Talk:Lana Lokteff
Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
Women Start‑class | |||||||
|
Oregon Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lana Lokteff article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Video from Lana regarding White Supremecist
Regarding the supremecist statement; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oemFQLKtvx4
Possibly re-open conversation on editing given this. Huttonsoo (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Cherry-picked puffery
Regarding this edit: For the Harper's line, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Cherry-picking the most obsequious and flattering part of an 8-page article is completely inappropriate. The article says a lot of things specifically about her beliefs and positions, and this is a terrible choice for summarizing this source. For the NPR line, what's the point? We should not include wikilinks in quotes, per WP:MOS, and the rest of the information is redundant with the rest of the article. Grayfell (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Edit war on white supremacist vs white nationalist
Vox article mentioned doesn't say that she's a white supremacist, it just calls a bunch of women that without providing any proof for it. The Vox article is also biased because Vox itself is a very much left-wing publication with an agenda.
Proof: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/
Furthermore, she refers to herself as a white nationalist and speaks frequently on white nationalism, not white supremacism.
Examples include:
https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/lana-lokteff-interviews-greg-johnson/
The fact that people like calling her a racist doesn't change the fact that she's a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. Therefore it is only logical that the edit made by SmokerOfCinnamon - which was based on his own assumption - is undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansnarf (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Calling someone a white nationalist doesn't mean they are not a racist and a white supremacist. All white nationalists are racists and white supremacists. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source for all white nationalists being racist and white supremacists? That's just a completely false statement. Hansnarf (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nah, it's common sense. Anyway, it doesn't matter what she describes herself as. What matters is how reliable sources describe her.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Nah, it's common sense." If they are the same why are there distinctions to begin with? Why not merge all the articles together?--RandomUser3510 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- they should indeed be merged together.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- no wonder people say Wikipedia is biased these days. Can't even differentiate between a white nationalist and a white supremacist.
- https://i.imgur.com/VWvtaLU.png -> https://i.imgur.com/pYtnmhZ.png -> https://i.imgur.com/KajSb5e.png THIS is what you guys are doing. Great job. Calling everyone a nazi and racist, which a both slur words. What a fucking joke this site has become. Hansnarf (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Nah, it's common sense." If they are the same why are there distinctions to begin with? Why not merge all the articles together?--RandomUser3510 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This should not call her a "white supremacist". Quoting leftist Socialist rags like Huffpo and Vox. Is Wikipedia also run by communists?? Jtiderencel17 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- They are RS, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Articles with consensus of opinion aren't necessarily indicative of accuracy. The "reliable sources" cited in the article are opinion articles, using opinionated language, without showcasing concrete examples. If a Wikipedia article is describing someone as a "white supremacist," we had better see some clearly supremacist tweets/quotes from Lana. Otherwise, the language wants for an edit ("has been accused of being" rather than "is a").
- From the citations for this claim:
- ADL citation. Only one section of this article mentions Lana. The dedicated paragraph only describes her association with other people and topics that are also supposedly white supremacist: Lana Lokteff is a white supremacist who runs internet media company Red Ice TV ... that celebrate "European identity and culture." Lokteff has interviewed numerous white supremacists on the show. ... In May 2017, Lotkeff appeared in a video segment with Jared Taylor of American Renaissance to discuss "the women of the alt right." No relevant sources, elaboration, or direct examples. This is an accusation by association.
- HuffPo citation. This article off-handedly mentions Lana with the description, "the prominent white supremacist media figure Lana Lokteff..." No relevant sources, elaboration, or direct examples. Accusation by association.
- Bustle citation. This article commits the same infraction as the above: an off-handed comment styled, "Lana Lokteff, a prominent white supremacist figure..." No relevant sources, elaboration, or direct examples. Accusation by association.
- SPLC citation. While this source also includes yet another off-handed nod to Lana as a white supremacist: "Lana Lokteff, whose white supremacist and antisemitic views were not secret and indeed broadcast from her Twitter account (here's what Lokteff was tweeting the month before Sommers' interview was published)." Finally, a promising hyperlink to Lana's white supremacist tweets! And then you see ... nothing damning. No racial slurs. The supposed inferiority of any racial or ethnic groups is not mentioned at all. No relevant sources, elaboration, or direct substantive examples.
- This article is need of substantive citations with direct links to Lana's racist/supremacist tweets, quotes, and video transcripts. // Lunaerys (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Lunaerys: I have moved this to the bottom per WP:BOTTOMPOST. Inserting a comment smack dab in the middle of a discussion from almost a year ago will only cause confusion.
- As for the substance of your comments, this isn't how Wikipedia works. These are not all opinion articles as the term is understood here. We are not interested in compiling editors' original research on her past racist statements. We do not second-guess reliable sources, nor do we demand reliable sources prove every claim just because some editors don't think they are good enough. If they have not elaborated on why she is a white supremacist, this may be because its obvious, or perhaps because she isn't significant enough for these sources to bother going into tedious detail. Likely both, but that's not the point. Sources support it, and so far, no reliable sources refute it. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
[citation needed] for neo-nazi claims
At the bottom of the page it lists Lana as Neo-Nazi. Where is any evidence supporting this? --RandomUser3510 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- A new edit has been made here that re-added Neo-Nazi again. Like before, where is the evidence to support this? --RandomUser3510 (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
one is a subset of the other (or they're the same))
Referring to this edit, why is white supremacist preferred? If no response I am adding it again, especially considering she is part of white nationalism category. --RandomUser3510 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Categories are not a valid reason for edit warring in any case, but especially not here. Category:American white supremacists is a subcategory of Category:American white nationalists. Wikipedia categories should be WP:DIFFUSEd in most cases, including this one. Regardless, categories are not always well-maintained or consistent, and they should reflect content, not the other way around. To say that another way, categories must be based on the content of articles. Articles should not be written to match categories. I kind of thought that would be obvious... Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- You answered the second part of my statement, about being part of the white nationalism category. However you did not answer the first part. Why is "white supremacist" preferred to "white nationalist" when there are reliable sources describing her as both?--RandomUser3510 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is already a discussion on that above, and spreading this pedantic nonsense over multiple talk page sections is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've added multiple sources, one of them being rightwingwatch.com, which is a left-wing organization, saying that she's a white nationalist. I agree, it is pedantic. She describes herself as a white nationalist, multiple sources say that she's a white nationalist. One source puts her in a group of women while claiming that she's a white supremacist - without any evidence to support that. Why are we still talking about this? Hansnarf (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why are we still talking about this? Because you're not listening? --Calton | Talk 15:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- You answered the second part of my statement, about being part of the white nationalism category. However you did not answer the first part. Why is "white supremacist" preferred to "white nationalist" when there are reliable sources describing her as both?--RandomUser3510 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey, maybe you should read the refs you're adding. From the RightWingWatch link you added to prove she's "just" a "white nationalist":
- Faith Goldy, a former Rebel Media reporter who has grown ever closer to the alt-right, joined Red Ice host Lana Lokteff and 4chan YouTube muse Lauren Rose in a video uploaded yesterday to deliver full-throated endorsements of ethno-nationalism, a movement that seeks to promote white supremacy [emphasis mine] in Western nations.
- In the Red Ice video, titled “Dear Cucks, Only One Kind of Nationalism Will Save the West,” Goldy, Rose and Lokteff delivered glowing endorsements of ethno-nationalism and praised the “good trend” among fellow YouTube personalities such as Stefan Molyneux and Rebecca Hargraves (known online as “Blonde in the Belly of the Beast”) of recognizing that “demographics is everything” and for having left behind “civic nationalism” in favor of white supremacist ethno-nationalism [emphasis mine].
- Oops, an own goal, there. --Calton | Talk 15:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- How about you stop being so racist towards whites? Ethno-nationalim is not white supremacy. In fact, Japan is an ethno-nationalistic country. Are they Japanese supremacists? By your definition, all nations that are overwhelmingly of one ethnicity are supremacists. Also, I watched that Red Ice video in full, they didn't call it white supremacist ethno-nationalism at all. Why are you trying to put fakes out there? Stop with your stupid agenda, no one cares how much you're virtue-signalling on Wikipedia. This isn't about morals, it's about the truth. Furthermore, in the RWW article, the part about ethno-nationalism being "white supremacy" is a personal opinion of the author. Hansnarf (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- The sources I looked at confirm "nationalist" but not "supremacist". Hansnarf, you were thus correct, IMO, in relation to article content, but the rest of what you're spouting here is nonsense that will get you blocked. "Racist towards whites"--sheesh. That's dumb. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well I'm sorry for getting angry, but it sounds like Calton is making an exception when it comes to white nationalism as opposed to Japanese nationalism or Chinese nationalism or black nationalism. All of these kinds of nationalism are just fine but when it comes to white or European nationalism, it's the same as white supremacism? Just doesn't make sense and it's not true. Redefining words like that is just not helpful. Anyway, I've made my point. Hansnarf (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't care about anger; I care about false accusations, and I care about people making false accusations. This stuff about other nationalisms supposedly being OK and here we have anti-white racism, well, no, no one said anything like that, and you seem to be repeating talking points from racist white websites. If you had stopped after the first six words it would be fine. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Re [1]. VOX says The women fighting for white male supremacy. The ADL source says "Lana Lokteff is a white supremacist' who runs internet media company". Harper's calls her alt-right. Newsweek says "During her appearance, Lokteff urged white supremacists to become teachers" ("nationalist" appears only in the headline) SPLC says "Lana Lokteff, whose white supremacist and antisemitic views " [2]. Dallas Morning News discusses "a loose movement that embraces white supremacist views and Nazi symbols" and describes Lokteff as a "prominent" woman who is "committed to this movement".
- So the sourcing for "white supremacist" is strong, and let's face it, "white nationalist" is mostly a weaselly term that these people use to describe themselves cuz branding.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Marek, I went with the media sources. That she urges white supremacists to this and that doesn't necessarily mean she is one. I did not see the Dallas Morning News article. You know I'm not opposed to a reassessment (and I think the difference is really a distinction without a difference), but I looked at the sources that followed the term, and those sources favored "nationalist". Rock on, Drmies (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Marek, since you didn't pay attention when I mentioned it before, here is what the right wing spectrum looks like: https://i.imgur.com/VWvtaLU.png What you are doing is deleting the distinction between white nationalism and white supremacism. "White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races." This is the current Wikipedia definition. She never said or wrote that she wants to rule over other races and/or wants to be dominant over other races. Furthermore she calls herself a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. So therefore, it's only logical that the article about her calls her a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. I don't see the point of labeling her as something she's not. Hansnarf (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't care about anger; I care about false accusations, and I care about people making false accusations. This stuff about other nationalisms supposedly being OK and here we have anti-white racism, well, no, no one said anything like that, and you seem to be repeating talking points from racist white websites. If you had stopped after the first six words it would be fine. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well I'm sorry for getting angry, but it sounds like Calton is making an exception when it comes to white nationalism as opposed to Japanese nationalism or Chinese nationalism or black nationalism. All of these kinds of nationalism are just fine but when it comes to white or European nationalism, it's the same as white supremacism? Just doesn't make sense and it's not true. Redefining words like that is just not helpful. Anyway, I've made my point. Hansnarf (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Vox is garbage. There are too many good liberal/left sites for us to waste time reading garbage. My $.02. Regardless, none of these - from the Vox opinion piece to the advocacy sites - meet BLP. 68.65.122.206 (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- If those are your two cents, I'd like a rebate, please. Just saying it's "garbage" is useless and irrelevant. What is an "advocacy site"? ADL? SPLC? Newsweek? Dallas Morning News? This term doesn't mean anything about how reliable these sources are. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Grayfell, the IP is just a troll. (BTW, I agree that the SPLC and ADL are advocacy sites, but that's not necessarily a bad word.) Drmies (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's obvious, especially with the "good liberal/left sites" line. I almost removed this as WP:NOTFORUM, but the "advocacy" thing comes up so often in these discussions that it seemed worth responding to.
- This "white nationalist" vs. "white supremacist" thing has gone on long enough that there's nothing new to be said. If any article says someone's a "white supremacist", a steady trickle of IPs will keep changing it to "white nationalist". If it says white nationalist, they'll instead change it to "white advocate" or something equally terrible. It's just a euphemism treadmill. This isn't an accident. White supremacists know about these word-games, and have described it as a strategy to normalize the underlying ideology. I think Jared Taylor wrote about this in the 90s, but he's far from the only one. Reliable sources consistently use the 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' interchangeably. They mean essentially the same thing, and everybody knows it. Trying to count the number of sources which say one term over the other is missing the big picture, but I don't know the alternative. Right now I'm cynical that Wikipedia has the ability address this. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Grayfell, the IP is just a troll. (BTW, I agree that the SPLC and ADL are advocacy sites, but that's not necessarily a bad word.) Drmies (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic chatter. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Someone please protect this page. Thank you. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Please leave your personal beliefs at the door
User:WikiVolunteerBen indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet, so no point in continuing. --Calton 01:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia is an unbiased and fair information source. Be respectful to others who use it and do not vandalise articles to push your own agenda. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.213.134 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC) I'm going by sources, which have her as both a white nationalist and a white supremacist. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people will also agree that she is both. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Sources calling Lana Lokteff a white supremacist or both a white supremacist and a white nationalist:
Wikipedia defines alt right as a hate group, I'm not sure how being pro-white equates to that. White supremecy dictates that white people are superior to all other races; a viewpoint inconsistent with Lana's ethno-nationalist stance; that all races have a right to their own culture and homeland. Linking biased news articles does not carry the weight enough to warrant the obvious defamation language demonstrated on this page. Please for the sake of keeping wikipedia neutral leave slurs out of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.213.134 (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
It's pretty much confirmed that she is both. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
If you're saying that because she's moderately popular, she can't be a white surpemacist, then you are trying to inject WP:OR into the article. If you have a reliable source which says she's not a white supremacist because otherwise she would've been banned from youtube (or for any other reason) let's see it. Among those reliable sources used in the article, I have not seen any which dispute this label, even if not all of them directly apply it to her. Also, I don't think you actually know what a conflict of interest is, making this a comical waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Since Lokteff is not a reliable source for statements of fact (not even close) she is not a reliable source for the definition of white supremacy. She seems even less knowledgable about the term's other people are using to describe her than she is about history, which is almost impressive. Since her nonsense about not wanting to rule over others is rightly ignored by reliable sources, and elsewhere is seen as a misdirection which only the credulous or gullible accept, this doesn't belong in the very beginning of this article. Don't agree with me? Okay, fine, find reliable sources discussing her preference. This means third-party sourceswith a reputationfor fact checking and accuracy. This reputation is established through outside means, not Wikipedia editor's opinions. Reputable peer-reviewed academic publications, journalists with editorial oversight and a history of retractions and corrections, perhaps some industry awards would help... these are signs of reliability. That said, I do think her rejection of the term could be added, perhaps even to the lede, but the lede should not be hamfistedly tortured into being an extension of her own PR. This needs to be proportional to how it's covered by reliable sources. Something like "Lokteff has denied being a white supremacist" at the end of the paragraph would be the absolute most, and only out of respect for WP:BLP. Grayfell (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Source reliability, as with almost everything else on Wikipedia, is based on WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia was started in 2001, so this includes the previous 17 years of consensus which forms our reliable source guidelines. This means that even if you and I agreed on something, that doesn't override what the rest of the community has agreed upon in the past. If you think neo-Nazi outlets like dprogram.net and nordfront.se are reliable sources, you do not understand what "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" signifies. You could, if you really wanted to, propose those sources to WP:RSN, but I think there's a real chance you would be blocked for wasting time and trying to insert neo-Nazi propaganda into Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a "mainstream" bias, in that we represent ideas in proportion to their coverage in reputable sources. "Reputable" means a reputation among experts. Expertise is determined by the mainstream, for better or worse. This is an encyclopedia, and we do not legitimize WP:FRINGE ideas, such as scientific racism, white nationalism, or Holocaust denial. Even if you believe these ideas are correct, they are still not recognized by real-life experts as legitimate.
As for the line about denying being a white supremacist: it isn't really that clear. She mostly mocks the idea that "white supremacy" even means anything at all. The video is pedantic, evasive, and sarcastic, but says almost nothing of substance, and implies things which are false or irrelevant. She demonstrates that she doesn't understand what the term means and doesn't understand why it's applied to her. So what's there to say about this? As has already been said, a reliable source would be extremely helpful. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Article talk pages are for disusing the article (see wp:talk), so unless this article is about one of our eds what they say, do or think is irrelevant. As to the subject being a white supremacist, simple question can someone provide me with sources that say she is?Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC) By the same token can someone provide the quote where she says "I am not", not just asked "am I "?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Sources for "white supremacist"
- Anti-Defamation League https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/from-alt-right-to-alt-lite-naming-the-hate "Lana Lokteff is a white supremacist"
- Huffington Post https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-public-school-teacher-white-nationalist-podcast_us_5a99ae32e4b089ec353a1fba "the prominent white supremacist media figure Lana Lokteff"
- Bustle (magazine) https://www.bustle.com/p/teacher-dayanna-volitich-was-outed-as-a-white-nationalist-this-is-how-she-brushed-it-off-8403039 "Lana Lokteff, a prominent white supremacist figure"
- Southern Poverty Law Center https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/08/christina-hoff-sommers-cant-take-single-line-criticism "Lana Lokteff, whose white supremacist and antisemitic views were not secret and indeed broadcast from her Twitter account"
- Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/florida-teacher-accused-hosting-far-right-podcast-encouraging-white-829912 "Lokteff also urged other white supremacists to become teachers in order to influence children."
- Vox (website) https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/9/18/16323686/women-alt-right-power-subservience-paradox-klan Title: "The women fighting for white male supremacy". Lokteff is the focus of the article.
That said, I support including her denial, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oemFQLKtvx4, even if it's only a strong implicit denial; after all the last 2 here are also only strong implicit accusations. It's true she does not explicitly say "I am not", but she clearly rejects the title in general, so we can write that. --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- OK I can go with this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Done --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Youtube is not a source, and there is no independent, secondary source showing that she is not a white supremacist. I removed the reference. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't. She is entitled to dispute a rather derogatory claim about her own opinions, per WP:ABOUTSELF, which is part of WP:BLP, and rather important. --GRuban (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- It is a source for her claims, as long as it is her youtube feed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree it is policy but WP:Aboutself should change. Its confusing ,escpecially to new users and it may lead to a slippery slope. I don't blame myself for tripping up over it and I am sure there some regulars who would agree with my change. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- OK I can go with this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
denied the Holocaust?
OK, I got here from the recent ANI and have no wish to add to your difficulties, but the wording 'denied the Holocaust' isn't quite born out by the sources. Rolling Stone certainly implies that she seeks to minimalise the Holocaust and Haaretz says "questions the Holocaust". I realise that minimalising is ordinarily included as a form of 'denial', but suggest changing to "questions the Holocaust", leaving the link to denial and leaving the quote I recently added to the cite:"“For me,” says Lokteff, … It’s like, ‘This many Jews didn’t die, alright?'”. The quote is included in both RStone and Haaretz. She appears to be a minimiser with denialist leanings (gas chambers were mainly for delousing), rather than an outright denier. Being accurate here seems to be more informative - whatever we think of this kind of evasion. Pincrete (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- If sources don't unambiguously describe her as a holocaust denialist or holocaust minimalist, then I agree that a quote without editorial judgment would be better. —PaleoNeonate – 19:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Pincrete: Our article on the subject includes claims "that the actual number of Jews killed was significantly lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million" as a form of Holocaust denial. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ian.thomson, I appreciate that trivialising or minimalising is itself a form of denial, that's why I suggested leaving the present link. However using Haaretz's own term ('questions), not only more accurately reflects the source, it also more accurately represents the kind of denier she is. To me accurately reflecting her views (which I'm sure many of us feel are simply a 'word game' on her part: "not that many dead, but I won't say how many, nor how I magically know existing estimates are wrong") is more informative than adding the 'label'.Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't think her watchers are necessarily savvy enough to catch that kind of subtly, and I'm not sure why it would matter. "Questioning" is a euphemism that deniers themselves embrace, much like "revisionist". This type of "questioning" is the primary form that Holocaust denial takes. People who deny that any Jews died in WWII are about as rare as people who think the WTC was taken down by holograms. There are people who believe these things, but they are the far-fringe of the fringe, and we have to be very careful not to legitimize a fringe theory by contrasting it with something even more extreme. Since she's not an expert on anything, as far as I know, the only reason to mention her opinion is because reliable sources have mentioned it. Sources are clearly not mentioning this because she has any insight into the Holocaust, they are mentioning this because she's repeating conspiracy theories and debunked pseudoscience. The context of these sources includes the Holocaust deniers she invites onto her show, and who she supports, legitimizes, and agrees with. Grayfell (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I would still rather we do not say it explicitly, and say she questions it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't think her watchers are necessarily savvy enough to catch that kind of subtly, and I'm not sure why it would matter. "Questioning" is a euphemism that deniers themselves embrace, much like "revisionist". This type of "questioning" is the primary form that Holocaust denial takes. People who deny that any Jews died in WWII are about as rare as people who think the WTC was taken down by holograms. There are people who believe these things, but they are the far-fringe of the fringe, and we have to be very careful not to legitimize a fringe theory by contrasting it with something even more extreme. Since she's not an expert on anything, as far as I know, the only reason to mention her opinion is because reliable sources have mentioned it. Sources are clearly not mentioning this because she has any insight into the Holocaust, they are mentioning this because she's repeating conspiracy theories and debunked pseudoscience. The context of these sources includes the Holocaust deniers she invites onto her show, and who she supports, legitimizes, and agrees with. Grayfell (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Grayfell, I agree with everything you say - except "I'm not sure why it would matter". I think it does matter exactly what she says/believes, partly because it's what the sources actually say, but mainly because it's more informative. IMO are her beliefs trivialising/minimalising/deflecting the Holocaust? Of course they are. Are these the standard tricks of slightly more 'savvy' deniers - probably. Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- If we preserve the wikilink, we're agreeing that this is the underlying concept. There are legitimate academic questions about the Holocaust. There is no reason to link to any of those questions, is there? By presenting a non-neutral position in euphemistic language, we risk misleading readers. This would also be an WP:EGG, since this isn't about to any of those legitimate questions which also have articles (Holocaust studies, Responsibility for the Holocaust, Is the Holocaust Unique?, etc.).
- I guess I wasn't very clear when I said I'm not sure why it would matter. It matters to the extent that it's covered by reliable sources. When I look at these reliable sources, they are linking her to Holocaust denial. We should summarize, and summaries do not have to use the exact same words as sources. This is especially important when the source's words are less clear taken out of context. We can assess what multiple sources are saying and put it in simpler language. That's really what we should be doing as much as possible, because that's part of the point of an encyclopedia, right?
- So:
"Red Ice is a white supremacist media company that produces podcasts and videos trading heavily in Holocaust denial, ethno-nationalism and white genocide."
CNN"Lana Lokteff, the notorious Holocaust-denying host at Red Ice..."
SPLC- The same Rolling Stone article says
"Revisionist history is a big part of her show, and she speaks warmly of one of her guests, Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review"
[3] - This podcast summary makes it painfully clear, if a primary source helps.
- Holocaust denial has been a central, defining feature of this white nationalist's public identity. There is no useful factual difference between "questioning" and "denying" in this context, so we should go with the clearer, less loaded term. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Grayfell, I agree with everything you say - except "I'm not sure why it would matter". I think it does matter exactly what she says/believes, partly because it's what the sources actually say, but mainly because it's more informative. IMO are her beliefs trivialising/minimalising/deflecting the Holocaust? Of course they are. Are these the standard tricks of slightly more 'savvy' deniers - probably. Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Sock
For archives and editors: WikiVolunteerBen turned out to be a WP:SOCK of Hansnarf, although there were also other reasons for their recent block. —PaleoNeonate – 18:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
They may be back, I think we need page protection.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Pretty unbalanced
Sarah Jeong's article deals with this much better. I know there aren't as many sources to cite for Lana in comparison to Sarah Jeoung, but at least over there, a balance exists. Lana denies being a white supremacist. I think the article would be better if it included phrases similar to
- " Liberal media characterize her as being white supremacist" or
- " Lana has received a strongly negative reaction in liberal media, which characterize her views as being white supremacist"
If Sarah Jeong gets the benefit of having both sides represented then Lana should too. RandomUser3510 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's textbook false balance, as well as being WP:OR. Which reliable sources say "liberal media" characterize her as such-and-such? What sources use the phrase "strongly negative"? It's also unfortunate that you would have us present "negative" before "white supremacist". It is not that they chose to characterize her as negative first, and then chose white supremacist as a way to convey their disgust. They characterize her as a white supremacist because of the things she has repeatedly said, and because of the other white supremacists she has aligned herself with. This is "strongly negative" as a natural and obviously appropriate consequence of her own actions, not some arbitrary opinion plucked from the void. Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- The "strongly negative" phrase isn't anything particularly specific just something of a template for a future edit. I understand that WP:OR exists but the article is literally the opposite of what she identifies as, and this isn't even mentioned except for one sentence in the References section. I know lots of liberal sources are used and no original research but mentioning her views in the article is pretty fair. She's in a pretty unfair situation, where most of the media sources that write about her claim she is something she disavows. Edit: This is referring to the white supremacist claim in the leading sentence. RandomUser3510 (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- White nationalism is not "literally the opposite" of white supremacy unless one is using a contrived definition of white supremacy. Lokteff's video about being a white supremacist is extremely vague and internally inconsistent. She uses shifting definitions and selective interpretation to "deny" accusations that nobody seems to actually be making. As an encyclopedia, we should aggressively avoid these kinds of word games and use direct language when possible. Reliable sources have evaluated her statements and behaviors and have come to the conclusion that she is a white supremacist. Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Jeong's article and Lokteff's article have been treated exactly the same way: they reflect the content of the reliable sources. If there are other reliable sources arguing against Lokteff being a white supremacist (and please note that her own claims do not count as reliable sources), then we can consider changing the content of the article - but until that happens, there's no reason to make a change. Lokteff's denial of the label is included in the article. However, even if there are reliable sources disputing the label, the proposed wording strikes as being an inferred circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacy. Specifying "liberal media" creates the impression that any characterisation of Lokteff as a white supremacist stems from a liberal bias, not from rational argument. This doesn't work because, to quote the wiki article I linked,
a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false
. It also strays into OR/SYNTH territory. - The bottom line is this: what do the reliable sources say? If they say white supremacist, we say white supremacist. Until and unless there are reliable sources disputing that, the article should stay as it is. Marianna251TALK 22:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Using Wikipedia's definition of white supremacy:
- "White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races, and that therefore, white people should be dominant over other races."
- Not using Lokteff's definitions but that above. Here are some quotes:
- 1:33 "Do I want to lord over other races and subjugate them as my slave so they can take care of my family and run my errands? ...In the reality we want the complete opposite."
- 2:09 "It doesn't mean that I want to exterminate and enslave other races"
- This is the opposite I was referring to. Wikipedia's definition of white supremacy doesn't match her statements here. Also she doesn't say anything about white people being superior in the same video. On one hand we have lots of liberal sources claiming one thing, but on the other hand her own statements say the opposite. Yet only the sources are being mentioned in the article. WP:ABOUTSELF allows the video to be a source. Maybe a good phrasing for a better lead to address this would be:
- "Lana Jennifer Lokteff (born March 14, 1979) is an American white nationalist that has been described as a white supremacist[3]. Lokteff has disputed the "white supremacist" label"[4] <- [her video as reference]. Being a YouTube personality, she is part of the alt-right movement."
- That looks like a good lead to me. What do others think?--RandomUser3510 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I stopped reading the moment you reached for the "Wikipedia definition" argument. For the umpteenth time:
- 1) WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. We do NOT self-source. In that way lies recursive madness
- 2) WP:OR means we do NOT concoct arguments whereby if source A says "X" and source B says "Y", therefore X + Y = "Z", not "Q".
- 3) As per the above, we go by what reliable sources say DIRECTLY about the subject (Lokteff), not whatever motivated reasoning has led you to. In other words, we need a source that says "Q" directly about the subject. Instead, we've got sources that say "Z". Don't like it? You can try to get the bedrock policy changed, but that's not happening. --Calton | Talk 23:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Yup. The video where she discusses this is not actually clear enough to be useful for her own rebuttal. It's so evasive and sloppy that it's not a clear explanation of who she is or how she describes herself. This article doesn't say that anyone has accused her of wanting to literal enslave people, and it's not even remotely clear what the "opposite" of that would mean. As I've said (multiple times) she has concocted a boutique definition of white supremacy, interpreted it in the narrowest sense possible, and then sort of claimed the definition doesn't apply to white people in her "scene". This is a cheap rhetorical trick in a video full of nothing. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Calton OK use a different definition if you wish. For #2, she is saying she is "Z" in your example. There's no third party here; it's by Lokteff. Just to play devil's advocate I can sort of see how you would apply WP:PRIMARY here. Lokteff just doesn't have many sources about her, and the ones that do (outside of her video) happen to describe her as white supremacist. I think a key difference here with the Sarah Jeong article is that there was an abundance of sources to choose from with Jeong's case.
- @Grayfell If you take the definitions of white supremacy they typically include domination over others. This can include enslavement or subjugation, etc.
- I am only suggesting that a future edit include that Lokteff rejects the label "white supremacist"/ her interpretation of it. I realize the video goes all over the place but it does at times contain pretty specific quotes like what I listed. I don't see why she would make the video if she didn't have those beliefs.RandomUser3510 (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think the "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" part of the verifiability policy applies here. It says one of the red flags for such content is
challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest
. The reliable sources we have at the moment say Lokteff is a white supremacist. The only source we've got to counter that is Lokteff herself, i.e. a self-published source with a conflict of interest. Therefore, Lokteff's view is a challenged claim with only a bad source to support it, and thus should be treated with extra caution, not form the basis of an argument to change her article. Her video is practically the opposite of a reliable source. - Also, in case an analogy will help: Harold Shipman denied he murdered anybody, but he was proven to have killed at least 218 people, which is the highest number of confirmed victims attributed to any serial killer in the world. All the reliable sources say things like "Serial killer Shipman"/"Shipman, a British serial killer"/etc. There is no point playing around with words to say something like "Harold Shipman was a British doctor who has been described as a serial killer" just because he claimed he never killed anybody. The sources flatly say he was a serial killer, so we say he was a serial killer. The sources for Lokteff flatly say she is a white supremacist, so we say she is a white supremacist. The comparative scarcity of sources is irrelevant. Marianna251TALK 20:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK use a different definition if you wish.
- It doesn't matter what damned definition you use to concoct your self-serving WP:OR argument, Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources actually say about the subject, not by what you or her wish Wikipedia would say. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Marianna251 You bring up good points. I think my issue when starting this section was how it compared to Sarah Jeong's article, but Lokteff's situation is different through its lack of sources. I still think there is room to mention the video somehow in the article (Harold Shipman's article mentions his denials for example), but that can be for another day. Helped --RandomUser3510 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm glad that helped. For the record, though, Lokteff's rejection of the label is included in the article, albeit as a footnote. Marianna251TALK 08:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- She isnt a white supremasict. Nt being pro-diversity doesn't = white supremasict. This is a clear violation if NPOV. Should be changed to some consider her a white supremasict.--2601:3C5:8200:B79:BDA3:F50F:E9BA:13EA (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have no issue with this idea, but it can equally be argued do any RS contest the claim?09:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- She isnt a white supremasict. Nt being pro-diversity doesn't = white supremasict. This is a clear violation if NPOV. Should be changed to some consider her a white supremasict.--2601:3C5:8200:B79:BDA3:F50F:E9BA:13EA (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm glad that helped. For the record, though, Lokteff's rejection of the label is included in the article, albeit as a footnote. Marianna251TALK 08:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Marianna251 You bring up good points. I think my issue when starting this section was how it compared to Sarah Jeong's article, but Lokteff's situation is different through its lack of sources. I still think there is room to mention the video somehow in the article (Harold Shipman's article mentions his denials for example), but that can be for another day. Helped --RandomUser3510 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think the "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" part of the verifiability policy applies here. It says one of the red flags for such content is
A compromise about the "White Supremacist" description
I propose an intro that looks something like this: "Lana Jennifer Lokteff (born March 14, 1979) is an American white nationalist YouTube personality who is part of the alt-right movement. She is the host of Radio 3Fourteen. She has been described by the SPLC and ADL as a white supremacist although she denies this, stating "Do I want to lord over other races and subjugate them as my slave so they can take care of my family and run my errands? ...In the reality we want the complete opposite", another editer has a link to the video where she says that.
There have been cases of reliable sources slandering people. The SPLC was sued for describing Maajid Nawaz, who is Muslim himself, as an "anti-Muslim extremist". That's a pretty gross misunderstanding on their part. Certain CNN guests have a record of comparing Trump to the Nazis and other dictators, quite indiscriminately. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-guest-trump-hitler-stalin-mao-the-five
I think when the media describes someone as having "white supremacist" beliefs, and that person denies it, we should give a voice to both the accused and the accuser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogatyr (talk • contribs) 05:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Her video on the topic has already been discussed several times on this talk page, but has not, as far as I know been given credibility by any reliable sources. At this point, this is not optional. It is not clear what she is actually saying in this video, since she clearly doesn't want "the complete opposite" of this in any meaningful sense. We cannot rely on editors to summarize this for us, nor to pick their personal favorite quotes to spruce-up the lede. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt this video appears to be a rhetorical trick. She has proposed a contorted and simplistic definition of the term "white supremacist" and has implied that this faulty definition doesn't apply to her "scene". So she either doesn't know what white supremacy means when people use it to discuss her ideology, or she does know and doesn't like that the term is unflattering. Neither of these are Wikipedia's problem, since we are not a platform for public relations.
- Since we are not a platform for self-promotion, and the SPLC is still far, far more reliable than she herself is, this would be disproportionately favoring her own fringe views over the views of reliable sources. Unrelated sources about other people discussing other topics is original research, and is inappropriate. If you have reliable sources about Lokteff, present them. If you do not, this proposal of "compromise" is false equivalence.
- Your comment about slander could be perceived as a veiled legal threat. Be aware this is not permitted, per Wikipedia:No legal threats, so you should make your intentions crystal clear. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- I still think she had denied it, may though change it to " although she denies this based upon her definition of white supremacy".Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, stating "her own definition" preserves NPOV. Also, Grayfell, how is that a legal threat? I'm not just imagining that the SPLC committed slander. Did you not read the links I posted?
- I still think she had denied it, may though change it to " although she denies this based upon her definition of white supremacy".Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)