![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I found this diagram on an alt-right twitter account and a reverse image search came up empty. It's pretty interesting. It places traditional nazism outside the movement and identifies six streams of thought-- paleo-conservatism, white nationalism, southern nationalism, christian legitimism, right-libertarian ("alt-light") and neoreaction. I think this article could take a hint in describing the background of the movement. I have no fucking clue what "christian (catholic) legitimism" is, maybe Traditionalist Catholics? It also gives examples of sites identified at points on the spectrum.-- Monochrome_ Monitor 04:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
With all this in mind we really need to check the people in Category:Alt-right.-- Monochrome_ Monitor 16:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I preface this by saying I am aware of WP's policies against original research and dubious citations, which is why I'll circle back to these points later on with vetted mainstream news coverage and encourage other WPians to do the same.
It seems discussion of the Alt-Right cannot be organized or complete unless we start from a core of people and organizations that consider themselves, and each other, Alt-Right. (One issue with this, in terms of sourcing, is that much of this comes from interviews with the following people, their blogs, and their podcasts, which falls dangerously close to conducting original research.):
-Red Ice, Henrik Palmgren, its contributors, and its affiliates
-The Right Stuff, Mike Enoch, its contributors, and its affiliates
-The Daily Stormer, Andrew Anglin, its contributors, and its affiliates
-Alternative-Right/Radix Journal, Richard Spencer, their contributors, and their affiliates
Said affiliates, like many of those from the NRx sphere, the 'manosphere', Occidental Observer, VDare, Counter Currents, and American Renaissance, their leadership, their contributors, and their affiliates may not have adopted or may no longer adopt the term Alt-Right, so care should be taken before categorizing them as such.
68.192.161.211 ( talk) 04:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
How does one use Breitbart to convey their message in the way they would use Twitter ( a social network )? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A06:2E01:B30E:1013:0:0:0:1008 ( talk) 23:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
How can a term coined by someone in 2010 have its roots on 4chan and 8chan around the time of the Trump campaign? This is contradictory and makes no sense.
The whole article is contradictory and makes little sense, it tries to link a very amorphous political current to very specific ideas.
Also: ctrl+f "nazi" gives 24 results. That much linking of a political current to nazism doesn't seem serious at all.
This whole article needs to be thoroughly revised or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.133.14.185 ( talk) 04:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree. "alt-right" is a made up term to make white nationalists-white supremacists seem as not so "out there". The term alt-right should not have its own article and just link to the white nationalism article BronzeCheetah44 ( talk) 18:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)BronzeCheetah44
What if the sources we are using that try to describe this term are not politically neutral? By using these sources and their characterizations, aren't we promulgating a particular point of view? Redirecting this article to the white nationalism article. Alternatively, if this term is associated with an individual, we could redirect it there. If it's associated (in a neutral way) with several individuals then I can see providing a brief description of that association along with links to their articles. Rklawton ( talk) 19:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a notable topic and there are plenty of RS to support a stand alone article. I would oppose a merge/redirect/delete. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 19:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The current version of this article starts with: "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States." What follows are many claims which start like "alt-right beliefs have been described as" or "The concept has further been associated with", where the provided sources are left-wing websites.
Reading the article critically, the purpose seems to be to, on the one hand, link "alt-right" with racists who use this term to whitewash their racist beliefs while, on the other hand, link the term to Trump and his supporters, thereby linking racism with Trump. In other words, racists and Trump's supporters are all "grouped" into the "alt-right movement", which apparently is justified given that this is a "loose" group of people...
The only sensible claim in the article, is that "alt-right" is quite clearly a label used for political motives. However, the article now only mentions the political motvies of racists who use this term (whitewash their racist views); to be complete and objective, the article should also mention the left-wing motives for using the term (group people together to damage (the reputation of) some of them).
CtrlAltDel(enSnel) ( talk) 15:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: White supremacist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism. To: White nationalist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism.
Since he doesn't not fall in to the White supremacy definition, as stated on wikipedias definition: white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people. Rather he falls in the white nationalist definitionHe advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture.
As according to his own page: Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white nationalist Ztaqev2 ( talk) 14:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
In the intro it says "The concept has further been associated with multiple groups from American nationalists, neo-monarchists, men's rights advocates, and the 2016 campaign of Donald Trump."
Is associating men's rights advocates with this really necessary? I mean the only source for this claim from the linked sources is an opinion piece from the Boston Globe. And here's the comment: "it’s a wide-open virtual state fair for white nationalists/nihilists, misogynist “men’s rights” dweebs."
You might as well replace "men's rights advocates" with "misogynist men’s rights dweebs" as it says above. At this point I would say only one person has "further associated this concept with men's rights advocates", but this Wikipedia page will give people enough cause to cite this over and over again until it becomes "true".
-- 93.146.44.129 ( talk) 23:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we remove this part of the article entirely? Im not an MRA fan...but there is no credible source linking MRA and the Alt-Right. The person above is correct about the Boston Globe article...and that is hardly a source. Until proper evidence is found linking Alt-Right policies and MRA policies, this part of the article has no place. It just feels like I am reading someone's opinion when I make it to this part of the article. (I actually learned more about the Alt-Right by reading the talk page than I did reading the article itself. lol)
199.119.232.214 ( talk) 10:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand the need for citations for the highly contentious subject matter in the first paragraph of the lead section, but it's really quite distracting. I prefer not to edit this article, but can I make a suggestion here? Either (a) collapse all sources for a given sentence into a single footnote (I personally don't like this style), or (b) copy this content into the body and move the citations along with it. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What is the deal with this article? This is very poorly written, and the sources are a joke. This entire article needs to be reviewed, possibly even deleted. It has some valid points, but also a lot of very broad assumptions, and seems to be more about linking this movement to racism, and then linking the "movement" to Donald Trump. Is this a Wikipedia article? Or is this an opinion piece for The Onion?? Let's get some credible sources in here...and leave our feels at the door when writing articles for what is supposed to be an "online encyclopedia".
Anyone out there with a little journalistic flair that can maybe turn this article around..or at least find reliable sources other than left-wing media sites?? Newpapers...actual interviews...anything?? FacePunchYou ( talk) 00:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
left-wing media sites"... I think therein lies your problem with the article. Please see WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
If the alt-right's support of Trump is mentioned in the lead of the article, so should the fact that he has disavowed them. EvergreenFir should take a look at WP:NPOV, which apparently supersedes WP:RS as well as WP:RS. 73.248.58.65 ( talk) 12:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I have edited the article that reflected the POV that Steve Bannon is a member of the Alt-right. All of the removed content was a BLP vio. Some has been moved out of the lede to a different section as it is not appropriate for the lede. Alt-right was a movement long before August 2016. To place content there that highlights a news-cycle and leads readers to believe the Administration and Bannon are connected to it is an egregious violation of Wikipedia policy and editing ethics. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I object to this edit, now made twice by Winkelvi (ironically, which saying I shouldn't edit war after my single revert). The claim is that the previous it violates WP:BLP, however my readin go of the sources show that the content does in fact faithful reflect what the sources say. Winkelvi's edit also added the WP:WEASEL word "reportedly", which seems intended to cast doubt on the veracity of Bannon's own words. I think the previous version should be restored.- Mr X 14:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
"Sanitizing"? Bullshit. See the above section. See where the content was placed. See the edit summaries that reflect why. It was all very, very POV in tone and content and that needed to be corrected. We can start an RfC if you'd like. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
QubixQdotta, I'm not aware of any neutrality issues actually identified in connection with this discussion (describing Bannon as a member of the alt-right). WV raised a BLP concern, which was addressed by pointing to reliable sources supporting the content. After that, WV and you said there was a neutrality issue but in support there were only vague claims of POV editing. We need to know specifically what content you consider to be non-neutral so that the problem can be addressed and fixed. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This article clearly asserts a non-neutral point of view. Even though I agree with the facts that are in this article, there is alot of opinions for liberal focusing media outlets that are used like facts. Wikipedia is not the place assert your views on the topic but to include all points of view. That includes the assertions by the movement itself in a neutral way and other views from conservative outlets. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's time to wrap this up with a show of consensus, as I believe minds are pretty made up here. I therefore nominate the neutrality template for deletion. Antinoos69 ( talk) 13:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Um, those are literally all liberal media sources.This demonstrates the complaint is a pov issue rooted in a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
His opinion needs to be carefully weight by independent sources, but Breitbart isn't a reliable source, and Yiannopoulos isn't neutral, independent, or a legitimate expert according to Wikipedia's standards.You see the problem with that statement is that you say Breitbart isn't a reliable source but you don't explain why. You show several sources you all seem to consider unbiased, then why have the same publishers come out with these pieces which are obviously liberal media: Vanity Fair: [13] NPR: [14] Politico: [15] [16] CNN: [17] [18] Slate: [19] NYTimes: [20] Washington Post: [21] You see it's kind of like making a survey but only showing what one kind of person is thinking (Democrats - myself included), even though its a legitimate view it becomes illegitimate when it underrepresents the other side. The reliable media sources you gave as an example spin the stories and don't want to talk about someone like Milo. How is that any different than what Breitbart is doing with their media? They're just a conservative media company that shares their views. Based on those terms and political opinions of all users aside, Breitbart must be a reliable source. They're reporting is just as biased and unreliable as every one of those sources you just mentioned. Breitbart: [22] By including both opposing sides you create a legitimate well-studied piece of information. Very rough example:
Media companies such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and NPR have accused the alt-right of misogynism, antifeminism, anti-Semitic, and white nationalist views. Other media companies such as Fox News have stated that the alt-right's ideology is identified by anti-political correctness and anti-globalism/progressivism, but denied allegations of the movement's racism.You see, that's NPOV where people can DECIDE what to think about the subject based on facts and not opinion. Neither side should be one upped. [qub/x q;o++a] + + 03:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
"Alt-right" is an offshoot of conservatism mixing racism, white nationalism and populism.[25] I think this has ceased being productive, and I support removing the POV tag again. Grayfell ( talk) 04:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject)The mentality of the article seems to be, let's find sources where we can seek out cheap insults like "wannabe fascists". How is that even remotely encyclopedic? What next, Bill Maher called them "dirty fat rednecks"? [qub/x q;o++a] + + 07:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
For “alternative” genres of music, online newsgroups using the “alt-” prefix encouraged snappy labels like “alt-rock” and “alt-country.” The prefix moved beyond music to other things seen as challenging the mainstream. Thus, “alternative right”—a loose agglomeration of groups with far-right ideologies, some of which embrace white supremacy, while others rebel against mainstream Republicanism—got shortened to “alt-right.”( [26] ). [27] Several more sources to come from bipartisan as well as conservative sources which were ignored (so perhaps that means there was an intention of neglect?) [qub/x q;o++a] + + 04:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
"Even though the Burning Man community states it is an event for all different kinds of people, it has been a known fact that the event was founded on Wiccan, Pagan, and Witchcraft practices. This motivates the festival's traditions in the dark arts and people have celebrated these occultic traditions based on their disdain for Western culture and Christianity. Some consider the event "evil and anti-America""Sorry, you can't change it because the reliable sources say its true. No bias there at all. I'm assuming you'd go try to find the alternative ways of looking at it right? Well yes, because one commonly known way of looking at it doesn't make it supreme fact. That's like saying all skinheads are nazis. It's the same thing. [qub/x q;o++a] + + 05:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want me to think metaphorically, perhaps avoid appealing directly to activities I list on my userpage. If you have reliable sources saying that Burning Man is evil, occultic, etc., I would be tickled to see them. As for skinheads, I can point to SHARP and others as counter-examples. It's not a hypothetical, it's supported by sources. Where are your counter examples? Where are your sources?
Anyway, I still don't get your argument. Please tell me which of these, if any, is correct:
Grayfell ( talk) 07:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
From Alt-right:
From Breitbart:
What gives? Are the alt-right pro- or anti-Jews? MidAtlanticRidgeback ( talk) 20:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
There is literally no reliable OR unreliable source for this, not a single one that says "Oh I hope all jews will be safe in Israel and that they die when Armageddon comes" not a single ones. the only one I can think of is that all people have a choice of choosing what THEY consider the messiah be coming and then ALL people will have a choice of converting or go to hell, something you know jewish people do NOT believe in. Purgatory for like 6 months yes, but not hell. AND even then those people who believe in the Armageddon stuff never WANTS the jewish people to go to hell. so no, you cant be pro Israel and pro jewish people(by definition:not wanting them kill or hurt) and anti Israel at the same time 83.209.66.168 ( talk) 14:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
a one sided collection of buzzwords that basically send out one message : "the straight white male is inherently evil, you must agree otherwise...nazis"
pathetic that this mentality manages to override even basic wikipedia guidelines
No proof this is an actual movement, only opinions and loose conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.35.81 ( talk) 17:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I found this diagram on an alt-right twitter account and a reverse image search came up empty. It's pretty interesting. It places traditional nazism outside the movement and identifies six streams of thought-- paleo-conservatism, white nationalism, southern nationalism, christian legitimism, right-libertarian ("alt-light") and neoreaction. I think this article could take a hint in describing the background of the movement. I have no fucking clue what "christian (catholic) legitimism" is, maybe Traditionalist Catholics? It also gives examples of sites identified at points on the spectrum.-- Monochrome_ Monitor 04:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
With all this in mind we really need to check the people in Category:Alt-right.-- Monochrome_ Monitor 16:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I preface this by saying I am aware of WP's policies against original research and dubious citations, which is why I'll circle back to these points later on with vetted mainstream news coverage and encourage other WPians to do the same.
It seems discussion of the Alt-Right cannot be organized or complete unless we start from a core of people and organizations that consider themselves, and each other, Alt-Right. (One issue with this, in terms of sourcing, is that much of this comes from interviews with the following people, their blogs, and their podcasts, which falls dangerously close to conducting original research.):
-Red Ice, Henrik Palmgren, its contributors, and its affiliates
-The Right Stuff, Mike Enoch, its contributors, and its affiliates
-The Daily Stormer, Andrew Anglin, its contributors, and its affiliates
-Alternative-Right/Radix Journal, Richard Spencer, their contributors, and their affiliates
Said affiliates, like many of those from the NRx sphere, the 'manosphere', Occidental Observer, VDare, Counter Currents, and American Renaissance, their leadership, their contributors, and their affiliates may not have adopted or may no longer adopt the term Alt-Right, so care should be taken before categorizing them as such.
68.192.161.211 ( talk) 04:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
How does one use Breitbart to convey their message in the way they would use Twitter ( a social network )? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A06:2E01:B30E:1013:0:0:0:1008 ( talk) 23:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
How can a term coined by someone in 2010 have its roots on 4chan and 8chan around the time of the Trump campaign? This is contradictory and makes no sense.
The whole article is contradictory and makes little sense, it tries to link a very amorphous political current to very specific ideas.
Also: ctrl+f "nazi" gives 24 results. That much linking of a political current to nazism doesn't seem serious at all.
This whole article needs to be thoroughly revised or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.133.14.185 ( talk) 04:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree. "alt-right" is a made up term to make white nationalists-white supremacists seem as not so "out there". The term alt-right should not have its own article and just link to the white nationalism article BronzeCheetah44 ( talk) 18:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)BronzeCheetah44
What if the sources we are using that try to describe this term are not politically neutral? By using these sources and their characterizations, aren't we promulgating a particular point of view? Redirecting this article to the white nationalism article. Alternatively, if this term is associated with an individual, we could redirect it there. If it's associated (in a neutral way) with several individuals then I can see providing a brief description of that association along with links to their articles. Rklawton ( talk) 19:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a notable topic and there are plenty of RS to support a stand alone article. I would oppose a merge/redirect/delete. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 19:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The current version of this article starts with: "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States." What follows are many claims which start like "alt-right beliefs have been described as" or "The concept has further been associated with", where the provided sources are left-wing websites.
Reading the article critically, the purpose seems to be to, on the one hand, link "alt-right" with racists who use this term to whitewash their racist beliefs while, on the other hand, link the term to Trump and his supporters, thereby linking racism with Trump. In other words, racists and Trump's supporters are all "grouped" into the "alt-right movement", which apparently is justified given that this is a "loose" group of people...
The only sensible claim in the article, is that "alt-right" is quite clearly a label used for political motives. However, the article now only mentions the political motvies of racists who use this term (whitewash their racist views); to be complete and objective, the article should also mention the left-wing motives for using the term (group people together to damage (the reputation of) some of them).
CtrlAltDel(enSnel) ( talk) 15:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: White supremacist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism. To: White nationalist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism.
Since he doesn't not fall in to the White supremacy definition, as stated on wikipedias definition: white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people. Rather he falls in the white nationalist definitionHe advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture.
As according to his own page: Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 11, 1978) is an American white nationalist Ztaqev2 ( talk) 14:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
In the intro it says "The concept has further been associated with multiple groups from American nationalists, neo-monarchists, men's rights advocates, and the 2016 campaign of Donald Trump."
Is associating men's rights advocates with this really necessary? I mean the only source for this claim from the linked sources is an opinion piece from the Boston Globe. And here's the comment: "it’s a wide-open virtual state fair for white nationalists/nihilists, misogynist “men’s rights” dweebs."
You might as well replace "men's rights advocates" with "misogynist men’s rights dweebs" as it says above. At this point I would say only one person has "further associated this concept with men's rights advocates", but this Wikipedia page will give people enough cause to cite this over and over again until it becomes "true".
-- 93.146.44.129 ( talk) 23:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we remove this part of the article entirely? Im not an MRA fan...but there is no credible source linking MRA and the Alt-Right. The person above is correct about the Boston Globe article...and that is hardly a source. Until proper evidence is found linking Alt-Right policies and MRA policies, this part of the article has no place. It just feels like I am reading someone's opinion when I make it to this part of the article. (I actually learned more about the Alt-Right by reading the talk page than I did reading the article itself. lol)
199.119.232.214 ( talk) 10:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand the need for citations for the highly contentious subject matter in the first paragraph of the lead section, but it's really quite distracting. I prefer not to edit this article, but can I make a suggestion here? Either (a) collapse all sources for a given sentence into a single footnote (I personally don't like this style), or (b) copy this content into the body and move the citations along with it. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What is the deal with this article? This is very poorly written, and the sources are a joke. This entire article needs to be reviewed, possibly even deleted. It has some valid points, but also a lot of very broad assumptions, and seems to be more about linking this movement to racism, and then linking the "movement" to Donald Trump. Is this a Wikipedia article? Or is this an opinion piece for The Onion?? Let's get some credible sources in here...and leave our feels at the door when writing articles for what is supposed to be an "online encyclopedia".
Anyone out there with a little journalistic flair that can maybe turn this article around..or at least find reliable sources other than left-wing media sites?? Newpapers...actual interviews...anything?? FacePunchYou ( talk) 00:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
left-wing media sites"... I think therein lies your problem with the article. Please see WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
If the alt-right's support of Trump is mentioned in the lead of the article, so should the fact that he has disavowed them. EvergreenFir should take a look at WP:NPOV, which apparently supersedes WP:RS as well as WP:RS. 73.248.58.65 ( talk) 12:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I have edited the article that reflected the POV that Steve Bannon is a member of the Alt-right. All of the removed content was a BLP vio. Some has been moved out of the lede to a different section as it is not appropriate for the lede. Alt-right was a movement long before August 2016. To place content there that highlights a news-cycle and leads readers to believe the Administration and Bannon are connected to it is an egregious violation of Wikipedia policy and editing ethics. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I object to this edit, now made twice by Winkelvi (ironically, which saying I shouldn't edit war after my single revert). The claim is that the previous it violates WP:BLP, however my readin go of the sources show that the content does in fact faithful reflect what the sources say. Winkelvi's edit also added the WP:WEASEL word "reportedly", which seems intended to cast doubt on the veracity of Bannon's own words. I think the previous version should be restored.- Mr X 14:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
"Sanitizing"? Bullshit. See the above section. See where the content was placed. See the edit summaries that reflect why. It was all very, very POV in tone and content and that needed to be corrected. We can start an RfC if you'd like. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
QubixQdotta, I'm not aware of any neutrality issues actually identified in connection with this discussion (describing Bannon as a member of the alt-right). WV raised a BLP concern, which was addressed by pointing to reliable sources supporting the content. After that, WV and you said there was a neutrality issue but in support there were only vague claims of POV editing. We need to know specifically what content you consider to be non-neutral so that the problem can be addressed and fixed. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This article clearly asserts a non-neutral point of view. Even though I agree with the facts that are in this article, there is alot of opinions for liberal focusing media outlets that are used like facts. Wikipedia is not the place assert your views on the topic but to include all points of view. That includes the assertions by the movement itself in a neutral way and other views from conservative outlets. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's time to wrap this up with a show of consensus, as I believe minds are pretty made up here. I therefore nominate the neutrality template for deletion. Antinoos69 ( talk) 13:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Um, those are literally all liberal media sources.This demonstrates the complaint is a pov issue rooted in a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
His opinion needs to be carefully weight by independent sources, but Breitbart isn't a reliable source, and Yiannopoulos isn't neutral, independent, or a legitimate expert according to Wikipedia's standards.You see the problem with that statement is that you say Breitbart isn't a reliable source but you don't explain why. You show several sources you all seem to consider unbiased, then why have the same publishers come out with these pieces which are obviously liberal media: Vanity Fair: [13] NPR: [14] Politico: [15] [16] CNN: [17] [18] Slate: [19] NYTimes: [20] Washington Post: [21] You see it's kind of like making a survey but only showing what one kind of person is thinking (Democrats - myself included), even though its a legitimate view it becomes illegitimate when it underrepresents the other side. The reliable media sources you gave as an example spin the stories and don't want to talk about someone like Milo. How is that any different than what Breitbart is doing with their media? They're just a conservative media company that shares their views. Based on those terms and political opinions of all users aside, Breitbart must be a reliable source. They're reporting is just as biased and unreliable as every one of those sources you just mentioned. Breitbart: [22] By including both opposing sides you create a legitimate well-studied piece of information. Very rough example:
Media companies such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and NPR have accused the alt-right of misogynism, antifeminism, anti-Semitic, and white nationalist views. Other media companies such as Fox News have stated that the alt-right's ideology is identified by anti-political correctness and anti-globalism/progressivism, but denied allegations of the movement's racism.You see, that's NPOV where people can DECIDE what to think about the subject based on facts and not opinion. Neither side should be one upped. [qub/x q;o++a] + + 03:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
"Alt-right" is an offshoot of conservatism mixing racism, white nationalism and populism.[25] I think this has ceased being productive, and I support removing the POV tag again. Grayfell ( talk) 04:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject)The mentality of the article seems to be, let's find sources where we can seek out cheap insults like "wannabe fascists". How is that even remotely encyclopedic? What next, Bill Maher called them "dirty fat rednecks"? [qub/x q;o++a] + + 07:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
For “alternative” genres of music, online newsgroups using the “alt-” prefix encouraged snappy labels like “alt-rock” and “alt-country.” The prefix moved beyond music to other things seen as challenging the mainstream. Thus, “alternative right”—a loose agglomeration of groups with far-right ideologies, some of which embrace white supremacy, while others rebel against mainstream Republicanism—got shortened to “alt-right.”( [26] ). [27] Several more sources to come from bipartisan as well as conservative sources which were ignored (so perhaps that means there was an intention of neglect?) [qub/x q;o++a] + + 04:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
"Even though the Burning Man community states it is an event for all different kinds of people, it has been a known fact that the event was founded on Wiccan, Pagan, and Witchcraft practices. This motivates the festival's traditions in the dark arts and people have celebrated these occultic traditions based on their disdain for Western culture and Christianity. Some consider the event "evil and anti-America""Sorry, you can't change it because the reliable sources say its true. No bias there at all. I'm assuming you'd go try to find the alternative ways of looking at it right? Well yes, because one commonly known way of looking at it doesn't make it supreme fact. That's like saying all skinheads are nazis. It's the same thing. [qub/x q;o++a] + + 05:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want me to think metaphorically, perhaps avoid appealing directly to activities I list on my userpage. If you have reliable sources saying that Burning Man is evil, occultic, etc., I would be tickled to see them. As for skinheads, I can point to SHARP and others as counter-examples. It's not a hypothetical, it's supported by sources. Where are your counter examples? Where are your sources?
Anyway, I still don't get your argument. Please tell me which of these, if any, is correct:
Grayfell ( talk) 07:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
From Alt-right:
From Breitbart:
What gives? Are the alt-right pro- or anti-Jews? MidAtlanticRidgeback ( talk) 20:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
There is literally no reliable OR unreliable source for this, not a single one that says "Oh I hope all jews will be safe in Israel and that they die when Armageddon comes" not a single ones. the only one I can think of is that all people have a choice of choosing what THEY consider the messiah be coming and then ALL people will have a choice of converting or go to hell, something you know jewish people do NOT believe in. Purgatory for like 6 months yes, but not hell. AND even then those people who believe in the Armageddon stuff never WANTS the jewish people to go to hell. so no, you cant be pro Israel and pro jewish people(by definition:not wanting them kill or hurt) and anti Israel at the same time 83.209.66.168 ( talk) 14:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
a one sided collection of buzzwords that basically send out one message : "the straight white male is inherently evil, you must agree otherwise...nazis"
pathetic that this mentality manages to override even basic wikipedia guidelines
No proof this is an actual movement, only opinions and loose conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.35.81 ( talk) 17:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)