Talk:Alt-right/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Neutrality

@Ogress: I tried to add neutrality to an article which is stated as being in need of a complete rewrite (see diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alt-right&type=revision&diff=723545566&oldid=723282757), and you just outright revert all of my attempts and state that I need to reach consensus?

You even reverted grammatical fixes (see "hardline" to "hard-line") and a direct quote which added a proponent's view of the ideology from the buzzfeed source - which is used to support the majority of the negativity directed towards the subject of the article, do you care to explain this? --Zaostao (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikt:hardline is a perfectly acceptable spelling. Wikipedia doesn't use euphemisms, and phrasing sources as making "allegations" is a short road to Weaseltown. Using that false paradigm to introduce a quote from unnamed proponents is equally non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Calling an ideology one of white supremacy and antisemitism is mightily contentious, especially when it is a claim made by buzzfeed writers and other such 'journalists' -- I didn't add the 'alleged' anyway, it was there before any of my edits. The proponent is not unnamed, their name is mentioned numerous times in the source - the buzzfeed article which is used to substantiate the majority of the negative claims about the ideology, and they are mentioned by name later in the article.

The far-right status of the ideology is not sourced, so I added a citation for it as right-wing (see "new, highly heterogeneous force in right-wing politics is taking hold, and they have their sights set firmly on the Republican "establishment." Known collectively as the "alternative right," this amalgam includes neo-reactionaries..."), but I suppose it is false balance to not paint any nationalist ideology as a group of Roman saluting Neo-Nazis. --Zaostao (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is sourced particularly well. Welton says nothing about business nationalism and yet he's the citation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, we have to go by what the sources say, not by what we feel they should say; WP:NPOV means sticking to the sources. In particular the article needs more sources talking about the alt-right directly. Right now, we have to go with what we have; we can't just remove things because they're "contentious", that's not what neutrality is about. It's about summarizing the sources as well as we can. (I would suggest leaning on the New Yorker piece a bit more, since it seems to be one of the higher-profile sources and wasn't used until now despite being a big deal in the AFD. In particular, it might be worth emphasizing the fundamental skepticism it expresses about whether some of the people involved in the alt-right really mean what they say, or its conclusion that the alt-right is ultimately about conventional conservatives using slightly different tactics and experimenting with identity on the internet rather than a genuine difference in ideology, which is something a few other sources seem to touch on, too.) Another note for something currently missing from the article: A lot of sources name Richard B. Spencer as the one who created and popularized the term, which probably needs a bit more focus. --Aquillion (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, remember that WP:DUE weight has to be accorded according to the prominence things have in the sources (and the relative weight of those sources.) I think some of the things you've been bumping to the top or putting at the front of lists etc. aren't really that high-profile overall relative to the coverage the topic has gotten. --Aquillion (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the list from the Weekly Standard, I'll point out that you've only been using parts of its list, which isn't appropriate; it definitely mentions Fascism as a part of the alt-right alongside eg. neoreactionaries, so using it to source "it has also been linked to some less extreme policies" (or using it to cite only some of the things it lists and leaving eg. the fascism and white nationalism out) is definitely misusing it as a source. Also, Breitbart doesn't pass WP:RS (go to WP:RSN and ask if you're not sure), so we can't use it as a source for factual statements, and we certainly can't cite it to put facts at the top of the section. --Aquillion (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(((Echoes)))

Time for this to be added?[1] Doug Weller talk 13:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Just found Triple parentheses which is about this and mentions the alt-right. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Guardian supports notability and ADL's report shows widespread usage. I was wondering what it was when I saw it used by several alt-right types. Info could be useful in this article. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Beliefs

I see the beliefs section has removed all the citations to each belief in favor of an odd single citation to Welton. It's discussed in detail above but why the business nationalism and identitarianism which again aren't even mentioned in Welton but not the monarchism and fascism that was so fought over before? Well monarchism was inserted again but at least that was removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well I guess fascism has returned as well without any further discussion. I think I'm done here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite template.

Since the article has essentially been rewritten since the keep decision, is the cleanup-rewrite template still needed? Zaostao (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Beliefs

We need to cut the beliefs into something coherent and actually cite it properly. These are not just inconsistent beliefs, a number of these directly contradict each other. And hiding behind the three-mass-citation routine is ridiculous. Reviewing the sources and breaking it each alleged belief into detail, here are the sources for the various ones to me. The three alleged sources are (1) Rosie Gray and Buzzfeed; (2) Benjamin Welton and the Weekly Standard and (3) Cathy Young at Newsday. I have a general section at the top and I ask that discussions be conducted in each subsection based on whether or not to include said item as a belief of the alt right. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

General commentary

First, the question is whether we should just include anything that is spitted out by a single source and we going to avoid WP:FRINGE nonsense by looking for the beliefs that all reliable sources agree upon. I prefer the latter and taking a more conservative approach than purely spitting out whatever one lone source says. Second, I note that Gray is a reporter in contrast to Welton's and Young's pieces which are more clearly opinions. I think that distinction matters. We aren't quoting Richard Wilson's opinions and I don't think we should treat Welton's and Young's opinions in the same vein as a reporter. If we want to include what they claim the alt right is, then we should say that "Welton says the alt right includes facists and monarchists" and so on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Dark Enlightenment

• Mentioned in Gray as being something that the alt rights "draws upon" (not being an actual belief directly), no mention in the others. I'd suggest dropping it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a strange fusion of monarchism, transhumanism, and "traditionalism" -- it's far too fringe to have any connection with the "alt-right" and there's no evidence of a connection. Laval (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No good article on alt-right would ignore Dark Enlightenment. Almost every single reliable source that has popped up in the past few weeks mentions Dark Enlightenment as a key predecessor/cousin to the alt-right. One of the few real people that YBokhari & Yiannopoulos's classic article interviews, is Curtis Yarvin. Kirchick's more recent piece in Commentary notes: "If the alt-right does have an intellectual forbear, it is [... Curtis Yarvin and] Nick Land (a former lecturer at the University of Warwick)". Vox's longform explainer on the alt-right's philosophical foundations has paragraphs upon paragraphs expounding on Yarvin's and Land's Dark Enlightenment/Neoreaction beliefs, and further identifies Dark Enlightenment as a reincarnation of paleoconservatism. On the other hand, American Renaissance [http://www.amren.com/news/2016/04/voxplaining-the-alt-right/ criticizes] the Vox article (uniquely and less reliably, from the point of view of someone who does identify with the alt-right), as overemphasizing the Dark Enlightenment connection. But, the fact that this connection is so prominent as to be criticized by other sources, means that it should be included. Shrigley (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's funny how many comments keep saying "every single source says this" and yet none have been produced until now. In that lengthy Vox article, I don't see the words Dark Enlightenment. Neoreactionary fine, then we can call it that but why two terms that are redirect to each other? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Libertarianism

• Mentioned in Welton in the context of the "libertarian-leaning Taki Mag" is a "watering hole" for the alt right. This doesn't mean that the alt right is actually libertarian to me, just that it is discussed in a place that is "libertarian-leaning." No mention in the others. I suggest dropping it as a belief. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• I agree. There is no source that the alt-right favors libertarian individual rights. Indeed, most of the sources say the alt-right loves Putin and cheers for Assad. Its identity politics is inherently collectivist and they proudly acknowledge this. A publication many have many leanings and entertain many viewpoints. But to conflate them is a mistake. I suggest dropping libertarian from the article.

This article [2] on the alt-right (also called neoreationary right) contrasts the two. "The other distinguishing conflict between the neoreactionaries and the libertarians is that neoreaction places huge value on group membership and group loyalty. Most modern libertarians are individualists." The author explains that some libertarians see democracy as inherently supportive of growing government but the author makes it clear that they don't support alternatives to democracy while the alt-right entertains and often supports authoritarian rule. It also mentions some ex-libertarians have moved to the alt-right. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Welton was being used to cite white nationalism as an associated ideology because of the indirect link with Alternative Right, i'm fine with both libertarianism and white nationalism not being supported by this source, but it's only fair if it is both, and not one or the other. --15:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaostao (talk • contribs)

Monarchism

• Mentioned by Welton as part of the "amalgam" that 'makes up' the alt right, which to me doesn't make it an actual belief of said group. No mention in the others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The "alt-right" is strictly American, and as far as I can tell, there's never been any advocacy of monarchism by those referring to themselves as "alt-right." There's this blog post by Spencer, but it isn't saying much and I don't think he's ever identified himself as a monarchist. The monarchism element features in Dark Enlightenment, but as stated before, there is no evidence of a connection between "alt-right" and that transhumanist-oriented fad. Laval (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Nativism

• Mentioned by Welton as part of the "amalgam" that 'makes up' the alt right, which to me doesn't make it an actual belief of said group. No mention in the others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Right-wing populism

• "Populism" generally (not necessarily right-wing) is mentioned by Welton as part of the "amalgam" that 'makes up' the alt right, which to me doesn't make it an actual belief of said group. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Business nationalism

• No mention in any of the three I can find. I'll be removing this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Two of the best examples of "business nationalists" are Zero Hedge and Sovereign Man -- they express varying and inconsistent levels of support for Trump (assuming anyone wants to continue arguing that Trump actually is "alt-right"), but they don't label themselves "alt-right." I don't think any of them do, but if anyone thinks I'm wrong, I'd like to see some reliable sources. Laval (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Identitarianism

• I'm not seeing a mention in any of these sources but Identitarian movement and especially Identitarian_movement#In_North_America tells me zero on how this relates to anything here and especially how this could possibly relate to Trump's campaign rhetoric. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

White nationalism

• Young calls the alt-right white nationalist explicitly. The Gray piece goes in to it. She identifies David Duke as a white nationalist and then says that a "newer" (i.e. separate) movement that is the alt right also support Trump and further discusses "The white nationalists of the alt right" (not that the white nationalists are the alt right or that white nationalism is part of the alt right but that there are white nationalists within the alt right). Welton's only mention is that a "watering hole" for the alt right is Alternative Right, a blog that is white nationalist. I don't necessarily connect that to mean that the people there are but if that's the string, so be it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• This article published yesterday on the National Review website and written by a staff writer[]http://www.nationalreview.com/author/david-frenc says "we are seeing a resurgence in outright white nationalism — embodied in the so-called alt-right". Doug Weller talk 18:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Fine with me. I expected there would be sources. We should cite Young and that piece. I don't see the connection for Gray or Welton and I'd rather we take more serious efforts to use the sources that actually support the claims rather than anything with those words near each other. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism

• Gray is pretty obviously there. Young calls it a "nest of anti-Semetism". Welton has no mention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Racialism

• I see no mention of it in any of the sources. I'm going to remove this. Further, I can't figure out from Racialism where the idea of human beings having races is even relevant to this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• The word is used in a difference sense that our article on Racialism. Here's a quote from [3] "The neoreactionaries [alt-right] are a distinctly '00s and '10s phenomenon, but they draw on the racialist and traditionalist arguments of a much older movement: paleoconservatism." Racialism, when used by paleo-cons and alt-right writers, tends to be an admission that they are race-focused while claiming to eschew race hatred. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

White supremacy

• Gray says a tweet by Popehat blogger, attorney Ken White, calling the alt right white supremacy and the fact that a random vblogger separates the two and doesn't believe in the term "supremacy" at all. I'm really not seeing any reason why Ken White's tweet deserves to be treated as fact while Wilson's "crazy ... childless single men who masturbate to anime" statement is deservedly removed. Young says they are white supremacists I guess based on "several people on Twitter discussions" and tweets from people she I guess identifies as the alt right. Again, I don't see support for that. No mention in Welton. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's also based on Andrew Anglin's claim that his neo-Nazi blog The Daily Stormer is "alt-right" -- however, for any journalist or blogger using someone like Anglin to justify calling "alt-right" a white supremacist movement is like accusing Trump of white supremacy because David Duke endorsed him. It's a logical fallacy. Laval (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If you look above or in the archives of this talk page, there are a number of outright white supremacist sources who claim to represent the 'real' alt-right, and the alt-right are referred to as white supremacists in more than one source that's passed through here which I've seen (Grey, the SPLC, even Bokhari & Yiannopoulos). Also, when speaking of a movement (as opposed to an organized group), anyone who claims membership is pretty much by definition, a member, unless they have clear characteristics of membership in some opposing movement (for example, a popular cheerleader claiming to be "one of the outcasts" in high school is obviously lying because she doesn't have anything in common with other outcasts, and a lot in common with other popular cheerleaders). It's not a logical fallacy; it's extremely simple sociology. The comparison to Trump and David Duke doesn't even make sense, because Trump is one person, not a whole movement. Hell, the Hippie movement is said to have believed in free love. By your logic, if we can find even one monogamous hippie, it's somehow a logical fallacy to say that hippies believed in free love. That's an utterly ridiculous assertion. not everyone in the alt-right needs to be a white supremacist in order for white supremacy to be among the alt-right's beliefs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not an "utterly ridiculous assertion" at all. It's called being rational and applying logic. I don't see a whole lot that is rational and logical about most of the "sources" being used in this article. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not smear a whole bunch of unrelated, unconnected people as forming some kind of vast underground white supremacist conspiracy. Laval (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It is neither rational nor logical to suggest that comparison. In fact, it's circular reasoning, because for the comparison to have any legitimacy, one must start with the assumption that the alt-right is not white supremacist. Even barring that, your glossing over the numerous differences between a single individual and a large, loosely knit group of people united by little more than a label is highly problematic. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, my logic is that if I found a hippie who says that hippies are monogamous, I wouldn't call that an independent, reliable source on hippies. The fact that there are white supremacists who claim to be a part of the alternative right is fine, but no, I don't believe merely parroting people who claim to be a part of a movement about the movement's views is appropriate. That's literally what WP:PRIMARY is against. We should be looking for independent, secondary sources, not just saying "hey, here's a white supremacist who's says they are part of the alternative right, therefore the alternative right is made up of white supremacists." As I said before, the ADL and other organizations actually identify it as a self-term by white supremacists, not a term that they attribute to general politics for a subdivision of the white supremacy or conservative movement overall. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And I see that this was discussed at RSN before, with MjolnirPants in fact, but it seems like the entire discussion has since been ignored and we're repeating it again. Either way, I'm not going to argue the white supremacy thing again. The other beliefs need serious work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't want to argue this claim. It's a hairy one that is easy to quibble over, but as far as I can see, it's clearly an accurate one. I agree that many of the other claimed beliefs might need to be looked at, as well. Secessionism is one I can't see reflected in other sources, (nor in my personal interactions with alt-right members for that matter). I think that one is a bit shaky, but one thing hangs me up about this: The beliefs section grew to its largest size as a result of the lack of scholarly work available about the movement, and the wide disparity in the focus of mainstream media reporting about it. It was an attempt to be inclusive of all the myriad beliefs encompassed within the movement. So while -sticking to the example of secessionism- most alt-right members may not care much about secession, if a prominent figure in the movement does, then it seems worthy of inclusion. So I'm torn. There's merit to removing it on the grounds that it's not helpful in identifying the movement, but there's merit to including it because it falls within the spectrum of their beliefs. Honestly, the more I deal with with, the more I want to stub out the article and wait until the movement congeals and establishes a clear identity which can be reported on by RSs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to argue it because it was argued two months ago and the entire discussion was clearly ignored. As noted above and below, the entire citations are literally from one piece just randomly asking various people who either insult the alt-right or claim they are members of the alt right and based on what either person says they are and what they themselves say the alt right is, or we're quoting things like Popehat on the alt right. I don't see the difference between saying this is their belief and saying the alt right is an organization of men who literally tweet from their mom's basement in Austria if we're using that standard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to argue it because it was argued two months ago and the entire discussion was clearly ignored. I don't think you actually read that thread you linked to. I made a point of addressing every response to me, and a number of responses to others. Doug did much the same, though less prodigiously. Nobody was ignored, it was just that their arguments ranged from flawed to downright ridiculous.

I don't see the difference between saying this is their belief and saying the alt right is an organization of men who literally tweet from their mom's basement in Austria if we're using that standard. The difference is that the latter is clearly hyperbole. That's why humans edit Wikipedia: we can see statements that would throw a computer compiling information off and make judgement calls. We're actually pretty good at it, as a whole, and as individuals, though we do have our failings. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Men tweeting from mom's basement is hyperbole but alt right is "white supremacy for people with soft hands" is not? Should we say that members of the alt right all have soft hands or is only that part hyperbole while the white supremacy part is not? And again, this is a quote from a tweet by Popehat, not some political science academic or anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Men tweeting from mom's basement is hyperbole but alt right is "white supremacy for people with soft hands" is not? Well, yeah. I mean, the 'soft hands' part is an obvious metaphor, but that's a fairly straightforward claim. Translating the first phrase into literal language, you get something like "The most vocal part of the alt-right consists prominently of men with low social skills", and translating the second you get "White supremacy for people who are uncomfortable with hard line white supremacy." And remember, Grey calls the alt-right white supremacy, white supremacists claim to be the 'real' alt-right, mainstream conservatives fret about the links between the alt-right and white supremacy, and the ADL and SPLC equated the two. And remember, we're not engaged in an exercise in formal logic, if one wants to dispute that the alt-right is white supremacist, one doesn't need to merely undermine the sources calling it that, but needs to also produce reliable sources denying it. It's such a widely held view that -if it were false- the media should be full of alt-right members denying it. Instead, all we get are alt-white members saying "Well, not all of us are racist!" in defense of a political movement named by a white supremacist. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. That's pure original research on your part. This whole needless and endless argument here is precisely why WP has such strong policies against using unreliable sources (and yes, sources that are so biased and partisan as to reduce themselves to disgusting vulgarity and profanity are wholly unreliable -- sources that you are arguing for inclusion). Nothing in all that you've written is a fact supported by evidence. Not a whit of it. It's all opinion. Laval (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A Salon article from yesterday:[4] "As former editor-at-large Ben Shapirorecently wrote, “They’ve become a site that openly panders to alt-right anti-Semitism and soft white supremacism… This began in the pro-Trump comment section at Breitbart while I was there; now, it’s filtered up.” When Shapiro writes about the “alt right,” he’s referring to the modern white supremacist movement, one that Rosie Gray of BuzzFeed described as “perfectly tailored for our times: 4chan-esque racist rhetoric combined with a tinge of Silicon Valley–flavored philosophizing, all riding on the coattails of the Trump boom.” Doug Weller talk 18:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The website? We're talking about a political group not a website. And the actual Shapiro article says that he is talking about Brietbart's website and his opinion that it is pandering what seems to be a portion of the alt-right that contains said anti-Semitism and soft white supremacism (whatever that is). Unless you think he's saying that it's pandering to the alt-right's anti-Semitism and soft white supremacism? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• The alt-right is not a political group, it's a political/sociological phenomena - group implies organisation. It isn't homogenous either. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Shapiro was directly ascribing the antisemitism and white supremacy to the alt-right, and stating that the breitbart site caters to that. I don't see how that's not blatantly obvious. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laval:I think you're missing the key distintion between a logical certainty and a fact. A fact is true, even if it cannot be logically proven. Even if the belief in that fact is arrived at as the result of a personal judgement, it is still true. For example "My wife loves me" is both an opinion and a fact. So from there, we can see that it is a fact that the vast majority of readers would presume "men tweeting from their mother's basement" to not be intended literally. It is a fact that "white supremacy for people with soft hands" will be read by most people to refer to actual white supremacy. it is a fact that professional writers would be aware of both of those preceding facts. It is a fact that accusations of white supremacy against the alt-right are widespread and extremely common. It is a fact that people defend their identity when attacked, and focus on the most easily defeated attacks. It is a fact that there is little or no media available which claims the alt-right does not include white supremacist beliefs. It is a fact that Grey is a reliable source who characterizes the alt-right as white supremacist. Finally, it is a fact that the term "alternative right" (from which alt-right was derived) was coined by a white supremacist. Your insistence that it's all just opinion does not make it so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

American secessionism

• Rosie Gray cites some "Jack Donovan" who I can't figure out is notable and based on the fact that he is an alt right writer and pro-secessionist, I guess Gray then makes the somewhat joking commentary that it makes the entire movement all pro-secessionist? I can't tell. No other mentions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems to be Jack Donovan but he's another write on the same Alternative Right website. This seems to be a circular ring of citations to the same group of authors on the same website and not anything independent of them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Neo-reactionaries

• Not used here but described by Welton as part of the "amalgam." I'm not seeing why this one deserves to be removed and the others kept but I'm putting this here to be fair. Gray also says that the alt right "draws upon" neoreaction as an "obscure political theory." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem is neoreactionary redirects to Dark Enlightenment. Laval (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Self-declared fascists

• Again, not used here but also described by Welton as part of the "amalgam" that makes up the alt right. Don't know if it should be just "fascists" but again, I don't see why monarchism, nativism, and populism deserve mention but not these two. Gray cites the fact that there is a "The Right Stuff" blog post that refers to "Fash" for fascists. I don't think that means that the alt right supports fascism but there are worse connections here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought this was included... I've seen the word fascist thrown about a lot in relation to the alt-right. I'd say to include it, but maybe phrased as "fascist ideals" or by saying the alt-right "draws from fascist ideology". I don't think anyone on the alt-right would say something like "Yeah, I think what America needs is an absolute dictator who exercises total control over the population!" MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Care to provide an independent, reliable source on the matter? I'd hope we have a slighter higher standard than a single writer says they are "amalgam of self-declared fascists" for claiming the alt-right supports fascism but I'm expecting disappointment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Welton and Grey are RSs. You're right about Grey though, she doesn't specifically attribute fascism to the alt-right, she just points out that they have a shorthand for it. But Welton is good enough to support that. If you, personally, doubt the connection, try googling the phrase. I've found glowing praise of fascism on alternative-right.com, conservatives looking at the early incarnations of the movement (before the term came into use, but it's clear in retrospect to whom they were referring) and concluding it is fascist, and left-minded pundits and political reporters doing their best to get Donald Trump's picture used under the entry for "Fascism" in the dictionary. In looking, it's hard to find RSs (as it is for almost every single claim in this article), but it's not hard to find a metric crap-ton of evidence that people on the left, right, and in the alt-right all associate the alt-right with fascism. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

But it's an opinion piece and all he said is that it's a part of the amalgam that is the alt right in possibly the most passing way possible. If you've seen it thrown around a lot (wouldn't surprise me about Trump, about the alt right itself it would), then we should be able to find something that gives some level of detail and explains what the alt right is supposed to actually be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece, but it's an expert opinion piece (expertise in journalism). It's fine for this sort of thing, which isn't WP:BLP or WP:MEDRS. Even if it weren't, there isn't much controversy over it. I've yet to find a single source, reliable or otherwise which claims the alt-right isn't at least inspired by fascist ideals. And the difficulty of finding sources is directly attributable to the fact that you pointed out above: this movement only really cohered into something identifiable in the past few months. There hasn't been enough time for much more than opinion pieces. This is part of why I said I think we might be better off stubbing the article and waiting for more info to flesh it out. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Expertise in journalism doesn't give us carte blanche to just start citing anonymous radio call-ins just because a reliable source parrotted it. The reliable sources have been doing a terrible job if you look at what they actually use as their sources. And frankly the entire RSN discussion before was about opinion being being identified as opinion which you agreed to months ago and now it's "expertise in journalism" = "fact"? As of right now, we have one person at the Weekly Standard saying that there are some self-describes fascists in the alt right movement and you claiming that "you have to find a single source that says otherwise" (even though the other two reliable sources here don't say that) so if literally every other source there says it, just post them and we can move on. Otherwise, I'm really not supporting calling their beliefs fascist based on a single barely supportive source and your claims that sources exist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And frankly the entire RSN discussion before was about opinion being being identified as opinion which you agreed to months ago and now it's "expertise in journalism" = "fact"? You should try to interpret what I'm saying now in light of what I said then, instead of interpreting it as complete disagreement with your position. I didn't say I was opposed to putting the claim in Welton's voice. Hell, if you ask me, almost everything in the article could stand to be taken out of wiki voice because, as I've said several times, we don't have enough RSs to build a good, thorough article.

Right now, the only things we can say for certain about the movement is that some good sources have said this about it, and some good sources have said that about it, and a whole lot of bad sources agree with some of those things. It's a safe bet that this stuff is accurate, it's just difficult to reach WP's usual standard for sourcing because the movement is only a couple of months old. Once again, if you ask me, we should stub the article down to just a lead that says what the alt-right says about themselves, what traditional conservatives say about them, and what the left says about them. One, maybe two paragraphs, with nothing in wiki voice. We're probably not going to see much -if anything- from the scholarly side of things until after the presidential inauguration, anyways. I'll bet good money that by this time, next year, the article will look more like it did when the AfD started than any other version, though. Most of this stuff is extremely predictable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You haven't pointed out a good source that says anything about alt-right and fascism. You've stated that "no source out there claims it's not related to fascism" which is pointless. No source says it's not related to progressivism either but that would be beyond idiotic to add. From there, you're just going with "it's a reliable source so I'll take their words out of any context and claim whatever I want because it fits my narrative." Welton doesn't say a damn thing that the alt-right comes from fascist ideology and if I put there "Benjamin Welton says that the alt-right is based off fascist ideals" that would be removed as a giant misrepresentation of what he said. So how about actually providing an independent reliable source connecting the alt right to fascism instead of just suggesting whatever you want to say and then putting in whatever sources other people already found just for whatever reason? If it's so obvious and so commonly discussed, it should not be that hard to find. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You haven't pointed out a good source that says anything about alt-right and fascism. Yes, in fact I have. So have you, as a matter of fact. Welton is a good source for this claim. There are no sources which disagree with him, and plenty of context (every time I mention surveying non RSs, it's to provide context by establishing the public view) to support him. Nor is there any rule on WP that says making such a claim about a broad group requires X number of sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Welton says nothing to even implies that the alt right actually supports/came from/whatever thing you made up about fascist ideology and your repeated statements that "no other source disagrees with him" is ridiculous. If you actually think this is an appropriate way to use source, no wonder this article is a disaster. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a fact that the alt-right is widely accused of fascism. It is a fact that there are virtually (literally, in my own experience) no sources disagreeing with that, and no reliable sources disagreeing with that have been presented here. A reliable source has been presented which states that there is an ideological crossover between the alt-right ideology and fascist ideology, even if that sources doesn't go into excessive detail regarding the origins of that crossover. Your argument is that the source can't be used to claim X because it doesn't claim Y. That is not a valid argument. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You can't just keep yelling something is a fact and act like it's the truth. Find me a source. I don't care, take this to WP:RSN, host an RFC, debate this some more but all we have is a single opinion piece and some bullshit you're stringing together to reiterate your claim and you screaming that this "fact" is so allegedly obvious and true that we don't need anything more than a single opinion writer claiming a ridiculously tenuous link for the truth of said "fact". The edit request to include your alleged "fact" below at Talk:Alt-right#Edit_request was similarly denied by User:EvergreenFir. If this is so true, you must be able to find a reliable source that say more than this throwaway statement. Do you similarly believe that the alt-right is into monarchism because Welton threw that word into the same sentence? Why is alleged "fact" so righteous it's true and another to be ignored? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Pro-abortion

Cathy Young has a section on their belief in this article [5] titled "Abortion as Racial Population Control" where she documents their view. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos piece in Brietbart

I'm not sure how best to incorporate this piece from Brietbart news. First, assuming I can comprehend what it claims the alt-right actually believes in, that's one matter. However, it's written directly by Milo Yiannopoulos and it's framed in the context of "the right and the left claim this but we claim otherwise," so would saying that "supporters" of the movement believe that non-white supremacist stuff be fair? Should it directly attributed to Yiannopoulos? If it should be cited at all. I'm not seeing evidence from secondary sources referring back to this piece so I could be giving this WP:UNDUE weight but is it WP:NPOV to call Yiannopoulos' own belief to a group he belongs to WP:FRINGE? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Well I guess it's not worth adding then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Supposedly Breitbart is unreliable, but BuzzFeed is worthy of building a political ideology-related article around. Zaostao (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's a tough call. Using the Breitbart article could be considered original research as it is a self-professed description by a major figure in the alt-right. However, this article is basically about living people and given our concern about critical articles on living people WP:BLP some info in this article might be useful in explaining to the reader that key members of the alt-right take exception to the description by critics. Let's face it; we have mainly hostile source or friendly source, both which should not be taken at face value. I think we could use this article (but not Breitbart in general). Jason from nyc (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• Let me add that we talk about the Breitbart piece in the article but give no citation of it. I propose that we add it to the citation and add this Cathy Young article [6] in addition. We've already vetted Young (a Newsday contributor) and use her work elsewhere. This article is a point by point analysis (and rebuttal) of the Breitbart piece by someone who is well versed in right-wing and far right ideologies. I've taken the liberty via WP:BOLD of adding these two. Comments appreciated. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine, but I don't see this as being any more BLP-related than any other political article. WP:BLPGROUP applies, and this is a large and loosely defined group. Let's focus on neutrally reflecting sources of substance instead of framing this as Source vs. Source. Yes this is polarizing, but that makes false balance even more of a risk and a problem. Grayfell (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

New sources

For the regulars here: there has been a recent flurry of stories on this movement and on Triple parentheses, including from the NYT (in some detail), WaPo (less), and Haaretz (moderate detail and background). These seem like useful resources for the effort to bring organization and perspective to the article, which is quite good so far. FourViolas (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Neoreactionary branch.

Currently the article describes the neoreactionary movement as one of the 'less extreme' branches of the alt-right. None of the sources that I can see describe it as less extreme; and given that, as I understand it, the neoreactionary movement opposes democracy and advocates a return to monarchy (or to some analogous non-democratic system), I think describing them as "less extreme" might be something we need high-quality sources for if we're going to do it at all. If we're going to expand what we say about the neo-reactionary branch of the Alt-Right, Vox seems like the best source we have on it. It's important to note that Vox highlights an inherent conflict between the neoreactionary branch and the Trumpist / 4chan branch; they're broadly part of the same coalition but don't want the same things. That divide and general ideological breakdown might be worth going into in more detail, too, although Vox seems to be the only source going into any serious depth on the different branches of the alt-right and how they relate to each other. --Aquillion (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Vox may be an unreliable source since one of its editors was suspended for advocating political violence against Trump supporters. Zaostao (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Taken by itself, Vox suspending one of its editors after a tweet doesn't suggest that it's not a reliable source. This is like publishing a retraction, which is a positive sign. Vox saw a problem and took action, and nobody, as far as I can tell, is saying that Vox acted inappropriately as a news organization in suspending one of its editors. Nothing to see here, move along. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2016

Ben Shapiro, a Jewish American Conservative, received anti-Semitic hate speeches by alt-right Internet trolls, including followers of British-American homosexual alt-right opinion leader Milo Yiannopoulos. Sources are included here:. Additionally, Milo Yiannopoulos should receive more attention, as he is an important voice in the Alt-Right movement. For example, maybe an entire paragraph should be written about Milo. 76.184.192.54 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

First off, I have no idea why your comment is under the "Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2016" section. Second off, I agree with you that Milo deserves his own section. Unfortunately, it seems Milo can't even get his own sentence. I mean, Source 24 itself is a link to his Breitbart article, where he outlines his support of the Alt-Right. The man is one of the largest figures of the Alt-Right, and he can't even speak for himself. If Jeet Heer, Benjamin Wallace-Wells, and Ian Tuttle (People I'm sure you have heard of /s) can give their analysis, why can't Milo? All you would have to say is: According to Milo, (blah blah blah). Then you could cite the SPLC or whatever far-left group you want after it.

Long story short, (One of the, if not) The largest leader of the Alt-Right can't even get a quote on the Alt-Right page. R00b07 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13_(talk) 16:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Milo Deserves A Quote

Since Breitbart and Milo are already cited, what is the problem with giving Milo a quote? R00b07 (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what arguments have preceded this discussion, but I generally prefer paraphrase to quotation. This is partly stylistic. It's also partly because writers like Yiannopoulos tend to use a lot of hyperbole, sarcasm, and "trolling" in their writing. That exaggerated manner of speaking can be entertaining for regular readers, but it actually makes it more difficult for readers who are unfamiliar with an idea to comprehend a debate, so it's not helpful for an encyclopedia.

I agree that he's an important figure, and can be a useful primary source for describing the ideology if he's used with caution. Is there a specific argument or concept that is being missed here, and could we paraphrase it instead of quoting directly? Nblund (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• This has come up before, and the problem is that Breitbart isn't a reliable source for statements of fact, and Yiannopoulos isn't a neutral observer. The affection many in the alt-right have for him still needs to be balanced with independent sources and a neutral point of view, otherwise this becomes a game of trying to figure out which quote of his to pick based on subjective preference. If we just go looking for some quotes because someone thinks he should be better represented here, we risk cherry-picking. One Breitbart article is cited, but only as a convenience because there are multiple reliable sources commenting about that article. If you can find a reliable source which quotes Yiannopoulos as being specifically informative, or as a good example of some aspect of the alt-right, then it might be worth considering with context. Grayfell (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It's strange for a group of supposed white supremacist, antisemitic reactionaries to be fans of a Jewish, self-described, "faggot", isn't it? Anyway, "sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" so I don't see the problem with adding something from Yiannopoulos, but I don't personally know what information would be suitable or relevant to add at the moment. Zaostao (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't find it particularly strange. The alt-right aggressively seeks validation, and the bigger the audience, the more leeway is given. That's a common pattern everywhere. Anyway, relying on you or me or any one editor to determine what quote to add is not going to work. My point was that we need an independent source to make that call for us. Also, as has been mentioned, Yiannopoulos' rhetorical style is often at-odds with NPOV, so it's still not simple. Even in the alt-right, he has many detractors. Grayfell (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand why "According to Milo...." would be against NPOV.

NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Can I repeat all the significant views? Since when was Milo not a significant view anymore?

Checklist Time:

Would citing Milo make the article increase article fairness and proportionality? Check.

Would not citing Milo imply editorial bias? Check.

Is Milo a reliable source? According to Source 23 of the article, Check.

Your opinion on the Alt-Right should not trump (no punintended) what NPOV actually states, nor should it trump what is already reliably sourced.R00b07 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos is cited in entry. He isn't quoted in the entry, but directly quoting from a primary source is not necessarily the only way to represent a viewpoint, and using secondary sources is usually desirable. Again, I'm not opposed in principle to a quotation, but I also don't see much of a reason for adding one. Again: is there some specific ideological argument that Yiannopoulos provides that can't be presented in a paraphrase? And is there something unique to this particular article that isn't discussed in some other source? Nblund (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has actually proposed a specific quote. As I said, Breitbart is cited as a convenience where a specific article is discussed by other, more reliable sources. Context matters. The word "bias" gets thrown around a lot, but there are ways to avoid that which still haven't been addressed. Just picking some quote and throwing it in because some editors would like to see something from him is arbitrary and very biased. If you can find an independent source quoting Yiannopoulos, that would provide necessary context and we could assess from that. "Significant views" means just that: significant views, not significant people. Yiannopoulos holds countless views no doubt, so it's not up to us to decide which ones are the most significant here. It's also worth keeping in mind that Yiannopoulos's popularity isn't universal among the alt-right, and there are many who reject his expertise. Nobody is a spokesperson for the entire alt-right movement, so including a quote from someone because he's somewhat popular seems like its using Wikipedia to promote a person or particular take on the ideology instead of building an encyclopedia article. The way to fix that is with independent sources. But again, nobody has actually proposed a specific quote. It's possible that he's summarized the alt-right in a non-controversial way. If so, that would be very handy, but nobody else has managed to do that yet, and since when has he ever done anything non-controversially? Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed Fascist link

Neither cited source makes a strong link: "even a few" and a single supporter. I'm finding just as many sources linking the Alt-Right to My Little Pony and Taylor Swift:

References

Given the ambiguity of the movement and the myriad purported connections we should take care to apply WP:WEIGHT appropriately with sources representing majority views; on quick perusal I see several claims qualified with "some sources..." - a standard which if applied consistently would have us link to so many disparate groups as to make our explanation meaningless. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

None of those are particularly reliable sources, though; the sources that mention fascism are comparatively strong. Obviously we're not about to cite Breitbart or Mediaite for statements of fact, and a mention in the New Republic's minutes column is hardly as relevant as eg. an in-depth analysis by Vox or a detailed discussion in the Weekly Standard by a self-described supporter. (And, I mean, if we were going to use those kinds of lower-quality partisan / blog-ish sources, there are lots and lots of and lots of comparable sources talking about the presence of fascists and the involvement of Stormfront. Waaaay more than three. Compare the results there to eg. My Little Pony, and it's not even close.) That said, my main objection was to the misuse of The Weekly Standard as a source that was created by incompletely paraphrasing that particular sentence (at one point, it was conspicuously cited for every aspect of the alt-right that it mentioned except the fact that it contains some self-described fascists.) If we avoid relying on anything that comes exclusively from that particular description of the alt-right, I don't have a problem with leaving fascism off for now unless more or better sources appear, but citing that weekly standard piece for neo-reactonaries, nativists, and populists and leaving off the last item on the list is obviously misusing it as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad we agree in practice and I support your recent edits - but for the record I have to disagree with that characterization of sources: the New Republic (RS) goes more in depth on MLP than than Vox does on fascism so if anything it's the reverse, but I think correlating length with accuracy is spurious. The Mediate piece quotes Rick Wilson (expert) on MSNBC (RS.) In general Ithink everything cited to a single source should be attributed (if it's included at all) but I do think the more serious the claim (e.g. fascism) the stronger the requirement for sourcing.

Those search results are odd - I compared straight Google searches and found equal results. The New Republic piece for example doesn't come up in a "News" search for My Little Pony despite the article; I don't know how Google qualifies search categories but something's lacking. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Meme paragraph

Zaostao has moved the 'memes' paragraph to the 'analysis' section twice now. I don't think that this is appropriate at all; that paragraph is exclusively cited to news sources describing the core beliefs and nature of the alt-right and using that to discuss an important aspect of what its beliefs really are. While we could theoretically call anything "analysis", the rest of the section is devoted to opinion pieces; I feel that dropping the section on internet memes (which many sources have identified as the defining characteristic of the alt-right) into that section is burying the lede, so to speak. This is what some of the highest-quality sources say about the core beliefs of the movement, not secondary analysis. (Based on this confusion, I also suggest renaming the 'analysis' section to 'commentary', since that's what it really is otherwise; after all, all discussion of a topic in reliable sources aside from the most superficial things is analysis of it. Regardless of how we structure the article, though, the paragraph on internet memes needs to be a lot more prominent than that, since it's a major aspect of the alt-right and comes up again and again in the sources; much of the commentary in the analysis section doesn't make sense unless you've already ready something that goes into that broad aspect. --Aquillion (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

How a group of people propagate an ideology does not affect the ideology itself - for example, using a speakerphone to spread your message further does not mean that speakerphones or speakerphone use are part of your ideology. The memes things is the same, they're just a way of disseminating a message - which is already stated in the beliefs section as being antisemitic, white supremacist etc., they're not the ideology itself and do not impact the message, just help to spread it. The last line of that paragraph is as analytical as it gets also so it without a doubt should not be in the beliefs section. Zaostao (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree (The medium is the message!), but maybe we should rename the beliefs section, too. Ideally we should probably structure the article with one section that has a broad description of what the sources generally agree are the most important aspects of the alt-right and what it is (core ideologies, differences from mainstream conservatism, who they support and who they don't, etc), and then another section for what people have said about them (and about those core things) in opinion pieces and the like. --Aquillion (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the ideology is largely shapeless - I am in "alt-right" circles I suppose and there are all types of people from fascists to anarcho-capitalists, so it's impossible to create a structured article around something that isn't structured. The fact that there's very few good in-depth sources on it doesn't help either, and a lot of newer sources frankly seem to be poor smear attempts trying to connect Donald Trump with messageboard trolls. Zaostao (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the fundamental point is that numerous sources have identified these memes as central to the definition of what the alt-right is. It really is one of the main topics that comes up with them. I absolutely cannot support putting it in the 'reactions' section; it clearly belongs in the section that describes the core of what the Alt-Right is and how it's defined by reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Memes are not related to beliefs at all, the commonalities sentence including things like "disdain for mainstream politics" and "view mainstream conservatives with ridicule" give some sort of idea of what the ideology is about, or what it is not about at least. Usage of memes is, again, just like usage of speakerphones, they're useful for spreading a message - that's it. The message has to exist independently otherwise there would be no content to be made memes out of. The speakerphone does not speak itself. Also, the last line is complete reaction and analysis, nothing about "commonalities", just about pushing a certain view higher up than it was in the reaction section. Zaostao (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The section isn't about just their beliefs, though (after all, the second paragraph describes things like populism and a disdain for mainstream politics.) The section is about the core defining features of the alt-right. Numerous sources have identified the use of memes as one of those core things, so it needs to be in our main description. It absolutely cannot go in the reaction section, which is limited to op-eds and editorializing; it belongs in the core description of the Alt-Right's nature. Is there a wording for the section header that would resolve your objections? It now has six sources, all of them high-profile reliable news sources and none of them opinion-pieces or reactions, so it definitely does not belong in the reactions section (it's a description of what the Alt-Right is by reliable sources, not a reaction); but we could reword the beliefs header to be more encompassing. How do you feel about "beliefs and strucuture?" Is there another wording for the header you feel would be appropriate? (Basically, I'm trying to understand your objection here - do you just object that the header is bad, or is your objection that you don't feel that the use of these sorts of memes is actually a core defining part of the alt-right according to reliable sources? I've found many reliable sources to try and answer the second objection; I think it's reasonably clear that it is a core defining aspect, and that many sources have included their use of memes as a way of describing, understanding, and explaining their beliefs. If your objection is just to the header, though, then we can find a better header that covers all key aspects in one paragraph.) Basically, though, our responsibility in an article like this is to cover each aspect of the topic in accordance to WP:DUE weight given its coverage in reliable sources; and the Alt-Right's use of memes has been very heavily covered, so it needs to be covered prominently in the article (probably, it needs at least a sentence in the lead as well.) Putting it in the reactions section is both inaccurate (these sources aren't op-eds or commentary, they're news sources describing what the alt-right is for their readers) and failing to give it weight appropriate to its importance - it has a lot more coverage (and a lot more high-quality sources discovering it) than many of the other things currently in the beliefs paragraph. (Also, as an aside, if your objection is to the wording of that paragraph itself, remember you can always reword it. There is probably more to be said in terms of eg. sources doubting whether these memes are entirely serious vs. ironic vs. tactical vs. some people only being in it for the lols.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of memes does not affect the message in the same way that use of speakerphones does not affect the message, it just helps to spread it. It has nothing to do with beliefs. The commonalities such as supporting Donald Trump and disdain for mainstream politics give a general idea of what the ideology is, or isn't, by comparison. The memes on the other hand have nothing to do with the ideology, they're just used to spread the message -- you might as well say a "core aspect" of the alt-right is internet usage as well as the use of words or images to spread their ideology.

Also, that last line ("The prevalence of such memes has lead some commentators to doubt whether the alt-right itself is a serious movement rather than just an alternative way to express traditionally conservative beliefs") is as much of a reaction/analysis/commentary/response/whatever as you can get. Zaostao (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Also I think "Response" would be a more accurate section title than "Analysis", but i'm not sure if Response is the correct name. Zaostao (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)