Talk:Alt-right pipeline

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

Alt-right pipeline has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 25, 2023	Good article nominee	Listed

Internet Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Beet skeet (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hinrichs23.

— Assignment last updated by Acsieling (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

I tried editing Wikipedia to say "Many political movements have been associated with the pipeline concept. The intellectual dark web,[2] libertarianism,[4] the men's rights movement,[5] and the alt-lite movement[2] have all been identified as possibly introducing audiences to alt-right ideas, despite none of them had any control over YouTube's decision to place nazi videos in the sidebar of their videos, and have been vehemently protesting YouTube to stop placing nazi videos in the side bar of their videos since 2017."

I believe this is important to put on here because all of those groups you mentioned are vehemently against the alt-right movement, but YouTube lumped them into the pipeline without their permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:B970:9460:1934:5592:5D40:3551 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification?

The research paper cited that mentions BreadTube in the context of alt-right pipeline as "far-left radicalization". Where is this claim coming from? The only times the cited source mentions alt-right are BreadTubers share a collective interest in amplifying the visibility of leftist content and counteracting the so-called alt-right pipeline on YouTube and Many BreadTubers seek to create a “leftist pipeline” as a counterforce to the alt-right pipeline. It does not support far left or the implication that BreadTube is similarly extremist to the alt-right movement. I haven't looked at the NYT source but I would question giving a news article more weight than scholarly research. Therefore, I would suggest removing any reference to left wing extremism and move the mention of BreadTube to the "Concerns and prevention" section, especially since it has an explicit focus on deradicalization. (t · c) buidhe 16:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Cotter (2022):

It identifies BreadTube as "leftist" and in opposition to capitalism throughout the article
It directly compares and equivocates the structure of the alt-right pipeline to that of BreadTube (per the quotes you cited)
It describes the pipeline as ranging from Social Democratic to Maoist
It quotes one user as saying If you are a hard line “scary” leftist and don’t feel like hiding your viewpoint or getting involved in political games, I would suggest building a community between channels espousing your vanguard views and the more popular issue based left channels. If you are more moderate or undecided, try to do the same for the more issue based left channels and the moderate edutainment channels.

So the source supports that BreadTube uses the same pipeline process to move viewers farther left as a direct response to the alt-right pipeline. With that said, I do notice that this article makes the jump from "opposes capitalism" to "far-left" without a source in between. I feel like that borders on WP:BLUE, but just to be safe I've swapped it out in the article so the term "far-left" is no longer sourced to Cotter. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So why doesn't this go into the "concerns and prevention" section if it was set up to counter the alt-right pipeline? The only reason BreadTube would be worth mentioning in this article at all is the fact that it began as a countermeasure to the alt-right pipeline.

Per the source one would assume that BreadTube does not have a unified stance on capitalism as social democrats are not anti-capitalist. It does not describe BreadTube as anti-capitalist either so your edit does not really fix the OR issue. Why not just go with what most sources about BreadTube have to say and refer to it as left-wing? (t · c) buidhe 17:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source supports that it opposes the politics of the alt-right pipeline, but not that it's trying to prevent "pipeline" radicalization. It's derivative of the alt-right pipeline, and an article on the topic wouldn't be complete without mentioning how it influenced the creation of BreadTube as a similar pipeline radicalization system. And there's an entire section in the source specifically about BreadTube's opposition to capitalism.

Also, the source does support that BreadTube doesn't function effectively as a pipeline: The BreadTube community notoriously exists in a constant state of existential crisis, which is evident in discourses about the community’s disunity. First, the community hosts a spectrum of beliefs, ranging from Social Democratic to Maoist, which has engendered considerable infighting. There is regular commentary within BreadTube of the community “cannibalizing” itself. Moreover, many BreadTubers recognize that the community’s infighting interferes with its ability to come together for tactical unity in promoting leftist ideas or action. As BreadTube creator Secular Talk (2020) noted in a video, infighting renders the community “politically impotent and ineffectual.”

Note that a "pipeline" in this context isn't a uniform group of people. The alt-right pipeline, for example, consists of IDW types, leading into alt-lite types, and only then into alt-right types. The majority of "steps" are not alt-right, but it's still associated with alt-right politics. Likewise, the majority of "steps" in BreadTube aren't necessarily far-left, but it's still associated with far-left politics such as anti-capitalism.

The actual term that the source uses is "leftist". I have no objection to using this term (if it still passes WP:CLOP) or another if appropriate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the overall verifiability of the article if you think it's acceptable to cite a source that doesn't compare two things for such a comparison and convert mentions of some BreadTube creators making videos critical of "capital" or "capitalism" into describing BreadTube in general as being "anti-capitalist" or "far left" despite the source not making any such claim. Nor does the source suggest that BreadTube is a "similar pipeline radicalization system" compared to the alt-right pipeline. In fact, the only time radicalization is mentioned in the source is far-right radicalization. (t · c) buidhe 19:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is that the article doesn't use the same wording, I'm going to be wary about that after the many hours I've spent addressing WP:CLOP complaints at GA/FA. It seems to me the description in the source of speaking out against capitalism is attributed to BreadTube as a whole, and the section about BreadTube and capitalism is a valid source for the claim that it's broadly opposed to capitalism. I also don't think that it's original research to say that opposition to capitalism is equivalent to anti-capitalist.

And yes, the source does describe BreadTube in the context of the pipeline: Many BreadTubers seek to create a “leftist pipeline” as a counterforce to the alt-right pipeline. That line was the whole point of using this specific source. If I wanted to write about BreadTube in general, there are plenty of other sources about it. This specific source supports the fact that elements of the alt-right pipeline were adopted by BreadTube, which is what's relevant to this article. I'll also note that there was a second source that reinforced some of this, but it seems that you've removed it. If you feel that there's a way to word these claims that's truer to these sources without repeating them, I'm open to suggestions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While avoiding close paraphrasing is important, sometimes it is necessary to use the same word as the source uses for verifiability reasons. Political ideologies are one example because different words used can have different meanings. Even a direct copy of three words or less is not usually considered a close paraphrasing issue. If the source describes BreadTube as attempting to counteract the alt right pipeline, it's not acceptable to portray it as "radicalization" without support from reliable sources because one might perceive some BreadTube creators as extremist. (t · c) buidhe 20:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree regarding claims of radicalization; even though the pipeline process is described as "radicalization" in other sources, it would be WP:SYNTH to describe it as such in this case, and I edited the page earlier to (hopefully) remove everything that might imply it. And as long as it's not in a way that might be considered close paraphrasing, then I have no issue with using "leftist", "left-wing", or another similar term used by the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alt-right pipeline/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 23:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An intriguing phenomenon, and I'm glad it's up at GAN- will review soon. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien, I'm done with my review- I'll tidy up things once the comments have been addressed. Very high quality article, I'm impressed by the work you've done here! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk The most difficult part of writing this article has been managing the OR magnet that it's become. I've removed a few of the things you've mentioned entirely because it looks like they might have been unsupported additions that I missed in my cleanup efforts. Paragraph one of "Psychological factors" summarizes that one paper's explanation of radicalization (I chose to use that because it's the only source that covers both general radicalization and the alt-right pipeline specifically in detail), but there's one sentence there that reflects similar info elsewhere in the article, so I've added those sources.

I was hesitant to add more images, because I don't want to "highlight" any particular offender or instance of something like this, where I suspect the threshold for being undue is much more sensitive. I know I can be a bit pickier on "image relevance" than some editors, but I'd rather images that directly apply to the concept (or a specific aspect of it) as a whole. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the images, and I understand the OR issues, especially with such a niche (yet fascinating) subject. Good to go for GA! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	*Add Template:Use dmy dates or similar to convert dates in refs. I also suggest adding Template:Use American English or appropriate. ~~Wl internet memes~~ ~~Though the amount of organized hate groups has decreased, - decreased since when?~~ Otherwise, the prose is extremely well-written and very impressive. I could see this going to FAC soon.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No fiction, lists, or words to watch present. Complies with other MoS standards.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citations are placed in a proper "References" section.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	*This phenomenon of algorithmic filtering can create echo chambers, which can make the deprogramming process extremely difficult for individuals who are deeply entrenched in this content sphere and community. - Uncited ~~I question para 1 of "Psychological factors". There's only one citation for the whole paragraph. Could this possibly be supported by another source?~~ Otherwise, the article contains citations to reliable sources; most are journal articles, with some news articles and reports- all reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article is well-cited to reliable sources. I spotchecked a few random citations while reading just to ensure it's supported, and they all came up clean. No OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article addresses the process of the pipeline, the content involved in it, and psych factors, and concerns/prevention regarding it. All good here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There's definitely opportunity for bias, but as far as I can see, no editorial bias is visible. All good here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image is properly CC tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	In my opinion, more media could be added to further illustrate the article. Perhaps photos of some personalities in a multiple image box under "Content", or a photo of the mosque under "Concerns and prevention". Image is relevant and properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Proposed conceptual model"

Is "proposed conceptual model" what we call conspiracy theories now? Because this pipeline sure looks like a conspiracy theory to me. 188.100.52.69 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found another problem. Further down in the article it says: "The alt-right pipeline has been found to begin with the intellectual dark web community". If the pipeline is a conceptual model, how can it be "found to be begin" with something? Conceptual nodels aren't found to be begin with something. They're made up. 188.100.52.69 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a conceptual model just as evolution is a theory. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an echo chamber of WP:ReliableSources. If a WP:Due weight of reliable sources say it's true, then it's true. Other conspiracy theories have not been claimed true by a Due weight of reliable sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more accurate to call it a slippery slope fallacy. 2600:8801:7116:4400:980E:EF81:8A56:E0FF (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS

A number of statements were included using ineligible references to company websites, blogs and other random websites not considered Reliable Sources by consensus as per WP:RSP and, as such, have been removed. A related image has been excluded from one of these ineligible sources. Before re-introduction, seek preliminary consensus here and then a broader discussion about the general reliability of each source site-wide in the appropriate places.

Here is the list of excluded links which fail WP:RS.

- 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:1404:CCBA:6C1D:BBA4 (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pigeon is questionable and appears to have been added to the lead inappropriately. The remaining three are all legitimate organizations, including Bellingcat which has been affirmed several times to be generally reliable per WP:RSP. I've restored them, and I ask that you please do not delete chunks of sourced information simply because they're "websites". That is not a metric used to measure WP:RS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bellingcat does not fail WP:RS; it is included as a perennial source and considered generally reliable. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I am unable to find consensus that the other two sources are unreliable or even disputed. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bellingcat has been reinstated as per WP:RSP and the other two removed pending WP:NOCON. Seek consensus here and elsewhere to establish site-wide consensus regarding these two sources as per WP:NOCON. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:DD69:D442:4DA0:BCBE (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the text at WP:RSP explaining what it is. Most reliable sources are not listed there, and removing sources simply because they are not listed there is completely inappropriate. I have restored them, do not remove them unless you can get consensus that they are not reliable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have cited WP:NOCON multiple times. NOCON does not apply here.

Firstly, you have not engaged in a good faith discussion on the reliability of these sources, and thus there cannot be no consensus. When discussing adding or removing something, you should start a discussion to garner consensus first, not remove content.

Secondly, and notably, you are making a proposal to delete content. Per NOCON:

When discussions of proposals to delete articles, media, or other pages end without consensus, the normal result is the content being kept.

Even if this discussion somehow warrants a good-faith one that did not reach a consensus, it means that the content should be kept and not deleted by default.

Thirdly, please see the page linked directly above NOCON: WP:QUO. During an ongoing discussion, do not change the article from the status quo ante bellum—in this case, the sourced content. If you continue to make changes in a similar fashion, it could constitute an edit war. You may use inline templates such as {{Under discussion inline}} to indicate content under discussion.

pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]