Jump to content

Talk:Lauren Southern

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdgarAllanFrost (talk | contribs) at 15:40, 1 January 2021 (→RfC: Inclusion of alt-right, white nationalist, and Great Replacement details in lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

    relevant to mention that mass shooters were inspired by her rhetoric and those around her https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/03/15/new-zealand-terrorist-manifesto-influenced-far-right-online-ecosystem-hatewatch-finds https://thinkprogress.org/alleged-new-zealand-shooter-donated-far-right-group-steve-king-tucker-carlson-8fe73243ea88/ 2001:1970:5E26:F400:14A3:4C86:2012:567B (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Alt Right / White Nationalist

    Continued discussion of the alt-right and white nationalist descriptors should happen at the RfC below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello, Lauren Southern here to correct this article myself.

    I think I'd know best what my politics are, not websites or news sources which dislikes me immensely.

    "She has been described as alt-right and a white nationalist.[5][6]"

    I am neither a white nationalist nor alt-right.

    Critics of Joe Biden, including main stream sources have called him a sexual predator, yet you would never find this in his introductory paragraph on Wikipedia - because these are allegations from critics.

    If Wikipedia and the editors here want to even show a modicum of even handedness they would edit this page to remove "white nationalist" and "alt right" from the opening paragraph and if included anywhere show that I have denied both allegations and that these are from critics.

    I have linked to this talk page on my twitter to ensure you know this is in fact my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauren Cherie Southern (talk • contribs) 04:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Former Democratic Senator Al Franken's lede mentions his sexual misconduct allegations. Hope this helps :) 130.180.88.101 (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One can certainly point out that proponents for the "Great Replacement conspiracy" are usually alt-right and/or white nationalists. As the old duck test goes. "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." or in other words. "If they act like a white nationalist, talks like a white nationalist, hangs out with white nationalists. Then they are likely a white nationalist." 2601:600:997F:4370:35B5:204A:2319:32B7 (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We state what reliable sources report, not what you claim. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 02:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of concision and readability, there probably shouldn't be separate conversations in multiple talk page sections to address what is essentially the same issue (content dispute over multiple claims in the article raised by one user); I'd suggest that general comments be made under the most recent section. jp×g 07:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out the RfC for more on this thrilling saga. jp×g 08:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The Great Replacement Conspiracy

    Continued discussion of the alt-right and white nationalist descriptors should happen at the RfC below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello Lauren Southern here again. My last account Lauren Cherie Southern was blocked for... impersonating myself? I've confirmed this is me on my twitter again @lauren_southern. As wikipedia sent me a message suggesting I make another account.

    I'd like to address one of the opening statements of the page which says.

    "Southern is known for her promotion of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. A YouTube video of the same name she released in July 2017[8] has more than 680,000 views[9] and is credited with helping to popularize the white supremacist conspiracy theory.[10]"

    It is ludicrous to suggest this is what I'm "known for". It's one video I made years ago which doesn't even exist on my Youtube page anymore, which was based off seeing outlets like "The Guardian" make articles called "The Last Days of a White World" in which they suggested white people are ever more becoming a minority. I reject white supremacy in all its forms, the conversation I had in that youtube video was one about demographic change which is a question of mathematics and numbers - it was not one of ideology. As I mentioned before many mainstream outlets have discussed the subject as well being far more blatant, why are "The Guardian" not attributed to popularizing the conspiracy of White decline despite their articles suggesting it is occurring? https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world

    To get back to the point - I am known for my documentary Farmlands on South Africa which got 2.5 million views. I am known for my documentary Borderless which got over a million views as well. Significantly more attention than this "Great Replacement" video. Why are these two documentaries not included in the introduction despite receiving significantly more attention?

    The reason they are not included and the Great Replacement is is because the editors deliberately want my page to portray me badly. To put this in the opening paragraph and not in perhaps "controversies" is absurd.

    It would be akin to opening Kamala Harris page by saying "she is known for imprisoning black men for minor drug charges."

    Did she help imprison black men for minor drug charges? Yes. Is this what she's primarily known for? No.

    Did I make a video called the Great Replacement? Yes. Is it what I'm primarily known for and did it have anything to do with me wanting to support "white supremacy" - absolutely not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozza77 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right, the introduction should really be just the first paragraph. I'll move the rest of the content lower down the page. AWildAppeared (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    idk man that video is how *I* know you, so i think it checks out 2600:1700:4EE0:9C0:893D:A34:4056:14E6 (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Lauren.
    While I agree that you are not necessarily "known for" your promotion of the great replacement theory, your association with the theory is significant enough that you have been mentioned by name on its Wikipedia page since at least 16 March, 2019. In fact, your support for the theory is discussed in one of the page's sources as early as 23 September, 2018, 12 days after the article's creation. Given the speed with which your name appeared on the article for the great replacement, I think it is entirely fair that it should be mentioned here; even though the theory may not be as important to your career as your other works, it is an important detail because of the influence you have had in popularizing it. I concur that the wording should be changed somewhat, perhaps mentioning the content of your other works in addition to your promotion of the great replacement conspiracy theory. Informationdude420 (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It should probably be noted that screenshots of this conversation are trending on Twitter, so we should be prepared for lots of posts that make you go "posts". And for the sake of concision and readability, there probably shouldn't be separate conversations in multiple talk page sections to address what is essentially the same issue (content dispute over multiple claims in the article raised by one user); I'd suggest that general comments be made under the most recent section. jp×g 07:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out the RfC for more on this thrilling saga. jp×g 08:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Alt Right / White Nationalist 2

    Continued discussion of the alt-right and white nationalist descriptors should happen at the RfC below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello, Lauren Southern again here to correct this article myself. My last account was removed for self impersonation, so I'm posting this again.

    I think I'd know best what my politics are, not websites or news sources which dislikes me immensely.

    "She has been described as alt-right and a white nationalist.[5][6]"

    I am neither a white nationalist nor alt-right.

    Critics of Joe Biden, including main stream sources have called him a sexual predator, yet you would never find this in his introductory paragraph on Wikipedia - because these are allegations from critics.

    If Wikipedia and the editors here want to even show a modicum of even handedness they would edit this page to remove "white nationalist" and "alt right" from the opening paragraph and if included anywhere else in the article such as "criticisms" or something show that I have vehemently denied both allegations.

    I have linked to this talk page on my twitter to ensure you know this is in fact my account. @lauren_southern — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozza77 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Lauren,
    I've been following you long enough to remember when you made the Great Replacement Video. I also remember how it inspired a mass shooting. On top of this, I remember when you and Faith Goldy insinuated that the Quebec Mosque Attack was really perpetrated by a Muslim. I remember when you went around Paris, and filmed the streets complaining that there were too many brown people.
    Stop gaslighting the public into believing you're just an average conservative; if you were, you wouldn't be nearly as infamous and you know it. You got your fame through shock value, not for being a normal person with conservative values. You got famous for hanging out with White Supremacists and trying to physically stop boats with migrants reaching Europe (even though, it is not a crime to claim asylum).
    As for your documentaries, I cannot speak to them. But I can say that those millions of views you boast came from an audience that loved your white nationalist talking points.
    Do I believe people can change? Absolutely. Do I believe you're an evil nazi? No. But don't act surprised that, after making your bed, you're asked to sleep in it. Don't act surprised that when you hang out with dogs, you get fleas.
    I wish you the best, and I genuinely hope you find enough inner peace that you don't have to go on Wikipedia to fight random internet sleuths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marystuarts (talk • contribs) 16:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Marystuarts,
    My video did not inspire a mass shooting. There is absolutely no proof that the horrific shooter ever watched my video. I happened to quote the same French philosopher in the video, and find the attack horrific and all terrorism disgusting. Having discussed the same theory as someone does not make one responsible for an attack, environmentalists were not responsible, pewdiepie was not responsible. None of these people are, and it's extremely disingenuous of people who seem to understand the concept of not all Muslims to suggest that sharing the same conversation or ideas as an individual makes you responsible for all their actions. Not all muslims are responsible for 9/11 despite the fact that they discuss the same faith and speak the same words as many horrific radicals. If you can understand that concept you can understand this, I have never called for violence.
    Re: Quebec shooting. I was sharing information that I found on message boards, and posted that it was simply a theory. I deleted the tweet literally within minutes because I decided, rightly so, that I should wait for all the information. If you want to make a judgement about my entire personality because of a mistweet which I deleted within minutes when I was 20, I find that rather absurd.
    My Paris video was entirely based on showing just how much immigration had occurred in such a short time in certain suburbs. I made it clear the issue was lack of assimilation due to immigration at rates that were too great. We know there is a problem with lack of assimilation in Paris and mass migration, it's something the president Macron who is not on the right has complained about himself saying the country has far too much immigration and is not capable of hosting everyone. I know this first hand having spoken to migrants under bridges in Paris who regretted coming to the nation because there was nothing there for them, no support, no jobs etc. as their systems were overburdened. The area I filmed was not far from these bridges actually.
    I can assure you "millions who watch love your white nationalist views" is a very silly statement, as many on the far fringes of the right detested Borderless because it humanized migrants. Assuming every single person who watched and enjoyed my documentary is a white nationalist - despite not having watched them yourself is more indicative of your bias far more than my own.
    No I'm not a nazi, I'm glad you can at least admit as much. And I'm perfectly happy with where I'm at. I'd just appreciate it if wikipedia had a modicum of even handedness in editing pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauren Cherie Southern (talk • contribs) 19:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    LMAO, so after years of being BFFs with white supremacists, working with white supremacists groups and being the mascot of white supremacy on the internet, Lauren Southern suddenly claims that she is not that. Hilarious. But thats what you get. She made the cake, she should eat it. Phoenix (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarkoPhoenix: Regardless of your opinions on Southern, let's try to keep it civil. Comments like this are not helpful to anyone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It should probably be noted that screenshots of this conversation are trending on Twitter, so we should be prepared for lots of posts that make you go "posts". And at any rate, if this turns into a whole-ass argument, and especially if there are going to be a bunch of randos showing up here to have opinions, we might as well have an RfC. The question of whether to include controversial political statements in ledes is by no means limited to this article. jp×g 03:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out the RfC for more on this thrilling saga. jp×g 08:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lozza77 given standard block until they can prove who they are

    The blocking template says "If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username.

    If you choose to keep your current username, please send an email to info-enwikimedia.org including your real name and your Wikipedia username to receive instructions from our volunteer response team about account verification. Please do not send documentation without being requested to do so."

    That seems simple enough. It's probably her but in these times it might not be. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that User:Lauren Cherie Southern has been unblocked

    Which is fine, she should only have one account and that one clearly identifies her. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added the {{verified account}} template to her userpage, as she has confirmed that account belongs to her via OTRS and on Twitter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Centrist Enlightenment

    Continued discussion of the alt-right and white nationalist descriptors should happen at the RfC below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    In June of 2020, Southern released a video announcing her return to public life after becoming a new mum[1]. In her video, she said she withdrew from the public eye temporarily upon finding out about her pregnancy. She later elaborated that her hiatus was in fact part of a continual effort she inaugurated in 2018 to "work" on her heart and empathy; something she felt she had lost through self-preservation mechanisms in politics as she explicitly stated in her interview with Mikhaila Peterson. In her interview, named "The Art of The Public Hiatus" she admitted she "struggled" to look at herself as a human being instead of a public figure and had to go through what she called an "ego death". [2]

    While doing so, she said she "realigned" her beliefs — pulling herself away from her previous hard line stances, [3] and that it was actually the partisan nature of political debates on mainstream and social media that prompted her to make a comeback.

    She later released a satirical-style video in August titled “Hello My Fellow Enlightened Centrists” clarifying that she had realigned her views to the center-right for purposes of her upcoming projects and was in no way a moderate.[4]

    LMAO hilarious that she thinks anyone believes herPhoenix (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out the RfC for more on this thrilling saga. jp×g 08:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YhyNqXWqiU
    2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG9Ughixo4o
    3. ^ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/alt-right-activist-lauren-southern-appears-after-a-year-offline-saying-shes-changed/5CELKVFDPYHPKGDNY4UUIGT66Q/
    4. ^ https://www.bitchute.com/video/zSqTAOCKP44/
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Identified as "Altright" on a twitter post

    Continued discussion of the alt-right and white nationalist descriptors should happen at the RfC below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Test of post: "#AltRightMeans I don’t have to be ashamed of my heritage. pic.twitter.com/rWMHdgekRx" Posted by @Lauren_Southern August 25, 2016

    Sources:

    Hyperballad Eye (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Check out the RfC for more on this thrilling saga. jp×g 08:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RfC: Inclusion of alt-right, white nationalist, and Great Replacement details in lead

    Multiple issues have been raised on the talk page by the subject of this BLP article, which I will attempt to summarize here:]

    • Should the text "She has been described as alt-right and a white nationalist." be included in the first paragraph of the lede?
    • Should the text "Southern is known for her promotion of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory [...] and is credited with helping to popularize the white supremacist conspiracy theory" be in the second paragraph of the lede?

    There are sure to be additional disagreements, but these are the specific ones that have been brought up. Since this has become the subject of Poasts on twitter, I think the issue may benefit from broader community engagement. jp×g 08:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Since the last 24 hours have seen this talk page's view count go from 1-6 per day to 6400 (likely on account of Poasts), some basic explanation and reading might be condign for participants, shitposters, rubberneckers and others. Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, and for the most part editors are not paid to contribute. That said, plenty of drama occurs here, especially about post-1932 American politics, about which the Arbitration Committee has issued standard discretionary sanctions (like how speed limits are lower in work zones; edit warring and POV editing are already not allowed, but they're extra not allowed about politics). And since this article is a biography of a living person, much tighter standards apply to it than to, say, Bradford Island. This does not mean that the subject gets to dictate its content; it just means that all the shit in it has to be cited to reliable sources. Are you still reading? Congratulations! Click those links if you want to learn more; they have lots of good shit in them, that it's important to read and understand before getting into arguments on Wikipedia. Anyway, this thing here is a Request for Comment, which means that lots of volunteers across the project will see it and make their way over to opine. Hopefully, the opinions they poast will be based on fundamental principles of the project, and not being extremely Mad Online. jp×g 08:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add on to this, there's two cases here: either the alt-right label is a fact, or it is a biased statement of opinion. In the former case, there's no need to add the qualifier, as Awoma already addresses. But even in the latter case, where the alt-right label is brought into question, using vague weasel words like "has been characterized in the media as" goes directly against WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The only two possibilities here are to state the label as a fact (e.g., "Lauren Souther is an alt-right ...", or to — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 16:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The number of sources supporting "alt-right" and "white nationalist" is overwhelming. A google news search for Southern's name along with either term will return a torrent of results confirming this. As a result, I am not sure that "has been described as" is really necessary. Southern is alt-right and white nationalist, as myriad reliable sources attest. With regards the second point of contention, I think this is a poor wording. Sources support that Southern has promoted the conspiracy theory, and that she is a prominent advocate of it. However, I can't find anything calling her advocacy of the theory her primary claim to fame. As such, it is wrong to say she is "known for" this particular theory. She is known for her wider body of youtube content. I would support a change here which removes "known for" and simply says that Southern has produced videos in support of the theory, and is a key advocate for it. Awoma (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with this sentiment, and I think that adjusting the wording as such would be far more neutral and in line with the standards of an encyclopedia. Furthermore, I think that this article would benefit from a more consolidated career section where these topics (YouTube content, great replacement, etc.) can be discussed in greater detail without distorting the neutrality of the introduction. Informationdude420 (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both and even more so if these suggestions are taken up. BTW I haven't seen it elsewhere in these comments (but may have just missed it) but is the southern poverty law centre an RS? They described her as alt-right in a piece. Xurizuri (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I had not read that essay before. I wonder if the policy should be adjusted to be more specific about the exception, though. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 09:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both per overwhelming quantity of sources, though I agree with Awoma that "has been described as" is not necessary. If RS support that she has indeed renounced the alt-right/white supremacy, that can be added also, but it does not change that that is primarily what she is known for. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Biographies should take a long view of why a person is encyclopedically noteworthy. Some contextualization may be appropriate, but this would still require reliable sources. Having watched and edited this page over several years, my observation is that reliable sources are understandably skeptical of Southern's dilettante punditry. Since sources do not take her claims at face value before, there is no reason to assume they would take them at face value now.
    As for WP:ABOUTSELF, we've seen many white nationalists give tepid or contradictory rebuttals to how reliable sources describe them. Southern's friend Stefan Molyneux is just one example. This remains unpersuasive. One of the underlying problems is that Southern and these other figures are completely unqualified to define white nationalism/white supremacy/etc. They dispute these description not by addressing their own statements or actions, but by offering a false or incomplete definition. Per the NZ Herald source, this appears to be how sources treat Southern's return. She's not really discussing anything she has said or done, she is instead blaming the "partisan" nature of "mainstream media". She always pretended to give "both sides", so nothing has really changed. The Herald source mentions a comparison to Dave Rubin, which is apt, since Rubin has interviewed Southern (and Molyneux). Rubin also claims to be a centrist, and sources also reject that as nonsense. It's all sophistry, and it should not surprise anyone that reliable sources mostly ignore it. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support this proposal as I mention above, but I don't think her self-identification as alt-right on Twitter carries much weight, for the same exact reason that her current self-identification as no longer being alt-right also doesn't carry any weight. Rather, it's the variety of other third-party reliable sources identifying her as alt-right that support including the identification in the article. (Sorry to be pedantic, but I think it's important to state in order to avoid people arguing, "well she doesn't self-identify any longer, therefore it should be left out".) — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see where you are coming from, but I think her self identifying carries additional weight. For example if she had consistently denied it from the beginning instead it might be different. But she has done the opposite. Hyperballad Eye (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as reliable sources say this.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both without attribution; extensively sourced and there's no actual indication that these labels are controversial in this context; the sourcing also supports the idea that these aspects are crucial to her notability and therefore belong in the lead. Self-denials are not automatically given weight when they are not treated credibly; we would need decent secondary sources disagreeing with them in order to consider them contentious. EDIT: Since people have made the argument above and below, I should add that I strenuously disagree with the assertion that political descriptors fall under WP:LABEL. These are not epithets or insults, they are dispassionate political descriptors widely used in academic sources. The argument that we should couch every single political descriptor, no matter how factual or well-cited to non-opinion sources, beyond WP:WEASEL wording is an absurd and tortured misreading of WP:LABEL. Accurately saying that someone is a member of the alt-right, when the sources universally report that fact, is not comparable to calling them a terrorist. --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – Crucial to the subject's notability and substantiated by numerous reliable sources. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: Maybe « Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June 1995) is a Canadian political activist and YouTuber. She has been described as alt-right and a white nationalist. » could be replaced by « Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June 1995) is a Canadian far-right political activist and YouTuber. » Tough? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perfect. Hyperballad Eye (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC) The second line mentioned in the rfc should also be included of course Hyperballad Eye (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC) I Sorry I misread that. Far right /= alt right. She is described in the sources as altright, in addition to her self identifying as such. We should describe her the way the sources describe her. Hyperballad Eye (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why the shift to "far-right" from "alt-right and white nationalist"? I could see "Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June 1995) is a Canadian alt-right and white nationalist political activist and YouTuber" given the sourcing, but I haven't really seen an argument in this RfC that "far-right" is preferred. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because
    1. this is shorter
    2. the average reader may not know that "alt-right and white nationalist" are flavors of far-right activist
    But that is only a suggestion from me. I do not care if something else is chosen. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: Just adding my thoughts here, that if you were only going to choose between the two and not have both, then we should go with the source material and most of it here in this discussion, uses Alt-Right more commonly than far-right.
    alt-right: Vice, Chicago Sun Times, The Atlantic
    far-right: The Guardian
    both far-right and alt-right:Times of Israel, Sydney Morning Hearld. NZFC(talk)(cont) 00:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: I believe that when there is numerous RS stating an information there is no need to precise the names of the RS conveying this information. However, I do not believe the facts she promotes (promoted?) the Great Replacement theory deserves to be in the lead unless it is the subject which caracterises her like it does for Renaud Camus. Please ping me if you want to anwser me, as I will not be putting this article on my watchlist. Veverve (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Veverve: What something more notable that she could be identified with? Hyperballad Eye (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hyperballad Eye: I am not informed enough on the situation to say what would be more notable, sorry; maybe simply removing her defense of this theory from the lead is enough, as what would then remains seems broad enough. From what I understand she just defended this theory during a short lapse of time in her public life, so unless that is what defines her as a public figure or was an important part of her career, I believe it should not be put in the lead. Veverve (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Veverve:That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I don't think you are commenting in good faith. Hyperballad Eye (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hyperballad Eye: I am sorry if there is some rules or conventions concerning articles related to politics of which I am unaware of; if I misjudged the situation then I accept this fact. Veverve (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The weight of sourcing here is crushing, a further google search demonstrates that these issues are the the major source of her notoriety, to leave it out would be tendentious in the extreme, sanitizing the issues she is most widely known for. Any attempts to exclude this information stand in such stark contrast to reliable sources as to be fairly blatant POV pushing. And no "has been described as" or any other WP:WEASEL language, as per policy. Bacondrum (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for that last part, I would direct you to the section immediately above what you're linking here - MOS:LABEL covers what's being discussed. Preserving the "described as" language would seem necessary to maintain a neutral perspective, especially important on the biography of a living person. Chillabit (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both There really is no reason to take the basic statements out of the lede. "Alt-right" and "white nationalist" seem to be the best wording, as that's how she's described in most sources. Difference in length (compared to "far-right") is negligible, and if the reader doesn't know what alt-right or white-nationalist mean then they can figure it out pretty quickly by reading the linked pages for the respective terms. As for WP:LABEL, I was comparing the terms "alt-right" and "white nationalist" to "racist", not "terrorist". It's not like I feel very strongly one way or other about the "has been described as" type language — I agree with the characterization the sources are pinning onto Lauren Southern. I may just not be familiar enough with Wiki standards, but it seemed relevant to me. Now as for whether she's renounced her views. In one of her posts on this page, she was arguing that her documentaries, Farmlands and Borderless, were more notable than her Great Replacement video... which, to be clear, are obviously related to the same topic matter as her Great Replacement video. So methinks not much genuine renouncement of old views has taken place, not that it wasn't already obvious. Chillabit (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I've just seen the way this sort of thing is handled on the Laura Loomer lede, and I think we may do well to copy that style here. Loomer is described as "far-right" in the lead section, and a cite-note follows with "Sources describing Loomer as "far-right" include:...", which I think would apply well here, just swap out "far-right" for "alt-right" and "white nationalist". We did already have NZFC on this talk page compile a similar list earlier, anyway, which can be a starting point. Seem okay? Chillabit (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, I'm gonna a go ahead and be bold with that improvement. Bacondrum (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lauren seems to have stated she is no longer a white nationalist, however no evidence is provided to the alternative. She has previously stated she identifies as an "identitarian" stated she was part of the alt right multiple times, defended bogus racial theories, and other such nonsense. There is literally no evidence to this or citations we can use therefor we can't state she isn't alt-right we simply see actions and her actions are well completely racist, sexist etc... We can state "Lauren denies that she is alt-right" however she stated multiple times she is in the alt right. Vallee01 (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both Southern is widely known and has been widely shown in third party sources to hold these views. We are not in the business of providing cover for conservatives upset that their "power levels" have been revealed. 24.224.212.90 (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Lauren Southern should be allowed to state that she denies these characterisations, but the number of sources describing her as such are overwhelming and to remove them would be a disservice to NPOV. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've received scolding messages from CaligulaAlex complaining about my support of this RFC. I would suggest attempts to intimidate IP editors should be noted by whoever eventually closes this RFC. 24.224.212.90 (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, I suspect CaligulaAlex is a sock Bacondrum (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support first point. Support first part of second point. Support in principle but rewrite second part of second point - context is missing (lede at the moment does not have that exact phrase) but the phrase "white supremacist conspiracy theory" could be misleading without context - maybe something like "white superiority conspiracy theory" or "debunked notion of white superiority" instead? Daveosaurus (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both, unequivocally, per numerous arguments above (GorillaWarfare, Grayfell & Aquillion in particular). The WP:WEIGHT of the sources is overwhelming, and the perfunctory denials are the exact sort of thing the Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies essay describes when it says ""X is a white nationalist" does not need the qualifier "X denies being a white nationalist" because, well, he would, wouldn't he?" IHateAccounts (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both. "First paragraph" doesn't mean necessarily first sentence, but #1 should be in the first paragraph, and #2 is good in the second paragraph (or really anywhere in the lead). Rewriting/improving is always OK. The sources should be top-quality, but there is already top-quality sourcing cited in the article for these propositions.
      I also think the denial should be included in the lead. WP:MANDY does not apply because white supremacists do not usually deny being white supremacists. Kind of the sine qua non of white supremacists is that they're proud of their white supremacy. You know, "White Pride", and all that. Lots of racists deny being racist, but white supremacists and white nationalists are not ashamed of their views. In that world, a white supremacist/nationalist will get into trouble with other white supremacists/nationalists for publicly denying white supremacy/nationalism. The WP:MANDY's reasoning of "Of course they'd deny it" doesn't apply to white supremacists. Levivich harass/hound 17:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I spend a lot of time reading about these groups and they pretty much universally deny they are fsr-right/white supremacists, they tend to frame themsleves as "patriots" and "nationalists" instead. It's a well known tactic employed by far-right groups. MANDY definitely applies. These kinds of groups often play down their more extreme views in an effort to enter the mainstream. Bacondrum (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Lauren Southern White Nationalist

    "Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[4] 1995) is a Canadian alt-right, white nationalist, conspiracy theorist, political activist and YouTuber.[a][5][6]"

    Last week the article on Lauren southern made the claim that Southern had been accused of being a White Nationalist and Alt-Right, the page now claims she is in fact a White Nationalist and has deleted her rejection of the label.

    Under Wikipedia guidelines "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported."

    Gareth1893 made the edits to meet these guidelines today. Yet GorillaWarfare reversed Gareth1893's adjustment and removed Southern's rejection of the label White Nationalist despite it having a well trusted source (The Atlantic) and being a mandatory inclusion under the guidelines. Gareth1893 was then given a warning of ban from editing the page by BaconDrum if he attempted again.

    Making the claim that Southern is indeed a white nationalist while she rejects this and very few media sources accuse her of the label is defamatory. It also violates due weight to include this yet not include the labels conservative, right wing, far-right or even alt-light, which are named in far more media sources associated with the subject.

    The opening to this article violates the neutrality and intense guidelines around living-persons pages.

    The rejection of the label must be included and the claim that she is in fact a white nationalist removed otherwise this page fits under "attack pages" within the guidelines, and therefore is not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaligulaAlex (talk • contribs) 06:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Caligula, You seem to know a lot about guidelines for a user with two edits? Regarding "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." you are correct. The rest is all well sourced, including the claim she is a white nationalist, backed by a wide variety of reliable sources. Bacondrum (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If I am correct why did you block Gareth1893 from making this adjustment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaligulaAlex (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the source:
    • Lombroso, Daniel (16 October 2020). "Why the Alt-Right's Most Famous Woman Disappeared". The Atlantic. Retrieved 19 December 2020.
    For context, the subtitle of the article is "Lauren Southern could spew racist propaganda like no other. But the men around her were better at one thing: trafficking in ugly misogyny."
    This is the part where she denies being a white nationalist:
    By the time Southern went on McInnes’s show, I had been following her for nearly a year. I was making a documentary for The Atlantic about the white-nationalist movement, called White Noise. I’d already become accustomed to the accommodations Southern made to stay within a movement whose hatreds are prolific. (Southern denies being a white nationalist.) And I’d already become her confidant of sorts, too—I kept feeling compelled to remind her that I was a reporter. “Hey Daniel, in your honest opinion am I a little crazy?” she texted me once. “Do you think I’m irredeemable and can’t go back to a normal life?”
    Article content should reflect the weight of reliable sources. Unless I missed it, this is the only time the article mentions Southern's denial. The only time her denial is mentioned it is in relation to how "crazy" she is, and how "normal" her life could be -nothing at all about her views on race or her ideology. In context, this parenthetical denial is undermined by the surrounding context of the source itself. As just one more example among many, the next paragraph says Her misgivings mostly revolved around the harassment she received from other members of her movement.
    So yes, the source could be used to mention that she denies being a white nationalist, but it should be weighed accordingly. It certainly doesn't magically transform the article into an attack page.
    One good approach would be to look at what the source says in total, summarize that, and also use it to mention Southern's tepid denial. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) CaligulaAlex Because they removed very widely reported and well cited claims (in fact, the cite Gareth1893 added supports one of the claims he attempted to remove in it's title) The weight of sourcing for those claims is crushing, thus they are not controversial and do not require attribution or any such. "Southern denies being a white nationalist" is the only legitimate adjustment supported by the added citation, I'll add it now, the cite does not back the claims she denied any other descriptor. Bacondrum (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having said that, Grayfell is right, the article and Southern contradict themselves. I added the actual claim "Southern denies being a white nationalist". But i'm still unsure it belongs there, Southern contradicts herself frequently, I'll let other editors decide if the interminable ideological goal post shifting that Southern indulges in counts as a genuine and noteworthy denial. If it is removed I wont challenge the removal. Bacondrum (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also added something from this source. The source is lengthy and complicated, and doesn't really lend itself to soundbites. For some reason I did not get an edit conflict warning, so the semi-revert was not intentional. Feel free to adjust as needed. Grayfell (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries at all, thanks Grayfell. Bacondrum (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple edits by User:Philip Cross

    I have heavily reworked this article in the last 24 hours. Some of events in the activism and views sections duplicated each other, so I have merged them and tried to arrange the structure so that this is much less likely to hap[pen in the future. I split off her visits to New Zealand, Australia and the UK as these are largely self-contained. The only problem is Southern's current residency in Australia, she is now being described as a "regular contributor" to the country's version of Sky News in recent sources. Her contributions appear consistent with her past, but not necessarily with the way this article is now structured. Philip Cross (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice work, thanks. I'm going to remove the "regular contributor" claim, it's cited with an opinion piece from the Guardians "Comment is free" opinion column, as per WP:RSEDITORIAL this is not a reliable source for such a claim. Bacondrum (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Describing Southern as a white nationalist and conspiracy theorist?

    Southern is notable (as measured by RS) for promoting white nationalist conspiracy theories and rhetoric; I agree with the arguments from the RfC that her "identitarian" and conspiratorial work must be mentioned in the lede.

    Nevertheless, it's important to emphasize that Southern says she no longer holds these views. Her political evolution and de-radicalization was chronicled in White Noise, a recent documentary by The Atlantic. (She now has an interracial child.)

    Perhaps she hasn't changed, and all this is rebranding, self-preservation, and caprice; but it's not really our place to determine that. In light of her claim to have changed, and the strong bias WP:BLP policy reflects to the reputations of living persons, I propose a compromise:

    We describe Southern as a social media personality and commentator "known for promoting far-right and white nationalist rhetoric and conspiracy theories", but do not describe her as a "white nationalist" or "conspiracy theorist."

    What say you all? CozyandDozy (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "Nevertheless, it's important to emphasize that Southern says she no longer holds these views." - Why? Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Southern's Obstruction of search and rescue efforts in Med Sea

    Various refugees from North Africa (e.g. people fleeing war-torn Libya) die trying to cross the Mediterranean into Europe. European NGOs organize search-and-resccue missions to prevent them from drowning. Southern and a militant white supremacist group once went on a mission to obstruct these search and rescue missions; film footage shows that they apparently succeeded in obstructing at least one boat/mission. This is what got her banned from Patreon, since her conduct led to a "likely loss of life": See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmcK6GvgVPs for the Patreon CEO's explanation.

    To excuse her conduct, Southern later promoted Qanon-tier conspiracy theories about how the NGOs she was obstructing were secretly engaged in human trafficking, rather than trying to rescue people who were drowning.

    Certainly, this incident should be explained in more detail in the article and the lede, since it is covered extensively in RS and, frankly, is extraordinary. I'm not sure I have the belly to do this, however. CozyandDozy (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The last version of the page before your post, incidentally last edited by yourself, has a full and cited lead paragraph on this matter, and a well-cited three-paragraph section on the matter mentioning everything you have listed. What exactly is the point you are making? Unknown Temptation (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    DOB source

    For those who need a little more explanation, I removed the source from the infobox for Southern's DOB as it came from Il Giornale. Despite its innocuous name meaning "The Newspaper", this site is practically Breitbart in Italian, here are its tag archives for "Islam" and "immigration" if anyone wants to become more acquainted with its material. Thanks Unknown Temptation (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for picking up on that. Bacondrum (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lauren_Southern&oldid=997646626"