As I've already explained a ridiculous number of times on this talk page, Buzzfeed's journalism (as opposed to their clickbait) is a generally reliable source. It has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking among informed outside journalists, while Breitbart does not ([7][8][9] etc.). There are many reasons why the Brietbart quote is, at best, a minority perspective on this, but regardless, comparing the two outlets is setting a precedent of false equivalence. They are different in both political position and quality, and trying to 'balance' the article with quotes from an unreliable source on the 'other side' is not neutral. Yeah, we get that you don't find it necessary to keep the anime quote, you've already said that multiple times, but that's still not an actual explanation of why it should be removed. It is covered in multiple reliable sources. Yeah it's abrasive and inflammatory, that's kinda the point. You are accusing me and other editors of disruptive behavior. Couching it in general terms only adds the thinnest pretense of civility, and I hope you will at least consider using more direct language if you aren't going to assume good faith. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Buzzfeed left-wing (if left-wing means "having compassion for the laboring class"), although they do push the intersectional identity politics hard as part of their ad demographic slicing. There are quality American left-wing newspaper sources that I use to source Wikipedia articles, like The New Republic and The Nation. It is pretty clear—as you acknowledge—that Buzzfeed intends to be abrasive, inflammatory, and gratuitously insulting towards people as part of its marketing strategy, and its zeal has lead that website to be quite loose with the facts. It sounds like we Wikipedians need to do a bit more research on the controversies associated with that source, because there are many. Shrigley (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My point was that the anime quote, from a right-wing talking head, was abrasive, not that Buzzfeed is necessarily abrasive, but regardless, what they do with their marketing strategy isn't an automatic disqualifier for their journalism. That's why the firewall is so important. If you would like to document the many controversies associated with Buzzfeed, please do so. If not here, than how about at Buzzfeed? News-sources have been mixing crap with real journalism forever. We don't cite clickbait for the same reason we don't cite Mutts in cat behavior. That doesn't mean we can't judge the source on its own merits. The Poynter Institute seems to agree with me on this. Grayfell (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)