Talk:Alt-left/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is this another Campaign for the neologism "santorum"

Should this article simply treat this subject in a similar manner?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI

This page has an RfD attached to it: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alt-left - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Which took place in April, which might as well have been during the Buchanan administration for all the relevance it has now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is the REAL AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alt-left

• Note, I don't know who changed the link in the first comment after I responded, but editors should NEVER make such an edit. I suppose it is only to be expected given the bad-faith editing and hostility that this page/AfD have generated. sigh. The comment I was responding to by Knowledgekid was linked to [[1]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Jacobin magazine op-ed

How is it that an opinion piece by a non-RS magazine can be presented in "Wikipedia voice"? CJK09 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How do you consider the source to be non RS?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated use in the UK

Buzzfeed UK wrote about "alt-left" media in the UK in May 2016. They used the term to mean hyperpartisan left-wing news websites that support Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the UK Labour Party. --User:Edpw ) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

May 2017.[2] Doug Weller talk 18:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a "Not to be confused with..." template added? Nah.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede

What this word means and what the body of the article state should match as the lede is a summary of the article itself however, this needs further discussion as the body of the article is likely to change rapidly depending on contributions.--Mark Miller (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Moved from Lede to discus and return to article's body of text.

used by some conservatives and liberals to refer to people and social activist groups on the political left, mainly those who associate with progressivist ideals, to suggest the existence of a fringe ideological movement equivalent to the alt-right, a faction of the far-right consisting mainly of white supremacists and political extremists. The term had become known for its use by United States President Donald Trump in an August 15, 2017 press conference at New York City's Trump Tower. In the conference, Trump – who doubled-down on a statement he made on August 12, in response to the vehicle-ramming attack against rally counter-protestors commited by a 20-year-old white nationalist during the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia – criticized what he called the "very, very violent[...] alt-left," correlating to his earlier assertion that there was "blame on both sides" for the violence at the rally in his initial statement.

--Mark Miller (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue with the above is that there is a huge amount of text and all sources are grouped at the end. The claims need to be cited directly after each claim with an inline citation from a reliable source.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This still seems off to me and not at all what the article says.

used by some conservatives and liberals to refer to people and social activist groups on the political left, mainly those who associate with progressivist ideals, equating them to the alt-right, a faction of the far-right consisting mainly of white supremacists and political extremists. It is mainly used disparagingly to suggest the existence of a fringe ideological movement equivalent to the alt-right.

References

--Mark Miller (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Tvtonightokc I have reverted your edits because they have been disputed. A discussion has been requested.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The main concept behind the edits to the alt-left article was that the term had no political exclusivity. In point of fact, I've heard the term be used in articles as a derogatory term for progressives, but it is likely also used for other factions of the political left that are left-of-center. This is typified by one of the earlier edits which mentioned its origins during the 2016 Presidential campaign. Some of the refs do seem to contradict one another, creating a confusing "chicken or the egg" situation as to which ideology originated the term and which one co-opted it. Unfortunately, Mark Miller's removals of the lead text and the paragraph that reference its origins within the Democratic Party/left to refer to other ideologues to their left weakened the explanation of it being a uniform slur against certain factions of the left. I think that it's important to explain the full origins of the term and how it spread between the two parties. TVTonightOKC 19:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"..used by some conservatives and liberals to refer to people and social activist groups on the political left, mainly those who associate with progressivist ideals.." That needs multiple strong sources as it is a BLP issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"The term had become known for its use by United States President Donald Trump in an August 15, 2017 press conference at New York City's Trump Tower." aside from the grammar issue, it is undue weight.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ideology

From what i've seen they are usually racist, sexist, anti science and socialist i can source all of this later Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC) |}

why ?

@Mark Miller: , why

that reset  ??

My edit has delivered three places of finding (or is 'sources of information' the better word ? I'm German => no native speaker).

It's no WP:OR - the three are mentioned in a Spiegel online article that was published today. 'Spiegel online is one of the most influential political online media in Germany (even before FAZ.net, zeit.de and sueddeutsche.de).

I ask you to explain your reset your reset or to reverse it. Why didn't you use the Edit summary ? --Neun-x (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you show me the quote (even in German) that this is based on? Frankly, at the moment I do not think non-English sources should be introduced unless there is no English equivalent.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I should mention that most of that is already in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: What ??

• Liberals get hysterical over the 'alt-right' but we are living in their 'alt-left' world
• vanityfair.com March 3, 2017 and

The alt-left’s cyber jihad against Trump and his supporters

are N O T in the article. I have 2 eyes in my head (and about 50.000 edits on my counter) . --Neun-x (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that part of what I removed has relevance please feel free to re-add but please consider all of our policies and guidelines before adding.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

BLP issues

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy is clear, claims about individuals or groups that is poorly sourced or not sourced at all should be removed without discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

But it is not poorly sourced. It is a quote directly from the New York Times. And it is not a "claim" about anyone - it is an attempt to define a term/ideology. In any event, I give up. Obviously I am missing something here. This really should not be that contentious of an entry. 162.194.160.55 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest reading the policy.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No BLP here. Mark Miller, you are just engaged in unjustified deletion of material.Axxxion (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Legal persons and groups.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. But you never said clearly what exactly you were unhappy about. I have removed all the groups. But why blank the whole lede?Axxxion (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. "Conservatives" is not a legal person or group. 184.101.234.2 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. There is no BLP issue here. Mark needs to specify if they feel there is one. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It was removed User:EvergreenFir but I contend that making such claims towards specific groups does qualify as a BLP issue and that the sources did not actually support the claim directly and unambiguously.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be a good faith effort to address the concerns.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Continued and baffling wholesale reversions by Mark Miller

Not sure why you refuse to discuss at talk, but it is certainly your prerogative. You are now editi warrring and creating a battleground atmosphere. My advice is to discuss your changes, and not just spout policy. Again it is your choice, but if taken to ANI at this pint you will likely be blocked from the article. I'd rather not do so because I think your contributions are actually valuable, but you need to discuss them first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:8C0D:5380:97D2:CF28 (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: Where is your source for this:"The term began being used by Sean Hannity and Fox News to criticize bias against President-elect Trump."??

I have initiated several attempts to talk including your talk page. Discussion is not required before edits are made but I have attempted to bring a discussion here. As for your question; "The term began being used by Sean Hannity and Fox News to criticize bias against President-elect Trump".. the reference is in the body of the article next to the claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Disputes to article content

Are there any current disputes about content, wording or sourcing? Would editors like to take the opportunity to discuss what they object to?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Plenty of objections, all of which you have chosen to ignore. Instead you cite policy without making any specific reference to the article itself (see above). Now the page is locked down. I trust you are satisfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.114.214.45 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It does seem odd to argue instead of adding your concern.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The Alt-Left already existed prior to reinvention

The alt-left already existed before Fox reinvented the word. It borrowed the "alt-" from alt-right, some proponents did away with race realism and white identitarianism while others kept it, added typical left wing politics, but without it's brand of identity politics (things relating to intersectionality and critical theory). It also insists on being as critical of all religions as of Christianity, with Islam being a main subject of discussion.

There's a reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/

A dedicated site (which is more race oriented): https://altleft.com

Robert A Lindsay is allegedly the one who coined the term: https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/

There are pages and groups on Facebook too that predate the reinvention by Conservatives https://www.facebook.com/search/str/alt+left/keywords_search

Another dedicated site (not focused on race) https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/

a group which been established in 9 april 2016 prior to sean hannity statement.

https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/

a blog which describe preferred policies for the alt left and which describe the movements inside the group at the moment.

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.163.156 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.71.110.214 (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The Young Turks' TYT Nation program also recently published a video explaining its origins as a derogatory term by centrist Democrats to those within the party (as well as left-aligned independents) who support progressive ideals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8noaimoNzk

Here are other articles that corroborate this, coming from ShadowProof, The New Republic, Politico, The Washington Post, Vice, and the Los Angeles Times. A couple of these articles do muddy the water as to who originated the term, but most note that "alt-left" was co-opted by conservatives to disparage progressive Democrats but was originated for the same purpose by centrist Dems. I welcome Mark Miller and others to review these articles, so we can generate some form of compromise as to how to illustrate the origins of the term. TVTonightOKC 13:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

OK..now this is interesting but I wonder if these can truly be compared let alone be stated as the same al-left this article is referring to.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

the point is that there is actually a movement and blogs which affiliated with the name alt-left (as the sources i brought you show),and they are not related to antifa, and yes i understand that its basically an original research and blogs and facebook groups (the biggest have 10 thousnd members), but experts dont really care about researching our movement, so i cant bring you any other sources about our movement (its a catch 22 situation).

many scholars

This doesn't fly for me. Make a tally. Give a specific number. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I had "some commentators have suggested" but was reverted (numerous times) by user:Mark Miller. I have no idea why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.67.118 (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Did he not refer you to wp:weasel, where you can find advice on that kind of wording? Answer...

Yes he did explain to you that you were using weasel words, but cunningly, you were using a different IP address at that time, which makes it (a bit) harder to spot the history:

• here

• and here

his edit summary reads: Weasal(sic) words. Why are you attempting to add doubt

Seems clear enough to me.

Edaham (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. "Many scholars" is a clear case of weasel wording. This should be removed, I am considering making an edit request as such. Are there any objections? 162.194.160.55 (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A framework for progress on the article

It seems unlikely the AfD discussion will suddenly produce a consensus for deletion, so we should discuss how to make the article good and useful. Here's what I think we know based on the references existing in the article.

The term "alt-left" saw isolated uses from 2015 into early 2017 by both liberal and conservative commentators in the United States, generally in attempts to coin the term into common usage. Centrist liberals used it as a derogatory term for the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. Conservatives used it to refer to violent anarchist, anti-capitalist, and anti-fascist activists as exemplified by the Antifa movement. The former definition was seen in both liberal and mainstream media; the latter definition was entirely restricted to conservative media.

Increasing use of the term by Fox News seems to have triggered increasing coverage in mainstream outlets staking out various positions on the meaning or legitimacy of the term. Some of these articles adopted the extreme position that there is no alt-left, which flies in the face of plentiful evidence that all of those earlier commentators were surely referring to very real groups, even though none of those groups used the term themselves.

Just recently, President Trump's adoption of the conservative-preferred definition has led to a new wave of coverage. Some outlets continue to maintain that there is no alt-left, but increasingly, mainstream publications such as The New York Times and The Washington Post are taking the term seriously.

At the same time, liberal outlets don't seem to be trying to re-establish the link to the Democratic Party's socialist wing. This has the effect of solidifying the Antifa-related definition. Also supporting that definition is growing documentation that left-wing radicals have been responsible for more violent protests in recent years than the alt-right. (That source isn't exactly reliable overall, but the list of violent demonstrations passes the sniff test. And though of course the awful violence in Charlottesville was vastly worse than all of those left-wing protests put together, it wouldn't be wise or fair to let that fact brush aside the others. There are plenty of historical examples of brutal murders by the left as well.)

So it seems likely to me that over time we're likely to see the usage of this term consolidate behind the conservative definition, and even while we're waiting to see if that really happens, there's an interesting fact-based story to tell right here. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

References

I dispute the above as being a way forward. First all that from one source? OK, but please explain why we should use this one source as the overarching source to begin?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark, I said "Here's what I think we know based on the references existing in the article." I think that's pretty clear. I mentioned one additional web page, but only to support one narrow point I'm trying to bring into the story. I strongly support the basic principle of WP:AGF, but you really do seem to be intent on pursuing a strategy of obstructionism here, and eventually assumptions must yield to ground truth. You said "first." Do you have other comments that would be more constructive? Did I, for example, assert any facts that reliable sources contradict? Did I overlook any useful, verifiable facts? 98.247.224.9 (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Look, I am discussing this with you and have made no comment that can be seen as not AGF. If you are attempting a good faith move forward please AGF yourself.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

In actual point of fact I do see your assertion that I used "this one... overarching source" to support "all that" text as an example of non-good-faith argument. This assertion was obviously false-to-fact because in my VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH I referred to "the references existing in the article." And this is just one example of several in your other comments. From these facts—the ground truth—I conclude that you are not arguing fairly or honestly.98.247.224.9 (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You stated;"The term "alt-left" saw isolated uses from 2015 into early 2017 by both liberal and conservative commentators". Now, perhaps you are just not seeing the above discussions but I have already disputed that and still dispute that. I dispute the 2015 history and that this is common use with both conservative and liberals.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

UTC)

user: 98.247.224.9 Agree this is an excellent starting point and also aligns with other reliable sources showing usage of the term as far back as 2015 or earlier. It does not appear there are any objections so I would say this is a nice starting point for the article when it comes off of lockdown. I admit I previously thought Trump was responsible for creating the term but there are obviously reliable sources documenting significant usage before Charlottesville. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:D0D2:BEF6:80AE:E760 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Just because there was something called alt-left in 2015 (there was a website but it was not the same thing and sources confirm that) or other uses even in 2016 by Democrats, these are not the same descriptors that the alt-left is supposed to have by the majority of sources. So...I don't believe we should be describing such in blanket terms.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

user:Mark Miller Is it your contention that the term did not see isolated usage in 2015/2016? Just curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.114.214.45 (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

What I am saying is that we cannot just say that something labeled in 2015 with the same or similar name is the same subject. In some instances (such as the UK) they are simply not related at all. Care must be made to distinguish what the use was in it's earlier stages. So, for example we might say that the term was used in a different manner by so and so at such and such time but then we would need very careful wording as to not use Wikipedia's voice to claim it is the same "usage or definition" as Sean Hannity or Donald Trump's.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark, maybe you would find it helpful to remember that the article is about the TERM "alt-left," not any ONE MEANING of the term. That's what I wrote above—a summary of the history of the TERM, based on the reliable sources already referenced in the article plus that one more. If you keep trying to interpret my text as an explanation of just ONE MEANING of the term, you will never get anywhere. Surely the 2015 website was just one isolated (same meaning as "independent," "disconnected," "unrelated," etc.) attempt to coin the term into more common use? And just as surely, both conservatives and liberals have made more isolated attempts to bring the word into more common use since then. Do you get it now? 98.247.224.9 (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The article was created by a now-banned sockpuppet and is trending towards delete, so don't get too carried away. If by some miracle it survives deletion, the focus should shift solely slur/pejorative aspect, as that is the only form in which this term exists. TheValeyard (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Where the article came from is now utterly irrelevant since most of the text in it now comes from other editors. Your repeated reminders of that origin are clearly destructive, not constructive. Please stop. Similarly, if the term "alt-left" is coming into broad use by notable, reliable sources as a way to refer to the Antifa movement and other similar movements—as I believe it is, and will continue to be, though I happily stipulate that it's too soon to be absolutely sure this whole thing won't just blow over—then it isn't a pejorative term any more, even if it continues to be used pejoratively by some people. We can't stop that, but we can and should explain it. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Editors arguing for deletion fail to understand that the term has been used hundreds of times in reliable sources over the past few days. People are obstensibly coming to wikipedia to find information about the phrase. This is an encyclopedia and it is our job to provide that information. If you don't like the term - that's fine! Contribute and help write an article that tells the verifiable truth about he term and it's origins. The gold, bad and ugly. But by failing to have an entry at all, we In turn fail our readership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.67.118 (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

IPs and editors (who forget to sign their posts) arguing to keep it fail to understand that Wikipedia isn't a wp:coatrack or a wp:dictionary. We're not using the king of America's faux-pas as an excuse to create a vessel into which to pump the objections of supporters of the far right who don't like the fact that our project reflects how it's spokespersons are portrayed in available sources. Edaham (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

But that's just it. Call the term what it is. Dont candy coat anything. But at least provide the information. Its irrelevant whether someone is a supporter of the "alt-right" or "alt-left" or whatever term is being used. This project is here provide information. And it can still conintie to portray spokespersons or whoever on whatever light the sources reflect. But to not have the information at all is doing everyone a disservice. 2600:1012:B068:BBB8:38DA:4C97:BBCE:AAA2 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

We aren't here to promote every piece of information and news article surrounding a subject in numerous POV forks. If we were we'd soon have an article on how you are a single edit, single purpose sock puppet created solely to comment on this thread as opposed to joining the effort to build an encyclopedia, just because some of the editors who might be thinking it happen to mention it in a speech. We don't though because, firstly it might not be true, secondly not all information is that important and thirdly, we have other pages which more than enclose what can be written about these subjects within their scope. Edaham (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If dozens of reliable sources, commentators, and newspapers made hundreds of mentions about me being an SPA/SOCK, then yes, an article might be appropriate. Please AGF and take your aspersions elsewhere - they are unnecessary and unhelpful. I do want to build an encyclopedia and I happen to believe that said encyclopedia should include an entry on this particular subject. Yoiu disagree and that's fine - reasonable minds can differ. I am simply presenting my views on the matter, notice I am not commenting on you nor casting aspersions. For what it's worth I don't care for Trump or the alt-right one bit. I do however believe that there has been enough coverage of this ideology to warrant an article. That's it in a nutshell. 70.197.76.99 (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't really cast aspirations regarding people I'm not sure exist now, can I? Or maybe I can - that seems to be the way the IPs would like things to work. Surely my unhelpful comments regarding your thread are a metaphysical nod in the direction of supporting such inclusions. As good a reason as any to cease. In any case I took your comments about being here in good faith as such and accordingly I have left you a welcome message and a link to the Wikipedia adventure, which will help you to locate articles outside of your very small nutshell, which are need of attention and creation - i.e. not this one. Nb. Apologies if you get this welcome message twice or even three times. It may have been sent to several of the accounts used to vote on this page, some of which may or may not be the same user. We're not aloud to make accusations, but apologies are encouraged - Edaham (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Notability of subject

IP user 98.247.224.9 stated; "Mark, maybe you would find it helpful to remember that the article is about the TERM "alt-left," not any ONE MEANING of the term. That's what I wrote above". Then, are you attempting to tell me this is an ambiguous term with different meanings, associations and groups with different definitions? Because if so, that sounds a lot like a list article. That has some slightly different criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. You might be suggesting that this is a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article, an ariticle about a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts. In our notability guideline it states under the section "Whether to create standalone pages"; "There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.". It may be better to merge any content here to several different articles such as antifa, United States presidential election, 2016 and even as a part of the "response" or "reaction" section in Alt-right article and then create a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page to point to the various articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification

The part "Unrelated to Donald Trump's use of the word," appears to fail verification. The source must say it was "unrelated".

See "The term gained prevalence when U.S. president Donald Trump used the phrase during remarks on the Charlottesville rally on August 15, 2017." According to which source it "gained prevalence" after Trump used it? I think we needs sources in the lede in order to verify the content for a controversial topic. QuackGuru (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That is actually a good point towards the use of references in the lede.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:QuackGuru I checked the history and the line about "Unrelated to Donald Trump.." was attached to the original claim with no additional references. This appears to be original research or synthesis. Without that sourced context, I think it only confuses the situation and other content. I'm for losing it and going back to my original suggestion that I struck out. We should just add a "Not to be confused with". Template at the top of the page.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The page may be deleted. Mark Miller, to ping an editor you have to correctly use {{U}} or {{ping}}. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks..I did screw that up pretty badly. :) Sorry!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 August 2017

Change no subscribers in citation 4 to anti-fa, communists, and other left-wing terrorist organizations. Bolo boloman (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That wouldn't be an accurate piece of text Edaham (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I am curious about something. Is user:Edaham an administrator? Not sure why he was answering user:Bolo boloman's query. I was under the impresssi that protected edit requests had to be approved by an administrator. Perhaps I am incorrrect in the matter.2600:1012:B02E:F7E3:ED27:2A98:388A:AA18 (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I removed Edaham's decline of this edit fully-protected request, because only admins should do this. The original IP requester would have more credibility if they identified themself properly. (They signed as User:Bolo boloman, but Bolo did not make this request). In general, edit requests on highly-disputed articles ought to be perceived to have consensus, for example, through a talk thread that reaches this conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston oh, was it fully protected - I thought it was a semi and didn't notice. oops - many apologies . Edaham (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done SPA request, this is the user's only edit. Nakon 04:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Many Scholars

It appears there is consensus to remove this line as it contains weasel-words. Can we please modify/remove it? 2602:30A:2C2A:370:540A:71D0:2C47:8CE1 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The citations quote 3 reliable sources which relay the opinions of a cultural critic for Vanity Fair, an analyst for the Anti-Defamation League, and so on, all agree that the "alt left" doesn't actually exist. IMO, the wording is fine, and does not necessitate an edit-through-full-protection request. TheValeyard (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

My contention is with the weasel-word "many". Let's attribute the opinion to the source(s) rather than using weasel-words.

 Not done, please feel free to edit the article once the full protection expires. Thanks, Nakon 04:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Usage

Underneath the "Usage" section, the following is stated in wikipedias voice. I believe it to be POV (I bolded the specific part).: Outside of being a derogatory term for radical progressive activists, the label usually refers to a faction of the political left that does not exist, as the progressive or far left segments of political ideology do not identify by any other particular collective noun. Can we please change or remove this sentence as it is highly POV and inaccurate? 162.194.160.55 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Same as the above, the reliable sources paint the term as a slur or a hollow attempt at false equivalence. No need to edit a fully-protected article for an edit that doe snot have consensus support. TheValeyard (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, not disagreeing with you, I just don't feel the word "usually" is helpful. Why not attribute the claims to the actual source?2602:301:772D:62D0:8089:391F:4409:CD33 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I fail to understand under what guideline you feel the word "usually" qualifies as POV. The sources support the use of the word "Usually" and in some cases state it with the same wording. I could support a more encyclopedic tone such as "in most cases" but do not see any reason to lose the word.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

which sources state it with the same wording? 2602:301:772D:62D0:8089:391F:4409:CD33 (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I think on this one, you may need to do the actual footwork of reading the sources. I see no reason to begin supplying sources over this question. This seems too easy for the general reader or contributor to look into.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I looked into the original question by User talk:162.194.160.55. I believe they have something here. I believe what the user is saying is that the wording is non neutral point of view. From Wikipedia:NPOV; "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." While the use of the word usual does correspond with many of the references I have read...I am actually the one that placed the original content that was "The label refers to something that does not exist.[11]" but was then stretched out into a very long claim and attributed it to the source in line as an opinion piece which they considered only because of the politics of the source. From there is got edited more. So, this should be edited back. Could EdJohnston or another admin please edit that to return it to the simple claim that was supported by the reference?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The ENTIRE "does not exist" part needs to removed unless it is cited SOLELY as an opinion of a given source. And it must be cited directly, not stated in WPs voice - that is policy and we must follow policy. 2602:301:772D:62D0:418A:A663:2E15:5168 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Uhm...what policy is that? In fact...that part is repeated a few times in sources. If anything I could see just losing the entire thing and rescuing the reference by placing it next to the same claim made elsewhere in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You are attempting to state in Wikipedia's voice that the alt-left does not exist. If it.is the opinion of a source it must be stated as such. Just like if another source states that the alt left DOES exist. It's called POV. Please read up on it. 2602:301:772D:62D0:418A:A663:2E15:5168 (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

So there is no specific Wikipedia policy or guideline just your opinion of what constitutes a fact? It is actually mentioned in the article as a fact. The source actually says "It goes without saying..." which it actually does. No, at Wikipedia we summarize the facts as written and only call something an opinion...when it is opinion. An opinion could be in the form of statement of such like; "In my opinion" or be in the form of a full editorial piece but must be identifiable as such. Just because you do not agree with the fact or you dispute the sources, does not mean it is not written as a fact by sources or that we cannot use Wikpedia's voice of authority to state such if the sources make the claim. We summarize without interpretation or analysis. This means that if a claim might be challenged it must be referenced. Once referenced properly and to Wikipedia standards it is up to the one who disputes the content to provide reasoning based on Wikipedia standards.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

user:Mark Miller I don't think you understand the concept. If The Daily Bugle says "the alt-left does not exist" and The Daily Times says "the alt-left does exist", we cannot state in wikipedia's voice as a fact either one. We can, however attribute the statement to it's appropriate source. For example: "According to the Daily Bugle, the alt-left does not exist", or "The Daily Times has stated that the alt-left does indeed exist and has origins from...". You seem to want the article to say "The alt-left refers to something that does not exist". We can't do this. We need to say what source makes this claim as it is indeed an opinion. It's not a fact. Depending on who you ask, and which source you reference, there are all kinds of opinions about the alt-left. Does this make sense? I am attempting to avoid another edit war like we had before the artilce was locked down. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that isn't how it works. If there are truly two differing sets of "facts" of equal weight and value...that last part is vital, then you discuss both...you do not call two opposing views in articles "opinion" just because there are others who say something different. It's WP:BALANCE; "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.".

Other factors include WP:PROPORTION which states; "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Right below that is WP:FALSEBALANCE which then states; "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.".--Mark Miller (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you have posted. There are reliable sources stating the alt-left exists, just like there are reliable sources stating the alt-left does NOT exist. The sources stating that it does exists are not a "tiny minority" or "fringe sources". The term and the existence of it's underlying concept have been well covered by reliable sources. So to state unequivocally that the alt-left does not exist is indeed false balance. You hit it on the head in your third sentence: we describe BOTH points of view and strive for balance. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

While this is not the section to further this discussion, you have not demonstrated that the sources are equal. In fact neither have I. I believe this to be what I have seen overall. Next in the discussion to gain a consensus, we would lay out or arguments in a logical manner by demonstration in some manner. We might decide that both views are equal and we might decide that one view has the most credible references themselves to back up claims while other sources merely mention the subject in a minor passing mention or without any specific way to source their own claims. Just an example of course. There are other ways to determine what is academic consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done, please feel free to edit the article once the full protection expires. Thanks, Nakon 04:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Current disputes/issues

• The lede (lead) - MOS:INTRO states that; "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." and "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." However, right now, it actually contradicts the body of the article. The lede says; "Alt-left is a neologism begun by conservative online media in 2016 suggesting the existence of a similar ideological fringe movement to the Alt-right on the political left." but the first sentence in the "Background" section state; "The usage of the term is made in contradictory ways, with many scholars noting that there is no equivalent to the alt-right on the hard and far political left."

References

We should probably cite most of the claims in the lede ( even if we are just repeating the citations from the article) and make sure we are not straying into NPOV, synthesis or original research.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• The following needs to be "unpacked". All the references for several claims are clustered at the end of the statement. I cannot verify part of this claim from the Washington Post by Aaron Blake which is cited 3 additional times as it is pay perview and I do not have a subscription;

Its usage eventually circulated within conservative online media, and was popularized around those circles through its use by Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity to suggest the existence of a similar ideological fringe movement on the political left. On the November 14, 2016 edition of his eponymous Fox News program, Hannity used the term to excoriate "alt-left media" together with "mainstream" and "radical" media for being "biased against President-elect Trump".

References

I'll come back and add a few more later. If anyone has something about the article they take issue with, please add your concern.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Just parking this here. I found a version of the Aaron Blake story from 2016, [3]--Mark Miller (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence in the "Background" section stating; "The usage of the term is made in contradictory ways, with many scholars noting that there is no equivalent to the alt-right on the hard and far political left." needs to either be deleted entirely, or changed. We must avoid weasel-words like "many scholars". We can say "According to xxxx..." but we can't say "many scholars" as it is inaccurate and not sourced. Nowhere in any of the sources does the phrase "many scholars" occur. 23.242.67.118 (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The Confusion of Left & Right

The authors who framed this article are intellectual frauds. Low level of scholarship, not only is this article rude? Scholastically pejorative, an insult upon our letters, arts and sciences, this article should have been expunged, upon conception.

General discussion of topic/not a forum.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Alt-left" or "alt-right" do not constitute specific generic or elemental slots in the policy community. "Extreme-right," "right," "center," "left," or "extreme-left" are terms which generalize ideological attitude and disposition toward conflict resolution, conflict analysis, and problem solving across three specific contexts: (1) economic systems, (2) political systems, and (3) philosophy of change. As follows: Economic Systems - Alt-right is pejorative for Laissez Faire Capitalism: - e.g., let it be; leave it alone; no government involvement in the economy, whatsoever; big and small producers compete. Hard-right is pejorative, for National Capitalism: - e.g., Large monopolies, duopolies, oligopolies and cartels under government protection. Right is pejorative, for Classical Capitalism: - e.g., Numerous small and large producers in free and open competition of supply & demand; labor and welfare totally competitive. Center is pejorative for Guided Capitalism: - e.g., private enterprise regulated in the public interest; rights of labor; welfare and social security materializing in some form. [[Left" is pejorative for Socialism: - e.g., nationalization of major enterprise; complete social security and welfare. Hard-left is pejorative for State-Communism: - e.g., top-down ownership by government of all factors of production; no private property, no rent, no profit. Alt-left is pejorative for Utopian-Marxist Concept: - e.g., theoretical communism; complete group effort; to each according to need. Political Systems - Alt-right is pejorative for Totalitarianism & Fascism: - e.g., elite rule based upon race, destiny and brute power; will of the people ignored. Hard-right is pejorative for Monarchy: - e.g., elite rule based upon divine right; rights to heredity. Right is pejorative for Democratic Authoritarianism: - e.g., rule by minority in the interest of the people; one party system; mechanisms for gauging public sentiment. Center is pejorative for people who have no idea what they're talking about: - e.g., there is no such thing as a "central" ideological political archetype; it doesn't exist; it never has. Left is pejorative for Representative Democracy: - e.g., "the republic"; people elect representatives who affect policy; minority rights refined by law; multiple party system. Hard-left is pejorative for Pure Democracy: - e.g., Government completely controlled by all the people; all vote on policy. Alt-left is pejorative for Anarchy: - e.g., every man for himself; no government. Philosophy of Change - Alt-right is pejorative for Ultra-conservatism: - (e.g., the "truth" is known; change in any accepted way is treason; allow no discussion of change. Hard-right is pejorative for Reactionism: - e.g., go back to the good old days; regain lost virtues; too many changes have occurred. Right is pejorative for Conservatism - e.g., classical conservatism; support of the tried and true; suspicious of change; fear and respect of unintended consequence; accept problems rather than risk the unknown. Center is pejorative for Moderatism - e.g., acceptance of change where need is clearly evident; burden of proof on changers. Left is pejorative for Liberalism: - e.g., classical liberalism; accept change readily; see progress in change; no dogma; much to be done. Hard-left is pejorative for Radicalism: - e.g., rapid and revolutionary change; acceptance of extreme solutions; time is of the essence. Alt-left would be pejorative for you have no position; you're off the map: - e.g., slang for inept individuals so hopelessly lost or muddled in their confusion of left and right, they cannot conceive or differentiate economic systems from political systems, political systems from philosophy of change, or their philosophy of change from fundamental comparative economics (e.g., the people who framed this article). Those outside-looking-in may oftentimes attempt general characterization of a mob, or group, as "alt-left," or "alt-right," across all three aforementioned contexts. However, that individuals tend to be eclectic and notoriously inconsistent, no one individual is ever hard-left, or hard-right across every continuum, with consistency over duration. Arguably so, some intra-combinations could be characterized comedic (e.g., a Utopian-Marxist Monarchist?), a scholastic abomination (e.g., a reactionary-anarchist?) or utterly absurd (e.g., a radical proponent of laissez-faire capitalism?). Nonetheless, that none of the three aforementioned continuums are statistically dependent, or synonymous, much less binding, we may characterize an individual as, say, a socially concerned right-leaning "political" moderate (e.g., proponent of democratic authoritarianism), a fiscal ultra-conservative (e.g., a proponent of Laissez-Faire Capitalism), yet sees progress with respect to philosophy of change (e.g., "Liberalism") would be wholly consistent with a human being's thought process with respect to policy, conflict resolution and problem solving. We can presuppose no mean. Blanket characterization of the hypothetical individual a moderate would be, by definition, rude. Oscillation and inconsistency in and of our perceptions are deeply etched in our humanity, and are profoundly affected by event, income, status, space, and time. Little compunction for racking up debt, plenty of time still left in life to correct from early mistakes, youths tend to be fiscally liberal. Little time left to self-correct from mistakes, with age human beings gravitate toward fiscal conservatism. It would be a fallacy of composition characterizing all youth as off-the-map Utopian-Marxists (e.g., alt-left), and all senior citizens as totalitarian-fascist Archie Bunkers who voted for Herbert Hoover (e.g., alt-right) - qed, asj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

47.136.138.209 (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark Miller continued reversions

@Mark Miller:} Is there a reason you continue to revert edits to this article with no edit summary? I realize it is a contentious topic, and in some ways distasteful, but at the same time we owe it to the reader to explain what the term means and how it is being used. Just having a sentence saying "It is a neologism and pejorative" doesn't really help people understand the phrase. 2602:30A:2C2A:370:458D:E292:3BA3:D6CE (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I should use more summary explanations. That is true. I will be more alert to that.

@Mark Miller:} One again, you are saying in your edit summary that the sources do not say what they actually do say.. The three sources in question say (verbatim I might add) "the term maintains differing usages between both parties" ss well as "The term has been used by some politicians and political commentators on both sides of the political aisle to frame certain activists and politicians on the left as an equation to the alt-right". Your edit summary say that the sources do not say this, when actuality they say it quite clearly. did you read the sources in question? 162.194.160.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

To make a claim about groups requires multiple strong sources that state as fact in unambiguous terms. This is original research and lacks inline citations to specific claims making it very difficult to verify, but when checked the sources simply do not support the claims.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, did you read the sources? They use this EXACT phrasing! I am now genuinely confused. Would you be more comfortable with "according to the New York Times..." blah blah blah...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.194.160.55 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I did read the sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok so once again, the NYT article uses the exact phrasing in question. Can you please clearly explain your objection (without being vague and saying "it's against policy")? More specifically, my question to you is why the objection to directly quoting a reliable source verbatim? No synth, no OR. Just using the exact words in the exact order that the NYT article used. I don't want to battle with you - I am asking in goof faith why the objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.194.160.55 (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what claim do you feel that supports?--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I asked a very simple question. Please provide the courtesy of answering it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C2A:370:458D:E292:3BA3:D6CE (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark Miller, you have no mandate to blank the sourced and relevant material from the lede. Stop your unilateral reverts.Axxxion (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Source your content with an inline citation and be careful of what claims you make about groups. All content that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be cited to a reliable source using an inline citation. It is up to the editor that adds the content back to provide an inline citation to a reliable source and once accomplished satisfies this guideline on verifiability. But the source must state it in in unambiguous terms.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you write a lot of characters here, but do not seem to say clearly and specifically what you think is not supported by sources and what you suggest.Axxxion (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You should recognize the last comment, it paraphrases our policy on verifiability.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not the one who created the subsection away from the discussion about the lede. I am just responding here as it is where the discussion continued.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

General criticism of the topic/not a forum.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
why deleted? Hatting nonsense. See WP:NOTAFORUM. Jdcomix (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. why deleted? i found this article and then rememberd the robertslindsay blog and the altleft he would refer to robert was well recived on the badlingustics and badhistory and iamverysmart reddits why was my edits deleted i had primary sources not secondary ones? my best edit Protohistory A blogger Robert Lindsay and Rabbit? founded a movement called alt-left or what as the altleft site defined itself originally as "…The Other Red Pill" and currently as "The Left of the AltRight" also a reddit what they also called the paleo-left in late 2016 , the altleft blog dates back to 2015. </ref> Maybe split article into "altleft trumpite propoganda term" section up top then altleft internet movement or alt left movement trumps abuse of the term? and then i find someone has already bought this up below :The Alt-Left already existed prior to reinvention but i did not know as i did not read the talk page why was those primary sources not considerd after all wiki has links to social media and primary sources on google books trump is saying altleft=antifa so people they are no different to the altright except i have the altleft here and they are somewhat similar and somewhat differenet to the alt right you can see how different the altright and altleft are to the antifascists but see robert bans fascists on his blog but he also hates the current left however the altleft site seems to approve of the beatnik fascism so there is the lovehate between them they are like porcupines or somethin the altlefters in my mind seem to be a hybrid of pre 60s mildly racist labour left plus 30s fabian socialists eugenics? plus tankies but the seem to prefer keynes to planning i think robert said that mao and stalin were the greatest humanitarians ever if i remember correctley it gets weirder he is friends with jared taylor the white nationalist the more robert you read the more wtf it gets i used to read his blog until it became too crazy i havent read it in about a year but look here is primary source these guys are too obscure for the scholars and media to know of so this is a you read it here first on wikipedia. so in conclusion there is the altright the bs trump altleft catchphrase which is to attack the antifascists and then there is the obscure altleft people on the internet pre trump propganda use news use , mark ames the exiled good reading. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/why-the-alt-left-is-a-problem The alt-right receives the meatiest share of attention in the media, as it should. It’s powerful, vicious, steeped in neo-Nazi ideology, nativist white supremacy, men’s-rights misogyny, and Ayn Rand capitalist übermensch mythos, and it heralds a conquering hero in the White House in President Donald J. Trump, while the former executive chairman of the venereally right-wing Breitbart News, Steve Bannon, functions as despot whisperer, trickling Iago-ish poison into Trump’s receptive skull. The alt-left can’t match that for strength, malignancy, or tentacled reach, but its dude-bros and “purity progressives” exert a powerful reality-distortion field online and foster factionalism on the lib-left. Its outlets include not only Jacobin but also the Intercept, one of whose co-founders is the inexhaustible Glenn Greenwald, lawyer, author, journalist, and crucial conduit for Edward Snowden’s stolen N.S.A. data to The Guardian; Web sites such as Truthdig, Consortiumnews, and Naked Capitalism; and anomalous apostates such as Mickey Kaus, a former contributor to liberal percolators of ideas and opinions such as Washington Monthly, the New Republic, Harper’s, and Slate, who migrated sideways and down to the right-wing Daily Caller, did a temporary hitch as a columnist for the Breitbart bughouse in 2016, and serves as a tweeting defender of Trump’s proposed wall. Other busy beavers on Twitter include Michael Tracey, Freddie deBoer, Mark Ames, Connor Kilpatrick (a Jacobin contributor), Jeremy Scahill (journalist and Intercept co-founder), and similar fun guys. A Tumblr site devoted to “Trumpian Leftism” captures the intellectual flavor of their temperaments. One of the alt-left’s political darlings is Tulsi Gabbard, a progressive congresswoman from Hawaii who met with then president-elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower and was rumored to be under consideration for a Cabinet position, and its quixotic preacher-man and noble leper is Cornel West, once an orator at every social-justice convocation who got so uncoiled by his rancorous contempt for Obama and cast adrift into the hazy fringes of the alt-left References