Jump to content

Talk:Lauren Southern: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Farmlands: new section
Farmlands: rewording happens
Line 378: Line 378:


So here's the challenge with the Farmlands release. The trailer for the documentary achieved some notoriety in the reliable news media, but surprisingly (to me), not a single reliable secondary source has said anything about its release in the last 24 hours. The current content "As of January 2018, Southern was producing a documentary called Farmlands ..." seems incomplete as it suggests that it hasn't been released yet. So what to do? I think we need to reference the YouTube video as a primary source, despite the fact that I generally try to avoid that sort of thing, which has a promotional effect. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 15:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
So here's the challenge with the Farmlands release. The trailer for the documentary achieved some notoriety in the reliable news media, but surprisingly (to me), not a single reliable secondary source has said anything about its release in the last 24 hours. The current content "As of January 2018, Southern was producing a documentary called Farmlands ..." seems incomplete as it suggests that it hasn't been released yet. So what to do? I think we need to reference the YouTube video as a primary source, despite the fact that I generally try to avoid that sort of thing, which has a promotional effect. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 15:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
:I reworded it. Just the facts, I hope. No need to mention the trailer. [[User:GangofOne|GangofOne]] ([[User talk:GangofOne|talk]]) 20:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:34, 28 June 2018

Alt-right 5

Lauren Southern is not alt-right and believes in the basic principles of the US Bill of Rights as any other conservative. Unless you would like to say that half of the population of the USA is extreme, then you will have to adjust this article since there is no affiliation between Lauren Southern and the alt-right except for debates she has had in opposition to them and when she talks about how she is not alt-right and believes in many "liberal" ideas such as freedom of speech and religion (might I add that the idea of the basic rights of humans being liberal ideas and opinions is bullshit). Lauren Southern may not believe in Islam but that does not mean she hates the people who do. Lauren does not believe in ILLEGAL immigration but that does not mean she is against all immigrants. Lauren also may not support homosexuality but that does not mean that she hates all people who are. Wikipedia, I am very disappointed in you since millions of people a day check on your website for information when this information is clearly biased and incorrect. Before allowing this bias into your articles, please watch a few of Lauren's videos just to see what kind of person she actually is and how a lot of the world sees her just as this article does although they have never even seen any of her actual content. 1anonymous123 (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having watched some of her videos, I think that reliable sources are correct in describing her as far-right and extremist. It doesn't matter what I think though, and it doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what sources say about it. She is free to say what she wants, and the rest of us are free to respond by describing her speech in whatever way we feel is appropriate and accurate. Wikipedia isn't the place to debate who has the best opinions, instead we attempt to summarize what reliable sources have to say. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term "AltRight" is ambiguous. It only appeared in the lexicon in last two years. As history moves forward it will be more and more unclear what it refers to. It is unclearly defined terminology; that should be avoided in an encyclopedia. What should be written are her positions on various issues she talks about (immigration, gender, religion, whatever), and what should be avoided is simplistic labeling. She also seems to be changing as she goes, so simple labeling is disservice to her and reader. GangofOne (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would its ambiguity become more unclear? There are already many, many sources discussing the term, the movement, its usage, etc., and with time more sources will surely be published. If her position changes, reliable sources will cover that, or else we can decide how to include unreliable ones if it's a BLP issue. I agree that we should discuss her positions, but the lede is not the place to go into details, it's the place to summarize. Reliable sources summarize her position in part by saying that she is associated with the alt-right. The quantity of these sources has increased since this was added to the article, also. Grayfell (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please list the videos you watched and the parts in them which identify LS as racist or Alt right? Otherwise, you are against posting HEARSAY! I'm detecting an "only true Scotsman" fallacy on "reliable sources" here since the goalposts are constantly shifting. the original "reliable sources" are not there anymore and when one hearsay source is challenged another replaces it. we can go on forever doing that. You need to produce a source which shows her as alt right i.e. as supporting racism or racial supremacy or similar policies. In the absence of that you should not be portraying a living person as a racist until you produce evidence! Saying someone else called her alt right isnt evidence! On what evidence is there calling her alt right or extreme right based? In the absence of that the designation of her as alt right should be removed until you can produce evidence from a reliable source! and a newspaper or a highly respected person saying there are WMD in Iraq iant evidence of WMD in Iraq! If they actually saw the WMD then that is a different matter. But the sources you are quoting fall short of witnessing LS being racist or doing things that alt right people do.Isaw (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plkewase must be "please" I guess? Everybody makes typos, but there are so many here this is actually difficult to understand, so please slow down.
Anyway, as I already explained, it doesn't matter what I think, or what videos I've watched, or what research any other editors have done. What matters is what's published by reliable sources. The article doesn't say she's a racist, it says, correctly, that her views are on the far-end of the left-right spectrum. I could explain why I think that's accurate, but would you accept that? Would you care? I doubt it, and it wouldn't matter either way. If you want to talk about WMDs in Iraq, do it elsewhere. That comparison isn't as relevant as you seem to think it is, and this article is for discussing Lauren Southern, not Hans Blix, or the many other reliable sources which disputed WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Typos fixed. My keypad was freezing requiring me to type in several sentences before the screen unfroze.
So if she isnt a racist what other CRITERIA for her far right does she fulfill? What views put her on the far right end of the spectrum? Just saying she has far right views is uninformed opinion. You have to show the view and allow people to decide. And that is not doing original research! You are a not repeating the experiment or doing a new experiment you are just showing where in the experiment particular measurements have been made. Yes I would care for you to explain why it is accurate because then we are agreeing to objective criteria. and whether I care or not anyone can then see the objectively verifable data. anyone can see the comment Southern made or the act she did and judge for themselves rather than "take our word for it southern is a racist /far right/alt right extremist" Based on what data?Isaw (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
as someone who highlighted Blix and Scott Ritter at the time the "groupthink" was against me any people could produce hundreds of media articles from "reliable sources" saying WMD existed in Iraq. The point is relevant in the sense of comparing loads of disparate media OPINIONS to actual evidence based on what Southern did or said and not what people think she did or said without actually seeing or hearing it... in other words "hearsay". The WMD issue was decided on by hearsay not actual facts, and Southern is being labeled alt right in the same way. Loads of sources callinbg her extreme right does not make it true. showing her doing or saying something racist woiuld be evidence.Isaw (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Biographies_of_living_persons says " material about living people can affect their subjects' lives" and " such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." Passed 10 to 0 at 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) as the First Principle of editing such an article. This isnt happening in the case of Lauren Southern. Calling her extreme right can affect her life. so why is any attempt to remove this until it is discussed resisted and the attribution included in the article instead of having it removed until a decision to include it is reached?Isaw (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been discussed over. and over. and over. and over. Time to move on please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked not to post in oither discussions and post at the bottom. When I do Im told it was discussed earlier. Where? Where for example was the " such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." discussed which is a meta discussion about editing of content of the article and not the nature of that content. Even iof the content might make her look bad it is meant to be removed until the matter is discussed. Im trying to discuss it and you are saying this was already raised. Where? Isaw (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this isnt showing balance at all! Vox in a few thousand words on a European movement mentions Lauern Souther in one sentence buried at the end of the article and calls her "alt right" with no supporting evidence at all. This is taken as a "reliable source". the Leader of the Libritarian Party endorcing Southern as a candidate for his Party however is not considered a "reliable source" and southern is depicted as "alt right". So called "reliable sources" are continually removed and replaced with others as they are queried. this isn't fair comment. Why isnt the Liberitarian Leader reference included? Isaw (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, stop inserting comments into the middle of other people's posts. How many times does this have to be explained?
Asking us to perform original research is futile and tedious. If you don't listen to what we're saying, how likely do you think it will be that we'll keep responding to you? Many reliable sources support this label and that number has grown significantly with her recent refused entry into the UK. A substantial subset of these sources provide at least some explanation for why they apply that label. If you know of reliable sources which refute this characterization, let's see them. Otherwise, it's not up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to repeat explanations to you which are already provided by sources. Your personal rejection of those sources, or their definitions, is not Wikipedia's problem. Drop the stick, please. Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the part of the edit by Edaham that added the phrase "associated with the alt-right" in the lead. Other opponents have explained lengthily and alluded to WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:BLP in general; I think it's enough to say WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It appears to me -- sorry if I am misinterpreting or forgetting someone -- that "associated with the alt-right" is opposed by (O1001010, 193.80.37.179, 197.229.154.158, 1anonymous123, 2A02:C7D:B417:4800:A021:8D43:9DB3:E721, A7exro, Art of Free Speech, Deadlybanter, Fleritarus (maybe), GangofOne, Gedoughty02, Isaw, Peter Gulutzan, Serpentmars, Waltercool) ... and is supported by (Cullen (maybe), Edaham, DrFleischman, Grayfell, Newimpartial). So either there is consensus opposing Edaham's addition or there is no consensus, and the addition has been properly reverted with a good-faith objection, and this is a BLP, so re-insertion will be a violation of Wikipedia policy WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. If several editors want an RfC e.g. -- "Shall we add the words 'associated with the alt-right' at the end of the first sentence so it reads 'Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June 1995) is a Canadian far-right political activist, Internet personality, and journalist associated with the alt-right.'"? -- we can go that way.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are three sources specifically attached to the "associated with the alt-right" statement. Removing the statement without removing those sources is misrepresenting those sources which is unacceptable. The consensus on Wikipedia as a whole is that articles must reflect reliable sources. If you do not think these sources are reliable, or that they are being accurately summarized, you will have to explain why. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not determined by majority vote. If a whole bunch of new editors with no understanding of Wikipedia community standards come here and insist insist insist that Southern isn't this or that, that's not an appropriate basis for removing verifiable content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To Grayfell: The cites weren't added by the edit that I was partly reverting -- so much for your claim that I "misrepresented" something; and I said "I think it's enough to say WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV" -- so much for your demand that I address something else. To DrFleischman: consensus is also not determined by minority vote; some editors whose newness you disparage have made some points or aren't so new. To all others: I said "re-insertion will be a violation of Wikipedia policy WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE"; Grayfell ignored that and re-inserted; so the immediate issue is: is this indeed a violation? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The policy-based consensus is clearly in favor of the "disputed" material, and no amount of drive-by POV editing will change that. No violation has occurred. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Gulutzan: many thanks for letting me know. In future please avoid blanking adequately sourced information without explanation based on additional sources. We don’t vote info in and out of the encyclopedia. Edaham (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
False accusations about my reverting don't affect the issue, but apparently the other opposers have left the field, so I will not pursue this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good Edaham (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the opening sentence could be modified to produce a more accurate and objective statement: Eg ″Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[3] 1995) is a Canadian political activist, Internet personality, and journalist[4][5] associated by some sources with the alt-right [6][7][8] and described by others as ′far-right′. [a]″ 190.121.43.79 (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Associated by some sources" is WP:WEASEL wording. Additionally, that proposed wording would imply that 'far-right' and 'alt-right' are mutually exclusive, which is not accepted by sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it weasely, but it's also an inappropriate expression of doubt, and it violates our neutrality policy, specifically WP:YESPOV, which forbids us from presenting facts as opinions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell: Concerning WP:WEASEL the page says "Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." so using the wording of the suggestion to refute the edit is contrary to the page you are citing. The page indicates that it is fine to use 'associated by some sources' as long as you say what sources you are talking about. @Dr. Fleischman: Concerning WP:YESPOV the page indicates that the Wikipedia page should 'Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.' which the current page fails to do by presenting only the view that she is associated with the alt-right, which is contested (as evidenced by the very sources used in the article). Finally, concerning expression of doubt no use of any of the 'expressions of doubt' was suggested in the proposed edit. It feels to me that the current content is in breach of neutrality and that at least a '{'{'Disputed'}'}' flag should be put on the page. Ecliptica (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources say something, Wikipedia can also say that thing. If unreliable sources dispute that, we cover that position in proportion to how reliable sources cover the unreliable ones. The problem here is not attribution, it's that "associated by some sources" is distancing language. It's implying without stating that other sources might disagree, or associate her with some other movement or whatever. The problem with weasel words is not what they say, it's what they imply without saying.
Your ping didn't work because you failed to add it at the same time as your signature, but don't bother pinging me again, please. Notice that this section is "Alt-right 5", meaning there are four other sections covering this exact issue in the talk page's archives. This has already been discussed to death over several months, so if you have something to say about it, make sure it's damn good or brand-spanking-new. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Islam in Canada

2604:2000:DD50:8C00:9C4:FF32:82F8:C321 (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to add Category:Opposition to Islam in Canada, because she doesn't want Islam in Canada nor in any other Western Countries.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Spintendo      10:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Spintendo: They were not requesting a user right, they were asking to add Category:Opposition to Islam in Canada to this page. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I thought they meant that they wanted to make this change. Spintendo      12:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NGO Ships

With regard to her activism against NGO Ships, Surely this should read "Search and Rescue ships, or something similar? While the Aquarius is funded and operated by NGOs, its purpose is essentially that of a lifeboat. It's purpose is to save lives at sea. The moral duty to save lives at sea is well established and applies equally to all in peril, regardless of how they got there.(Indeed it even rescued the "Defend Europe" ship C-Star)


I feel that the section title Support for the targeting of NGO ships is confusing and doesn't really get the point across. Indeed the entire section really fails to get the point across.


Perhaps Obstruction of Search and Rescue Operations would be more appropriate?

--139.153.56.67 (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The requestor is correct. The section has a weird, excessive focus on the term "NGO ship" that isn't particularly informative. Moreover the section needs to be rewritten a bit as its emphasis is off. The point (properly conveyed by the source) is that Southern tried to block a ship from rescuing stranded refugees and was detained by the Italian Coast Guard. The ownership or non-profit status of the ship is irrelevant to Southern's biography. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

currently reads "stated purpose of tracking and stopping collusion between NGOs and human traffickers." feel "collusion" and "human Traffikers" should both be removed, saying NGOs is sufficient without shading it to support her agenda. suggest "stated purpose of and stopping between NGO rescue ships."

The claim that the NGO's she attacked were human traffickers requires support from a source other then identity europa, a white nativist group described by the British government as a terrorist organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.19.86 (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. According to the Canadaland source this was in fact Defend Europe's stated purpose, even if it rested on false or unsupported assumptions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i don think that identity europa's stated purpose should be described as objective fact, because to frame there narrative as factual is not objective and sanitizes them. currently the article implies the rescue boats were human traffickers. as the above poster stated they are a white power group described by the English and italian gov as terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.19.86 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three things. First, it's not stated as objective fact. The only thing stated objectively is Defend Europe's stated purpose. Second, I'd remove Defend Europe's stated purpose if I could find a reliable source saying what the group was actually doing in the Mediterranean. (No, Hope Not Hate is not a reliable source.) Third, you seem to be confusing Defend Europe with Identity Evropa. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
you are ignoring context. Italy has just had an election hardly covered by the Media outsoide Italy. Right wing parties ( mostly NOT FAR RIGHT) won a majority in Parliament. In the run up to the election you had headlines like “Pact between NGOs and traffickers, the government knew everything and now it wants to cover it up,” an April front page of Il Giornale, a newspaper owned by the brother of four-time Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Catania Chief Prosecutor Carmelo Zuccaro, who launched the probe, has gone even further, suggesting the rescuers are being paid off by the smugglers themselves.“Some NGOs could be financed by traffickers and I know there has been direct contact” between them, Zuccaro told state TV Rai in April. Lauern Southern came into this and acted like greenpeace did in the past by blocking a ship. I dont approve what she did and I dont regard the Medicine Sans frontiers vessle Aquarius as a smuggler but it does not prove LS is alt right. All it proves is she did what most mainstream right in Italy supported. or support the Italy EU memorandum of understanding with the United Nations-backed government in Tripoli pledging millions of euros, equipment and training to fight people smuggling, run U.N.-managed migrant camps and bolster the coastguard. as for what they were doing there the accusations were taken up by the main opposition political parties, the anti-establishment 5-Star Movement and the far-right Northern League. Parliament launched its own investigation. The critics accuse aid workers of operating a “taxi service”, effectively aiding smugglers by providing the final leg of the journey: taking people off unsafe boats near the coast of Libya and bringing them to Italy.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-italy-ngo/rescuers-made-scapegoat-for-italian-frustration-with-migrant-crisis-idUSKBN19E0HM Isaw (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please try to focus on specific suggestions to improve the article based on the available reliable sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Report, possibly useful source.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-43393035 101.224.10.84 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right 5

The suggestion that Southern is far-right (source no.5) is not properly supported. The site canadalandshow.com is clearly biased in the article an in the whole. Quote "CANADALAND also reached out to Southern but has yet to hear back. When CANADALAND contacted her earlier this year for an interview concerning her exit from The Rebel, she replied simply, “No, you guys suck balls.”" This could clearly upset them and make them to write a negative article about her. They also don't cite anything that she has said/done that could be considered far-right. She is a journalist and covers fringe and far-right activists, but this does not imply that she herself is a far-right activist.

The suggestion is not well supported, it needs more evidence from a better source. As a result of this wiki article, most media have picked up that she is far-right, without providing any evidence which is saddening to see. Hope my request makes sense. Deadlybanter (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upset? Haven't hear that argument before. Reliable sources, as reasonable people, are fully trusted to discuss a person even if that person dislikes them. As a self-described journalist, Southern would be expected to understand this. In other words, Southern doesn't have the ability to discredit a source merely by childishly insulting that source. She can say what she wants to them, and they can cover her anyway. As has already been discussed, the source is sufficient for the claim that she is far right. There are also plenty of examples of far-right positions she has endorsed (such as the "great replacement", a racist, pseudoscientific, and thinly disguised European version of the white genocide conspiracy theory) but Wikipedia doesn't really use her positions to describe her ideology, because that would be original research. Instead, we use reliable sources, such as all those which describe her as far-right and alt-right. Grayfell (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadaland show is not a reliable source, though. They're worse than Rebel Media. Southern feeds far-right narratives. That is the ONLY sense in which she could be called "far right," and to me, that's not enough. Bizud (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bizud: Generally, when commenting on a month-old posts, it's better to add to the bottom of a discussion, otherwise it's a coin-flip whether or not the person you're responding to will even notice. In this case I did, but it's still kind of pointless, since later in this discussion there are multiple additional sources for this point. If you think Canadaland should be replaced with one of the dozens of other sources describing her as far right, (say The New York Times for example) perhaps start a new discussion on that farther down. Grayfell (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, I'm not talking about alt-right. I haven't read all the discussions in this thread, I am only discussing this one article on which the claim that she is far-right is based. Nothing more, nothing less. No need to show your bias by needlessly mentioning "plenty of examples of far-right positions" while citing none that would mention her involvement in it. I looked into the article on CANADALAND again and the term far-right is used 4 times - once in the headline, twice in a statement provided by 'HOPE not hate' and once saying "that Patreon’s ban had to do with her coverage of the Identitarian Movement". Notice that the word coverage, not support has been used.Deadlybanter (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to me like a basis for deeming a source unreliable. Please read the the relevant guideline. FWIW I was involved not that long ago in a discussion on another article talk page about the reliability of Canadaland, and the consensus was that it was reliable. Unfortunately I'm having trouble tracking down that page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guessing it was Talk:Gavin McInnes#Canadaland. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and that refreshes my memory. It's not consensus but helps to elaborate the pro/con arguments as to whether Canadaland is generally reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term far-right is a loaded phrase. Having that as the first thing to describe a person if far from being objective. It is sort of poisoning the water. I suggest the following change: Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[4] 1995) is a Canadian far-right[5] political activist, Internet personality, and journalist[6] associated with the alt-right.[7][8][9] -> Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[4] 1995) is a Canadian political activist, Internet personality, and journalist[6]. She is being associated with the alt-right[7][8][9] with some sources refering to her as far-right[5]. This is a more accurate representation of reality, as it acknowledges, that there is not a universal consensus on calling the Lauren Southern 'far-right'. Also it moves politically charged language like 'alt-right', 'far-right' to the background in favor of more neutral descriptors such as 'political activist' or 'journalist'. [David Valouch 18th March 2018] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.45.102 (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is universal consensus among all reliable sources that Southern is far-right. Unless you're aware of reliable sources that say otherwise? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the certainty to say that 'all' sources claim her to be far-right? As far as I am aware she denies being far-right; I would say asking a person about their political believes is the most reliable source. Than again I am not saying to remove the mention of far-right all together. I am suggesting to rephrase the first sentence to avoid using politically charged language in the very beginning of a presumably objective and impartial article. The term far-right is subjective and judgemental. [David Valouch 21st March 2018] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.45.102 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please review our verifiability policy. We rely on reliable sources. Southern is not a reliable source for this purpose. A large number of independent, reputable sources have called her far-right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
if you maintain Lauren southern is far right or Alt right that is not a neutral point of view is it? Can ytou list the large number of sources? the point isnt that sources say it but on the INFORMATION those sources contain. The classic example is claims about WMD in Iraq. there were a large number of sources saying it but they were all quoting each other in a merry go round. What would have been evidence was an eyewitness or a photograph of them or them being used but that never emerged in spite of the "large number of independent reputable sources". Also ther are alt right sources they regard her as not being alt right. ther is the leader of the Libratarian Party who doies not regard her as alt right. what are they not included to maintain a neutral p[oinbt of view?Isaw (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how our neutrality and verifiability policies work. We reflect the reliable sources, and those sources don't need to back up their conclusions with "INFORMATION." I understand your concern, but such a major change to our community standards would require consensus in a different forum such as WP:VPP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion

There is no scientific source, which defines Southern as far-right. So it is not a fact. There are just openions from media outlets, which descripe sourthern as far-right right-wing or alt-right. My suggestion would be:

"Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[4] 1995) is a Canadian political activist, Internet personality, and journalist[6]. In 2015, Southern ran as a Libertarian Party candidate in the Canadian federal election. She worked for The Rebel Media until March 2017. In addition, she has written for Spiked,[10] the International Business Times, and The Libertarian Republic.[11] Southern continues to work independently and publishes videos on YouTube.

In 2017, Southern supported the nativist group Defend Europe opposing the action of non-governmental organizations involved in search-and-rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. She was detained by the Italian Coast Guard for blocking a ship carrying refugees.[12] In March 2018, Lauren Southern was also detained while trying to enter the United Kingdom and officially banned from entering the country. A spokesperson for the British Home Office said that "her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good."[13]

Southern is widely described as right-wing, far-right or associated with the alt-right."

Greetings from Austria--Fleritarus (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Please review our verifiability policy. It doesn't require scientific sources, just reliable sources such as the ones that are cited. I see no basis for making any change based on the fact that these sources aren't scientific. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please reade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people). We should not setting aktivists because of media outlets. It should me make clear, that this are opinions about Southern. As long as there is no politic science study about or with about Southern, we should not setting "far-right" as fact. It should be more neutral --Fleritarus (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but in the german speaking corner of wikipedia we only use political attributes of activits in the intro if its political clear on the basis of political science. This is not the case here. We have diffreant opinions of a person. Its not clear. --Fleritarus (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take you at your word that that's how it's done at German Wikipedia, but it's not how our policies work here. I don't know what WP:BIO has to do with it. There's no dispute that Southern is notable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know acactly how WP:BIO works in the english Wikipedia, but the commin groubd is, that it should be neutral. Is this diffrent here? --Fleritarus (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We use reliable sources to determine what is and is not neutral, and reliable, independent sources are saying she's far right. A neutral article will reflect reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are lots of reliable sources and they dont agree with the term "far-right" as a fact. They even do not say that this is a political fact because of ...I think that i did make a good compromise with my suggestion. Opinions are not facts --Fleritarus (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's a fact, not an opinion. It's a description of Southern's views. It's not value-laden and it's not relative to the speaker's ideology. Many far-right activists are well aware that they're far right and don't complain about it. Of course many of them wish more people would agree† with them, but that's another matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. political facts are based on political science. This is not the case here. We have diffrent opinions of a controversial person. This should be considered in the intro. --Fleritarus (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources don't agree with the term "far right" as applied to Southern? Using a broader term like "right-wing" or "libertarian" is not disagreement, in case that wasn't clear. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"right-wing"

"right-wing" "right-wing" "right-wing" "right-wing" "right wing". (Again: Even if there would be only sources which describe here as "far-right" its would be not a political fact. "Southern is XY") --Fleritarus (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "right-wing" "libertarian" and "far-right" are diffrent political terms --Fleritarus (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above sources are relevant, in that none of them dispute the more specific term "far right" by using the more general term "right wing". Could someone else remove or hat Fleritarius' irrelevant comment, please? Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course these sources are relevant --Fleritarus (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of more extreme nationalist,[1][2] and nativist ideologies, as well as authoritarian tendencies.[3]" The term "far-right" is not more specific. its a hole diffrent political view than the standard right-wing view. --Fleritarus (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You offer no reliable sources for the above, Fleritarius. Even if you did, your claim that the subject of this article represents "standard right-wing politics" is unsourced and untrue. In fact, it is prima faciae absurd. I do however agree the far right is a hole, though I wouldn't specify what kind. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're over-reading that article. It says far-right politics are further to the right than the standard political right. The word "standard" is critical here. Right-wing politics is a spectrum. Far-right means on one end of the spectrum. It doesn't mean off the end of the spectrum. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, right-wing people can also be far-right people but only in the political science. We discuss media outlets. There is a reason why media outlets label people as right or leftwing. Far right or far left. That was my problem at the beginning. We dont discuss political scientific sources, we discuss media labels and therefore i made a neutral suggestion how we can make the intro more neutral, because the sources are not clear. We have diffreant opinions of Southern and this should be considered in the intro --Fleritarus (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have sources that are more specific and ones that are less specific. This isn't about political science. It's about standard, non-technical English usage in reliable sources such as reputable news media outlets. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have many journalist-sources that dont want to label Southern as far-right and therefore it is not a fact. It is very simple and my suggestion is much more neutral --Fleritarus (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If some journalists use the more general term, this is not evidence that the more precise term soea nkt apply. Because logic. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please considere my arguments. You dont do that--Fleritarus (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered your arguments, and they are unsupported by logic or the evidence you have presented. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great talk --Fleritarus (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"far-right" This is the Wikipedia article on far-right politics. The article assiciates the term far-right with fascism and believes about inferiority/superiority of certain groups of people. Are there any reliable sources to show that these are L. Sauthern's believes? In this discussion some bald statemets were used like: "all reliable sources". The ONLY source cited for the far-right label is a single article talking about the reason why she was banned from Patreon. The term far-right is being used without any justification nor citation of any other source in said article. For these reason it would be best to rephrase the introduction in a way that reflects that this is an opinion of some people rather than an objective fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.45.102 (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L. Sauthers also is/was member of the Libertarian party. According the the relevant Wikipedia page, this party's political goal is to limit the power of the gowernment, this is directly opposite to far-right ideologies that are ofthen associated with fascism and statism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.45.102 (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Far-right politics says that all people who are far-right are fascist, statist, or bigoted. All that is implied here is that Southern is on the same end of the left–right political spectrum as those groups. Which is a verifiable fact, not an opinion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. FleischmanThe left–right political spectrum link you supplied says "Right-wing extremist parties are harder to define other than being more right-wing than other parties, but include fascists and some extreme conservative and nationalist parties" I think it is quite clear alt right and far right denote hyper nationalist nazi like parties. So where does southern fit this identifiable "fact"? where does she state anything that agrees with far right attitudes like racism ?What are the criteria of verification and what is the "fact" that defines far right?Isaw (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


She's clearly far-right and widely described as such by reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is only ONE source cited in the article. This 'source' does contains no justification for the usage of far-right. Is has been pointed out in the paragraph above, her political believes are directly contrary to certain political phenomena most frequently associated with far-right politics. This makes a strong case to rephrase the opening sentece of the page to be less politically charged. --AROULE (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent describes Southern as far-right. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lauren-southern-far-right-canada-racist-calais-detain-uk-ban-enter-visa-a8254116.html The National Post describes Southern as far-right. http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/far-right-figures-say-they-were-deported-from-britain The Guardian describes Southern as moving 'in far-right circles' and also as 'odious', in an article headed 'The Far Right'. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/18/far-right-activists-barred-britain-state-speech The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix describes Southern as far-right. http://thestarphoenix.com/news/world/perma-banned-far-right-activists-deported-from-britain-for-racism-including-ex-rebel-contributor-lauren-southern/wcm/6c83e0f8-387e-4c6b-9993-98e8d4ca8a32 Newsweek describes Southern as alt-right and far-right. http://www.newsweek.com/us-blogger-among-three-alt-right-activists-denied-entry-uk-840782 Luton Today describes Southern as far-right (she distributed racist leaflets in Luton last time she was in the UK, hence her denial of entry). https://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/far-right-activist-denied-entry-to-uk-after-distributing-racist-material-in-luton-1-8411543 CNN describes Southern as far-right. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/13/europe/activists-denied-entry-uk-intl/index.html The Daily Mail (which WP isn't supposed to cite, but what the hell) describes Southern as far-right. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5493105/Journalist-anti-Muslim-activist-barred-Britain.html The Langley Times (from her hometown in British Columbia) describes Southern as far-right. https://www.langleytimes.com/news/far-right-activist-from-langley-denied-entry-to-uk/ Reuters describe Southern as far-right. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-deportations/british-authorities-ban-three-foreign-right-wing-activists-idUKKCN1GO2LO The Daily Beast describes Southern as far-right. https://www.thedailybeast.com/three-far-right-figures-were-denied-entry-to-the-uk UK Business Insider describes Southern as far-right. http://uk.businessinsider.com/far-right-tech-platforms-gab-youtube-bitchute-2017-9 CBC describes Southern as far-right. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.4224329/why-the-defend-europe-anti-migrant-ship-was-briefly-detained-in-cyprus-1.4224732 The New York Times groups Southern with 'the new far right.' https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/magazine/for-the-new-far-right-youtube-has-become-the-new-talk-radio.html Detecting a bit of a pattern here. Khamba Tendal (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K. How do you reconcile that her libertarian political believes are in direct opposition to statism and elitism most commonly associated with the far-right? Also are these independet sources? Or is it that describing her as far-right just sort of caught on and nobody really gives it a second thought. --AROULE (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Far-right politics is a big tent. Yes those are absolutely independent sources, as they have no affiliation with Southern or any related party. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well-done for the list of news outlets describing her as far-right! What is the fact here? The fact is that "a number of 'well-established news outlets' describe Southern as far-right." Dot. Judging whether such description is correct or not is an opinion. Moreover, the sources mentioned are almost exclusively outlets considered "liberal" or "center-left" to "left" (see The Guardian, The Independent, The New York Times), thus potentially biased in matters concerning the political spectrum. The most reputable source out of them is Reuters and it DOES NOT describe Southern as either far-right or alt-right!
What is a fact to begin with? A fact is a statement that is consistent with reality or can be proven with evidence. [1] The evidence here is the list of news articles. But it is evidence for such description being made, not for the description being valid or true. Wikipedia:NEWSORG further states this: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis."
It implies, especially due to the apparent controversy here, to show what kind of evidence those news articles provide for their labeling. If no such evidence (scientific article, court decision) can be found (in those articles), such articles are worthless in supporting the label, and the statement should be modified as Fleritarius suggested at 12:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC), but the last sentence should read: "Southern is described by liberal media as right-wing, far-right or associated with the alt-right." The label "liberal media" might require more elaboration.Galapah (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is Canadian, and is uniformly described in Canadian media as "far right" or "alt-right" (except by her far-right former employer). It would be improper to introduce the expression "liberal media", which in any even has no meaning in a Canadian context. Newimpartial (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The context issue - I cannot argue against, since I am not familiar with the US/Canadian differences well enough. However, the statement "uniformly described in Canadian media as" is original research, unless supported by a reliable source. (Besides the sources provided were mostly non-Canadian. And I referred to what was provided.) And, again, even if a reliable reference for "uniformly described as..." can be cited, it does not provide basis for validity of the label, thus the rest of my argument stands.
Example: if all reputable media refer to a certain chemical compound as "safe to use", it is correct to say that media widely refer to the compound as safe to use. Whether this is a fact is another question, and we obviously do not rely on media as an evidence for that.Galapah (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is "correct" to say that, but it's still bad writing. This isn't medical content, and a political pundit isn't a chemical compound. In this context, "has been described as" is filler. The only additional meaning conveyed by this bloated phrase is implying doubt, and that's a form of editorializing. Among other problems, this is also condescending to readers, since they are perfectly capable of doubting things on their own. If many, many reliable sources describe her a certain way, and few (if any) refute it, Wikipedia should use direct, neutral language and accept the reliability of those sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editorializing means expressing opinion, and what I suggested is exactly the opposite. Can you back up your policy that Wikipedia should just accept reliability of the sources? Since this is against principles of critical thinking. Galapah (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your critical thinking doesn't supersede my critical thinking. This is why we use reliable sources instead of original research. There are a lot of reasons your suggested approach isn't appropriate, but let's focus on the manual of style and common practice on Wikipedia. WP:WEASEL specifically cautions against this type of phrasing for this reason. In a general sense, we don't assume that sources may be wrong about their field without a very good reason, because otherwise everything would have to be hedged and all content would be an unreadable mess of "according to" and "some experts have said" and so on. In this case, journalistic sources are assumed to be competent regarding politics. In a more abstract sense, political positions are inherently simplified. This is by design: it's shorthand. The term "far right" is not capable of conveying the entirety of a person's beliefs, and everybody already knows this. Equivocating on this insults the intelligence of the reader because nobody thinks that the term "far-right" has this standard of proof. By setting it up this way we are implying that some reliable sources refute this, but this is both false precision, and as far as I know, wrong. No reliable source refutes this, and there is no consistent standard by which this could be empirically "refuted" anyway. Grayfell (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no consistent standard by which this could be empirically "refuted" anyway" - I am not sure I understand what you meant. You mean no standard by which her labeling as far-right can be refuted?
Ad WP:WEASEL, this does not apply here. This rule cautions against inserting implicit views that are not referenced, which results into reader not being able to consult the source. That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting the opposite: to make the statement neutral and stick to hard facts (and provide sources). WP:WEASEL states "(...) may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source."
"we don't assume that sources may be wrong about their field without a very good reason" A good reason can be potential left-leaning bias as I documented above. Now, I am not giving a definitive proof of media being generally biased or being biased in this particular issue, but this evidence should raise caution in operating with such labels. (Canadian media is pushing us all to be Liberal)
WP:LABEL advocates caution with labels like neo-Nazi or extremist, and that is how far-right is often understood (Far-right politics). Furthermore, Biographies of living persons states "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. (...) In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."" This rule should be applied here, since the label far-right has strong negative connotation.
Wikipedia is supposed to provide factual, neutral, unbiased, backed-up content. It has nothing to do with assumptions about readers's intelligence.
Additionally, this very question was addressed by some reliable sources. (NY Times: We’re All Fascists Now, NPR: Ultra-Wrong: The Problem with Labeling 'Ultra Right') Galapah (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Find a reliable source which says "Southern is not far-right" or something. Otherwise, we have a large number of sources from a surprisingly broad range of ideologies which support this, and none which directly refute it, so we should accept that reliable sources know what they are talking about. Having a "left-leaning bias" is not an argument against reliability, because:
  1. A source can be left-leaning and also accurate.
  2. We cannot come along after the fact and say "it says she's far-right, so the source must be leftist, and therefor it's not reliable".
Being opposed to extremism doesn't make sources "biased" against extremism any more than being opposed to disease makes doctors "biased" against disease.
If any of those sources about liberal bias in the media mention Southern, let me know, but otherwise it's a distraction.
Caution is called for, absolutely, but this isn't a platform for advocacy. If a mountain of reliable sources say something, Wikipedia should also. There is no profound difference between "sources say she is far-right" and "she is far right". All we can do is summarize sources, and if we didn't trust those sources for some reason, we shouldn't even mention it in the first place. Since nobody has validly explained why we shouldn't trust the huge number of sources on hand, we trust them and can use simple language.
By "empirically refuted", I mean that there is no pass/fail test for "far-rightness", but I admit this is getting lost in the weeds. The gist is this: Reliable sources can assess her statements and actions, and decide that she is far-right based on that assessment. Directly interpreting information is something good sources do (and bad ones, for that matter) but it's not something Wikipedia should do. This is WP:OR. We don't get to look at her actions and say "that's not really far-right, so the source isn't trustworthy". The test, for Wikipedia, is only what reliable sources say. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's core policies boil down to this: If reliable sources say X, then we can say X. If you don't think we should say X, or if you think X should be watered down, qualified, or changed in any way, then you'd better find some policy or guideline to back up your position. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Journalist"

No, she isn't a "journalist", she's a far-right Internet personality, that's all. --Tataral (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, reliable sources say she's a journalist too. Not just Fox News. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that she ever worked professionally as a journalist. She's a far-right Internet personality who has barely left high school, and who's only known for far-right political activism, not journalism. --Tataral (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources like Al Jazeera and Fox News (and yes there are more) don't have to provide evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would not regard her as far right or a journalist but she has published a book and is capable of writing and was paid by a media company to do so. this would qualify her to join the National Union of Journalists although I doubt she would bother. Isaw (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far right and alt-right

The beginning of this articles claims Lauren Southern is "far-right" and "associated with the alt-right". The first claim is substantiated by an article that claims she is far-right, but provides no evidence itself within the article. It merely makes the claim in a vacuum, just as this Wikipedia article does, meaning this Wikipedia article has just as much authority of making the claim as the piece it uses as a source for the claim, which equates to no substantiated authority at all. This means it can only be substantiated as opinion and is not sufficient to back the claim that the subject is far-right on a Wikipedia article, and should therefore not be considered a legitimate source for the claim. It would be advisable to provide specific examples of her actions and thoughts, with the appropriate amount of context and allow the reader to judge the facts as they are. The defining characteristic of being far- right (or alt-right for that matter) is a sense of superiority over other "groups" of people, be it by race, ethnicity, class, etc, based solely on these arbitrary characteristics, often times coinciding with poorly sourced or poorly executed reasoning. There is no linked evidence suggesting the subject of the article holds these views, other than other linked sources that make the same claim with no substantiated evidence of such a case (other than they make the unsubstantiated claim themselves, all sites that are quite blatant about pushing a specific political narrative). This makes this article seem intentionally misleading, and the action of making these evidently unsubstantiated claims leads one to believe that there is a strong politically driven directive to slander the subject of the page. For the sake of intellectual integrity within Wikipedia, there should be no unsubstantiated claims made with a political agenda. This is blatant propaganda (the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.- according to Dictionary.com) that requires careful evaluation of the source articles and subsequent editing my multiple people in order to insure only adequately backed claims are made and that the public that accesses Wikipedia get an honest and unbiased (as much as it could possibly be) look at the topic of their interest.

Note also that being associated with the alt-right is a very vague claim considering anyone remotely on the right of the political spectrum, or even holding slightly right-leaning views, can be ""associated with the alt-right". This means that people with very left-leaning views who have an opinion about a specific topic that is today associated with the right side of politics, are suddenly labeled as being "associated with the alt-right" (which according the it's Wikipedia page, is "loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined." This is precisely because of situations like the one presented on this page. Historically the alt-right had a more precise meaning, but has lost that meaning with the recent oppressive push of far-left politics that seek to subjugate or demonize people along the lines of its political directive [for the record I am traditionally left-leaning but because I support people's right to discuss current issues I too am considered far-right, mostly by people who have very little understanding of politics, but I guess if you repeat something enough and loudly enough eventually people start to believe you, but I digress...).

There are many politically charged edits to articles throughout Wikipedia nowadays, so a call back to simply providing unbiased factual information would seem appropriate. We might as well start somewhere since the alternative is indoctrination into a world-view that has neither been clearly defined, nor clearly discussed because its tenants rest on its ability to shut down any and all opposition. A7exro (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A7exro, if you read further up on this page you'll see that your concerns have already been discussed over and over again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018

Please remove "associated with the alt-right. This is not true and is based only on opinion. Serpentmars (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The description is based on sources. Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 07:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wefa is correct. Removing altogether is a good solution. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aka WP:SCAREQUOTES. I support removing them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Farmlands

So here's the challenge with the Farmlands release. The trailer for the documentary achieved some notoriety in the reliable news media, but surprisingly (to me), not a single reliable secondary source has said anything about its release in the last 24 hours. The current content "As of January 2018, Southern was producing a documentary called Farmlands ..." seems incomplete as it suggests that it hasn't been released yet. So what to do? I think we need to reference the YouTube video as a primary source, despite the fact that I generally try to avoid that sort of thing, which has a promotional effect. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it. Just the facts, I hope. No need to mention the trailer. GangofOne (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]