Jump to content

Template talk:Alt-right footer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Overlinking

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)

FYI Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Alt-right sidebar. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Attention!

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)

If the anti-communism aspect is key to the history of the alt-right, I'd expect it to be included in the main article. It isn't, and shouldn't be in the template until that link can be established. Similarly, people who are noted to be linked to the alt-right in their own pages, like Milo, should remain in the template, honestly. Parabolist (talk) 05:45, 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)

That may be so, which is why I'm in favor of limiting people in this sidebar to those that are identified as such on their own pages. If they are, then it can be a discussion for that talkpage. This sidebar should only have pages with direct connections to the alt-right in it. I think we're mostly in agreement on this, and it's why I haven't really touched the People section yet, since I'm not hugely familiar with most of them. Parabolist (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
That said, I noticed you reverted my changes to the "Memetics" section, can I ask why? Memetics is a hugely broad term, and the usage here seems to be a shorthard for the more colloquial meme. All of the links in the section would fit better in the Related Topics section, and it'd be significantly less puffery. Parabolist (talk) 00:34, 10 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)

Sure, but what you're describing would need to be either in an existing article, or an article of its own. This sidebar is a purely navigational template, for allowing quick linking to related subjects. Parabolist (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
For Wikipedia's purposes, we're going for verifiability, not truth. Deserve doesn't really come into it, and nothing should be included based on editor opinion. If an article is connected to the alt-right, based on citations to reliable sources, in its article, then it may be relevant to include in a navigational box, but there should be no links to articles that don't deal with this subject directly (saying it's related when it's not based on citations to reliable sources is what WP:NOR is all about). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
This will continue as a dispute, as long as there are sources that classify certain individuals as 'alt-right', even if said individuals do not associate with that movement. I retain my position that this distinction be made in the articles, as well as the templates. Otherwise, edit warring will continue. — Confession0791 talk 06:47, 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)

As per WP rules, doing that constitutes WP:OR. We operate off reliable sources, which say these people are at best associated with and influencers of the alt-right, even if they are not self-defied members themselves. Wikipedia is not a forum for members of the alt-right to push purity tests, nor is it a forum for 'alt-lite' people to push an image of their movement that is contrary to reliable sources.--137.205.238.114 (talk) 20:52, 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)

People section

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)

Totally unsourced info on WP:BLPs. Better off to have People separately in a "List" page, where they can be properly cited for each entry. Section should be removed as unsourced. Sagecandor (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Alain de Benoist

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)

Peter Brimelow

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)

Nathan Damigo

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)

John Derbyshire

removed John Derbyshire , WP:BLP violation as his article has zero references about this. Sagecandor (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Heimbach

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Augustus Sol Invictus

Charles C. Johnson

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)

Alex Kurtagić

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)

Kevin B. MacDonald

Kevin B. MacDonald

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)

Stefan Molyneux

Ilana Mercer

Henrik Palmgren

Paul Ray Ramsey

Jared Taylor

Lucian Wintrich

Purpose

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)

@Parabolist:Strongly agree. Template is being spammed into every single conceivable page possible and it is disruptive. Standard should be previous mention in article body text by at least two (2) reliable independent sources. Sagecandor (talk) 17:56, 29 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)

Pepe image

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017

Remove proudboys from the organizers section. Proudboys (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a page on the alt-right as a whole, not anything specifically about the recent Unite the Right rally. Are you claiming the Proud Boys are un-affiliated with the alt-right? Power~enwiki (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{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)

Criteria for inclusion (People)

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.

  1. We (a) find sources that dispute the existing reliable sources that x individual is part of the alt-right, (b) add those sources to the original article about x individual, (c) remove x individuals from the footer box on the basis of ongoing dispute over that designation on the original article page. If it is done for a large number of individuals, it may make the formation of an 'alt-lite' footer box necessary, again providing reliable sources can be found for x individuals being identified with that designation, and a WP:NOTABILITY dispute over the creation of that footer box does not arise.
  2. We include *all* individuals that currently have reliable sources (the Rhododendenrites rule) in the box.

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)

The standard I mentioned is really just basic policy mixed with navbox best practices. It's basically a starting point that could get more stringent based on what there's consensus for. Given we don't allow WP:OR original research, we need reliable sources to make a connection before we do. Including a subject here that isn't connected to the alt-right in their article is WP:OR (whether it's true is secondary, i.e. being true isn't justification for including anything). As "alt-right" can be a contentious label, it's even more important for the sources to be really solid. An open question is to what extent someone/something should be associated with the alt-right to be included here. Is it sufficient to to briefly mention it in the article, or should there be a significant connection made? I haven't really opined as far as that one goes. Especially with people, because of WP:BLP, we should be erring on the side of not applying a label via inclusion here.
Anyway, I mainly wanted to clarify that I'm not advocating to include all individuals for which there is a source -- that's just the baseline. My priority was removing individuals whose articles did not make that claim with reliable sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2017

Add Jared Taylor to the list of people in the alt-right footer. Horsebite22 (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 23:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hill

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)

I re-added undisputed additions. Could you also list the disputed ones in a seperate talk section? DrawingLol (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't have time to go through each one individually, but it looks like you didn't check the ones you added so I would say they are all disputed. For example you just re-added Faith Goldy, and there is nothing at that article to support that the subject is part of the alt-right movement. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I meant stuff like the Rise Above Movement, etc. DrawingLol (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

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)

Something along those lines might be good. You could use Template:Navbox subgroup. What subgroups did you have in mind? I can only think of a few notable people who would fall under, say, Dark Enlightenment. Smooth alligator (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Dark Enlightenment, New Right/Alt-Light, Neo-Confederate, Neo-Nazi, Neo-Fascist, and the Spencerite alt-right. Thoughts? DrawingLol (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thing about that is, then we run into the same issue that whatever label you want to apply to someone, you have to back up with reliable sources. Plus we have to support the assertion that these sub-categories fall under the alt-right as well. Normally this wouldn't be necessary with a navbox, but it's just a really contentious area. Smooth alligator (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
There isn't really a great way to do this, but it seems better than putting Roy Moore next to Andrew Anglin. DrawingLol (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Another possibility is to split off these different subgroups into their own separate navboxes. I would've done that already with the Dark Enlightenment, except that there don't seem to be a lot of notable people, organizations, books, etc. associated with DE. (If you know of more, feel free to add them to Template:Dark Enlightenment sidebar, after adding any necessary sourcing to the DE article, of course.) Smooth alligator (talk) 16:02, 26 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)

Antifeminism

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 NYT says, "The “alt-right” . . . is also anti-immigrant, anti-feminist and opposed to homosexuality and gay and transgender rights." Smooth alligator (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Although it's less of a BLP issue, I don't think we should be adding anything to this nav box unless the association with alt-right is supported by a citation at the subject's article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Some of these people, like Curtis Yarvin, may have a complicated relationship with the alt-right, resulting in there not being a citation clearly saying that they're part of the alt-right. Yarvin probably would've had more to say about the alt-right, except that he mostly stopped blogging to focus on Urbit instead. But his association with the Dark Enlightenment is well-supported, as is the Dark Enlightenment's association with the alt-right (although that too is a complicated relationship).
What I've found is sometimes helpful is to create a subpage devoted solely to tracking and supporting the connections of people to various movements. I've begun work on this at Template:Alt-right footer/citations. Smooth alligator (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Steve Sailer

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)

Sailer Strategy is linked in the lede of alt-right; I think it is WP:UNDUE there but it's almost impossible to edit that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
No it isn't. The two sources that are cited at the end of the sentence in Steve Sailer's lead that link him to the alt-right don't mention anything even resembling what's written in that sentence. It's pure WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm removing it, and removing him from the template. If anyone objects, I'll start an RfC, which will pretty clearly come down on the side of "no reliable sources support this." Rockypedia (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a tough call, because he's popular in the alt-right, yet may not explicitly identify as alt-right. AmRen says, 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.
Angela Nagle writes, 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.
Sailer is a VDARE writer, and VDARE is associated with the alt-right, so by syllogism, does that make Sailer associated with the alt-right? Smooth alligator (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Guys, everyone is discussing WP:SYNTHESIS theories here. Please read that. The final arbiter is: do any reliable sources explicitly identify him as alt-right? If you find one, feel free to cite it here. For a BLP, you've got to have that; there's no room for interpretation. I have not yet seen one. Rockypedia (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
In that case, he probably doesn't make the cut, if we've rejected the "relevant to the alt-right" or "of interest to the alt-right" or "related to the alt-right" criterion. Smooth alligator (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Here are some.

DrawingLol (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Gab

Any objections to Gab.ai being added? DrawingLol (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from the subject article, along with a source citation. Please do this for all requests of this type. Unless you do, you can assume my answer to all of these requests is "I object." Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Etc.

DrawingLol (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not supported by anything at the subject article. My answer to all of these questions is still "I object" until you provide a quote from the subject article, along with the source citation from the subject article that supports that quote. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
More then...
You don't understand what I'm saying, and I don't know how to make it any more clear. I think you are going about this backwards. The subject's association with the alt-right must first be established at the subject's article, then it can be added to the template. Can someone else jump in here and explain this better than I have? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Augustus Sol Invictus, again

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)

I think we have consensus we need more than "potential interest" to merit inclusion. This is being discussed at the "Criteria, again" section above. Please weigh in there. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:20, 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 depends on whether Vocativ is considered RS for this purpose. If it is, I would object to removing Invictus. Also you're putting way too much WP:OR into this question; the only question is whether the label is supported by sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I know that the Southern Poverty Law Center is left-wing, but would their article on him count? DrawingLol (talk) 19:43, 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)

William Regnery II

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)

Tough call. SPLC doesn't really explicitly name him as part of the alt-right. Buzzfeed and Mother Jones definitely link him to the alt-right but, 1) they're not great sources and 2) is being linked to the alt-right sufficient for putting him in the template? If some editor objected to his inclusion due to BLP reasons I'd find myself agreeing with them, I think. Rockypedia (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Criteria, again

@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)

RooshV has been described as alt-right by Hope After Hate and other news organizations, along with League of the South. I do agree that his denial should be included however, but I saw it more as a rejection of the Spencerite faction. DrawingLol (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I haven't really been watching, but I do see that Roosh V's article mentions the alt-right once. I checked the source. It includes this: '...as he attempts to make his transition from pickup artist ... to a hero of the “alternative right” movement.' That means he would pass my bare minimum for inclusion (as mentioned above). Michael Hill does not -- at least not right now. I don't see a mention in his article and sources don't fly out at me when I do a google search. Sources are available for League of the South, which is already included though. Just to reiterate: nothing should be included unless the person's article connects them to the alt-right, backed up by reliable sources. What people say about themselves isn't really consequential for something like this, but the label is contentious enough that good sources are necessary. If someone would like to propose something more strict than that, that's great, but the inclusion criteria certainly can't be less strict than that, since it's fundamental wiki policy/guideline stuff. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess my question, and I'll admit I haven't followed the previous discussion, is whether someone must be a "member" of the movement (whatever that means) or just associated with it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I would say that the criteria for inclusion be higher than mere mention of alt-right in an article: 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. We must be extra careful in WP:BLP cases: a large bold navbox at the bottom of a page risks unduly influencing the perception of these people, and there is no room for nuance in the template. We must also remember that the purpose of an ideal navigation box is to allow navigation of a small and well-defined group of articles: we should urge restraint over expansions, lest this become a wastebasket of any old article with some relation, no matter how trivial. --Animalparty! (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This is my opinion too, and if we adopt this, then we have many people listed here who should be removed. I would be tempted to remove all of DrawingLol's additions because I don't really have time to examine every one of them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd support that move, as well as a requirement that future additions be sourced; if not somewhere in the template, then at least on this talk page, and approved by other editors working on this template. It appears on a great many articles, and the damage being done is greater than if it were just additions to a single article. Rockypedia (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I have an idea on splitting it, so neo-Nazis aren't lumped in with people like Roy Moore or Steve Bannon. Read below. DrawingLol (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. Citations in navboxes is pretty nonstandard, I think, but I don't have a strong opinion on whether to require linking to sources on the talk page for any included. I suppose the label could be considered contentious in every instance, justifying something like that, but it may get cumbersome. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Cites in the nav box would be highly irregular. I think a clear statement and citation in the subject's article would do it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, no cites in the navbox. To Rhododendrites: it should be cumbersome to add people to this list. It's a BLP nightmare waiting to happen. As Kendall-K1 said, "a clear statement and citation in the subject's article" would do it. Absent that, there's got to be a discussion on the talk page before a person is added. Just my opinion of course. Rockypedia (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
My first inclination when I saw this navbox was to TfD it, since the definition of "alt-right" and whether or not particular people/organizations/concepts are "alt-right" is highly contentious (navboxes typically shouldn't be controversial). I resisted the inclination to see what people did with it, and it seemed like there were enough subjects that are directly connected so didn't think TfD was necessary (which is not to say I think having it is a good thing -- just that I'm not certain enough to nominate it myself). If it requires taking unusual measures to prevent BLP issues, however, perhaps it's worth nominating it and getting some additional opinions? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:05, 26 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)

Consensus

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)

Unless there's some rule that says we have to do it this way, I'm willing to be flexible about the "A clear statement of this relationship, along with source citations, must appear in the subject article" part, and let people provide their supporting sources on this talk page. Smooth alligator (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The rules are WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, among others. Associating someone with a controversial movement, whose name then appears on every other article with the template, including much more controversial subjects, must be done with utmost regards to the actual relevance of the person to the alt-right. We cannot place people in disputed categories or templates, and *sometime later* get around to justifying it on some obscure talk page. If a fact is not currently stated on a BLP, or is of such low importance that even including the fact lends undue weight, then categories and templates should not be applied. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
What I had in mind was justifying it on this obscure talk page, getting consensus, and then adding it to the template. That way we could centralize the discussion of what goes in this footer. The articles could often be in flux, so even if it says at a given moment that someone is in the alt-right, someone might change that, and then one would have to go through the revision history and/or the article talk page to see what was going on. The centralized discussion we're having now about William Regnery II, Martin Sellner, etc. seems to be working okay at sorting out whether there's enough reliably sourced information about these people's relation to the alt-right to justify adding them to the template. Smooth alligator (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

James Allsup

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)

I commented on the talk page there. He does sound alt-right to me but we shouldn't put that in the article without a source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
James Allsup freely identifies with the alt-right movement. For example:

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)

  1. Primary sources need to be much stronger than secondary, if we don't have a secondary source, and we don't.
  2. You're drawing inferences from both of those tweets. If there was one that said "I am part of the alt-right", then sure. Rockypedia (talk) 18:51, 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) :Got any sources? Here's one: Nwanevu, Osita (25 August 2017). "The Alt-Right Is Thrilled About Hillary Clinton's Alt-Right Speech". Slate. The 4chan message board "pol," a major source of alt-right images and memes, waited patiently for its own shout out in the speech but didn't get one. Smooth alligator (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The subject article says "many of its posts taking an explicitly neo-Nazi and Alt-right bent" but none of the four cited sources mention alt-right. So yes, I object. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

DrawingLol (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC) :From https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/memes-4chan-trump-supporters-trolls-internet-214856 In 2011, 4Chan created /pol/, its politically incorrect board, in part to house racist threads and other rants that were polluting the rest of the site. The white nationalist alt-right was forged in the crucible of 4Chan and remains indelibly marked by its emergence from meme culture.

/pol/ was also described at https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/10/5/16400394/las-vegas-shooting-fake-news-propaganda as 4chan’s alt-right stronghold.
I am fine with including this in the footer. Smooth alligator (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Rise Above Movement

Any objections to the Rise Above Movement being added? DrawingLol (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

DrawingLol (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The Rise Above Movement article says that it's an alt-right organization, so it meets the criteria set out above for being listed in the footer. Smooth alligator (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The article fails to attribute this to its source, which is the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. Are they RS for this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/far-right-groups-blaze-into-national-view-in-charlottesville.html describes RAM as a loose collective of California neo-Nazis, formerly known as the DIY Division, who train to fight at political events. No mention there of being alt-right.
However, at http://jewishjournal.com/news/nation/california/223517/southern-california-alt-right-group-involved-charlottesville-rally/ it says:
Joanna Mendelson, investigative researcher and director of special projects for the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, said RAM is a reincarnation of a disbanded, alt-right-affiliated group called the DIY Division.
“Apparently, the organization aims to counter what they describe as ‘consumer propaganda and values’ favoring instead ‘a pioneering spirit, the spirit of a fighter, our warrior spirit’ ” she said. “However, RAM operates more like an alt-right fight club, championing the movement’s values of white supremacy, anti-Semitism and anti-antifa activity, while pursuing physical fitness goals to prepare them for altercations at protests.”
At https://www.propublica.org/article/white-hate-group-campaign-of-menace-rise-above-movement it says, Oren Segal of the ADL said RAM could prove durable or fizzle out in a matter of months. It’s too soon to tell. But in both their short-term menace and their uncertain long-term future, Segal said RAM is quite representative of what he called the “new alt-right youth brigades.”
Based on that, I don't have a problem with including it in the footer. This edit calls them "Extremely Minor group with less than 100 members" but they apparently have been considered notable enough thus far to have an article. If someone wants to argue they're not, AfD is available. Smooth alligator (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
As I just said, all of these sources are just repeating what Oren Segal said. If that's all we've got, then we at least need to attribute this to Segal rather than stating it as fact. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::Are you saying Mendelson too is getting her info from Segal? Segal isn't mentioned in the Jewish Journal article. Here's another tidbit, from http://www.politicalresearch.org/2017/08/07/an-alt-right-update/

As Northern California Anti-Racist Action (NoCARA) reports, the southern California-based DIY Division, also known as the Rise Above Movement, is a violent neonazi group that brings together Alt Right and Alt Lite activists along with Hammerskin members. “DIY Division as a political collective is working hard to bridge the gap between the more internet-based Alt-Right brand of white nationalism which is targeted to appeal to younger, generally more educated and upper-class white men and the more traditional boots on the ground and street violence which has characterized neo-Nazi skinhead politics.” NoCARA also highlights “the close relationships that exist between McInnes’s Proud Boys and…DIY Division…. The Proud Boys need the numbers and the muscle of the neo-Nazis, while the neo-Nazis need the cover of pro-Trump groups.”
Not sure about the reliability of that source, but their own source seems to be at https://nocara.blackblogs.org/2017/07/06/diy-division/ Smooth alligator (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
My point is that if the New York Times says "Rise Above Movement is an alt-right group" then it's ok for us the say that. But if Oren Segal or Mendelson say that, then we have to say "Segal or Mendelson say that Rise Above Movement is an alt-right group". This is called attribution. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

:::::::Are you talking about attribution in the article? Because the footer doesn't have attribution. I thought our main goal in this thread was to make a yes-or-no decision about whether to put Rise Above Movement in the footer. Smooth alligator (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. But I think it's bad policy to add someone to the footer when the statement in the article is wrong or not properly sourced. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Martin Sellner

Any objections to adding him?

DrawingLol (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you make life a little easier for us by giving us the quotes that establish the connection between the person and the alt-right? For example, I looked through that Vox article, and aside from the headline (which called his organization an alt-right organization), the closest I could get to a connection of him to the alt-right was "Martin Sellner, a founder of the Austrian branch of the Identitarian movement". The Identitarian movement says that it has been described as being part of the alt-right, but now we're getting into the same kind of syllogism/synthesis that people have complained about. Smooth alligator (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I looked through all those sources and can't find anything in any of them that links Sellner to the alt-right. I would also ask for quotes. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is good or enough, but here is this from CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/02/europe/austria-alt-right-identity-movement-martin-sellner/index.html DrawingLol (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I was asking for quotes, not just links. All I could really find there was 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)
"Martin Sellner supports the alt-right Identity Movement." DrawingLol (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
So what? Hillary Clinton supports the NAACP. That doesn't mean she gets added to the NAACP template. I say no, sources are weak to begin with and the quotes are even weaker. Rockypedia (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton is clearly not the leader of the NAACP. Sellner is the top leader of the alt-right identitarian movement. It is apples to oranges. DrawingLol (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
But that's not what you said. You said, "Martin Sellner supports the alt-right Identity Movement." That's different from "Sellner is the top leader of the alt-right identitarian movement." Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Smooth alligator

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)

I feel like I'm tumbling around in the dryer with all these socks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Greg Johnson

Shouldn't Greg Johnson (white nationalist) be added? CornFlakes (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I've added him. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Vox Day

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)

Day has self-described as alt-right multiple times on his blog, and in various interviews. In terms of secondary sources, he is described as such by Business Insider, Wired, Vox, Buzzfeed, the New York Times, Jezebel, and the Washington Post.--Jay942942 (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
So what? Being merely "mentioned" as alt-right does not make him a major figure. As I said before, if we included everyone who's barely associated with the alt-right in the template we'd have over a hundred names there. That's ridiculous. Rockypedia (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
So what's the standard for 'major figure'? You choose? --Jay942942 (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Curtis Yarvin

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)

He's an originator of a faction of the AltRight. He hasn't actually departed from it himself AFAIK. Nuke (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a huge stretch. Find a source that establishes him as a leader in the alt-right movement, and then maybe you have a case for including him in this template. We can't just slap anyone who has any views that coincide with the alt-right into a template that exists on as many pages as this one does. Until there's consensus for adding him, it's BLP violation to label him as such, especially since there's no sources! Rockypedia (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's a stretch at all. I don't have a strong opinion but I would not object to including him based on what it says at his article: "Yarvin's work on neoreaction inspired English philosopher Nick Land to brand the wider neoreaction-sympathetic movement the Dark Enlightenment. Neoreaction and the Dark Enlightenment form part of the philosophical underpinnings of the alt-right." Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
How is it any more a stretch than the other names on here? Curtis Yarvin hasn't really left NRx or anything even though he's not actively writing content for it anymore. That said, many within NRx actually reject the AltRight label -- particularly technofuturists and theonomists -- but given this template already includes people who have already directly and unequivocally disavowed the AltRight, claimed to have never been part of it, and created movements to separate from it, I'd say that by current standards (not like they can't be changed in another discussion, mind you), Curtis Yarvin is a part of the AltRight. It isn't really about citations since this is all very well cited already, and if we were to actually require inline citations as WP:BLP requires on a template, it would create a WP:OVERCITE issue. That said, I apologize as I forgot about the BLP restriction you cited to undo my undoing of your revision. Nuke (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
We don't have to cite the template, but there's got to be a strong case made here that he belongs in the alt-right footer, and that should be based on the cites on his article page. Right now there's just WP:SYNTHESIS; you're both offering your own opinions based on inferences you're making from pieces of his bio. That doesn't fly. There's a disturbing pattern here in that some editors appear to be of the opinion that anyone who's associated with the alt-right should be in the footer, which is clearly not feasible, as you'd have dozens, if not over a hundred, names in there by the time you got done. Because of the BLP issues, there's got to be a discussion about whether he should be in the template at all, and while that discussion remains unresolved, the template can't be on his page; that much is clear-cut.
I'm fairly certain at this point that I'm going to have to RfC this; it does appear to me that the people editing this template are all fairly eager to throw anyone whose views they don't like right into the alt-right footer template, and that's not what I'd call a balanced discussion. Rockypedia (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you will if that's what it akes to convince you, because excluding him certainly strikes me as inane - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, what it would take to convince me is A) some sort of criteria that delineates what it takes to add someone to the alt-right template footer and B) reliable sources that show each subject meets that criteria. Rockypedia (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of what the consensus on this one is, it is worth noting Nick Land is currently included. Given his close association with Yarvin and Yarvin's ideas, I would suggest whatever decision is taken applies to both individuals rather than including one and leaving off the other.--Jay942942 (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Any objections?

To adding:

I'm planning on adding back the obvious ones. Anyone object? DrawingLol (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, friend. I clicked on one of those at random, Tomislav Sunić, and I don't know that it's "obvious" that he's part of the alt-right. There's a sentence in the lead of his article that says he's part of the "global alt-right movement", but then it turns out... you added that sentence yourself less than 48 hours ago. Additionally, the reference provided is a blog hosted by Hope not Hate, and I don't think that would stand up to a challenge if a person labeled as "alt-right" disputed its status as a reliable source. It's a little disturbing that you added the alt-right label yourself, to a BLP, with a very dicey source, and then claimed it's an "obvious" addition to the template. No sale here, and I would object to you adding anyone without at least one other editor vetting the addition on this talk page, in light of that example. Rockypedia (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hope not Hate is not WP:RS for deciding whether someone is alt-right. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
yeah I agree. Removed it from the Sunic page as well. Rockypedia (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
/pol/ is, without dispute, an AltRight means of communication. William Regnery II may be AltRight via his affiliation with NPI, but may not be notable enough to warrant a place in this crowded template. Steve Sailer is pretty much AltRight and notably created the Sailer Strategy to counter Democrats' nonwhite vote focus with white vote maximization. Martin Sellner seems very, very remote to include here, and has nothing but a stub for an article. Gamergate is AltLite at most, and many of its figures are liberals, such as Sargon of Akkad, who spammed gay interracial porn to harass "AltRight" people on Twitter. Nuke (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Rise Above Movement seems to have been deleted. /pol/ and Gamergate are definitely important. Sailer seems to be an important ideological influence but would need sources. Sellner and Sunic appear to be part of separate but related movements, I would leave them off for now unless you can find a lot of sources.--Jay942942 (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Milo

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)

Then there's these:
  1. Milo Yiannopolous ... the Alt-Right Leader Newsweek
  2. the alt-right writer and provocateur BBC News
  3. Alt-right figure lands $250K book deal The Hill
  4. Unofficial alt-right leader Milo Yiannopoulos NPR
  5. Alt-right leader Milo Yiannopoulos The Australian
  6. Alt-right leader Milo Yiannopoulos starts scholarship only for white men WGBA-TV
  7. the event by alt-right leader Milo Yiannopoulos AOL

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

  1. ^ https://youtube.com/watch?v=Grhp4Ia_1Sg&t=4m59s
  2. ^ https://youtube.com/watch?v=wNRGW1VtPJE
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQUBjN4fpa0

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 made the case for self-identification before, as many of these sources use the term as a catch-all for those they disagree with, or for anyone to the political right of Jeb Bush. Alt-right is something pretty specific: the core of it being white ethno-nationalism. So there are BLP issues here also. — Confession0791 talk 15:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Just asking for Clarity Sakes

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)

See the discussion in the "Criteria, again" section above. If someone is listed here and there isn't a properly sourced statement at their article linking them to the alt-right, feel free to remove them. But please resist the urge to use WP:OR; most of what you said above is irrelevant. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Shall we discuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinzMaster (talk • contribs)
What are we discussing? The first of your removals, Steve Bannon, certainly seems like it belongs. I have not checked the rest. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
We're apparently discussing whether or not the label of "alt-right" is placed on those individuals and whether or not such labeling is appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
In this edit HeinzMaster removed the following:
EvergreenFir (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
My issue is that many of these individuals have the term alt-right tacked onto them without really a basis for it. For example, Alex Jones, who I can say is definitely a conspiracy theorist, is termed alt-right based on one article. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-alt-right-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-talking-points-a7365791.html This article doesn't really give any explanation or proof of him having any alignment with the alt-right, much less being a "leading" figure. Give me proof of these individuals exposing white nationalist or neo-nazis views, and I will have no problem with including them.HeinzMaster (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The Alex Jones article says "Mainstream sources have described Jones as ... alt-right" with a source citation. That's all that's required for inclusion here. If you feel the article is wrong, go discuss that on the article talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
So any article that just says that someone is alt-right without any other proof is enough to label someone alt-right? Because I can add a lot of other people if that's all you need HeinzMaster (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
As I said, it needs a source citation. Everything on WP needs to be verifiable. See WP:V. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
This article says the current chancellor of Austria, Sebastian Kurz, is alt-right https://www.thedailybeast.com/europes-alt-right-takes-heart-as-austrias-vote-swings-its-way Can I add him? Ben Shapiro https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.812520 A jew who the alt-right targets with anti-semitism according to the ADL. Putin? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-trump-putin-russia-perspec-0517-20170516-story.html HeinzMaster (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Your first source doesn't say what you think it does. The other two are opinion pieces and not usable for statements of fact. There is a "Welcome" section at the top of your talk page with links to our various policies. I know there are a lot of them but it's worth your time to read them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Loomer is out, for obvious reasons. — Confession0791 talk 16:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Jared Taylor

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)

I would suggest three reliable sources per individual as the bar for inclusion, and input from a minimum of three people to achieve consensus. Whether he ought to be in any other categories is a separate and unrelated discussion to the one we're having here.--Jay942942 (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Here are relevant quotes from sources. I think the wording used in some of these strongly suggests he is more than just a minor figure or a case of misapplication of the alt-right label.

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)

Yeah, as I said, I'm not 100% opposed to including Taylor; my issue is that if we're just saying "three reliable sources" - well, three reliable sources saying what? If an individual is merely "associated" with the alt-right on three reliable sources, that's not enough to put them in the template. The Democratic Party template would have thousands of names on it if that were the standard. I would start with, "The people on this template need to be clearly acknowledged by at least three reliable sources as either a current or former leader of an alt-right organization, and their article should reflect those sources." I'd like to start a discussion on that point. Rockypedia (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The sources offered by Jay942942 are pretty convincing. I believe that Taylor should be included. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
In this case, my gut instinct tells me that he should be included. Having said that, I'd rather see a policy-based minimum standard established for inclusion, rather than just a bunch of votes on each person, all of which are pretty much based on opinions utterly devoid of any basis in policy, at least so far. A couple of them are no-brainers, such as Richard B. Spencer - there's multiple sources that state he practically invented the term alt-right, and he continues to be a leader in the movement, again, according to sources. But for everyone else - what are our criteria? Rockypedia (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I would disagree with a requirement to be a leader of an organization. There can be prominent individuals within organizations who are not necessarily the leaders of said organizations, and especially with the rise of Twitter and YouTube personalities, it is very possible to be an individual of significance without necessarily running any group or organization. It's worth noting that the Democratic Party is several hundred times larger than the alt-right, so I wouldn't say they're necessarily comparable.--Jay942942 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The size comparison appears to be irrelevant to me. I could just as easily say that the Democratic Party template should therefore be several hundred times (unsourced, btw) larger than the alt-right template, so let's not start comparing sizes just yet. Do you have a solid criteria requirement that you can offer? Rockypedia (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Taylor is considered the "intellectual leader" of the alt-right. For example: 'The races are not equal': meet the alt-right leader (i.e. Taylor) in Clinton's campaign ad, The Guardian. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
It's certainly relevant. Even if we were to put every single 'alt-right' and 'alt-lite' person in this footer box, it would still not be an unusual size for an infobox. I am not advocating that, but there is a huge difference between that and having a several hundred name long Democratic Party template.--Jay942942 (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
here's the core problem: you can't "put every single 'alt-right' and 'alt-lite' person in this footer box" because no one has agreed upon the requirement for calling someone 'alt-right' and 'alt-lite'. Check out the Milo discussion above: I'm inclined to include him, but there are others that feel since he has personally disavowed the alt-right, that the BLP issues trump the sources which state he's alt-right, and I have to say, it's a good argument for leaving him out, at least for now. There needs to be a standard for inclusion, and it has to be agreed upon, and until that happens, any controversial choice has to be left off due to BLP. You can always add them back in later. There's no hurry. Rockypedia (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Evolutionary psychology

Editors on this talk page may also be interested in this discussion. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Unclear inclusion criteria risks collapsing the whole thing

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 find myself agreeing 100% with every point in this paragraph. Very well-said, better than I could've done. Rockypedia (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that we at least need to nail down proper inclusion criteria. The fact that people are arguing, above, over the inclusion of Yiannopoulos (who most coverage treats as one of the most iconic figures related to the topic, and who literally co-wrote the article-slash-manifesto that formally defined it) shows that there's an issue here. I do think that any template which didn't include his name would be mostly pointless, though, since he's so central; I'd be opposed to excluding people entirely on that basis. I think it's important to note, though, that simply including someone in the infobox does not necessarily have to mean that a given person is currently a member, or even that they necessarily were one - merely that they are central to the topic (and therefore that their article is heavily connected to it.) One option might be to revise 'people' to 'related people' or something similar to make this distinction clear; eg. we can argue all day over Yiannopoulos' rejection of the label, but few would dispute that he's central to the topic in one form or another. --Aquillion (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I agree with the sentiment above. I would even suggest removing all BLPs from the template. I would be also inclined to remove the organisations. For example, is Nationalist Front (United States) "alt-right"? They are straight up neo-Nazi -- is this part of the alt-right too?
Taking the logic even further, perhaps we should just delete the template? "Alt-right" is a rather nebulous concept, and designing a template around something like this is difficult. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I would support deletion of the template. As alt-right states, the term is loosely defined, which makes attempts to shoehorn articles into a cohesive template rather moot. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:56, 3 December 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)

BLPs?

As a first step, should we remove the BLPs from the template? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Basically every listing of a person is controversial for one reason or another. I see no reason not to remove them all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Organizations?

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)

Aztec High School shooting

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)

@Animalparty, EvergreenFir, and MichiganWoodShop: Not sure if the last ping worked, as non of you three replied. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Nope, didn't get a ping until just now. I can agree to its removal as "too soon". Or maybe comment it out? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd say it's not warranted to include. The more articles crammed into this template, the less utility it has. A link to alt-right should be sufficient. I note that all of the articles linked in "Common ideas", and several of the "Related ideas", do not include this template (nor should they, necessarily). --Animalparty! (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Would one of you two remove it then? And regarding the lack of inclusion WP:BIDIRECTIONAL articles says that they normally should, but this is just a guideline and not policy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Removed. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"People" category?

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)

This has already been discussed. At #Unclear inclusion criteria risks collapsing the whole thing above, the consensus was to remove BLPs. I fully support that, for several reasons. One reason is that, as this talk page's archives show, it's very difficult to agree on to include. Honestly, I think this is a problem with many other templates, but with the alt-right most (all?) likely candidates are still alive which complicates things even more. It's a WP:BLP nightmare, and the benefit seems questionable. These templates work best when they are relatively short and clearly organized. Long lists of people are neither. Grayfell (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Gab

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'd say Gab belongs here, because the founder launched it in August 2016 and literally said he created it due to "the entirely left-leaning Big Social monopoly". For comparison, Voat is included in the footer, and while I can't disagree with that at all, from what I've read, it wasn't intended as an alt-right/far-right hub (it was created before "alt-right" was even a term), while Gab seemed to be created for the alt-right. -- (talk) 01:56, 14 May 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)

Inclusion of The Rebel Media-

@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)

Inclusion of Pastor Steven L. Anderson/Faithful Word Baptist Church

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)

New ideas

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)

Recent edits - historic groups

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)

Why does their pre-dating the alt-right movement mean they shouldn't be considered alt-right now? An existing organization can adopt an ideology. If you don't think an organization should be on the navbox, I would suggest getting consensus to remove that org's categorization as alt-right first, on the relevant talk page. Once you can point to that consensus, the removal here (at a much less watchlisted template) should be more or less uncontroversial. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bacondrum and VQuakr: I tend to agree with Bacondrum that historical far-right groups shouldn't automatically be included in a relatively recent labelling. For example, National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands has no mention of alt-right and isn't categorised as such. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I have no objection to removing organizations that are not categorized or described as alt-right in their corresponding articles. VQuakr (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

2A02:C7F:187C:9800:7952:1779:6415:3017 (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended content
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

2020 boogaloo killings

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2020

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2020

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Asartea Trick | Treat 08:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Peter Thiel

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)

You're right. I removed his name. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2021

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)

 Not done: Please read WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP EvergreenFir (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

we should remove mewe from the list

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)

From the relevant article, which also describes MeWe as alt-tech on multiple instances: "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)
signal and telegram are also described as alt-tech. Either we put all of them or we put only the clear case of alt-tech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorredKnight (talk • contribs) 04:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
so go ahead and add telegram, add signal, add discord... but don't add only mewe. be consist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorredKnight (talk • contribs) 04:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Signal's page makes no reference to the alt-right, while Telegram's and MeWe's do. Those are the clear cases, and should be included. This is a contentious category, but apps that are verified with sources in the appropriate article as being used by the alt-right should be here. I also have legitimate concerns regarding OP about conflict of interest given their contribution history. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
go to the page otf alt-right and you will find singal there. Also there are sources also about signal and alt-right. It just that signal is a grey case (just like mewe) and not a black case like parler for example.
https://www.ft.com/content/f5c4679b-20c5-4b68-bb6d-958f17385183 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorredKnight (talk • contribs) 05:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
And this is fom wikipedia page about signal: ″The Signal app has been used for organizing by the far right, right-wing militias and white nationalists, including by planners of the Unite the Right II rally in 2018.[171][172][173][174]″ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorredKnight (talk • contribs) 05:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sargon of Akkad

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)

As you said, reliable sources have called him alt-right on his BLP, and even if he rejects the label, secondary sources take precedent over primary sources. Thus, I've added him accordingly. Thanks for the comment. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Kaitlin Bennett

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 source. "Using this notoriety, she's gone on to be a controversial figure of the alt-right movement."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
3family6, Yeah I just read that on the Bennett page. There are essentially three problems: 1) alt-right requires exceptional sources for a BLP; 2) the Independent kinda fall off after 2016; 3) the source doesn't explicitly say that Bennet is alt-right. It says that she's a figure of the alt-right movement. Similarly, Donald Trump has been described as a figure of the alt-right movement, but that doesn't necessarily make him alt-right. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, the better sources you provided, such as the Washington Post and Forbes articles, only refer to her as "conservative" or "right-wing." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, I can't see any sources that describe her as an "alt-right activist." All of these sources refer to her as a "conservative activist": [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Alt-right_footer/Archive_1&oldid=1125287690"