Talk:Lauren Southern

Alt-right 1

This entry is written completely from the "alt-left" side of the political debate, and as such contains significant factual errors and outright opinions.

Lauren Southern is not alt-right, and the sources used to "confirm it" are all sources with significant left bias. It would be more correct to call her a right-libertarian and allow people to make up their own minds as to what the undefinable "alt-right" is. Furthermore, the article presupposes boats linked to severe human trafficking are part of "organizations committed to save-and-rescue operations." If someone is trying to write an unbiased entry, they failed miserably in this. If I could change it myself, I would.

Instead I would suggest saying, point blank, "sources with significant left bias refer to her as alt-right, but Lauren Southern considers herself a conservative libertarian."

Also in the interest of fairness, I would suggest saying "Lauren Southern supported the nativist group Defend Europe whom the left claims is opposing the action of non-governmental organizations committed to save-and-rescue operations in the Mediterranean, but the right sees as opposing the actions of non-governmental organizations committed to supporting illegal immigration and human trafficking."

If you're going to put political bias in it (which, IMO, is wrong to begin with), it needs to have both political biases, not just one. Art of Free Speech (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Whatever one may think about some of the other sources in the article, the Washington Post, McLean's, and the Abbotsford Post (!) are not known to be "alt-left" news sources. The claim that these mainstream news sources all have "significant left bias" would be original research. Also, no sourcing has yet been identified for Southern as a "conservative libertarian", except for SPA editors on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - the article is a leftist farce (sadly like so much of Wikipedia) - the normal "mainstream media" lies about Lauren Southern being "far right" or "alt right" when she is actually a conservative. Note to Wikipedia - if you do not understand the difference between a conservative and a National Socialist then the conflict between the conservative Winston Churchill and the National Socialist Adolf Hitler must really baffle you. And, of course, all the other lies are presented as facts - for example the Marxists engaged with human traffickers to bring illegal immigrants into to Europe are described as being engaged in "search and rescue operations".2A02:C7D:B417:4800:A021:8D43:9DB3:E721 (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Far-right 2

shouldn't there be a citation for the claim that she is "far-right"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.111.205.96 (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes - and there is. Edaham (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is that reference then? All three references as at the current date, just following the statement refer to her as "alt-right". Alt-right is not synonymous with "far right". The first reference describes her as "alt-right", not as far right. It does juxtaposition her in a discussion about a far right group she isn't associated with. The second reference doesn't even include the term "far right". The third reference says "Far Right Descends On Berkeley For 'Free Speech' And Planned Violence", and also lists members of the "alt right" who attended, but never identified any particular group or individual as being part of the "far right". So is only IMPLYING that an unidentified portion of the people talked about in the article are "far right", but doesn't specify which ones (so weasel words). So none of these articles are directly saying that Lauren Southern is "far right", probably because they want to avoid slander. Wikipedia probably also shouldn't go down this path either. Maybe the article should say she is "loosely associated" with "members of the far right", but should hold back from directly calling her "far right". 나비Fly ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I endorse the above comment Flaviusvulso (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know much about her (just came across her today and came to Wikipedia to find out who she was) but the article kicks off by labelling her as 'far right' and then does nothing to demonstrate that she supports the type of politics described in the linked 'far right' article. I've tagged it 'according to whom?' for now but I really feel the 'far right' label should either be justified or removed. Eggybacon (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Multiple citations from reliable sources, in this paragraph and elsewhere, support the term "far right". Wikipedia works from reliable sources, not original research. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. Have responded to your other comment below. Eggybacon (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC alone is not sufficient. Organisations, reporters, media outlets etc should not be relied upon on assigning somebody a controversial label like 'far right,' especially if they don't identify with it themselves. I can find probably thousands of references from journalists that call Obama a communist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2BC4:3100:4D94:2A0D:7527:79DC (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No, there is no creditable citation for the claim that the subject is "far-right". The using of the term "far-right" have racial and violent undertone to it, which is not something that the subject is related to. The cited source of Vice and Vox both have left biased which does not present information on a neutral perspective of Wikipedia. I suggest change the term "far-right" to "conservative". O1001010 (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think "right libertarian" is a better way to describe her political position. For example she has stated she wouldn't be as a big a advocate for border security if there weren't such generous welfare systems in Europe and the US. Flaviusvulso (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

So far, there is no reliable source for "conservative" or "right libertarian". In the other hand, there are several - including canadaland (ref. 33), for "far right". Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are some examples of how she's been described in mainstream media: "Conservative internet personality" and "Libertarian activist" (CBS), "a reporter from The Rebel Media, a conservative media platform" (The Globe and Mail), "a Canadian activist popular in rightwing media" (The Guardian, the UK's preeminent left wing newspaper), "Conservative speaker" (Star Tribune, an American print newspaper with a significant circulation). I am not convinced that a single use of the term 'far right' on a website that proudly displays a link to an article like this questioning its journalism meets the requirements of WP:BLPSOURCES for such a contentious label as 'far right', and the current wording certainly doesn't meet WP:NPOV. Why not just call her 'right wing'? Eggybacon (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The misuse of "far-right" to refer simultaneously to mainstream right figures or parties such as Jordan Peterson, Ezra Levant, UKIP, Lega Nord, while also using it to refer to Richard Spencer, David Duke, BNP, and Golden Dawn simply discredits the source and helps the actual far-right find legitimacy and public acceptance. Humanophage (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we like to call that original research. Newimpartial (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Fox News lists her as exclusively "right-wing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That source uses right-wing to describe her ideology, but that doesn't actually mean that she cannot be both. CNN calls her "far-right", as do many others. Meanwhile, Newsweek call her both "far right" and "alt-right" in the same article. These are all overlapping concepts. Grayfell (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Miscegenation Scandal

In December 2017 a scandal erupted on Stormfront when Ms. Southern was accused of race mixing, with some purported photos of her with Africans were posted. In light of her defenses of Western Civilization, this caused considerable consternation in alt-right circles. https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1233788/ Her comment sections on her youtube videos have also been full of the accusation, which so far as I know she has not responded to.107.77.209.204 (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Far-right 3

change 'far-right' to 'right wing' Gareth1893 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the listed source are left biased, here are some right biased source that calls the subject "conservative".

1 and 2

Lastly, from a neutral source Ars Technica calls subject "right-wing". https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/crowdfunded-anti-refugee-ship-loses-patreon-propulsion/ O1001010 (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The Sun and Daily Mail are both unreliable tabloids, regardless of their purported political bent. Tabloids should not be used in general, and specifically not Daily Mail, per WP:DAILYMAIL.

Far-right is, by definition, a subset of right-wing. Being "biased" doesn't make a source unreliable. We're not interested in false balance. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Being "biased" absolutely matters since categorizing a subject's view point is most definitely an opinion instead of a fact. Here is a right biased source that describes the subject as a "Canadian Libertarian." 1. The neutral source above from Ars Technica, which is how I originally found about the subject described with the term "right-wing" 2 Also, MustangNews which is from California Polytechnic State University describes the subject as "A Canadian conservative and libertarian". 3 But judging from your last sentence about "false balance", I am getting the impression that personally you are not conducting yourself from a neutral direction which is what Wikipedia suppose to be. Also who is "we"? O1001010 (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

By "we" I meant Wikipedia. See WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Describing a source as 'biased', or attempting to figure out exactly where on the left-right spectrum it lies, is itself subjective. This is a form of original research. Your assessment that a source is "left biased" doesn't change anything.

If many reliable sources all point to a general idea, even if they don't use the exact same term, we should probably attempt to explain that idea to readers. Her being far-right (however we put it) is likely one of the reasons they're reading the article, since that point is raised by multiple sources.

I assume an event listing from the student newspaper for California Polytechnic State University is generally reliable, but... what does it actually prove? context matters, and routine coverage like this is pretty weak. As for Fox, this article already mentions her Libertarian party affiliation in the very next sentence, and again, "Libertarian" is entirely compatible with being far-right. Grayfell (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Far-right 4

I suggest changing "far-right" to "classically liberal", in modern parlance "conservative-libertarian" describing Lauren's politics.

I don't even know what "far-right" means. But Lauren's positions are clearly in line with classically liberal, modern conservative/libertarian principles. 47.32.19.11 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not original research or personal opinion. Grayfell (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"reliable sources" should not be stemmed from biased information, which on this matter, Vox and Vice are clearly biased. The sited sources are clearly the personal opinion of the media author themselves. Using your own logic, these sources should be nullified. The Wikipedia sourcing standards should at least be from a neutral point of perspective. Until a neutral source can be referenced, the said term should be removed. O1001010 (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Canadaland seems pretty neutral, in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Except Canadaland is not listed as a source for the alt right label. The listed sources are from Vox, Vice, and SPLC. If you look at the discussion from the members who have pushed for such label, it's two members which profile shows their own bias. At this point I recommend the sentence to be taken out and not replaced with anything until a neutral source could be stated. O1001010 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Then our loving administrators should move note 33 to accompany the reliable sources you object to, since it documents the label. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked into source number 33 and did a little research on this. Canadaland is founded by Jesse Brown which wrote for Vice and Huffpost. If you look at the article it just says that the wikiarticle subject is banned from Patreon due to a known biased lobby "HOPE not hate". The author Graeme Gordon offered no proof why the alt-right label is used nor why Patreon believes there will be "loss of life" in the subject's actions in African illegal migrant participation. Using Wikipedia's own definition of alt-right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right, the subject does not fit the description of the said terms. I vote to remote the the opening term "far-right" and "alt-right" in this article's opening sentences. O1001010 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If there's a reason Canadaland isn't reliable, you haven't explained it. Having written for other outlets before founding a new one doesn't make an outlet unreliable... why would it? Being a "known biased lobby" doesn't invalidate the group's actions. Again, why would it? Gordon isn't obligated to explain every aspect of everything he reports on. Very few sources would meet that impossible standard. Attempting to apply your own definition of "alt-right" to her would be WP:OR. We are not concerned with whether or not you, as an editor, think she's alt-right. We're concerned with what reliable sources say about it. Bringing these complaints up suggest a misunderstanding of how this works. Likewise, see WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and we don't go by votes for article content. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I've long been a proponent of self-identification. She does not seriously identify as alt-right, no more than she identifies as being a man. However, the way Wikipedia works, self-identification doesn't matter — WP:RS is what matters. $0.02. — Confession0791 ^talk 07:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sources and categories regarding heritage and religious views

@Grayfell: in special:diff/822202045 you removed the cited tweets from Lauren where she stated:

Jewish people are still recovering from the holocaust, my grandparents escaped the Nazi's in Denmark & lost everything.

agnostic, thanks for the follow! :)

Then in special:diff/822202200 you removed the categories which were supported by the cites you removed.

Your summaries stated:

Find reliable, secondary sources for this

Per previous. Needs reliable sources in article

Lauren Southern is a reliable source regarding her own viewpoints and her own heritage. Any other sources making such statements about her could base the information upon asking her questions like the ones she answered on Twitter.

Your request for secondary sources to confirm this is unnecessary. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states:

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.

When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised

Until we know relying on secondary sources is possible, we must rely on a primary source. Are you saying I did not take extreme caution? I didn't interpret anything for myself, this is used to establish basic info.

Per WP:WPNOTRS:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately.

Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.

I believe my use of them was cautious and avoided original research. I believe I took specific facts from them, as our policy says we may.

While I realize that secondary are preferred, that is only if they exist. If they do not exist, we should use the primary source. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Do not ping me again, for anything. I am not interested in validating your obsessive fixation on conspiracy-theory minutia here or anywhere else. Either someone with more patience can explain it to you, or we can take this to an administrative noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell you need to remove yourself from dictating this Wikipedia page. I do not believe that you are conducting yourself neutrally and professionally on this subject, and Wikipedia is not a place for activism. This article basically changed to its current form by yourself and a clique of people that does not conform to Wikipedia's standards. O1001010 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Your aspersions are irrelevant. Do you have something productive to say? Grayfell (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right 3

I have a problem with the sources cited for claiming Lauren Southern is "associated with the alt-right." They are highly biased outlets (e.g., Vox, Southern Poverty Law Center), but, more importantly, two of the cited articles each only mention Lauren Southern's name once, cursorily, and then merely call her "alt-right" without explanation. Additionally, the MediaMatters.org article called Southern "alt-right," without giving reasons, and then listed a number of controversial things she has said and/or done which are not easily defensible as evidence of her being an alt-right figure (in my opinion, the facts presented seem quite irrelevant to the matter); MediaMatters cited Vice News and even BuzzFeed as two of its sources. There is no discussion of her ideas and whether these align with what is rationally perceived—according to reasonable standards of definition—as alt-right, i.e., as constituting a politics of identity based around concepts of race and White racial supremacy. It is not fair to call an individual alt-right without due corroboration of the claim. It is not appropriate to use the same descriptor for Lauren Southern as one would for, let's say, Richard Spencer, unless the one making the claim gives evidence; this inflates the meaning of the term and results ultimately in misrepresentation and misinformation. If it is to remain in her bio that she is "associated with the alt-right," it ought to be demonstrated with clarity that Southern at least meets even Wikipedia's definition of alt-right, and this is not demonstrated in the bio or in the references. Simply relying on Vox and the SPLC as reliable sources on account of their previously having been categorized as such does not excuse an irresponsible, haphazard article from either of them; in fact, it diminishes their reputation as reliable.

To be clear, I am not opposed to using the term "far-right" to describe her. I believe this can be corroborated based solely on the fact that she spent time at Rebel Media, and is additionally corroborated by the Canadaland article (ref. 33). However, far-right is not synonymous with alt-right; Merriam-Webster, for example, defines far-right very broadly, while being more specific with regard to alt-right.

Gedoughty02 (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Calling sources "highly biased" doesn't make them universally biased, and more importantly, it doesn't make them any less reliable. Your opinion on the facts presented is, to be blunt, irrelevant to the matter. It's not for us, as editors, to attempt to interpret her actions and apply labels we think match those actions. This would be original research. Instead, we interpret sources and attempt to summarize them in a neutral and proportional matter. We do not demand that sources justify their use of every term they use. The goal is to use reliable sources to support a summary of who she is and why she's notable. If Vox, The SPLC, MediaMatters, Vice News, The New York Times, The Poynter Institute, and others connect her to the alt-right, it's reasonable for us to note that connection. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A reliable source is not reliable per se, but in reference to the legitimacy of the facts presented. The sources may very well have reported on things in which Lauren Southern has participated, but calling these things alt-right is a matter of opinion (and indeed, in some of the cases, it is a stretch). Vox, Vice, the SPLC, etc., all have a bent when reporting news. It is undeniable, and it is astounding that those on this talk page have assumed like robots that these sources are reliable full stop. To turn your phrase, these are not "universally" reliable sources; they are reliable in so far as they report with credibility. It is not at all clear that the sources referenced did this. So yes, these are not universally biased outlets; but they were being editorially clumsy in the case of the articles referenced. It is reasonable perhaps for Wikipedia editors to note Lauren Southern's connection to the alt-right, but the honest thing to say would be that a handful of left-wing outlets have associated her with the alt-right (and even then without fair explanation or justification). If the job of editors is to summarize sources, then more sources are needed here. Her bio is currently not a "neutral" presentation of facts. Gedoughty02 (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The opinions or judgments of reliable sources are what matters here, and our own personal opinions have no place at all in Wikipedia articles. Because several reliable sources associate her with the alt-right, then so too will this article. Can you provide links to any reliable sources that refute this claim? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss it. So when you say "several reliable sources," you really mean three. I'll take them one-by-one. First, the Vox article, dealing primarily with the Generation Identity group who tried to stop Near Eastern migrants from crossing the Mediterranean into Europe. Whatever the group's intentions, the Vox article mentions Lauren Southern a grand total of two times, citing her as having been "on board [the boat] the night of their trial run." The article goes no further to explain Southern's role at that event.

Then the VICE News piece: the article does nothing more than read into Southern's quotes; the reader must take VICE News's opinion of Southern on faith. They call her alt-right two times directly and once indirectly. One quote reads: "How Southern went from irksome student to alt-right phenom is closer to fate." It is not explained what views she particularly espouses that qualify as alt-right. Anti-feminism and anti-mass migration are listed as the only two, though not explicitly; and it is not clear how these pertain necessarily to alt-right views. Southern, in fact, explicitly states in the article: "'Yes, I have friends who are people of colour,' she said. One friend is Muslim, but has right-wing views, and often agrees with her, according to Southern. A close friend in university was Nigerian, 'an absolutely badass chick.' And then there's the internet. 'I've got a lot of Asian friends that I talk to in my chat groups, especially,' she said. 'A lot of meme groups. A lot of right-wing meme groups. I’ve got a lot of Asian friends.'" There is never a question put to Southern that explicitly asks how Southern perceives her own political identity in relation to the alt-right, yet there are direct quotations of Southern stating she has friends who are members of minority groups. Yet, for some reason, alt-right is the label that sticks. I encourage you to direct me to the question where Southern self-identifies as alt-right or espouses explicitly white nationalist ideas; in several places online, Southern makes reference to her admiration of what she calls "Western culture," but this is not synonymous with the white race and she has never synonymized the two. Again, I encourage you to show where she has done this.

Now for the SPLC: like Vox, the main focus of this article is not Southern, but an event in which she took part; and also like Vox, the article mentions her only twice. The first time reads thus: "Canadian Lauren Southern, an alt-right pundit who came to notoriety by denying the existence of rape culture and by demonizing minorities, arrived wearing a helmet boasting a 'MAGA' (Make America Great Again) sticker." A reference to another website (not referenced in the Wikipedia bio) is given as evidence by the SPLC for their claim (which is not an article wherein Southern shares her views in a formal interview but where her actions are interpreted by editorial fiat as alt-right, without definition); besides this website, the SPLC gives no further evidence or references for stating that Southern has "demoniz[ed] minorities," and it is not clear what denying the existence of rape culture has to do with a person being alt-right; or, for that matter, what support of Donald Trump has to do with it necessarily, unless the SPLC flippantly equates Trump supporters with the alt-right.

If what is meant by "associated with the alt-right" is that Southern associates herself explicitly and self-professedly with the alt-right, then this phrase is misleading at best, flat-out wrong at worst (in fact, in this YouTube video Southern says these very words: "I am not a white nationalist"). I do think what is actually meant is that a few journalists have pronounced her as alt-right, without a formal interview, without asking her questions specifically pertaining to that topic, but just as a matter of personal opinion.

So I do have a proposed new reference. It is an interview that Lauren Southern did in March 2017 with Dave Rubin on The Rubin Report. To state one way or another whether The Rubin Report is "reliable" is irrelevant, given that the form of the interview was an unedited, extended discussion with Southern herself. It's obviously reliable because it's from the horse's mouth, and not through a journalistic medium which can be believed or disbelieved based on whether one trusts the source. In this interview, Lauren states this: "They've got interesting movements in, like, France and everything right now where they've got the Identitarians talking about, 'France belongs to the French people,' and I find those arguments far more fascinating than the ones in Canada and America arguing for ethnostates that are super utopian and just not gonna happen. I think it's actually a really interesting question to ask, should Denmark remain a majority-Danish people? and if you talk to liberals [and ask], should Japan remain majority-Japanese? and they'll be like, 'Yes, absolutely!' right?" So I think that's a far more interesting argument than the Pepe, bring-whites-back-to-power argument in America." Southern herself explicitly states that she is not moved by alt-right arguments, but perhaps instead by arguments for the preservation of ethnic heritages and their surrounding cultures where they have been established for very long periods of time. If one wanted to be merely provocative, this could be called alt-right. But if Wikipedia is about nuance, then this would not be fair. One person on this talk-page stated that if several reliable sources note Southern's connection to the alt-right, then Wikipedia ought to note that connection. Yet, for some reason, when Southern disconnects herself from the alt-right, this gets not even a reference. Gedoughty02 (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I will assume good faith, but you seem not to understand how Wikipedia works. Reliable secondary sources are preferred, rather than declarations by the subjects themselves. The sources you discuss would be quite sufficient on their own to document that Southern is "associated with the alt-right", as the article currently reads, and Canadaland (presently reference 33) also makes the same observation. Wikipedia simply does not privilege how its subjects describe themselves, regardless of what tou might prefer. Newimpartial (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can assume good faith. And no, I'm not savvy with Wikipedia. You can also be assured that I am flabbergasted at the standards here for "reliable secondary sources." I laid out the actual contents of the articles, and still I'm being told that these are "reliable sources." "Reliable" is quickly losing all meaning as it pertains to this article; all it means with regards to this article is that the references are reliably reductive. "Associated with the alt-right" is misleading; I have explained why. What am I missing, exactly? I simply care about word choice here. What is really meant is not "associated with" but "perceived by many as." You editors can do what you want. But the reality is that people will find out from other places that to associate Lauren Southern with the alt-right proper is reductive and unnecessary, especially when a consensus of opinion has been established only between five news articles with the same hostile bent toward their subject. Gedoughty02 (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because you, personally, don't agree with them doesn't make them hostile, and being hostile doesn't make them incorrect. I've seen plenty of sources that are dismissive and sarcastic, but the ones we're using are tame. But so what if they were hostile? She doesn't have the right to be taken seriously when she intentionally trolls other people (by pretending to change her gender, for example), or when she makes multiple videos spreading white supremacist conspiracy theories. Neutral sources are not obligated to humor that kind of thing, because her arguments are not even worthy of that kind of attention. Sources do not validate badly-disguised racism, and neither does Wikipedia. If this is hostile, so be it.

Per the New York Times, A similar fight occurred in July when Patreon and GoFundMe, two crowdfunding sites, banned several accounts associated with the alt-right. One of them was used by Lauren Southern, a Canadian activist and journalist who made a name for herself with inflammatory stunts like disrupting a refugee rescue mission in the Mediterranean Sea. [1] The source is specifically saying she's "associated with the alt-right". So without dipping into your own boutique definition of "alt-right", what's the problem, here?

Poynter says she's already the most prominent woman on the alt-right.[2] This article was also reprinted in Vanity Fair[3] which is a small but real sign of greater significance. The people who "perceive" her as alt-right are reliable sources, and those are the perceptions we care about. Grayfell (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't foresee getting through to anybody, so I'll drop it. Gedoughty02 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't you see that all these sources are just repeating what has been said before without proving the connection to the alt-right? The rumor that she is alt-right started when Vice, Vox etc. published the articles mentioned above. Then all the other media started using it without question. Now you can find plenty of examples of media calling her that, but no source is provided that would substantiate the claim. Now if this is the way that Wikipedia determines whether a description of a person is correct because it has been mentioned a bunch of times in the news, and none of the news outlets support the claim with facts then this system is flawed.Deadlybanter (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlybanter (talk • contribs) 09:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Calling this a "rumor" tells us that you've already decided the sources are wrong. That doesn't leave much room for discussion, does it? I doubt those were the first outlets to describe her as far-right, but they might've been. If so, that's likely because she's only been active on an international level for a few years at most. If sources only recently noticed her at all, what significance is there in when they started calling her alt-right? If Vox, Vice, etc. hadn't described her that way, someone else would've. Grayfell (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

So if someone calls her alt-right, and then more people repeat it relentlessly, through this amazing logical loophole she BECOMES alt-right. Wow. Just wow.Deadlybanter (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The baseline assumption is that she became alt-right by espousing alt-right views and promoting (other) alt-right personalities. Sources merely document this. If her ideology doesn't match your personal definition of alt-right, well, too bad. If you think these sources are not reliable for some reason (other than that you don't agree with them), then explain that reason. Alternately, find new reliable sources which directly explain why she is really this or isn't really that, and we can go from there. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Grayfell in this thread. What both Gedoughty02 and Deadlybanter may not be aware of is that Wikipedia doesn't require sources to "prove" or substantiate any of their findings. If the source is reliable, i.e. if it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and is not self-published, then we assume that all findings have been reviewed and fact-checked. In the case of news sources, this is typically done by the publication's editorial staff. Newspapers routinely routinely publish information without providing substantiation. If we removed content on this basis then we'd have to strip half the encyclopedia. That's just not how our verifiability policy works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Gender

I think that the atricle should be written in the male form. Since October 2016 Lauren Southern is a man therfore every "she" schould be replaced whith a "he" and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.246.90 (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The use of the she/her pronouns is very problematic. It should be corrected immediately to reflect Lauren's gender identity as male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.196.166 (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right 4

Come on guys, Lauren is just Libertarian. Even the proof given (a "patreon" media) isn't enough serious to classify it as Alt-Right.

Alt-Right guys are mostly pro-white, strong insulting and internet trolls. I don't see any of that on Lauren.

She's a truly believer of free speech, like most Libertarians, so she mostly defend any kind of speech from the left (even antifa) and the right (even alt-rights), but that doesn't make her Alt-Right.

So, change the classification, unless you can provide direct proof where she's supporting alt-right movements.

--Waltercool (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The proof is reliable sources. You are free to research who someone is based on their actions and your opinions, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research. This core policy is consistent with other encyclopedias and tertiary sources. Instead, we summarize reliable sources, and those sources strongly connect her to the far-right and alt-right. If you have a new source, and it come from an outlet with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, please present it here for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be for OR but if the sources are clearly wrong, then they're not trustworthy, no? Vox, etc. and specially the SPLC !! are nowhere near reliable sources when it comes to issues about right-wingers. It's like trusting antifa for a NPOV. Even Ben Shapiro is a Nazi. I'm sure if you dig enough you might find something calling Lauren Southern a Nazi. Fact is that she is not alt-right to any NPOV observer without far-left semiotic lenses, she's not even far-right, it only seems that way if you're on the far-left like all these, hum, "reliable" sources. 197.229.154.158 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Vox and SPLC are in no way, shape, or form like Antifa. These organizations have reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, regardless of your aspersions. Please see our guideline on reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And by the way... How does a South African end up claiming to be an expert on Lauren Southern, Ben Shapiro, and the American political media? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"right-wing" --193.80.37.179 (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "right-wing" "right-wing" "right-wing" "right-wing" "right wing" So its not clear, that she es "alt-right". The intro should be changed --193.80.37.179 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a Googling competition. The Standard source also calls her "far right" in the sub-headline, which reaffirms that she is both. Of the rest, Fox is the only ones that's approximately reliable, and maybe The Washington Times. Maybe. The rest are worse. Far right and alt-right are overlapping subsets of right-wing, so these carefully selected examples prove nothing. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Opposition to Islam in Canada

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

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)

@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)

My mistake. I thought they meant that they wanted to make this change. Spintendo      12:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Report, possibly useful source.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Guessing it was Talk:Gavin McInnes#Canadaland. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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 --193.80.37.179 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

Of course these sources are relevant --Fleritarus (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)