Talk:Alternative Right

Inaccurate

The article is wrong on many facts. A glaring one is that the alternative-right.blogspot.com is the succesor to the original Alternative Right website.That isn't true, Radix Journal is the succesor site.

Page move

I've moved this page from AlternativeRight.com to Alternative Right. This better reflects the content of the article, which used the phrase "Alternative Right", and reliable independent sources, which describe the Liddell and Nowicki publication as a continuation of the Spencer website. Denarivs (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material by user DaltonCastle

This edit [1] by DaltonCastle (talk) was an arbitrary removal of sourced criticism. There appears to me to be no good reason for its removal, and the removal seems arbitrary. I'd like to see that info reinstated. Rockypedia (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

With apparently no response to this forthcoming, I'm going ahead and re-adding that paragraph. Rockypedia (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"White supremacist" v "identitarian"

Further information: Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade

I reverted the term identitarian, but that was undone quickly. I believe the term is obscure for most readers, and most sources would agree Alternative Right is a White supremacist site (regardless of the site's preferred politically correct label), especially in the broad sense of wanting to preserve a social order based on the traditional dominance of white people.

The edit summary given, "The alt-right is identitarian, and believes that European ethnic groups have a right to exist, a right to identity and cultural pride, etc.", repeats slogans white supremacists have long used—these hardly distinguish the article's subject from white supremacists. (Indeed, that whites have a "right to exist" distinguishes their beliefs from hardly anyone's.)

Presuming sources can be found, I certainly would appreciate a section accurately detailing Alternative Right's themes and consistent positions, but this sloganeering in the lede section is not encyclopedic. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The website's standing as a white supremacist site is well-documented and well-sourced. If a magazine does not wish to be described as white supremacist, they probably shouldn't publish articles promoting white supremacy. In any case, reliable sources are what matters, and there's plenty of them. Rockypedia (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources clearly designate Alternative Right as an identitarian website and not as a white supremacist website. The editing history also shows a strong consensus on this issue. Denarivs (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You just made up the first part, and your second part isn't how Wikipedia works, sorry. If you have reliable sources, post them here for discussion. For more information on what consensus on Wikipedia means, read WP:CON. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Serious sources do NOT call the alt-right "identitarian" wtf that is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Should I try a second "articles for deletion"?

Sandstein, you say "It is not clear as to whether there is also consensus that the website is notable, or whether the article about it could be merged to the article about its creator Richard B. Spencer. This can continue to be discussed separately."

Should I try to start a second "articles for deletion" to merge this article with Spencer's? Or would it be considered dishonorable to start a second "articles for deletion" after one has been rejected? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Either approach is possible, depending on whether you think deletion or merging is preferable. But in a new AfD you should try to develop a better argument for deletion than merely asserting that the website is not notable; you'd need to discuss why the coverage that is cited in the article is insufficient for notability.  Sandstein  13:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)