Talk:R/The Donald: Difference between revisions

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Internet culture C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: no consensus, 15 December 2016, see discussion. no consensus, 30 July 2016, see discussion.

Just an FYI, this article has been mentioned at Reddit with the express intent to have users edit the article in a POV fashion. Full disclosure: I discovered this article from that canvassing. Since there is political infighting at Reddit, expect a mix of opposing POV editors. I see no need to semi protect the article unless things get out of hand.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-This is an outright lie. I saw the aforementioned Reddit post, and the express intent of it was to have users edit this article and make it more politically neutral, because at the moment it contains several entirely baseless and sourceless claims that /r/The_Donald is racist and contributes to harassment. Any attempts to remove bias are quickly reverted (I've tried to remove said bias in the past, but gave up), so I suspect that the creator of the Reddit post was simply fed up with this and wanted to flood the page with bias-removing edits in the hope that one of them would stick. While I disagree with this method, I cannot entirely blame the poster; the fact that all attempts at getting rid of the bias in this article have been met with nigh-instant reversions is extremely frustrating for those who want Wikipedia to provide pure facts rather than push baseless claims and agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.231.232 (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a neutral observer would, upon proper investigation, believe T_D to be repugnant in every heretofore mentioned way, I motion for 76.168.231.232's comment to be entirely disregarded as politically biased. Ellenor2000 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have not done a proper investigation 73.61.44.66 (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored a version that has an expanded lead. While we have a controversy section (I personally don't like those) the lead needs to reflect why this sub-reddit is notable. The Hoffman incident and the subs brigading are just s part of the story, as is the content the sub advocates. If they were brigading with kitten pictures we wouldn't probably have an article. That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The expanded lead you proposed showcased a POV, including weasel words ("ex. Some Redditors"). Also, the article connecting the Alt-Right to White Nationalism is misleading as it paints an image that the entire subreddit supports white nationalism, considering that the article that you cited regarding White Nationalism doesn't even mention the subreddit. Finally, I have simplified the lead section since readers could understand it more with the controversies section. I have included Huffman's comment in the lead as The_Donald's tendency to brigade other subreddits have existed far before the Huffman incident. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, after some thought, I briefly added that the subreddit was criticized for spreading conspiracy theories and for its racism in the lead section. No citations were given per WP:LEADCITE, as the subreddit's criticism in the "Controversies" section are well-cited, and that these controversies would not be challenged. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I apologize, I just realized I screwed up in reading my content. I undid some of your other changes. Sorry. That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. I'm sorry for not clearing up about my changes earlier. Also, thank you very much for explaining the controversial details of the subreddit. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section heading, "Controversies" per your request, but I did not remove the associated content. Instead, I restructured the article content. If I made more changes than you and other editors are comfortable with, feel free to revert and alter, as I was quite BOLD. I also removed some unsourced content and re-worded some sections to be NPOV, which I felt was sufficient to justify removal of the tone tag.--FeralOink (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The_Donald has around 300,000 members. Some are conservative stalwarts, others are meme-making teenagers; all are anonymous, hidden behind user names, making their origins and motivations difficult to pinpoint. But it’s fair to say that many saw themselves as political outsiders who reveled in rallying for the underdog.

. This is from the NYT and really describes the community in a nutshell. I'm not great with templates in articles. Can someone put this in? Perhaps we could use a section on the members. That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentioning that source, That man from Nantucket. It is in the article, although that particular passage is not quoted. I will try to incorporate it per your suggestion.--FeralOink (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Daily Beast article says that PizzaGate originated from TD. Our article says TD promoted PizzaGate, but this source is more definitive. I think this warrants it's own subsection in Controversies (I'd love to change that name btw), and also warrants a mention in the lead. Perhaps some of the aftermath of PG deserves a mention. I'm looking for sources that mentions how TD created, promoted, and then quietly disowned PG. There is definitely a "Cant shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding" thing going on. I'm sure the sources will soon follow.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article appears to be in slight disagreement with this recent article's account of events which says that PizzaGate originated on 4chan but that TD had a lot to do with its mainstream coverage. (also seems to regard the conspiracy as an ongoing affair, so might have to wait a bit before coverage on TD supposedly disavowing the theory surfaces) ~Helicopter Llama~ 04:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claims that /r/The Donald "spreads racism" are misleading. Sources support that there is racist content in the subreddit. No one claims that this subreddit "spreads" racism! I don't know how one could spread racism. It is sufficient to say that there is racist content, not that the subreddit is so pernicious that it causes racism to spread like a contagion!

That Man From Nantucket, please be careful in reverting edits. I make grammar corrections and multiple changes at a time. If you don't like something, please considering changing it rather than reverting all my work on grammar and spelling as well.--FeralOink (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FeralOink, I would suggest making your grammatical changes separately if you are going to make factually incorrect and opinionated changes. ~ Shrekle 4:10, 01 April 2017 (EST)

http://gizmodo.com/reddit-is-tearing-itself-apart-1789406294

I think that many of the things mentioned here would be something good to add to the article. It's a bit much for me to digest and write up at the moment but I think there's a lot of material in here that can be added to the Online media reception section. Shimunogora (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed multiple places in this article that attempts to attributes r/The_Donald posts reaching r/all due to the subs "popularity", however there is no sourcing that I'm aware of that actually makes this claim. There are sources which states or questions that the forums moderators manipulate content onto r/all through the use of sticky posts.That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nantucket:, you are correct in noting that there are many statements made in this article that add conclusions or misquote the source. Given the articles' controversial nature, these cases should be reviewed to assure accuracy against the source document. To avoid triggering edit wars, the content of the article should be verified to reflect the source, using the exact wording of the source document as closely as possible. KSci ^(talk) 20:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, but feel free to do another review.That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the sources may not be well informed of the Reddit culture and due to their ignorance they may instead refer to it as the mainpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@That man from Nantucket: and @Emir of Wikipedia: I think there is a simple way to render the "algorithm manipulation" vs. censorship question moot and also obviates the concern about the source not being well informed on Reddit culture. The solution is to note that the contested sentence provides a level of detail that is excessive for a lead. Please see WP:lead.

Given that this detail provides superfluous detail, I have removed it. If you prefer a different approach, please propose what you'd prefer so we can get consensus before adding this disputed content back. KSci ^(talk) 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KSci: That's not how BRD is supposed to work. The text about the algorithm has been in the lead since early January, and in its (mostly) current form since mid-January. By Wikipedia's standards that is the consensus version. As for being superfluous, I disagree as the majority of RS do mention the brigading and sticky post manipulations to force content to r/all. TD gained the attention of RS because of its harassing behavior at the expense of the rest of edit. I'm certainly willing to discuss this and will live by the consensus, but I do feel pretty strongly that we should follow custom and respect BRD. Please restore the content regarding the algorithm in the lead.That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that the section "Prominence on Reddit" is not mentioned in the lead, which the aforementioned text summarizes That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@That man from Nantucket: Thank you for your input. Please note the following quote on from WP:BOLD which I followed BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information. The proposed change was for a disputed (=non-consensus) half sentence reflecting POV edits by opposing sides of one very specific point where the lead should only provide an overview.

The article used for citation is neutral when it describes a measure to prevent stickies from being used to push content to /al, but it does not draw the POV conclusion that this was "manipulation of algorithms." In the opposing POV for the disputed text, the article also does not draw the conclusion that there was "censoring." We do not serve our readers by embellishing what the article says by drawing either of these conclusions.

I'm completely on board if you think there is a summarizing point that is missed and needs to be addressed. My impression is that saying the subreddit is controversial is all the summary needed. That said, I'm completely open to anything you'd like to suggest that will help to improve the article for our readers. KSci ^(talk) 05:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to overlink the lead, but I assure you there are multiple sources that state unequivocally that the TD mods manipulated the sites algorithms. The controversy is more over their red-pilling than anything else.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/what-is-rthedonald-donald-trump-subreddit

I've looked through this source that accompanied how this subreddit is accused of racism, however, nowhere in the article are they able to explain how it is racist. They claim they use "coded-talk" that white nationalists use but the source they provide doesn't have any sources to back-up what they are claiming. Archer Rafferty (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't require sources to "back up" their claims. That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

??? I recommend rereading what you just typed there. Unsourced claims are fraudulent and when being used to try and prove a point are worthless. Unless you have a new source with evidence to back-up their claims please stop reverting my edit. Archer Rafferty (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Jones is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. We don't require sources to justify their rationale for statements they make because they are reliable in their own right. That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lord help us if Mother Jones is considered reliable. We may as well trust 1970s Pravda then. 71.46.230.154 (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes literally no sense, how is a source automatically reliable, unrelated. Fact is your source has no evidence to back up it's claims. Also it's not even Mother Jones you're using as a source, you do know your own source right? Archer Rafferty (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have now crossed the 3RR threshold. I posted a caution on your talk page. Suffice it to say, please read the warning and revert your edit yourself. Otherwise I'll ask an admin to examine this and you will probably end up getting a short block. Please read WP:RS and you will see why we take reliable sources at face value. If you disagree with my assessment that MJ is reliable, I can show you where to get more opinions. But you really need to revert yourself first. That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright call an admin. Because ONE, your source is NOT reliable with ZERO evidence to back up the claims they are asserting. TWO, your source is NOT MOTHER JONES so that's either a blatant lie from you or you're just ignorant of your own source. Archer Rafferty (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I were in your shoes, I'd A) revert yourself to avoid getting a 3RR block and B) post on WP:RSN asking for other opinions about Vice.com and your assertion they need to back up their reporting. You are violating two key tenets of Wikipedia which are WP:EW & WP:BRD. That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sources were added in to that line. I have also added some detail in "Online media reception" where Washington Post connected the subreddit's moderators to racist subreddits. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are absolutely not evidence of racist content. These are opinion pieces. This subreddit has a history of heavy-hand banning of anything perceived as racist materials User:nBob20 —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources that state racist content has appeared on the sub. These are not editorials. Which sources do you think are opinion pieces?That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The man from Nantucket: - All of them. The forum rule #3 is no racism or antisemitism is strictly enforced. The editorializing largely originates with the political opinion that opposing open boarders immigration is racism. Additionally, the forum is attacked by people who post racist content. The forum just recruited assistant admins to weed out people who do this. Primary source citations for the forums anti-racism policy are numerous and well documented in the forum admin's stickies. The citations and article text should not focus solely on one side of a dispute and both the accusation and the denial should be included with citations to avoid inserting a POV. KSci ^(talk) 14:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to add an Infobox to this page, especially with the subreddit's logo (based off the Reddit logo) and/or a screenshot of the front page? Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are always changing it, so I don't think it would add much. What else would we put in the info box?That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@That man from Nantucket: I added the infobox, complete with basic information and their mascot, based off Reddit's "Snoo" mascot. I credited both Reddit (under Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 (CPAL)) and the creator, /u/NyanDerp. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subreddits mentioned in the second sentence of this section are all in support of /r/T_D and the associated ideology, except the last, The_Schulz, which is very much parodical. It's certainly an anti-Trump subreddit. I would distinguish The_Schulz from the rest of the European populist subreddits for sure. 71.183.10.91 (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't translate the source to confirm what you say. How would you edit the article to reflect its parody?That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article on Spiegel Online. Using Google Translate, the article loosely states "'The_Schulz' is a half-satire on 'The_Donald' is said by those who founded the forum in November 2016." Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 06:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to /r/The Donald has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

sticky this to front page or else Czaralexsmith (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: no Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is is too inaccurately against Trump to even fix, but maybe keep the edit coding in a sandbox somewhere.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that. Please read the previous deletion discussions carefully before starting a new one. Grayfell (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah so as the other guy said below, the sub is actively ageing racism. I posted two direct posts from there as proof - bigger than any opinionated secondary sources. I'm sure a compromise can be made, if not I'll try to talk to someone about this. It really does seem one sided to me. Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC) User was blocked as suspected WP:SOCKsock[reply]

This was a typo it was meant to mean 'actively' not ageing Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC) User was blocked as suspected WP:SOCKsock[reply]

As in the sub is AGAINST racism Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC) User was blocked as suspected WP:SOCKsock[reply]

Example posts aren't the right way to go about this. Wikipedia strongly favors WP:SECONDARY sources (encyclopedias are tertiary sources). Forums (like reddit) are WP:UGC, and are not reliable in most cases. How /r/The_Donald's participants describe themselves and the forum are not neutral for this content either, and Wikipedia has specific guidelines for how to be neutral. I would sincerely like to see any reliable sources which discuss the sub's opposition to racism, if they exist. Even so, this isn't a simple issue, and the lead already explains that pretty well. Grayfell (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:reddit#r/The_Donald going private. epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

This edit request to /r/The Donald has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following: "On May 19, 2017, three moderators of the subreddit were removed because they did not comply with rules placed upon them. Other moderators made the subreddit temporarily private, and put out a message claiming that the rules placed on their subreddit went far beond the rules on other communities on the site. They returned to public state on May 20.[source] Smoov22 sonic (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smoov22 sonic: This is related to the following text on the page already. A week later, a moderator named /u/OhSnapYouGotServed posted a message claiming that the subreddit has been treated unfairly and that Reddit couldn’t exist without /r/The_Donald. /u/OhSnapYouGotServed also suggested that everyone of their subscribers should move to Voat. Eventually, after three other moderators got banned from the site, the subreddit was temporarily set to "private" on May 19, 2017 in a sign of protest. According to the lock message, the admins did not warn the three moderators before banning. The admins also claimed that they "refused to comply by a special set of rules that were solely imposed on this subreddit to marginalize the only community which doesn’t conform to the echo chamber of Reddit and corporate media." The subreddit was made public again the next day. I've highlighted the relevant text. epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If wikipedia wants to look foolish in the eyes of history, keeping this page the way it is will do the trick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.113.195 (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Vox Culture section a respected mainstream RS for (A) movie reviews and such or (B) nonopinion? Recent articles:

• Orphan Black got too complicated for its own good. Its final season is on track to fix that.
• Can we be religious without God? Alain de Botton on ‘atheism 2.0’.
• Star Trek: Discovery is the first Trek TV series in over 15 years. Here’s what to know. by Aja Romano July 9
• 9 Questions with Eddie Glaude Jr.
• The 2015 comedy Don Verdean has a warning for those who would smuggle Biblical artifacts
• ...
• Spider-Man: Homecoming’s 2 end-credits scenes, explained
• The 18 best TV shows airing right now
• Happy birthday, Memerica: the week in internet culture by Aja Romano July 7
• ‘I’m with the banned’: Spotify’s newest project slams Trump’s travel ban
• A brief history of public nudity and shame politics in the Kardashian universe

And so forth. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A (maybe). Compare Aja Romano, "Happy Birthday, Memerica: The Week in Internet Culture", Vox, July 7, 2017 ("The week’s reigning internet furor centered on ... Trump tweeting a ... GIF that originated from a ... troll on Reddit..."),
  with "Troll: Definition for English-Language Learners", Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary ("Learner’s definition of TROLL. 2. A person who tries to cause problems on an Internet message board..."). --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trust Levels of News Sources by Ideological Group (total): BBC

NPR

PBS

The Wall Street Journal

ABC News

CBS News

NBC News

CNN

USA TODAY

Google News

The New York Times

The Washington Post

MSNBC

The Guardian

Bloomberg

The New Yorker

Yahoo News

Fox News

The Huffington Post

[5 other sources]

The Rush Limbaugh Show

Outlets are ... ranked by the proportion of those who trust more than distrust each. "Trust Levels of News Sources by Ideological Group", Pew Research Center, October 2014.

Is BBC News a respected mainstream RS? Is Huffington Post? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just BBC News, which comes in 1st of 25. HuffPo trails at 19th. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

=== Subreddits ===* /r/science, a forum for discussing science

• /r/changemyview, a space for conversation among people with opposing viewpoints
• /r/The_Donald, a community supporting the politics of Donald Trump

== /r/science ==

/r/science is an Internet forum on Reddit where the community of participants discuss science topics. A popular feature of the forum is "Ask me Anything" (AMA) public discussions.

== /r/changemyview ==

/r/changemyview is an Internet forum on Reddit where the community of participants discuss controversial topics for the purpose of understanding opposing viewpoints. The forum was established by Kal Turnbull in 2013.

== /r/The_Donald ==

/r/The_Donald is an alt-right Internet forum on Reddit where the participants create discussions and memes supporting Donald Trump...

Compare the three lead sentences with each other and with the WP:BEGIN standard on first sentences.

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is.

• If it is definable, the sentence should give a concise definition that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. "In cryptography, a trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions..."
  
• Try to not overload the sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, use it to introduce the topic.

Which of the three articles fail MOS? --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just /r/The_Donald. The adjective "alt-right" modifies the true definition: the noun phrase "an Internet forum on Reddit where the participants create discussions and memes supporting Donald Trump...". It does not determine the phrase's use to indicate something more definite. It describes the subject, not defines it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've challenged by reversion edit 788938923, which adds an adjective ("alt-right") describing the subject rather than indicating it (by making it more definite). See WP:BEGIN.

It doesn't look like we've got consensus to reinstate yet. So, ARBAPDS would advise that we stop reinstating. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]