Talk:Dark Enlightenment

Image of Yarvin?

I feel an image of Yarvin would be helpful, if nothing else to provide a face to the name mentioned in the article. There's one already on his wikipedia page. Also relevant would be an image of Nick Land. Thoughts? JBrahms (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What value would that add to the article? We're not supposed to use images just to have images. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@TucanHolmes Most articles about philosophical movements have pictures of their most prominent thinkers. 2601:681:8800:D710:AE4B:A131:FBA6:98A7 (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That might be true, but why should we also add an image to this article, based on that justification alone? What value would it add to this article, and where should such an image be placed? Just adding an image because similar articles have similar images is, as a rule of thumb, not a good motivation for adding images in the first place. Do you have any suggestions for e.g., which image of Yarvin we should use? Wikimedia Commons has two images of Yarvin.

I wouldn't use the one used at Curtis Yarvin; it appears to me overly promotional (might even have been taken specifically for that purpose), and while that is okay-ish for a biography article, I feel like it would be inappropriate in an article about the ideologies espoused by him.

We don't seem to have any usable images of Nick Land, so the question of his inclusion is moot. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is beyond repair

This is full of liberal propaganda pretending to be "neutral" and any attempts to fix it are being instantly reverted. This article is not to be trusted and is yet another sign that Wikipedia is not meant to provide useful information. Photon2003 (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Which parts of the article are "liberal propaganda"? Do you have reliable sources to back up your claims? TucanHolmes (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly on point. 2603:8000:3302:3403:C51B:F569:F69E:9006 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

No article is beyond repair if it documents a notable and otherwise valid topic.

That said, I’ve pointed out some more substantive issues in a new section below.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh god another one getting angry Wikipedia isn't conservative enough for them 83.31.233.168 (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

James Kirchick quotation biased and blatantly wrong

It is really biased to say that "although neo-reactionary thinkers disdain the masses and claim to despise populism and people more generally, what ties them to the rest of the alt-right is their unapologetically racist element, their shared misanthropy and their resentment of mismanagement by the ruling elites." It is pretty univerally agreed upon with fellow NRx thinkers that masses of people are usually misused or don't need appealed to and that there should be an elite. However there is not some consensus among NRx thinkers or followers that we hate humans or are all racist. Yarvin criticizes white nationalism and is from a Jewish family himself. The only NRx thinker I can imagine that is perhaps racist and hates humanity would be maybe Nick Land who is fine with posthumanism. However I would say online NRx thinkers like Auron Macintyre, Charlemagne, and The Distributist are all pro-human and support having children. And I would argue they aren't open or unapologetic racists and probably not racists at all but it is mostly besides the point. The point is that the quatation is misleading media bias that clearly doesn't apply to all neo-reactionary thinkers. Posthumanism is misanthropic but not really even associated as neo-reactionary because that is not a reactionary civilization in any manner. And there are people who are totally fine with multiracial patchwork societies. Crazando (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide citations from reliable sources for your claims, and be specific about what changes you want to make to the article. TucanHolmes (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Are we supposed to believe that you will not instantly revert our work since it obviously conflicts with your worldview? This page reads like a report for parents to know their child's bad behavior at school, but applied through articles from ignorant journalists who make up things on the spot to please their readers. After all, as someone who has intensively studied neoreactionary theory for years, i can confirm that their view of media synopsis is perfectly accurate with what is going on on this article. Photon2003 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC -5)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources in its articles. We do not consider original research, because it's often unverifiable and/or very difficult to verify. While we do use primary sources as sources in an article (in this case, "neoreactionary" writings themselves), we usually rely more on secondary and tertiary sources, especially if the topic is contentious. I will not revert well-sourced and justified additions or removals (changes) to the article, but I – and others – will revert unsubstantiated removals merely resting on vague accusations of "bias". Wikipedia has a bias towards reliable sources, and that will not change just because you don't like it or because of some "neoreactionary" theory about media synopsis.

If you wish to make changes to the article, go and get reliable sources to support those changes, and please note our list of perennial sources. TucanHolmes (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that when writing an informative piece about an ideology to understand it it is better that a totally unrelated journalist writing a hit piece should get a piece of the article rather than quotations from the actual writers and founders of the movement? If so then I would have to say that is like entrusting the British to give all the information about the American Revolution.

Reliable sources? Really? Your journalist makes this claim and has nothing to back it up yet it is my responsibility to prove that it isn't misanthropic and is not a racist movement? Well how about we just lay out quotes calling every ideology racist and misanthropic. After all we only have to show what journalists believe about the ideology, not what it actually says. Crazando (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The change I want made is for the quote to either be removed or put off in a section for criticism/unfounded claims. Crazando (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Crazando. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. We don't post our views or opinions. All claims and quotes must be backed by a cited source. If you feel that cited material is not representing the full picture, or has been contradicted, all you need to do is produce a reliable source that says something different and we can amend the text of the article accordingly. But you are basically saying you want us to remove properly cited material because you disagree with it. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:TRUTH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

He understands how Wikipedia works. Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith when responding to editors. His criticisms are valid. Wikipedia has a strong and factually true bias. Ideological bias on Wikipedia and Media bias. There is something to be said about an obvious circular argument. Only reliable sources are reliable, and reliable sources say who is a reliable source. The left hand investigated the right and determined that he who controls both hands has done no wrong. Most telling is that the majority of the article is just citing editorial opinions of journalists and nothing factual of the ideology or any self descriptions because the self describing of the ideology isn't from a reliable source so it can't be included. Journalists opinions are being included as fact simply because of the website name. The irony is that one of the strongest criticisms that the movement has is against systemic biases in institutions and Wikipedia is the biggest example. If reliable sources are bias, then Wikipedia articles are bias. You're not going to find information that meets your carefully crafted, biased fact checking criteria because that is entirely antithetical to the ideology. How do I know this? Because I listen to subscribers of the ideology, not some raging third rate pundit with a vendetta against people who question his credibility and authority. Of course you'll never actually know what the ideology is really about because neo-reactionaries aren't "reliable sources" about what neo-reactionaryism about. So instead this article parrots legacy media talking points as factual gospel and says that nothing else exists if a reliable source doesn't say it exists. HoadRog (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Change title to "Neo-reactionary movement"

The article already uses "neo-reactionary movement" as alternative title, however, i think that this particular version has surpassed 'dark enlightmenment' as the most popular term for the same movement, both within the academic literature and the more general journalist coverage. 'Dark Enlightenment' remains more attached to a particular rendition of these ideias, related to nick land. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I have never heard it called dark enlightenment outside of wackipedia HoadRog (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Citation needed. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you link some metrics that demonstrate this? Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

A couple issues

First of all, the article gives about three times the word count to criticism (from a grab bag of journalists and pop-soc-sci authors) than it does to describing the actual beliefs and theories of the movement. Second, the article lacks clear descriptions of said beliefs and theories, dealing instead in negative-sounding generalities. Just as importantly, the writing is choppy and that lack of cohesiveness obfuscates the gaps and makes the article harder to read. Furthermore, the authorship pie chart as measured by XTools does not appear to reflect much sociopolitical diversity, and the second largest author, Smooth alligator (talk · contribs), is a sock. All in all, not a pretty picture.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

the article gives about three times the word count to criticism

What are you including in this? The criticism section seems quite skinny and I cant see much explicit criticism elsewhere.

the article lacks clear descriptions of said beliefs and theories, dealing instead in negative-sounding generalities.

I agree that the description of neoreaction ideational content should be more developed. About the 'negative-sounding', I think that in general we should strive to fulfill the principles of reliability and impartiality, and the criticism of the article should be based on that level - whether it ends 'sounding negative' or not, it will have more to do with the actual subject and readers beliefs than the encyclopedic presentation. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @RadioactiveBoulevardier. I came to this article to learn about DE and I feel I have found a hazy mirror. The encyclopedic presentation is poor. The DE ideas should be summarized neutrally first, for what they are. The text contains way too many quotations and these are mostly of labeling nature, not even substantive critical reviews. Tytire (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the overt criticism is not limited to the “Critiques” section.

As for neutrality, it’s a matter of framing. There are plenty of utterly wackadoodle philosophical movements that are spared that sort of treatment, simply because they could be construed as very broadly left-leaning.

Emitting platitudes about striving to fulfill principles is hardly a new response to criticism. For example, I’ve seen other editors do it before as a way to avoid responsibility for repeatedly inserting whatever RSP-approved material would suit their viewpoint, typically while also passively excluding RS that don’t (which then allows them to claim they did nothing, much as Clinton claimed to have done nothing). I’m not saying you are, merely that it’s a line of argument that doesn’t squarely address concerns raised.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

"Furthermore, the authorship pie chart as measured by XTools does not appear to reflect much sociopolitical diversity" where on XTools does it tell you a user's sociopolitical status? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

XTools links to user pages, and most serious editors give a complex forest of symbols and cues on their pages. It’s not terribly hard to follow a hyperlink. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

And from those cues you have been able to discern sociopolitical status? I would like to know how and what status you have assigned to which users. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)