Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

“Alt-Right”? “White Nationalist”?

These characterizations are opinions by biased Leftist sources. By this same logic, BLM activists must be noted as “Black Nationalists”. The giveaway that these are wrong is that she ran as a Libertarian candidate. 47.201.101.56 (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases its assertions on citations to reliable sources. The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists the established consensus of Wikipedia editors on the reliability of multiple publications and websites. Outlets normally considered left-wing, like Alternet, Counterpunch or The Grayzone, are considered "generally unreliable" or "deprecated" (cannot be used). Use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to begin a discussion on which outlets Wikipedia should consider reliable, though using the search function may resolve a query regarding any outlet. Philip Cross (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

She personally has denied that she is Alt-right or White Nationalist. She has explicitly said so more than once. WP policy says if you include the accusation, you should include the fact that she says otherwise. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

What policy is that? See WP:MANDY. "She would say that, wouldn't she?" Bishonen | tålk 17:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC).

Mandy is a very questionable essay. It basically says, "of course someone who is guilty will say they aren't". That might be true but how do we know if they are guilty? Wouldn't an innocent person also say they aren't guilty? The Atlantic included her denial, we should as well. Springee (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The point of MANDY is that the simple fact that someone has issued a denial is not notable or worthy of inclusion unless there are WP:RSes covering it; and even if it is covered, its inclusion is subject to the usual rules of WP:DUE. That is a basic extension of RS anmd DUE (and implied by eg. WP:SPS, which bars us from using SPSes for such denials, since they are generally unduly-self-serving; or by WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which says that If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.) MANDY simply spells out the implications of multiple related policies. Obviously a denial that has significant coverage in RSes must be included, but some people misconstrue WP:NPOV / WP:BLP to mean that we can (or even must) include any denial, under any circumstances, which is not the case and which is a form of WP:FALSEBALANCE. In extreme cases, if the sources overwhelmingly report something about an individual as fact, WP:YESPOV requires that we cover it as fact, even if that individual disagrees. That is often a high bar! But when it is met, we don't downplay facts simply because one person disagrees, and we don't include disagreement that is completely marginal in the sources - that would produce unbalanced articles. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the previous RfC, it shows consensus to include the generalized attributed claim, "She has been described as alt-right and a white nationalist." The current article text has alt-right and a white nationalist as factual claims in Wiki voice. This is a BLP and such contentious claims are absolutely unacceptable in Wiki voice. They are also a clear violation of LABEL. Springee (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT and WP:YESPOV require that we state things in the wiki-voice when the sources treat them as fact, and since YESPOV is part of NPOV, it trumps LABEL (which is merely part of the MOS and therefore a guideline) when the two contradict. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Political Hitpiece

Ive been following this article since early Febuary (2022) and was astounded by the clear lack of impartiality and bias within it. It seems like article was written almost entirely by people who have a strong desire to impune her character WP:ATTACK, and this does not have the standard of nuetrality someone expects from an encyclopedia article. WP:NPOV

It appears that there is atleast some level of consensus that the accusations and labels of White Supremacist/Alt-Right/White Nationalist should remain in the article, but that the opening paragraphs should be rewritten in a more neutral tone.

Im proposing this rewrite of the first paragraph.

Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June 1995) is a Canadian political activist, YouTuber and documentary film-maker. In 2015, Southern ran as a Libertarian Party candidate in the Canadian federal election. Southern worked for Rebel Media until March 2017, when she began to work independently. She has been described variously as Alt-Right and as a White Supremacist and White Nationalist, by several outlets but has repeatedly denied these claims. Williamep4 (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

That's bullshit. What RS do you even have that she contests those labels? Please see WP:MANDY. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This is from the original talk page on the day the article was changed from what WAS a rather impartial tone to the way it is written now. Im not sure what motivation you have for such staunch opposition to what is clearly editorial malpractice but you've been editing this article for years now and have seen it in many different iterations and should know that this is not proper. The below excerpt is from a account that has been verified to be Lauren Southern you can check the talk page.

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lauren_Southern&oldid=993917441

Hello, Lauren Southern here to correct this article myself.

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

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

I am neither a white nationalist nor alt-right.

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

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

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

Before the change

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Southern&oldid=993423576

After

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Southern&oldid=993900473

WP:Mandy Does not apply to the above formention changes, as both sides are clearly being represented. This is not a court of law or public opinion, there are obviously plenty of people on this talk page that disagree with the way it is written and given a quick glimpse of the talk page edit history this is not a new occurence. If consensus cannot be reached then this article needs to be protected and handed over to some admins that know what they are doing. The way it is currently written is improper whether new sourcers are added or not.

What RS? There are literally sources within the article in its current state. Aswell as this video posted above in the talk page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El63TQkBO7U Williamep4 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The YouTube video is not a reliable source. The Wikipedia posting is not a reliable source. And neither is independent of the subject.

MANDY is precisely about self-serving denials, which is what this case involves. If you want to include Southam's apparent rejection of these labels, the minimum requirement for such a mention to be WP:DUE would be coverage in independent, reliable sources. Where are they? Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Verbatim language used by the topic of a biographical article absolutely can be considered a reliable source. Wikipedia:Video links

There is no blanket ban on primary sources. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary

Regardless im not here to add sources or debate the content of the article or its sources, only the manner in which it is written.

The above suggested change is not denying anything that is being claimed by the sources cited to this article. This is not a matter of a NOPOV discrepancy, this does not line up with similar articles written about other figures. Even Trump's, Hitler's or Milo Yiannopoulos's articles arent written with this level of denigration.

"White nationalist Youtuber" At the very least this should be removed from the first sentence of the article, and changed to something more in line with what i have written above. Williamep4 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Why would you think that your YouTube offering falls within WP:RS, namely, reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? This is venturing into WP:CIR territory. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

You're ignoring the whole purpose of my original comment which is to rewrite it with a more balanced and impartial point of view. I only linked that youtube video because you seemed to suggest that there is no evidence of her denying these claims, *redacted due to inapropriate language - Williamep4. WP:CIR ill take that as a complement since, you seem to be using that as a personal insult.

In terms of the video being used as a source, i already linked some appropriate guidelines, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary Wikipedia:The rules are principles Wikipedia:Ignore all rules regardless, i have no interest in adding it into the article.

Theres no point in having an unending debate with you, given you're clearly invested in not changing the article for reasons i wont devulge, unless you have some fundamental disagreement as to why this wouldnt fall into a approriateWikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view edit. Williamep4 (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Without reliable, independent sourcing, there is no policy-based reason to make the changes you want. You keep citing irrelevant policies while ignoring the relevant ones. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thats your opinion, and i respectfully disagree. There needs to be a thorough checking of all the sources, and a process to establish consensus needs to be held. Williamep4 (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases its articles on its policies and the available reliable sources, not on the opinions of editors and the whinging of minor celebrities. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe in a perfect world, but these talk pages exist because users disagree as to the means with which those policies are implemented and the interpretation of sources being deemed reliable.

• I apologize for any improper language, i would like to keep this discussion civil and constuctive

For example, Citation #23 is original research, and is a primary source.

"When we speak, Southern flatly denies being racist or even far right, then ends our conversation...

Citation #2 is also original research and a primary source and could easily be considered an opinion piece.

"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.

This is innapropriate as it is drawing on a primary sources personal opinion based on personally conducted investigations. Williamep4 (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do you believe these to be primary sources, as in WP:PRIMARY? Using the first person voice does not make a source primary, or opinion for that matter. Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are going to say WP:MANDY applies, you need more than opinion articles saying she is so to support your claim. "Truth is a defense" only applies if the statement is true. Were I to violate WP:CIVIL I could come up with all sorts of accusations against others here, and when you deny them I could say that MANDY applies. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 21:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The sources currently used are predominantly not WP:RSOPINION articles. The rest of your comment here is strictly irrelevant. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Well of course you would say that. WP:MANDY applies. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 01:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial: Regarding this revert, you are wrong. "Commentisfree" is The Guardian's opinion/commentary platform (click on "opinion" on the tab at the top and you will be taken there), which includes [1] and [2]. The piece in the Atlantic, [3], is a story told by film director Daniel Lombroso in the first person, documenting his experiences making the film and his opinions on the people in it. The Atlantic doesn't have a dedicated opinion section, so there is no "opinion" warning in great big flashing letters. For instance, this is the latest piece The Atlantic has published: [4], which is an opinion article advocating for people to change their driving habits. No warning in big flashing letters at the top for you to quote, but it is undeniably an opinion piece; this is just the way The Atlantic works. Regarding procedure, if you only thought some of those were opinion pieces in my edit, I don't know why you reverted all of them. Endwise (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if you were correct about both Guardian pieces, that doesn't turn the Atlantic piece into opinion. That isn't what WP:RSOPINION says or what first-person writing means.

I also think both Guardian pieces are relevant for WP:DUE even as RSOPINION sources. So I don't see a good reason to remove any of them. Newimpartial (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Huh? What do the articles in The Guardian have to do with the article in The Atlantic? Did you actually read what I wrote? The lack of a huge warning sign at the top does not mean it is not opinion. Do you think their most recently published article is not opinion either? [5] Endwise (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't be insulting. Of course I read what you wrote, but RSOPINION pieces can be relevant for DUE, and one piece from the Atlantic being unlabeled opinion doesn't mean they all are - and this one isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say anything along the lines of the Guardian pieces [...] turn the Atlantic piece into opinion. I think you can empathise with why lying about what someone in an argument has said would make them frustrated; a good faith explanation of you putting words in my mouth would be that you didn't actually properly read what I had wrote. Regarding WP:DUE, a stack of opinion pieces a mile high does not allow us to state matter-of-factly what those opinion pieces say. Even further than that, it's a piece that (like most of the sources used) doesn't even call her a white nationalist! Endwise (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, while I'm looking at this, the third source [6] doesn't even call her a white nationalist, it calls her "alt-right" but says she is among either right wing or white nationalist figures. The fourth [7] also does not call her a white nationalist, it says she has expressed "more explicitly white nationalist messages" than the previous YouTubers they were discussing. The fifth [8] calls her a "Canadian nationalist" rather than a white nationalist; they are also not directly applying the label to her. God, who added all this shit? This is one of the most egregious articles I think I've seen on this website. Endwise (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You are misreading the third and fifth sources, as I have pointed out previously. And hairsplitting between "white nationalist messages" and "white nationalist YouTuber" (re: the fourth source) is not going to "win" you any arguments here. Newimpartial (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not hairsplitting. For instance, we probably do have sources that would let us say something along the lines of "Tucker Carlson has promoted more explicitly white nationalist messages than his fellow Fox News hosts", but that does not mean we therefore have the ability to open Carlson's Wikipedia article with "... is an American television host and white nationalist political commentator". They are substantively different claims. Also, can you point me to where you explained the misreading of those sources? I can't find it in this thread. Endwise (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry; I must have misremembered some exegesis I did on another Talk page (note: it is actually on this page, above - I wonder whether IP 84 has continued to participate on this Talk page). The third source characterizes Southern among right-wing and white nationalist figures, but also notes her documentary as white nationalist, so it is indeed "hairsplitting" for you to argue that the source does not verify her white nationalist credentials. In the case of the fifth source, you seem to have missed the reference on p. 101 that places Southern in a list of Canadian white nationalists. We have quality, even scholarly sources here - this isn't inexpert or casual commentary. Newimpartial (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC) note added by Newimpartial (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding WP:MANDY, as you can see on the talk page of that (rather bad) essay, it is rather plainly advocating for violating already existing BLP policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons#Denial: If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance. Endwise (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The text you are citing from BLP covers an allegation or incident, which is not what we are discussing here. Newimpartial (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

From reading this talk page discussion, it seems like some journalists and some academics have accused her of being a white nationalist, and she denies it. I don't know if there's some specific and technical definition of "allegation" that Wikipedia operates under, but I don't see why that doesn't qualify. I don't think how true any editor thinks the allegation is or how true the allegation is in reality is what makes it qualify as an allegation or not an allegation. Endwise (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be an "allegation": these are typical political labels, and aren't really controversial except among Wikipedia contributors like yourself. The examples in BLP are affairs and criminal wrongdoing, which are entirely different IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason that accusations of an affair are particularly scandalous is because most people (say, in the West, in the English-speaking world, whatever) view sleeping with someone other than your spouse to be immoral. Most people also view being a white nationalist to be immoral, so I don't see why these accusations are categorically distinct. It may very well be true that so-and-so politician had an affair with the milkman, and it may very well be true that so-and-so political commentator is a white nationalist. We should state these allegations similarly as matter-of-factly as reliable sources do (for instance, it is probably a matter of fact that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky), and give living people the ability to defend themselves proportional to the extent that their defense has been mentioned in reliable sources. WP:MANDY says that all of these considerations (including BLP policy) must be ignored, and there are certain accusations (like being a white nationalist) which we must not allow living people to defend themselves against. There is good reason it has garnered so much criticism on its talk page; I do not think it should be quoted in a content dispute. Endwise (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do you see MANDY as saying that BLP policy ... must be ignored? That seems ... idiosyncratic. Newimpartial (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Must is perhaps too strong for the conflict with BLP policy, but it says if someone denies being a white nationalist not to include it, whereas Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons#Denial says to include it. Endwise (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Except WP:BLP doesn't actually say that at all. The Denial section isn't about that.

Also, re: give living people the ability to defend themselves proportional to the extent that their defense has been mentioned in reliable sources - have you found any reliable sources mentioning Southern's denials? Newimpartial (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

My previous comment was dedicated to outlining why allegations of an affair and allegations of white nationalism are not categorically distinct things, so I hope you can appreciate why I believe that the denial section does in fact say that. I'm not sure what you think makes them so different. Regarding sources for Southern's denials, I hadn't looked, but at quick glance Southern denies being a white nationalist (this one is already quoted in the article), Southern, a Canadian film-maker and YouTube personality frequently described as a “rightwing provocateur”, has previously rejected claims of being a “white nationalist” which links to a tweet in which she says Well considering I’m not a WN, and Southern ... denies that she is a white supremacist.

As a related exercise, instead of cherry picking sources that agree with me, I'm just going to google "Lauren southern white nationalism" and report what the first sources that appear on google say, in the order in which they appear:

• 1, the first hit is the piece we discussed earlier in The Atlantic, which does not call her a white nationalist and in fact mentions that she denies it.
• 2 is this Wikipedia article.
• 3, an article from SPLC which says Her anti-feminist, xenophobic, Islamophobic diatribes tiptoe at the precipice of outright white nationalism. Again, not calling her a white nationalist. I think you will begin to notice a pattern as I continue.
• 4, an article in Vox which calls Richard Spencer a white nationalist, but says Southern is instead an anti-immigration activist.
• 5, An article in The Guardian which says Southern, a Canadian film-maker and YouTube personality frequently described as a “rightwing provocateur”, has previously rejected claims of being a “white nationalist”
• 6, this appears to be a Medium.com blog on a website i've never heard of, so I'll skip it
• 7, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald which says far right Canadian YouTuber Lauren Southern has landed in Australia for her national tour, wearing a shirt emblazoned with "It's okay to be white". The pattern, unsurprisingly, continues.
• 8, documentary review in Variety which says the film follows the activities of Lauren Southern, a Canadian-born alt-right rabble-rouser, and does not call her a white nationalist.

That is the entire first page of results for me. Not a single one of them calls her a white nationalist. Why on Earth does this Wikipedia article? Especially when it is doing so while citing sources that themselves do not even call her one? You may think that choosing to ignore what reliable sources say about a subject and inserting your own opinion can be an effective form of activism, but I implore you to consider that it actually probably isn't: when people read this article, hover over the note after "white nationalist", and see a reference to an article which doesn't even call her a white nationalist and in fact mentions that she denies it, they tend to think of what they are reading as propaganda that is not to be trusted. That harms the encyclopedia, and if your aim is to denigrate her in the eyes of the public, producing material that reads as unreliable propaganda harms that aim too. Endwise (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Endwise, first please note that both Harvestdancer and Williamep4 proposed that denials by Southam of being "white nationalist" and "alt right" both be inserted in the lead paragraph. From your Google search, it seems there might be an argument to do so for "white nationalist" but not for "alt right". Do you agree?

Also, re: when it is doing so while citing sources that themselves do not even call her one?, I have established above that some of the RS currently cited do indeed refer to Southern directly as "white nationalist". Do you now accept this?

Finally, re: You may think that choosing to ignore what reliable sources say about a subject and inserting your own opinion can be an effective form of activism - that's an WP:NPA and WP:AGF violation. Don't do that. I do not think any such thing, nor do I edit as though I did - if I were to misrepresent sources to insert my own opinions in WP articles, the opinions expressed would be quite different, believe me. Newimpartial (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding what reliable (non-opinion piece) sources we have that refer to Southern as a "white nationalist", we have two: the two primary academic sources: [9] and [10]. Alexandra Stern's book is arguable: 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... arguably implies that she's a white nationalist, but ultimately chooses to describe her as a "Canadian nationalist". I'm feeling generous so I'll give you 2 and half.

Regarding "alt-right", I have less strong opinions on that. Mainly because "alt-right" is a descriptor that actually is used regularly for her in reliable sources[11][12][13][14][15][16] (unlike "white nationalist", which is not). Less importantly, I'm also not sure what it means to label someone "alt-right" in 2022. That word feels like it has undertaken many different meanings, from something like "far-right" to something like "whatever Richard Spencer believes", and probably something like "whatever /pol/ believes" at some point; I don't see people using the term very much in 2022, so I don't actually know what they would mean by it if they were to use it in 2022. But that's entirely internal to me, and should not effect what goes into the actual article.

Regarding what should actually go in the article, reliable sources regularly and consistently call her "alt-right", so I think we should to. I can't seem to find her denying being "alt-right", so I don't know what we would even source a denial to. For "white nationalist", I think we should probably go with something like Southern has been accused of being a white nationalist,[17][18][19] which she has denied.[20][21], sourced to the primary source academic + opinion article which does call her a white nationalist, and the denial articles I mentioned earlier. Not fussed on the wording.

Regarding meta commentary -- look, we all have opinions, and whether we like it or not those opinions creep in, alter our motivations, and bias us. In the project of creating a neutral encyclopedia, the best we can do is attempt to neutralise those biases as much as possible. My user page explains some of my motivations: I think the increasing polarisation and sense of political groups "living in two different realities" is a bad thing, and I think the world would function better if we all have access to reliable information that allows us to better understand the world around us and have a shared understanding of reality. There's no reason to keep secrets here; your userpage indicates motivations that are probably different to mine, and both of our motivations bias us, but we can all contribute positively if we keep our biases in check. I mentioned why it is harmful to the encyclopedia to call someone a controversial thing that reliable sources don't -- the reader thinks Wikipedia is unreliable, partisan propaganda (scroll up and see this talk page if you don't believe me...) -- but I think it is an issue that should probably speak to our motivations and biases as well. Maybe you think that shouldn't matter and should have no effect, and ideally it shouldn't, but, in reality, it does. Endwise (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

First of all, my reality is Canadian, so it almost certainly differs from yours.

Second, I don't think the article should say that Southern has been accused of being "white nationalist" - that language isn't in any of the sources, as far as I recall, and it is particularly misleading to suggest that high-quality academic sources, which we would be citing in your proposal, accuse anyone of anything unless we have good reason to do so. We should use "described as", if we need to attribute.

Finally, you have to see that this page has been repeatedly needled by editors insisting that the language of the lead be changed, by editors unwilling (or unable) to engage with the sources at any level other than attacking the ones used in the article - with or without any reason - and proposing WP:SPS as better authorities. I am glad to see that you are not doing that. Newimpartial (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not married to the word "accused", "has been described as" seems like it would work too. Regarding some of the other editors, I suspect their motivations come more from a sense of anger at what they see as Wikipedia being turned into partisan propaganda or ammo for the culture wars -- I understand why they are frustrated, but I think that I'm probably responding differently because my motivations and biases are different than theirs. Endwise (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

How about Some sources have described Southern as a white nationalist,[22][23][24] which she has denied.[25][26] ? Endwise (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Described as", is the language i used in my proposal. The leading sentence is not accurate, the reason being is that Alt-Right and White Nationalist dont fully encompass who she is or what she does, language like this is rarely used on wikipedia because regardless of what is written in "reliable sources" editors should be able to understand when discretion is appropriate, in terms of whether information is retained or ommited from an article. I.E. "citation needed"

Lauren southern is a political activist. She certainly could be described as a libertarian, as "far right" "Alt-right, and probably many other things, all of which can be sourced, should the leading sentence say, a Libetarian, far right, alt right, political commentator? No, first, its not necessary as this information will follow in the article, second due to the nature of Lauren Southern being outside of the mainstream, the majority of articles written about her are politically motivated hit pieces which will not allow the reader an appropriate WP:NPOV. There is a substantial lack of balance in terms of what sources are used in this article, mainly because of the lack of press coverage in general. This would set a bad precedent if any minor public figure could be libeled on Wikipedia simply because of a lack of general press coverage.

I think there are enough sources to keep the information about her being 'described as' a white nationalist within the article, but this should not be part of the leading sentence. It should not be beyond anyone here to appreciate that "White Nationalist" is a deragatory term, and given that she has denied it herself on a verfied wikipedia account aswell as in several other places. I fully appreciate the acknowledgement of WP:MANDY, i am in no way trying to remove this information from the article, or attempting to edit it in a way that would distort the readers perception of who she is or is not. WP:BLP Sets the precedent that a controverial claim or accusation which has been denied, should include reference to such denial. If we are going to include the terminology "White Nationalist" and "White Supremacist" within the opening sentences and paragraphs then the denials should also be within the same structure of those claims.

1. Either remove the term white nationalist from the leading sentence or paragraph and introduce it alongside Lauren's denial.

2. Or - if we are going to keep it within the leading sentence or paragraph then the denial needs to be moved to within that same structure.

3. I dont think its wholly appropriate to use these descriptive terms preceding Political Activist and Youtuber, given that she is described in various places in various different ways, aswell as the above mentioned denial which should be considered.

4. Wikipedia is not an encylopedia of secondary sources, its an encyclopedia of many different forms of knowledge from many different kinds of sources, including but not limited to secondary sources. A biography of a living person, should be representative of the person being written about, and if information outside of secondary sources, which is objective and verifiable, is necessary to maintain the accuracy and integrity of an article then it should be included. Case in point: Statements of denial from primary sources.

Final point, any reference to Lauren Southern being White Nationalist/Supremacist/Alt-Right is an 'Opinion', regardless of whether it is written within an "Opinion Piece", these are not legal statutes, nor does she refer to herself as such. Williamep4 (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I will let someone else respond to this WP:WALLOFTEXT, but I feel compelled to respond to the last point - any reference to Lauren Southern being White Nationalist/Supremacist/Alt-Right is an 'Opinion', regardless of whether it is written within an "Opinion Piece", these are not legal statutes, nor does she refer to herself as such. There is no basis for any of this in Wikipedia policy, and it runs directly counter to the core policy WP:V. This simply isn't how Wikipedia works, and no argument based on this can ever give rise to article-space decisions, per WP:CONLEVEL. Newimpartial (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Certainly most of the sources describing her as alt-right matter-of-factly are not opinion pieces. Would you object to the text I proposed in my earlier comment? Some sources have described Southern as a white nationalist,[27][28][29] which she has denied.[30][31] Endwise (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, id have to disagree, there are precidents concerning how opinion peices should be handled. It doesnt matter whether the terminology was used in an "opinion piece" or not, if the claim itself is an opinion. WP:V is not relevant. Im not questioning the verfiability of the sources. Someone claiming that someone is something, does not make it fact, the same is true if one hundred people say it. Claims made based on personally held beliefs and obvervations without some form of objecive standard is an opinion. If the source claims that she is a White Supremacist/Nationalist but does not elaborate as to why, then that claim cannot be distinquished from an opinion statement.

Southern has been described as both a white nationalist, and a white supremacist by a number of journalists. She has denied these assertions. Williamep4 (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, since these descriptions are made by scholars as well as journalists, this is not an appropriate proposal for attribution. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:BIASED Williamep4 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG

News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors).

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.

Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies.

Per WP:RSOPINION

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. Williamep4 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Those passages are about opinion pieces; they have nothing to do with academic publications or, for that matter, other forms of journalism besides "opinion" writing. Nobody that I've seen in this discussion is proposing to make statements of fact based on opinion writing. Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Break

Hi Newimpartial, regarding this: I thought this was already fleshed out. The sources that were removed from the citation bundle were the ones which didn't call her a white nationalist; I left the academic/journalist sources in which did. She is almost never given the "white nationalist" label in reliable sources, which is the problem we were trying to amend in the above section. To describe abiding by BLP#Denial by citing some amongst the multiple sources which include her denial as false balance, but applying a label to her which is almost never used by reliable sources as not false balance doesn't seen to make sense, so your revert was a little bit confusing to me. As I said, I thought this was already fleshed out. If you just say Academics and journalists describe Lauren Southern as a white nationalist as you have now proposed, that would mean they all do or they almost all do. But as we know, generally they actually don't, you have to cherry pick and dig extremely hard to find the very rare exceptions where they do. It really is the case that Some sources describe or Some academics and journalists describe her as a white nationalist; Academics and journalists describe Lauren Southern as a white nationalist is false. So what you said in your edit summary didn't really make any sense to me. Endwise (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Endwise, I am trying to WP:AGF here, but you removed the Stern source which, as I pointed out above, lists Southern explicitly among Canadian white nationalists on p. 101. Maybe stop trying to push ahead unilaterally here? I have also argued that sources referring to the documentary rather than to Southern herself as "white nationalist" should also be retained as relevant for WEIGHT and DUE. Maybe stop trying to push ahead unilaterally here? Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right about Stern's book, that was an oversight on my part, as I was still looking at the chapter that was cited in the article -- I'll go and fix that reference in a sec. Regarding using sources that don't call her a white nationalist to call her a white nationalist, I really don't think that helps. It does harm to the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia, but ultimately WP:DUE is about balancing viewpoints that have been expressed in reliable sources: if a source isn't actually expressing the viewpoint which you are using them as a source for ("Lauren southern is a white nationalist"), then it's not adding extra weight to that viewpoint.

Do you understand my objection to saying "Academics and journalists describe Lauren Southern as a white nationalist" (i.e. they generally all do) rather than "Some academics and journalists"? Endwise (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see this edit. And re: if a source isn't actually expressing the viewpoint which you are using them as a source for ("Lauren southern is a white nationalist"), then it's not adding extra weight to that viewpoint - fortunately, we can add relevant quotes so readers can judge for themselves the relevance of the material and, in this case, the relationship between authoring a white nationalist documentary and being described as a white nationalist. The viewpoint that someone might create a white nationalist documentary without appropriately being labelled a white nationalist has not really been expeessed in the sources brought to the table, so I don't see any reason to emphasize this (apparently WP:OR) interpretation - white nationalist work is relevant to white nationalist figures.

I find it painfully repetitive to see POV editors insisting, when labels are used in article text, that the labels should be backed up by the facts underlying the label but, when evidence is actually included in our articles, wikilawyering that evidence, e.g., of the subject's white nationalist activity is only relevant when the same source refers to the subject explicitly as "a white nationalist". This kind of apparent disingenuity is not in the interest of our readers, I believe, and consists largely of scholastic hair-splitting. Newimpartial (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

For me, when I click on a note that says "Sources describing Southern as "white nationalist" include:", and skim over the first citation and see that it doesn't even describe her as a white nationalist, I cringe and feel embarrassed for the encyclopedia. What strikes embarrassment in me clearly has struck what appears to be rage in other readers at the state of this article: this is what I mean by "harm to the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia". Even if you only kept it trimmed to the sources which do call her a white nationalist, we'd have four, which I don't think looks like an embarrassingly small number. At the very least, I'd like for there to be some delineation between the two types of sources (sources for her being a white nationalist, sources for tangentially related things)

I'm perfectly happy btw with the wording in that edit. Would you object to me re-instating my ancillary edits? (i.e. removing stuff that is now duplicated, improving the reference in the alt-right bundle, wikilinking, yada yada).

Regarding the meta conversation -- I think wikilawyering that evidence, e.g., of the subject's white nationalist activity is only relevant when the same source refers to the subject explicitly as "a white nationalist" is the central point -- I really, genuinely do not think this is nitpicking. I think there is a huge substantive difference. I think we have sources to say that Tucker Carlson has paid lip service to white nationalist talking points, but I don't think we have sources to open his article with "Tucker Carlson is a white nationalist". For a more hyperbolic example, I think we have the ability to include "False" Politifact ratings of Joe Biden's statements if they are found to be due, but we definitely don't have the sources to open his article with "Joe biden is an American politician, misinformation spreader/liar/conspiracy theorist, and president of the United States" or something like that. There is a chasm of difference, and going from one to the other seems to me to be far more of an apparently WP:OR interpretation than respecting the existence of that chasm. Endwise (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

To me there is every difference between WP:SYNTH - where Wikipedia would state conclusions its RS do not, and which is not allowed by policy - and stating conclusions that RS reach along with some of the supporting evidence for those conclusions, which might be from other sources. The two examples you are giving are SYNTH, but "Lauren Southern is a white nationalist figure" is not SYNTH.

Also, if you would like to re-order the sources so that the ones describing Southern as a white nationalist are listed first - or even move sources that name the documentary but not Southern as white nationalist to the discussion of the documentary - I would be fine with that. This is not at all what you did in the edit I reverted: you removed both kinds of sources. However, please do not remove Robison-Greene from the "white nationalist" bundle. Doing so would reflect a misreading of the passage quoted and the source as a whole - the text is clearly including Southern as a white nationalist figure, as is clear from the passage as a whole (beyond the snippet quoted). Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

To quote from that page, using a source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source is exactly what we are talking about, isn't it? Using a source which does not state that someone is a "white nationalist" to reach the conclusion "Lauren Southern is a white nationalist" seems to be rather exactly reaching a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. This seems to be of the same type of thing; a less extreme version of the hyperbolic example of reading this article and adding "Liar" to the opening sentence of Joe Biden's Wikipedia article.

Hiding the sources that are less relevant towards the end of the bundle is I guess better, but what's the use? I really think it is not needed. We have enough, I think.

I had a better look at the Robison-Greene source, and if anything I'm even less confident that she's being called a white nationalist. It starts Camus's notion of the Great Replacement has been spread by right-wing and white nationalist figures across the world, mentions her (as plainly alt-right), then Mike Cernovich (as part of a "white nationalist "alt-right" movement"), then mentions Steve King and describes him explicitly as a "white nationalist". Of the 3 figures mentioned, she seems to be more on the "right-wing" side of the right-wing and white nationalist figures, given they explicitly called Steve King a white nationalist and Cernovich as part of a white nationalist movement. I really think this kind of "if you try hard enough you might be able to convince yourself that they are very subtly implying a conclusion they didn't actually state" type of reasoning is both harmful to the encyclopedia and exactly what a lot of the original research policy seems dedicated to trying to prevent. Endwise (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Per @Newimpartials, assertion that you are acting unilaterally. That doesnt seem to be the case, there are several users that have posited interest in reviewing the citations. I have a limited amount of time to spend on this, but if you need any assistance with anything you can mention it on my talk page. Williamep4 (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Endwise, if we incorporate a sourced argument in an article (Southern is considered a white nationalist because she hae done white nationalist work), and include sources for both the overall conclusion (Southern is considered a white nationalist) and the major premise (Southern has done white nationalist work) - including the support for the minor premise is not SYNTH.

As far as the specific reading of Robison-Greene is concerned - and I am again struggling to AGF here - the relevant passage begins The white genocide conspiracy theory is a message heavily pushed by white nationalists, who claim that there is ..., a concept called "the great replacement". Then the discussion of Camus, then 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 called "The Great Replacement" on YouTube.

I would like to point out three things about this passage: (1) it is a complete misreading to assume that the passage is distinguishing "right-wing", "white nationalist" and "alt right" categories as mutually exclusive - if anything, "alt right" here is probably the Venn intersection of "right wing" and "white supremacist", which has been a common use of the term; (2) the passage clearly communicates that "the great replacement" is a white nationalist concept by definition, and that Southern is one of the figures pushing this concept; (3) we are not relying on this source as the only, or the highest quality, source that Southern is a white nationalist figure, but I can only see it as helpful to our readers to present this source, alongside others, as a reference where it is stated that Southern is regarded as a white nationalist. Treating this source as not relevant seems to involve either tortured or motivated reasoning. Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't really think this checks out. To respond to the arguments you made regarding the Robison-Greene source:

• The white genocide conspiracy theory is a message heavily pushed by white nationalists, who claim that there is ..., a concept called "the great replacement" is saying that white nationalists heavily push it. It does not mean "if you spread the great replacement message you are a white nationalist". In fact, it seems to be saying the opposite of that, that the message is spread both by right-wing and white nationalist figures across the world. The lead in fact already says that she has spread the white nationalist concept of the Great Replacement. That is what most of the second paragraph is dedicated to discussing.
• If "alt-right" is merely a simple subset of "white nationalist", then we could use every time she is described as alt-right as a source for the claim that she is a white nationalist. Why single this source out? We have a whole stack of sources calling her alt-right.
• I can only see it as helpful to our readers to present this source, alongside others, as a reference where it is stated that Southern is regarded as a white nationalist. - but, the reference doesn't state that. That's kind of the whole point.

I think there was some formatting screwups in the first two paragraphs of your reply, so it's hard to read what you meant. Did you mean something like: the source said both A) "if you spread Great Replacement message ==> you are a white nationalist" and B) "Lauren southern spread the Great Replacement message", but did not explicitly state the conclusion C) "Lauren southern is a white nationalist"? If so, I don't know if that would count as "novel synthesis" or not, but it's actually irrelevant because the source doesn't say "if you spread Great Replacement message ==> you are a white nationalist". In fact it seems to be saying the opposite, that Camus' message was spread both by right-wing and white nationalist figures across the world. It also then goes on to list some example figures, some of whom are described as white nationalists, but Southern was not. Endwise (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

(I feel the way I used to, when dealing with undergraduate students in analytical philosophy. Thus is not a good feeling, but I am trying to get through it.)

• your key misreading, Endwise, is of the phrase, Camus's notion of the Great Replacement has been spread by right-wing and white nationalist figures across the world. It does not say, as you just interpolated, both. The text means, "figures who are right-wing and white nationalist", not "figures who are right-wing and those who are white nationalist", as you have repeatedly suggested. In context, the whole passage does not make sense if your interpretation is followed, because the passage does not at all distinguish between right-wing figures, alt-right figures and white nationalist figures as though these were distinct attributes; it simply chooses the most appropriate term in each instance. The text is reasonably clear about this: Perhaps the clearest articulation of the great replacement theory is the chant of the "alt right" marchers at Charlottesville, Virginia. Not a whiff of "alt right" being separate from "white supremacist nationalist".
• your point beginning If "alt-right" is merely a simple subset of "white nationalist" completely misses my point, whether inadvertently or advertently. I am not saying, "this source calls her alt-right so it shows she is white nationalist". I am saying that this source calls her an alt-right figure promoting a white nationalist conspiracy theory and categorizes her with white nationalists pushing a conspiracy theory - therefore, this is relevant sourcing where the label white nationalist is used for her. Your reading of the passage rests on the assumption that it distinguishes between right-wing figures and white nationalists - which it does not - and then groups alt-right figures as right-wing but not white nationalist - which it also does not (please see the end of my previous bullet). Your reading therefore appears to be to be tortured and unsupported. In particular, your claim that the source doesn't say "if you spread Great Replacement message -- > you are a white nationalist". In fact it seems to be saying the opposite seems nonsensical at best and malign at worst. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It would seem incredibly bizarre to me that in saying Camus's notion of the Great Replacement has been spread by right-wing and white nationalist figures across the world the author meant "figures who are right-wing and white nationalist", and not "figures who are right-wing and those who are white nationalist". I can't believe both that they would mean that and that someone would think that they meant that. Think for a second about what that would actually mean: do you think they are saying that Great Replacement stuff is being spread by right-wing white nationalists as opposed to what, left-wing white nationalists? Are there a lot of left-wing white nationalists out there, running around, that totally exist? Was the author taking careful note to make sure the reader understood that this theory was only being spread by the right-wing variety of white nationalists, and your garden variety left-wing white nationalist was by contrast steering clear of the theory? Really? Do you believe that? Endwise (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't philosophy 101, Endwise. The framing text for this passage (after a brief introduction) is The white genocide conspiracy theory is a message heavily pushed by white nationalists, who claim that there is ..., a concept called "the great replacement". At no subsequent point in the passage does the text distinguish between right-wing, alt-right and white nationalist figures. Do you honestly believe that the sentence connecting the Great Replacement to Charlottesville somehow allows for the interpretation that the marchers are not expressing a white nationalist message? The entire section simply does not distinguish these different categories of figures, as you are trying to do, and it uses the most relevant term (or, occasionally, terms) in each instance.

What is more, since we are not relying uniquely on this source, and this source does clearly state that the great replacement conspiracy theory - which Southern is spreading - belongs to white nationalism, your argument that the note on white nationalism is better off not including this source and a relevant quotation seems quite inexplicable. If the reader wishes to interpret the source in the bizarre way you chose to, they are empowered to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would answer that question, as I think it gets to the heart of why your interpretation doesn't appear to make sense. Do you genuinely believe that the author was saying that Great Replacement messaging is spread by "right-wing white nationalists" as opposed to "left-wing white nationalists", who in contrast do not spread the message?

And yes, I do in fact believe "Lauren Southern promoted the Great Replacement" is not a source for the statement "Lauren Southern is a white nationalist"; that would rather obviously constitute original research, and the fact that the source mentioned the theory was also promoted by Charlottesville marchers does not change that fact. I think that belief of mine is quite explicable, actually. Endwise (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this edit goes some way to explicate why I see the book as a relevant, supporting source. As to your misinterpretation of the text, you have offered not one shred of evidence why readers should see the "alt right" label as distinct from white nationalism, though there is clear evidence (the Charlottesville passage) that it is understood as white nationalist.

No, of course I don't think the author is distinguishing left from right white nationalists; I think the author is describing a group of figures whose relevant characteristics are right-wing politics and white nationalism. Your argument that the author is distinguishing "right-wing" figures from "white nationalists" seems to me both unsupported by the text of the passage and sophistical. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think changing the heading of the citation bundle helped alleviate a good deal of my concerns, and while I still disagree with you about the source -- "right-wing" and "white nationalists" did not literally mean the same thing and nor was the author referring to "right wing white nationalists" as opposed to "left-wing white nationalists" -- with the focus/framing of what the source is used for changed, I think I am probably okay with it.

The main problem now is that it's somewhat duplicative with the material in the 3rd paragraph. I'll try and combine them together in a sec. Endwise (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

“Alt-right” implies a racially nationalistic viewpoint, of which Lauren does not hold. I am no fan of her, but “far-right” is more accurate and not slanderous. 184.99.96.149 (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is well sourced, and there is consensus for it's inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

She is actually not a white nationalist nor alt right

She is actually not a white nationalist nor alt right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:FF08:900:F93A:706E:8880:6658 (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

For these sources claiming that she is white nationalist and alt-right, did anyone do any checking to see if those sources are reliable? A casual examination of said sources suggests this was not done at all. -- Frotz(talk) 06:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian and The Atlantic are among the most reliable of journalistic sources.Newimpartial (talk)

the atlantic has a bias. I honestly don't see how that helps calling her alt right? What is alt right? That definition is pretty wishy washy. A troll, yes. j 05:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javiern (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Newimpartial (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually spent a bit of time reading the sources, and they are all opinion pieces. Sourcing opinion pieces does not belong on wikipedia. So I deleted the white nationalist claim. Please refrain from using political opinion pieces as sources.

before editing, please refer to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

  j 12:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javiern (talk • contribs)  

The Richardson-Greene book is not at opinion piece. Newimpartial (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

yes it is. I am well aware of Rachel Robison-greenes work. It is literally a professors opinion. The section that briefly mentions her is called White genocide theory. It is literally one sentence she uses to compose her opinion about the theory she presents throughout the book. In that one sentence, it is this, "Camus's notion of the great replacement has been spread by the 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." That is it. No where does she even mention Lauren Southern as a White nationalist. There is just an assumption from the professor.. It is clear the sources are opinion pieces. Leaving it breaks wikipeida's neutral point of view which state:

_{"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."}

_{Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.}

_{Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.}

_{Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.""}

If anything it should be noted further down the page that many see her as a white nationalist. There is no actual fact proving otherwise

j 13:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC) j 13:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javiern (talk • contribs)

Information published in such books is not opinion in the sense of WP:RSOPINION. And that is far from being the source.

Southern has created one of the most widely recognized white nationalist documentaries in the last decade or so. What makes you feel that her white nationalism is seriously contested or an opinion? I don't see anyone contesting it. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

How does a BLP article open with the line "is a ......" and every entry says "Sources describe".? If "sources describe" then it isn't an "is a", it's a "is described as" and it shouldn't be the first sentence on a BLP article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

As noted above, that might be true for "white nationalist" in most cases, but it certainly isn't true for "alt right". It is important to fill in your ellipses. :) Newimpartial (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Can't remember my password right now, so I can't log in. I actually took the time to look at the video in question, and then compared it to her other content. Based on political events at the time of publishing, it seems to me that she has a tendency to troll for clicks. I also went to several white nationalist websites, like daily stormer, and they really hate her. I also looked at some popular conservative pundits/journalists and they dispute the claim. A couple even interviewed her. Take it for what it is worth, but it is contested. And it wasn't appropriate in that section.

I personally feel that putting it under Activism and views, where the statement currently resides, is appropriate. And I am satisfied with the solution. Since it explains the reasoning behind it.

Sorry for the late reply. 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:1800:3052:DEBF:BCDF (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"Islamophobic"

"Islamophobic/Ialamophobia" is a misnomer as this suggests religion cannot be criticised or scrutinised, which of course it can be in an open, free and democratic society. The last time I looked, blasphemy laws were not in place outside of the middle-east. I request that it be changed to "anti-Muslim", if it has to be mentioned at all (with WP:RS in place). 2A02:C7E:2A22:FD00:790A:A1BB:6C02:E821 (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The term "Islamophobic" is rendered in the source and its meaning is not quite the same as "anti-Muslim". No reason to remove it and retain the other terms used in the passage. Philip Cross (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Strange sentence structure

The last paragraph before the section 'Early life' end with "Southern ended their "conversation by predicting a race war."". I believe the quotation marks here are placed incorrectly. It would make more sense if it read [ended their conversation by "predicting...] The quotation marks could also be omitted, but then the claim is not factually supported by the source, since it is a statement of the author rather than a transcript of the interview.

I am also not sure why her statement from 2021 is rebutted with a quote of an article written two years prior to that. But that is a separate matter from the grammatical issue. TMI404 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Remove both white-nationalist and Alt-right. Lauren has specifically stated she is neither AND is a Libertarian. Al-right and Libertarian don't exist. This is extremely defamatory. Msell80 (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• 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. Hyperballad Eye (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

“Alt right” and “white nationalist” are absurd

These are far-left extremist labels that are defamatory, polarizing, and above all, simply inaccurate. 2603:8001:7001:B325:A1FD:A8B6:4E36:BA91 (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

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. See: WP:RS and WP:BLP for some guidance.Hyperballad Eye (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Hyperballad Eye (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

In the same paragraph it says she's libertarian. How are you alt-right and Libertarian? This is a biased change that should be removed immediately and the contributor should be suspended. Msell80 (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

For any changes to be made, you should suggest reliable sources. See: WP:RS and WP:BLP for some guidance.Hyperballad Eye (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite first paragraph

How about this:

Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[4] 1995) is a Canadian political activist, YouTuber and documentary film-maker. There are opinion articles in biased sources that claim she is alt-right and white-supremacist - a claim she explicitly denies and has considered suing Wikipedia for defamation for their inclusion in this article. In 2015, Southern ran as a Libertarian Party candidate in the Canadian federal election. Southern worked for Rebel Media until March 2017, when she began to work independently.

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. See: WP:RS and WP:BLP for some guidance.Hyperballad Eye (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Edited Hyperballad Eye (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to tag you @jasonharves Hyperballad Eye (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it is more accurate. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Change the term "alt-right" to "right wing". There simply is no justification for continued use of this intentionally slanderous, dog whistle term on Wikipedia. If an editor persists using it they are not pursuing truth or fact but working to promote their own bias and agenda. Nodekeeper (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually I messed up the re-write and put "alt-right" where it belonged. Oops. Above is what I intended. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention to Talk:Lauren_Southern/Archive_8#RfC:_Inclusion_of_alt-right,_white_nationalist,_and_Great_Replacement_details_in_lead the recent RfC, which concluded at the beginning of this year and which plainly states in the close A consensus exists for this change [inclusion of alt-right, white-nationalist, and Great Replacement details in the lead]. 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.

I rather appreciate this defense of the accusations, the "well everybody knows it" defense. Not a good defense actually. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me

I would also object to the proposed wording above. Claiming that all sources which state that Southern is alt-right and a white-supremacist are opinion articles in biased sources is in violation of WP:NPOV. Of the eight sources currently used for alt-right only three are opinion pieces; The Atlantic, The Guardian, Poynter. Of the seven in support of white nationalist, only two are opinion pieces; The Guardian, The Atlantic. As such I believe the sourcing for this to be substantially strong, and have no doubt if an exhaustive search were to be preformed more sourcing could be found in support. Furthermore the claim that she has considered suing Wikipedia for defamation for their inclusion in this article is unsourced, and I'm unable to find any reliable or unreliable sources that have stated this. Any such claim would require citations. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

So you admit that the articles from The Guardian and the Atlantic are opinion pieces in actual journalism sites. OTOH you haven't said word one about the "it claims to be actual news but is an editorial" pieces from Vox and SPLC. What we have are opinion pieces from news sites and "news" from opinion sites. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 01:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

(e-c) Those two pieces are factual reports. Vox is considered a reliable source, as is the SPLC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As for her thinking about suing for defamation, HERE is a video of her saying just that. I don't know about you, but hearing her actually say it on video seems like a pretty reliable source for her having said it. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 01:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

In light of both of these points, I would suggest that any attempt at a substantial change to the lead as suggested above would at minimum require an RfC to replace the existing strong level of consensus that exists at present. In addition the second sentence proposed above would require substantial re-writing in order to comply with policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

OR - and this is important - OR include "she disputes those labels." I guess that's too unbiased. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 01:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Leaving consensus aside, this could be done, if it can be sourced. However no sourcing has been provided for this, and my own attempts at finding such are coming up empty. If you know of sources that assert this, then please provide them. Otherwise we cannot state this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

In This Video she outright states that she is not alt-right and not white supremacist. Hearing her say that seems to me like a pretty reliable indicator that she said it. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 01:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This reply addresses both videos linked. I'm going to quote from @GorillaWarfare:'s contribution to the RfC linked above. 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. These two videos certainly qualify as both MANDY and ABOUTSELF. Are there any reliable secondary sources that state this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

They're both the same video. So, it isn't good enough that she said so on video when being interviewed, she's got to get a reporter to quote her saying that she said it. Her saying she isn't alt-right or white supremacist isn't good enough to count as her saying it. Fascinating the lengths people will go to in order to keep those POV terms. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 02:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned that a long time editor is having trouble grasping fundamental sourcing requirements, much less sourcing requirements within the WP:BLP topic area. I'd also point out that the first point of ABOUTSELF states the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. Claiming that she's not either of those terms is arguably unduly self-serving, given the nature of her activities. I am not, to paraphrase yourself, going to lengths to preserve POV terms. I am simply stating accepted policy and guidelines for content such as this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned that ABOUTSELF is being abused here. If a random person were to suddenly announce "I am not alt-right or a white supremacist" that would not be exceptional. She is an individual publicly accused of being both, was asked about those in the linked video, and then denied any affiliation in that video. I question usage of "self serving" when someone denies a heinous offense. Otherwise, ABOUTSELF would apply to any time anyone denies anything said about them. This would make coverage of defamation cases very interesting. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 02:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Denying a serious accusation is obviously as unduly self-serving as anything can get. The core point here is that our articles need to reflect the gist of what reliable sources say, even when the article's subject might object or disagree; if none of the high-quality sources about her bother to cover her denial, then it's unreasonable to suggest that it is a major part of that gist. --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nodekeeper: 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. See: WP:RS and WP:BLP for some guidance. Hyperballad Eye (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Edited Hyperballad Eye (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Would it not better write something along the lines of "She has been described as alt-right and a white nationalist, a claim which she has explicitly denied."? Ananinunenon (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

That does work for me, although there are those who really really really want to use those terms to describe her who would never accept any softening of the language. It is certainly more accurate that what is currently there. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 14:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

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. See: WP:RS and WP:BLP for some guidance. Hyperballad Eye (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Since requests for semi-protection are being denied on the grounds that this section is considered an ongoing discussion, we really should get to work on improving the first paragraph. Will those who want to describe her as alt-right and white-nationalist give their input on how to address the fact that she denies these accusation? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 14:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

? Admin here, baffled. The article is indefinitely semi-protected. Where are those requests for semiprotection that are being denied, Harvestdancer? Do you mean semiprotection of this talkpage? Bishonen | tålk 14:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC).

I am not the one of several asking for the protection, I'm trying to rewrite the first paragraph. How can we properly fit in that she flatly denies the accusations thrown at her in the first paragraph? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Very well, if Harvestdancer can't or won't explain what they said about requests for semiprotection, I guess I'll assume there haven't been any. Shrug. Bishonen | tålk 16:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC).

I'm guessing they mean "semi-protected edit requests", specifically this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh. And "asking for the protection" also means requesting an edit..? You're probably right, Firefangledfeathers. Bishonen | tålk 17:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: - look to see who started each of the sections asking for some sort of protection. Then look and see it is not me. Then realize I am not in any position to explain their actions, nor is it my responsibility to do so. When you are done, make a positive contribution to the subject of this section - how to improve the first paragraph of the article to reflect that she denies the accusations against her. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you found any WP:RS supporting your suggestion? Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Lauren Southern a reliable source about Lauren Southern? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 21:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Under the right circumstances, WP:ABOUTSELF sources can be used. But it takes WP:RS to contribute to WP:DUE. 22:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

So someone has to quote her saying that about herself for her statement about herself to be considered a reliable source that she said it. Good thing she said it on a news program when being interviewed by Tim Pool on his network. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 01:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think Tim Pool is recognized as a reliable source. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You still don't understand what "asking for protection" means, I guess, Harvestdancer, and it's pretty confusing for others if you use it so loosely. (Nobody is asking for any sort of protection on this page, that I can see.) Compare Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: that's where the action is, as far as asking for protection. Never mind, sorry I interrupted, please let's stop talking about it. I merely thought if somebody wanted protection, I might be able to help, with my admin tools. Forget it. Bishonen | tålk 20:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC).

Well it's not me, so I'm not the one to talk about it. It is pretty simple - I didn't ask for Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022 or Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022 (2) so I don't know why you're asking me to explain the actions of other people. MY whole involvement in their requests was noting that the second one was not granted because "There is an ongoing discussion about changing the entire lead" which is this section right here. Do you have any contribution to make to the subject of this section - rewriting the first paragraph to address the fact that she explicitly denies the accusations made by this article? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 21:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's start over. I made a proposed change to the first paragraph to address that she explicitly denies the accusations against her. Does anyone have anything to say about that, or shall we discuss some other tangent? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 21:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia states what is stated in reliable sources, whether a subject denies that or if they are considering legal action of some kind is beside the point. The sources describing her are not opinion pieces but reliable reports from reliable sources. Maybe her denial could be mentioned somewhere, but your rewrite is not the place to start. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 22:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

As you can see in this section of this talk page the sources have been extensively analyzed and found wanting. They all come close but never actually say it. This is only a case of editors saying "well I want her to be a white supremacist so I will say the sources say that." If you disagree with my analysis, WP:MANDY applies. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 14:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, actually, the consensus arrived at in that discussion led to this version of the lead, which, while different from the previous version, has very little in common with the chances you proposed. Newimpartial (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m disappointed, but not surprised

The source for the “alt-right” reference is just naming other articles that call her “alt-right”, I don’t call that a source. It’s like trying to define a word by using the word to define it. 2607:FEA8:55DE:3400:9889:3BE0:F087:4FC1 (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That's literally how sourcing works. Just because it doesn't line up with your views doesn't mean anything. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2022

In the Personal life - Brief retirement section, update the following:

"On 2 June 2019, Southern announced her retirement from political activism on her website. She stated that her reasons for leaving were that she needed to move on and find fulfillment in a more private capacity."

By appending the following:

"On July 11 2022, in "Chapter 9" of a 3 hour long video Southern further explains that the Australian government would reject her visa to be with her family if she would continue her political activism. She has since gotten a more permanent visa, allowing her to speak about this."

The video is a more comprehensive recap of the events including multiple revelations about toxicity within the alt-right movement, but I believe the above is uniquely relevant for the section about personal life. Fieldbook (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The primary source of what she's saying about this is not reliable for the actions of the Australian government. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Southern is not her real last name

[redacted]* 71.123.34.146 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

A WP:RS is needed to support your assertion. Plenty of dubious or low quality sources online make this claim, but nothing which is usable. Philip Cross (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

To that end, I have redacted the alleged last name, since a reliable source was not provided. WP:BLP's requirement for sourcing holds even on talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Media Work

Under "Media Work" I added her last 3 documentaries. Why was it deleted? Johnmars3 (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

No reason given for deletion. Deletion reverted. Johnmars3 (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)