Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Centrist Enlightenment

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. 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".

While doing so, she said she "realigned" her beliefs — pulling herself away from her previous hard line stances, 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.

LMAO hilarious that she thinks anyone believes herPhoenix (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Check out the RfC for more on this thrilling saga. jp×g 08:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

References

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

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:

• Lauren Southern on Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved November 22, 2020, from https://web.archive.org/web/20160825205628/https:/twitter.com/Lauren_Southern/status/768812280922402816
• Manhire, T. (2019). The Spinoff Book. New Zealand: Penguin Random House New Zealand.
• Marantz, A. (2019). Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation. United States: Penguin Publishing Group.
• Ellefson, L., & By. (2016, August 25). Some Tweeters Are Kidding, Some Are Serious, All Want to Explain What #AltRightMeans. Retrieved November 22, 2020, from https://www.mediaite.com/online/some-tweeters-are-kidding-some-are-serious-all-want-to-explain-what-altrightmeans/
• Rowles, D. (2016, August 25). Racists Have Found a New Euphemism for 'Racists'. Retrieved November 22, 2020, from https://www.pajiba.com/politics/racists-have-found-a-new-euphemism-for-racists.php
• Godfery, M. (2020, June 30). The alt-right racists are in town. Are you really happy to shrug your shoulders? Retrieved November 23, 2020, from https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/03-08-2018/the-alt-right-racists-are-in-town-are-you-really-happy-to-shrug-your-shoulders/

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

Check out the RfC for more on this thrilling saga. jp×g 08:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for picking up on that. Bacondrum (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Lauren Southern White Nationalist

current RFC discussing this exact subject above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"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) 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) 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) 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) (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) 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) 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) No worries at all, thanks Grayfell. Bacondrum (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Why was the denial removed after a consensus reached? I find it highly unusual that Bacondrum said he would not contest a removal of the denial but contests any other changes regarding the removals of other labels even when sources provided. Gareth1893 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC) We do not label someone "alt-right" in WikiVoice because it is a contentious label based on the opinion of that person's opposition. See MOS:LABEL and WP:INTEXT for the way we handle such labeling. Atsme 💬 📧 12:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Describing Southern as a white nationalist and conspiracy theorist?

current RFC discussing this exact subject above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) "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) See the RfC above, and my comment there. We don't use opinions as statements of fact. Atsme 💬 📧 12:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Replied above. Recommend hatting this thread or moving it to RFC Discussion. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A consensus exists for this change. Although some editors advocated for including the subject's denial per WP:WELLKNOWN, others have pointed to WP:MANDY and WP:ABOUTSELF in response. Given that the weight of reliable sources are overwhelmingly in the latter's favour, I see no need to include the equivocation. As words to that effect are already in the lead, there is (in my view) no need to make edits solely to insert the exact wording below. As noted below, there seems to have been an attempt by CaligulaAlex to intimidate a user in connection with this discussion. (non-admin closure) Sdrqaz (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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)

• 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)

• Comment: Wording along the lines of "has been characterized in the media as..." would be more neutral than stating it directly in the encyclopedic voice. Benjamin (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Everything on wikipedia is how "the media" characterises it, because wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, and reliable sources are media. Awoma (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

• @Parent5446: Did that edit get cut off mid-sentence or something? jp×g 14:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Woops that was a half-written draft I thought I had deleted. I ended up just a different comment below because I didn't feel strongly enough about this specific thread. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Comment Sorry to jump in randomly, but with regards to the first question, it may be worth adding a note about Lauren Southern's denial of the label, as recommended by WP:WELLKNOWN. I know it is mentioned separately deep into the article, but considering her vehement denial, it's probably worth including in the lead. (The label itself should still remain, since it's backed up by numerous sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [and many of these are recent articles]. There appears to be a self-made claim that she has changed her views, but I would argue it still falls under the "unduly self-serving" exception of WP:BLPSELFPUB / WP:ABOUTSELF.) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 14:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  If there aren't significant RS that state in their voice that she has renounced the alt-right/white supremacy, I don't think it should go in the lead per WP:MANDY and WP:ABOUTSELF. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

• Support both per this conversation, and others below, both claims are thoroughly supported. If anything, I would remove the "has been described as", as per Awoma's reasoning above. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 17:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

• Support both. It does not matter what Southern herself says on the matter, it matters what reliable sources state. She can claim whatever she wants, but that does not make it fact. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 20:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support both, she may not agree with it, she may be trying to change that image now that she is in Australia and has a child but until reliable sources state that she has changed, she is known for both being Alt-Right/Far-Right and for pushing the Great Replacement theory. Even if she does change and reliable sources say that, this article will still say that she used to be. Even recent articles from The Guardian in August talks about her being Far-right and pushing the Replacement conspiracy. While these recent Sydney Morning Herald, Atlantic and Times of Israel note that she is Alt-Right.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Her political views have not changed if I understand correctly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0Vx6gS2vAE#t=6m . Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

• Support I made my comment already above. She self identified as "altright" on twitter. QED. Hyperballad Eye (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• Support, as reliable sources say this.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support – Crucial to the subject's notability and substantiated by numerous reliable sources. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
•  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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

•  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)

• I disagree with you. 1. Brevity, or lack there of, Isn't an issue here. 2. If the average reader does understand that. It's been in the news for ten years. Hyperballad Eye (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

•  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)

@Veverve: What something more notable that she could be identified with? Hyperballad Eye (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

@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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

Absolutely, I'm gonna a go ahead and be bold with that improvement. Bacondrum (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

yes, I suspect CaligulaAlex is a sock Bacondrum (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support both: well-cited and accurate. — Bilorv (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

Bacondrum is correct, WP:MANDY definitely applies. Perfunctory, unduly self-serving denials by white supremacists and "white nationalists", individually or in groups such as the Proud Boys, are commonplace. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support both, plenty of reliable sources are provided and Mandy Rice Davies Applies. As pointed out by Bacondrum, the reframing is as rampant as it is unconvinving. EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Adhere strictly to policy - our PAGs are very clear about adding contentious labels based on controversial/biased opinions, especially when the subject denies it. See WP:BLPLEAD, MOS:LABEL, & WP:INTEXT. Also read Jimbo's comment at BLPN about inclusion of such material in WikiVoice, and his support of not bolstering and subsequently refuting a BLP's views or theories in this diff (it also applies to political science), and his thoughts about maintaining a NPOV involving politics in this diff. He said it better than I could in my own words. I also agree with Levivich in that a rebuttal by the BLP belongs if this material is included, otherwise we will have created a WP:COATRACK, or what some of our readers may consider a political hit piece. If mentioned in the lead, it should be brief and INTEXT, so the source must be an exceptional one. WP does not/should not publish "biased opinions" as statements of fact, but we all know that, or should, which is why we adhere strictly to INTEXT for our BLPs. Atsme 💬 📧 12:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. The WP:RS coverage shows that Southern hasn't actually disavowed her white supremacist, "identitarian", and conspiracy theorist views. [5] Perfunctory, "unduly self-serving" claims carry little to no WP:WEIGHT. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The source in the The New Zealand Herald that actually addresses the video she made on Youtube back in June. The rest of the mainstream media seems to have ignored it. I do not think it is right to rely on sources before June to characterize her as a white nationalist. In the past, I would have had no problem with this label, but now, I am unsure. Here is the source. Has she made any comments about the Great Replacement since this summer? I have only done a cursory check of reliable sources. From the surface, it seems that no secondary source has tried debunking her video from June. Tell me if I am mistaken. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

One WP:MANDY denial does not remove the WP:WEIGHT of years of WP:RS coverage. Eventually, if her change is genuine, enough WP:RS will cover her differently and the WP:WEIGHT of coverage will change. In the meantime, the WP:MANDY stuff appears to have been covered correctly in this article; as noted in the Atlantic, "She kept telling me she had grown more “compassionate,” but whenever I asked her pointedly if she regretted her past work, I got obfuscation and tactical apologies."[6] IHateAccounts (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand how the source from The New Zealand Herald can seem WP:UNDUE, but your article from The Atlantic does not seem to be sufficient enough to make the claim that she hasn't really changed. It's pretty vague in my opinion. However, I do agree that whether she changed is still debatable. I'm open to the idea of changing the leade to something else, but I have no alternative for the time being. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I see how you've edited the article since I wrote my comment. I have no issues with what you just did. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

@Bacondrum: I think you may be correct that many sources specifically describing her as a "regular" or "frequent" contributor to sky news australia are editorials/opinion pieces (see 1 2 3 4 for examples). It does however seems strange to not mention her being a contributor to sky news australia at all (though possibly sans the adjective "regular"), given this seems to be basically her job now when she's not making documentaries, she does appear quite regularly and as recently as yesterday for instance. This would probably work as a source if needed. Am I wrong here? Volteer1 (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1 I think we could and probably should mention that she's appeared as a guest on Sky a number of times. Having said that, she's not employed by sky and she is not a regular. Se's made a handful of guest appearances, that is not a job. Bacondrum 20:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Undue and racist

I've removed this claim "Southern has said her husband is not white". There's a number of problems here:

• Southern claims lots of things, this is not verifiable, it's just her word...and she has a reputation for lying and misrepresenting.
• It's racist. Why does it matter what colour her husband is? It matters to her because she is racist. The colour, religion etc. of her husband shouldn't even come into consideration. By publishing this stupid and biggoted claim we are affirming her idea that colour and race really matter.
• It's undue, who (other than her fellow racists) cares what colour her husband is? It's just a stupid, racist, self-serving claim.

I assume most of you can see what I'm talking about - essentially, we shouldn't be repeating random offensive racial crap said by racists without good cause. If other editors disagree I'm happy to start an RfC. Bacondrum 22:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

White nationalist sources section missing

The sources in her heading for alt-right, white nationalist, youtuber are grouped as saying sources calling her alt-right, shouldn't there be a section for sources calling her white nationalist? 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is a bit perplexing – I've added a citation needed tag. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have the time to properly fix it right now, but I think the location of the bundled citation changed and was previously supporting the whole sentence. I do think the new cite location makes more sense, since some sources call her far/alt-right but don't explicitly describe her as a white nationalist; it just means a new bundle should be created. At a glance, cites 2 and 8 support the statement, so I'll add those for now so that we're not including what appears to be an unsourced contentious claim in a BLP, but it should be properly filled out with more cites. I'll try to get to it later today. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, regarding I think the location of the bundled citation changed, I just changed it right then. It was at the end of the sentence, but was just the old citation bundle for the "alt-right" label. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, didn't look at the diff closely enough. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the real "great replacement" is that these articles on these alt-right nationalists are becoming bigger than articles on K-pop stars and rasslers. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

The last part in “activism and views” quote about “gang rape” is obviously out of context and literally gives the opposite effect of what she says. Change this quote to reflect the entire context or remove it as it is incredibly misleading. The full quote is “Democracy is not always a good thing. You actually have to make sure the people you surround yourself with are good people if you want to live in a Western free nation. Gang rape is an inherently democratic process. It’s nine people voting against one about what they want to do” Thus she is obviously not defending gang rape, (and also there’s no indication as to why she would… she’s a female? Why would the gender that is the victim of 90% of rapes defend rape?) she’s saying gang rape is a bad thing, and one of the reasons being that you are outnumbered heavily. Here’s the source:

https://artsfuse.org/214246/film-review-white-noise-inside-the-racist-right-planting-evil-seeds/ 108.49.141.26 (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the quote, which I agree appears to have been taken out of context. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

Lauren Southern is not alt-right. Source; Lauren Southern. Dictating what someone’s political stance is improper and intellectually false and slanderous. 2A02:C7F:8C9E:B100:14BE:ABE6:3A95:5CAB (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Cite Western Journal

Coolguy22468 on 22 November 2020 added a mention of a statement by Laurent Southern in an interview with The Western Journal. David Gerard on 08 July 2021 removed. So now, instead of "In 2017, Southern said she was not a Christian, but was "searching".[112] In 2020, Southern said she had rediscovered her Christian faith.[113]" we have "In 2017, Southern said she was not a Christian, but was "searching".[112]" I believe that in effect David Gerard has switched to a falsehood, so seek consensus to restore. To some extent it might depend what one thinks of the wp:rsp essay-class page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, a Generally Unreliable source has no place on a BLP. And YouTube is similarly not usable as a source in its own right, so I've removed that part of the para too. Both follow directly from WP:BLPRS, which is policy - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision to the First Sentence of the Article

The first sentence of this Wikipedia is "Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June 1995) is a Canadian alt-right political activist, white nationalist, and YouTuber." and should be revised to "Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June 1995) is a Canadian conservative political activist, documentary film-maker, and YouTuber." Lauren currently identifies as a conservative and presently has views that align more closely to those of conservatives and has done three documentaries regardless of someone's opinion of them. Glowlend (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as reliable sources are concerned, the first sentence is purely accurate. "documentary film-maker" is not a commonly used title, and as such I'd oppose its' addition, and especially oppose the removal of the other labels - whether or not she claims to believe that or not (many white nationalists deny being so), reliable sources state that she does, as is cited in the article. We don't base this off of self-identification. Seeing as there's no reason to remove any of the current labels and the awkward and unusual "documentary film-maker" is the only addition made by the second option, I'd consider this change to not be proper to make. Builder018 (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

These source among many others suggest "documentary film-maker" is a legitimate and relatively commonly used title. It doesn't seem unreasonable to add the designation to her brief description.

With regards to the sources for her being labeled "Alt-right", "white nationalist", etc. The first sentence states that she is in no uncertain terms. Yet in a later section of "Activism and views" the nuance that it is group consensus and contrary to her own claims is acknowledged. This is inconsistent and erodes credibility. It also seemingly exists in contradiction to the "libertarian" political affiliation in the info box.

I am surprised that articles just saying that a person holds certain beliefs, especially potentially controversial ones, without citing a self identification or a verifiable pattern of behavior, are cited as and seemingly considered enough to label a person against their expressed wishes. Especially since the hygiene in at least one of the sources cited is poor.  For example the Alexandra Stern source That says she was "banned from the UK for strident islamophobia" When the UK official statement was "racism" and the "strident islamophobia" is unsubstantiated. The event cited for her UK ban is the event she purports was a social experiment on freedom of speech in the UK to see how people would react to similar LGBT association with different deities. Her thesis being that there would be less to no tolerance for LGBT association with Allah, but the Christian God's association with LGBT inclusion would be tolerated. It was not tolerated and she was banned. A woman with her at the time, Pettibone, tweeted an image of a letter she purports was given to her by an immigration officer. It states that her planned activities posed "a serious threat to the fundamental interests of society and are likely to incite tensions between local communities in the United Kingdom". This alone is not definitive evidence of "strident islamophobia".

However, Lauren Southern did a video on "The Great Replacement" which was cited as one of the sources for the "white nationalist" claim, which seems sufficient to justify it's mention.ObjectivityIncarnate (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I doubt Builder018 meant that "documentary film-maker" is a rarely used term in general; their point seems to be that it isn't frequently used in sources about Southern. As for "alt-right", I encourage you to read the RfC from last year that established consensus for the descriptor. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Needing a better source

Under "Race and Multiculturalism" is the sentence "She has called the Black Lives Matter movement a "terrorist organisation", and a "divisive, violent movement that has fascistic tendencies", which she has (falsely) claimed has caused more deaths in 30 years than the Ku Klux Klan" but the cited source makes no mention of any of those quotes at all except for the "terrorist organization" part. This includes her making the claim about it causing more deaths than the clan, let alone any citation that it's either true or false. Normally I'd just plain take that down when it's completely unreferenced, but honestly considering everything else about the Lauren I don't immediately doubt it, but it really should have some kind of verification especially if professing to be quoting her.

On a related note, I couldn't find a good answer in the Manual of Style, but I noticed a number of scare quotes throughout the article along with all the other proper quotes. It sounds like those should not be there, but I wasn't sure about situations in which the source article itself uses obvious scare quotes. Just for the sake of an example, when a BBC article refers to a social experiment video she did as a '"social experiment" video'. Personally I'm prone to keep it only because while I don't like scare quotes in general, it's directly what the article said sure. Any thoughts or directions to an actual guideline on the issue? Kensai97 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Some of that appears to be a close paraphrase of this VICE source and should be cited, if we find the VICE source reliable, and re-phrased. Or just removed, if not verified by other sources. MOS:QUOTEPOV is pretty clearly against short quoted material that gives the implication of weasel words (e.g. "so-called", which is the implication in your example). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a white nationalist

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.

---

I’d like to ask for any substantial proof corroborating the statement that Lauren Southern is a white nationalist. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fact based platform. Quoting articles of clearly biased sources “claiming” without proof that someone is a white nationalist isn’t proof. None of these sources actually give concrete evidence, just feelings about her “expressing clearly white nationalist rhetoric”, which is super vague. With a serious connotation such as this, more diligence should be undertaken before slandering a person in an encyclopaedia. This is wikipedia, not some leftwing private blog. Cmbijpost (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh wait. I just read one of the earlier topics claiming that “reliable sources” claim that she’s a white nationalist. Well. Then it must be so… Clearly we live in a he says, she says society, where encyclopaedia go on hearsay by third parties, who don’t themselves actually quote any real statements in support of their views. Please close my edit, this will only lead to useless discussions, I can surmise. Cmbijpost (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021

Lauren Southern is not a white nationalist. Please remove that line. SandShark350 (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021

OK, I'll try my request again. I'm not the most experienced user, so I think my "every man" viewpoint is valid. Ms. Southern is quoted as saying Hitler was just a SJW, but that term could not be gleaned from the context. I had to open another window to find it means Social Justice Warrior. If you would just make the acronym a hyperlink (or whatever the Wikipedia term for that is), then a simple "click" would have answered my question and I could continue to learn about this person.

Thank you for your time, a non-political user in Austin, TX 2600:1700:E0:1FB0:AD5B:EF2C:428F:159 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

This article is filled with opinion, speculation, hearsay and borders slander with out providing any facts. I am not defending the person but mainly the downward slide of Wikipedia as a whole. Please correct the unproven comments. 2603:9003:113:3E48:6947:F116:8176:201F (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Articles which are Biographies of living persons are strictly governed with the use of reliable sources being required. A check using the list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources suggests the citations used are generally more than adequate for this task. The use of the terms "alt-right", "white nationalist" and "far-right" are supported by multiple admissible citations. For any changes to be made, you should suggest reliable sources which present Ms Southern in a different light. Philip Cross (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Listed place of birth inaccurate

We grew up in the same town and attended the same school. Which is in Langley, British Columbia not Surrey, Walnut Grove is on the border between the 2 townships but is firmly in Langley. I’m not sure what sort of source I’d need to submit to make this change, all that I have is our year book that would confirm what I am saying. Which I know isn’t a third party source like Wikipedia requires. 70.70.59.72 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You'll need a published source. We're going by her profile page, which is a self-published source, which plainly states "Lauren Southern was born and raised in Surrey, British Columbia". —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

pardon me if this edit is the improper way to do this. I am

New to the backend of Wikipedia, so my apologies. I have a published source saying that Lauren was raised in Langley, I tried posting a link but I think my discussion thread was deleted because of it. 70.70.59.72 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Mention of Richard Spencer in Race section

Under Race, it is stated that Richard B. Spencer "has advocated violence against nonwhites on multiple occasions.", but that's not mentioned in the sources. I noticed that prior to the 26th of December 2020, it read "had called for a "peaceful" ethnic cleansing of America.", which the next source supports. However, that's just once (not multiple times), and despite the oxymoron, he did say "peaceful" according to the source. I think that that sentence should be reverted to its previous iteration. EggDeployer (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Lauren Southern wasn't banned from Paypal

There is zero mention of Lauren being banned from Paypal in either of the sources listed. It DOES say she was banned from Patreon. Do the editors of this article even read the sources they use? That's a false statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crun31 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou, corrected. Philip Cross (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The article still claims "Websites for crowdfunding (GoFundMe), business services (Patreon) and banking (PayPal) have all barred Southern from using their services." 192.184.191.153 (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no proof that Lauren Southern is a white nationalist

all the articles listed as “proof” are OPINION pieces. Opinions are not facts. She has never once said she was a white nationalist. 2601:647:8481:68E0:0:0:0:C7E5 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

The articles cited claiming Lauren is alt-right or a white nationalist are not credible sources. Tim Pool interviewed her and the revealed this Wiki as having substantial false information. At the same time, this article does not meet Wiki standards. Capitalistone (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP tells us that if someone explicitly rejects a label, then the article has to say they reject the label in the same sentence or next sentence after the accusation is made. That would be the proper response, those are the changes that need to be made. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't seem to find that recommendation at WP:BLP. Could you give me a more specific pointer where to look? Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, it has been edited since I looked at it a long time ago. Still, there is WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:ATTACK to consider. Also, and this is what tenacious editors are ignoring, she has explicitly rejected the labels being assigned to her. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, the requested change is to include language that she denies being alt-right and that she denies being white nationalist. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something. If Wikiepdia says "Lauren believes X and Y" and Lauren responds with "No, Lauren believes A and B", it it now Wikipeida policy that Wikipedia can say "No, Lauren is wrong about what Lauren says Lauren believes." Harvestdancer (talk

 Note: As an uninvolved editor I am setting the edit request back to answered. This appears to be an ongoing discussion and it definitely appears this label is controversial. These factors make this inappropriate for an open edit request per WP:ER. —Sirdog (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone set the answered flag back to "yes" without informing me what was wrong with my suggestion that a sentence be added saying she disputes that she is alt-right or white supremacist. Before setting the flag back to "yes", please explain what is wrong with adding that information. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 01:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Harvestdancer: Hello, I was the one to change the flag, and I did make note of why I did so in my above comment. I would not change the flag of any template without providing my rationale - especially for a topic area this contentious. I will concede that I did misread your suggestion as being to remove the labels wholesale rather than add a sentence that clarifies she rejects them. That's on me. I would still argue the template should be set to answered, however. You are already discussing attempting this in another section of this talk page with another user who seems to be arguing policy points. That discussion is still ongoing. This makes it wholly inappropriate to attempt to have this added via WP:ER, which is for edits that are requested to be implemented immediately by the reviewer of said request. are non-contentious and can be enacted immediately following a review of the request's merits. —Sirdog (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I've also closed this request. It is under discussion, so does not qualify for an edit request. Although I have issues with some of the sources cited to make the statements in Wikivoice, many of the sources are more than good enough to cover the prose, so it becomes a matter of editorial judgement, not WP:BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022 (2)

Old Format; Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[4] 1995) is a Canadian alt-right[a] political activist, white nationalist[b] YouTuber and documentary film-maker.

New Format; Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[4] 1995) is a Canadian alt-right[a] political activist YouTuber and documentary film-maker. Delakando (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is an ongoing discussion about changing the entire lead, and as such any change to the lead - especially a change that exists solely to remove the labels white nationalist or alt-right - is not eligible for WP:ER at this time. —Sirdog (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

For the "white nationalist" label controversy, can we actually analyse the sources? Some listed don't even say it while others are tenuous.

Here's the 5 sources - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Southern#cite_note-white_nationalist_bundle-6

First one constantly describes her as alt-right, not white nationalist. Just a single time it comes pretty close when it notes she's made accomodations to stay within the movement but also that she denies being white nationalist, and never calls her white nationalist again, instead alt-right throughout.

Second one doesn't explicitly call her a white nationalist, closest is this: "And when it comes down to it, there isn’t much daylight between the politics of Southern, which are white nationalist, and those of Australian conservatism as it has developed in recent decades." So he's saying her politics is white nationalist, which I admit is pretty close. More importantly though I note that this author cannot be relied on as an arbiter of white nationalism as he describes modern conservatism in Australia as basically white nationalist. Also worthy to note that the Guardian is left wing, and this is an opinion piece.

Third one doesn't call her white nationalist at all, calls her alt-right: "Camus's notion of the Great Replacement has been spread by right-wing and white nationalist figures across the world. In July 2018, Lauren Southern, a Canadian alt-right figure posted, a video titled 'The Great Replacement' on YouTube that got over 250,000 views."

The fourth source itself isn't saying she's a white nationalist, it's reporting on the catagories of a study on YouTube radicalisation. Those authors roughly divided 360 channels into 4 catagories, so I'd say it's problematic to use this given Southern is an afterthought as just one of 360 channels and roughly divided in a very limited number of catagories.

The fifth source: "it is an open secret that white nationalists are the primary group making the most noise about the ostensibly out-of-control killing of white South African farmers. Most notably, Lauren Southern, a Canadian nationalist ... released the movie Farmlands." So says "Canadian nationalist" not "Canadian white nationalist". The implication is there given it's written just after saying white nationalists are doing it but it's not explicit and specifically chooses to call her nationalist, not white nationalist.

I think we need some more widespread sources describing her as white nationalist for Wikipedia to write this as a fact. The vast majority of sources don't and most of these 5 aren't good enough to use in support. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 8#RfC: Inclusion of alt-right, white nationalist, and Great Replacement details in lead GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody there actually looked at the sources, they saw there were sources and so supported it. I'm saying that these sources don't actually support the designation. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion includes detailed discussion of many sources, so I don't see how that's an accurate summary of the RfC. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see it's just people saying there are reliable sources stating it, nobody actually analyses any particular source. I've analysed the sources here and clearly at least several of them should be removed as they don't support the designation. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your personal opinion doesn't outweigh an RFC consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the label should stay, but several of these sources don't support the designation and should be removed. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

IP, the sources you reject are discussing Southern as a white nationalist. The kind of hair-splitting "analysis" you are engaged in is clearly motivated by POV, and IMO is incompatible with the purpose of the encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Some of them sure, but the 2nd, 3rd and 4th should be removed for the reasons stated. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No; these sources do support the claim. To take the second, for example: saying that Southern's politics are white nationalist is literally the same as referring to her as white nationalist. "White nationalism" has no other relevant meaning - you aren't even splitting a hair in this case; you are just imagining a distinction that does not exist at all. Newimpartial (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Who are you arguing against? I even said that it's pretty close to saying she's white nationalist, my problem with that source is that it's an opinion piece in a left wing publication and the author has a ridiculous definition of white nationalism, saying mainstream Australian conservatism is practically white nationalist. Can you address that point, and the points for the 3rd and 4th sources. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop moving the goalposts, please. Why do you think the second source is "opinion"? As far as the Guardian being "left wing", that assertion isn't relevant to WP sourcing policy, which is what matters here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, they raised the opinion issue in the original post, and the Guardian piece is labeled at the top as an opinion piece. I think the other provided sources are sufficient to retain the descriptor, so could we remove this one? Firefangledfeathers 17:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't render for me with an "Opinion" label, but I wouldn't object to its removal per BLP - nor does that affect the overall strength of sourcing IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What about the third source, which doesn't call her a white nationalist at all. And the fourth source which doesn't call her a white nationalist and instead is reporting on a study of YouTube's algorithm and they grouped 360 channels very roughly into a limited 4 catagories. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: I agree the quote you pulled from the Guardian source is an improvement. Pinging you so you're aware of this discussion. Do you feel the source is still reliable enough for this use, despite being an opinion piece? Firefangledfeathers 07:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

To a degree all the sources use opinion as the description cannot be called an absolute fact like the date someone was born. The point is Southern's politics (white genocide/replacement theory) match what is termed "white nationalist". Philip Cross (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're saying. The first of those sources uses Southern as an example of a "white nationalist figure", and the second discusses her "white nationalist messages". I don't see any problem with the retention of either source. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial, disagree with IP 84's analysis on both sources, and find them to be used appropriately in the article. Firefangledfeathers 21:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we're mixing up the sources we're looking at, I mean this source: "spread by right-wing and white nationalist figures across the world. In July 2018, Lauren Southern, a Canadian alt-right figure posted..." It sets up two groups that spread this, "right-wing" people and "white nationalist" people, it places her in the right-wing group calling her alt-right, not white nationalist. For the Wired article I'm curious how a study on YouTube's algorithm that roughly grouped 360 channels into a limited 4 catagories means we can use that as a reliable source for ourselves placing any of those 360 channels into those 4 catagories. If it was a study on political philosophies or similar, then I would say ok, these people are reliable for analysing and grouping these political channels, and if they had a lot more than 4 catagories so it wasn't so hazardly divided. But it's a YouTube algorithm study and they only used 4 catagories. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think the former source is treating right-wing and white nationalist figures as two groups? I'm not seeing it - it sounds like a misreading to me. Newimpartial (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

If it was one group there wouldn't be an "and" there, it would say "right-wing white nationalists". 84.70.169.190 (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't say "right-wing figures and white nationalist figures", it says "right-wing and white nationalist figures". The text does not distinguish between the two; the interpretation that it is only discussing figures that are both right-wing and white nationalist is more plausible than that it is "setting up" two distinct groups that it does not actually distinguish. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The meaning is that the great replacement theory is pushed by both right-wing and white nationalist people, if it meant "right-wing white nationalists" it would've said that, not put an "and" in there. This is also evidenced by the fact that just after this it notes how general right-wing figures promote this "A further example of white genocide theory occured in October 2018 when President Trump and the right-wing media..." It goes on to note how George Soros is accused of being a part of this by "right-wingers". 84.70.169.190 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and that source goes on to describe the alt-right, which includes Southern, as a white nationalist movement. Firefangledfeathers 20:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be saying there is a white nationalist alt-right movement. However some alt-right figures are not white nationalist so it would be ludicrous for that source to say every alt-right person is white nationalist and I don't believe it is saying that. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the source in question is one of many that ties Southern to white nationalism. I see no policy-relevant reason to remove it; you seem to be engaged in a POV crusade. Newimpartial (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It's talking about a particular theory that it says is popular with right-wing people and white nationalists. It never identifies Southern as white nationalist, therefore the source should be removed. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

That is an extremely TENDentious reading. A more plausible reading is that the source credits Southern with spreading a white nationalist conspiracy theory. That fact is relevant to the current description in the article of Southern as a white nationalist. I think it is time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It also says Donald Trump and Fox News spread white nationalist conspiracy theories but we're not using this source to say that Donald Trump and Fox News are white nationalist. The source doesn't describe her as white nationalist so we can't use the source to do it ourselves. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It also doesn't describe Donald Trump or Fox News as creating "Great Replacement" documentaries; i.e., it does not say the same thing about Southern as it does about Trump. Please read sources for content, and not as props for sophistry. I have reached my WP:SEALION limit, now; it really is time for you to DROPTHESTICK and step away from the carcass. Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It treats great replacement like other white nationalist theories, in that both right wing and white nationalist support it, and Southern, Trump and Fox News are grouped in the right wing camp, not white nationalist camp. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

There isn't any support for that in the actual source, though. You have constructed an original interpretation of the text. Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Untrue, the source clearly sets out two types of people, right-ring people who have aided white nationalist theories, these include Southern, Trump and Fox News, and white nationalists on the other. I guess we need an RfC to decide this? I also haven't seen anything in response to my problem with the YouTube algorithm study. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a tendentious reading, unsupported by the actual text. I am not playing this WP:SEALION game and longer. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The text says it in black and white "right-wing and white nationalist figures" instead of "right-wing white nationalist figures". Then right after it notes other "right-wing" figures that support these sorts of theories. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If the text meant to distinguish between right-wing figures and white nationalist figures, it would do so, perhaps by saying "right-wing figures and white nationalist figures". The text does not actually make that distinction. Such statements as "these right-wing figures spread white nationalist discourse" simply cannot be interpreted as a source supporting "these right-wing figures are not white nationalist", without a degree of torturous reading that violates the Geneva convention. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm allegedly it already does so, with that "and", and how right after that it goes on to describe other right-wing but not white nationalist figures who promote similar white nationalist theories. The point they're making is how right-wingers who are not white nationalist promote these theories. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Where does the source say that Southern is not a white nationalist? Generally it is white nationalists who create documentaries to spread white nationalist conspiracy theories. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I added two more sources. It is easy enough to find more but the bundle is already huge and I don't really agree there are problems with the existing ones - it's just easier to add more since she's extremely heavily-covered by academics discussion white nationalist women. --Aquillion (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you quote those sources calling her a white nationalist like the other sources do? 84.70.169.190 (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Kind of a tangent, but perhaps editors here will be interested (pinging @GorillaWarfare, @Firefangledfeathers, @NorthBySouthBaranof, @Philip Cross, as you posted in this discussion and aren't already in that conversation): This article is being used as an example in this discussion about whether it's okay to directly WP:LABEL someone as being a white nationalist (e.g., rather than writing "multiple sources say that..."). Depending on the outcome of that discussion, this article might need to be changed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)