Talk:Lana Lokteff

Video from Lana regarding White Supremecist

Regarding the supremecist statement; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oemFQLKtvx4

Possibly re-open conversation on editing given this. Huttonsoo (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Cherry-picked puffery

Regarding this edit: For the Harper's line, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Cherry-picking the most obsequious and flattering part of an 8-page article is completely inappropriate. The article says a lot of things specifically about her beliefs and positions, and this is a terrible choice for summarizing this source. For the NPR line, what's the point? We should not include wikilinks in quotes, per WP:MOS, and the rest of the information is redundant with the rest of the article. Grayfell (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit war on white supremacist vs white nationalist

Vox article mentioned doesn't say that she's a white supremacist, it just calls a bunch of women that without providing any proof for it. The Vox article is also biased because Vox itself is a very much left-wing publication with an agenda.

Proof: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Furthermore, she refers to herself as a white nationalist and speaks frequently on white nationalism, not white supremacism.

Examples include:

https://angrywhitemen.org/2017/03/16/white-nationalists-applaud-as-lana-lokteff-boasts-that-women-elected-trump-and-hitler/

https://angrywhitemen.org/2016/05/30/janice-fiamengo-to-white-nationalist-talk-show-host-men-are-living-under-a-feminist-version-of-sharia-law/

https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/lana-lokteff-interviews-greg-johnson/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alt-right-youtube-stars-stop-pretending-give-full-throated-endorsements-of-ethno-nationalism/

The fact that people like calling her a racist doesn't change the fact that she's a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. Therefore it is only logical that the edit made by SmokerOfCinnamon - which was based on his own assumption - is undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansnarf (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Calling someone a white nationalist doesn't mean they are not a racist and a white supremacist. All white nationalists are racists and white supremacists. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for all white nationalists being racist and white supremacists? That's just a completely false statement. Hansnarf (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it's common sense. Anyway, it doesn't matter what she describes herself as. What matters is how reliable sources describe her.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"Nah, it's common sense." If they are the same why are there distinctions to begin with? Why not merge all the articles together?--RandomUser3510 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

they should indeed be merged together.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

no wonder people say Wikipedia is biased these days. Can't even differentiate between a white nationalist and a white supremacist.

https://i.imgur.com/VWvtaLU.png -> https://i.imgur.com/pYtnmhZ.png -> https://i.imgur.com/KajSb5e.png THIS is what you guys are doing. Great job. Calling everyone a nazi and racist, which a both slur words. What a fucking joke this site has become. Hansnarf (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

for neo-nazi claims

At the bottom of the page it lists Lana as Neo-Nazi. Where is any evidence supporting this? --RandomUser3510 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A new edit has been made here that re-added Neo-Nazi again. Like before, where is the evidence to support this? --RandomUser3510 (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

one is a subset of the other (or they're the same))

Referring to this edit, why is white supremacist preferred? If no response I am adding it again, especially considering she is part of white nationalism category. --RandomUser3510 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Categories are not a valid reason for edit warring in any case, but especially not here. Category:American white supremacists is a subcategory of Category:American white nationalists. Wikipedia categories should be WP:DIFFUSEd in most cases, including this one. Regardless, categories are not always well-maintained or consistent, and they should reflect content, not the other way around. To say that another way, categories must be based on the content of articles. Articles should not be written to match categories. I kind of thought that would be obvious... Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You answered the second part of my statement, about being part of the white nationalism category. However you did not answer the first part. Why is "white supremacist" preferred to "white nationalist" when there are reliable sources describing her as both?--RandomUser3510 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There is already a discussion on that above, and spreading this pedantic nonsense over multiple talk page sections is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added multiple sources, one of them being rightwingwatch.com, which is a left-wing organization, saying that she's a white nationalist. I agree, it is pedantic. She describes herself as a white nationalist, multiple sources say that she's a white nationalist. One source puts her in a group of women while claiming that she's a white supremacist - without any evidence to support that. Why are we still talking about this? Hansnarf (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are we still talking about this? Because you're not listening? --Calton | Talk 15:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, maybe you should read the refs you're adding. From the RightWingWatch link you added to prove she's "just" a "white nationalist":

Faith Goldy, a former Rebel Media reporter who has grown ever closer to the alt-right, joined Red Ice host Lana Lokteff and 4chan YouTube muse Lauren Rose in a video uploaded yesterday to deliver full-throated endorsements of ethno-nationalism, a movement that seeks to promote white supremacy [emphasis mine] in Western nations.

In the Red Ice video, titled “Dear Cucks, Only One Kind of Nationalism Will Save the West,” Goldy, Rose and Lokteff delivered glowing endorsements of ethno-nationalism and praised the “good trend” among fellow YouTube personalities such as Stefan Molyneux and Rebecca Hargraves (known online as “Blonde in the Belly of the Beast”) of recognizing that “demographics is everything” and for having left behind “civic nationalism” in favor of white supremacist ethno-nationalism [emphasis mine].

Oops, an own goal, there. --Calton | Talk 15:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

How about you stop being so racist towards whites? Ethno-nationalim is not white supremacy. In fact, Japan is an ethno-nationalistic country. Are they Japanese supremacists? By your definition, all nations that are overwhelmingly of one ethnicity are supremacists. Also, I watched that Red Ice video in full, they didn't call it white supremacist ethno-nationalism at all. Why are you trying to put fakes out there? Stop with your stupid agenda, no one cares how much you're virtue-signalling on Wikipedia. This isn't about morals, it's about the truth. Furthermore, in the RWW article, the part about ethno-nationalism being "white supremacy" is a personal opinion of the author. Hansnarf (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• The sources I looked at confirm "nationalist" but not "supremacist". Hansnarf, you were thus correct, IMO, in relation to article content, but the rest of what you're spouting here is nonsense that will get you blocked. "Racist towards whites"--sheesh. That's dumb. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry for getting angry, but it sounds like Calton is making an exception when it comes to white nationalism as opposed to Japanese nationalism or Chinese nationalism or black nationalism. All of these kinds of nationalism are just fine but when it comes to white or European nationalism, it's the same as white supremacism? Just doesn't make sense and it's not true. Redefining words like that is just not helpful. Anyway, I've made my point. Hansnarf (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't care about anger; I care about false accusations, and I care about people making false accusations. This stuff about other nationalisms supposedly being OK and here we have anti-white racism, well, no, no one said anything like that, and you seem to be repeating talking points from racist white websites. If you had stopped after the first six words it would be fine. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Re [1]. VOX says The women fighting for white male supremacy. The ADL source says "Lana Lokteff is a white supremacist' who runs internet media company". Harper's calls her alt-right. Newsweek says "During her appearance, Lokteff urged white supremacists to become teachers" ("nationalist" appears only in the headline) SPLC says "Lana Lokteff, whose white supremacist and antisemitic views " [2]. Dallas Morning News discusses "a loose movement that embraces white supremacist views and Nazi symbols" and describes Lokteff as a "prominent" woman who is "committed to this movement".

So the sourcing for "white supremacist" is strong, and let's face it, "white nationalist" is mostly a weaselly term that these people use to describe themselves cuz branding.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Marek, I went with the media sources. That she urges white supremacists to this and that doesn't necessarily mean she is one. I did not see the Dallas Morning News article. You know I'm not opposed to a reassessment (and I think the difference is really a distinction without a difference), but I looked at the sources that followed the term, and those sources favored "nationalist". Rock on, Drmies (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Marek, since you didn't pay attention when I mentioned it before, here is what the right wing spectrum looks like: https://i.imgur.com/VWvtaLU.png What you are doing is deleting the distinction between white nationalism and white supremacism. "White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races." This is the current Wikipedia definition. She never said or wrote that she wants to rule over other races and/or wants to be dominant over other races. Furthermore she calls herself a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. So therefore, it's only logical that the article about her calls her a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. I don't see the point of labeling her as something she's not. Hansnarf (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Vox is garbage. There are too many good liberal/left sites for us to waste time reading garbage. My $.02. Regardless, none of these - from the Vox opinion piece to the advocacy sites - meet BLP. 68.65.122.206 (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If those are your two cents, I'd like a rebate, please. Just saying it's "garbage" is useless and irrelevant. What is an "advocacy site"? ADL? SPLC? Newsweek? Dallas Morning News? This term doesn't mean anything about how reliable these sources are. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell, the IP is just a troll. (BTW, I agree that the SPLC and ADL are advocacy sites, but that's not necessarily a bad word.) Drmies (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's obvious, especially with the "good liberal/left sites" line. I almost removed this as WP:NOTFORUM, but the "advocacy" thing comes up so often in these discussions that it seemed worth responding to.

This "white nationalist" vs. "white supremacist" thing has gone on long enough that there's nothing new to be said. If any article says someone's a "white supremacist", a steady trickle of IPs will keep changing it to "white nationalist". If it says white nationalist, they'll instead change it to "white advocate" or something equally terrible. It's just a euphemism treadmill. This isn't an accident. White supremacists know about these word-games, and have described it as a strategy to normalize the underlying ideology. I think Jared Taylor wrote about this in the 90s, but he's far from the only one. Reliable sources consistently use the 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' interchangeably. They mean essentially the same thing, and everybody knows it. Trying to count the number of sources which say one term over the other is missing the big picture, but I don't know the alternative. Right now I'm cynical that Wikipedia has the ability address this. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic chatter. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Grayfell, whether or not you believe being a "white advocate" is terrible or not is pointless. Are Hispanic advocates terrible, too? What about black nationalists? Could you please go about this rationally and not emotionally. This is not the place for emotional outbursts but for neutral and rational definitions. Being a white nationalist is different from being a white supremacist - no matter how much you want those terms to mean the same thing. Otherwise, please change the terms from all black nationalists to "black supremacist" since they obviously mean the same thing. Hansnarf (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC) I don't think you're doing yourself any favors, here. Assuming other people are being emotional doesn't make your argument more rational, nor does it make your arguments more persuasive. The hyper-simplistic, euphemistic term "white advocate" has nothing to do with this. The point I was trying to make is that reliable sources frequently treat "white nationalist" as just another way of saying "white supremacist". This is a common occurrence across a wide spectrum of outlets of many ideologies and backgrounds. "White nationalism" is technically different from "white supremacism" and that does matter in some context. But we have to judge by this context. Many of the sources being discussed here, for this article, apply both terms in a context which suggests they mean functionally the same thing. These sources are not generally discussing her stance on "ethnostates", they are discussing her stance on "white genocide", and scientific racism, and her extremely poor grasp of history. Context-free screenshots of youtube videos of Venn diagrams are not compelling or reliable sources, but they indirectly support this point anyway. "Centrism" is described as "acceptable" while "white supremacy" is "unthinkable". This isn't about the substance of these positions, it's about how they are perceived. This is consistent with the cycle of euphemisms. The underlying ideas about the persecution of virtuous white people by nefarious forces is still the same, and it's still racist pseudoscience that panders to people's fears. Dressing this up in the political outfit of "nationalism" is not neutral, and is not helpful to readers. As for "black supremacy", different terms mean different things. Not everything needs to be treated exactly the same because some of the words match. We judge by sources and context, same as always. Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC) When it comes to "black supremacy", it means exactly the same thing as "white supremacy", just from the viewpoint of black people. If someone thinks they're superior to others and thus want to rule supreme over other races, they are "supremacists". The words and definition both matches. You described "white advocates" as something that's terrible. This implies that you get an emotional reaction that's negative if you hear someone describing themselves as a "white advocate". Per definition, a white advocate wants to help white people. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that - but you perceive it as wrong. Ergo it's just logical to assume you're emotional. I provided the context for this Venn diagram, it simply shows the spectrum of the right wing in politics for majority white countries. Below the spectrum you can see how they are perceived, how you specifically perceive them yourself - as you've shown while saying how "white advocates" are terrible. Hansnarf (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Someone please protect this page. Thank you. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Please leave your personal beliefs at the door

Wikipedia is an unbiased and fair information source. Be respectful to others who use it and do not vandalise articles to push your own agenda. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.213.134 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going by sources, which have her as both a white nationalist and a white supremacist. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people will also agree that she is both. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources calling Lana Lokteff a white supremacist or both a white supremacist and a white nationalist:

• http://www.newsweek.com/g00/florida-teacher-who-hosted-far-right-podcast-encouraging-white-nationalists-869126?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3D&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=14
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-public-school-teacher-white-nationalist-podcast_us_5a99ae32e4b089ec353a1fba
• http://vt.co/news/us/florida-teacher-removed-classroom-reportedly-hosting-white-supremacist-podcast/
• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/florida-teacher-accused-hosting-far-083759781.html
• https://www.cre8noh8.org/tag/4chan/
• https://steemit.com/society/@borepstein/go-back-to-europe-lana-lokteff — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokerOfCinnamon (talk • contribs) 21:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines alt right as a hate group, I'm not sure how being pro-white equates to that. White supremecy dictates that white people are superior to all other races; a viewpoint inconsistent with Lana's ethno-nationalist stance; that all races have a right to their own culture and homeland. Linking biased news articles does not carry the weight enough to warrant the obvious defamation language demonstrated on this page. Please for the sake of keeping wikipedia neutral leave slurs out of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.213.134 (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on the sources provided in the article, I think both white nationalist and white supremacist do indeed apply. Saying that the sources are "biased" isn't much of an argument. I am not reverting again due to the 3-revert rule, but the deleted material should be restored. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The Newsweek article doesn't call her a white supremacist. The steemit.com link is an opinion piece, it even says in the first line "Lana Lokteff is a European/White racialist if not an outright White supremacist. She is clearly celebrating the European world conquest and military prowess and wishes to create a world where White people dominate." The Yahoo article is a copy/paste of the steemit.com article. Those aren't credible sources. Also, if sources being biased aren't a problem, let me use the Daily Stormer as a credible site and on that site she's never been called a white supremacist.

https://dailystormer.name/tag/red-ice-creations/

I also would suggest that we refrain from using Jewish interest groups such as the ADL or SPLC when talking about topics and characters that have to do with white culture and white identity. Anyone and everyone is a white supremacist when it comes to those groups. We should instead focus on either statements directly from those characters (there are people that say "I'm a white supremacist", so it's fine to call them that) or completely unbiased sources. This is not about personal beliefs or opinions, but about the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.130.208.37 (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this somewhat. SmokerOfCinnamon posted links that were either severely biased and/or just personal opinion pieces. If she is to be labeled a "supremacist" we need proof for that and so far she hasn't said or done anything that aligns with the Wikipedia definition of white supremacism. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty much confirmed that she is both. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed by whom except for you? I've spent the time reading through your given articles which are biased sources to say the least and even those don't specify that she's a white supremacist. I also disagree on how you're constantly changing the article after one person agrees with you so I'll revert it back to "white nationalist" only until we actually have some proof for the "supremacist" part. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The "proof" is the reliable sources. Your opinion that these sources are biased doesn't make them less reliable. We do not look for original research that she is a white supremacist (although this would be trivially easy to find) instead, we cite sources. Multiple reliable sources directly refer to her as a white supremacist. That's enough. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Would finding multiple sources explicitly saying that she's not a white supremacist change that stance? Say for instance, other sources, which are biased as well but in the other direction. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That you're still going on about "biased sources" tells me that you're really not getting it. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Being biased in "the other direction" would be falling into a false balance trap. We are not looking for "both sides" because we don't assume that there are only two sides, and we do not assume that both "sides" must be equally valid. We are looking for reliable sources, so if you have reliable sources saying she isn't a white supremacist, let's see them. Grayfell (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about "biased sources" because it states on the reliable sources page the following:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include

surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;

challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;

Now, I would argue that calling someone a white supremacist is an exceptional claim that needs actual proof. Thus, I'm asking for potential bias in the sources provided so far - which would be fine otherwise. We need more than a few self-published sources and those that clearly have a conflict of interest - in short, bias. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. An obscure podcast host being a white supremacist isn't remotely exceptional, and if you find it surprising, that's your problem. None of these sources are primary, self-published, or have any relevant conflict of interest that I can see. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty exceptional in the way that a channel on Youtube that has over 200,000 subscribers and is supposedly white supremacist would have been banned from that platform years ago - which happens all the time. So the claim is pretty much extraordinary, if you find that surprising, that's your problem. You can't see the conflict of interest in a left wing publication like the Huffington Post writing an article about the far right and calling them names that they haven't subscribed to, that's a problem. The Newsweek article doesn't call her a white supremacist, neither does the Yahoo article.www.cre8noh8.org is a self-published blog and the steemit.com link is also a self-published blog. These are not reliable sources by Wikipedia definition, especially not when it comes to exceptional claims. Have you even taken a look at the sources and read them? WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're saying that because she's moderately popular, she can't be a white surpemacist, then you are trying to inject WP:OR into the article. If you have a reliable source which says she's not a white supremacist because otherwise she would've been banned from youtube (or for any other reason) let's see it. Among those reliable sources used in the article, I have not seen any which dispute this label, even if not all of them directly apply it to her. Also, I don't think you actually know what a conflict of interest is, making this a comical waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. I just think that, because she is moderately popular, the claim is rather exceptional. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

http://dprogram.net/red-ice-tv/am-i-a-white-supremacist/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oemFQLKtvx4 specifically say that she's not a white supremacist. She even mentions the articles referenced right now in the Wikipedia article about her. This is a reliable source, so I'll add that to the Wikipedia page and change the article accordingly. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You are completely wrong about these being reliable sources, as they do not have a positive reputation for fact checking or accuracy. Good lord, that site hosts an audio book of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That's a very poor choice if you're trying to make the case that she's not a white supremacist. Grayfell (talk)

I completely disagree. Left-wing media calling someone from the complete opposite political spectrum a white supremacist without fact checking what a white supremacist even is (someone who wants to rule over other races) are just as unreliable, if not more unreliable than the site I referenced. You also obviously didn't watch the Youtube video, in which she makes fun of exactly the sites referenced in the article and say that they're stupid and wrong. I'm reverting it back, try actually watching the video, which completely negates what you've been saying and her being a white supremacist before deleting the sources. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Look, when your arguments center around supposed "left wing media" and your sources are youtube video, it's highly unlikely you're going to convince anyone. On Wikipedia sources are either reliable or non-reliable. Whether they're "left wing" or "right wing" is irrelevant. See WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Good, then it shouldn't be a problem to call my source reliable, as well. The video is her explaining that she doesn't want to rule over other races, nor being a white supremacist - explicitly. Clearly, the sites referenced so far can't be reliable because they didn't fact check what a white supremacist is, nor whether she actually identifies as being one. How are those non-fact-checking sites more reliable than the sites which I posted? Being left-wing or right-wing is irrelevant in this regard. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

...then it shouldn't be a problem to call my source reliable

To call them "reliable", they'd first have to be, you know, reliable. "Because I said so" is not really the strong argument you seem to think it is. --Calton | Talk 09:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You're making my point for me. Calling the references currently in the article "reliable" is just that - a claim by someone. They say she's a white supremacist when she's stated herself that she's not. Logically, that means that the sources are wrong and thus, not reliable. A reliable source would have fact-checked that claim first before stating it in an article. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You're making my point for me. I have done no such thing. You, on the other hand, are further demonstrating your basic misunderstanding of what are reliable sources here -- have you even bothered to read the links you've been given? -- and your self-serving, counterfactual interpretation of guidelines, policy, and practice here. Like many other street lawyers before you, you appear to have confused Wikipedia with some sort of incantation-based magic system or some sort of video game: if you are clever enough to use just the right words or find the right cheat code, you can automatically compel action and "win". That's not how it works, here or in the real world. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, you just said that my sources aren't reliable, just like I'm saying that the sources currently in the article aren't reliable either - which made the point for me. I'm not a street lawyer, nor did I ever claim to be one. Please keep your personal attacks against me to yourself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which by it's own definition focuses on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title. The sources I provided are reliable in the way that they state accurate information. I never used the "just because I say so" argument - you did, by calling one source reliable and another non-reliable. I read the whole article regarding reliable sources and specifically, this point stood out to me: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

As I've already shown, the sources provided in the article have not done their job of fact-checking and accuracy, therefore they should be removed as well as the "white supremacist" label attributed to the Lana Lokteff article which is solely based on those non-fact-checking sources. If you can't understand my reasoning, that's not my problem. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a street lawyer, nor did I ever claim to be one. Ah, so your logic is that no matter what one does or what people say, the ONLY thing that counts a specific self-declaration. Nope, not how the real world works.

You've wasted enough of everyone's time. Unless some ELSE has something substantive to add, I'm closing this soon. --Calton | Talk 05:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

By your logic I can just call you anything without backing it up and that's what you have to be declared as. You're wasting my time and the time of everyone on this talk page. My goal is to put factual information into the article. No one has proved that she's a white supremacist, she doesn't identify as a white supremacist, she also doesn't want to rule over other races, which is the main thing about white supremacism. None of the references in the article itself can prove that she's a white supremacist either, they just claim it without fact-checking. They are not reliable sources. Also, it doesn't work like that, you can't just shut out other opinions by closing them, because you deem to be a know-it-all. Are you gonna insult me some more or are you actually going to bring something to the table? I told you multiple times why this should be changed. Where the fuck are your arguments? WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Read the very first response in this section. Then read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I did. You don't get my point, that's the problem. Also, the way people like you and Calton post on here makes me question whether Wikipedia is actually unbiased. Anyway, I've changed the article so that it reflects both her own declaration and how media writes about her. Let's put this to rest. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Since Lokteff is not a reliable source for statements of fact (not even close) she is not a reliable source for the definition of white supremacy. She seems even less knowledgable about the term's other people are using to describe her than she is about history, which is almost impressive. Since her nonsense about not wanting to rule over others is rightly ignored by reliable sources, and elsewhere is seen as a misdirection which only the credulous or gullible accept, this doesn't belong in the very beginning of this article. Don't agree with me? Okay, fine, find reliable sources discussing her preference. This means third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. This reputation is established through outside means, not Wikipedia editor's opinions. Reputable peer-reviewed academic publications, journalists with editorial oversight and a history of retractions and corrections, perhaps some industry awards would help... these are signs of reliability.

That said, I do think her rejection of the term could be added, perhaps even to the lede, but the lede should not be hamfistedly tortured into being an extension of her own PR. This needs to be proportional to how it's covered by reliable sources. Something like "Lokteff has denied being a white supremacist" at the end of the paragraph would be the absolute most, and only out of respect for WP:BLP. Grayfell (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The first part of your post is entirely your own opinion. I disagree, Vox is not a "reputable peer-reviewed academic publication" by any means, neither are the other sources that call her a white supremacist. I'd be fine with adding that she denied being a white supremacist as that would accurately state the truth and that's all I care about. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Calling something an opinion doesn't make it an opinion. Please read the entire sentence. I also listed "journalists with editorial oversight and a history of retractions and corrections". This covers Vox, which has a relatively positive reputation, and a positive track-record for retractions and fact checking according to other journalists. Grayfell (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're phrasing something in a clearly subjective and biased way, that makes what you're saying an opinion by definition. Can you show me the "positive track-record for retractions and fact checking" that Vox apparently has? Retracting something after someone else points out that you're spreading misinformation isn't good journalism and positive, it's the opposite. Example: https://www.poynter.org/news/vox-retracts-story-based-fraudulent-research Good journalism doesn't have to retract but fact-checks beforehand. I bet that if Lana Lokteff pressed charges for defamation against Vox they'd have to retract their white supremacist claim as well. So, how exactly is Vox a reliable source then? WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. Yes, if they were forced to issue a retraction, the source would be less reliable. What the hell does that have to do with the source now?

Per WP:RS: One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Vox was one of five outlets mentioned by Poynter as issuing retractions for this incident (which has an article, by the way: When contact changes minds). Retractions are a good thing, because it means they are taking this seriously. Grayfell (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"What does it have to do with the source now?" The source publisher has been found guilty of not using proper fact-checks in the past. Who's to say their current article states the truth and not more misinformation? WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere were they "found guilty". They issued a retraction, as did the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, among others. These are overwhelmingly considered reliable outlets on Wikipedia. A source which refuses to admit it was ever wrong about anything, or which only does so under legal pressure, would be less reliable (and also childish). It's not that complicated. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Vox is overwhelmingly considered a "reliable outlet"? That says a lot about Wikipedia. I know it's not complicated, but in this exact case, there is no way that she fits into the "white supremacist" description, especially not if you're using the Wikipedia definition of white supremacism. The sources are just not accurate and it should matter enough to consider not using them in this article, no matter how "reliable" they otherwise are. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for content on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research about Lokteff's beliefs. Your opinion that a source is not accurate based on your personal familiarity is irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Once and for all. Who says exactly which sites are reliable and which are not. Because we're going in circles here. Who says that Vox is reliable while a page I'm linking isn't. Who decides? Because, honestly, all I'm hearing is "my source is reliable, because a few people agree with me on Wikipedia while the same people don't agree with you". Is that how it is? Because that's not how truth works. I read the "reliable sources" article on this page about 50 times by now and still there's no way you could ever make an argument that "Vox" is reliable while the sources I posted are not without referring to the argument "I know some people and they agree". Just because my sources didn't have to retract anything yet, doesn't mean they're more or less reliable than the other sources. Also, Calton and Volunteer Marek are editing the article all the time without posting anything in this article or discussing anything whatsoever. Why is it, that you had already agreed on changing the description on the article to what we agreed upon but when they're reverting it without posting ANYTHING on here, you decide to revert it again as well? She clearly denied being a white supremacist, you saw it yourself. So why is this not being allowed to be mentioned in the article? It's the damn truth. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Source reliability, as with almost everything else on Wikipedia, is based on WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia was started in 2001, so this includes the previous 17 years of consensus which forms our reliable source guidelines. This means that even if you and I agreed on something, that doesn't override what the rest of the community has agreed upon in the past. If you think neo-Nazi outlets like dprogram.net and nordfront.se are reliable sources, you do not understand what "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" signifies. You could, if you really wanted to, propose those sources to WP:RSN, but I think there's a real chance you would be blocked for wasting time and trying to insert neo-Nazi propaganda into Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a "mainstream" bias, in that we represent ideas in proportion to their coverage in reputable sources. "Reputable" means a reputation among experts. Expertise is determined by the mainstream, for better or worse. This is an encyclopedia, and we do not legitimize WP:FRINGE ideas, such as scientific racism, white nationalism, or Holocaust denial. Even if you believe these ideas are correct, they are still not recognized by real-life experts as legitimate.

As for the line about denying being a white supremacist: it isn't really that clear. She mostly mocks the idea that "white supremacy" even means anything at all. The video is pedantic, evasive, and sarcastic, but says almost nothing of substance, and implies things which are false or irrelevant. She demonstrates that she doesn't understand what the term means and doesn't understand why it's applied to her. So what's there to say about this? As has already been said, a reliable source would be extremely helpful. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Exact quote from the video: "So what is a white supremacist anyway? 'a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races' - she's quoting the Merriam-Webster dictionary - Do I have an allure to rule over other races and subjugate them as my slaves so that they can clean my house, take care of my family and run my errands? Come on, it's so stupid. No white person in my scene wants this, in reality, we want the complete opposite. Doesn't sound like something a white supremacist would say now, does it? "We want the complete opposite" is implicating her and the people she represents and associates with. She doesn't want to rule over other races or have control over them, in fact, she wants the opposite. This is the definition of denial. She denies being a white supremacist by denying wanting to rule over other races. Furthermore, I don't understand how you could even make the point that she doesn't understand what the term means. She's reading the frigging dictionary definition and immediately after, she says that neither she nor anyone she knows wants any of this. Also, you haven't answered to my questions regarding Calton, Volunteer Marek, their absence of discussion on here and their constant disruption on the article page by editing and reverting the line we both agreed upon days ago. They clearly just want to disrupt and have nothing to say on this talk page. Additionally, once again, the current sources, including the much-discussed Vox article, don't even explicitly state that she's a white supremacist at all. So we don't even have a reliable source calling her a white supremacist in the article right this moment. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds exactly like something a white supremacist could say, because it's evasive waffle, and has been hammered to death, she is not a reliable source. She introduces a brief definition, ignores any inconvenient alternate definitions, and then extends her chosen definition to an absurd degree. She than dismissed her own absurd definition as being too absurd, specifically because she made it absurd. Perhaps she learned this trick from the Stephan Molyneux school of not-actually-saying-anything.

I'm guessing they don't post here because they've heard this all before a thousand times. You're not really introducing anything new anyway, so I can't say I blame them. Grayfell (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you Jewish? Serious question. Drmies already established that the sources in the article don't call her a white supremacist. Just because SmokerOfCinnamon decided to post some unreliable sources on here (which even you would consider to be not reliable) he added the "white supremacist" label after just one day of no one responding. I want to revert that back to it's original state which is more accurate. Also, what you just said was inaccurate. She even took another definition from Google into account which also doesn't apply to her. Obviously, you wouldn't count that as an "alternate definition", would you? What's your definition, the one that applies to pretty much every right winger out there? How about "a white supremacist is anyone that disagrees with my point of view"? WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)