This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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
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
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
The content of Alt-left was merged into Alt-right on September 26 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Dissident Right in the lead
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)
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)
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.
It's well sourced even if you don't like the sources. Simonm223 (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I looked since last time. Simonm223 (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
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)
"Dissident right" shouldn't be noted without noting together that it's a tactic used to make white supremacy more mainstream. I agree it's good to redirect the term here. Ryuudou (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Isn't that exactly what "alt-right" itself was, though? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
