Talk:Alt-right/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Use of Fash the Nation and The Daily Stormer as sources in the "White supremacy and white nationalism" section

In the "White supremacy and white nationalism" sub-section, we currently have the present sentence: "While the label of white nationalism is disputed by some political commentators, including Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos, alt-right figures such as Andrew Anglin of neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer and Marcus Halberstram of Fash the Nation have embraced the term as the core philosophy their movement is based on." We don't actually cite Bokhari and Yiannopolous at all at this juncture, but the sentence does cite web pages from Fash the Nation and The Daily Stormer; these are obviously Primary Sources when it comes to the alt-right and it's unclear if they would count as WP:Reliable Sources. More broadly I don't really see how this sentence contributes much to the section in question. I suggest deleting this sentence and the two citations altogether; are there any objections? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I am at the point where I will object to any substantive changes you wish to make, because of your previous history on this article, and the time sink you become trying to keep up with you. No, in my opinion you may not make this change. Obviously, if there is a consensus to do so, that rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, this is one of the oddest statements I have ever come across in over a decade of being a Wikipedia editor. Are you seriously opposing suggestions purely because I am the editor proposing them? You've accused me of WP:Ownership of this article but frankly trying to exclude my input in this way (particularly when I am clearly a constructive editor with a very long history of bringing controversial politics-themed articles) itself smacks of severe Ownership issues. I'm wondering if this is an issue I will have to take further. It's very, very odd behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I don't trust you, frankly. You have given very sufficient reason for that in the past. You're a massive time sink, you wear down other editors, and you use everything possible to ensure that your edits get into the article as closely as possible to how you wrote them. To me, everything you do is suspect, at least here, I don't know your editing elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's really unfair to call me a "massive time sink" when you are the editor who has literally reverted every edit I make, including the correction of basic citation errors, all out of a desire to drive me from the page. Think of all the time that you are wasting me! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

BMK, please just be honest with me. If you really don't like me and my way of working and feel affronted that someone else is coming along and making quite a few edits to an article you feel protective over, why don't you simply say so and then we can take it to some sort of dispute resolution process. It seems pretty obvious both from your repeated reverting of my edits, coupled with your talk page comments, that you are intent on grinding me down by disrupting me at every step, so as to make my editing as unpleasant and time-consuming as possible, with the presumed result that I will just go away and not edit this page anymore. Frankly, this process cannot go on indefinitely. Either you decide to change tack, or we take it to dispute resolution. I don't really see another alternative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I've been brutally honest with you. You're a time sink, you wear other editors down until you get your way (or as much of it as you can), and you can't seem to understand that academic sources are not the be-all and end-all of sourcing. You're just not worth the time it takes to deal with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

To object to "any substantive changes" another editor suggests because of something they did in the past that you disagree with is not reasonable. Proposed changes should always be considered on their merits. Beyond My Ken, you should reconsider your position, and think about how your comments are going to look to other editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, an editor's past history with an article is entirely pertinent information. Note, for instance, the way he is pulling us into the black hole that is his involvement with an article. You seem to have forgotten the last time, I got fed up and backed off the article, and you had to deal with him yourself. That's what he does, drives away people by grinding them down, little by little, WP:BLUDGEONing the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No, an editor's past history has nothing to do with whether a change they propose is good or bad; that needs to be judged by objective and rational standards. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

We disagree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

My edits?

User:Beyond My Ken, please, this is getting silly. You are undoing any and all of my edits on this page: edits where I formatted a web citation to include a date, or when I fixed a broken link, for example ([1]). Here you are basically saying that you will oppose any proposed alteration that I might put forward at the Talk Page regardless of what it is. It is looking pretty clear that you're simply trying to drive me away from the article by being obstructive at almost every opportunity. Why; what is it that you have against me? (Particularly, frankly, when I am an editor with a very long history of productive editing! Or perhaps that is the reason you want me to stop editing this article, that you don't want somebody else editing and improving it). That smacks of WP:Ownership, the very issue that you accuse me of. I don't want to be uncivil or unkind but I have to ask: is this something that I will have to take to dispute resolution? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to go through some of the changes I made that you have now reverted twice. What is your problem with the following changes:

• "Etymology and scope", paragraph two, line one: The article states "As of February 2018, the scope of the term "alt-right" is still in flux." This is not referenced and it appears to by WP:Original Research. It should be removed. Do you disagree? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• "White supremacy and White Nationalism", paragraph four: a citation is malfunctioning became of an error in the initial "<ref>". This needs to be fixed. Do you disagree? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• "White supremacy and White Nationalism", paragraph five: We have the following sentence - "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"." This is an almost complete copy of a (slightly shorter) sentence in the third paragraph of that section; it even has the same citation. It should be removed to get rid of pointless repetition. Do you disagree? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Number 1 should stay as is, #2 can be fixed, #3 the longer version can stay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, I've fixed #2. But you have to give a reason for the other statements. There's no reason that 1 can "stay as it is" if it is unreferenced. At the very least it needs a "citation needed" tag. Otherwise it really just looks like you're rejecting my suggestions to obstruct me rather than engaging in constructive dialogue designed to improve the article. (And let's be honest, had it been me that added the unreferenced "As of February 2018," sentence, you'd be [quite rightly] pointing out that I was adding unreferenced material and would probably be reverting me). 00:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Is it referenced in the body of the article? Then add that reference, do not remove the information. Again, changes like these add up to my suspecting your motivations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

1. "White supremacy and White Nationalism", paragraph seven: the prose claims that Mike Cernovich is one of the "leaders of the alt-right movement," a claim that (as I pointed out in an above section) is at the very least controversial because several specialist commentators argue that he should be seen as part of the alt-lite rather than the alt-right. Do you disagree? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
2. "Anti-feminism and sex-related issues", paragraph three: I added a citation from Nagle's book alongside that from Lyon's report. You removed it. Do you disagree that this is a useful addition to diversify the use of sourcing? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
3. "Influences", paragraph four: I formatted the Teitelbaum reference so that it matches the other book citations. Do you have a problem with the standardised formatting of citations? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
4. "Origins: 2008–13", paragraph one: I added a citation from Nagle to bolster a statement already cited to Hawley. Do you have a problem with this diversification of sourcing? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
5. "Emergence: 2014–16": I moved the image of Steve Bannon so that it actually aligned with the text discussing Bannon. Do you take issue with this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
6. "Emergence: 2014–16": I changed the word "untrue" to "incorrect", a term that perhaps has a slightly less moralising tone. Is there an issue with this substitution? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
7. "Emergence: 2014–16": I added a small sub-heading of "Breitbart News and the alt-lite" to break-up quite a lengthy section and moved one small paragraph to part of the section where it was a better fit. Is there a problem with this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
8. "Emergence: 2014–16": I added a partial sentence, cited from Nagle, suggesting another possible interpretation of Bannon's famous claim that Breitbart had become the "platform for the alt-right". Anything wrong with that?
9. Again cited to Nagle, I added "Commentator Angela Nagle suggested that Yiannopoulos did "more than anyone else to give the alt-right a presentable face"" to the end of a paragraph discussing Yiannopolous' publications on the alt-right. Anything wrong with that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I've numbered your items for ease of reference.

1. Again, you seem to think that "specialist sources" in some way outrank media sources. There is sufficient support from reliable sources, and no change should be made.
2. Restore the source.
3. Restore the formatting.
4. Restore the source.
5. Leave the image where it is.
6. Leave "untrue", there is nothing "moralizing" about it.
7. I object to a sub-heading which combines Breitbard and alt-lite. Breitbart is alt-right, and no one actually uses "alt-lite"
8. An alternate "possible interpretation" from a single source? WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE
9. No problem.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Why? What's your reasoning on this?

It was certainly common to find other press sources once call Breitbart "alt-right" but I don't see that being used now, and certainly not in the academic literature. It's probably a point we need to discuss in a separate section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: How about I just call the section "Breitbart"? That would serve the same useful function of dividing up quite a lengthy section, and Breitbart News is the main topic of those paragraphs? Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Do not insert your comments inthe middle of another editor's comments, and do not ping me again.

Again, you value "academic literature" (i.e. 3 or 4 books) over voluminous media sources. You need to chaneg your mindset, but show no attempt to even try.

"Breitbart" is fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with BMK on the "who to name as alt-right" issue. When we have extensive sources referring to someone as alt-right with no indication that it is controversial, I feel it takes more than just one or two sources using a different term to omit them. We do already cover the fact that Cernovich has been called "alt-light" pejoratively elsewhere in the article; but that doesn't erase the extensive and high-quality sources covering him as part of the alt-right. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Donald Trump presidential campaign: 2016", paragraph one: To try and get the word count down in this section I trimmed down "as well as from white nationalists more broadly, neo-Nazis, KKK groups, and the Patriot movement" (which I had added several months ago) to the more concise "and other far-rightists." Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Donald Trump presidential campaign: 2016", paragraph one: To try and get the word count down in this section I trimmed down "The alt-right was exceedingly vocal in support for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign." to "The alt-right became vocal in supporting Trump's campaign." Moreover, in this instance there was really no need to give Trump's forename because it was already given in the sentence before. That's just needless repetition. Again, do you have a problem with this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Donald Trump presidential campaign: 2016", paragraph one: To get the word count down, I changed "The alt-right" to "It" at the start of the sentence; the preceding sentence had also begun with "The alt-right", rendering this instance of the wording unnecessary and clunky. Any problem here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Getting the word count down" is not an acceptable reason for an edit. We want accurate information, no matter how many words it takes. I object to all of these. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean, Wikipedia editors copy-edit for conciseness all the time. Again, why do you object to something like changing "Donald Trump" to "Trump"? Why keep poorer wording in just because you want to minimise my edits on the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"Editing for conciseness' is not at all the same as "getting the word count down". The first focuses on the quality of the content, the second on the quantity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, "editing for conciseness" is a better expression of what I was trying to do. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Donald Trump presidential campaign: 2016": "and in August Trump" I changed to "and in August 2016 Trump" as I think it possible from the context that some readers might assume we are referring to August 2015. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Donald Trump presidential campaign: 2016": I merged the first and third paragraph here to improve conciseness and to help provide a better summary of why the alt-right liked Trump. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Donald Trump presidential campaign: 2016": I took out some of the sentences in the paragraph outlining Clinton's speech about the alt-right. If it's the loss of references that concern you here, we can always keep those in, but I think the paragraph presently looks a bit bloated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Donald Trump presidential campaign: 2016": I changed the sentences ending "a Democratic victory" and "Clinton's winning" to "a Democratic win" and "Clinton's victory", which reads a little more smoothly. "Clinton's winning" it a tad clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "After Trump's election:" I replaced the "the disavowal" to "this" because the word "disavow" was already found in the sentence before. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "After Trump's election:" I removed "Ann Coulter pointed out that Trump "campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast" and this was one of the reasons many voted for him." This was for two reasons. First, why does Coulter's opinion matter? She's not really considered part of the alt-right. Second, we already basically include the same information in the sentence before, so this is just duplicating that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "After Trump's election:" To improve the conciseness, I changed "In February 2017, Reddit then closed down the "r/altright" sub-reddit after its participants were found to have breached its policy prohibiting doxing" to "In February 2017, Reddit closed the "r/altright" sub-reddit after its participants breached its policy prohibiting doxxing." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "After Trump's election:" I changed "Several alt-right candidates are running in.." to "Several alt-right candidates ran in the 2018 midterm elections as Republican candidates" to reflect that these were past events. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "After Trump's election:" I formatted the two Al Jazeera links. Any objection to this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Structure": I added a sentence cited to Nagle, "Nagle commented that the alt-right is "full of righteous contempt for anything mainstream, conformist, basic" and that is pursues the "truly radical, transgressive and 'edgy'."" Any issues with this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Reactions:" I added this image (File:Trump is Alt-Right with us. A protest group (I think) (32420565055).jpg) of anti-Trump protesters who were highlighting his links to the alt-right. Any objections to it? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Reforming the lede

As it presently stands ([2]), the lead does a really poor job of summarising the article's contents and isn't very user friendly. This is despite it arguably being the most important part of the article; the section that most people actually read. The first two sentences consist largely of just lists of words that we link to (the opening paragraph has nine; the second has twenty-three). Any reader will come across a broad range of concepts that are to varying degrees relevant to the alt-right but won't actually come away learning what alt-rightists actually believe or want to achieve. They won't learn that most alt-rightist want to create a white ethno-state in North America; they won't learn that while many alt-rightists are anti-Semitic and believe in a Jewish conspiracy orchestrating white genocide, other alt-rightists are not anti-Semitic. The next paragraph is just as bad; it goes on about any perceived connection between the alt-right and Donald Trump (often making somewhat dubious links) without giving any broader history of the movement, how it was formed, how it spread online, and in what way it really links to the Trump campaign.

Further, we don't need all of those citations clogging up the lead and making it look messy. Everything should be appropriately cited in the main body of the article so that there isn't the need to do so in the lede. While we're on the subject of messy appearances, we should also seriously consider removing one of the two images from the lead and being rid of the two infoboxes (why those two [neo-fascism and anti-Semitism]? Why not the infobox on fascism, or U.S. politics, or right-wing politics, or racism, or Donald Trump... the selection seems totally arbitrary). I would suggest that editors look at the nice, clean leads that we have on other far-right and/or right-wing themed articles like the National Front (UK), British National Party, UK Independence Party, and English Defence League. That's the sort of lead we should be aiming at. Clean, crisp, and informative.

The first paragraph that I'd like to suggest we replace is the third, that dealing with the history of the alt-right movement. We already have a pretty good section on the history of the alt-right into the article itself, so it is fairly easy to summarise that in paragraph form. My proposed wording is as follows:

The alt-right emerged in 2008, when the term was coined by the American white nationalist Richard B. Spencer. Prior to becoming a white nationalist, Spencer was a paleoconservative and his new movement emphasized right-wing opposition to the neoconservatism then dominant within the Republican Party and the broader U.S. conservative movement. Its specific intent was to replace conservatism with white nationalism as the mainstream force on the American right-wing. It developed online, initially at Spencer's website and then at other far-right sites like The Daily Stormer and Occidental Dissent, as well as on message boards like Reddit and 4chan. Following the 2013 Gamergate controversy, the alt-right made increasing use of trolling to raise its profile. The movement was given further publicity by figures on the more moderate "alt-light", namely by Steve Bannon and Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart News, who shared its rightist critique of neoconservatism but not its white nationalism. The alt-right largely supported Donald Trump's campaign in the 2016 presidential election, although Trump distanced himself from the movement. Following Trump's victory, the alt-right pursued more real-life activities, namely the 2017 Unite the Right rally, although became increasingly fractured amid growing public exposure.

Unless there are any objections, I would like to go ahead and replace the deeply unsatisfactory present third paragraph with improved alternative. Of course, if anyone has any constructive points to improve my text, I'd love to hear them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I strongly object.

Due to the controversial nature of this subject, pretty much everything that can be supported by specific citations should be supported, even in the lede. Failure to do so leaves us open to constant attempts to remove information from the lede on the grounds that it isn't cited, which means they have to be reverted with the explanation that the lede isn't required to have citations as long as the material is cited in the body. There's no reason in the world we should open the door this way to those whose attempts to change the article are not based on improving it, but on skewing to present their POV is a better light. The paragraph is fine as it is, and the citations are a feature, not a bug. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I really have no idea how you can conclude "the paragraph is fine as it is". None at all. It is a deeply, deeply flawed paragraph. I can only conclude, as I have specified in the section below and based on some of your comments ([) that you are basically opposing this because it is I who proposed it and you are pretty keen on driving me away from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm pinging other editors who have contributed to this talk page after the past few months to get their input on how best to reform this terribly problematic lede: @Patar knight:; @The Four Deuces:; @PaulCHebert:; @K.e.coffman:; @FreeKnowledgeCreator:. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to ping old editors, ping them all (see WP:CANVASS) - @Spintendo:, @Doug Weller:, @Ian.thomson:, @Grayfell:, @SunCrow:, @PackMecEng:, @Alialiac:, @Jyggalypuff:, @Wumbolo:, @Thryduulf:, @Kianlolcat99:, @SwegWrestlur:, @EvergreenFir:, @Aquillion:, @Lionelt:, @Cullen328:, @MrX:, @Acroterion:, @Redrose64:, @Anachronist:, @Jbhunley:, @NOrbeck:, @NickCT:. I think that's everyone who made more than one edit to this talk page in the last 500 edits, and I recognize some of the names as people I've had disputes with in the past. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

While I've been summoned here, I will say that having looked through the article, I notice a few sources seem to be incredibly redundant, particularly several of the dual citings of NPR, which takes away from the article. While I appreciate the need for THOROUGH citations on any of these, I can't help but feel its been done sloppily here. I would like to push for at a minimum these citations to be heavily cleaned up. Jyggalypuff (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Midnightblueowl and disagree with Beyond My Ken. That the subject is controversial is not a good reason for overcitation; we don't need a whole long list of citations for a given statement as a way of saying to editors, "Don't you dare change this." And in general, as I believe I said when the subject was being discussed before, a streamlined lead focusing on the key aspects of the subject is better than one that simply presents a list of everything said somehow to be associated with the alt-right. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The proposed change is unacceptable. The current lede is unwieldy, but it's that way for a reason, and the proposed replacement lede fails to address that. It includes original research and editorializing, and fails to accurately summarize the body of the article. To be blunt, it appears to be whitewashing the topic to selectively emphasize things outside of WP:DUE, while ignoring other aspects. There are so many subtle problems with both the lede, and this proposal, that figuring out where to start is overwhelming. As for source, removing them is not realistic at this time, although consolidating them might be doable, eventually. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If you believe that the proposal includes original research and editorializing it seems reasonable to explain why. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, where to start... Why is Spencer's supposed paleolibertarianism, a passing mention in the body, being given a place of prominence? The alt-lite is treated by sources as a euphemistic attempt at spin, so validating it here in the lede is flawed and non-neutral. This appears to be trying suggest that the alt-right is more moderate than reliable sources treat it, while also covering Trump's ass by ignoring the many close, well-documented connections... etc? As BMK said, this is skewing the article, not improving it. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Issues like Spencer's paleolibertarianism are not essential, granted. I put forward my suggested wording as a proposal that I felt accurately summarised the contents of the "History" section of the article. I'm more than happy to discuss other wordings. What is important is that we get away from the current lead, which completely fails our readers on so many counts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hard opposition to this rewrite, to the arguments suggesting it's necessary, and to everything Midnightblueowl is suggesting. The current third paragraph reflects the weight and emphasis in both the vast majority of sources and in the article itself; it is the 2016 election, and the connection to Donald Trump's election, that makes the Alt-Right notable, fullstop. The important parts of the topic are its political successes and the high points of its political influence, not trivia about who coined the word. The idea that the sentence should instead focus on Spencer - who the vast majority of coverage gives barely a passing mention, if that - is hard to credit as a serious suggestion; if it was meant honestly, then it is terrible. The the proposed rewrite is an unreadable mess of confused trivia that obscures what's actually important, downplaying the aspects of the topic that have received the most coverage and made it so notable; while the version currently in the article is clear, high-quality, comparatively succinct given the complexity of the topic, and is the result of extended and repeated discussions that have constantly found consensus to support it. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, of course, but to sweep in and suggest replacing it wholesale - especially with such a low-quality and plainly unsatisfactory replacement - is not a credible suggestion. Start small. Don't try to massively rewrite the lead of a controversial article all at once; it's not going to happen. Also, I want to express hard opposition to simultaneously discussing rewriting the lead and removing large numbers of sources from it; WP:OVERCITE is a controversial essay, while WP:V is policy, which trumps it; but at the very least trying to remove large numbers of reliable citations from a section while simultaneously trying to massively rewrite its content clearly seems like a terrible idea. --Aquillion (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• "The current third paragraph reflects the weight and emphasis in both the vast majority of sources and in the article itself". I genuinely do not believe that that is true. It focuses almost completely on the alt-right's relationship with Trump, ignoring the entire history of the movement beyond that. One could quite easily conclude that the present paragraph is deliberately emphasising any alt-right links with the Trump administration so as to damn his government by association (to be clear, I'm not a Trump fan, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that a great many editors wouldn't be more than happy to have wording that is damaging to him). If folk have concerns about my proposed wording (some suggest it does not give enough attention to the alt-right's links with Trump, for instance), then that is fine. I'm very happy to discuss alternate wordings. But the current paragraph is doing a really poor job of summarising the content of the article. It needs to be seriously reworked if not replaced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Please remember to WP:AGF. If you approach this topic with an unhelpful attitude like but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that a great many editors wouldn't be more than happy to have wording that is damaging to him, it's hardly surprising that you're getting into so many conflicts and encountering so much resistance to your edits. If you want, we can do an extensive breakdown of the sources to judge which ones focus on Trump, to what extent, and to what degree of emphasis, especially in terms of what makes the topic notable (vs. which sources focus on what I feel is the comparative trivia emphasized in your version); but to be honest the fact that the movement's major political accomplishments are the most noteworthy aspect of the topic seems obvious enough to me and, clearly, to the majority of other editors who have worked on this page. --Aquillion (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• One other thing I would point out; Hawley, who you (correctly) seem to accept as a top-quality source on the topic, leads his book with this: The 2016 presidential election shattered assumptions about the normal rules of politics... The rest of the intro reads the same way; he clearly recognizes that in terms of top-shelf "why should people care about the alt-right; what makes them notable", Donald Trump and the 2016 presidential election are the first thing to talk about. --Aquillion (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's impossible to use no editorializing, when you have: (1) Reliable journalist A says that the alt-right is not paleolibertarian, but a bunch of far-right neo-Nazis, (2) Reliable journalist B claims that the alt-right's ideology is paleolibertarian, not neo-Nazism, (3) The lead states "The alt-right is a far-right faction which believes in paleolibertarianism and neo-Nazism". Also, the lead can be no better than the article it summarizes. I don't like citing books by associate professors, books which received polarizing reviews etc. as facts at all, which this article does. WP:PRIMARY means that every book is a primary source for its conclusions, which we should not treat as fact, unless it is uncontroversial. These kinds of problems likely won't matter too much at a GA nomination, but they will arise at the FA-level. With regards to the proposed changes, they seem to be better as per MOS:LEADREL, but not more neutral. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"The alt-right has been characterized as belonging on the far right of the political spectrum."

I have been staring at this sentence for several minutes now wondering what to do with it. It is certainly not wrong, but it also reads a bit silly. I feel like we could expand it to say what that means, add some more sources in the process, and probably remove "characterized as", which seems unnecessarily cautious for something that is probably the most universally agreed-upon statement in the article. But more generally, if we're going to lead with that I feel like it would be useful to say more about what that means - just identifying "right / left" here with no more detail is fairly trivial when it's literally in their name. --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I see what you're getting at, and part of the problem is the limited nature of the left/right spectrum to describe anyone's politics, let alone a rag-tag assemblage of groups such as the alt-right. Still, it's the most prevalent model we have, and when placed on the spectrum the alt-right is clearly on the far side of the right-hand line segment, so -- as you say -- it's not wrong per se, just as limited as any use of left/right model.

Further "alt-right" doesn't have to mean "far-right", someone could have attached that name a movement of near-right groups instead, so it still seems useful to say that they're more extreme than other rightist groups. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Disputed tag on religion.

@Midnightblueowl: re-added a disputed tag to this sentence, indicating that they want to discuss it before removing it; however, they didn't indicate what aspect of it they felt was disputed, and there doesn't seem to be any active discussion on talk:

Other elements of the movement strongly embrace Christian fundamentalism and overlap with the American Christian right.

Sources are Foster, John B. (2017). Trump in the White House. NYU Press. p. 80. and Coles, T.J. (2017). President Trump, Inc. Clairview Books. p. 17. Does anyone have any specific objections to that sentence or its sources? The sourcing seems fine to me; it looks to have been a drive-by tagging. --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no objections to either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, I was not the individual who originally appended the tag and I'm not sure who did, but I thought it best to allow some discussion to take place before it was removed. I believe that User:SunCrow may have concerns on this point given their recent edits to this sentence. I'd like to hear their view. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Just as an update, I've taken a look at the two sources cited. Coles' book (p. 17) states very explicitly that "The alt-right also draws heavily on Christian evangelical fundamentalism" and that "Many of its supporters are Christian fundamentalists, as are many of its leaders." That seems clear enough. However, Coles' understanding of what the alt-right is seems really quite idiosyncratic; on that same page he says that Trump is a member of the alt-right and that "The American alt-right is an amorphous group which shares a basic philosophy: the duty of the American individual to make money." Given this, can we really count this as a reliable source on this point? On the face of it, Foster's book looks a lot more reliable; the citation claims that it was published by NYU Press. However, this is completely incorrect. The book is published not by NYU Press but by Monthly Review Press. I cannot access the cited page in question, but the book's broader contents very much suggest that this is a WP:Fringe work: it has only three chapters, one of which is called "Neo-Fascism in the White House". Can we take seriously the claims made in a book written very consciously from a far-left perspective that claims that Donald Trump adheres to neo-fascism? It may be that there are good reliable sources out there which can bolster this sentence, but the sources cited are clearly not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, thanks for searching out those sources. If there are reliable sources that support the sentence I reverted, I have no objection to its inclusion. I will say that the sentence strikes me as a bit broad. SunCrow (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• It was published by both. While I would not describe the author as mainstream (he is a self-described radical), I wouldn't describe him as WP:FRINGE simply for talking about neo-fascism in relationship to the Trump administration; that's a comparison that has been made repeatedly, to one degree or another, in a wide range of reliably publications. To quote Hawley, National Review dedicated an entire issue to denouncing Trump in early 2016. The contributors to the symposium accused him of being both a liberal and a racist. Hitler’s name was brought up three times in the issue. Hawley himself disagrees with the comparison and dismisses it as hyperbole, of course - but he considers it significant enough to be referenced and discussed. It's not a discourse that is entirely limited to the fringes. --Aquillion (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The sentence in question and the source seem fine to me. I'm not convinced that the source is a fringe source.- MrX 🖋 19:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm. Searching for sources, I came up with this and this. I strongly suggest everyone read the first one in particular. SunCrow is not wrong that the sentence we have now is a bit broad and vague, but I also think that the relationship between the Alt-Right and religion is clearly more complex (and, sometimes, a lot closer) than just the disputes covered in the article. Also, when I went to check Hawley (who is the source for most of the section), I noticed that we were overstating his description of hostility and leaving out the vital last part of his section, which indicates that many on the Alt-Right are becoming more friendly towards Christianity - albeit a sort of "alt-Christianity" that rejects much of mainstream Christian politics and mainstream Christian leaders (especially Pope Francis, who Hawley mentions several times - not surprising given his general support of refugees, a common Alt-Right boogieman.) But it is definitely not as simple as universal two-way disdain, and we need to be careful that the section doesn't imply this. (One thing from the second link is that it mentions that the religious composition of the Alt-Right is still being studied and little is known about it today - and Hawley is careful to note that it is actively evolving.) We could probably replace the sentence with something more specific and better-sourced, but I don't think it's appropriate to just take it out right now, since the relationship between the alt-right and religion is more complex (and less definitively established) than both it and the paragraph above it says. --Aquillion (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Part of the problem, the cause of the complexity, is the heterogeneous nature of the alt-right: different groups have different takes on many things outside the core ideologies they share, and religion is one of those things. Combine that with "religion" being an even vaguer term that "alt-right" and it's going to be very difficult to make strong sourced statements about their relationship, but easier to point to specific examples. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018

Its wrong far right is bad not alt right. Hi26482949434 (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: No actionable request. Post likely meant for the preceding section.  Spintendo  15:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Pepe

Can't the image of pepe the frog on the sign be included as fair use?

Has this been discussed before?

Benjamin (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at past discussion, it seems there's some support. Benjamin (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. It does not appear that it would be necessary for this article since Pepe is only briefly mentioned and there is a link to the main article that has the image. Its use here would not conform to WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. - MrX 🖋 19:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I think it is contextually significant. Benjamin (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

There has to be a really good reason to use a non-free image under non-free content policy. You would have to make a compelling case that the image's presence in this article would significantly increase readers' understanding of alt-right, and that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It's also worth noting that the image is currently the subject of copyright infringement litigation, which means that we have to be especially cautious. - MrX 🖋 22:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

We can't use it, and if we could, we shouldn't -- we're not here to promote right-wing memes, they do well enough at that themselves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Disagreement with the consensus on the phrase "somewhat ill-defined"

Apparantly there was a discussion about this, but I have to contest the use of the phrase "somewhat ill-defined". First of all, every word, including every political label is ill-defined in the exact same ways alt-right is. Second of all, frankly, I think saying a word is somewhat ill-defined is intrinsically discreditting that word and in this case, calling into question people who both use that word and have that word used to describe them. I have to be honest, I think it's very minor bias in favour of the alt-right, it sort of implies that the word alt-right has lost meaning and someone described as alt-right could be a nazi, or could be a (less contentious) conservative.

If the intention of that phrase was to imply the alt right is "decentralised", and that anyone can be alt-right without checking off a strict set of criteria, and that anyone can create an alt-right organisation, then I have to be honest I don't think it's neccessary to vaguely hint at that in the opening paragraph. Illustrated Grim Reaper (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The above is this editor's first and only edit to Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I broadly agree with what is being said here. I think it might be a good idea to explicitly state that the alt-right is "decentralised" in the lead, to make it clear that this is not a centralised far-right movement with some sort of organised structure. "loosely connected" already accomplishes this to some extent, although "decentralised" would be a good addition. Rather than "somewhat ill-defined" we could then use more explicit language; perhaps demarcating the two broad uses of the term, one referring to a specific white nationalist milieu and the other to a broader range of rightists, including the so-called "alt-lite". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who disagrees with a consensus decision can easily change it --simply build a new consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Jings, this again? FWIW, I see no problem with that phrase; it's sourced and, from what I can make out, accurate. Consider me part of the current consensus to keep the phrase. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Considering that the statement is pretty well-sourced, I'd want to see other sources for whatever we might replace it with. I'm not ruling out the idea that views on the alt-right have chanced (definitely back in 2016 the sources were unanimous that it was hard to define, but perhaps there's a better idea now), but we should actually refer to those sources and use those to inform how we phrase it. (And, even then, I don't feel we can remove the idea of "ill-defined" from the article. It was something that a huge number of early sources went into detail on. Even if views have changed, the best we could do is document that change or whatever disagreement people can dig up.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The only reason of the holocaust?

Currently the article claims that the specific anti-semitic conspiracy theory that the alt right believes was completely responsible for holocaust. It seems to imply that it was the only reason. It says "It was the reason for the holocaust" as if to imply it was the only reason. Clearly there were many reasons for the holocaust, especially since although the conspiracy theories that the alt right believes are similar, they are even so slightly different. The holocaust is such a historically complex event its unfair to say that it has one cause. Granted I think the majority of the reason for it was a very similar anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

Some of the major differences are in their view of whiteness and Islam. Alt-right whiteness theory is different than nazi whiteness theory, obviously they are both pseudoscientific nonsense but the nazis put higher emphasis on nordicism / western europeanism as superior to eastern europeans. Secondly the view on islam is critical because the modern rebranding of this line of thought makes specific claims about jews controlling muslims to invade Europe. Many nazis (including Hitler himself) were more favorable toward Islam than christianity.

So the fact that they currently believe a slightly different - albeit very similar, conspiracy theory cant mean that what they believe right now is soley responsible for the holocaust. They believe something that is very similar in tone and perspective to something that has a majority of the blame for the holocaust. I know this is all over one word but I think its important.

I would reword it to "The alt right believes a conspiracy theory that is characteristically nearly identical to the one espoused by the Third Reich, which was the primary motivator for the Holocaust."

Again, there are many reasons the holocaust happened. Most of it was anti-semitism but there was also mounting pressure from World War II (when Germany realized they were losing they accelerated it, and abandoned all hope of deportation), Heydrich was a nutcase even worse than Hitler, and the advent of new chemical methods that made it possible. (To name a few). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcola2 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC regarding use of primary sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Question: Should the "White supremacy and white nationalism" sub-section continue to contain the following sentence cited to two alt-right websites (primary sources): "While the label of white nationalism is disputed by some political commentators, including Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos, alt-right figures such as Andrew Anglin of neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer and Marcus Halberstram of Fash the Nation have embraced the term as the core philosophy their movement is based on.[" Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This issue was previously raised at the Talk Page, but the section quickly degenerated into a personal dispute. The views of uninvolved editors at this RfC is therefore welcome.

• Remove: As per WP:Reliable Sources, primary sources "are often difficult to use appropriately" and in this case may be unwarranted. That the primary sources are far-right websites raises some ethical/political issues that might better be avoided. Moreover, the sentence is presently contributing little to the general structure of the section and would not be missed; the issue of the alt-right and its relations with white nationalism is already quite well summarised in preceding paragraphs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Primary sources are reliable as to the opinions of the source. Since the sources cited are alt-right, their opinion as to who else is alt-right is pertinent. Proposer -- who went to RfC before any other editors had expressed an opinion besides myself -- seems to want to whitewash the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Remove - I agree with Midnightblueowl's reasoning above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Remove the full sentence. This sentence is using the Breitbart article to preemptively apologize for pointing out that the alt-right is white supremacist. This is wrong for two reasons. First, it's implying that Bhokari's/Yiannopoulos's opinion is independently significant, which is false. That 'explainer' article is well-documented, but is not treated by reliable sources as factually accurate. Second, it's elevating these neo-Nazis to the same level as the Breitbart explainer article. These fascists's opinions are neither factual, not significant according to independent sources. This is editorializing based on flimsy sources. We have an overwhelming number of much, much more reliable sources for the white supremacy of the alt-right. We can, and should, reflect reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Remove immediately. The sentence is not verified by the cited sources, it's original research to boot, and we should not be publishing such information about living people without appropriate sourcing. I looked at both sources and simply cannot find where any part of the sentence is supported by either source. And even if there was support, the sentence appears to be a pretty clear interpretation or synthesis of the primary sources. Primary sources are fine, but we shouldn't be analyzing, evaluating, interpreting, or synthesizing them. I don't know enough about the specific people named here, but there are plenty of secondary sources verifying the gist of the sentence,that some alt-righters have rejected the white nationalist label, while others have embraced it. We should use those secondary sources. R2 (bleep) 16:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Brought here by the RfC. I have not edited here before, to the best of my recollection, and will attempt to look at this as neutrally as possible.
  Looking at the sources, they do not appear to be meet reliable sources criteria. That said Beyond My Ken, is right, non-reliable sources or biased sources can be used to verify their own content, especially when attributed. That said, neither source appears to have significant presence, and thus IMHO this is more of a question of weight. As neither of these sources have significant weight within right of center news sources (I am unfamiliar with alt-right news sources), IMHO these two sources are given undue weight. I do not, at present, see Breitbart used as a source as of this posting. Off topic, Andrew Breitbart's initial website was far more promising as a non-left of center news source, but after his passing it has devolved into something IMHO is far from what Andrew Breitbart had initially wanted to be created As such I would support removal of the sentences in question. I am not prejudice for re-inclusion of the content in some form, if better sources can be found to verify the content being removed at this point.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - We have not had any new comments for over ten days now and there looks to be a clear consensus here. Would an uninvolved editor be interested in officially closing this and providing a closing rationale, or should I put in a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, add another cite if you want. I do not see PRIMARY as correct or really an issue. Y writing is stated as most-cited in major media so he is a recognised voice in the area. As these cites are challenged though, simply add or use another from larger publication as the internal differences of alt-right being a collective label are common. There is no need to delete the line on a cite challenge. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Update: I made the removal ([3]) but was reverted by BeyondMyKen ([4]). The actual RfC appears to have been closed (perhaps by an automated bot?) but I shall put in a request for closure to get an uninvolved editor in to do this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• The RfC had its tag removed because it's run past the allotted time period for an RfC, but it has not been closed with an evaluation of consensus by an uninvolved admin. Beyond My Ken (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2019

There should be a space between "opposition to immigration" and "anti-multiculturalism" in the second paragraph. 108.245.173.217 (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It has been done. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"Alt-science"?

Hello everyone. Looking for feedback from this group. I'm wondering if it's relevant to develop a section on the distrust of science and the development of alternative pseudoscientific beliefs by the alt-right. The term "alt-science" itself probably hasn't gained enough currency to be used as a section title (let alone its own page), but several writers have pointed out the movement has eagerly embraced various fringe theories to justify their stance on ethnicity, global warming, etc. A 2017 story by fivethirtyeight.com describing Art Robinson as "the grandfather of alt-science" is a good starting point. Opinions? Robincantin (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe moving all of those "alt-something" under a "Other Uses of Alt- Prefix" section makes some sense.Zhenzhengyou (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Prominently noted as such

From WP:OI, "Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such." A footnote is not prominent. I propose that the footnote from the Pepe lead photo is moved to the caption text. I can't find any significant consensus in previous discussions that I've briefly looked at. wumbolo ^^^ 21:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've added to the caption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding “race as a socio-cultural construct”

I have to confess my ignorance on this point, but shouldn’t the assertion contained in the phrase “In contrast to the majority of scholars, who regard race as a socio-cultural construct” be supported by a reliable source? That is to say, exactly who “regard[s] race as a socio-cultural construct”, or what evidence is there for stating that this is a “majority of scholars”? --Le vrai Sabourin (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Le vrai Sabourin, I suggest that you begin by reading the references in the article Race (human categorization). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. I have already started reading the article, but interestingly enough, the first mention of a socially-constructed notion of race is supported by two quotes: the Encyclopædia Britannica, stating that “scholars began to examine race as a social and cultural, rather than biological, phenomenon and have determined that race is a social invention of relatively recent origin”; and the Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, claiming that “First, race is socially constructed, in that humans use symbols to create meaning from their social environment […]”.

As you see, neither reference tells me who actually is saying this. it is merely vox populi (or vox sapienti, in this case). So none of this is really useful: to verify an unsupported assertion in this article, I should consult another article which contains the same assertion, this time supported by two sources that, in turn, basically repeat the assertion without supporting it. Puts one in some kind of infinite-regress quandary, no?

However, considering the general tenor of the “Alt-Right” article itself, I guess I should expect no more than this.

But I thank you anyway: it was very kind of you to offer the suggestion. --Le vrai Sabourin (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can't tell if you're interested in article improvement, in criticizing, or in re-establishing some status quo, but either way, I wish you good luck in 2019. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

And Good Luck, Health and Success to you for the coming year.

But tell me, why should you wonder whether I am “interested in article improvement, in criticizing, or in re-establishing some status quo”? Obviously, my command of English is far too stilted to allow me to be an effective contributor; I did not believe I was criticising so much as pointing out the frustration that came over me when I read additional passages meant to clarify a point I did not initially understand; and I certainly would not know which “status quo” to re-establish.

I have merely been reading up on a number of topics related to Yankee politics, trying to understand something that is outside of both my personal experience and my usual fields of study. Yes, I have noticed, as I do this, that there is something, shall we say, uneven about the way potentially controversial topics are handled here. But that would only be cause for concern were I foolish enough to resort exclusively to Wikipedia as a source of information.

Actually, I find these talk pages quite as illustrative as – and sometimes far more instructive than – many of the articles I read.

In general, I find this article to be a tad disorganised, and it seems to me that it takes a number of notions for granted, that’s all. And while I cannot speak on some of the sources used, I seriously question the degree to which Vox or the SPLC should be considered reliable. But that is simply an outsider’s opinion. – Le vrai Sabourin (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC).

Le vrai Sabourin, the article that I referred you to has 209 references and an extensive reading list. It seems that you limited your examination mostly to the first two of them, which are tertiary sources that (like Wikipedia) summarize many secondary sources. If you delve more deeply into the sources and the reading list, you will find many reliable sources that address your concerns. Perhaps you can find the best two or three of them, and add those sources to this article. If you doubt that Vox or the SPLC are reliable sources, then please take your concerns to the Reliable sources noticeboard to gauge consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. As I did say, I had only begun reading the article in question and had immediately gone to check the references provided, since those referred to the question I was interested in clearing up. I will now most certainly schedule the time needed to read the rest of the article, along with its main sources, so your suggestion is most appreciated.

As for the reliability of certain sources, I was voicing my own opinion, which – as clearly stated – is but that of an outsider. I know I will not take anything Vox publishes at face value, as they have been proven to be factually wrong on too many occasions; I know I will question the “good faith”, so to speak, of the SPLC for every inclusion to its “hate group” listing, as theirs is by no means a spotless record in this area; but it is of little concern to me whether others actually believe anything either of these sources publishes, just as I care not a whit whether people turn to CNN or Fox for their information.

Now, whether this is worth bringing to the attention of the Wikipedia community at large is an altogether different issue: personally, having no candle in this funeral, I do not believe it is. I would only trouble myself to do so did it concern sources with which I was more familiar: tell me that the CODOH or the IHR are reliable sources, for example, and we will have a serious disagreement. But Vox? Not worth it.

Again, thank you for the information. --Le vrai Sabourin (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

It ought to be self evident to all reasonable good faith editors that these two sources are completely unreliable for general use on this encyclopedia. Let me remind you that this talk page is for a specific purpose: discussing specific improvements to this specific article. I fear that this discussion is going astray, unless you want to bring it back to specific proposals to improve this article. Please stay on topic, Le vrai Sabourin. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, of course. My apologies: I thought I was staying on focus, albeit perhaps only tangentially. But to get back to the topic, then: if, indeed, it is self-evident that they are “completely unreliable”, why are they used as sources for this article? --Le vrai Sabourin (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

[Upon reflection] My apologies, again. I’ve only now realised you were talking about the CODOH and IRH, not about Vox and the SLPC.

But then again, that rather brings water to my mill: if it is obvious to you that the two former are unreliable sources, it is just as obvious to me that the two latter are equally untrustworthy. You might disagree with this, but go to a number of talk pages on Wikipedia and you will find any number of people who, in turn, disagree with your (and my) assessment of the CODOH and IRH.

So, and not to stray too far away once again, if these are untrustworthy because it can be reliably demonstrated that they present falsehoods as fact, why are the other two not deemed equally unreliable? Surely Vox has been caught a number of times “misreporting” events or facts. The SPLC has been sued, successfully I should add, by various people and organisations for also “misreporting” facts.

And if the CODOH and IRH are deemed unreliable because of their rather obvious slant, surely you would agree that the same thing applies to the other two sources? Their bias has been demonstrated time and again.

In any event, as I said earlier, their inclusion as sources for this article is of little import, as I automatically discount anything they claim. They are the Left’s equivalent to David Irving, as far as I am concerned: true, they may get it right occasionally, but one can never tell when they are being honest and accurate from when they are merely pushing an agendum, even at the risk of misrepresenting the facts, and that renders everything they say questionable at best. --Le vrai Sabourin (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"Unnecessary edits"

Beyond My Ken, what exactly do you dispute and find "unnecessary" in my edits? because all I did was remove unreferenced claims such as Holocaust-deniers and Counter-jihad and copy edit. Also, this article has a 1RR notice, and you violated that with your second edit. Musicfan122 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The copy editing was unnecessary: there was no need for additional paragraph breaks. And if there were unreferenced claims, deleting them is only preferred when they are not factual. In the case of the information you deleted, thay are factual, but simply in need of citation, so "cn" tags would be appropriate, not deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Two edits in a row are considered to be one edit for the purposes of 1RR or 3RR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no problems with your second series of edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)