Jump to content

Talk:Lauren Southern: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 121: Line 121:
: 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. [[User:Harvestdancer|Jason Harvestdancer]] | [[User talk:Harvestdancer|Talk to me]] 17:10, 6 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. [[User:Harvestdancer|Jason Harvestdancer]] | [[User talk:Harvestdancer|Talk to me]] 17:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
::What policy is that? See [[WP:MANDY]]. "She would say that, wouldn't she?" [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 17:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC).
::What policy is that? See [[WP:MANDY]]. "She would say that, wouldn't she?" [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk: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. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:47, 6 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. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


== Lauren Southern wasn't banned from Paypal ==
== Lauren Southern wasn't banned from Paypal ==

Revision as of 17:47, 6 March 2022

    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)[reply]

     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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

     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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    “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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

     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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    “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)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lauren_Southern&oldid=1075603370"
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy