Talk:Lauren Southern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"not banned" from UK?[edit]

end of the 2nd paragraph ...the source is a Lucy Bennett article in the New Zealand Herald. Nowhere in that article does it say that she's in fact allowed into the UK. Either prove that she's in fact not banned, or delete the false claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:12C1:44F5:446D:AF6:E825:258A (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

From the cited source, Ms Southern claims she has been “permanently banned” from Britain after she was held by Border Force officials in Coquelles, France, on Monday. The second source claims she was not banned. The sentence in the article is accurate, according to these two sources. Bradv🍁 20:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019[edit]

FAR RIGHT??? libelous and wrong (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

White Genocide?[edit]

Today has seen a miniature editing war between two camps: one claiming Lauren Southern promoted the White Genocide theory, and one that claims the opposite. Just looking at the sources provided by the former camp, they don't seem to support the claim very well. Source [95] merely says Lauren Southern "plays up" to the narrative. Source [96], besides seemingly being an unreliable source, does say Southern promotes the theory but does not give any explanation. In fact, the article only claims she is known for promoting the theory in their description of Southern. [97] does again claim Southern supports the theory, but does not say where she has said such things. In source [98] they merely claim Southern has said the farm murders in South Africa could be what leads up to a genocide - that doesn't promote any theory about ongoing genocide, nor does it promote anything but the idea there is a risk for genocide against white South Africans. That can hardly be called "promoting the white genocide theory". All in all I think the sources are at most a mixed bag with either no such claim being made, or at most an unsupported claim being made that Southern promotes the theory. I therefore do not believe that Wikipedia should make any statements of fact such as "Southern has promoted the white genocide conspiracy theory" until direct and conclusive proof can be shown. Zuurman1 (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian source is an op-ed by a writer. Also not reliable. wumbolo ^^^ 21:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
About to turn off my light, bit it does seem that at best we can say she's been described as.... Doug Weller talk 21:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Unless a specific example can be cited (White genocide conspiracy theory is a wide-ranging topic) is should be deleted. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
As I pointed out in my first edit of this, if the source doesn't back itself up then it's not reliable and should not be used a citation. The default position in an "edit war" should be to remove the unsubstantiated white genocide section until reliable sources given. gareth1893 (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
No we don't generally reject reliable sources merely because we don't think they adequately support their arguments. "Playing up" a white genocide narrative and "promoting" are roughly synonymous, and those sources all attest that Southern's white genocide narrative parrots the one that comes from groups like Afriforum and the Suidlanders. That's probably because, as Vice documents, Southern went to South Africa at the invitation of the Suidlanders, and her documentary is essentially a rehashing of their propaganda. Nblund talk 22:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
"No we don't generally reject reliable sources merely because we don't think they adequately support their arguments." Well it's not a reliable source then is it if it's not supporting its claims? Gareth1893 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"Playing up to" and "promoting" something carry different meanings, in my opinion, the latter being more explicit. Playing up to could merely mean insinuating, while promoting would be actively trying to convert others to her point of view. Again, the sources really do not add up to a statement of fact where the wiki can reasonably say Lauren Southern promotes white genocide. You also seem to gloss over the not insignificant fact that "white genocide" is not synonymous with "the genocide of white South Africans". Zuurman1 (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Southern's documentary promotes the same "White Genocide" narrative that is promoted by Afriforum. Here is a non-exhaustive list of sources explaining this:

  • The New York Review of Books: Southern made a film about “white genocide” in South Africa, a conspiracy theory that was picked up by Tucker Carlson on Fox News and led President Trump to tweet about the subject
  • Guardian: Southern’s treatment of this subject is selective, lurid, and plays up to the long-established far right meta-narrative of “white genocide”.
  • Vice: "White Genocide In South Africa" has become the meme de nos jours in hard-right circles... Within weeks of each other, hard-right commentators Lauren Southern and Katie Hopkins both turned up in South Africa, to make parallel documentaries unpacking the fictional tragedy for their audiences...The spark for both of their trips, and indeed for the entire meme, can be traced to an organisation called Suidlanders
  • Pundits have picked up AfriForum’s message, some going as far as to label the farm attacks a genocide. “If it continues, I fear there is going to be the beginning stages of what many would call genocide,” the Canadian far-right political commentator Lauren Southern said on the Breitbart News Sunday podcast.
  • News24:Following this awareness campaign, alt-right and conservative media personalities such as Lauren Southern and Katie Hopkins have come to South Africa to report on the supposed dangers faced by white South Africans.
  • Vox: AfriForum has been incredibly effective at spreading its propaganda, particularly online....Lauren Southern with the European alt-right group Identity Evropa made a documentary about the subject
  • Politico: So why these rumors of an uprising against whites in South Africa now?... I’ve been receiving emails for a year or two now from anxious friends abroad about tidbits they’ve read about growing anger towards white people here—mostly in the U.K. tabloid press or on the Twitter feeds of the Canadian right-wing provocateurs Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux.
  • Columbia Journalism Review white supremacists across the world have been raising a false alarm about it for more than a decade, and the fear that black Africans will violently rise up against whites has been a far-right trope since shortly after World War II. June [2018], Lauren Southern, a far-right Canadian “citizen journalist,” debuted a professional-looking documentary about the subject to her followers

There's no sensible question here. Nblund talk 22:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you please prove these are reliable sources and that the claims are backed up? Gareth1893 (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As your fourth source clearly states, Southern does in fact not claim at all that there is an ongoing genocide of white South Africans. She hardly could have made a documentary about something she herself claims doesn't (yet) exist, as your first, third and sixth source try to say. Your sources may be in print, but they contradict each other and contradict the documentary as Gareth1893 pointed out below.
  • Your second source again does not claim Southern "promotes" white genocide. We've been over this.
  • Your fifth source makes no mention of a claim about white genocide. White farmers in South Africa undoubtedly face dangers, but even Southern herself says it's not a genocide. Not sure why you included that source here.
  • Your last source only claims Southern has made people worried about "growing anger towards white people". Again, not a genocide.
Your sources either contradict each other, contradict primary sources or do not make the claim that Southern promotes white genocide in the first place. There is indeed no sensible question here, and that is that a statement of fact about it certainly should not be in an encyclopaedia. Zuurman1 (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
As Lauren documents 69:03 "does this amount to genocide?" 69:05 "Not yet" 69:06 "but according to organizations like Genocide Watch" 69:09 "and taking into account everything I have seen and heard on the ground" 69:14 "South Africa is stepping closer to that reality every single day". She denies there is currently a white genocide in South Africa in the documentary and has done so on Twitter and other places Gareth1893 (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is called a dog-whistle. It's kind of Southern's MO. Lots of people who have fringe viewpoints do this as a way to maintain some semblance of credibility. But Wikipedia isn't obligated to play along with the charade when reliable sources dismiss it. Nblund talk 22:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't obliged to play along with your agenda. The point is these sources (at least on this issue) are demonstrably not reliable. Why is it so important to you that she is labelled a propogator of the white genocide conspiracy? Again, the sources that were given have been shown to be unreliable. Gareth1893 (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Gareth, you may be inexperienced on Wikipedia, but the mass of sources provided by Nblund above are generally regarded as reliable sources (per, for example, WP:RSN). Disputing the conclusions of a particular secondary source based on other, primary sources is a clear example of original research, which Wikipedia specifically disallows. Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Why are they regarded as reliable? This is a question I've been trying to get an answer to. All I've done is demonstrate they're not reliable and to provide primary sources for citation of why the secondary sources are incorrect. Can you please explain to me why these secondary sources are reliable but the primary sources I've given are not?Gareth1893 (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, accusing Gareth of original research and not Nblund is quite arbitrary. After all, OR includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". As I have pointed out above, the sources quoted by Nblund do not conclusively say Southern promotes the white genocide theory, if they do not outright deny it like this one. I would propose deleting the paragraph on white genocide or at least changing it into something along the lines of "Southern has been accused of... She herself has denied the allegations" etc. Zuurman1 (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I've discussed this before on the talk page, see Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 5#White genocide conspiracy theory. Yes, the Quartz article quotes Southern as anticipating a possible genocide. Quartz has several articles on the topic that are quite sympathetic to the idea that white farmers are vulnerable, but it rejects claims of a current racist genocide. I really don't care too much about the wording in the article, but a link to White genocide conspiracy theory is very inappropriate as is calling Southern's views a conspiracy theory. wumbolo ^^^ 09:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Fwiw I agree about the sources. I urge Nblund to stick to conclusions reached by sources. Four of the provided sources don't mention any genocide, and the other four are saying in order: Southern made a neutral film about the conspiracy theory, Southern promotes the conspiracy theory (and this is a minimum, the source almost calls it propaganda), Southern made a film about facts we don't like, Southern says a genocide might become possible in the future. Now, saying that Southern supports a conspiracy theory is only verified by the second and maybe the third source. The second source is an op-ed by a writer as I've already said, and the third source calls violent murders "fictional fantasy", I definitely wouldn't cite a racist source. wumbolo ^^^ 10:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
So we can at least agree to remove the four citations you mention first and confine our discussion to the remaining two? I think this is getting blown out of proportion and exaggerated. Gareth1893 (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── FWIW, a few relevant reports that may be of interest to editors here:

  • The Sydney Morning Herald: "One of the boosters of this theory [white genocide], Canadian alt-right activist Lauren Southern, who made headlines on her recent visit to Australia, produced a documentary about violence and white South African farmers."
  • CNN: "More right-wing figures propagate 'white genocide' narrative: The narrative of an alleged “white genocide” in South Africa is picked up by more far-right figures internationally. It starts with Canadian far-right personality Lauren Southern, who appears in a documentary called "Farmlands" while visiting South Africa."
  • Fortune (magazine): "Despite the lack of solid data, the racially-charged issue of South African farm murders has recently become a cause célèbre among “alt-right” activists across the world, with figures such as Mike Cernovich, Lauren Southern and Katie Hopkins enthusiastically pushing the 'white genocide' line."

Bennv3771 (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I think you need to click those links and use ctrl+F for the word genocide - the CJR source is the only one that doesn't use that term, and it's clearly talking about the same thing every other source is discussing. Moreover, they all tell the same story: Southern is a major proponent of the claim that farm attack in South Africa are racially motivated and that they constitute an existential threat to white South Africans. Every single source documents that this is a talking point that originates with white nationalist groups in South Africa. The common term for this myth is "white genocide". None of the sources say that Southern documented "facts we don't like" - and that statement makes me wonder if you're not buying in to a myth here yourself. To be clear: no reliable source supports the claim that there is an impending genocide in South Africa, multiple reliable note that farm attacks have declined and the murder rates of whites are lower than average. This is a myth - and saying she produced a "neutral documentary" is sort of like saying that Loose Change Zeitgeist was just asking questions about 9/11 and alien jesus. Nblund talk 13:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nblund: So because white nationalists talk about something that means she beleives there's a white genocide? Again, why are these sources classed as reliable when they don't substantiate their claims but Lauren Southern's first hand denial deemed unreliable? Gareth1893 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
She went to South Africa at the behest of one of the groups that promotes the white genocide conspiracy theory and produced a documentary that parrots their talking points. She may stop just shy of saying "there is a white genocide", but she's clearly promoting the idea by falsely claiming that one is impending. Reliable sources are those that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. As Newimpartial noted above, these sources are generally considered accurate by Wikipedians, and you're extremely unlikely to convince people to ignore them in favor of your own interpretation of her views. Per WP:ABOUTSELF: statements by a person about themselves can be used in some cases, but we generally don't consider them reliable when they contradict independent second party sources. Wiley Brooks claims to have lived for decades without eating or drinking, but reliable sources dismiss that claim, and we side with the reliable secondary sources in that dispute as well. Nblund talk 15:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Your example is a demonstrable scientific fact, not an accusation made against someone or a claim of their opinions. Gareth1893 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Nope, murder rates have risen, and other crimes are underreported. [1] wumbolo ^^^ 16:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Vox doesn't say it explicitly, News24 doesn't mention it, and the Politico piece is actually a letter by a random person, almost certainly without editorial oversight. wumbolo ^^^ 17:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I said that farm attacks have dropped, not the national murder rate. QZ, the same source your citing, explains this in a big bold headline. "White Genocide" is literally in the headline of the News24 article. Nblund talk 17:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the concept of click bait? A headline is not a reliable source. Gareth1893 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not "the same source your citing" when I'm citing a different article. WP:SYNTH. wumbolo ^^^ 17:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This is from the BBC: "According to the best available statistics, farm murders are at their highest level since 2010-11." [2] wumbolo ^^^ 17:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The BBC said this about a specific year. If you think that source supports Southern's claims, you're misreading it. The most up to date reliable sources say that Farm Murders have decreased and that there is no evidence for the claim of widespread killing of white South Africans. Snopes, Politifact and The AP dismiss these claims as baseless and note that the long term trend is decreasing. And Southern's evocation of "genocide" is utterly groundless, and frankly not worth debating.
As for sourcing: you haven't addressed tht here, and Bennv3771 produced three additional sources which describe Southern as a "booster", and "propagating" or "enthusiastically pushing" the white genocide line. You haven't raised any issue with these sources either, yet you've twice removed the statement that Southern has advanced white genocide conspiracy theory despite explicit support from multiple sources. You also haven't raised any issue with the (extremely well-documented) statement that the farm murder claims echo the views of white nationalist groups. This is explicitly supported by virtually every source I've seen that discusses the issue, and you haven't even voiced a reason to doubt that claim. I think you know this won't fly. Nblund talk 18:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
You still haven't addressed the fact that these sources claiming Lauren Southern is propagating the white genocide are not reliable as all these sources do is make an unsubstantiated claim. Gareth1893 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Snopes and AP support these claims. From AP: "The murders on farms are proportionately higher than South Africa’s overall murder rate because farms are generally more remote and exposed". From Snopes: "Africa Check reported that South African police don’t track crime statistics by race", and "although since hitting a low point in 2013-14 [farm attacks and murders have] been on the rise." wumbolo ^^^ 19:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Those three sources were posted on the talk page, but not on the article. I would support putting them in the article to reference the fact that Southern supported or promoted the conspiracy theory, but I would not support a sub-section for it for two reasons. First reason is that a section with two short paragraphs does not need splitting (it makes the article ugly), and the second reason is that we don't need to agree with a POV-pushing sockmaster. Of course, it is absolutely necessary to mention Southern disputing her support for the conspiracy theory, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. wumbolo ^^^ 19:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Support what claims? Snopes says that farm attacks are on the rise, but murders hit 30 year low in 2018, you've conflated them, and I'm struggling to assume a good faith reason for why you would conflate these since it's fairly clear in the Snopes article. You're also conflating "farm murders" (which may be higher) with the murder of white farmers. You're either being disingenuous or you simply aren't reading if you think that any of these sources support Southern's claims of widespread racially motivated killings of white South Africans. They don't.
Mkay, I don't know what sock you're referring to. You can add more sources and address "ugly" content without removing well-sourced claims. Feel free to add those sources if you think the five we already have are insufficient, but I don't see any reason for removing the claims. Nblund talk 19:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPSOURCES. You can call me "disingenuous" for quoting sources you provided. wumbolo ^^^ 19:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Wumbolo: Who's using socks here? WP:SPI is this way, and any sock contributions can and should be struck out. Bennv3771 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah I see now Wumbolo was referring to an already blocked user who originally(?) added the content. I agree that this white genocide stuff doesn't need its own subsection as it stands, and that there should be some mention of RSes associating Southern with the white genocide stuff, but her denial should also be noted. Bennv3771 (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Wumbolo: just to be clear: you didn't quote Snopes directly, you quoted most of the sentence, but then said (in brackets) that [farm attacks and murders have] been increasing. The immediate context of that actually makes it clear that murders were at an all-time low but that attacks (a broader category) have increased somewhat. So you altered the quote in a way that directly contradicted the intent of the author. I'm not holding out for an apology or anything, but your paraphrase was definitely misleading. Nblund talk 00:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Then why does Snopes say "[farm attacks have] been on the rise. (Recorded incidents include “murder, [...] according to AgriSA.)" wumbolo ^^^ 08:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

All this original research as to whether this "genocide" (sic) is happening or not is all well and good but as far as the article is concerned, who cares? At the end of the day all that matters is whether sources call it a conspiracy theory (they do) and whether they note Southern promotes it (they do).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The point here is that the articles are not a reliable source since they do not back up their claims. We are not engaging in original research, I am not drawing any conclusions outside of denying the reliablility of the citations. How can these be reliable sources if they don't substantiate their claims? Gareth1893 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Gareth1893: We don't need reliable sources to provide proof or to back up their claims. That's not how reliability on Wikipedia is determined. Bennv3771 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Few sources actually directly say Southern promotes the theory, and at least one source says Southern explicitly denies a genocide is happening. It's clearly not a black and white issue in sources. Zuurman1 (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I've watched quite a few of her videos, including the Farmlands documentary [3]. It consists mostly of interviews; the only times she narrates are the intro (brief history) and character introductions. Just because some people describe the events as "(impending) genocide" doesn't necessarily mean she promotes this hypothesis. She only mentions it twice, both times in the context of character narration. Any and all sources that claim otherwise are unreliable per WP:COMMONSENSE. If we say that Southern promotes this hypothesis on the mere basis that she has mentioned it, we must say that the above sources promote it, too. M . M 09:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
unreliable' per COMMONSENSE is not a policy-compliant argument against WP:RS. Newimpartial (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have removed this and this source from the article. The sentence (which is worded well and I do not disagree with) suggests that the sources claim Southern is a proponent of the white genocide theory, but the former source is unreliable and the latter does not support the claim made in the sentence. The other two sources are fine and I see no further reason to alter the sentence. Zuurman1 (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing those sources because they're kind of extraneous, but I do feel like I should point out that is not considered a reliable source for judging the reliability of other sources (see WP:RSP). QZ is citing Southern as an example of a pundit picking up Afriforum's message and calling the killings "genocide". You might believe that the quote indicates that her position is more circumspect, but that's clearly not the source's interpretation. She's invoking the term when there's no evidence for a racial motivation, much less a coordinated genocidal intent, behind the killings. Nblund talk 22:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: I was not removing content just because I don't like it (I apologise if I can across that way), I explained my reasoning. I admit I was wrong about the references' reliability (sorry for that) but I was arguing for the article to be concise as it seems needlessly inflammatory. Gareth1893 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC) An edit I started before I got the notification from Bradv (hence why I haven't undone it) was undone with the sole reason being " I don't see why this should be removed"(@Doug Weller:). This is a clear example of removing content because someone doesn't like it. I haven't undone it because I don't want to be banned for edit warring but explanations should be given when changes are made. Gareth1893 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Southern, like a lot of far right figures, is an inflammatory person who holds inflammatory views. Wikipedia shouldn't sensationalize them, but we're WP:NOTCENSORED and we don't write articles with an eye toward making people look good. I might agree that a lengthy paragraph on The Great Replacement would be excessive, but normally we try to offer a brief explanation of unfamiliar concepts in-text in addition to linking the main article. For instance: on John Snow's page, we link to miasma theory, but we also offer a one-sentence in-text summary of the idea because it's necessary context for the entry.
Whatever your reason for removing content, you are a fairly inexperienced editor who came here because of a tweet, and you're clearly still learning the policies. Please follow WP:BRD and bring your discussions to the talk page rather than repeatedly removing content when other editors object. "No reason for removal" is vague, but that's a valid reason to not remove something. It's kind of up to you to start the discussion on the talk page. Nblund talk 20:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I did NOT come here because of a tweet. If you read the tweet carefully you'll see she tweeted because I made an edit, not the other way around. Inexperience does not make me wrong like you are implying in the first sentence. I have contributed to the discussions, I made different changes with reason, I did explain myself and was met with vague responses. Discussions can't be had if vague responses are given Gareth1893 (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't repeatedly remove content, what I removed today was different (I have no wish to edit war) and I'm happy to discuss, all I was asking for was a proper reason for my edit to be removed which then leads on to discussions. If I make an edit and it's removed with a vague response that is not a good place to start a discussion. Gareth1893 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, regardless of your reasons, you're new and you are editing in a contentious topic area. I gave a more detailed explanation of my reasoning in my previous response. Please seek consensus here.
Regarding this edit from User:VwM.Mwv the three citations contain the same quote and all three preface it the same way. Southern has: "come to the defence of American alt-right leader Richard Spencer...", "defended him, saying...", and "defended Spencer in the past, stating...". The edit summary also doesn't really explain why the context for Spencer has been removed. Nblund talk 14:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
We should mention the quotation only, not speculations into what does or doesn't constitute "defense" per WP:WEIGHT. Same goes for the Spencer bio (though that one isn't really a big deal for me). Btw, does discussion this really belong in the "White Genocide" talk section? M . M 14:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
That's nonsense, VwM.Mwv. You think we should ignore what the secondary sources say per... WP:WEIGHT..? That's wrong on so many levels. Please compare the discretionary sanctions alert + warning I have posted on your page. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC).
Thanks for taking this issue off the article talk. I think it's more about how WP:WEIGHT is supposed to be interpreted. I'll reply on my talk page. M . M 15:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nblund: Inexperience isn't a sufficient reason to removed edits, I do however appreciate full feedback and reasoning behind the removal of edits. I just don't think it's reasonable to remove different edits I have done and to give vague respones such as "I don't see why this should be removed" since it's not a matter of whether one personally likes something, Wikipedia would be a mess if it mattered whether someone merely liked or disliked what was being said. Further, I was not disputing that the sources claimed she had defended Spencer, I was saying that expanding on his views isn't necessary here as he was already branded "alt-right leader Richard Spencer" in the passage. I never removed the Richard Spencer thing entirely and would not do so without discussion and reason. Gareth1893 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Source Neutrality Recommendation[edit]

With regards to the BLP saying to be as neutral as possible, may I suggest that when labeling Ms Southern either way that you balance the references used along the spectrum for political bias in the media and not just use more left-leaning media sources? This link to an UMich guide has an infographic published from the PEW Research Center as to the biases of media. Almost every source referenced in this BLP falls on the left side of the spectrum. That alone shows there is little to no neutrality by the article's authors. That alone goes against the BLP standards.

As a reminder from the BLP page:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

   Neutral point of view (NPOV)
   Verifiability (V)
   No original research (NOR)

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

My concern is that first bullet point: NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. We as a community need to do better to be neutral, putting our personal opinions and beliefs aside, especially if we want Wikipedia to be taken seriously and not as a joke--primarily by academics and journalists.

Thank you for your time. Rvnknight (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Rvnknight, are you the same editor as Zuurman1 and/or Gareth1893? I ask because all three of you seem to be showing up at the same time and making similar complaints despite being fairly new.
To your point: That Pew source is illustrating the ideological orientations of the audiences for those news outlets, they are not commenting on their editorial biases. Unless you have a specific suggestion about what content should be changed, then it's not particularly productive to just quote policies at everyone - I think we can all read them. Nblund talk 21:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
No, we are not the same person. Lauren Southern posted about it on Twitter, and someone I followed retweeted it. I assume that's where they come from as well. My account on the Dutch wiki is much older (but still not very active), if you wish to check. Zuurman1 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Note on Tweet[edit]

For those not in the know, the influx of editors (and the edit war) is likely furthered by Southern's tweet. Juxlos (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah looks like Canvassing, but not without some proper concerns. @Zuurman1 and Gareth1893: you may be seen as having a conflict of interest – please seek consensus on this talk page as much as possible, and edit the article only when truly necessary (undisputable defamation), thanks. wumbolo ^^^ 10:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I sure haven't done any of that, boss. Not sure why you feel the need to remind me. All I have said on this talk page is that the sources don't add up to a black and white scenario and that the article should reflect that. I have not edited the article once. Zuurman1 (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

That's what I am doing, I am discussing in the Talk section and have not edited since. Gareth1893 (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

International Business Times source[edit]

Juxlos, the sentence you tagged as "failed verification", here, is a direct quote from the cited article. Can you please elaborate? Bradv🍁 23:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Weird spot to reply but I missed that sentence. Due to the tweet above and BLP issues I will not revert the edit but I will not 2RR it. Juxlos (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Juxlos, reverting your own edit does not constitute edit warring, especially if it was mistaken. Bradv🍁 23:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
FWIW: I think the IBtimes is probably referencing Southern's support of of The Great Replacement conspiracy theory. It's a roughly synonymous version of the "White Genocide" myth which, (before Christchurch) didn't have the same mass-murder inspiring baggage associated with it. For my part I do think it might be reasonable to slightly rephrase that sentence to say that "Southern has touted the Great replacement conspiracy theory, which is closely associated with the concept of White Genocide" and cite this instead. Nblund talk 23:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
All that source says is she posted a video (which I believe is now unavailable to view) with a title "The Great Replacement", all the additional concepts you mentioned about its link to the concept of White Genocide is speculation and interpretation of her views on your part and is not mentioned in the reference. Gareth1893 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're reading. Here's The Independent: Other proponents of the white genocide conspiracy theory include former journalist Katie Hopkins, InfoWars’ Alex Jones and Canadian YouTuber Lauren Southern....An alternative version of the same theory, called “the great replacement”, is spread by the pan-European ethno-nationalist group Generation Identity and it was chosen by Tarrant as the title of his document. (emphasis mine) Nblund talk 15:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
All that article does is make an unsubstantiated claim, do you have a reliable source on this that backs up its claim? Gareth1893 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Gareth1893, as I pointed out earlier, it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to second-guess reliable sources on the basis of primary sources; in fact, that is an example of original research and is contrary to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
My point is I question the reliability of a source that doesn't substantiate and back up its claims Gareth1893 (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Then I suggest that you read WP:RS, since you don't appear to understand what WP means by a reliable source. Or look up the sources in question on WP:RSN. Newimpartial (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking up IBT on WP:RSN it is argued to be generally unreliable so it should not be used as a citation here especially since it doesn't substantiate its claims. Gareth1893 (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Whether or not it "substantiates" it's claims is not the issue, if high-quality reliable sources say something we generally defer to the sources and avoid inserting our personal opinions about who is right or which viewpoint is substantiated. "But the sources are wrong!" has been endlessly rejected on this site, and it's really not a good use of your time to try to get people to accept it. They won't. All that said: I do think the RSN board has highlighted some issues with the reliability of the IBTimes, and it is the only source that makes this specific claim. I removed it, and replaced it with a brief discussion of Southern's promotion of the (closely related) "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory. Nblund talk 16:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
My point here was not that it is unreliable because it doesn't substantiate its claims, I was pointing out that IBT has been discussed as generally unreliable on WP:RSN Gareth1893 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Far-alt-right neo-Nazi literally Hitler[edit]

I can't help but notice all the sources describing her as far-right or alt-right are on the Left, or at least left-leaning. I doubt many readers will take the rest of the article seriously after reading the lede's first paragraph. Should we do anything about this? M . M 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam. See #The "far right" label. Do you have anything new to add? Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
You mean left wing sources like Business Insider, The National Post and the The Toronto Sun? Or maybe The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by (noted communist sympathizer) Rupert Murdoch? Nblund talk 16:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, all of those are leftist (modern liberal) on social issues.
Edit: I should also note that WSJ has zero credibility here. This is the same "journal" that accused PewDiePie of being a neo-Nazi. M . M 17:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
VwM.Mwv, I suppose this depends on your perspective. Those sources are all generally regarded as right-of-centre. Bradv🍁 17:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
VwM.Mwv, the arguments you are making are relevant for influencing the consensus at WP:RSN, but are strictly irrelevant at an article talk page, since project-wide consensus about Reliability overrides any "local consensus". Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope not Hate[edit]

This source is a prime example of a self published source. Core content policy says we do not use self published sources as sources for content on BLP's. This is consistent with what is in WP: RSP since it could potentially be used as a source on non-blp articles. However, it still can't be used as a source here. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Kyohyi, am I missing something? Lauren Southern didn't write that article. Bradv🍁 19:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, You're correct, she didn't. Hope not Hate wrote it, and published it on it's own website. Advocacy organizations own claims and statements posted on their own websites are textbook definition of self-published. See note 10 on WP: V or WP: USESPS (I know USESPS is only an informational supplement, but it is linked to from WP: SPS) --Kyohyi (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Kyohi, I think you've made the same "textbook" argument about the SPLC being self-published and it's never gained traction as far as I'm aware. Hope Not Hate is a charitable organization with a research team, and the citation is being used with in text-attribution to reflect their statement - not for a fact about Lauren Southern. I felt citing Hope Not Hate was helpful here because they were more direct in noting that she was an advocate of the idea, but lots of additional sources note that she is an adherent of the theory: the Foreign Affairs article cites Southern as an example of a proponent of "The Great Replacement". So do Sydney Morning Herald and The New Yorker. There's clearly no cause for outright scrubbing any connection to the theory. Nblund talk 19:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, the section for WP: RSP notes to be wary that the use of the SPLC conforms to BLP, and BLP has the same position as WP: V on self-published sources regarding BLP content. So I do think there is some pretty clear traction, but I don't think people want to discuss it openly. It is a very popular advocacy group afterall. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Nblund Hope not Hate are an advocacy group, they are a biased and opinionated source WP:RSP. I think because of this it could be argued they have a biased against Southern so if other non-biased references are available I believe they should be used as citations instead. Gareth1893 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Just a couple of points on WP:SPS and WP:USESPS:
1. WP:SPS does not explicitly or implicitly assume the definition and scope for "SPS" that are provided in USESPS; in particular, WP:SPS does not discuss the use or otherwise, for various purposes, of corporately-published sources that are both independent and reliable (a category that includes in principle both government and international org. publications, as well as those of advocacy groups).
2. USESPS is not in its entirety complaint with policy; for example, it baldly states that SPS do not contribute to Notability, whereas WP:V and WP:N provide for a category of SPS (namely, independent and reliable ones) that do. Since the USESPS essay is not reliably policy-compliant, it can't really be used as evidence that any particular practice is or isn't compliant to WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
That's why I also pointed to note 10 on WP: V (which is also in WP: SPS). Note 10 is policy, and WP: USESPS description of self-published sources is in line with note 10. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in that footnote supports a blanket prohibition on citing advocacy group in BLPs, and this same argument was rejected in RFCs for Politifact and Moreover: the statement wasn't really "about" Southern, it was about HNH's description of Southern. We quote Richard Spencer in the article as well, but he's obviously not a reliable source for statements of fact, we're just describing his views.
@Gareth1983 - there's no prohibition on using biased sources (WP:BIASED), and sometimes its more neutral to explicitly cite a biased critic in-text rather than implying a critique without attributing it to anyone in particular. Nblund talk 16:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nblund: can you please explain how using this biased source here is more neutral than leaving it out? The bias of this source (in this case) affects its reliability and should be discussed. Gareth1893 (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kyohyi please note that none of the sources cited in Note 10 actually supports the expansion of the concept of SPS to credible organizations aside from profit-seeking corporations. The Chicago Manual of Style quotation, for example, applies SPS treatment to "any Internet site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body" (emphasis added) - what we are discussing here are sources that have a specific, relevant and credible sponsoring body. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
You need to look at note 10 fully not just sources cited in the note. The opening sentence is telling, "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content." Advocacy groups have an inherent conflict of interest with regards to their own activity, so any internal review is insufficient to show independent review. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Kyohyi, I have of course read the entire note; I am saying that the opening sentence of the note is supported neither by the sources cited in the note nor by the WP policy consensus. And your position about advocacy groups has, as I understand it, consistently failed to achieve consensus at RfC so I am uncertain why you are pushing that PoV here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If you think consensus on policy has changed feel free propose changes at the policy page. I disagree with your opinion on consensus at RFC's, the one's shown above involved sources which show a format similar to newspapers which work on editorial independence. I did not find that anywhere on Hope not Hate's web page. The key point of note 10 is independence of fact checkers, if you think that's not required go try to change policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The sources cited in the note do not support the "fact checker" interpretation, nor does any part of WP:V. The fact that there is sloppy language in a note on a policy does not at all imply that the policy consensus exists that you are asserting. Sources that are independent of their subject and reliable in their field are considered reliable sources, and the only carveout from that in WP:SPS concerns the requirement not to use the self-published opinions of individuals - even when recognized as experts - to source biographical information. That is not what this article is doing, in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, you ignore the first sentence. The first sentence of Note 10 supports the fact checker interpretation, unless you think independent reviewer isn't synonymous with fact checker. Or do you think independent reviewers are not necessary for content related to BLP's. If that's your take, go try to change policy, otherwise any further discussion on this topic is unproductive here. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:V and WP:RS have been subject to much more scrutiny than Note 10 of WP:SPS, so where they conflict, I'll go with the actual community consensus. Call me a rebel if you want, but any other approach strikes me as WikiLawyering. Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
KyohyiUser:Gareth1893 needs to go back to RSN if he wants to override discussions there. I agree with Newimpartial. I also cannot imagine a source discussing Southern that would not have some bias. If Kyohyi thinks such sources exist then why haven't any been brought here for discussion? Doug Weller talk 17:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to point me to a RSN discussion that specifically covered what is and is not self-published. The one's presented here don't cover it (they are specific to certain sources, and not the general policy), and it would probably be worthwhile to update policy to match this consensus that I'm supposedly bucking. @Doug Weller Concerning the matter of bias, I didn't make any argument about whether or not a source is biased, and I would appreciate it if you did not ascribe arguments to me that I did not make. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kyohyi: apologies, I meant User:Gareth1893 (if you searched for "bias" you would have found that). Doug Weller talk 18:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Previous discussions about Hope Not Hate have found that editors should evaluate the site on a case-by-case basis. I agree with other editors that this is a novel interpretation, especially since the source is not being used to state a fact about someone else. If you intend to edit war over it appearing in BLPs, you probably need to go ask a specific question about that claim at WP:RSN. Nblund talk 19:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Case by case evaluation does not prevent us from rejecting an entire category of cases. It just means we need to actually evaluate the merits, and that the source is not de-facto usable. BLP states that we should be very firm about using high quality sources, a source which requires regular vetting and re-vetting (case by case analysis) does not fall into this category for me. To me this means not only should there be no reason to not include the source (which I don't believe is the case), there should be compelling reasons to include the source (which I haven't seen any reasons provided, so I cannot present my opinion on whether or not I find them compelling). Or at least the reasons for inclusion should vastly outweigh the reasons for exclusions. Either way reasons for inclusion should be provided, of which I have seen none. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
We haven't evaluated the merits because you've never raised any objection to the merits. You're now inventing new policy standards out of whole cloth - and I think you're definitely entering wikilawyering territory if you haven't already crossed that line. In the interest of moving the discussion along I went ahead and opened a discussion at WP:RSN for you here. Nblund talk 21:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Richard Spencer[edit]

Is there a reference for Richard Spencer, "who had said "Hail Trump" in a speech at a white nationalist gathering, and had called for a "peaceful" ethnic cleansing of America"? Gareth1893 (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gareth1893: This, clearly mentioned in the article. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@ImmortalWizard: Thank you, I didn't see that as a citation for the above as it seemed to follow another statement. Gareth1893 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)