![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
But there are numerous reliable sources highlighting it as a defining aspect of the Alt-Right. Our responsibility is to weight things according to the sources; there are no sources saying that the Alt-Right is uniquely notable for using words or images, but there are numerous high-profile sources saying that one of the most noteworthy things about it is its use of memes. Therefore, we have to cover that prominently in the article. Likewise, in describing their beliefs, we have to adopt the WP:TONE of the sources that have described them, which means that we have to include doubts from reliable news sources in the beliefs section - we cannot separate it out into the reactions section, since that leaves the beliefs section in a state that doesn't accurately reflect the tone of coverage. Again, if you want to argue that we should not give such prominent focus to the use of memes, you have to argue that it is not prominent in the sources - it's not enough to say "oh, they use memes just like they use words or images"; you have to argue that there isn't significant coverage of the use of memes as a defining feature of the Alt-Right. Are you arguing that position? Because I feel I've provided enough sources to at least support the fact that the main section discussing the Alt-Right needs a section on memes. The purpose of this article, after all, is to describe the topic according to what reliable sources have said; if you want to structure it in some other way, provide a suggestion, but please don't move it to the middle of the 'reactions and analysis' section again - there are far more sources (many of them higher-profile) describing the use of memes than there are on any part of the beliefs, so we have to put that aspect front-and-center. If you feel that some aspects of it are commentary and not news and therefore belong in the commentary section, sure, we can split it out, but I think it's obvious from the level of sourcing I've provided that we at least need to mention the fact that the alt-right makes heavy use of internet memes somewhere more prominently than midway through the commentary section. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Here, I'll go over the sources which describe memes as central:
None of these are presented as commentary, or analysis, or opinion-pieces, or as reactions, or as analysis; these are presented, in those articles, as the basic description of what the alt-right is. Above right-wing populism, above libertarianism, above nativism or white supremicism or antisemitism, memes are what these sources say the alt-right is about. They're presented as its defining feature. Now, you might disagree with some of these sources; you might feel that there's more to say or that this has to be weighted against other sources. Sure! We're not replacing the entire beliefs section with this or anything like that; and if you feel there are other takes on the alt-right's use of memes (eg. the paragraph could say a bit more about the argument that the memes themselves are just trolling in an attempt to get a reaction or something), you can edit that in. But the sourcing is extremely strong and heavily supports the argument that, however we ultimately present it, internet memes (especially 'racist' or 'shocking' ones) are a major defining feature of the alt-right and require a correspondingly prominent feature in the article. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Please include sources here for inclusion in main article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carneyred ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
This is about this edit. I have several problems with this:
The series of James Delingpole's one word quotes' seems disjointed, and that introduces NPOV problems. Earlier he says that the alt-right movement is ...loosely defined and fissiparous, mostly existing only in internet chat rooms and on social media pages.
Only later does he comment on racism and antisemitism, and only in this one paragraph of a longer piece:
Part of me feels uncomfortable defending the alt-right because it has been associated with anti-Semitism and racism. Yes, most of this stuff is confected and insincere — just mischievous internet kids experimenting with irony, knowing that if there’s one way absolutely guaranteed to rile the grown-ups it’s a hideously tasteless Holocaust joke. But undeniably for some of the alt-right’s more extreme exponents, it’s a sincere expression of their philosophical core.
The very next paragraph he cites a youtube blogger as explaining that ...it’s about the idea that white culture (which they identify interchangeably with western civilisation) is under threat and must be preserved for the future of the race.
That doesn't sound insincere to me at all, that says that he believes this is sincerely about race. Highlighting this the jokey aspect of the article while ignoring the rest is misleading.
Another problem is that he's not "echoing" Tuttle, he's echoing his colleagues at Breitbart, Yiannopoulos and Bokhari. Their positions are supported by secondary sources, because they prompted multiple replies by experts and reliable sources. This article isn't anywhere close to that level, as far as I can tell. James Delingpole is not impartial or uninvolved. Quoting him in the same paragraph by name without mentioning his connection to Yiannopoulos, who is specifically mentioned in the article, is misleading through omission and overstates his significance and expertise.
The third problem is that I don't really see what this quote adds. It seem redundant with content already in the paragraph. Is a new fact or perspective being introduced? This wouldn't be a big deal if the other issues were addressed, but I don't think it's worth it. Grayfell ( talk) 05:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To be added to the "Beliefs" section of the page:
Jeff Deist of the Ludwig von Mises Institute has described the alt-Right movement not as fundamentalist Christian but merely as “culturally Christian,” being more marked by being “anti-establishment,” “anti-GOP,” and "more than anything" populist. Because the alt-Right is populist, it is also “openly nationalist. . . . This idea of a uniquely American identity is okay with the alt-right.” Deist continued:
“The alt-Right has been tarred as racist and xenophobic. That may be true, but it may also be true that a more charitable view of the alt-Right would seemthem as simply saying ‘Hey look, identity politics is a two-way street'.”
Deist's presentation: [1]
JosephFrontroyal ( talk) 22:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe the first three paragraphs of the article may be more succinctly written as two. For clarity's sake, I've left out the hyperlinks and sources but could easily add them if this two-paragraph introduction is acceptable. Here it is:
The alt-right (also called the Alternative Right or the alt-Right) is a segment of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in the politics of the United States. As such, the alt-right has been described as an "amorphous conservative movement." Nevertheless, the alt-right movement has also been described as largely unified by support for Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump.
As a largely amorphous movement not officially associated with any particular ideology, the alt-right has been said to be a largely online movement. Members of the alt-right, said to significantly younger than mainstream conservatives, often uses internet meme to advance or express their beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan; much of the coverage of the alt-right has focused on the memes it has produced.
68.37.53.31 ( talk) 19:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Please discuss here on the talk page and once a consensus is reached, an editor can make any necessary changes (or the edit request can be reopened if needed). ‑‑
ElHef (
Meep?)
19:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
All the shit about white supremacy should be taken out. That is nothing but bullshit opinion and is not backed by facts at all.
67.238.81.178 (
talk)
16:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template.
clpo13(
talk)
17:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the reliable source in the lede that: However, political analyst Rick Wilson, disputes these descriptions and instead, calls the alt-right "crazy ... childless single men who masturbate to anime," and who have "plenty of Hitler iconography in their Twitter icons." [1] [2]
We should reflect all opinions here about the beliefs of the alt right. 107.77.231.232 ( talk) 12:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Instead of edit-warring over this, I'd like someone to explain their position. I personally don't see any need to include that extra description in front of the name of the magazine. That type of thing is basically never done, in my experience, and I don't see any reason to do it here. Anyone curious about The Weekly Standard can click through and read about it, just as they can for any of the other magazines, journals, websites, etc mentioned all over the encyclopedia. — Torchiest talk edits 04:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The question as I see it is: Are the adjectives used to describe this magazine important context for what they're used for? Does it make the article more informative? I believe so. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 07:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
For a mainstream well-known publication or media outlet, such as Forbes or Fox News or the NY Times, adjectives would be superfluous. The Weekly Standard is a little-known fringe publication. Moreover, the quote from the magazine is in a section regarding praise for the alt-right movement, and as PeterTheFourth touched on, context is important in a section like that, especially for a magazine that's not well-known. Rockypedia ( talk) 12:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Rockypedia: No, I didn't already know that, since I'm not familiar with Mic, and I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith. But congrats, your attitude has caused me to lose interest in this conversation. — Torchiest talk edits 02:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I feel it's the other way around, since the description shouldn't be included, it doesn't matter what the description is. There's no precedent to include redundant descriptions of outlets—or redundant descriptions of anything, really—and there isn't even a consensus on this talk page to include the redundant description. Zaostao ( talk) 22:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Late to the game here, just wanted to add my 2 cents - User James Labden is absolutely right, as the Weekly Standard is most certainly a well-known conservative publication that anyone who regularly reads US political news will be familiar with. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen ( talk) 21:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Buzzfeed is not a reliable source, and should be removed per WP:IRS. Look at the questionable sources tab to see why it is not a proper candidate. That is all. R00b07 ( talk) 05:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyone wanting to rule out using Buzzfeed at all needs to go to RSN as that's where it was discussed before. In the discussions in the past here it's been decided that using the Gray article is not a problem, in part because the article was used in other clearly reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 20:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict)If we made the talk-page archiving less frequent, would that reduce the number of times we repeat the same conversations? Probably not. Most news outlets make a distinction between editorial content and reporting. This has been true for over a hundred years. Much of their journalism is presented in a juvenile, (frankly obnoxious) format, and they produce a massive amount of editorial content, but BuzzFeed makes the same distinction. BuzzFeed has won multiple industry awards, including a Peabody. The FAIR article cited says "While BuzzFeed has certainly done important work of late..." and cites an NPR story explaining the incongruity. As far as I know, media analysts do not say the same about Breitbart, and its many errors and ethical lapses in journalism have been widely documented.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles ( WP:CIRC), and using it to 'debunk' the validity of a listicle is missing the point. This really isn't the place to start recycling tired wage gap talking points, but the BuzzFeed article is specifically discussing Census Bureau statistics, and the article itself points out that the situation is far more complicated than that. As abrasive as that article is, it does a remarkably good job of citing its sources, and those sources exist whether you agree with them or not.
Citing one of Anita Sarkeesian's tweets demonstrates a poor understanding of Wikipedia's standards for sources, and describing her as 'darling of the left' looks like an attempted appeal to emotion. We're not trying to keep a tally of Left vs. Right. Wikipedia has well-established guidelines for identifying reliable sources. Original research is not accepted. Grayfell ( talk) 21:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Source number five, if followed, leads to a newsday article which very clearly states "opinion" on it. Cathy Young isn't necessarily a bad journalist, however, I believe citing an opinion piece necessarily transfers the bias from the piece in question to the article. I believe it should be removed as a source. TheSageOfNE ( talk) 22:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stop removing pertinent information on the SPLC just because you do not agree with it. I listed numerous sources to show their bias and attacks on those they disagree with, including the FBI dropping them as unreliable. Hmmreally ( talk) 06:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hillary Clinton is set to make a dog whistle speech in Reno August 25 2016 in a campaign attempt to tie Trump and his campaign advisors to the ‘alt-right’ political philosophy. Daddyojjj ( talk) 16:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
synthesis inline}}
after the text "various sources" and "much of the coverage" in the lead.
WP:SYNTH:Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.
... But the alt-right has often seemed more diffuse than that, more of a catch-all for the least presentable elements of the online right: white nationalists"
... the alt-right, a mostly online movement of mostly white nationalists ...
... The rise of this sort of Internet-savvy racist trolling has accompanied the ascension of the alt-right, an amorphous, politically right-leaning group that has attracted the loyalty of the casually anti-politically correct; the racist meme lords who are mainly in it for the trolling and jokes; and more traditional white supremacists ..."
Ilovetopaint ( talk) 04:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The alt-right's use of internet memes to advance or express their beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan, has been widely reported" / "
The prevalence of memes in alt-right circles has led some commentators ..." / "
Various sources have stated the alt-right as being composed of ..."
Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication..
mainstream conservatism has far too eagerly conceded territory to the progressive opposition in order to demonstrate its caring, fluffy side. Even when conservative administrations have been in office they have failed to arrest the leftwards drift of the culture. Clearly something had to give ... for a certain kind of red-meat conservative intellectual it has coalesced into a movement (albeit loosely defined and fissiparous, mostly existing only in internet chat rooms and on social media pages) known as the alt-right. ... it has been associated with anti-Semitism and racism ... Ultimately — as blogger Sargon of Akkad explains on a YouTube investigation — it’s about the idea that white culture (which they identify interchangeably with western civilisation) is under threat and must be preserved for the future of the race.— Delingpole, James (July 30, 2016). "Why the alt-right isn't wrong". The Spectator.
The movement is loosely defined and fissiparous. While it has been associated with anti-semitism and racism, the alt-right is ultimately based in the idea of preserving western civilization (identified interchangeably with "white culture").
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Commentary", please change "On April 25, 2016, Democratic presidential candidate" to "On August 25, 2016, Democratic presidential candidate". This is clearly just an error in typing the month. The linked sources in the article have the correct date.
108.131.15.96 (
talk)
04:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
"Alt right" is what some dunce heard. It's a made version of ultra right.-- 74.190.108.205 ( talk) 05:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems like many sources link alt-right beliefs to an opposition to political correctness, or what is sometimes more recently called Social Justice. A lot of alt-right folks (and Donald Trump, who seems to be the alt-right godfather) heavily criticize things like safe spaces and radical feminism. I've used the sixth source to add something about this.
I looked for other sources, but they tend to be mainly blogs and such, which I'd rather avoid. Anyway, I feel this is an important part of the movement. You hear things like "immigrants cause problems, sorry but I'm not PC." Anyway, I added a reference to the body and will look for more sources. Am I wrong, here? CarolOfTheForest ( talk) 13:32, 26 August 2016 (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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
But there are numerous reliable sources highlighting it as a defining aspect of the Alt-Right. Our responsibility is to weight things according to the sources; there are no sources saying that the Alt-Right is uniquely notable for using words or images, but there are numerous high-profile sources saying that one of the most noteworthy things about it is its use of memes. Therefore, we have to cover that prominently in the article. Likewise, in describing their beliefs, we have to adopt the WP:TONE of the sources that have described them, which means that we have to include doubts from reliable news sources in the beliefs section - we cannot separate it out into the reactions section, since that leaves the beliefs section in a state that doesn't accurately reflect the tone of coverage. Again, if you want to argue that we should not give such prominent focus to the use of memes, you have to argue that it is not prominent in the sources - it's not enough to say "oh, they use memes just like they use words or images"; you have to argue that there isn't significant coverage of the use of memes as a defining feature of the Alt-Right. Are you arguing that position? Because I feel I've provided enough sources to at least support the fact that the main section discussing the Alt-Right needs a section on memes. The purpose of this article, after all, is to describe the topic according to what reliable sources have said; if you want to structure it in some other way, provide a suggestion, but please don't move it to the middle of the 'reactions and analysis' section again - there are far more sources (many of them higher-profile) describing the use of memes than there are on any part of the beliefs, so we have to put that aspect front-and-center. If you feel that some aspects of it are commentary and not news and therefore belong in the commentary section, sure, we can split it out, but I think it's obvious from the level of sourcing I've provided that we at least need to mention the fact that the alt-right makes heavy use of internet memes somewhere more prominently than midway through the commentary section. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Here, I'll go over the sources which describe memes as central:
None of these are presented as commentary, or analysis, or opinion-pieces, or as reactions, or as analysis; these are presented, in those articles, as the basic description of what the alt-right is. Above right-wing populism, above libertarianism, above nativism or white supremicism or antisemitism, memes are what these sources say the alt-right is about. They're presented as its defining feature. Now, you might disagree with some of these sources; you might feel that there's more to say or that this has to be weighted against other sources. Sure! We're not replacing the entire beliefs section with this or anything like that; and if you feel there are other takes on the alt-right's use of memes (eg. the paragraph could say a bit more about the argument that the memes themselves are just trolling in an attempt to get a reaction or something), you can edit that in. But the sourcing is extremely strong and heavily supports the argument that, however we ultimately present it, internet memes (especially 'racist' or 'shocking' ones) are a major defining feature of the alt-right and require a correspondingly prominent feature in the article. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Please include sources here for inclusion in main article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carneyred ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
This is about this edit. I have several problems with this:
The series of James Delingpole's one word quotes' seems disjointed, and that introduces NPOV problems. Earlier he says that the alt-right movement is ...loosely defined and fissiparous, mostly existing only in internet chat rooms and on social media pages.
Only later does he comment on racism and antisemitism, and only in this one paragraph of a longer piece:
Part of me feels uncomfortable defending the alt-right because it has been associated with anti-Semitism and racism. Yes, most of this stuff is confected and insincere — just mischievous internet kids experimenting with irony, knowing that if there’s one way absolutely guaranteed to rile the grown-ups it’s a hideously tasteless Holocaust joke. But undeniably for some of the alt-right’s more extreme exponents, it’s a sincere expression of their philosophical core.
The very next paragraph he cites a youtube blogger as explaining that ...it’s about the idea that white culture (which they identify interchangeably with western civilisation) is under threat and must be preserved for the future of the race.
That doesn't sound insincere to me at all, that says that he believes this is sincerely about race. Highlighting this the jokey aspect of the article while ignoring the rest is misleading.
Another problem is that he's not "echoing" Tuttle, he's echoing his colleagues at Breitbart, Yiannopoulos and Bokhari. Their positions are supported by secondary sources, because they prompted multiple replies by experts and reliable sources. This article isn't anywhere close to that level, as far as I can tell. James Delingpole is not impartial or uninvolved. Quoting him in the same paragraph by name without mentioning his connection to Yiannopoulos, who is specifically mentioned in the article, is misleading through omission and overstates his significance and expertise.
The third problem is that I don't really see what this quote adds. It seem redundant with content already in the paragraph. Is a new fact or perspective being introduced? This wouldn't be a big deal if the other issues were addressed, but I don't think it's worth it. Grayfell ( talk) 05:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To be added to the "Beliefs" section of the page:
Jeff Deist of the Ludwig von Mises Institute has described the alt-Right movement not as fundamentalist Christian but merely as “culturally Christian,” being more marked by being “anti-establishment,” “anti-GOP,” and "more than anything" populist. Because the alt-Right is populist, it is also “openly nationalist. . . . This idea of a uniquely American identity is okay with the alt-right.” Deist continued:
“The alt-Right has been tarred as racist and xenophobic. That may be true, but it may also be true that a more charitable view of the alt-Right would seemthem as simply saying ‘Hey look, identity politics is a two-way street'.”
Deist's presentation: [1]
JosephFrontroyal ( talk) 22:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe the first three paragraphs of the article may be more succinctly written as two. For clarity's sake, I've left out the hyperlinks and sources but could easily add them if this two-paragraph introduction is acceptable. Here it is:
The alt-right (also called the Alternative Right or the alt-Right) is a segment of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in the politics of the United States. As such, the alt-right has been described as an "amorphous conservative movement." Nevertheless, the alt-right movement has also been described as largely unified by support for Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump.
As a largely amorphous movement not officially associated with any particular ideology, the alt-right has been said to be a largely online movement. Members of the alt-right, said to significantly younger than mainstream conservatives, often uses internet meme to advance or express their beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan; much of the coverage of the alt-right has focused on the memes it has produced.
68.37.53.31 ( talk) 19:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Please discuss here on the talk page and once a consensus is reached, an editor can make any necessary changes (or the edit request can be reopened if needed). ‑‑
ElHef (
Meep?)
19:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
All the shit about white supremacy should be taken out. That is nothing but bullshit opinion and is not backed by facts at all.
67.238.81.178 (
talk)
16:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template.
clpo13(
talk)
17:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the reliable source in the lede that: However, political analyst Rick Wilson, disputes these descriptions and instead, calls the alt-right "crazy ... childless single men who masturbate to anime," and who have "plenty of Hitler iconography in their Twitter icons." [1] [2]
We should reflect all opinions here about the beliefs of the alt right. 107.77.231.232 ( talk) 12:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Instead of edit-warring over this, I'd like someone to explain their position. I personally don't see any need to include that extra description in front of the name of the magazine. That type of thing is basically never done, in my experience, and I don't see any reason to do it here. Anyone curious about The Weekly Standard can click through and read about it, just as they can for any of the other magazines, journals, websites, etc mentioned all over the encyclopedia. — Torchiest talk edits 04:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The question as I see it is: Are the adjectives used to describe this magazine important context for what they're used for? Does it make the article more informative? I believe so. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 07:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
For a mainstream well-known publication or media outlet, such as Forbes or Fox News or the NY Times, adjectives would be superfluous. The Weekly Standard is a little-known fringe publication. Moreover, the quote from the magazine is in a section regarding praise for the alt-right movement, and as PeterTheFourth touched on, context is important in a section like that, especially for a magazine that's not well-known. Rockypedia ( talk) 12:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Rockypedia: No, I didn't already know that, since I'm not familiar with Mic, and I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith. But congrats, your attitude has caused me to lose interest in this conversation. — Torchiest talk edits 02:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I feel it's the other way around, since the description shouldn't be included, it doesn't matter what the description is. There's no precedent to include redundant descriptions of outlets—or redundant descriptions of anything, really—and there isn't even a consensus on this talk page to include the redundant description. Zaostao ( talk) 22:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Late to the game here, just wanted to add my 2 cents - User James Labden is absolutely right, as the Weekly Standard is most certainly a well-known conservative publication that anyone who regularly reads US political news will be familiar with. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen ( talk) 21:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Buzzfeed is not a reliable source, and should be removed per WP:IRS. Look at the questionable sources tab to see why it is not a proper candidate. That is all. R00b07 ( talk) 05:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyone wanting to rule out using Buzzfeed at all needs to go to RSN as that's where it was discussed before. In the discussions in the past here it's been decided that using the Gray article is not a problem, in part because the article was used in other clearly reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 20:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict)If we made the talk-page archiving less frequent, would that reduce the number of times we repeat the same conversations? Probably not. Most news outlets make a distinction between editorial content and reporting. This has been true for over a hundred years. Much of their journalism is presented in a juvenile, (frankly obnoxious) format, and they produce a massive amount of editorial content, but BuzzFeed makes the same distinction. BuzzFeed has won multiple industry awards, including a Peabody. The FAIR article cited says "While BuzzFeed has certainly done important work of late..." and cites an NPR story explaining the incongruity. As far as I know, media analysts do not say the same about Breitbart, and its many errors and ethical lapses in journalism have been widely documented.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles ( WP:CIRC), and using it to 'debunk' the validity of a listicle is missing the point. This really isn't the place to start recycling tired wage gap talking points, but the BuzzFeed article is specifically discussing Census Bureau statistics, and the article itself points out that the situation is far more complicated than that. As abrasive as that article is, it does a remarkably good job of citing its sources, and those sources exist whether you agree with them or not.
Citing one of Anita Sarkeesian's tweets demonstrates a poor understanding of Wikipedia's standards for sources, and describing her as 'darling of the left' looks like an attempted appeal to emotion. We're not trying to keep a tally of Left vs. Right. Wikipedia has well-established guidelines for identifying reliable sources. Original research is not accepted. Grayfell ( talk) 21:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Source number five, if followed, leads to a newsday article which very clearly states "opinion" on it. Cathy Young isn't necessarily a bad journalist, however, I believe citing an opinion piece necessarily transfers the bias from the piece in question to the article. I believe it should be removed as a source. TheSageOfNE ( talk) 22:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stop removing pertinent information on the SPLC just because you do not agree with it. I listed numerous sources to show their bias and attacks on those they disagree with, including the FBI dropping them as unreliable. Hmmreally ( talk) 06:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hillary Clinton is set to make a dog whistle speech in Reno August 25 2016 in a campaign attempt to tie Trump and his campaign advisors to the ‘alt-right’ political philosophy. Daddyojjj ( talk) 16:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
synthesis inline}}
after the text "various sources" and "much of the coverage" in the lead.
WP:SYNTH:Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.
... But the alt-right has often seemed more diffuse than that, more of a catch-all for the least presentable elements of the online right: white nationalists"
... the alt-right, a mostly online movement of mostly white nationalists ...
... The rise of this sort of Internet-savvy racist trolling has accompanied the ascension of the alt-right, an amorphous, politically right-leaning group that has attracted the loyalty of the casually anti-politically correct; the racist meme lords who are mainly in it for the trolling and jokes; and more traditional white supremacists ..."
Ilovetopaint ( talk) 04:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The alt-right's use of internet memes to advance or express their beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan, has been widely reported" / "
The prevalence of memes in alt-right circles has led some commentators ..." / "
Various sources have stated the alt-right as being composed of ..."
Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication..
mainstream conservatism has far too eagerly conceded territory to the progressive opposition in order to demonstrate its caring, fluffy side. Even when conservative administrations have been in office they have failed to arrest the leftwards drift of the culture. Clearly something had to give ... for a certain kind of red-meat conservative intellectual it has coalesced into a movement (albeit loosely defined and fissiparous, mostly existing only in internet chat rooms and on social media pages) known as the alt-right. ... it has been associated with anti-Semitism and racism ... Ultimately — as blogger Sargon of Akkad explains on a YouTube investigation — it’s about the idea that white culture (which they identify interchangeably with western civilisation) is under threat and must be preserved for the future of the race.— Delingpole, James (July 30, 2016). "Why the alt-right isn't wrong". The Spectator.
The movement is loosely defined and fissiparous. While it has been associated with anti-semitism and racism, the alt-right is ultimately based in the idea of preserving western civilization (identified interchangeably with "white culture").
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Commentary", please change "On April 25, 2016, Democratic presidential candidate" to "On August 25, 2016, Democratic presidential candidate". This is clearly just an error in typing the month. The linked sources in the article have the correct date.
108.131.15.96 (
talk)
04:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
"Alt right" is what some dunce heard. It's a made version of ultra right.-- 74.190.108.205 ( talk) 05:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems like many sources link alt-right beliefs to an opposition to political correctness, or what is sometimes more recently called Social Justice. A lot of alt-right folks (and Donald Trump, who seems to be the alt-right godfather) heavily criticize things like safe spaces and radical feminism. I've used the sixth source to add something about this.
I looked for other sources, but they tend to be mainly blogs and such, which I'd rather avoid. Anyway, I feel this is an important part of the movement. You hear things like "immigrants cause problems, sorry but I'm not PC." Anyway, I added a reference to the body and will look for more sources. Am I wrong, here? CarolOfTheForest ( talk) 13:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)