![]() | 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 |
Just removed cuckold and culture war. These templates aren't for concepts that are only loosely or tangentially related. The article content needs to tie them to this topic. Culture war doesn't look to get past 2009 in the US, and cuckold seems to just be there because of cuckservative (which is already included)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Anticommunism, sure, in the sense that any conservative movement could be said to be anticommunist. I'm sure there are people much better versed in the scholarly literature than I; what connects the alt-right in particular to the concept? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopolous, and Lauren Southern are not Alt-right! They are Alt-lite! All Alt-lite media and figures will be immediately terminated! The Republican party and French National Front are also not Alt-right, that will be removed as well. The Alt-right is most certainly not conservative, if you read their publications it is pretty clear they despise and criticize most conservatives as "cuckservatives".
The political parties section is irrelevant, there are already a handful of alt right organizations that already exist, and besides this is more of an Anglosphere movement. If you want to include European parties into the mix, make an Identitarian sidebar for them.
As for the Anticommunism I will reintroduce it. Altrighters have a specific deposition to egalitarianism that is linked to their libertarian origin. All their history up to now has been a reaction to the left and its supposed "marxist takeover". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillzon ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, and so did this person: "I have issue with the fact that individuals who do not identify as alt-right are categorized as alt-right due to certain media outlets categorizing them as such. Notable individuals like Mike Cernovich, Lauren Southern, Alex Jones, and Paul Joseph Watson who do not identify as alt-right."
The people listed above are not alt right, they're just conservatives who either try to be "edgy" to the informal term, or are label alt right due to their deviation from the standard conservative zeitgeist. Think about liberals, conservatives call them COMMUNISTS all the time, but in fact they are not, this is similar. Wikipedia does not base its labels on hyperbole.
P.S: I'll try to look into the relationship between the alt right and the radical left in detail soon, maybe in a few days time. Lillzon ( talk) 21:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree, as for the Memetics section. I had to reintroduce it because it is the literal "armed wing" of the alt right. Memetic warfare is literally a serious military tactic discussed by experts and sites like 8chan apply it with deadly accuracy. It may sound ridiculous, it did to me, but I wouldn't include it if it wasn't legitimate. The term "memetics" is used instead of memes because it isn't just a superficial message. If you see the forums and blogs of these peoples, these "memes" are applied as both a weapon and a morale booster. This fascinating political rhetoric DESERVES its own section, it is an integral part of their ideology. Lillzon ( talk) 02:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, the memetics thing is a good compromise, I'll try to write that when I have the time.
However, I do not care what a minority of left wing articles say, Malik Obama, Donald Trump, Lauren Southern, and Gavin McInnes are not white separatists, nor are they associated with the identitarian movement. Infowars and the Rebel also do not associate with the alt right anymore, they left the label behind when the identitarians like Richard Spencer became more prominent. thus they are no longer "the majority". They are conservative people hosting conservative shows, misinterpreting their ideologies is why I specifically created the Alt-lite article to address this issue.
If people continue to place conservatives on the alt right sidebar, I will continue to remove them, end of story. This is not personal opinion, this is from taking into account the racial, social, and political beliefs of these people and organizations. Lillzon ( talk) 03:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Fine, I honestly don't want to put the Sisyphean effort of convincing Wikipedia to put conservatives where conservatives belong, and where white nationalists where white nationalists belong. Lillzon ( talk) 02:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Should the alt-right have a persons section? Others such as conservatism, socialism, Marxism, nationalism, etc. have a section for notable people in the movement. It was recently removed. PerfectlyIrrational ( talk) 19:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Removed Alain de Benoist, only saw one cite for him at Alain de Benoist, best to have more than that for WP:BLP claims. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Removed Peter Brimelow, at article Peter Brimelow, zero sources call him alt-right, this is a WP:BLP violation. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Removed Nathan Damigo, as this is a redirect. He has no existing article on Wikipedia. Therefore he has no sourced page. Therefore his inclusion here violates WP:BLP. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
removed John Derbyshire , WP:BLP violation as his article has zero references about this. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
removed Charles C. Johnson, no mention in article body text of alt right, therefore inclusion here is WP:BLP violation. Removed. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
no reliable secondary sources in article identify him as alt right, therefore tagging him as such is WP:BLP violation without secondary sources. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
no mention in article body text identifying him as alt-right, therefore inclusion of template is WP:BLP violation. Removed. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
This sidebar needs to stop being a coatrack for every single possible topic the Alt-right have ever mentioned. If the page being linked to does not also have a very strong connection to the Alt-right, it does not belong in this template. This template is already way too large and full of cruft, and adding things like Ron Paul, simply because people who were fans of the campaign in 2008 went on to also be fans of the Alt-right, is ridiculous. Parabolist ( talk) 07:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Modified to footer template so as to not be so obtrusive and take over article space in article main body text.
Modeled after {{ White nationalism}}. Sagecandor ( talk) 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I am removing the article from this footer. Since the Alt-right in the US is often homophobic it seems very strange to have this here. StarryGrandma ( talk) 21:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this (pinging Von Sprat) - very few navboxes have images. The image would have to be more or less synonymous with the subject (i.e. a picture of a person for a navbox about that person, a logo, an icon, etc. for which there is a strong consensus among reliable sources that it signifies the subject and that the subject is signified by it). There's no doubt that the Pepe meme is associated with the alt-right, and it's probably the most recognizable graphic associated with it, but while Pepe points to the alt-right, the alt-right doesn't necessarily point to Pepe, if that makes sense. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Breitbart should be removed because it is a Jewish pro-Israel publication. Listing it among a group of neo-Nazis and white supremacists is pure anti-Semitism. Depicting Zionists as Nazis is a common demonization tactic used by the far left and Muslims to defame Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.95.66.183 ( talk) 14:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Alt-right footer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove proudboys from the organizers section. Proudboys ( talk) 22:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. No reason has been given for this change, and sources at
Proud Boys support the connection.
Grayfell (
talk)
22:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)What are the criteria for inclusion for people in this ox? Rhododendrites previously stated in an edit summary: "The standard for inclusion would be that the article connects the subject to the alt-right using reliable sources." This is the rule I have followed so far. However, it has become evident that there is no consensus on following this rule.
Right now the dispute is over inclusion of ' alt-lite' individuals. The status quo is that roughly half the individuals in the footer box would be associated with this category where their association with the alt-right is questionable. Attempting to set a standard by adding more of these people will result in a revert by one group of editors, while removing the current people listed will result in a revert by another group of editors.
I am not advocating for one 'side' or the other, just want to set a rule. It seems to me there are two ways this can be done.
What editors absolutely cannot do is just add and remove people on the basis of WP:OR and try to edit war their way to victory. I reached out to an individual who was doing this to find consensus, but the user went on to ignore my post on his personal talk page and continue edit warring. The user also made no attempt to add disputing sources to the original article pages. However, the user continued to insist consensus be found or he'd keep edit warring, so I can only assume the user meant consensus between myself and *other* users, which is what I'm attempting to find now.
Would be open to hearing suggestions as to how to clean this up. -- Jay942942 ( talk) 14:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Alt-right footer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Jared Taylor to the list of people in the alt-right footer. Horsebite22 ( talk) 23:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of Hill, per BLP policy and the above talk page discussion, but just realized I may be skirting the boundaries of WP:1RR. I will refrain from any more reverts while we discuss this. @ DrawingLol: please refrain from making any more additions to this template while we discuss. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 17:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Would you support splitting the members/factions into 4 or 5 seperate groups? For an example, look at the
Dark Enlightenment page. The alt-right is more a broad range of far-right groups that are nationalists and reactionary. Thoughts?
DrawingLol (
talk)
20:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I note Third Position as a somewhat-related topic for the benefit of editors here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Why is Antifeminism in here? I can't find "alt-right" mentioned anywhere at that article, on its talk page, or its talk page archives, and I can't find Antifeminism mentioned on this talk page or its archives. But I see it's been edit-warred over. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 02:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The case for Steve Sailer seems weak. The article says "Sailer's writing has been described as a precursor to Trumpism and the alt-right..." with two source citations. The first doesn't mention alt-right. The second is New York Magazine but all it says is "Sailer popularized the term “human biodiversity” (HBD) — now a mainstay on the alt-right". Kendall-K1 ( talk) 16:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Matthews Voxplains the Alt Right by muddying the waters and failing to grasp its major institutions and figures. He mentions Mr. Spencer only once in his 5,000-word article, and does not discuss Radix, AlternativeRight.com, or the National Policy Institute. VDARE, American Renaissance, and The Occidental Observer receive brief mentions, but Mr. Taylor, Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer, Paul “RamZPaul” Ramsey, and other figures most associated with the Alt Right, along with major websites like Counter Currents and The Right Stuff, are all omitted.
The strictest definition of the Alt-right includes other overtly racial thinkers like Jared Taylor who calls himself a “race realist”, Steve Sailer who writes about “human biodiversity” – a pretty transparent euphemism – and Nick Land who explores the idea of the “Dark Enlightenment”. All of these are to varying degrees preoccupied with racial IQ, the Bell Curve, Western civilisational decline due to increased racial impurity, cultural decadence, cultural Marxism and Islamification.
DrawingLol (
talk)
19:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Any objections to Gab.ai being added? DrawingLol ( talk) 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Etc.
DrawingLol ( talk) 19:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
He was
removed earlier. At the
Augustus Sol Invictus article, there's a citation to
this article, which says,
A prominent, controversial Libertarian provocateur often associated with white nationalists and the “alt-right,”
From
this article, we see
the 34-year-old former Orlando area attorney does have a following among white nationalists. Invictus headlined the ill-fated Unite the Right's Charlottesville rallies over the weekend.
Invictus attempted to run for office in 2015 as a Libertarian, though, and that may well be his true ideological home, even if the Libertarians don't want him. I question whether his intending to speak at a rally means he's part of the alt-right. Politicians often hang out with crowds they're not affiliated with, as a way of getting votes and other support.
On the other hand, I think navboxes will often include people who are only loosely associated with the topic of the navbox. It's more like the inclusion criterion is that they're of potential interest to people interested in the topic. In that way, it's like a "see also". A "see also" section doesn't require citations.
BLP policy seems mostly intended to protect people's lives from being harmed. (That's why it only applies to living people.) Is someone's life going to be harmed by inclusion in a "see also" or a navbox?
Notice that the navbox says "People"; it doesn't say "Proponents," "Members," or anything like that. Theoretically, "People" could even include opponents of the alt-right.
Smooth alligator (
talk)
17:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
::If there's consensus that more than "potential interest" is needed, my next question would be, is there any objection to removal of Augustus Sol Invictus, on that basis?
Smooth alligator (
talk)
17:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::It's not the greatest source, but it's better than nothing.
Smooth alligator (
talk)
00:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I would be cautious about using SPLC without attribution. There was recently a very long discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 230 and no conclusion was reached. Their editorial standards are pretty high but they have an agenda other than simply reporting the facts. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 06:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Any objections to William Regnery II being added? He is a top funder of the alt-right and the founder of the National Policy Institute. DrawingLol ( talk) 18:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
DrawingLol ( talk) 19:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Jay942942, Rhododendrites, and DrawingLol: We may want to re-open this discussion. There have been a large number of recent additions that do not look appropriate. Roosh V, for example, has explicitly said he is not part of the alt-right movement, and members of the movement have also said he is not part of it. There is nothing in the Michael Hill (activist) article to support adding him to this template. I have not checked the others. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 12:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
How much attention do we pay to whether the person identifies as part of the alt-right? E.g., suppose the reliable sources say, "This guy is part of the alt-right" yet they also report that he denies being part of the alt-right. Do we still include him in the template?
Smooth alligator (
talk)
18:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Another question: which of these related movements (neo-Nazis, neoreaction, etc.) are actually part of the alt-right, and which merely have overlapping themes? If a movement is actually a part of the alt-right, then can we use syllogism to say that someone who's part of that movement is also related to the alt-right, based on the idea that there's a looser standard for navboxes than for articles?
Smooth alligator (
talk)
19:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
So I think we have consensus that before we add any person or organization to this nav box, "the nature of the subject's relationship to the alt-right must be well established by multiple, reliable, secondary sources, and this relationship should be enduring, not fleeting. Appearing at an alt-right event, having some overlapping themes (e.g. neo-Nazis, run-of-the-mill conservative nationalists, etc.), sharing similar political views, or other passing associations by themselves should not merit inclusion. Ideally, association with the alt-right should be so substantially documented that we as editors don't have to quibble about inclusion." (per Animalparty). A clear statement of this relationship, along with source citations, must appear in the subject article. Are we agreed? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 14:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The case for Allsup seems weak. There's nothing in the body of the article that describes him as alt-right, but it's in the lead. The lone source I can find that ID's him as alt-right is Mediaite. Taken alone, does that qualify as WP:RS enough to justify describing him as alt-right in the lead? I ask for outside opinions here. Rockypedia ( talk) 16:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
https://www.twitter.com/realJamesAllsup/status/922387470641012736
https://www.twitter.com/realJamesAllsup/status/923113660750249984 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DrawingLol (
talk •
contribs)
18:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
From googling around a bit, I agree that the case for
James Allsup looks weak. At
http://www.theroot.com/washington-state-universitys-college-republicans-presid-1797816820 it says,
According to KREM, Allsup identifies as a “paleoconservative” (is that a new diet?) or a “right-wing libertarian” and believes that “alt-right” is a slur.
Smooth alligator (
talk)
21:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Sections by banned socks
|
---|
/pol/Any objections to
/pol/? This one seems obvious.
DrawingLol (
talk) 18:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
DrawingLol (
talk)
19:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Rise Above MovementAny objections to the Rise Above Movement being added? DrawingLol ( talk) 18:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
DrawingLol ( talk) 19:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
|
Any objections to adding him?
DrawingLol (
talk)
19:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
A clean-cut 27-year-old graphic designer, wearing black-framed glasses and brightly-colored shirts advertising Identity Movement slogans such as "Europa Nostra" -- "Our Europe" -- Sellner has been called the "hipster" of the far-right.There's been some debate as to whether alt-right and far-right are the same thing. Smooth alligator ( talk) 00:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
As we usually do, I've struck the comments by Smooth alligator as sock puppets aren't allowed to edit. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/St. claires fire. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't Greg Johnson (white nationalist) be added? CornFlakes ( talk) 07:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The case for Vox Day as a major figure in the alt-right is very weak. Milo Yiannapoulous appears to be the only person who has explicitly referred to him as such. I'm removing him from the template. Rockypedia ( talk) 18:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The case for Curtis Yarvin is that he's a part of the neo-reaction movement, and that movement is somehow related to the alt-right. I see no reliable sources that name Yarvin as a leader or originator of the alt-right movement itself. I'm removing him. Rockypedia ( talk) 14:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
To adding:
I'm planning on adding back the obvious ones. Anyone object? DrawingLol ( talk) 11:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to include Milo Yiannopoulos. He does reject the label, but there is a whole section in his article that talks about his relationship with the alt-right, and we have this statement with three citations: "Yiannopoulos is commonly associated with the alt-right." Kendall-K1 ( talk) 12:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I could continue, but there's only so many hours in a day. I agree, he belongs in the template. Rockypedia ( talk) 14:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I will have to request you undo the reversion of my deletion of Milo Yiannopolous. This is the second time my edit was reverted without a citation of why Milo should be considered a member of the Alt-Right. He personally disavows the Alt-Right, and the Alt-Right disavows him. Milo disavowing the Alt-Right [1] [2] Someone speaking for the Alt-Right stating their disagreement of what Milo does, including explicitly saying he is not a part of the Alt-Right [3]
References
If you can properly cite sources on what the Alt-Right is, and how that relates to how Milo is, despite his disagreements with the movement, and people within the movement not accepting him, then feel free to leave a note here with those citations and disregard my request to undo the reversion you have done.
As for Rockypedia's citations, I would state these are not valid arguments, as all the sources listed are third parties to this, and have their own personal reasons to claim Milo is Alt-Right when he claims he isn't, and the movement doesn't accept him. And I do notice other people have tried to remove Milo, and shifted to a sockpuppet to remove Milo. That person has nothing to do with me before anyone tries to claim I'm just another sockpuppet of someone else. C.D. Random ( talk) 09:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed some individuals on the list of alt-right people who seem to have been added because people have objections to them. The alt-right to me means people who advocate ethno-nationalism and the idea that the "white" race is in danger and needs protection. People like Milo, Alex Jones, Jack Posobiec do not really fit the bill. Are they right-wing figures, yes that cannot be denied, but alt-right is a very specific set of believes and just because someone is right-wing and controversial doesn't mean they are alt-right. Might as well add people like Ben Shapiro to the list, since he fits the bill of being right wing and controversial. Many of these people are also very disliked by the core of the Alt-right supporters. It would be akin to calling every liberal, a communist or marxist. I am in no means fans of these people, but let's not pretend that many news sources are not biased. Fox News does the same when they call people who do something disgusting as being associated with BLM (ala the Chicago teens torture situation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinzMaster ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe that Loomer is out, for obvious reasons. — Confession0791 talk 16:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not 100% opposed to having Taylor in this template, but if we're going to have a standard for inclusion, as previously discussed, I'd like to see more than "Taylor has often been described in media reports as associated with the alt-right" in the subject's article; I don't think that's nearly enough for putting him in this template. The category for "white supremacy" isn't even on his article, and that's far better supported in sources than "alt-right" currently is. Removing pending more discussion here. Rockypedia ( talk) 00:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Now, I'm aware that you do not consider all of these reliable sources, but given the sheer number on Taylor, I believe his inclusion is appropriate. -- Jay942942 ( talk) 10:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Editors on this talk page may also be interested in this discussion. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 07:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I really am struggling to find the utility in this template. As above discussions of inclusion indicates, adding people is especially contentious and problematic. I think the problem is "the alt-right" is not a clearly defined topic with a clearly defined set of articles, and thus contra guidelines
WP:NAV and
WP:NAVBOX, which state (emphasis added):
Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:
- All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
- The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
- The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
- There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
- If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.
In a well defined "set" theme for navboxes, each element has strong ties to the main subject and other element in the set, and a reader of one article would plausibly be interested in navigating to other articles (e.g. planets of the solar system, films directed by George Lucas, etc.). Articles in a navbox should refer to each other, and each include the navbox, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. As a comparative example, templates for very popular films by convention do not include actors ( WP:PERFNAV). Mark Hamill is universally known as Luke Skywalker, but he is not in {{ Star Wars}}, nor {{ Star Wars (film)}}. For official political parties we have clear-cut inclusion criteria for people, see {{ Democratic Party (United States)}} and {{ Republican Party (United States)}}: no one can argue about who has held the office of of Chairperson, and note that the boxes aren't cluttered with every person who is registered with those parties, nor every event, issue, and organization affiliated with the respective parties. The alt-right is not an official organization, and not a well defined entity, and thus almost every entry in this template involves on some level a subjective analysis of "how many sources say so-and-so is 'alt-right' vs how many times the subject has disputed or renounced the alt-right". With enough scrutiny, almost every person, and probably other entities can be considered not prudent to include by means of tangential relevance or ambiguous criteria. The cartoonist Ben Garrison may be popular with the alt-right, but I don't see anything in his article, nor actual reliable sources, to suggest he should be added as a central character. The article on Sebastian Gorka merely mentions "ties to the alt-right" once, in the lead. At times this template seems trying to take the place of the parent article: Alt-right. People having "ties" to the alt-right does not mean they are part of it. With regards to persons I think the logic of WP:COPDEF should be applied, and only cases with unambiguous/undebatable inclusion criteria be included. The least contentious choice would be to simply remove all persons. Perhaps if it is worth linking to alt-right in a biography, that article alone should suffice as covering the major topics. --Animalparty! ( talk) 22:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't support deleting the template, but parts of it clearly need a hatchet taken to them. {{ Occupy movement}} doesn't have any biographies included. Both {{ Tea Party movement}} and {{ Black Lives Matter}} have their own problems, but not as severe as those here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
As a first step, should we remove the BLPs from the template? K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
As a follow-up to the above, should the section "Organizations" be removed? It's my general understanding that there's no such thing as "alt-right ideology", it's more of a cultural phenomenon. The orgs are either white nationalist, neo-Nazi, etc. With that in mind, I'm thinking that the org section should be removed. Would love to get additional input. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This article says "Suspected Alt-right" and not confirmed. At this stage does it really warrant inclusion? @ Animalparty, EvergreenFir, and MichiganWoodShop: -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Should a category of "People" be added like what is in the Conservatism US and likewise Modern liberalism in the United States templates? -- RandomUser3510 ( talk) 05:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
All else aside, I don't think Gab is central enough to the alt-right to mention here. It's not even mentioned on our Alt-Right article, for instance. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"I feel like" and "seems to be" shouldn't be valid reasons for labeling an entity as part of a group, TuneyLoon. Either give concrete examples of how Gab is intended to be Alt-Right rather than a more open forum, or just leave it alone, is my opinion. Same goes for labeling Milo as Alt~Right. Just because of a group of journalists want to label a person part of a group, that doesn't make that person part of that group. Doubly so if that person themselves has denounced that group and that group has denounced him, as has happened with Milo and the Alt-Right. C.D. Random ( talk) 02:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
After a significant development of the article over recent months, it becomes clear that Gab belongs to this footer. Sources have rich support for alt-right being its main users, and the company itself caters to the group. Tsumikiria ( T/ C) 05:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@ יניב הורון:, I noticed my edit was removed, so I figured it would best to discuss it to avoid an edit war. The reason I added The Rebel Media to this template was primarily due to its inclusion in the Category:Alt-right as can be seen here. I will admit that I actually cannot find many WP:RS describing The Rebel Media (as an organization) as alt-right since this memo was released. However, at least two of its former hosts, Faith Goldy and Lauren Southern, can certainly be viewed as alt-right. Following that, we have it's unmistakable comparison to Breitbart (which is mentioned in the lead section). No one can really doubt where that news organization fits into the alt-right. The last reason I would support its inclusion in this template is for historical purposes. They used to consider themselves alt-right, and I think that warrants inclusion somewhere in this template. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 23:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
As I've already discussed on the page Talk:Faithful Word Baptist Church, that page should be labeled as "alt-right" and the name "Steven L. Anderson" on the alt-right template in the people section. Thank you. Signed Rushwrj13 June 9, 2019 2:10 AM EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushwrj13 ( talk • contribs) 06:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I think we should added Counter-jihad and Manosphere to related ideas section because of similarity to alt-right. 178.43.74.124 ( talk) 16:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, regarding recent edits I made. Can I get some thoughts? I believe the groups I deleted are not Alt-right, many pre-date the movement by decades. Bacondrum ( talk) 04:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Alt-right footer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A02:C7F:187C:9800:7952:1779:6415:3017 ( talk) 18:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the mention of the 2020 boogaloo killings from this template. The alleged perpetrators have been connected with the boogaloo movement, and some boogaloo groups are alt right, but unless there is a (sourced) indication that the perpetrators were specifically affiliated with an alt right boogaloo group (or connected to the alt right in some other way) the attacks should not be listed here. See Talk:2020 boogaloo killings#Alt right also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Alt-right footer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A02:C7F:1875:C800:51F7:608D:C22E:BA2 ( talk) 23:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Core Ideas - Ableism, Anti-autism, Anti-communism, Eugenics, Race and Intelligence Events - 2020 boogaloo killings People - Brittany Sellner, Blair Cottrell, Jean-François Gariépy, Eli Mosley, Stephen Miller, Troy Southgate, Rocky Suhayda, Rick Wiles Opposition and criticism - Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Destiny (streamer), Dirtbag Left, George Floyd Protests
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Alt-right footer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add Parler parameter to it's website section (which means an alt-right social media service). 122.2.103.169 ( talk) 13:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is Peter Thiel listed in people? His article has no mention to the alt-right, is a gay man (the alt-right being listed as a homophobic ideology), and is a well-known public figure and billionaire, and likely would've been publicly ostracized if he were ever affiliated with such a movement. We should remove him from there, no? Josharaujo1115 ( talk) 17:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Alt-right footer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
" "its far-right and extremist userbase.[3][4][5][6] Widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right, it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social networks.[7][8][18] Gab claims to promote free speech and individual liberty, though these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem.[16][19][20] Antisemitism is prominent among the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter.[22][23][24] Researchers have written that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events".[25]"
to
"for its promotion of the free exchange of ideas through a platform which is based on free market and demand concept. It is a platform which encourages free speech, does not use "fact checkers" unlike other current popular platforms and requires a paid subscription to join. Unlike, what some people believe the founders of Gab, do not engage in Anti-Semitic talk but encourage peaceful discourse Gab founder Andrew Torba posted “We want to see nothing but positivity, peace, and love". [22][23][24]"" Spiderfate ( talk) 21:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a grey case, it is like Signal, telegram, and discord. It is used by the far-right but was not created for them. Just like we Signal or telegram. Also, MeWe is also used by democratic activists. It is totally DIFFERENT from websites like parler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.169.229 ( talk) 10:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
"MeWe's loose moderation has made it popular among conspiracy theorists, including proponents of the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory, which was banned from Facebook in 2020, and the "Stop the Steal" conspiracy theory relating to the 2020 United States presidential election. According to Rolling Stone, MeWe has "played host to general interest communities related to music and travel, but it has also come to be a haven for anti-vaxxers, QAnon conspiracy theorists, and, as reported by OneZero, far-right militia groups." Vice has described MeWe as a "major anti-vaxx forum". BBC News has described some of the content on MeWe as "extreme" and compared it to that of Gab. Business Insider has reported that some of the most popular groups on MeWe focus on "extreme views, like anti-vaccine rhetoric, white supremacy, and conspiracy theories."There are several sources verifying each of these claims. As such, it should absolutely be included here. Whether that was the intent of the creators or not, the app is being used heavily in practice among the alt-right. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 21:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Not really familiar with his content, but I used to consider Carl Benjamin AKA Sargon of Akkad as an alt-right pundit who should thus be mentioned in the people list. His Wiki article mentions various sources who describe him as alt-right, but also states that he opposes the alt-right and considers himself a "classical liberal". Any thoughts by someone more familiar with him and/or the alt-right definition? Promonex ( talk) 01:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I brought this up on the Bennett talk page because I wasn't able to find any sources specifically describing her as being part of the alt-right. The closest thing we have is this SPLC article, which doesn't state that she's part of the alt-right. Does anyone have a source? If not, should we remove her from the footer? Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 03:10, 7 February 2021 (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 |
Just removed cuckold and culture war. These templates aren't for concepts that are only loosely or tangentially related. The article content needs to tie them to this topic. Culture war doesn't look to get past 2009 in the US, and cuckold seems to just be there because of cuckservative (which is already included)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Anticommunism, sure, in the sense that any conservative movement could be said to be anticommunist. I'm sure there are people much better versed in the scholarly literature than I; what connects the alt-right in particular to the concept? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopolous, and Lauren Southern are not Alt-right! They are Alt-lite! All Alt-lite media and figures will be immediately terminated! The Republican party and French National Front are also not Alt-right, that will be removed as well. The Alt-right is most certainly not conservative, if you read their publications it is pretty clear they despise and criticize most conservatives as "cuckservatives".
The political parties section is irrelevant, there are already a handful of alt right organizations that already exist, and besides this is more of an Anglosphere movement. If you want to include European parties into the mix, make an Identitarian sidebar for them.
As for the Anticommunism I will reintroduce it. Altrighters have a specific deposition to egalitarianism that is linked to their libertarian origin. All their history up to now has been a reaction to the left and its supposed "marxist takeover". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillzon ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, and so did this person: "I have issue with the fact that individuals who do not identify as alt-right are categorized as alt-right due to certain media outlets categorizing them as such. Notable individuals like Mike Cernovich, Lauren Southern, Alex Jones, and Paul Joseph Watson who do not identify as alt-right."
The people listed above are not alt right, they're just conservatives who either try to be "edgy" to the informal term, or are label alt right due to their deviation from the standard conservative zeitgeist. Think about liberals, conservatives call them COMMUNISTS all the time, but in fact they are not, this is similar. Wikipedia does not base its labels on hyperbole.
P.S: I'll try to look into the relationship between the alt right and the radical left in detail soon, maybe in a few days time. Lillzon ( talk) 21:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree, as for the Memetics section. I had to reintroduce it because it is the literal "armed wing" of the alt right. Memetic warfare is literally a serious military tactic discussed by experts and sites like 8chan apply it with deadly accuracy. It may sound ridiculous, it did to me, but I wouldn't include it if it wasn't legitimate. The term "memetics" is used instead of memes because it isn't just a superficial message. If you see the forums and blogs of these peoples, these "memes" are applied as both a weapon and a morale booster. This fascinating political rhetoric DESERVES its own section, it is an integral part of their ideology. Lillzon ( talk) 02:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, the memetics thing is a good compromise, I'll try to write that when I have the time.
However, I do not care what a minority of left wing articles say, Malik Obama, Donald Trump, Lauren Southern, and Gavin McInnes are not white separatists, nor are they associated with the identitarian movement. Infowars and the Rebel also do not associate with the alt right anymore, they left the label behind when the identitarians like Richard Spencer became more prominent. thus they are no longer "the majority". They are conservative people hosting conservative shows, misinterpreting their ideologies is why I specifically created the Alt-lite article to address this issue.
If people continue to place conservatives on the alt right sidebar, I will continue to remove them, end of story. This is not personal opinion, this is from taking into account the racial, social, and political beliefs of these people and organizations. Lillzon ( talk) 03:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Fine, I honestly don't want to put the Sisyphean effort of convincing Wikipedia to put conservatives where conservatives belong, and where white nationalists where white nationalists belong. Lillzon ( talk) 02:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Should the alt-right have a persons section? Others such as conservatism, socialism, Marxism, nationalism, etc. have a section for notable people in the movement. It was recently removed. PerfectlyIrrational ( talk) 19:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Removed Alain de Benoist, only saw one cite for him at Alain de Benoist, best to have more than that for WP:BLP claims. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Removed Peter Brimelow, at article Peter Brimelow, zero sources call him alt-right, this is a WP:BLP violation. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Removed Nathan Damigo, as this is a redirect. He has no existing article on Wikipedia. Therefore he has no sourced page. Therefore his inclusion here violates WP:BLP. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
removed John Derbyshire , WP:BLP violation as his article has zero references about this. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
removed Charles C. Johnson, no mention in article body text of alt right, therefore inclusion here is WP:BLP violation. Removed. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
no reliable secondary sources in article identify him as alt right, therefore tagging him as such is WP:BLP violation without secondary sources. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
no mention in article body text identifying him as alt-right, therefore inclusion of template is WP:BLP violation. Removed. Sagecandor ( talk) 00:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
This sidebar needs to stop being a coatrack for every single possible topic the Alt-right have ever mentioned. If the page being linked to does not also have a very strong connection to the Alt-right, it does not belong in this template. This template is already way too large and full of cruft, and adding things like Ron Paul, simply because people who were fans of the campaign in 2008 went on to also be fans of the Alt-right, is ridiculous. Parabolist ( talk) 07:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Modified to footer template so as to not be so obtrusive and take over article space in article main body text.
Modeled after {{ White nationalism}}. Sagecandor ( talk) 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I am removing the article from this footer. Since the Alt-right in the US is often homophobic it seems very strange to have this here. StarryGrandma ( talk) 21:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this (pinging Von Sprat) - very few navboxes have images. The image would have to be more or less synonymous with the subject (i.e. a picture of a person for a navbox about that person, a logo, an icon, etc. for which there is a strong consensus among reliable sources that it signifies the subject and that the subject is signified by it). There's no doubt that the Pepe meme is associated with the alt-right, and it's probably the most recognizable graphic associated with it, but while Pepe points to the alt-right, the alt-right doesn't necessarily point to Pepe, if that makes sense. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Breitbart should be removed because it is a Jewish pro-Israel publication. Listing it among a group of neo-Nazis and white supremacists is pure anti-Semitism. Depicting Zionists as Nazis is a common demonization tactic used by the far left and Muslims to defame Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.95.66.183 ( talk) 14:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Alt-right footer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove proudboys from the organizers section. Proudboys ( talk) 22:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. No reason has been given for this change, and sources at
Proud Boys support the connection.
Grayfell (
talk)
22:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)What are the criteria for inclusion for people in this ox? Rhododendrites previously stated in an edit summary: "The standard for inclusion would be that the article connects the subject to the alt-right using reliable sources." This is the rule I have followed so far. However, it has become evident that there is no consensus on following this rule.
Right now the dispute is over inclusion of ' alt-lite' individuals. The status quo is that roughly half the individuals in the footer box would be associated with this category where their association with the alt-right is questionable. Attempting to set a standard by adding more of these people will result in a revert by one group of editors, while removing the current people listed will result in a revert by another group of editors.
I am not advocating for one 'side' or the other, just want to set a rule. It seems to me there are two ways this can be done.
What editors absolutely cannot do is just add and remove people on the basis of WP:OR and try to edit war their way to victory. I reached out to an individual who was doing this to find consensus, but the user went on to ignore my post on his personal talk page and continue edit warring. The user also made no attempt to add disputing sources to the original article pages. However, the user continued to insist consensus be found or he'd keep edit warring, so I can only assume the user meant consensus between myself and *other* users, which is what I'm attempting to find now.
Would be open to hearing suggestions as to how to clean this up. -- Jay942942 ( talk) 14:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Alt-right footer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Jared Taylor to the list of people in the alt-right footer. Horsebite22 ( talk) 23:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of Hill, per BLP policy and the above talk page discussion, but just realized I may be skirting the boundaries of WP:1RR. I will refrain from any more reverts while we discuss this. @ DrawingLol: please refrain from making any more additions to this template while we discuss. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 17:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Would you support splitting the members/factions into 4 or 5 seperate groups? For an example, look at the
Dark Enlightenment page. The alt-right is more a broad range of far-right groups that are nationalists and reactionary. Thoughts?
DrawingLol (
talk)
20:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I note Third Position as a somewhat-related topic for the benefit of editors here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Why is Antifeminism in here? I can't find "alt-right" mentioned anywhere at that article, on its talk page, or its talk page archives, and I can't find Antifeminism mentioned on this talk page or its archives. But I see it's been edit-warred over. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 02:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The case for Steve Sailer seems weak. The article says "Sailer's writing has been described as a precursor to Trumpism and the alt-right..." with two source citations. The first doesn't mention alt-right. The second is New York Magazine but all it says is "Sailer popularized the term “human biodiversity” (HBD) — now a mainstay on the alt-right". Kendall-K1 ( talk) 16:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Matthews Voxplains the Alt Right by muddying the waters and failing to grasp its major institutions and figures. He mentions Mr. Spencer only once in his 5,000-word article, and does not discuss Radix, AlternativeRight.com, or the National Policy Institute. VDARE, American Renaissance, and The Occidental Observer receive brief mentions, but Mr. Taylor, Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer, Paul “RamZPaul” Ramsey, and other figures most associated with the Alt Right, along with major websites like Counter Currents and The Right Stuff, are all omitted.
The strictest definition of the Alt-right includes other overtly racial thinkers like Jared Taylor who calls himself a “race realist”, Steve Sailer who writes about “human biodiversity” – a pretty transparent euphemism – and Nick Land who explores the idea of the “Dark Enlightenment”. All of these are to varying degrees preoccupied with racial IQ, the Bell Curve, Western civilisational decline due to increased racial impurity, cultural decadence, cultural Marxism and Islamification.
DrawingLol (
talk)
19:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Any objections to Gab.ai being added? DrawingLol ( talk) 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Etc.
DrawingLol ( talk) 19:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
He was
removed earlier. At the
Augustus Sol Invictus article, there's a citation to
this article, which says,
A prominent, controversial Libertarian provocateur often associated with white nationalists and the “alt-right,”
From
this article, we see
the 34-year-old former Orlando area attorney does have a following among white nationalists. Invictus headlined the ill-fated Unite the Right's Charlottesville rallies over the weekend.
Invictus attempted to run for office in 2015 as a Libertarian, though, and that may well be his true ideological home, even if the Libertarians don't want him. I question whether his intending to speak at a rally means he's part of the alt-right. Politicians often hang out with crowds they're not affiliated with, as a way of getting votes and other support.
On the other hand, I think navboxes will often include people who are only loosely associated with the topic of the navbox. It's more like the inclusion criterion is that they're of potential interest to people interested in the topic. In that way, it's like a "see also". A "see also" section doesn't require citations.
BLP policy seems mostly intended to protect people's lives from being harmed. (That's why it only applies to living people.) Is someone's life going to be harmed by inclusion in a "see also" or a navbox?
Notice that the navbox says "People"; it doesn't say "Proponents," "Members," or anything like that. Theoretically, "People" could even include opponents of the alt-right.
Smooth alligator (
talk)
17:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
::If there's consensus that more than "potential interest" is needed, my next question would be, is there any objection to removal of Augustus Sol Invictus, on that basis?
Smooth alligator (
talk)
17:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::It's not the greatest source, but it's better than nothing.
Smooth alligator (
talk)
00:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I would be cautious about using SPLC without attribution. There was recently a very long discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 230 and no conclusion was reached. Their editorial standards are pretty high but they have an agenda other than simply reporting the facts. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 06:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Any objections to William Regnery II being added? He is a top funder of the alt-right and the founder of the National Policy Institute. DrawingLol ( talk) 18:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
DrawingLol ( talk) 19:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Jay942942, Rhododendrites, and DrawingLol: We may want to re-open this discussion. There have been a large number of recent additions that do not look appropriate. Roosh V, for example, has explicitly said he is not part of the alt-right movement, and members of the movement have also said he is not part of it. There is nothing in the Michael Hill (activist) article to support adding him to this template. I have not checked the others. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 12:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
How much attention do we pay to whether the person identifies as part of the alt-right? E.g., suppose the reliable sources say, "This guy is part of the alt-right" yet they also report that he denies being part of the alt-right. Do we still include him in the template?
Smooth alligator (
talk)
18:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Another question: which of these related movements (neo-Nazis, neoreaction, etc.) are actually part of the alt-right, and which merely have overlapping themes? If a movement is actually a part of the alt-right, then can we use syllogism to say that someone who's part of that movement is also related to the alt-right, based on the idea that there's a looser standard for navboxes than for articles?
Smooth alligator (
talk)
19:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
So I think we have consensus that before we add any person or organization to this nav box, "the nature of the subject's relationship to the alt-right must be well established by multiple, reliable, secondary sources, and this relationship should be enduring, not fleeting. Appearing at an alt-right event, having some overlapping themes (e.g. neo-Nazis, run-of-the-mill conservative nationalists, etc.), sharing similar political views, or other passing associations by themselves should not merit inclusion. Ideally, association with the alt-right should be so substantially documented that we as editors don't have to quibble about inclusion." (per Animalparty). A clear statement of this relationship, along with source citations, must appear in the subject article. Are we agreed? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 14:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The case for Allsup seems weak. There's nothing in the body of the article that describes him as alt-right, but it's in the lead. The lone source I can find that ID's him as alt-right is Mediaite. Taken alone, does that qualify as WP:RS enough to justify describing him as alt-right in the lead? I ask for outside opinions here. Rockypedia ( talk) 16:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
https://www.twitter.com/realJamesAllsup/status/922387470641012736
https://www.twitter.com/realJamesAllsup/status/923113660750249984 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DrawingLol (
talk •
contribs)
18:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
From googling around a bit, I agree that the case for
James Allsup looks weak. At
http://www.theroot.com/washington-state-universitys-college-republicans-presid-1797816820 it says,
According to KREM, Allsup identifies as a “paleoconservative” (is that a new diet?) or a “right-wing libertarian” and believes that “alt-right” is a slur.
Smooth alligator (
talk)
21:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Sections by banned socks
|
---|
/pol/Any objections to
/pol/? This one seems obvious.
DrawingLol (
talk) 18:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
DrawingLol (
talk)
19:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Rise Above MovementAny objections to the Rise Above Movement being added? DrawingLol ( talk) 18:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
DrawingLol ( talk) 19:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
|
Any objections to adding him?
DrawingLol (
talk)
19:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
A clean-cut 27-year-old graphic designer, wearing black-framed glasses and brightly-colored shirts advertising Identity Movement slogans such as "Europa Nostra" -- "Our Europe" -- Sellner has been called the "hipster" of the far-right.There's been some debate as to whether alt-right and far-right are the same thing. Smooth alligator ( talk) 00:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
As we usually do, I've struck the comments by Smooth alligator as sock puppets aren't allowed to edit. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/St. claires fire. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't Greg Johnson (white nationalist) be added? CornFlakes ( talk) 07:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The case for Vox Day as a major figure in the alt-right is very weak. Milo Yiannapoulous appears to be the only person who has explicitly referred to him as such. I'm removing him from the template. Rockypedia ( talk) 18:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The case for Curtis Yarvin is that he's a part of the neo-reaction movement, and that movement is somehow related to the alt-right. I see no reliable sources that name Yarvin as a leader or originator of the alt-right movement itself. I'm removing him. Rockypedia ( talk) 14:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
To adding:
I'm planning on adding back the obvious ones. Anyone object? DrawingLol ( talk) 11:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to include Milo Yiannopoulos. He does reject the label, but there is a whole section in his article that talks about his relationship with the alt-right, and we have this statement with three citations: "Yiannopoulos is commonly associated with the alt-right." Kendall-K1 ( talk) 12:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I could continue, but there's only so many hours in a day. I agree, he belongs in the template. Rockypedia ( talk) 14:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I will have to request you undo the reversion of my deletion of Milo Yiannopolous. This is the second time my edit was reverted without a citation of why Milo should be considered a member of the Alt-Right. He personally disavows the Alt-Right, and the Alt-Right disavows him. Milo disavowing the Alt-Right [1] [2] Someone speaking for the Alt-Right stating their disagreement of what Milo does, including explicitly saying he is not a part of the Alt-Right [3]
References
If you can properly cite sources on what the Alt-Right is, and how that relates to how Milo is, despite his disagreements with the movement, and people within the movement not accepting him, then feel free to leave a note here with those citations and disregard my request to undo the reversion you have done.
As for Rockypedia's citations, I would state these are not valid arguments, as all the sources listed are third parties to this, and have their own personal reasons to claim Milo is Alt-Right when he claims he isn't, and the movement doesn't accept him. And I do notice other people have tried to remove Milo, and shifted to a sockpuppet to remove Milo. That person has nothing to do with me before anyone tries to claim I'm just another sockpuppet of someone else. C.D. Random ( talk) 09:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed some individuals on the list of alt-right people who seem to have been added because people have objections to them. The alt-right to me means people who advocate ethno-nationalism and the idea that the "white" race is in danger and needs protection. People like Milo, Alex Jones, Jack Posobiec do not really fit the bill. Are they right-wing figures, yes that cannot be denied, but alt-right is a very specific set of believes and just because someone is right-wing and controversial doesn't mean they are alt-right. Might as well add people like Ben Shapiro to the list, since he fits the bill of being right wing and controversial. Many of these people are also very disliked by the core of the Alt-right supporters. It would be akin to calling every liberal, a communist or marxist. I am in no means fans of these people, but let's not pretend that many news sources are not biased. Fox News does the same when they call people who do something disgusting as being associated with BLM (ala the Chicago teens torture situation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinzMaster ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe that Loomer is out, for obvious reasons. — Confession0791 talk 16:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not 100% opposed to having Taylor in this template, but if we're going to have a standard for inclusion, as previously discussed, I'd like to see more than "Taylor has often been described in media reports as associated with the alt-right" in the subject's article; I don't think that's nearly enough for putting him in this template. The category for "white supremacy" isn't even on his article, and that's far better supported in sources than "alt-right" currently is. Removing pending more discussion here. Rockypedia ( talk) 00:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Now, I'm aware that you do not consider all of these reliable sources, but given the sheer number on Taylor, I believe his inclusion is appropriate. -- Jay942942 ( talk) 10:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Editors on this talk page may also be interested in this discussion. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 07:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I really am struggling to find the utility in this template. As above discussions of inclusion indicates, adding people is especially contentious and problematic. I think the problem is "the alt-right" is not a clearly defined topic with a clearly defined set of articles, and thus contra guidelines
WP:NAV and
WP:NAVBOX, which state (emphasis added):
Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:
- All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
- The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
- The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
- There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
- If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.
In a well defined "set" theme for navboxes, each element has strong ties to the main subject and other element in the set, and a reader of one article would plausibly be interested in navigating to other articles (e.g. planets of the solar system, films directed by George Lucas, etc.). Articles in a navbox should refer to each other, and each include the navbox, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. As a comparative example, templates for very popular films by convention do not include actors ( WP:PERFNAV). Mark Hamill is universally known as Luke Skywalker, but he is not in {{ Star Wars}}, nor {{ Star Wars (film)}}. For official political parties we have clear-cut inclusion criteria for people, see {{ Democratic Party (United States)}} and {{ Republican Party (United States)}}: no one can argue about who has held the office of of Chairperson, and note that the boxes aren't cluttered with every person who is registered with those parties, nor every event, issue, and organization affiliated with the respective parties. The alt-right is not an official organization, and not a well defined entity, and thus almost every entry in this template involves on some level a subjective analysis of "how many sources say so-and-so is 'alt-right' vs how many times the subject has disputed or renounced the alt-right". With enough scrutiny, almost every person, and probably other entities can be considered not prudent to include by means of tangential relevance or ambiguous criteria. The cartoonist Ben Garrison may be popular with the alt-right, but I don't see anything in his article, nor actual reliable sources, to suggest he should be added as a central character. The article on Sebastian Gorka merely mentions "ties to the alt-right" once, in the lead. At times this template seems trying to take the place of the parent article: Alt-right. People having "ties" to the alt-right does not mean they are part of it. With regards to persons I think the logic of WP:COPDEF should be applied, and only cases with unambiguous/undebatable inclusion criteria be included. The least contentious choice would be to simply remove all persons. Perhaps if it is worth linking to alt-right in a biography, that article alone should suffice as covering the major topics. --Animalparty! ( talk) 22:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't support deleting the template, but parts of it clearly need a hatchet taken to them. {{ Occupy movement}} doesn't have any biographies included. Both {{ Tea Party movement}} and {{ Black Lives Matter}} have their own problems, but not as severe as those here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
As a first step, should we remove the BLPs from the template? K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
As a follow-up to the above, should the section "Organizations" be removed? It's my general understanding that there's no such thing as "alt-right ideology", it's more of a cultural phenomenon. The orgs are either white nationalist, neo-Nazi, etc. With that in mind, I'm thinking that the org section should be removed. Would love to get additional input. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This article says "Suspected Alt-right" and not confirmed. At this stage does it really warrant inclusion? @ Animalparty, EvergreenFir, and MichiganWoodShop: -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Should a category of "People" be added like what is in the Conservatism US and likewise Modern liberalism in the United States templates? -- RandomUser3510 ( talk) 05:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
All else aside, I don't think Gab is central enough to the alt-right to mention here. It's not even mentioned on our Alt-Right article, for instance. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"I feel like" and "seems to be" shouldn't be valid reasons for labeling an entity as part of a group, TuneyLoon. Either give concrete examples of how Gab is intended to be Alt-Right rather than a more open forum, or just leave it alone, is my opinion. Same goes for labeling Milo as Alt~Right. Just because of a group of journalists want to label a person part of a group, that doesn't make that person part of that group. Doubly so if that person themselves has denounced that group and that group has denounced him, as has happened with Milo and the Alt-Right. C.D. Random ( talk) 02:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
After a significant development of the article over recent months, it becomes clear that Gab belongs to this footer. Sources have rich support for alt-right being its main users, and the company itself caters to the group. Tsumikiria ( T/ C) 05:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@ יניב הורון:, I noticed my edit was removed, so I figured it would best to discuss it to avoid an edit war. The reason I added The Rebel Media to this template was primarily due to its inclusion in the Category:Alt-right as can be seen here. I will admit that I actually cannot find many WP:RS describing The Rebel Media (as an organization) as alt-right since this memo was released. However, at least two of its former hosts, Faith Goldy and Lauren Southern, can certainly be viewed as alt-right. Following that, we have it's unmistakable comparison to Breitbart (which is mentioned in the lead section). No one can really doubt where that news organization fits into the alt-right. The last reason I would support its inclusion in this template is for historical purposes. They used to consider themselves alt-right, and I think that warrants inclusion somewhere in this template. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 23:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
As I've already discussed on the page Talk:Faithful Word Baptist Church, that page should be labeled as "alt-right" and the name "Steven L. Anderson" on the alt-right template in the people section. Thank you. Signed Rushwrj13 June 9, 2019 2:10 AM EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushwrj13 ( talk • contribs) 06:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I think we should added Counter-jihad and Manosphere to related ideas section because of similarity to alt-right. 178.43.74.124 ( talk) 16:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, regarding recent edits I made. Can I get some thoughts? I believe the groups I deleted are not Alt-right, many pre-date the movement by decades. Bacondrum ( talk) 04:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Alt-right footer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A02:C7F:187C:9800:7952:1779:6415:3017 ( talk) 18:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the mention of the 2020 boogaloo killings from this template. The alleged perpetrators have been connected with the boogaloo movement, and some boogaloo groups are alt right, but unless there is a (sourced) indication that the perpetrators were specifically affiliated with an alt right boogaloo group (or connected to the alt right in some other way) the attacks should not be listed here. See Talk:2020 boogaloo killings#Alt right also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Alt-right footer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A02:C7F:1875:C800:51F7:608D:C22E:BA2 ( talk) 23:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Core Ideas - Ableism, Anti-autism, Anti-communism, Eugenics, Race and Intelligence Events - 2020 boogaloo killings People - Brittany Sellner, Blair Cottrell, Jean-François Gariépy, Eli Mosley, Stephen Miller, Troy Southgate, Rocky Suhayda, Rick Wiles Opposition and criticism - Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Destiny (streamer), Dirtbag Left, George Floyd Protests
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Alt-right footer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add Parler parameter to it's website section (which means an alt-right social media service). 122.2.103.169 ( talk) 13:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is Peter Thiel listed in people? His article has no mention to the alt-right, is a gay man (the alt-right being listed as a homophobic ideology), and is a well-known public figure and billionaire, and likely would've been publicly ostracized if he were ever affiliated with such a movement. We should remove him from there, no? Josharaujo1115 ( talk) 17:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Alt-right footer has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
" "its far-right and extremist userbase.[3][4][5][6] Widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right, it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social networks.[7][8][18] Gab claims to promote free speech and individual liberty, though these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem.[16][19][20] Antisemitism is prominent among the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter.[22][23][24] Researchers have written that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events".[25]"
to
"for its promotion of the free exchange of ideas through a platform which is based on free market and demand concept. It is a platform which encourages free speech, does not use "fact checkers" unlike other current popular platforms and requires a paid subscription to join. Unlike, what some people believe the founders of Gab, do not engage in Anti-Semitic talk but encourage peaceful discourse Gab founder Andrew Torba posted “We want to see nothing but positivity, peace, and love". [22][23][24]"" Spiderfate ( talk) 21:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a grey case, it is like Signal, telegram, and discord. It is used by the far-right but was not created for them. Just like we Signal or telegram. Also, MeWe is also used by democratic activists. It is totally DIFFERENT from websites like parler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.169.229 ( talk) 10:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
"MeWe's loose moderation has made it popular among conspiracy theorists, including proponents of the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory, which was banned from Facebook in 2020, and the "Stop the Steal" conspiracy theory relating to the 2020 United States presidential election. According to Rolling Stone, MeWe has "played host to general interest communities related to music and travel, but it has also come to be a haven for anti-vaxxers, QAnon conspiracy theorists, and, as reported by OneZero, far-right militia groups." Vice has described MeWe as a "major anti-vaxx forum". BBC News has described some of the content on MeWe as "extreme" and compared it to that of Gab. Business Insider has reported that some of the most popular groups on MeWe focus on "extreme views, like anti-vaccine rhetoric, white supremacy, and conspiracy theories."There are several sources verifying each of these claims. As such, it should absolutely be included here. Whether that was the intent of the creators or not, the app is being used heavily in practice among the alt-right. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 21:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Not really familiar with his content, but I used to consider Carl Benjamin AKA Sargon of Akkad as an alt-right pundit who should thus be mentioned in the people list. His Wiki article mentions various sources who describe him as alt-right, but also states that he opposes the alt-right and considers himself a "classical liberal". Any thoughts by someone more familiar with him and/or the alt-right definition? Promonex ( talk) 01:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I brought this up on the Bennett talk page because I wasn't able to find any sources specifically describing her as being part of the alt-right. The closest thing we have is this SPLC article, which doesn't state that she's part of the alt-right. Does anyone have a source? If not, should we remove her from the footer? Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 03:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)