Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

The "far right" label

1. She is not describing herself in this way. 2. The term "far" with anything political is derogatory. The term "far right" should be introduced with a phrase like "Commentators described her political positions as far right, right-wing, alt-right, although she has denied those labels." just like the wikipedia article on Donald Trump. These are NOT "weasel words" as long as they are properly attributed see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions . Please tell me when I can edit the page to make it neutral. Ecliptica (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources describe Southern as "far right", and no reliable sources appear to contest that description. Depending on your view of the far right, you might see this as reflecting poorly on Southern, but Wikipedia doesn't write hagiographies and we don't need to hedge our descriptions in order to make the article subject look good. Nblund^talk 18:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as she is concerned, being considered far right is not only a label, it does mean that her ideas support a specific ideology, which the sourced articles actually state. If you find new articles from reliable sources that discredit this you can post it and this way the sentences may be changed. --Media Data (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. This article explains why she shouldn't be categorised as alt-right and describes her movement as "right wing" throughout the article despite a title including the term "far right" (titles are often chosen by editors as opposed to the journalists that are writing the piece). This other article describes her as right wing and this one, as well as this one, and this one, and this TV network's video describes her as conservative, as well as this article. All the links I've put are from mainstream media. Ecliptica (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Not all "mainstream" sources are reliable, and not all reliable sources are mainstream. Neither RT.com nor Daily Mail are reliable, for a start. I'm not completely sure, but I think The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) fails that test as well. RT.com has called Southern "far-right". Does that matter? Not really, because it doesn't have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Further, all sources are judged in context. A trivial passing mention in the News24 source (about "right wing propaganda" no less) is weak for substantial points.

This helps illustrate the second problem, which is that these sources do not appear compelling in disputing the label of far-right. They may not use the term, but we are expected to summarize sources in our own words. Many sources directly use "far-right" and many more support it indirectly, including several you've cited here. The News.com.au opinion article disputes "alt-right", but the author repeatedly emphasizes the extremism and myopia of Southern's movement. Whether that's enough to call her "far right" or not would be debatable, but it certainly doesn't flat-out dispute it. That source is currently used in the article to fill-in a non-controversial detail, but any expansion of this would need to be clearly attributed as Luke Kinsella's opinion, and we would need some reason to be including beyond false balance. Grayfell (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Labeling this person as far right despite her insistence to the contrary violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as it violates NPOV and WP:SELFPUB and is potentially libelous. All the sources listed are editorials and primary sources NOT secondary sources. Until a reliable secondary source can be provided, she should be labelled "conservative" (like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder who seem to have similar, unpopular opinions. I am changing it immediately as per BLP guidelines. Please do not change it back without discussing it further here.Dig _deeper ^talk 02:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Que? I don't think any of the cited articles are editorials. This certainly isn't. Neither is this. And there are additional sources that aren't cited in the article that say the same thing. I also don't see any that are self-published. Maybe you clicked the wrong note or something, but the New York Times and the Guardian are generally considered top-tier sources. Nblund^talk 02:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It is unwise to undo BLP issues without waiting for discussion. Not like other aspects of Wikipedia.

Who has the authority to give her the derogatory label of "far right"? It isn't enough for journalists to simply refer to her as "far right" in passing without having a substantial source to back it up. That is not a reliable seconadry source with respect to that fact. The fact that she does not consider herself as far right, would place this label as inappropriate. Reading over the far right page, this label in Wikipedia, the term seems akiin to Nazism and fascism, not right-libertarian. This is a clear violation of BLP. Similarly calling Donald Trump far right simply because journalists call him such would be inappropriate.Dig _deeper ^talk 03:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:CRYBLP is an essay not a policy or guideline.

From WP:BLP

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Despite the bombardment of sourcing, this is still poorly sourced. None of the news article referenced use a reliable primary source to explain the label of far right.

As per BLP the contentious material must be removed. As per WP:BURDEN, the burden rests with you to prove that she deserves the title (when others like Ben Shapiro do not). Dig _deeper ^talk 03:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

If there is debate or controversy about her being conservative, such that you feel it needs sourcing in the lead, we can leave that out altogether. It is mentioned further down in the article.Dig _deeper ^talk 03:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:CRYBLP isn't a policy, but it's pretty useful advice because frivolously citing BLP as an excuse to edit war rarely works. The burden has already been met with 6 different inline citations to reliable sources. The Guardian and the New York Times are generally considered reliable, and you've cited 0 sources for the "conservative" label, so that's going to be a tough sell. Nblund^talk 03:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Your argument, as I understand it, is that there are adequate sources that call her "far right" therefore Wikipedia should follow suit and use the same label. I'm arguing that the subject does not refer to herself as such, that there is a bombardment of sourcing and that none of the articles referenced actually address specifically why she should be labelled "far right" and that the use of "far right" constitutes opinion/commentary. See also WP:NEWSORG. I commend your research and passion. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The violation of BLP still exists. The contentious term "far-right" should be removed.Dig _deeper ^talk 18:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

In case anybody's interested, Dig deeper has opened a discussion of this issue at WP:BLPN. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

"Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies." That is the Wikipedia definition of far right. It does not say anything about far right being a derogatory label. Southern is definitely further on the right than the standard right. She does advocate extreme nationalism and nativism (not sure about authoritarian tendencies). We have plenty of reliable sources describing her as far right. WP:BLP does not say that we should not call spade a spade. That said, I do not see the problem in describing her the way reliable sources describe her. Surtsicna (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The essay call spade a spade is for talk pages among editors, not for BLP. The standards for BLP are higher than for other article pages (and much higher than talk pages).

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

Despite the Wikipedia's definition of "far right" I would agree with @Ecliptica: that it is considered derogatory and extremist. I'm curious where @Surtsicna: would draw the line between someone who is libertarian and someone who is a far right libertarian? Or are all libertarians far right?Dig _deeper ^talk 22:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not up to me as a Wikipedia editor to draw any lines. My job as a Wikipedia editor is to follow reliable secondary sources. That Lauren Southern is a far right activist is indeed "supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source", as required by WP:BLP. In fact, it is supported by many. There are no BLP issues here. The only valid reason not to describe Lauren Southern would be if there were equally strong sources arguing that she is not far right. Judging by the content of this article, she does fit the definition. And not just Wikipedia's definition. One might also say that an extremist label befits extremist opinions, but I disagree that there is anything extremist about the wording used in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

As others have pointed out above, this descriptor is amply supported by multiple, reliable sources and is not contradicted by any reliable sources. That ends the inquiry. If you have a beef with the sources, then take it up with the sources. Neutrality^talk 04:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue consisting throughout the sourcing of this article in question is you guys are using mostly editorials from these "reliable sources". You've not explained why these sources should be trusted or reliable in this case, and have just matter-of-factly stated that the Guardian, and the New York are reliable. If multiple entities are all making a claim, and cite each other as the source for that claim it doesn't make it true especially when some have an open political bend. It just seems to me this article is caught up in the perspectives of people that don't much like Ms. Southern, rather than people trying to detach themselves from the person in question and merely state what she has done and what people have said about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkersheep (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

In fact, however, they are not mostly editorials. Also, I'm not sure that you understand what the WP relince on RS actually means in practice. Hint: it would be FALSEBALANCE to establish a lower standard of reliability for sources that "like Ms. Southern" in order to balance the tone of most RS coverage. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The statement that she denies she is alt-right or far-right isn't cited as far as I can tell, and I can't find any source that says she does deny it. So perhaps that should be removed. Elec junto (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The BLP noticeboard has provided consensus on the acceptability of using far-right in the article. That question is settled. As was mentioned briefly in the noticeboard, I would propose moving the label "far right" from the lead and into it's own section. Perhaps something along the lines of "Several sources have considered Southern views and opinions to be "far right". This due to her position on ..... and .... Thoughts?Dig _deeper ^talk 03:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the topic, including the body. If this were expanded in the body of the article that would bolster its inclusion in the lede. It would absolutely not justify removing it or downplaying it. Nice try, though. Grayfell (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

From WP:Lead "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

I'm not convinced this should be treated as "basic fact" prima facie. All the sources listed are known for using "loaded language" according to the independent https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/. I would argue that this label represents the opinion of journalists, a primary source, and perhaps even "loaded language", as none of the journalists actually refer to any source when using this term. If the section becomes substantial, it would seem to me that it may be justified to make some mention of this in the lead. As stated above I would propose moving the label "far right" from the lead and into it's own section.Dig _deeper ^talk 01:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

No one is treating it as a "prima facie" fact - that's why it's sourced. We've already established that these are reliable sources. "Far right" is a summary of her ideas, her ideas are discussed in greater detail throughout the article and are discussed in greater detail in this section. Nblund^talk 01:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why mediabiasfactcheck suddenly became so popular with the "enlightened centrist" types, but it's not a persuasive or a reliable source for these kinds of discussions. It's mostly some guy's blog. For fact checking? Maybe on a case-by-case basis, but only with extreme caution. For "bias"? No. It completely fails to establish a baseline and does a piss-poor job of defining its own terms, making it totally useless. These are not qualified experts, these are volunteers. The site's methodology page is a sloppy mess basic concepts and advice cribbed from other, better organizations. It concludes with this: "The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own. It is not a tested scientific method. It is meant as a simple guide for people to get an idea of a source's bias..." In other words, it's a collection of subjective opinions based on a black box methodology which is indistinguishable from whim. It's frequently used to reaffirm readers' prior assumptions, which is precisely the opposite of what a site like this should be doing. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund:The section you reference starts with the following "Southern has been widely described as alt-right, far right and right-wing." Each of these labels is cited. When there is disagreement/inconsistency among the news articles, why should the term "far right" be used in the lead? Incidentally Reuters referred to her simply as a Canadian Conservative Activist. As I said above, I'm not convinced this should be treated as "basic fact" prima facie. It does not belong in the lead.

@Grayfell: I looked into this further. You are correct in that its reliability and methodology is questionable [1]. Despite this, I would still argue that it is not unreasonable to assume the media cited is not in any way biased and never uses loaded words.

As stated above, I think would be more appropriate to mention that "some journalists feel she is "far right" because of her views on .... However other journalists view her as simply "right wing" or "conservative" ...."

Dig _deeper ^talk 03:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

some journalists feel she is... Stop and think about what this would say to an unfamiliar reader. You're emphasizing a concern with loaded language, but this was editorializing language to insinuate that this is just some journalist's personal feelings. I'm sure some journalists do feel that way, but we're concerned with their professional assessments. They "feel" that way because they have looked at her published statements and behavior, and have allowed their conclusions to inform their feelings.

Further, there is no contradiction between being "right-wing"/"conservative" and being "far-right". One is a subset of the other. She is both things, but the article should use direct language when its more informative. Filler words like "however" and "simply" are also a form of editorializing. Everybody already knows that the left/right spectrum is a simplification. We do not need to insult readers intelligence by hedging our bets at every opportunity. If you don't like what sources are saying, take it up with the sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dig deeper, I understand that the inclusion of the term is settled, I'm happy with either the current wording or your alternative. I was merely asking about the statement that she denies the far right and alt right labels. I can find no proof she has ever tried to distance herself from the terms (although she doesn't explicitly apply them to herself either). So would it not make sense to remove the claim she denies those labels? At least until a source can be found. Elec junto (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

one is a subset of the other... and Nazi's would be a subset of far right. So by that logic if a couple of sources call her a Nazi then there is no contradiction among the sources. Nice try. The sources are inconsistent with labeling Lauren Southern, and the lead should reflect this variation and inconsistency among the sources. Further explanation of these differing opinions ("far right", "alt-right", "conservative", "right-wing", "libertarian") all belongs in the body of the article. Dig _deeper ^talk 19:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. That's correct - Golden Dawn, for instance, is a right wing party that is also a Neo-Nazi group, that's not a contradiction between sources. We've already had a noticeboard discussion regarding your effort to remove the mention of far right from the lead. That discussion produced a clear consensus which you said you had accepted. You're now attempting to make a case for essentially the same edit using a slightly different argument. The answer is still no. It's time to move on. Nblund^talk 19:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The BLP noticeboard settled the question as to whether or not this was a BLP issue.

A political party is not the same thing as a person, nevertheless this example you provided supports the arguments I have been making. The more specific label is given the preface... "media and scholars have described it as neo-Nazi and fascist". It isn't treated as a "prima facie" fact, a clear distinction is made. Moreover, your example has an entire section supporting the claim: "Allegations of Nazism". Even with all the evidence, the lead stills phrases it as media/scholarly opinion. The same principles should apply here. The lead should summarize the content below and a distinction should be made that "the media have described her as "far-right" "alt-right" "conservative" and "right-wing". Dig _deeper ^talk 03:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

We should not insinuate that reliable source are wrong just because some editors do not agree with them. They "describe" her a certain way because they have analyzed her actions and statements. We currently cite six sources which describe her as far-right, but there are plenty more where that came from. Further, as far as I can see, none dispute this. We all agree far-right is a subset of the right wing, and so a source which uses a different term isn't particularly helpful by itself. Southern isn't particularly significant as a pundit, and is even less significant for any other role she has, so sources tend not to go into great detail about her ideology. We have to follow independent sources to preserve due weight, so if they don't discuss her libertarianism etc., neither will the article.

As has already been asked, do you know of a source where she directly disputes being labeled as "far-right"? I vaguely remember seeing a video of hers where she implied that the term "white supremacist" was meaningless, but I don't remember anything similar for "far-right". Obviously a secondary source would be better, but we could start by looking at primary ones out of respect for BLP. We are interested in clear, direct statements about her position, not word games, and not WP:OR about what her positions imply about her ideology. Grayfell (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Except they didnt analyze her actions and statements to come to conclusion. These articles cited only state a pre-conceived notion that she's alt-right, and none of them are actually an analysis on her behavior. A source stating that Lauren Southern is "far-right" isn't "support" for that idea. That's just biased rhetoric. There is no meaningful explanation for that assertion. In the "canadianlandshow" source, the only part explicitly stating that she is far-right is in the title. "With her anti-migrant misadventures in the Mediterranean, the far-right Canadian YouTuber finally crossed the line." this is not backed in the article in any way. The article is reporting on Lauren Southern's Patreon ban, not on whether Lauren Southern is far-right. The article's assertion isn't based on any analysis whatsoever. The Guardian's article didn't even explicitly state that Lauren Southern was far-right, and the article is nothing about Lauren Southern. The article from the New York Times only asserts that Lauren Southern is far-right, and again doesn't provide any meaningful analysis. Again, this article is about White Farmers, and not an analysis on Lauren Southern being "far-right". Again, the National Post article, stating only that Lauren Southern is far-right, but not providing an analysis on that or backing it up in any way, and the article isn't about Lauren Southern being far-right or anything similar. I could go on and on through each article. None is a direct analysis of Lauren Southern, showing how she is far-right, they are simply using biased language to describe what they think of that person. Its sad to see Wikipedians using opinions in articles and then justifying those opinions by citing sources that also state that same opinion. The "far-right" label is discernably an opinion. None of the articles cited directly support the claim, they only state or assert it. There is a difference between "They said it that means it's true" and "They are a reliable source who explained their assertion and that means it's true". If reliable sources started calling Donald Trump far-right, that doesn't justify adding it to his page, because these sources didn't back that assertion.

TL;DR these sources only state the claim that Lauren Southern is far-right, they don't support that claim in any way 198.110.51.170 (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Reliable Sources actually have opinion in them. Why do you think we have WP:SUBSTANTIATE? 198.110.51.170 (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Remove or change "Far right" from the description of Lauren Southern. This description is not only not supported by the sources, but is also biased language. Whether or not something or someone is "far-right" is highly subjective, and shouldn't be included solely because reliable sources claim without evidence that this person is "far-right". It should only be included should these sources support the claim. None of the sources support their claim with any research, primary sources, arguments, analysis, or any other analytical tool. 198.110.51.170 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I note multiple discussions further up the page discussing this same issue, so this is clearly not ripe for an edit request. Please continue civil discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus, and seek dispute resolution if you feel it is necessary. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"not banned" from UK?

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

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

Source Neutrality Recommendation

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

As a reminder from the BLP page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rvnknight, are you the same editor as Zuurman1 and/or Gareth1893? I ask because all three of you seem to be showing up at the same time and making similar complaints despite being fairly new.

To your point: That Pew source is illustrating the ideological orientations of the audiences for those news outlets, they are not commenting on their editorial biases. Unless you have a specific suggestion about what content should be changed, then it's not particularly productive to just quote policies at everyone - I think we can all read them. Nblund^talk 21:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No, we are not the same person. Lauren Southern posted about it on Twitter, and someone I followed retweeted it. I assume that's where they come from as well. My account on the Dutch wiki is much older (but still not very active), if you wish to check. Zuurman1 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Note on Tweet

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

Yeah looks like Canvassing, but not without some proper concerns. @Zuurman1 and Gareth1893: you may be seen as having a conflict of interest – please seek consensus on this talk page as much as possible, and edit the article only when truly necessary (undisputable defamation), thanks. wumbolo ^^^ 10:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I sure haven't done any of that, boss. Not sure why you feel the need to remind me. All I have said on this talk page is that the sources don't add up to a black and white scenario and that the article should reflect that. I have not edited the article once. Zuurman1 (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Far-alt-right neo-Nazi literally Hitler

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

This has been discussed ad nauseam. See #The "far right" label. Do you have anything new to add? Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You mean left wing sources like Business Insider, The National Post and the The Toronto Sun? Or maybe The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by (noted communist sympathizer) Rupert Murdoch? Nblund^talk 16:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, all of those are leftist (modern liberal) on social issues.

Edit: I should also note that WSJ has zero credibility here. This is the same "journal" that accused PewDiePie of being a neo-Nazi. M . M 17:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

VwM.Mwv, I suppose this depends on your perspective. Those sources are all generally regarded as right-of-centre. Bradv🍁 17:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

VwM.Mwv, the arguments you are making are relevant for influencing the consensus at WP:RSN, but are strictly irrelevant at an article talk page, since project-wide consensus about Reliability overrides any "local consensus". Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

International Business Times source

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

Weird spot to reply but I missed that sentence. Due to the tweet above and BLP issues I will not revert the edit but I will not 2RR it. Juxlos (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Juxlos, reverting your own edit does not constitute edit warring, especially if it was mistaken. Bradv🍁 23:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW: I think the IBtimes is probably referencing Southern's support of of The Great Replacement conspiracy theory. It's a roughly synonymous version of the "White Genocide" myth which, (before Christchurch) didn't have the same mass-murder inspiring baggage associated with it. For my part I do think it might be reasonable to slightly rephrase that sentence to say that "Southern has touted the Great replacement conspiracy theory, which is closely associated with the concept of White Genocide" and cite this instead. Nblund^talk 23:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

All that source says is she posted a video (which I believe is now unavailable to view) with a title "The Great Replacement", all the additional concepts you mentioned about its link to the concept of White Genocide is speculation and interpretation of her views on your part and is not mentioned in the reference. Gareth1893 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're reading. Here's The Independent: Other proponents of the white genocide conspiracy theory include former journalist Katie Hopkins, InfoWars’ Alex Jones and Canadian YouTuber Lauren Southern....An alternative version of the same theory, called “the great replacement”, is spread by the pan-European ethno-nationalist group Generation Identity and it was chosen by Tarrant as the title of his document. (emphasis mine) Nblund^talk 15:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

All that article does is make an unsubstantiated claim, do you have a reliable source on this that backs up its claim? Gareth1893 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Gareth1893, as I pointed out earlier, it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to second-guess reliable sources on the basis of primary sources; in fact, that is an example of original research and is contrary to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

My point is I question the reliability of a source that doesn't substantiate and back up its claims Gareth1893 (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you read WP:RS, since you don't appear to understand what WP means by a reliable source. Or look up the sources in question on WP:RSN. Newimpartial (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking up IBT on WP:RSN it is argued to be generally unreliable so it should not be used as a citation here especially since it doesn't substantiate its claims. Gareth1893 (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not it "substantiates" it's claims is not the issue, if high-quality reliable sources say something we generally defer to the sources and avoid inserting our personal opinions about who is right or which viewpoint is substantiated. "But the sources are wrong!" has been endlessly rejected on this site, and it's really not a good use of your time to try to get people to accept it. They won't. All that said: I do think the RSN board has highlighted some issues with the reliability of the IBTimes, and it is the only source that makes this specific claim. I removed it, and replaced it with a brief discussion of Southern's promotion of the (closely related) "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory. Nblund^talk 16:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

My point here was not that it is unreliable because it doesn't substantiate its claims, I was pointing out that IBT has been discussed as generally unreliable on WP:RSN Gareth1893 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)