Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

"Incident targeting Muslims"

While I am not interested in starting an edit war, do you think the current description of the controversy in Luton is accurate? Here is the description from the current article: "In February 2018, in the English town of Luton, Southern distributed bogus religious information twisting the core Islamic belief that Allah, as the creator of all things, is in no need of a consort.[39] This misrepresentation came across to some locals as demeaning and resulted in complaints. Police were concerned about a possibile reaction to Southern's provocation, however there was none. Southern and her accomplices Brittany Pettibone and Caolan Robertson[40] were instructed to cease distributing the bogus information and desist from any further antisocial behaviour.[41]"

The cited sources say that it was an attempt to test the limits of free speech, so as to show that no punishment follows stating that "Jesus was gay", whereas stating that "Allah was gay" may elicit threats of violence or have other unpredictable consequences. The article makes it sound as if there was some theological conspiratorial intent or interest in Islamic religious beliefs as opposed to social stances, even linking to an external article on Allah in Enyclopaedia Brittanica. Neither of the two cited news sources (BBC and The Mirror) says anything about consorts or Allah as the creator of the universe. Humanophage (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the cited sources say no such thing, and instead merely quote Southern giving her version of events. The BBC article quotes Southern making her excuse, however, it also states in its subheading that she is an "anti-Islam activist". The Mirror article quotes Southern's excuse and states that her leaflets were "racist material". AndrewArmstrong2 (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Humanophage and reverted per WP:BLP. AndrewArmstrong2's comment is false. The sources did not say Southern said anything about consorts, nor did they say anything about locals' reactions. These edits were clearly intended to paint Southern in the most negative light. The "Allah is gay" story certainly has a place in our article, but please try to follow the sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Reason for UK ban

I have expanded on the reason for Southern's refusal of entry. The cited Reuters article clearly states "The official confirmed that British border authorities had denied Southern permission to enter Britain on the same grounds as the other two activists", and in its 2nd and 3rd paragraph, and that the other 2 activists were Brittany Pettibone and Martin Sellner. Martin Sellner was not involved in any way in the distribution of "Allah is gay" leaflets, therefore the distribution of leaflets could not have been the reason for Southern's denial of entry.

I have added and appropriately cited the full list of the activists who distributed the leaflets. The relevance of the sentence referring to the leaflets is not clear. Its relevance to the topic must be properly explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewArmstrong2 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm still going to revert your edit as a BLP violation because, while verifiable, it appears to be a non-neutral attempt to link Southern to Sellner. Instead of explaining obliquely that Southern was banned for the same reason as Sellner, why not say why she was banned? And if we're mentioning Sellner, why not also mention Pettibone, who was referenced in the source equally with Sellner? Please do not restore content without obtaining consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The sentence reinserted by Dr. Fleischman appears to be a non-neutral attempt at creating the impression of a causal relationship between Southern's distribution of leaflets and her subsequent expulsion. Such a relationship cannot be verified anywhere in the cited source, and was disproved by the Reuters citation Dr. Fleischman deleted.

To remedy the sentence's misleading position, I propose instead placing the sentence “In February 2018, Southern distributed flyers saying "Allah is a Gay God" in the English town of Luton.” in a new subsection named "Incident targeting Muslims" in the Career section. This still makes the sequence of events clear, and it does so without any non-neutral unverifiable impression of a causal relationship. --AndrewArmstrong2 (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That was an improvement for sure, though I've refactored a bit to consolidate the UK-related content without implying a causal relationship. Note, however, that all three sources mention both the Luton stunt and the ban. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

why is lutz bachmann here?

What does Lutz have to do with this, and what do his criminal convictions have to do with Lauren? Is this just a sleazy attempt to associate her name with him and his crimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.228.131 (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2018‎

Bachmann did not attempt to enter at the same time as Southern, so his deportation is separate from Southern's ban. I've removed him from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Far right references

I figured I would expand the citations for "far right" in the lead. The only change made was to include four additional sources in the lede, and to add some redundancy for readability and simplicity:

• Gordon, Graeme (27 July 2017). "Why Lauren Southern Got Banned From Patreon". Canadaland. Archived from the original on 18 August 2017. Retrieved 17 August 2017. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Baidawi, Adam (3 April 2018). "South Africa Says Australia Retracted Claim of 'Persecuted' White Farmers". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 April 2018.
• "Canadian far-right activist Lauren Southern barred from Britain for anti-Muslim views". National Post. 12 March 2018. Retrieved 16 April 2018.
• Oppenheim, Maya (13 March 2018). "Far-right Canadian activist detained in Calais and banned from entering UK". The Independent. Retrieved 16 April 2018.
• Maxwell, Tani. "'There's no one for right-wingers to pick a fight with': The far right is struggling to sustain interest in its social media platforms". Business Insider. Retrieved 16 April 2018.

The Canadaland source remains. While Canadaland seems reliable enough, hopefully this will at least make future discussions a little simpler. There are plenty more sources which could be added, also. Grayfell (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: there's definitely a ton of references for "far right". I took a WP:ADVANCED search for "lauren southern" and over a third of the sources describe her as "far right". I do have the slightest concerns still, as she wasn't described "far right" by academics, the majority of sources actually don't describe her as "far right", and a tiny portion of the sources say plain wrong that she is alt-right (Southern has only the most negative of relations with the alt-right, sending her death threats and such). wumbolo ^^^ 15:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a majority of sources describe her as far right. And alt-right and far right are not mutually exclusive. A person can be both alt-right and far right at the same time. Which sources say she's alt-right? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Far-right seems sufficient to me, but if sources say alt-right, we can go from there.

As for death threats, I know it was a passing comment, but I've seen that line of thinking a lot lately, and I think it's worth expanding on. If some members of the alt-right send death threats, that doesn't make them reliable sources. Citing death threats as a reason (even in passing) sets a very nasty precedent. Far right movements like the alt-right are notoriously prone to in-fighting and fracturing. Death threats are not a sign of anything beyond what is supported by reliable sources. That applies to Southern as well as Yiannopoulos, Cernovich, Molyneux, Sargon of Akkad, and all of the other far-right personalities who have been targeted for harassment by the far right. The harassers do not get to decide who does and doesn't belong. Reliable sources decide. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: agreed. (except for Sargon of Akkad who is center-right at most, here's his article: Carl Benjamin) wumbolo ^^^ 21:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at that article's talk page and history. If you would like sources for why I say that about Benjamin, I would be willing to provide them, but this isn't the place, obviously. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why I was talking about death threats, I must've wanted to say that top alt-righters like Richard B. Spencer publically wished for Southern's death. Your case is still in place. wumbolo ^^^ 18:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Sorry for the late reply, forgot about this discussion. Sources that describe Southern as alt-right: (found with WP:RSSE) Independent, LA Times and LA Times and LA Times, Observer (Southern dabbled in being alt-right) and Paste Mag.

Sometimes the same publication saying that Southern is far-right/alt-right also says that she is merely right-wing. E.g. Independent: alt-right and right-wing; Same source (The Star) can't even decide whether Southern is right-wing, alt-right, or conservative.

Reuters is considered reliable and it doesn't describe Southern as far-right: right-wing and conservative. wumbolo ^^^ 21:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Far-right is a subset of right-wing, which overlaps with alt-right and conservative. None of these terms are mutually exclusive. One of those headlines is "Far-right millennials set out to sea to 'defend Europe' from migrants", which suggests, at the very least, that Reuters is not disputing the label "far-right". Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: tell that to Number 57 over at Talk:Meretz. wumbolo ^^^ 23:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, don't care and that's WP:OTHERCONTENT. If there is some connection between Meretz being far-left and Lauren Southern being far-right, you would need to use reliable sources to explain that connection. Spreading wikidrama gets disruptive very quickly. Whatever that issue is, discuss it at that talk page, or consider a neutral noticeboard post to avoid WP:CANVASSing. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Far-right is a subset of right-wing To quote Number 57, "If you don't understand a concept as basic as this difference, then I would suggest it may be best not to edit politics-related articles." wumbolo ^^^ 21:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Still at this? Trying to drag another editor into this because of some other comments in some other context based on some other set of sources is still WP:POINTed. The political spectrum is designed to be a simplification, so ignoring context is a bad idea. In the context of this article on Lauren Southern, far-right is a subset of right wing. This is demonstrated by sources which use one term to describe her without ever disputing the other, or which use both interchangeably. Does this transfer to some other, completely separate article, about a completely different topic, based on completely different ideologies, on the other half of the globe? I seriously doubt it, but I don't know, and I don't care, because this article is about Lauren Southern. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Grayfell: I went one-by-one through the top reliable sources, including Der Spiegel, The New Yorker, the BBC, Reuters, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Guardian. All of these that I mentioned have universally called Southern explicitly either "right-wing" or "conservative" except:
  • far-right, The New York Times (you mentioned)
  • alt-right, The New Yorker
  • alt-right, The Guardian
  • alt-right, Los Angeles Times
  • far-right, Los Angeles Times
  • alt-right, Los Angeles Times.

As you can see, you may remove whatever sources you want to remove, and "alt-right" still outweighs "far-right". To be honest, "right-wing" outweighs "conservative" mentions, and while "conservative" contradicts "alt-right", "alt-right" and "far-right" may well be subsets of "right-wing". Also note: Southern is either "alt-right and far-right" or "conservative and far-right". Since top reliable sources explicitly call Southern both "alt-right" and "conservative", neither is fact and both have to be attributed. wumbolo ^^^ 18:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what master-list of the top reliable sources you're going off of, but don't keep it to yourself, eh?

No, they don't have to be attributed, because they don't contradict each other.

I don't have a strong preference between far-right and alt-right. I consolidated several sources describing her as far right to simplify discussion. Since far-right, alt-right, and right-wing all overlap, and arguably so does conservative, the term we use should be A.) verifiable and B.) informative to unfamiliar readers. There are, we already know from experience, plenty of readers who have decided what she is before they get to this article. Perhaps you are one of them? There's not much we can do about that, so what is the simplest way to explain this to everybody else?

Saying that "conservative" contradicts "alt-right" as applied to Southern is WP:OR. As you indicated, "conservative" applies only with the broadest definition, or perhaps based on the definition provided by Southern herself. The alt-right's cliched "rejection of mainstream conservatism" is not a rejection of all conservatism, nor is there any shared definition for what is and is not "mainstream conservatism". As for Southern, well, William F. Buckley she ain't, and we don't do WP:EUPHEMISMS. A very broad term is not appropriate or informative in this case, and she is not a reliable source, so her self-assessment is only appropriate with attribution. It also does not, necessarily, override reliable sources.

"Alt-right" is messy. It's a neologism which several outlets have prohibited or cautioned against using in journalism ([1], [2], [3], etc.). We are not bound to this restrictions, but if they influence sources, then they influence us, also. Many, many articles say something like "she has been described as part of the alt-right". In some cases this makes more sense than others. If it's supported by sources, sure, whatever. I don't think it's very good writing though.

For these reasons, I would prefer using the term 'far-right' here. It is supported by multiple sources and it convey's the same basic information without this pedantic bullshit getting in the way. I absolutely reject the necessity for using attribution for something supported by such an overwhelming number of reliable sources. This would be WP:WEASEL by proxy. Grayfell (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

My inclination is to say in the first sentence that she's far right, per Grayfell's explanation, but to say in the body that her ideology has been variously described as far right, alt-right, conservative, and right-wing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Saying that "conservative" contradicts "alt-right" as applied to Southern is WP:OR. Clicking through the Alt-right article and seeing unanimous condemnation of the Alt-right by conservatives, in the lead and as a whole section, is WP:OR? wumbolo ^^^ 13:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It is far from unanimous. Paleoconservatives, for example Ann Coulter, Steve Sailer, and Jared Taylor (spokesman for Council of Conservative Citizens) espouse views shared with the alt-right and rejected by "true conservatives". Regardless, using sources about the alt-right or conservatism in general to apply to Southern specifically, would be WP:SYNTH. That is why I say this would be WP:OR. Sources must specifically discuss Southern to be used for statements about Southern. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent revert

@Grayfell: regarding your recent revert, I want to point to the above discussion, which clearly formed consensus that we should say "far-right" in the lead, and not alt-right. wumbolo ^^^ 22:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no such consensus for removing sourced content. She is clearly associated with the alt-right according to many, many sources. As I've already said, I do not favor defining her as "alt-right", but that is not the same thing as explaining the connection she has to the alt-right. These are similar, obviously, but they are two separate issues. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I've slightly rearranged the article, and from that added a new section specifically about hew views. This seems like the most obvious way to introduce these issues, and this will more easily allow for more information to be added. The way I've handled the sources is... bloated and kind of awkward, but it does allow for many sources to be included without citation overkill in the body of the article. This can be simplified and cleaned up also, but obviously I'm not keen on doing that if there isn't consensus that this is the right approach. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

the quotation marks still serve no purpose

I removed the quotation marks around the term genocide in the last sentence. The remolval was reverted. Those quotation marks do not serve a legitimate purpose, as the whole sentence already makes perfectly clear that the claim is intended to be a reference to someone else' opinion. But the do serve an illegitimate purpose, because they intrroduce a POV into the article., The quotation mark changes the claim from "Southern says tthis and that" to "Southern say this and that, and she is wrong on that". The latter is a clear POV statement. The person who reverted my edit (Newimpartial) claimed the quotation marks were "aligned with the source". Reading the source in question we find genocide only mentioned once, in a direct quote of a trailer title for Southern#s documentary. There is no debate whatsoever about the veracity, and the source does not even carry the claim it is supposed to substantiate originally, namely that Southern called the farmland murders Genocide - because the only quote attributed to her in that source article carries a question mark where she offers several competing terms. She may or may not have called it genocide elsewhere, but this source offers no claim on that. To sum up, the revert was wrong, the reasoning faulty, and we should even debate to remove the whole quote altogether, as it is not supported by source. Wefa (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Wefa is correct. Removing altogether is a good solution. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Aka WP:SCAREQUOTES. I support removing them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:SCAREQUOTES indicates that "Such occurrences should ... be considered carefully." The point of the policy is that, like "apparent" and "so-called", quotation marks "can imply that a given point is inaccurate". Both the source in question here, and reality, indicate that "genocide" is not an accurate term for the phenomenon described. WP:FALSEBALANCE may be relevant here. Newimpartial (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it can't be paraphrased. If you write, "You jerk!" I don't have to use quotes to say "You called me a 'jerk.'" There's no ambiguity when you call me a jerk, just as there's no ambiguity when the subject calls X or Y genocide. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

True to reality itself, the source used makes the point that this article's subject inappropriately terms the treatment of the farmers as genocide. The article should therefore reflect the impartial position that the subject has termed these events genocide even though they are not, whether paraphrase or scare quotes or some other term are used to make this point. The MOS does not ban the use of scare quotes; it merely indicates that they must be used with caution. Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The source makes no such claim. It merely - and without further comment - mentions the title of a trailer Southern's documentary. Wefa (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the source in question? In context, it is clear that the source does not find the term "genocide" corresponds with the actual events. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Verifiability of "genocide" sentence

Newimpartial, thanks for forcing me to look at the source and do a broader review. I hadn't realized that the sentence fails verification and therefore must be reverted per WP:BLP, regardless of whether "genocide" is enclosed in quotes or not. The full sentence is: Southern has advocated against Europ ezean countries accepting refugees or other migrants from Africa and Asia. Southern has promoted Renaud Camus's "great replacement" theory that immigration would lead to white genocide. There is no way, shape, or form the NY Times source reflects this. If there's a way to include the Times source, this is not the way. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC) I am not sure what you are talking about, Doctor, but the relevant sentence from the source is as follows:

"In late January, Lauren Southern, a far-right Canadian commentator, published a trailer for her upcoming documentary “Farmlands” on the killings of South African farmers that featured dire warnings of an impending race war. The trailer carried the tagline “CRISIS. OPPRESSION. GENOCIDE?”"

So, for me, the sentence in the article passes verification. Newimpartial (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I won't strike my above comment, but I see now that this section concerns a different passage than the one I have been discussing above re: genocide and scare quotes, so I'm not sure why I was brought into it. ;) Carry on. Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this was an error on my part. I don't remember what source I was looking at, but probably this one. I don't speak German, but this is another which discusses it, and may or may not be useful. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, now I'm even more confused. This revert removed content sourced to the New Yorker, not the NYT source. I can see how this might not be due weight, but the article is specifically about Camus and his "great replacement". It mentions Southern as a notable English-language proponent:

"... Although his arguments are scarcely available in translation, they have been picked up by right-wing and white-nationalist circles throughout the English-speaking world. In July, Lauren Southern, the Canadian alt-right Internet personality, posted, on YouTube, a video titled “The Great Replacement”; it has received more than a quarter of a million views. On great-replacement.com, a Web site maintained anonymously, the introductory text declares..."

I recognize this is starting to verge towards synth, but the source, taken in context, supports that Southern has promoted the "great replacement" concept. Grayfell (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Somehow I got my sources crossed up. I've self-reverted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

that source (and the quote you give) does definitely not provide evidence for Southern calling the farm murder campaign genocide. The title offered several different classifications and a question mark. (and FWIW - I think using a trailer title you are overstating you case anyway). Wefa (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you meant to put this at the end of the next subsection. In any case, if anyone is overstating their "case," it's the New York Times. And I'll also add that I'm not the person who added this bit in the first place. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Verifiability of "genocide" sentence (take 2)

Ok. Now that I'm looking at the right NY Times source I think the sentence "Southern has described South African farm attacks as "genocide" against white South Africans," has verifiability/BLP problems. The source pretty clearly shies away from saying Lauren described the attacks as genocide, because the connection isn't explicit like that. She puts a question mark after genocide, arguably suggesting that the documentary will examine whether the attacks are genocide. Or perhaps it's just sensationalism to attract the human rights crowd. Because the documentary hasn't been release yet, at least from a BLP perspective we simply don't know what she'll say. (I think we have a pretty good idea, but that's another matter...) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, so my proposed fix (which I'll implement right away per BLP) is to stick closer to the source and include the full title of the trailer. That should solve the quotation marks problem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• @DrFleischman: Very good stuff; however, saying white nationalist campaign against perceived racially-motivated violence against white farmers seems to describe as white nationalist everyone who says that it is racially-motivated, but in the other article (in the lead), there are several viewpoints that it is racially-motivated, which are not white nationalist. Or are they white nationalist? wumbolo ^^^ 17:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The language could probably use some cleaning up, but I don't know how. It should reflect the source, which describes Southern's tagline in the context of a white nationalist "rallying point." There are a number of reliable sources out there describing why white nationalists have taken an interest in this issue. Perahps we could draw from them as long as we don't run too far afield from Southern's biography. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• For what it's worth I watched the trailer. That's some freaky fearmongering, race-baiting shit. Regardless, it does appear to explain where the word "genocide" comes from: not the contention that genocide is occurring now, but the contention that racial tensions are so high in South Africa that there will be a genocide in the next 5 years. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

ALL CAPS

Wumbolo, can you please explain why we shouldn't follow the source and refer to “CRISIS. OPPRESSION. GENOCIDE?” in all caps? I didn't see anything in WP:ALLCAPS speaking to this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Per MoS:

Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function.

Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case – or to sentence case if required by the citation style established in the article

wumbolo ^^^ 18:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes but... this isn't for stylistic purposes. It's for verifiability purposes. Stylistically I'd prefer mixed caps, but that wouldn't reflect the source. And this isn't a newspaper headline or title. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018

Good afternoon this article misrepresents Miss Lauren as she has repeatedly denied affiliation with the alt right. Could I please update this Hackeem2223 (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources currently in the article don't say that Southern is associated with the alt-right, but some editors say they do. You would need reliable sources to prove otherwise probably. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I'm confised. If there aren't any sources in the article saying she is alt-right, then that needs to be deleted until editors can provide multiple sources saying she is alt-right (because this is not just a verifiability issue, but a BLP one too). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the article or the talk page, 727? The sources have been in the article for some time. Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I was merely going off his reply. The sources currently in the article don't say that Southern is associated with the alt-right. I'll assume it was a typo. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

it was a disruptive ironical reply (probably) intended to respark debate. I’m almost entirely sure that regular contributors to this page will not mind me closing this thread unless the next few replies are accompanied by either sources, or quotes from existing sources, demonstrating the veracity of the article in its present form and/or actionable alternatives to the existing text, based on an assessment of those sources - you know, like how people write an encyclopedia. Edaham (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry...

are not a viable way to win edit wars and protect your point of view, @Newimpartial:. It looks like you invited Garret to discuss the proposed change here in talk, so I will get the ball rolling on that: I agree with the change to “right-wing” as someone who has absolutely no dog in this fight whatsoever. Here is why -

“Far-right” is a label applied by media outlets to convey Nazism, Fascism, crazy militia-style abortion clinic bombing terror groups. If Wikipedia wants to continue under the illusion that most media outlets moderate their language and truly abstain from attempting to manipulate public opinion by underhanded and unethical means, I can live with that. A simple recognition that what someone wrote about the subject in an op-ed might be exaggerated and not entirely true is all I want. “Right-wing” accurately captures the subject’s politics without casting unfounded aspersions.

Shadyarms (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Great, but per WP:BRD, we should be having this discussion with the stable version of the article in place. So self-revert, please. Newimpartial (talk)£

• We've already been over this dozens of times. If sources describe her as far-right, so should Wikipedia. This blather about "illusions" and "underhanded" whatever has nothing to do with this article, nor with how Wikipedia works. These "aspersions" are not unfounded, they are reflections of multiple reliable sources. That's the important part. Grayfell (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2018

Hello,

I'm writing to hopefully get some information corrected on this page.

The following sentence has completely false and incorrect information and should be revised immediately.

Sentence: "Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[3] 1995) is a Canadian far-right[a] political activist, Internet personality, and journalist[4][5] associated with the alt-right.[6][7][8] "

"associated with the alt right. [6][7][8]" should be removed and the sentence should stop at Journalist. Lauren Southerns does not identify with the Alt right, and each source claiming she does comes from highly provocative and liberal opinion pieces. The writers opinions that she associates with the alt right does not create facts and should be left off of a site claiming factual information. Just because you disagree with someone politically does not mean you can paint them however you'd like to. Wikipedia is about facts and data, and as such, this should be revised ASAP.

Thank you for considering. Freespeech0528 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please review the previous discussions on this topic on this talk page (and the two pages of archived discussion that came before). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources you claim are opinion pieces are not opinion pieces. Except maybe the SPLC source (SPLC is unreliable and is only good at defamation). wumbolo ^^^ 16:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• There have been many, many discussions here about "alt-right" and there has been a stable consensus to include this language. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Alt Right 6

It's a very touchy subject to describe Southern and align her with the alt right. All the sources listed are based on unreliable far left sources such as Vice and Vox, which aren't written by proper journalists, just people promoting their disdain for her. She is clearly right-wing this is understandably evident by her journalism and voice in the media. Aligning her with the alt right is a type of slander and defamation of her character, which should not be justified on such a large platform such as wikipedia for the world to see. A consensus can be dangerous when it involves politics, as a majority may be promoting a disdain towards the subject and want to get their own way ie, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, this can then involve defamation and slander because of a overarching majority promoting their view. She herself has said on numerous occasions that she does not align herself with the alt right, just because a couple of far left journalists hate everyone right wing and associate them with the alt-right for who they are. Is this enough evidence to associate her because left-wing journalists do, even though she has repeatedly denied it on multiple claims. Just want some more clarification here. - Stuv3 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed over and over again. If you want clarification, go through the talk page archives and review what has already been said on this subject. Regarding your claim that the Vice and Vox authors weren't "proper journalists," Vice and Vox are reputable publications and there's consensus across Wikipedia that they're generally reliable. Also please review Sarah Wildman's professional bio and think twice next time before speaking out of ignorance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Stuv3: As far as I can tell there's never been what I'd call "consensus" for the wording of the article's first sentence, and I'd especially say that the SPLC blog is a poor source for a BLP, but it's true that vox + vice + splc have been accepted as RS before in other contexts. Perhaps eventually more confirmed editors will object and we'll settle via a fair RfC, but meantime removing or re-arguing likely won't work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyone is free to start an RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

They should preferably only start an RfC if discussion here has not worked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right is not a well defined category. It is a tenuous confederation of 4chanites, white nationalists, Trump enthusiasts, Mens Rights Activists, anti-feminist Gamergate sorts, etc, etc. As such, it is to be expected that people will disagree on whether a given person is "alt-right." The point of the Wikipedia page is to present views expressed in credible sources. Agree or disagree with them, but many sources associate her with the alt-right. If you think that's wrong, then find a citeable source that says so, and cite it. I just added a link to part of a video in which Southern explicitly says she is not alt-right. If someone can supplement that with a secondary source describing that disavowal, I would appreciate it. User:Emir of Wikipedia I would say that discussion is getting awful close to not working. My hple is that by supplementing with Southern's own disavowal, we can avoid the need for an RfC.

Substantiate alt-right accusations.

That is all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swolerigo (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The cited reliable sources say she's associated with the alt-right. That's all that's needed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)