Talk:Alt-right/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

What is the alt-right?

I found this diagram on an alt-right twitter account and a reverse image search came up empty. It's pretty interesting. It places traditional nazism outside the movement and identifies six streams of thought-- paleo-conservatism, white nationalism, southern nationalism, christian legitimism, right-libertarian ("alt-light") and neoreaction. I think this article could take a hint in describing the background of the movement. I have no fucking clue what "christian (catholic) legitimism" is, maybe Traditionalist Catholics? It also gives examples of sites identified at points on the spectrum.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, this isn't the first time this issue has been raised, and it has defied simple solutions.

That is a weird, fascinating image. I think I get where the author is coming from, but it seems very arbitrary. Why is neoreaction so far from white nationalism? Why is Vox Day so far from either? Since when is the Daily Stormer pro-female empowerment? These are the questions that arise from applying the political compass waaaaaay too rigidly. It's kinda jokey, so maybe it's intended to be tongue-in-cheek? Poe's law?

Looking into it a little, I also have no idea what the legitimism thing is about. Looking at some of those blogs, I think it's just pretentious term for neo-reactionary Christians. That's my guess, anyway. That's kind of the problem with all of these charts and lists and such. They are expanding a relatively niche group of heavily overlapping ideologies to try and pin them down. This sort of makes sense as a way to categorize things, but it makes the movement appear much more diverse than outside sources see it as. This may not be a deliberate tactic, but the end result is undue weight towards the idea that the alt-right is expansive, when few looking in from the outside seems to think very much of that idea. Since so many of the sources within the alt-right disagree on its background, scope, etc., often diametrically, and so few of them are reliable anyway, trying to plot out the background of the movement risks OR, which is why it's been such a struggle in the past. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Neoreactionism hates women a lot more than white nationalism apparently. It seems weird to me too. I think the Christian legitimism thing is Traditionalist Catholicism. I've seen a lot of alt-right Sedevacantists. They reject things like not blaming Jews for killing Jesus. I like how "pat buchanan" is right in the center.--Monochrome_Monitor 14:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think by making mainstream politics a little trinity on the left they meant to imply regular politics is way less diverse than alt-right politics. It would've been a pain in the ass to go into detail in the former case. Anyway one thing I think this chart is right about is Milo yuanopolis (spelling fail). He's not a leader of the alt-right, he doesn't consider himself alt-right, and the alt-right doesn't consider him a part of them. I don't even think he's a fellow traveler, more like an enabler. He humanizes them as "trolly" and "exuberant".--Monochrome_Monitor 15:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Some of these positioning choices puzzle me, but you're certainly right about that. The media loves to paint Milo and Breitbart as being the vanguard of the alt-right, but there's literally no evidence for that. Breitbart's statement about being an alt-right platform was probably a fundamental misunderstanding of what alt-right actually meant, i.e. what we today would understand as alt-light. Milo has never called himself part of the alt-right, and actively subverts alt-right principles (saying there are only a handful of white nationalists, and nobody likes them anyway). Actual alt-right media outlets like The Daily Stormer and TRS have been extremely vocal about disavowing Milo and everything he stands for. He's more of a civic nationalist, like Bannon and Trump. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Lol Milo is a gay half-Jew, and Brietbart is emphatically pro-Israel. The chart actually places daily stormer slightly outside of the alt-right, and much of alt-twitter doesn't like the caricature of them as "stormfags" (in one users words). This alt-right blog has a typically negative view of Milo.[1] Civic nationalist is a great descriptor, one used by this "alt-light" chart comparing "civic nationalists and egalitarians" (which they call the "New Right", I prefer Alt-light) to "edgy racist losers who worship Hitler", referring to the alt-right. It goes w/out saying the alt-right do not like that chart (though some think it's a parody because the politically incorrect 4chan board is called New Right, I haven't been on that site so I can't make a judgement)--Monochrome_Monitor 16:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've heard "Stormfags" in the pejorative sense used before to refer to the older Stormfront as representing the older white nationalism, whereas I've heard alt-righters describe themselves as "white nationalism 2.0" or "rebranded for the 21st century". I've also heard alt-light and other factions in the Trump coalition use it to insult the alt-right. Regardless, its a fascinating culture to observe. Just try not to get too close. I've already been called an "alt-right sympathizer" for not immediately supporting the indef block of a suspected alt-right editor before there was proof (in the form of a sneaky 1488 in his userpage edit history). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it fascinating? It's like a human zoo. Anyway I'm a female Jew so I get a get-out-of-being-called-an-alt-right-sympathizer-free-card.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

With all this in mind we really need to check the people in Category:Alt-right.--Monochrome_Monitor 16:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes we do, but the fundamental problem is that the media doesn't actually understand what the alt-right is, doesn't care to actually get in close and observe, and lumps people like Milo in with them. Once they do that, its verifiable and we have to say that, even if we know its actually fake news. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, I can't believe we're siding with the Alt-right against the MSM!!! Anyway I'm going to briefly explore /pol/. I don't think I can stomach The Daily Shoah, which is according to Paul the most popular alt-right podcast, and the origin of (((echoes))).--Monochrome_Monitor 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have strayed into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Feel free to continue on IRC or email if you like. I've been observing for a while. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I preface this by saying I am aware of WP's policies against original research and dubious citations, which is why I'll circle back to these points later on with vetted mainstream news coverage and encourage other WPians to do the same.

It seems discussion of the Alt-Right cannot be organized or complete unless we start from a core of people and organizations that consider themselves, and each other, Alt-Right. (One issue with this, in terms of sourcing, is that much of this comes from interviews with the following people, their blogs, and their podcasts, which falls dangerously close to conducting original research.):

-Red Ice, Henrik Palmgren, its contributors, and its affiliates

-The Right Stuff, Mike Enoch, its contributors, and its affiliates

-The Daily Stormer, Andrew Anglin, its contributors, and its affiliates

-Alternative-Right/Radix Journal, Richard Spencer, their contributors, and their affiliates

Said affiliates, like many of those from the NRx sphere, the 'manosphere', Occidental Observer, VDare, Counter Currents, and American Renaissance, their leadership, their contributors, and their affiliates may not have adopted or may no longer adopt the term Alt-Right, so care should be taken before categorizing them as such.

68.192.161.211 (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how far that's going to get us. It doesn't just fall dangerously close to OR, it very likely crosses it, and it also edges over WP:SPS and WP:NPOV as well. If this seems like it might be OR, that's a sign that the approach is flawed, not that it's a mere technicality. If we can't trust them for this term based on hypothetical future distancing, why are we categorizing them this way at all? The POV that comes from hedging our bets based on the fair-weather use of the term "alt-right" is exactly why we should rely on independent sources first and foremost for this. We don't need to dip into primary junk which wouldn't otherwise pass WP:RS. Rather than focus on the on-again off-again "core" proponents of the supposed ideology, or those who embrace the term in practice but tepidly distance themselves from the label (Yiannopoulos and Cernovich, for example), we need to focus on concrete statements from reliable sources. NPOV doesn't mean letting everyone speak form themselves and ignoring all other context, it means balancing based on due weight, with a thumb on the scale for those who specifically distance themselves, as judged on a case-by-case basis. Grayfell (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Query

How does one use Breitbart to convey their message in the way they would use Twitter ( a social network )? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A06:2E01:B30E:1013:0:0:0:1008 (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

what is this???

How can a term coined by someone in 2010 have its roots on 4chan and 8chan around the time of the Trump campaign? This is contradictory and makes no sense.

The whole article is contradictory and makes little sense, it tries to link a very amorphous political current to very specific ideas.

Also: ctrl+f "nazi" gives 24 results. That much linking of a political current to nazism doesn't seem serious at all.

This whole article needs to be thoroughly revised or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.133.14.185 (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The term was coined, and then became more popular later, which is pretty straightforward. Yes, it's hard to pin-down, that doesn't mean we should ignore sources which try to describe it using specific terms and concepts, even if they are unflattering or even offensive. Do you have any actionable suggestions on how to improve the article? Grayfell (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. "alt-right" is a made up term to make white nationalists-white supremacists seem as not so "out there". The term alt-right should not have its own article and just link to the white nationalism article BronzeCheetah44 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)BronzeCheetah44

I hope someone will enact BronzeCheetah44's suggestion. Earthscent (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@BronzeCheetah44: Feel free to nominate the article for deletion or for merging, though I would oppose such efforts per WP:NOTCENSORED. ^Falling_Gravity 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying censor it, I am saying it should just link to the white nationalism article, there could be a section there explaining how the "alt-right" term was coined BronzeCheetah44 (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)BronzeCheetah44

What if the sources we are using that try to describe this term are not politically neutral? By using these sources and their characterizations, aren't we promulgating a particular point of view? Redirecting this article to the white nationalism article. Alternatively, if this term is associated with an individual, we could redirect it there. If it's associated (in a neutral way) with several individuals then I can see providing a brief description of that association along with links to their articles. Rklawton (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there really any doubt that this is a notable topic? If so, the article can be nominated for deletion I suppose. If there is a problem with a particular source having a documented bias, we should try to find a more neutral one. Of course no one will agree about what constitutes a neutral source, so the best we can do is use a variety of known reliable sources, and represent as many prominent view points as are available.- MrX 23:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have doubt that this article is somehow distinguishable from white nationalism. Rklawton (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article is about a specific white nationalist movement, not about white nationalism in general. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

From what reading I have done, the term "alt-right" encompasses a broad variety of white nationalistic movements. It is not a movement in and of itself BronzeCheetah44 (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)BronzeCheetah44

This is a notable topic and there are plenty of RS to support a stand alone article. I would oppose a merge/redirect/delete. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

How "loose" can a group be, before one can conclude there is no "group" but only a label used for political reasons?

The current version of this article starts with: "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States." What follows are many claims which start like "alt-right beliefs have been described as" or "The concept has further been associated with", where the provided sources are left-wing websites.

Reading the article critically, the purpose seems to be to, on the one hand, link "alt-right" with racists who use this term to whitewash their racist beliefs while, on the other hand, link the term to Trump and his supporters, thereby linking racism with Trump. In other words, racists and Trump's supporters are all "grouped" into the "alt-right movement", which apparently is justified given that this is a "loose" group of people...

The only sensible claim in the article, is that "alt-right" is quite clearly a label used for political motives. However, the article now only mentions the political motvies of racists who use this term (whitewash their racist views); to be complete and objective, the article should also mention the left-wing motives for using the term (group people together to damage (the reputation of) some of them).

CtrlAltDel(enSnel) (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says the left is using this term to further their political agenda, then sure, we should include that information. We can't simply add this idea based on our own conclusions. wp:or and/or wp:synth Rklawton (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2017

Change: White supremacist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism. To: White nationalist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism.

Since he doesn't not fall in to the White supremacy definition, as stated on wikipedias definition: white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people. Rather he falls in the white nationalist definitionHe advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture.

As according to his own page: Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white nationalist Ztaqev2 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you- MrX 14:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Alt-Right has been associated with men's rights advocates?

In the intro it says "The concept has further been associated with multiple groups from American nationalists, neo-monarchists, men's rights advocates, and the 2016 campaign of Donald Trump."

Is associating men's rights advocates with this really necessary? I mean the only source for this claim from the linked sources is an opinion piece from the Boston Globe. And here's the comment: "it’s a wide-open virtual state fair for white nationalists/nihilists, misogynist “men’s rights” dweebs."

You might as well replace "men's rights advocates" with "misogynist men’s rights dweebs" as it says above. At this point I would say only one person has "further associated this concept with men's rights advocates", but this Wikipedia page will give people enough cause to cite this over and over again until it becomes "true".

--93.146.44.129 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4], [5], etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Damn! Guess I'm late by a month or so. Oh well, at least link one of these instead, they at least have the decency to use the whole phrase "men's rights advocates" instead of "misogynist men’s rights dweebs". 93.146.44.129 (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we remove this part of the article entirely? Im not an MRA fan...but there is no credible source linking MRA and the Alt-Right. The person above is correct about the Boston Globe article...and that is hardly a source. Until proper evidence is found linking Alt-Right policies and MRA policies, this part of the article has no place. It just feels like I am reading someone's opinion when I make it to this part of the article. (I actually learned more about the Alt-Right by reading the talk page than I did reading the article itself. lol)

Volunteer Marek provided 4 decent sources. That you disagree with it is not grounds for its removal. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right, meet Draft:Alt-left

199.119.232.214 (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the term "alt-left" is occasionally used by reliable sources. It's sometimes a tongue-in-cheek counterpoint to "alt-right", or just a bratty attempt at mockery along the lines of "no u", but also some more substantial uses. I'm not sure if it's notable enough as a discrete concept to warrant an article or not. Either way, there are so many major problems with that draft it's hard to know where to start. The massive amount of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, the use of Facebook posts as sources, the editorializing... If an article can be made out of this, WP:TNT would be a good foundation. I think a subsection of regressive left (where alt-left currently redirects) might be a better starting point, also, since there's clearly a connection between the two concepts. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

As the notice on the article says, it is not written in a way consistent with content policies. An article about the subject should state that it is a neologism originating on WND and CNS and now used by some Republicans as a response to criticisms of the alt-right. As an epithet, rather than a description of an existing ideology, it is poorly defined and supposedly includes both Wall Street Bankers and Occupy Wall Street activists, supposedly all taking their marching orders from George Soros and the New World Order. However first you need to show that the term has been covered extensively in actual news stories or academic papers. So for now, I would say ctl-alt-delete. TFD (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Too many citations in lead section

I understand the need for citations for the highly contentious subject matter in the first paragraph of the lead section, but it's really quite distracting. I prefer not to edit this article, but can I make a suggestion here? Either (a) collapse all sources for a given sentence into a single footnote (I personally don't like this style), or (b) copy this content into the body and move the citations along with it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to collapsing, or even reducing anything more than three sources for each chunk of content. I am opposed to simply blindly trimming citations, especially good sources like the SPLC, The Nation, and The Week while leaving inferior sources like Taki's Magazine and Salon.- MrX 01:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the SPLC is a reliable source for determinations of political ideology. They're the leading authority on identifying hate groups, not on deciding who falls where on the ideological spectrum. But that's really an aside for the purposes of this discussion. My main concern here is clutter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly favor a version of option (a), collapsing all sources for a given assertion, clause, or term, as doing so better reflects standard academic practice, providing clear and relatively pleasing support for individual assertions. I think some of the references can be further broken up and associated with their corresponding individual claims, clauses, and terms. I do think the material is important enough for the lead, though somehow reflecting the material in the rest of the article, as I understand these matters, would eliminate the need for citations in the lead. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Poorly written...full of opinion.

What is the deal with this article? This is very poorly written, and the sources are a joke. This entire article needs to be reviewed, possibly even deleted. It has some valid points, but also a lot of very broad assumptions, and seems to be more about linking this movement to racism, and then linking the "movement" to Donald Trump. Is this a Wikipedia article? Or is this an opinion piece for The Onion?? Let's get some credible sources in here...and leave our feels at the door when writing articles for what is supposed to be an "online encyclopedia".

Anyone out there with a little journalistic flair that can maybe turn this article around..or at least find reliable sources other than left-wing media sites?? Newpapers...actual interviews...anything??FacePunchYou (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"left-wing media sites"... I think therein lies your problem with the article. Please see WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If the alt-right's support of Trump is mentioned in the lead of the article, so should the fact that he has disavowed them. EvergreenFir should take a look at WP:NPOV, which apparently supersedes WP:RS as well as WP:RS. 73.248.58.65 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are aware of a reliable source that contains info about Trump's disavowal of the alt-right, you should add it yourself. This encyclopedia doesn't run on random IP addresses complaining on talk pages - it runs on users volunteering their time and effort in editing pages to improve them. Rockypedia (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe Trump ever disavowed the alt-right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

He did here "I don't want to energize the group, and I disavow the group,". 173.22.107.40 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. I agree with 73.248.58.65 that we need to include the fact that Trump disavowed the alt-right movement if we're going to say that the movement is associated with his presidential campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Bannon

I have edited the article that reflected the POV that Steve Bannon is a member of the Alt-right.  All of the removed content was a BLP vio.  Some has been moved out of the lede to a different section as it is not appropriate for the lede.  Alt-right was a movement long before August 2016.  To place content there that highlights a news-cycle and leads readers to believe the Administration and Bannon are connected to it is an egregious violation of Wikipedia policy and editing ethics. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  14:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I object to this edit, now made twice by Winkelvi (ironically, which saying I shouldn't edit war after my single revert). The claim is that the previous it violates WP:BLP, however my readin go of the sources show that the content does in fact faithful reflect what the sources say. Winkelvi's edit also added the WP:WEASEL word "reportedly", which seems intended to cast doubt on the veracity of Bannon's own words. I think the previous version should be restored.- MrX 14:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree. This is a case of WP:CRYBLP. Also, I can't see any reason that saying it was associated with the 2016 Trump campaign is a BLP violation. It was widely reported as so, to say otherwise is to deny reality. — Strongjam (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"Sanitizing"?  Bullshit.  See the above section.  See where the content was placed.  See the edit summaries that reflect why.  It was all very, very POV in tone and content and that needed to be corrected.  We can start an RfC if you'd like.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  14:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You seem to want to distance the subject from Steve Bannon  and Trump's campaign, as evidenced by adding words like "reportedly" and removing any mention of Trump's campaign. Now you seem to be talking about "very, very POV in tone" rather than an actual violation of WP:BLP. Rather than generalizations, perhaps you can be more specific about the words you think are WP:BLP or WP:NPOV violations. By the way, the material has been in the article for some time, and you did not respect WP:BRD, which is unfortunate.- MrX 15:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. The content in question would be a BLP violation if there weren't reliable sources establishing that Bannon is in fact a prominent member of the alt-right. Take, for example, the L.A. Times' "What is the alt-right? A refresher course on Steve Bannon's fringe brand of conservatism". Does this settle the matter? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't settle anything.  Your edit warring while a discussion is occurring and claiming a false consensus doesn't, either.  Consensus doesn't form in a few hours.  It can take days, weeks.  And yes, the content in the lede is inappropriate.  And yes, the content there is a BLP vio because it's written in an extremely POV manner.  And yes, it's also WP:UNDUE.  I'm seeing some POV editing happening here that appears to be related to personal politics.  And for the record, "longstanding" really only applies to months upon months and years - not in the course of a fake news cycle lasting a few weeks and someone thought it would be great to add content off it.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Then tag the offending content. But when you edit war to get your preferred version and meanwhile say we need to keep the article that way for "days, weeks" when no one agrees with you might be seen as disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman WV I agree with her. Time to put NPOV tag back up. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 04:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Even tagging seems slightly disruptive when there is already an active talk page discussion. Tags aren't badges of shame. Consensus has been established. Arbitrary definitions of "longstanding" don't alter that. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I'm generally pro-tagging but in this situation it would be mildly disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a bias in this article possibly based on the political views of those who edit it. I mean not that I'm judging it by the fact I got called a "red-faced, angry conservative" or anything. I still object this article is not bipartisan enough and clearly has a WP:POV issue. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 04:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, as I clarified in the previous section, you were called no such thing. Drop the alternative fact. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You wrote that comment at the same time that you posted your last comment. So you couldn't have possibly expected me to know that until now. I think that constitutes as alternative hindsight? lol [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 07:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I posted my clarification at 12:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC). I posted my last comment at 07:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC). So it appears your alternative facts have morphed into ordinary lies. I will expect an apology. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I assumed too fast. Wasn't checking Wikipedia that day. I'll drop it. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 08:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

QubixQdotta, I'm not aware of any neutrality issues actually identified in connection with this discussion (describing Bannon as a member of the alt-right). WV raised a BLP concern, which was addressed by pointing to reliable sources supporting the content. After that, WV and you said there was a neutrality issue but in support there were only vague claims of POV editing. We need to know specifically what content you consider to be non-neutral so that the problem can be addressed and fixed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral point of view

This article clearly asserts a non-neutral point of view. Even though I agree with the facts that are in this article, there is alot of opinions for liberal focusing media outlets that are used like facts. Wikipedia is not the place assert your views on the topic but to include all points of view. That includes the assertions by the movement itself in a neutral way and other views from conservative outlets. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you give some specific examples? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Literally the whole header of the article is so heavy handed and backed only by liberal news outlets. These should be included as a liberal point of view, but the way it comes across is that whoever wrote it really wanted to persuade their views influenced by liberal-leaning media outlets about "alt-right". I mean really, each sentence has like 6 or so sources from tons of different liberal news outlets? It's very intense and doesn't give me confidence in a well-rounded view of the subject. I think from here on out we need to write about where the sources came from. Not to say that those aren't legitimate views, but they're handed out way to assertively and give no room for conflicting views. The article includes next to no views from people in the alt-right (which actually includes lots of non-racist, African-American, as well as LGBT people), as well as no views from conservative Republicans, libertarians, and impartial liberal Democrats. Through studying, I've learned that there's many "alt-right" identified people who would never consider themselves racist, but they identify with valuing the "alt right's" freedom of speech. Obviously Richard Spencer views his own definition of "alt right" (which he coined) as a white identity movement, but there's other people who identify with it completely in contrast with that. This article needs to include - in the text - where the sources come from so that readers can make their opinions for themselves as well as all views on the subject. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 04:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I see a huge range of sources in the lead being used, not just liberal ones. AP, NYT, NBC, Reuters, WaPo, CNN, PBS, NPR, USA Today, People, LA Times, ... Your claim of liberal media bias rings hollow when dozens of references from a huge swath of top notch sources are being used. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a glut of reliable sources about the alt-right from many perspectives. There are very few reliable sources from within the alt-right. This isn't a coincidence, but it doesn't really matter: Wikipedia favors the views of outside observers. There are many sources currently used which bend-over backward to be impartial, but what would they be impartial about in this case? Impartial about the racism? Impartial about the extremism? Impartiality doesn't mean regurgitating back the movement's talking points without comment or analysis. That would be very, very partial. Sources are clear that this overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly male, mostly straight movement is crawling with racists. Not all of them are necessarily racists, but Wikipedia covers the basics before going into the exceptions, and the basics are that the alt-right is pretty racist as a movement. Also, "white identity movement" is a euphemism for white nationalism in this case, and euphemisms are fundamentally non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Um, those are literally all liberal media sources. You proved my point exactly. Hey listen, I'm playing devil's advocate here (it's what I do for politics). We need to include everything and not be so heavy handed with the whole idea of "Richard Spencer is racist so that makes everything alt-right inherently racist and neo-nazi" subtext that has been pushed by those outlets - all of which are biased Democrat outlets (during the time of Hillary's campaign). And if we consider biased Democratic outlets as reliable sources over political content - then we might as well include biased Republican outlets such as Fox News (which hasn't been done yet). Fox includes tons of sources about the alt-right movement which shows more from different kinds of people that aren't Democrats. What I'm essentially saying is that the tone of the article needs to calm down and stop using so much media-influenced rhetoric. I'm not saying that Richard Spencer isn't a racist and that there isn't truth in it's racism, but that there is also another side that isn't told (aka the Republicans and libertarians view on the subject) that views the movement quite differently. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 08:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that LGBT alt-right member Milo Yiannopolous's views on the subject were barely mentioned and that's pretty significant culturally and ideologically [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 08:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Um, no, those are mainly mainstream media sources. A media source doesn't become "liberal" just because some rabid, red-faced, screaming conservative claims it is. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay first off you got my political views wrong. And second this is a controversial topic, let's keep it civil and not resort to knee-jerk oppositionalist angry political thinking. I try to value people's freedom to say things and I believe in Wikipedia as the voice of many different ways of looking at things. That means I value people's right to speak that I don't even really agree with. If that's the truth about those being reliable unbiased mainstream media sources, then let's include Fox News and Breitbart. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 01:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

My reference to "some … conservative" was generic; it wasn't any reference to you. And, yes, I realize in hindsight that the reference invited misconstrual. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

>"While the label of white nationalism is disputed by some political commentators including Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos,[44] prominent alt-right figures such as Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer and Jazzhands McFeels of Fash the Nation have embraced the term as the core philosophy their movement is based on.[45][46] In response to a Washington Post article that portrayed the movement as "offensiveness for the sake of offensiveness", Anglin said "No it isn't. 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." - A perfect example of rhetoric used in the article. Milo's beliefs obviously stand out but they're ignored and then the article's tone immediately goes back to using quotes from people saying that the movement is "offensive" and is about "exterminating Jews". Where's Milo and Allum's quotes on the ideology? They represent a whole side of what the movement is. Like I get it (I'm just as liberal as you guys) but what people have to say about the subject is more important than rhetoric about how bad racism is. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 09:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's time to wrap this up with a show of consensus, as I believe minds are pretty made up here. I therefore nominate the neutrality template for deletion. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Second. Um, those are literally all liberal media sources. This demonstrates the complaint is a pov issue rooted in a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually it isn't. I value all of the sources in the article but the problem is that they're used to much to enforce rhetoric and it comes off as activism rather than serious encyclopedic content about what "alt right" actually is. I can honestly say I didn't learn anything about alt-right from this article. What I'm saying is: There's a LGBT alt right political commentator that says it isn't racist and there's a guy that says it's a white supremacist movement. And at the same time the article says its "homophobic". That leaves me a lot of questions about the subject, but yet it simply becomes a rebranding of the white supremacy article, when it seems some people look at it very differently. The article needs work. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 01:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You're talking about Yiannopoulos. He's not a reliable source, but even if he were, he's squirrelly about whether or not he's part of the alt-right. Either way, being gay doesn't make someone immune to accusations of homophobia. The phrase "not your shield" used to be common among the same circles that evolved into the alt-right. Well, that sentiment goes both ways. Pointing to a professional troll like Yiannopoulos as an argument against homophobia fails on multiple levels. His opinion needs to be carefully weight by independent sources, but Breitbart isn't a reliable source, and Yiannopoulos isn't neutral, independent, or a legitimate expert according to Wikipedia's standards. His and Bokhari's "explainer" has been discussed and refuted by reliable sources, and his claims that the alt-right isn't racist can be treated as the opinion of a non-expert, which is nothing. "...some people look at it very differently..." Are these people reliable sources? "...it simply becomes a rebranding of the white supremacy article..." Bingo! That's exactly correct according to many, many reliable sources.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][etc] Even if those are not definitive or entirely reliable, they are all much, much more reliable than Yiannopoulos, and there are many more where that came from. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You misquoted me, I said he's gay and that makes what he has to say valuable because he has a different life experience. I'm trying to show all sides of the story and not push a narrative (the article reads like a persuasive essay and not an information piece). His opinion needs to be carefully weight by independent sources, but Breitbart isn't a reliable source, and Yiannopoulos isn't neutral, independent, or a legitimate expert according to Wikipedia's standards. You see the problem with that statement is that you say Breitbart isn't a reliable source but you don't explain why. You show several sources you all seem to consider unbiased, then why have the same publishers come out with these pieces which are obviously liberal media: Vanity Fair: [13] NPR: [14] Politico: [15] [16] CNN: [17] [18] Slate: [19] NYTimes: [20] Washington Post: [21] You see it's kind of like making a survey but only showing what one kind of person is thinking (Democrats - myself included), even though its a legitimate view it becomes illegitimate when it underrepresents the other side. The reliable media sources you gave as an example spin the stories and don't want to talk about someone like Milo. How is that any different than what Breitbart is doing with their media? They're just a conservative media company that shares their views. Based on those terms and political opinions of all users aside, Breitbart must be a reliable source. They're reporting is just as biased and unreliable as every one of those sources you just mentioned. Breitbart: [22] By including both opposing sides you create a legitimate well-studied piece of information. Very rough example: Media companies such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and NPR have accused the alt-right of misogynism, antifeminism, anti-Semitic, and white nationalist views. Other media companies such as Fox News have stated that the alt-right's ideology is identified by anti-political correctness and anti-globalism/progressivism, but denied allegations of the movement's racism. You see, that's NPOV where people can DECIDE what to think about the subject based on facts and not opinion. Neither side should be one upped. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 03:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

CNN has a liberal bias? I don't think you'll get a lot of traction with that argument. "Bias" is difficult to pin-down, and it's far too easy to label a source as biased in order to brush it aside. Biased or not, Breitbart has been rejected as a reliable source many times in many articles. It's come up often enough at WP:RSN, and it absolutely doesn't have the reputation for accuracy and fact checking required by policy described at WP:RS. "Both sides" is an intellectual trap. Attempting to say "some say X while others say Y" is false balance. It misrepresents sources by suggesting that there is only two sides, and that these two sides are proportionate. Fox News, similar to other mainstream sources, is pretty clear that the movement is heavily associated with white nationalism. They have linked it to racist figures such as Jared Taylor.[23] Fox News describes Andrew Anglin as a "Alt-Right movement leader".[24] Here's a quote that's about as simple as it gets:"Alt-right" is an offshoot of conservatism mixing racism, white nationalism and populism.[25] I think this has ceased being productive, and I support removing the POV tag again. Grayfell (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell Okay first of all notice how I didn't say that the sources were bad sources. I was just providing an example of what point of view the sources come from - at the same time as Hillary's campaign - and at the same time as mass hysteria over Donald Trump's media accusations of racism. I'm talking about the context of the situation that they come from - WHICH IS OKAY. THEY'RE GOOD SOURCES. BUT THEY'RE BIASED. It isn't very hard to tell which party the sources favor over the links I just provided. But that's fine. All I'm encouraging is that we remove some of the rhetoric in the article and include some challenging subjects. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 07:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I cast a third !vote that the article is neutral, at least in the way that QubixQdotta is complaining about. It seems clear they aren't familiar with WP:BIASED, and on top of that writing off the entire mainstream media as liberal/biased isn't productive or consistent with our verifiability policy more broadly, which has very little to do with political ideology and has much more to do with journalistic standards. At this point it seems we have consensus to remove the tag, so I will do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It also seems QubixQdotta is unfamiliar with WP:YESPOV and specifically the bullet point titled "Avoid stating facts as opinions." There is no need for in-text attribution for the reliably sourced facts presented in the first paragraph. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, Yeah actually no, and you guys all seem to be unfamiliar with "Prefer nonjudgmental language" which the article fails on a pretty serious level. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject) The mentality of the article seems to be, let's find sources where we can seek out cheap insults like "wannabe fascists". How is that even remotely encyclopedic? What next, Bill Maher called them "dirty fat rednecks"? [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 07:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral language? Can you give some examples please? French did actually call the alt-right "wanna-be fascists." We are merely reporting what he said. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

QubixQdotta, while there may be problems with the article, your complaint about its use of "liberal" sources has no basis in policy. I refer to "Reliable sources." Article are supposed to based on those sources and reflect their presentation. If this article reads like a standard description in CNN or whatever, then it is a good article by Wikipedia standards. Because that is what readers want, a summary of what they would find by reading mainstream sources, not an original piece of investigative journalism or the truth that mainstream media refuses to mention. If you do not like that approach, then you need to get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

TFD I think you guys entirely misunderstood what I was trying to say. I didn't say the sources were bad sources. I'm saying they offer one way of looking at the topic. They don't describe the big picture. The problem with the article is that it disparages the subject and uses its sources incorrectly. The sources should be used at face value. Too much emotion is applied to the article. The tone isn't monotonous enough, it has an essence of fiery angry activist. There's a lot of work that needs to be done. It should be more scholarly. This is a way of radical political thinking that is happening in the world that should be investigated correctly. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 07:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

If multiple experienced editors are failing to get your point, perhaps the flaw lies with your presentation. Or perhaps not, I dunno. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines say to represent viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. I think the article currently does that reasonably well. If a subject is overwhelmingly disparaged by reliable sources, and the ideology of the alt-right is, then the article should reflect that disparagement. Downplaying that disparagement would misrepresent sources to advance false-neutrality. Specifically including obscure or less reliable sources which disagree with the mainstream solely because they disagree is likewise totally inappropriate and is as non-neutral as it gets. So, one way to make your case is to present new, reliable, sources for discussion. In order for a perspective to be included, such as the idea that the alt-right's racism is "mass hysteria" from the media, the perspective need coverage in reliable sources. So far you have not presented any sources at all, other than ones you have labeled as liberal (which has its own issues), and a lone link to breitbart.com's homepage. This makes your arguments too abstract to follow. So either pony up the links or drop the stick. Grayfell (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Still not seeing how the article users the sources incorrectly. We have a preponderance of sources that express "one side", as you put it. This is exactly as it should be, per WP:DUE. We do not create false balance. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There was definately a flaw along the way Grayfell, but I feel that my point was explained pretty well. I think the flaw though is that people seem to have a preconceived idea that I think that "liberal sources" are bad (maybe because I received judgement for thinking outside of the box, who knows. I got accused of being a white conservative earlier on which is hilariously opposite). And here's the thing: I subscribe to both conservative and liberal news so I know that the idea of there being undue weight is wrong. It's very simple - no conservative sources were looked at. The idea of the mainstream sources not being liberal-focused is honestly ridiculous. It's a fact about American media - it's biased and the bias comes from the two party system that reflects two different cultures. There's a lot of content on the alt-right that talks about the movement's both sides. Both of which I personally disagree with, but I'm willing to acknowledge exist. Take Wall Street Journal for example: For “alternative” genres of music, online newsgroups using the “alt-” prefix encouraged snappy labels like “alt-rock” and “alt-country.” The prefix moved beyond music to other things seen as challenging the mainstream. Thus, “alternative right”—a loose agglomeration of groups with far-right ideologies, some of which embrace white supremacy, while others rebel against mainstream Republicanism—got shortened to “alt-right.” ( [26] ). [27] Several more sources to come from bipartisan as well as conservative sources which were ignored (so perhaps that means there was an intention of neglect?) [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 04:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't care what your personal views are, and I doubt anyone else here does, either. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not WP:OR, and not Both-sides-are-bad™ false balance. The Town Hall link is an AP story already used as the very first source in the article. The article currently cites Breitbart, The Daily Stormer (!) Taki's Magazine, The Unz Review, the Foundation for Economic Education, Reuters, AP, Christian Science Monitor, etc. and you claim that none of us bothered to look at conservative sources? We cite Haaretz, The Independent, The Guardian, The Week, The Financial Times, but we're hung-up on "American Media"? Grayfell (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If that's the false balance than what is the balance? To pretend that what Democrats say is more of a fact than what Republicans and bipartisans say about the topic? No that's actually called false and biased. Let's think metaphorically for a second: What if several "reliable sources" said that, "Even though the Burning Man community states it is an event for all different kinds of people, it has been a known fact that the event was founded on Wiccan, Pagan, and Witchcraft practices. This motivates the festival's traditions in the dark arts and people have celebrated these occultic traditions based on their disdain for Western culture and Christianity. Some consider the event "evil and anti-America"" Sorry, you can't change it because the reliable sources say its true. No bias there at all. I'm assuming you'd go try to find the alternative ways of looking at it right? Well yes, because one commonly known way of looking at it doesn't make it supreme fact. That's like saying all skinheads are nazis. It's the same thing. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 05:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want me to think metaphorically, perhaps avoid appealing directly to activities I list on my userpage. If you have reliable sources saying that Burning Man is evil, occultic, etc., I would be tickled to see them. As for skinheads, I can point to SHARP and others as counter-examples. It's not a hypothetical, it's supported by sources. Where are your counter examples? Where are your sources?

Anyway, I still don't get your argument. Please tell me which of these, if any, is correct:

1. Too many of the article's sources are "liberal". -- What does that mean? How are they liberal, and why would that make them less usable? You keep emphasizing that it's not a bad thing, but then why are you even bringing it up at all?
2. There are reliable sources from within the alt-right that are not being presented. -- As far as I know, no alt-right sources have the reputation for accuracy and fact-checking required by WP:RS, and Wikipedia favors independent sources, anyway.
3. There are impartial Republicans/Democrats/Libertarians who have differing views of this movement which are not being included. -- Everyone seems to agree that the alt-right is fundamentally opposed to both mainstream Republicans and Democrats. Expecting impartiality, or filtering these sources by ideology at all, is impractical, subjective, and non-productive. Who gets to decide which sources are impartial enough, or Republican enough?
4. The article is unfairly harsh on the alt-right because it's failing to include non-bigoted views. -- Please present reliable sources for this so we can discuss them.
5. Unflattering statements in the article should be attributed as opinions -- They are not opinions at this point. Sources define the alt-right as racist and sexist (for example) and Wikipedia reflects those sources without hedging bets and editorializing. To hedge every opinion would not be neutral.
6. ??? - What's missing here? Even after all this talk page filler, do you have a real change to propose?

Grayfell (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You guys make me sound like I'm some crazy person.

1. Let me requote myself: You show several sources you all seem to consider unbiased, then why have the same publishers come out with these pieces which are obviously liberal-focused media: Vanity Fair: [28] NPR: [29] Politico: [30] [31] CNN: [32] [33] Slate: [34] NYTimes: [35] Washington Post: [36]Go look at all those sources. They're all biased and that's because the sources are biased. It's really simple.
   1. Here is the way I look at it: Those sources can be used for quoting from. But they shouldn't ever be used at face value. Neither side of the political spectrum should. Bias.
2. I'll be honest I don't care about sources from WITHIN the alt-right. All I care about is people within it being quoted correctly about what they believe in.
3. 'No, the article is "unfairly harsh" because its written with rhetoric. You make it sound like I'm some nazi sympathizer. You see the reason why I'm trying to do this is not because I like or agree or even support alt-right people, it's because I respect and value truth about topics. "White supremacy" is a label that often gets swept over things that people are too lazy to further investigate. I understand it makes you guys happy to see nazis get burned alive on Wikipedia, but I rather see truth about the matter, not what I see on the news everyday. You need to hate Nazis. Duh. Who doesn't.
4. I don't care if the statement is unflattering. How is the quote used? Is it used to emphasize rhetoric in the article then writing needs to change. I don't care that the article talks about sexism and white supremacy because it is a fact. I'm not denying facts here. I just want to include facts and eliminate rhetoric.

Excuse me if I get passionate about the truth of topics but it really means alot to hear truth which includes the truth about the movement's racism and Richard Spencer's crazy bigoted garbage. I'm used to my community telling me alternative facts/weird conspiracies about politicians and that I'm supposed to believe them. I come to Wikipedia for truth and to spread truth. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 09:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You never answered Greyfell's question: "What does 'liberal' mean? How are they (the sources) liberal, and why would that make them less usable?" Rockypedia (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup. QubixQdotta, I'm looking at those example sources, and I still do not agree with your point at all. Some of those are just news stories. Some are written in a more conversational tone. That doesn't really matter. The Style section has nothing to do with this. The Atlantic's endorsement of Clinton was historically significant and newsworthy, and CNN can report that if they want. Publishing somewhat flattering or unflattering information, or opinion pieces, doesn't make all articles published by the source biased. This is a fundamental part of how journalism works. This is why we keep saying that labeling a source "liberal" is meaningless. Likewise, vaguely calling something "rhetoric" is not helpful or informative, as it's too broad and too subjective. You are correct that Wikipedia is too lazy to investigate white supremacy. This isn't the place for original research. Instead of making bold assumptions about what other editors' motives are, such as our "need" to hate Nazis, Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. That your community pushes conspiracies theories is unfortunate, and one I can relate to, but trying to give both sides of a position isn't a solution to that. There are always more than two sides, and sometimes, one side is not worth the attention anyway. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Alt-Right, Breitbart and Israel?

From Alt-right:

"White nationalist Richard Spencer coined the term [...] and spoken critically of the Jewish people."

From Breitbart:

"Andrew Breitbart during a visit to Israel in summer 2007, with the aim of founding a site "that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel","

What gives? Are the alt-right pro- or anti-Jews? MidAtlanticRidgeback (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's possible to be both "for" and against Israel. Some fundamentalist groups support Israel in hopes of triggering the Armageddon - an event that believe will result in the destruction of the Jewish people. Rklawton (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There is literally no reliable OR unreliable source for this, not a single one that says "Oh I hope all jews will be safe in Israel and that they die when Armageddon comes" not a single ones. the only one I can think of is that all people have a choice of choosing what THEY consider the messiah be coming and then ALL people will have a choice of converting or go to hell, something you know jewish people do NOT believe in. Purgatory for like 6 months yes, but not hell. AND even then those people who believe in the Armageddon stuff never WANTS the jewish people to go to hell. so no, you cant be pro Israel and pro jewish people(by definition:not wanting them kill or hurt) and anti Israel at the same time 83.209.66.168 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

And there are groups like J Street that support Israel while criticizing some of its policies. Just like there are some people who express their patriotism by criticizing their own countries. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Except Andrew Breitbart was Jewish, and large portion of Breitbarts staff continues to be Jewish. It simply makes no sense to label Breitbart as antisemitic. 173.22.107.40 (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Just don't use wikipedia, you can't argue with these (((people))). 82.20.148.222 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to make insulting statements like that to people who have different opinions than you do, especially in the talk page. It adds nothing to the discussion. 173.22.107.40 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Brietbart likes Israel, it detests liberal Jews. Kinda like the left detests Israel and likes liberal Jews. (if they disavow Zionism) Both have their good Jews and their bad Jews. Anyway, Breitbart isn't alt-right. That's a common and annoying misconception bred by the media. If you want to know what alt-right is, check www.therightstuff.biz. It's the source of alt-right internet culture along with /pol. An example of this culture is the annony above who used echoes, even though everyone knows what they mean now. Hope your friends think you're cool, annony! I'm sure Peinovich's wife does.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart hates liberals in general, being jewish and liberal won't make them hate you more 173.22.107.40 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is a joke

a one sided collection of buzzwords that basically send out one message : "the straight white male is inherently evil, you must agree otherwise...nazis"

pathetic that this mentality manages to override even basic wikipedia guidelines

Let me guess, you are an alt-righter?Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No proof this is an actual movement, only opinions and loose conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.35.81 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, and that's reflected in the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)