Work the article needs
This just got linked from New York Magazine as the explanation of "neoreactionary". I checked our article over and none of it's wrong, but it could do with a polish and brush-up.
Stuff that occurs to me (which I may or may not get around to):
- digest that huge list of external links into actual references!
- date of "The Dark Enlightenment" by Nick Land (late 2012? early 2013?)
- split out an Alt-right article, which isn't quite the same thing as neoreaction
- a section on the broader Dark Enlightenment (maybe a separate article, maybe not - the DE is broader than NRx, but e.g. Nick Land still treats them as synonymous)
- rewrite the present-day Yarvin section a bit
For one example of the two camps going at it, see this article from the Discovery News website where they criticize the alt-right for drinking from the SoDa fountain.
The site is a creationist site disguised as a trustworthy scientific source.
They did not link to Discovery news, they linked to a different source which has a similar name. It is not said in the sentence that the linked site is creationist propaganda. This is Discovery News's twitter and their website.ClickerClock (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've made the link a bit clearer. (This is one of the things that would be hived off to an alt-right article.) - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Name Not Awesome Enough
- Far-rightists aren't exactly known for their cleverness. þe olꝺe Ꞅƿɽyᵹᵹyna (ꞇalc) (conċꞃybs) @ 05:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)