Talk:Alt-right

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Switch article to past tense.

[edit]

As a movement and especially as a coalition, the alt-right is largely dead as of 2025. Websites like the Southern Poverty Law Center, quoting many of its prominent former members, have referred to it in the past tense since at least 2022. It's undeniable that many of its ideas have been incorporated into modern right-wing politics, but after the 2010s, the movement as a cohesive whole has largely splintered into various ideological offshoots, such as neo-reactionaryism, Christian Nationalism, Trumpism, etc.

Given that the movement no longer exists, I feel the tense of the article should be updated to reflect this. Ryonne (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I vote No. Because, what do you mean? Articles all over the internet as well as recent years' geopolitical landscapes, even with the recent victory of Trump, indicate clearly that it is still on the rise and very much an active movement. Your statements here are just blatantly false. Here is one such source from just two days ago: https://m.thewire.in/article/world/elon-musk-x-alt-right-propaganda Here is another: https://thelogic.co/news/pickering-city-council-mayor-alt-right/ Another: https://globalnews.ca/news/10940453/pickering-council-virtual-meetings-announcement/
Are you just going to ignore these facts? Or do you suppose it shouldn't called alt-right but just far-right...? Or are you downplaying them in order to further their interests? It is the purpose of Wikipedia to be as unbiased as possible, and this is not how you do that. Luka1184 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK let's calm down. I also agree that this doesn't seem appropriate at this juncture as reliable sources as recent as 2024 exist that make reference to the alt-right in present tense. However I would suggest we WP:AGF here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because referencing the movement doesn't mean it's still active. I think the article should be in past tense. Also I can not locate sources that are considered reliable by wikipedia that reference the movment as if it's still largely active. Zyxrq (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look on Wikipedia Library. Newspapers are always chasing the latest bit of shiny discourse but academics tend to have longer attention spans and still write about the alt-right as an extant thing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a search for the string "the alt-right" on Wikipedia library limiting search results to 2024-2025 and it returned 672 papers. Some are historical. Others are very much in present-tense. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did it ever occur to you that maybe Trump got elected because people are just tired of Democrats orchestrating the alt-right hoax for 10 years straight? 2600:1700:B970:9460:ED48:7AC5:DF39:60D (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see wp:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I vote no. While the "alt-right" as a label is no longer being used, especially by the alt-right themselves, alt-right influence is currently stronger than ever. That SPLC article you linked is quite misleading in my opinion, in addition to the fact that it is over three years old and a lot has changed since then, was that newer SPLC articles exist which state the opposite.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/guides/year-hate-extremism-2024/
The SPLC's 2024 hate and extremism report shows that the alt-right as only grown in power. And this was back in 2024, their strength have increased exponentially since then.
The biggest issue with this wiki article is that the internet-far-right in America simply no longer identifies as "alt-right" - in part because their ideas are entering the mainstream - so it has become an obsolete term. That being said, the alt-right as a movement that is politically far-right, relevant in contemporary politics, highly active with its base of support online, and having a support base on the younger side are all still highly relevant.
It is my personal opinion that, as older reactionaries die off, one day the "alt-right" will grow to subsume the entirety of the far right, at which point this article can be renamed something like "contemporary radical right" or something more appropriate. It is just that currently there needs to be something to differentiate the far right of modern internet-based groups like America First and the Patriot Front (alt-right) versus that of more traditional far right groups like the Aryan Freedom network or National Socialist Movement (far right but not alt-right). UnresponsiveInvites (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False citations regarding "dissident right" quote.

[edit]

In the "2017–present: decline", the following quote appears:

""Dissident right" is a term used by some groups within the alt-right to make white nationalism appear more mainstream or fun."

Said claim falsely supported by 1 and 2

The first source, by The Hill, doesn't addresses the 'alt-right' phenomenon (the alt-right isn't even mentioned in the article). It actually claims that the 'dissident right' is a term used by white nationalists to "move mainstream politics to accept white supremacist ideas". White supremacy isn't synonym with alt-right.

The second source, by The Washington Post, while it addresses the alt-right, it doesn't mention anything regarding the dissident right nor implies that alt-right adherents use said term to make its movement sound "more mainstream or fun".

There's a third source that addresses the dissident right, from Vox, cited in the following sentence:

"During October and November 2019, Turning Point USA's "Culture War" college tour was frequently targeted by the dissident right, led by Nick Fuentes, who consider some groups to be not sufficiently conservative on issues of race and ethnicity, immigration, and LGBTQ rights."

However, reading the article, it suggests the dissident right is a different movement from the alt-right: "A group of alt-right and “dissident right” activists have joined forces with neo-Nazis and others on the far-right fringes to attack conservatives who they feel aren’t true conservatives, both online and in person."

The claim regarding the dissident right in this entry engages in WP:FICTREF, a variant of original research. I highly suggest to remove said false claims, since its in violation with Wikipedia policy. However, I believe the second quote can be rewritten like this:

"During October and November 2019, Turning Point USA's "Culture War" college tour was frequently targeted by alt-right activists, alongside members of the dissident right and neo-Nazis, led by Nick Fuentes, who consider some groups to be not sufficiently conservative on issues of race and ethnicity, immigration, and LGBTQ rights. 2800:200:ED80:1A0:C5BC:D219:C0A4:9536 (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems fine except I'm wondering if we can get more specificity on "some groups" which is rather vague. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident Right in the lead

[edit]

As discussed previously on the talkpage, the cited sources do not clearly support the assertion that the Dissident Right is synonymous or a part of alt-right. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should only summarize undisputed material from the body. We should reach a consensus on this first. Ell22Moore (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of MOS:Lead is flawed. 'Dissident right' is discussed in the body of the article with sources which support a connection. Dissident right redirects to this article, also, meaning it should be in the lead for now. Removing it from the lead was premature, and edit warring to repeat that edit was disruptive. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources cited in the body regarding the "Dissident Right" connection are contested, and including it in the lead may give undue weight. I suggest leaving that in the lead out until consensus is reached or the sourcing issue is clarified.
Ell22Moore (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's well sourced even if you don't like the sources. Simonm223 (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked since last time. Simonm223 (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Connection are contested - by whom and is it found in reliable sources? It requires more than simply personally disagreeing or contesting the matter, nor does it include the vauge "many people". Remember, the onus on you to support your claims with verifiable facts from reliable sources. TiggerJay (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]