![worldworks games 4chan worldworks games 4chan](https://pics.loveforquotes.com/4chan-formatting-options-you-type-you-see-greentext-italics-bold-54353785.png)
Multiple editors have given concerns about the quality of these sources and the weight of these claims. Denarivs ( talk) 05:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC) How about holding off until this discussion is resolved. Because of this, I'm going to add the sentence back to the first paragraph. The claim that the alt-right is younger than mainstream conservatism has a number of sources. The claim is backed up by an article in which calls the alt-right "a loosely defined coalition" and an article in NRO which describes the alt-right as a "motley group". The correct Weekly Standard source describes the alt-right as "highly heterogeneous", which is a very close synonym for diverse, and is the best source for this point. Grayfell ( talk) 04:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC) The Weekly Standard source is a typo of some sorts. It does, however, repeatedly emphasize that this is a white supremacist movement, not just a " white nationalist" one. I think the Weekly Standard one must be a mistake, as it doesn't appear to be discussing the alt-right at all, and the Daily Beast one only mentions age in relation to the Limbaugh caller, which is nothing worth mentioning. As for the age, I don't think anyone is contesting that the alt-right skews young, but these sources are flimsy.
![worldworks games 4chan worldworks games 4chan](https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.2623775404.4188/mo,small,fridge_close,square,1000x1000.2.jpg)
This should be removed from both this article, and the New Right one. Since they are not, it's not appropriate for the article to divide sources into supporters and detractors just to create the illusion of consensus.
![worldworks games 4chan worldworks games 4chan](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1356467793i/12873095._UY200_.jpg)
If sources are in general agreement (which they aren't) then this should just be stated as is. It also reads like an attempt at false balance. Regardless, there's nothing 'regular' about a single source. That has nothing to do with diversity, intellectual or otherwise. Popehat and the ADF said the alt-right are white supremacists. Otherwise the Buzzfeed article mostly reflects what figures in the movement say about it, and very little about what detractors say. Calling that intellectual diversity is absurdly flattering. The Buzzfeed source doesn't really say that the movement is diverse, merely that it's "loosely connected", and that several followers' "political projects are a little hard to pin down". Neither The Occidental Quarterly nor (Radix) are reliable for statements of fact, nor are they independent of the movement, so labeling them "supporters" is misleading at best. These sources do not support that this is regularly describing as intellectually diverse. ^ "A YouTube account is rewriting Disney tunes to be racist".Buckley for "not openly espousing, among other things, white nationalism, or white identarianism" such as in the video which is titled “The National Review” and is set to the tune of “The Bells of Notre Dame.” Supporters and detractors alike regularly describe the alt-right as young and intellectually diverse, Adherents also refer to themselves as identitarian, and criticize National Review and William F. One leading proponent records parodies of Disney songs (such as I'll Make A Man Out Of You, from Mulan) "with their discussions of white supremacy and generally racist and sexist lyrics". Proponents are said to use culture jamming and memes to promote their ideas. May I include this in the article from New Right on the Alt-right? Denarivs ( talk) 06:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Reaction