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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I am curious about the ethicality of Wikipedia calling Donald Trump, Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, and others white supremacists. Doesn't this violate your policy of BLP? 108.46.38.116 ( talk) 00:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC) — 108.46.38.116 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Agree: I have yet to hear a "leader" in the alt-right movement make a comment that could be reasonably interpreted as being a white supremacist. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures| Papathesmurf ( talk) 02:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Papathesmurf]] comment added by Papathesmurf ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC) — Papathesmurf ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This just smacks of poisoning the well. I'm not going to say that unliked terms shouldn't be used just because they aren't liked. However, given that alt-right is a loose group, it may well be true that some white nationalists/supremacists support the alt-right, but such a term should not be used to describe the alt-right because the white nationalist is such a fringe group as to not even be a fair descriptor of alt-right. For comparison, American Communists largely support the Democratic Party (and the American Communist Party has come out encouraging its members to support Democrats), but they're such a fringe group that listing them in a similar manner would just be poisoning the well. Additionally, the sources used are dodgy. I also propose one additional change, removing the "...and anti-democratic thought" from the second sentence. Again, this is just poisoning the well, from unreliable sources, that hardly even support the claim at all. Troianii ( talk) 11:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the Template:White nationalism appropriate? There is no link in the template to the article here and absent the few mentions, it's not clear to me that it's a major part of the topic. It's not an organization, media or opposition and I'm not sure it's really a related topic. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Done! Thanks. Exercisephys ( talk) 04:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
See [1]. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
How in the world did a statement that he clearly said was the view of Bokhari and Yiannopoulos get claimed to be by him? "The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and anti-Semitic online presence. But for Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, the Alt-Right consists of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring intellectuals — and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, but there are only a few of them, and nobody likes them anyways. In other words, anyone familiar with Yiannopoulos’s theatrics, or Breitbart’s self-appointment as Donald Trump’s Pravda, will not be surprised to learn that the article is a 5,000-word whitewash. But it is valuable, in this way: It exhibits, albeit inadvertently, the moral and intellectual rot at the heart of the Alt-Right." And "And it’s worth noting that the favorite slur the Alt-Right flings at conservatives they dislike is at bottom about miscegenation" and "There is, then, contra Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, continuity on the Alt-Right, from the more interesting thinkers to the “1488ers.”" (neo-Nazis). Any objection to adding a quote from him that reflects what he actually thinks? Doug Weller talk 18:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the Alt-Right for Real?. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I read the citation after "a neologistic racist epithet" but found nothing stating that "cuckservative" is racist. It might be many things (sexist, patriarchal, etc.) but how is it racist? My edit was rolled back with "many, many sources disagree" but the article cites no sources on how cuckservative is racist. It'd be helpful if the article would note how such a term is racist, as it is not apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.14.75 ( talk) 04:03, 3 May 2016
but the term, at its core, may be racist.It also say
What is certain is that it fermented in the racist depths of the Internet...and
But for the white nationalist movement, the term has come to represent much more – the ultimate insult to a politicians whose interests, they feel, should be closer in line with the mores and values of the ultra-conservative white nationalist right.If you need more sources, they are at the cuckservative article, which is a better place to explain the racist usage and origins of the term. Grayfell ( talk) 04:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
When Ms. Gray, the BuzzFeed reporter, wrote about the “alt right” movement of white supremacists, she knew exactly what she would face, and she said she took it in stride.To me, that only supports that the alt-right is white supremacist, or at least that the alt-right's tendency towards harassment can be taken for granted. I see nothing else relevant in that article. Grayfell ( talk) 06:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Defining alt-right politics as racist under the excuse "But BuzzFeed said it" is completely biased. BuzzFeed is far left, Anti-Trump and create uninsightful border ridiculous arguments.
This media outlet is the same one which tries to persuade people that Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). they are cleaning their genitals incorrectly
next to posting their political 'arguments'. They are not a fair or viable source and most of the statements cited by BuzzFeedare just accusations of Racism.
The pages for left-wing politics are not littered with "Communism", "Black Supremacy" , etc. So these opinion driven statements should be removed from this page for an unbias, fair Wikipedia.
Do we have any sources for this? It's in the string of -ism's from the The Occidental Quarterly source. However, we never actually discuss or justify it and (aside from being a "bad anti-demographic -ism" to go along with the others) I don't recall finding any indication of it in other sources I've read.
I'm not sure if The Occidental Quarterly should be quoted here at all, honestly. It looks like a pretty patchy short blog post, and the author writes things like:
Steve Sailer’s article on “The Dispossessed Elite” indicates that Alternative Right will broach the Jewish question (having resolved my questions, I prefer to call it the Jewish problem).
Definitely seems like a primary source without much intrinsic authority. Exercisephys ( talk) 04:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the alt-right movement isn't restricted to social media. Assuming not, "many" should be prepended to this sentence:
Members of the alt-right use social media and internet message boards such asreddit, 4chan, and 8chan to share their beliefs.
Also, as I've pointed out before, the source used for that statement is trash, to a comical degree. It also only gives one (1) example of alt-right people using social media. I'll spare you explanations of the other reasons why this source is ridiculous because they're obvious upon opening it (or even looking at the ref line). Exercisephys ( talk) 04:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not certain about the ADL blog [4] citation. First, while it is from the ADL, it's still an anonymous blog on their site. Second, its usage here is inaccurate. The blog is about the term "cuckservative" and in terms of "alternative right", the term alternative right is said to be "a term used by white supremacists to refer to renegade conservatives who have adopted white supremacist viewpoints and have essentially removed themselves from mainstream conservatism." Unless white supremacists are considered the moderate non- WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV crowd, I don't think the fact that white supremacists call these let's say dog whistle white supremacist views the alternative right is relevant. Further, it really does not remotely support the statement at all (unless we say that this is a view from white supremacists) that the alt right is actually a separate segment since the statement indicates that (at least according to the white supremacists again) that these "renegade conservatives" aren't a part of mainstream conservatism at all and are distinct. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Guys, we can squabble over Buzzfeed and Fusion sources, but we need to face the larger fact: this article is trash. It needs to be revamped. It seems like a group of far-left editors have realized that they have majority presence here and therefore nitpick every change until outsiders get tired and give up.
It's easy to skirmish on details, but any reasonable editor will immediately realize that the article is partisan fluff, a patchwork of social justice tabloid tirades. The majority of the text is just disparate acidic blurbs from political commentators. I think the Reception section should be at most two paragraphs, given the current amount of actual descriptive content.
If we can't find reliable, objective, reserved sources, this article should be aggressively pared down until we find some.
I'm honestly going to try to be constructive. But until we realize that the existing material is garbage, it will accrete rather than improve. Exercisephys ( talk) 20:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
You think trying to fix this article is easy or simple?
Nominate the article for deletion if you want, or bring forth better sources if you have them. Otherwise I fail to see what this is supposed to accomplish.
The entire article is absolute rubbish. I believe you would receive a more accurate depiction of Donald Trump from Hillary Clinton than you would of the Alt-Right from this article. One of the first things that one reads is that it's highlights are white nationalism, anti-immigration, male supremacy, far-right, and every other common buzzword used to demonize the ideological counterpart to the contemporary progressive. Need we truly look nowhere further than the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.167.146 ( talk) 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
clpo13 suggested this, and I think it's a good first step. This paragraph probably has the highest density of redundant vitriole:
Michael Dougherty writing in The Week describes the alt-right as radical working-class white people who are critical of globalization and contemptuous of "permanent members of the political class".[27] However, Rick Wilson, an opponent of Donald Trump, rejected this distinction, calling the alt-right "crazy ... childless single men who masturbate to anime," and who have "plenty of Hitler iconography in their Twitter icons."[28][29] Similarly, Cathy Young writing in Newsday called the alt-right "a nest of anti-Semitism" inhabited by "white supremacists" who regularly use "repulsive bigotry".[6] Likewise, Chris Hayes on All In with Chris Hayes described the "alt right" as a euphemistic term for "essentially modern day white supremacy."[30]
Any objections? Exercisephys ( talk) 00:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
[The alt-right] has already triggered a string of fearful op-eds and hit pieces from both Left and Right: Lefties dismiss it as racist, while the conservative press, always desperate to avoid charges of bigotry from the Left, has thrown these young readers and voters to the wolves as well.
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I am curious about the ethicality of Wikipedia calling Donald Trump, Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, and others white supremacists. Doesn't this violate your policy of BLP? 108.46.38.116 ( talk) 00:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC) — 108.46.38.116 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Agree: I have yet to hear a "leader" in the alt-right movement make a comment that could be reasonably interpreted as being a white supremacist. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures| Papathesmurf ( talk) 02:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Papathesmurf]] comment added by Papathesmurf ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC) — Papathesmurf ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This just smacks of poisoning the well. I'm not going to say that unliked terms shouldn't be used just because they aren't liked. However, given that alt-right is a loose group, it may well be true that some white nationalists/supremacists support the alt-right, but such a term should not be used to describe the alt-right because the white nationalist is such a fringe group as to not even be a fair descriptor of alt-right. For comparison, American Communists largely support the Democratic Party (and the American Communist Party has come out encouraging its members to support Democrats), but they're such a fringe group that listing them in a similar manner would just be poisoning the well. Additionally, the sources used are dodgy. I also propose one additional change, removing the "...and anti-democratic thought" from the second sentence. Again, this is just poisoning the well, from unreliable sources, that hardly even support the claim at all. Troianii ( talk) 11:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the Template:White nationalism appropriate? There is no link in the template to the article here and absent the few mentions, it's not clear to me that it's a major part of the topic. It's not an organization, media or opposition and I'm not sure it's really a related topic. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Done! Thanks. Exercisephys ( talk) 04:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
See [1]. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
How in the world did a statement that he clearly said was the view of Bokhari and Yiannopoulos get claimed to be by him? "The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and anti-Semitic online presence. But for Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, the Alt-Right consists of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring intellectuals — and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, but there are only a few of them, and nobody likes them anyways. In other words, anyone familiar with Yiannopoulos’s theatrics, or Breitbart’s self-appointment as Donald Trump’s Pravda, will not be surprised to learn that the article is a 5,000-word whitewash. But it is valuable, in this way: It exhibits, albeit inadvertently, the moral and intellectual rot at the heart of the Alt-Right." And "And it’s worth noting that the favorite slur the Alt-Right flings at conservatives they dislike is at bottom about miscegenation" and "There is, then, contra Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, continuity on the Alt-Right, from the more interesting thinkers to the “1488ers.”" (neo-Nazis). Any objection to adding a quote from him that reflects what he actually thinks? Doug Weller talk 18:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the Alt-Right for Real?. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I read the citation after "a neologistic racist epithet" but found nothing stating that "cuckservative" is racist. It might be many things (sexist, patriarchal, etc.) but how is it racist? My edit was rolled back with "many, many sources disagree" but the article cites no sources on how cuckservative is racist. It'd be helpful if the article would note how such a term is racist, as it is not apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.14.75 ( talk) 04:03, 3 May 2016
but the term, at its core, may be racist.It also say
What is certain is that it fermented in the racist depths of the Internet...and
But for the white nationalist movement, the term has come to represent much more – the ultimate insult to a politicians whose interests, they feel, should be closer in line with the mores and values of the ultra-conservative white nationalist right.If you need more sources, they are at the cuckservative article, which is a better place to explain the racist usage and origins of the term. Grayfell ( talk) 04:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
When Ms. Gray, the BuzzFeed reporter, wrote about the “alt right” movement of white supremacists, she knew exactly what she would face, and she said she took it in stride.To me, that only supports that the alt-right is white supremacist, or at least that the alt-right's tendency towards harassment can be taken for granted. I see nothing else relevant in that article. Grayfell ( talk) 06:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Defining alt-right politics as racist under the excuse "But BuzzFeed said it" is completely biased. BuzzFeed is far left, Anti-Trump and create uninsightful border ridiculous arguments.
This media outlet is the same one which tries to persuade people that Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). they are cleaning their genitals incorrectly
next to posting their political 'arguments'. They are not a fair or viable source and most of the statements cited by BuzzFeedare just accusations of Racism.
The pages for left-wing politics are not littered with "Communism", "Black Supremacy" , etc. So these opinion driven statements should be removed from this page for an unbias, fair Wikipedia.
Do we have any sources for this? It's in the string of -ism's from the The Occidental Quarterly source. However, we never actually discuss or justify it and (aside from being a "bad anti-demographic -ism" to go along with the others) I don't recall finding any indication of it in other sources I've read.
I'm not sure if The Occidental Quarterly should be quoted here at all, honestly. It looks like a pretty patchy short blog post, and the author writes things like:
Steve Sailer’s article on “The Dispossessed Elite” indicates that Alternative Right will broach the Jewish question (having resolved my questions, I prefer to call it the Jewish problem).
Definitely seems like a primary source without much intrinsic authority. Exercisephys ( talk) 04:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the alt-right movement isn't restricted to social media. Assuming not, "many" should be prepended to this sentence:
Members of the alt-right use social media and internet message boards such asreddit, 4chan, and 8chan to share their beliefs.
Also, as I've pointed out before, the source used for that statement is trash, to a comical degree. It also only gives one (1) example of alt-right people using social media. I'll spare you explanations of the other reasons why this source is ridiculous because they're obvious upon opening it (or even looking at the ref line). Exercisephys ( talk) 04:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not certain about the ADL blog [4] citation. First, while it is from the ADL, it's still an anonymous blog on their site. Second, its usage here is inaccurate. The blog is about the term "cuckservative" and in terms of "alternative right", the term alternative right is said to be "a term used by white supremacists to refer to renegade conservatives who have adopted white supremacist viewpoints and have essentially removed themselves from mainstream conservatism." Unless white supremacists are considered the moderate non- WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV crowd, I don't think the fact that white supremacists call these let's say dog whistle white supremacist views the alternative right is relevant. Further, it really does not remotely support the statement at all (unless we say that this is a view from white supremacists) that the alt right is actually a separate segment since the statement indicates that (at least according to the white supremacists again) that these "renegade conservatives" aren't a part of mainstream conservatism at all and are distinct. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Guys, we can squabble over Buzzfeed and Fusion sources, but we need to face the larger fact: this article is trash. It needs to be revamped. It seems like a group of far-left editors have realized that they have majority presence here and therefore nitpick every change until outsiders get tired and give up.
It's easy to skirmish on details, but any reasonable editor will immediately realize that the article is partisan fluff, a patchwork of social justice tabloid tirades. The majority of the text is just disparate acidic blurbs from political commentators. I think the Reception section should be at most two paragraphs, given the current amount of actual descriptive content.
If we can't find reliable, objective, reserved sources, this article should be aggressively pared down until we find some.
I'm honestly going to try to be constructive. But until we realize that the existing material is garbage, it will accrete rather than improve. Exercisephys ( talk) 20:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
You think trying to fix this article is easy or simple?
Nominate the article for deletion if you want, or bring forth better sources if you have them. Otherwise I fail to see what this is supposed to accomplish.
The entire article is absolute rubbish. I believe you would receive a more accurate depiction of Donald Trump from Hillary Clinton than you would of the Alt-Right from this article. One of the first things that one reads is that it's highlights are white nationalism, anti-immigration, male supremacy, far-right, and every other common buzzword used to demonize the ideological counterpart to the contemporary progressive. Need we truly look nowhere further than the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.167.146 ( talk) 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
clpo13 suggested this, and I think it's a good first step. This paragraph probably has the highest density of redundant vitriole:
Michael Dougherty writing in The Week describes the alt-right as radical working-class white people who are critical of globalization and contemptuous of "permanent members of the political class".[27] However, Rick Wilson, an opponent of Donald Trump, rejected this distinction, calling the alt-right "crazy ... childless single men who masturbate to anime," and who have "plenty of Hitler iconography in their Twitter icons."[28][29] Similarly, Cathy Young writing in Newsday called the alt-right "a nest of anti-Semitism" inhabited by "white supremacists" who regularly use "repulsive bigotry".[6] Likewise, Chris Hayes on All In with Chris Hayes described the "alt right" as a euphemistic term for "essentially modern day white supremacy."[30]
Any objections? Exercisephys ( talk) 00:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
[The alt-right] has already triggered a string of fearful op-eds and hit pieces from both Left and Right: Lefties dismiss it as racist, while the conservative press, always desperate to avoid charges of bigotry from the Left, has thrown these young readers and voters to the wolves as well.