Talk:alt-left

RFV discussion: August–November 2017

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

alt-left

I don't think this sense qualifies as a hot-sense since, firstly, there are no useable citations yet that can serve as evidence of the definition, and, secondly, there is no reason as of yet to believe if it does come into use that it will remain in use for a year. --WikiTiki89 17:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

There are dozens of media articles in the past week attempting to define the term, so that's point one gone (and, yes, I think it wrong to dismiss those as mere "mentions".) And you really need to provide some evidence that, in the span of the next year, it will go from exceedingly wide use to complete and total non-use. I continue to maintain that it's the height of ridiculousness to privilege one durable citation over hundreds of non-durable ones. Purplebackpack89 04:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: A reference to Trump's use of the word "alt-left" appeared in the print edition of the Los Angeles Times last Wednesday. This included a quote of Trump using "alt-left" in a paragraph, so I think that qualifies as a "use" rather than a "mention". I'm sure it appeared in other places as well, but that's the first hard copy I could lay my hands on at the spur of the moment. In general, I think Wikitiki's claim that this isn't a hot sense is wrong. Purplebackpack89 04:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Aside from being spoken (and probably Tweeted) by POTUS, the news has been rife with mentions of this term lately. Seems like a clear "hot word" to me.

• Politico has both uses and mentions.
• Washington Post has both uses and mentions.
• Boston Globe has a glossary including alt-left and antifa.

Etc. - TheDaveRoss 12:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss: Firstly, mentions don't count. Secondly, I was only referring to (what is currently) the first sense. Thirdly, the most important criteria for a hot word is some reason to be relatively certain that this word won't come out of use (and since this sense has no attestations as of now, that would be a difficult argument to make). Fourthly, at least one attestation (although preferably a lot more than that) is required for a word to be elligible as a hot word. --WikiTiki89 14:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought three citations were required to be kept as a hot word, at least for English words. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

That is probably true. So even more so. --WikiTiki89 15:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89 @DCDuring I think the both of you are defining "mention" too broadly. Many of the articles out there have detailed analysis of what alt-left means, going beyond merely just saying who said it and how many letters it has. Many of the articles use alt-left in places that aren't just Donald Trump saying alt-left. Often, they say something along the lines of "the alt-left is similar to the antifa movement". Anything that compares alt-left to something else, rather than just itself, is a use and not a mention IMO. Purplebackpack89 16:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Please provide quotations. --WikiTiki89 18:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If alt-left has to be defined every time an author wants to use it, then it does not yet have a conventionally accepted meaning, unless there are common elements to the definition. That is, if one author writes that alt-left is "a label applied by some to certain of the militant or violent groups such as Occupy Wall Street" and another says that it is a "loose grouping that includes Occupy Wall Street", we don't really know if it is a grouping or a label. If other authors say that "no person or group calls itself part of the alt-left", then we have evidence that it is a label and not a grouping of those that self-identify as alt-left, but that probably includes Occupy Wall Street. The Atlantic article may be an indirect source of citations if we can't find the originals in durably archived sources. DCDuring (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The Tea Room discussion of this term includes citations in the Washington Post and Vanity Fair, regarding the use of the term by Clintonites as a way of disparaging liberals who were friendly with Trump. 73.81.113.64 15:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  That's irrelevant because it's a different sense, and we would need direct citations of the use of that sense for it to be included. --WikiTiki89 15:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• A month in, it appears there is a consensus that this should remain tagged as a hot sense. Wikitiki89 seems to be the only person advocating otherwise. Purplebackpack89 18:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  RFV doesn't operate by concensus, it operates by citations. There are still zero citations of the sense I nominated. Thus, deleted. --WikiTiki89 18:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  Restored If it's a hot sense, we have a year to come up with those citations. Both me (Purplebackpack89) and DaveRoss contend this is a hot sense; Wikitiki89 is alone in believing that this is not a hot sense. Purplebackpack89 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  We have requirements for hot senses. See Granger's comment above, for example. It's been a month. There are zero citations. It does not qualify as a hot sense. --WikiTiki89 18:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  You're being ridiculous. The word was in widespread usage for the past month, there are hundreds of online sources that use the term, and you're still looking for excuses to delete it. How bureaucratic and not-actually-trying-to-build-a-Wiktionary. Purplebackpack89 18:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• As stated at the start of this section: "there are no useable citations yet that can serve as evidence of the definition". Add three and you're done. But if you can't find three that meet your "hot sense" rather than the other sense, it won't be added. Simple. Just find the three. Equinox ◑ 18:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like someone merged the two definitions. RFV-resolved. Kiwima (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)