Talk:Intellectual dark web

No longer applicable?

Thread retitled from term no longer applicable (2023-2024).

hello,

what does it take in Feb 2024 to demonstrate that none of those who were in this grouping identifies with this grouping any more, if they ever did? do we trust outside sources? (There are probably none insisting on grouping these people together under this name since 2021.) Do we trust the identified members themselves? If so, how can we find a source that says that none of these people identify with this label now? Do we have to find a source for each member, do demonstrate that they don't belong?

I think the term IDW is fine as term that had some salience for a few years. And we can state who belonged to the group for that period. (I guess from 2018-2021.)

skakEL 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sauces plz. GMG^talk 14:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sam Harris "handing in his IDW membership card" doesn't mean we delete him from the page. It's not surprising heterodox pseudointellctual formations like the IDW are unstable. But we still cleave to reliable sources rather than running the whole page as an WP:ABOUTSELF situation. Simonm223 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, things that are, perhaps, no longer in an active state can still be notable. This article could benefit from some updating regarding Harris, as detailed at Sam Harris#Intellectual dark web. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I really wish the Woking Up podcast constituted a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Internal disagreements

Internal disagreements

Writer Cathy Young has expressed uncertainty over whether she belongs in the intellectual dark web. Historian of medicine and science Alice Dreger expressed surprise in being told she was a member of the IDW at all. After she was invited to be profiled in the New York Times article, she stated that she "had no idea who half the people in this special network were. The few Intellectual Dark Web folks I had met I didn't know very well. How could I be part of a powerful intellectual alliance when I didn't even know these people?"

In a 2020 episode of his podcast, Harris distanced himself from the movement, saying that he was "turn[ing] in [his] imaginary membership card to this imaginary organization", because some unidentified members of the group were propagating President Donald Trump's false claims that the 2020 US presidential election was stolen through voter fraud. He later described the focus on COVID-19 vaccines by Bret Weinstein as being "completely crazy".

In 2021, Dave Rubin described a growing ideological split among the early IDW. According to Freddie Sayers, Rubin includes Bari Weiss, Sam Harris, and Bret Weinstein among "those who believe the tools of liberalism can still be deployed to persuade the Woke Left to change their mind", while Rubin believes that is not possible, and that he is "better off building bridges with the Right".

Sources

I removed these three paragraphs as unduly weighted since every source cited is either a blog, podcast, or opinion piece (op-ed or editorial). All are primary sources that shouldn't be used as the basis of an article (or section). Why do we care whether Person X feels like they belong to Group Y, especially given the polarizing nature of said group? Sam Harris's disavowal of the IDW especially smacks of damage control. A truly balanced presentation would instead rely on secondary sources that put these statements in their proper context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. You've basically unbalanced the entire topic. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned above we should avoid the trap of this article becoming a list of WP:ABOUTSELF disavowals. I support the removal on those grounds. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: kindly explain why you think opinion pieces and self-published sources from people with a clear conflict of interest should be given the same weight as books from respected academic publishers and other independent, mainstream sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It's entirely acceptable to use these sources to say that Cathy Young, Alice Dreger, and Sam Harris disavow interest in the so-called "group", and I don't see how this constitutes a COI. Here is the version before you began "editing" it. Please kindly explain how you've improved the subject. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

If all that's been written about Young and Dreger's associations with the IDW (or lack thereof) is the pieces they wrote, then that can be excluded. As for the part about Harris turning in his "imaginary membership card" in the IDW, that is discussed at Sam Harris and sourced there to this piece from RealClearPolitics. I don't see any reason to exclude the Sayers piece in Unherd. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I would hope there would be a specific, good reason to cite a softball interview with an unreliable pundit, Rubin, from an unreliable partisan outlet, Unherd. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason to consider Unherd unreliable. Rubin should be reliable ultimate source here for what Rubin thinks about the IDW, as reported by a third-party. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Unherd is a niche website that has only been around since 2017, and the source in question is an editorial, as I already mentioned. No one is saying Rubin is necessarily unreliable for what Rubin thinks; the problem is undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

No one? Grayfell clearly opined that both Rubin and Unherd are unreliable. The due weight argument is more reasonable there. What do you think about the "imaginary membership card" stuff from RealClearPolitics? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a snappy soundbite that's already included in our bio of Harris, so unless there's some more in-depth analysis of the event, I don't think inclusion in this article is particularly warranted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Strikes me as at least at relevant in this article as the Harris one. As this article stands now, it makes no reference to this fracturing, leaving the impression that nothing's really evolved since 2018. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the sort of interpretation and analysis that requires a published, secondary source. We have a recent scholarly source in Postill (2024) that has quite a lot on the IDW and Harris, but nothing about this supposed fracturing that I can see. Therefore it seems WP:UNDUE to mention it in this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC) edited 20:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The "fracturing" is effectively an ideological split around two poles: pro-Trump vs anti-Trump and pro-vaxine vs anti-vax. However for this to be anything more than the normal instabilitu of fringe groups we'd need to demonstrate it went beyond rhetoric. Preferably using high-quality secondary sources. And, of course, WP:BESTSOURCES like Posthill are due more weight than WP:ABOUTSELF bon mots. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to the John Posthill book, but it looks like the relevant content here comes from the chapter: "Meet the anti-wokes". The abstract of that chapter can be read here. Quote: "Rather than being 'old-school reactionaries', as their critics have described them, the chapter argues that they are best defined as 'Schmittian liberals'; that is, as classical liberals and conservatives united in their staunch opposition to the alleged 'woke capture' of liberal institutions." This would lend support to "Those who have been labelled as being part of the IDW include both liberals and conservatives.", which was a long-standing part of lead, recently removed by Grayfell, twice, the second time after I restored it with a sources that only described Harris as a liberal. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I removed it only once, because your use of that source was a form of original research. Your use of an abstract of a source you don't have access to for this claim would also be original research, and it would be just as flimsy. The body of the article doesn't support having this in the lead in such blunt terms.

One of the issues with this in the lead -one of many issues with this- is that "liberal" and "conservative" are not necessarily exclusive as used by reliable sources in this context. The IDW was part of an uptick in the use of "classical liberal" as a buzzword, typically by political conservatives. Conservative liberalism and Libertarianism in the United States are manifestations of this idea. To use the lead to editorialize and imply that these two concepts are mutually exclusive, and therefor to imply IDW is a big tent for including both, is inappropriate and misrepresents the article's sources. Sources do not say it's this simple, so we cannot either. There may be a way to explain this is the body, but it doesn't belong in the lead without more context. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

What I added wasn't OR. It was just incompletely sourced and incompletely developed in the body. We can easily find multiple sources that say 1) Harris and the Weinsteins are liberals 2) Peterson and Shapiro are conservatives 3) the interactions within the IDW were an attempt, in part, to bridge such divides with conversation. I'll grant you that the use of "liberal" and "conservative" can be complicated and contextual, but I'm really at a loss for the OR claim with respect to the abstract of Posthill's chapter. Isn't an abstract supposed to faithfully summarize the body? Sounds like you have access to whole work. Can you share some relevant passages? I can also see about getting access myself. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If such sources can be easily found then can you present them if you think they should be added to the article. We should not WP:CENSOR discussion of "internal disagreements." Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is being censored because of social or religious objections to the material. The issue is avoiding undue weight.

I recently got a PDF of Chapter 3 from Postill (2024), "Meet the anti-wokes", via WP:REREQ. If anyone wants a copy, just email me and leave a note on my talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Due weight is an important concern too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

a new criticism heading

I think a criticism heading should be added with the POV of those who are against the movement including the points made by progressives and centrist authors incl points made by zero book and the guardian Nohorizonss (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf Nohorizonss (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There's already a § Reception section for this. I specifically removed the citation to Michael Brooks because his book is a polemic rather than a work of scholarship. Criticism sections are a bad idea in general, especially for polarizing topics like this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me, but the pattern in your edits appears to be to give this topic a right-wing slant by eliminating left-wing voices and critics. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what? You can't alter Hamburger's citation to Michael brooks because you don't like it. That's what he originally said. This is a most bizarre set of edits. You don't get to do meta-editing on the source itself. Based on your removal of Brooks from Hamburger's source citation, I am starting to question all of your edits to this article. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I have done meta-editing on the source itself. The archived version of Hamburger's essay you linked to doesn't mention Michael Brooks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Beacon Press

@Sangdeboeuf I'm curious regarding this source removal. It's a Unitarian Universalist publisher - as such I'm a bit confused over it being listed as "partisan" - last I'd heard the UU church hadn't endorsed any specific politicians. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not a scholarly source. Sheedy (2022) makes the same claim about IDW commentators dismissing issues of gender inequality while welcoming some gay men into their ranks, citing Stern's book Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate. I simply kept the citation to the more established academic publisher. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

OK that's fine. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Membership and ideology

This section includes a very misleading & prejudicial statement:

While IDW members tend to not espouse overt white supremacy and ethnonationalism, some of their beliefs overlap with those of the white-nationalist alt-right movement

Several members of the IDW are Jewish making the implied association with white supremacy rather absurd. Similarly, as this article notes in the origin section, the IDW is comprised of members across the political spectrum who are united in part against the use of racial identity politics. Statements such as this imply that the IDW is adjacent to a set of political beliefs that the article acknowledges the IDW was founded to oppose.

50.168.133.26 (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the sentence might not be worded well but just because several members are Jewish it does not mean we should WP:CENSOR any implications regarding white supremacy. Whether that is an appropriate thing to put in this article for other reasons is a separate question. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have the passage from the source. GMG^talk 17:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Per Sheedy (2022): While IDW figures do not espouse white supremacy or ethno-nationalism explicitly, tend to uphold some version of civic nationalism, and vocally distance themselves from the 'alt-right', there is a discernible overlap in some of their talking points. This can be seen with debates concerning gender and trans-identities, feminism and race science, masculinity and men's rights, along with a disdain for leftists and, in some cases, migrants and Muslims.¹⁶

[...]

16. For example, Harris, Murray, and Shapiro have all expressed anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the original source. My question isn't one of censorship but whether the claim is facially accurate Wikipedia:Five pillars and whether it adds to the value of the article Wikipedia:Notability.

If the intent is to surface the implications of Jews having overlapping beliefs with an anti-Jewish movement, it fails to discuss it in a meaningful manner. The source and the article seem to largely ignore the importance of such a claim.

Per Alt-right:

"The alt-right (abbreviated from alternative right) is a far-right, white nationalist movement."

"Another Jewish target was the conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who was sent messages stating that he and his children "will go to the ovens"."

Per Reason :

"The alt-right wants the U.S. to be a place for white Europeans and their descendants, and for the government to promote and protect the interests of white Europeans and their descendants. This is not a movement for black people, Hispanic immigrants, or Jews—all of whom represent a kind of "other" from the standpoint of the alt-right."

If Ben Shapiro's views are part of the justification of the comparison why is "explicitly" needed as a qualifier in regards to "white supremacy or ethno-nationalism"? It seems wholly insufficient to accurately describe what is opposition to the most core belief of the alt-right.

50.168.133.26 (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Neither Wikipedia articles nor Reason constitute reliable sources. Our statements regarding the interrelationship of the IDW and American far-right movements are derived from reliable sources. If we were being flexible enough with reliable sources for these to count then the far more pointed criticisms of publications like the Polite Conversations podcast would also be apropos. And that particular outlet pulls no punches when discussing, for instance, Sam Harris doing apologia for Charles Murray. I'm sorry but, with these sources not being reliable, you are effectively engaging in WP:OR. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Reason is a reliable source but it's just one and there may be a question if the Reason article refutes the claim on question. However, it may be worth considering to what extent claims of vague overlap should be included in the article. The Baptist and the bootleggers both supported prohibition but not really for the same reasons. That is the problem with claims like this. They seem to be made more to discrete via association vs via fundamental reasoning. Springee (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Reason is almost pure opinion. And spurious opinion at that. It's not reliable. About all I can say to the rest of this is... what exactly are you proposing as a change here? This seems very un-focused beyond a vague defense that the IDW and the alt-right support racist pseudo-science for... different reasons? Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Your opinion of the source is not supported by consensus.

I would ask if we are giving Sheedy to much weight when the source makes vague, highly negative associations. Do we have other sources that make the same association? Of course what should be included when talking about the views of the "IDW" is always going to be a difficult issue since it's a vague association of individuals rather than a clear organization with a platform etc. Springee (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: you think a peer reviewed WP:BESTSOURCE is being over-used and is too vague but an opinion rag built around an ideological commitment to right-libertarianism should be treated as reliable... No. Hard disagree to all that. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, not all stuff published by academics should be viewed as due for inclusion. How much weight should be given to this association is an issue. Also, as someone who has been a reviewer I can say with confidence that not all that gets through the system is good work. The system tries to set a lower floor for quality but it doesn't mean this is some sort of good standard view of the subject. As editors we don't have to give up our own common sense when evaluating if a claim is reasonable for inclusion. The wording used in the article is very wheaselly. Springee (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the patience as I'm new to the discussion side.

I'm confused on which claim by the quotes provided are insufficient and require additional sourcing. Is it that Ben Shapiro is Jewish? That the alt-right is a white-nationalist movement? That they are at odds with each other? My intent was merely to restate what I thought were clear foundational facts for the purposes of explaining why I was questioning the originally quoted statement. If we're agreed on that foundation, then I think we can move on.

The heart of the disagreement is whether the sentence's association of the IDW to the alt-right is relevant and beneficial to article. If the intent is only to show where their ideologies overlap and contrast, then the sentence should better reflect it. I propose:

"While the IDW members vocally distance themselves from the alt-right and do not espouse white supremacy or ethno-nationalism, some of their beliefs overlap with those of the movement, such as in debates over gender identity, feminism, men's rights, and race science."

50.168.133.26 (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

No. It's factually incorrect that no members of the IDW espouse white supremacist beliefs. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Are there specific examples? Springee (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I've already provided one above in this conversation. Unless you're trying to argue that The Bell Curve isn't a white-supremacist text. The promotion of the idea of racial differences in intelligence is white supremacist. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Where does The Bell Curve intersect with the subject of the article? GMG^talk 17:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read in the thread above. Certain leading members of the IDW have taken up the "free speech" issue of Race and IQ or have argued that the work of Charles Murray (political scientist) was unfairly maligned on the basis of wokeness. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Are we confusing Douglas Murray with Charles Murray? GMG^talk 17:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, is who I meant to be talking about, not Douglas Murray, author of Eurabia conspiracy theories. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Here are several sources discussing this:

And, in case the words of others aren't sufficient to support that Sam Harris has defended the (white supremacist) work of Charles Murray, Harris has an WP:ABOUTSELF statement about it: What has been accomplished in Murray’s case, and is being attempted in mine, is nothing less than the total destruction of a person’s reputation for the crime of honestly discussing scientific data. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean...per your own source, Murray was apparently also defended by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. So I'm not sure the point you're trying to make is really as big of a deal as you seem to think it is. GMG^talk 18:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

For what I said to be false we'd have to establish that neither of those publications ever publish defense of white supremacy which is perhaps going too far afield when all we need say is that the IP's claims that no members of the IDW hold white supremacist views is WP:OR and as such inappropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The absolute "no members" seems to be from your own comment. The IPs original argument is quite a bit more nuanced. GMG^talk 18:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

While the IDW members vocally distance themselves from the alt-right and do not espouse white supremacy

"The IDW members... do not espouse white supremacy" seems rather lacking in nuance. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

You can treat my objection to being specifically to the inclusion of the statement "and do not espouse white supremacy." Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Then the statement should be qualified using a source. As it stands, that's word-for-word what the Sheedy source says. GMG^talk 18:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The IDW was not "founded" to do anything; as the article points out, it's a half-joking label applied to a loose collection of commentators opposed to left-wing identity politics, not racial identity politics in general. The comparison with the alt-right is explicitly in regards to debates over gender identity, feminism, men's rights, and race science, not white supremacy. Whether random Wikipedia users think this is absurd or not is irrelevant; we go by published, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I can agree with that view. However the article text clearly is making the WS association. "While IDW members tend to not espouse overt white supremacy and ethnonationalism, some of their beliefs overlap with those of the white-nationalist alt-right movement..." Springee (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a reliably sourced statement. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a wheaselly statement and such associations, especially since they suggest IDW members are like white supremacists should really have multiple sources or secondary strong sources supporting Sheedy's claim. Please understand the difference between WP:V and DUE Springee (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Laughably incorrect. Please read, and understand, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read and understand ILIKEIT. Just because a person with a limited academic record makes the association doesn't mean it's due. Also, please keep the replies civil. Springee (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I concur with the IP editor who opened this discussion and with Springee that in passage in question is misleading and prejudicial. Routledge is a reputable publisher, and I don't think there's any reason to disqualify Matt Sheedy as a reliable source. He is a visiting professor at the University of Bonn. The questions here are dueness and balance, and whether this passage really just amounts to Sheedy's judgement (i.e. opinion). To address Sangdebouf's last comment, yes the IDW is/was not a formal organization. It's a cultural label applied to a bunch of people working with similar ideas in the same place and time, not unlike say the grunge rock music scene or Romantic poetry. That being said, the article as it stands with Sheedy's assertion of "overlap" with "white-nationalist alt-right movement" offered as a factual statement in Wikivoice stands to impugn specific living people like Sam Harris with potentially defamatory claims. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• "While IDW members tend to not espouse overt white supremacy and ethno-nationalism, some of their beliefs overlap with those of the white-nationalist alt-right movement"

"Potentially defamatory" seems like a harder stretch than the alleged NPOV issue. I think the wording could possibly be improved, but I doubt that RSN would support the assertion that the source fails V or would conclude it implies any specific impunity. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Absent seeing the actual text of the source I don't think we should presume the source doesn't support the claim. How much weight should go to the claim is a different matter. Springee (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not as if it were in the lead. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of which...it's dreadfully thin. DN (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not just one academic source making this comparison. Finlayson (2021) includes both the alt-right and IDW in their analysis of online radical conservative and reactionary ‘ideological entrepreneurs'  who share a belief that inequality is a core concept, understood as a natural phenomenon, scientifically verified, and the necessary basis of civil order. In any case, I have adjusted the wording to omit the label "white-nationalist", which should remove any perceived defamation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I think any of the linkage to "white-nationalist" or "white supremacy" is going to need stronger sourcing. The source offers the opinion that, "there is a discernible overlap in some of their talking points." OK. Do we have evidence that this view has been embraced by the wider scholarly community or is this just the claim of a single visiting professor? Again, this is the sort of association that needs more weight since it's associating a small group of people with vague claims of white nationalism/supremacy. This is especially true given that the only apparent link is something that even the NYT felt was a defensible position per GMG's link. I will also note this is a relatively new addition (Dec 27th 2024) and I think ONUS would certainly apply to it's inclusion. Springee (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Where is the link to white supremacy in the text of the article? The text specifically says IDW figures avoid explicit white supremacy and ethnonationalism. Meaning they overlap with alt-right ideologies in other areas. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The link doesn't need to be there but the text still is and says they "avoid explicit..." Does that mean they engage in non-explicit white supremacy? This is a single source. Since it's a scholarly source is should provide evidence to support the claims. What evidence is provided? If none then it's basically the author's opinion. It may be correct but at that point it lacks weight for inclusion. I'm OK with saying the areas where the views overlap with alt-right though we should make it clear this is more along the lines of comments by some members rather than some unified "all IDW members believe X" sort of statement. For this reason it's probably better to focus on what they do have in common vs implying that some view that an individual supports is that of all/most members. Springee (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The very next sentence does exactly that: Similarities with the alt-right are seen in debates over gender identity, feminism, men's rights, and race science. Furthermore, the first sentence under § Membership and ideology specifies that the IDW is ideologically diverse. I don't see any implication that all IDW members share a specific view of white supremacy.

It's true that Sheedy is mainly giving their opinion; that's no less true of most of the other sources cited, especially newspaper and magazine sources. Even scholarly analysis based on evidence boils down to someone's opinion. The citation therefore seems no less WP:DUE than any other. If there are NPOV concerns, maybe all that's required is for the statement to be attributed to the author. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf I feel the article provides a sufficient npov . every incendiary claim is couched or nuanced. 814jjs (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)