Talk:Lana Lokteff

one is a subset of the other (or they're the same))
Referring to this edit, why is white supremacist preferred? If no response I am adding it again, especially considering she is part of white nationalism category. --RandomUser3510 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Categories are not a valid reason for edit warring in any case, but especially not here. Category:American white supremacists is a subcategory of Category:American white nationalists. Wikipedia categories should be WP:DIFFUSEd in most cases, including this one. Regardless, categories are not always well-maintained or consistent, and they should reflect content, not the other way around. To say that another way, categories must be based on the content of articles. Articles should not be written to match categories. I kind of thought that would be obvious... Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You answered the second part of my statement, about being part of the white nationalism category. However you did not answer the first part. Why is "white supremacist" preferred to "white nationalist" when there are reliable sources describing her as both?--RandomUser3510 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is already a discussion on that above, and spreading this pedantic nonsense over multiple talk page sections is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added multiple sources, one of them being rightwingwatch.com, which is a left-wing organization, saying that she's a white nationalist. I agree, it is pedantic. She describes herself as a white nationalist, multiple sources say that she's a white nationalist. One source puts her in a group of women while claiming that she's a white supremacist - without any evidence to support that. Why are we  still talking about this? Hansnarf (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are we still talking about this? Because you're not listening? --Calton | Talk 15:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, maybe you should read the refs you're adding. From the RightWingWatch link you added to prove she's "just" a "white nationalist":


 * Faith Goldy, a former Rebel Media reporter who has grown ever closer to the alt-right, joined Red Ice host Lana Lokteff and 4chan YouTube muse Lauren Rose in a video uploaded yesterday to deliver full-throated endorsements of ethno-nationalism, a movement that seeks to promote white supremacy [emphasis mine] in Western nations.


 * In the Red Ice video, titled “Dear Cucks, Only One Kind of Nationalism Will Save the West,” Goldy, Rose and Lokteff delivered glowing endorsements of ethno-nationalism and praised the “good trend” among fellow YouTube personalities such as Stefan Molyneux and Rebecca Hargraves (known online as “Blonde in the Belly of the Beast”) of recognizing that “demographics is everything” and for having left behind “civic nationalism” in favor of white supremacist ethno-nationalism [emphasis mine].


 * Oops, an own goal, there. --Calton | Talk 15:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How about you stop being so racist towards whites? Ethno-nationalim is not white supremacy. In fact, Japan is an ethno-nationalistic country. Are they Japanese supremacists? By your definition, all nations that are overwhelmingly of one ethnicity are supremacists. Also, I watched that Red Ice video in full, they didn't call it white supremacist ethno-nationalism at all. Why are you trying to put fakes out there? Stop with your stupid agenda, no one cares how much you're virtue-signalling on Wikipedia. This isn't about morals, it's about the truth. Furthermore, in the RWW article, the part about ethno-nationalism being "white supremacy" is a personal opinion of the author. Hansnarf (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The sources I looked at confirm "nationalist" but not "supremacist"., you were thus correct, IMO, in relation to article content, but the rest of what you're spouting here is nonsense that will get you blocked. "Racist towards whites"--sheesh. That's dumb. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry for getting angry, but it sounds like Calton is making an exception when it comes to white nationalism as opposed to Japanese nationalism or Chinese nationalism or black nationalism. All of these kinds of nationalism are just fine but when it comes to white or European nationalism, it's the same as white supremacism? Just doesn't make sense and it's not true. Redefining words like that is just not helpful. Anyway, I've made my point. Hansnarf (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't care about anger; I care about false accusations, and I care about people making false accusations. This stuff about other nationalisms supposedly being OK and here we have anti-white racism, well, no, no one said anything like that, and you seem to be repeating talking points from racist white websites. If you had stopped after the first six words it would be fine. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Re . VOX says The women fighting for white male supremacy. The ADL source says "Lana Lokteff is a white supremacist who runs internet media company". Harper's calls her alt-right. Newsweek says "During her appearance, Lokteff urged white supremacists to become teachers" ("nationalist" appears only in the headline) SPLC says "Lana Lokteff, whose white supremacist and antisemitic views " . Dallas Morning News discusses "a loose movement that embraces white supremacist' views and Nazi symbols" and describes Lokteff as a "prominent" woman who is "committed to this movement".
 * So the sourcing for "white supremacist" is strong, and let's face it, "white nationalist" is mostly a weaselly term that these people use to describe themselves cuz branding.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Marek, I went with the media sources. That she urges white supremacists to this and that doesn't necessarily mean she is one. I did not see the Dallas Morning News article. You know I'm not opposed to a reassessment (and I think the difference is really a distinction without a difference), but I looked at the sources that followed the term, and those sources favored "nationalist". Rock on, Drmies (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Marek, since you didn't pay attention when I mentioned it before, here is what the right wing spectrum looks like: https://i.imgur.com/VWvtaLU.png What you are doing is deleting the distinction between white nationalism and white supremacism. "White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races." This is the current Wikipedia definition. She never said or wrote that she wants to rule over other races and/or wants to be dominant over other races. Furthermore she calls herself a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. So therefore, it's only logical that the article about her calls her a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. I don't see the point of labeling her as something she's not. Hansnarf (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Vox is garbage. There are too many good liberal/left sites for us to waste time reading garbage. My $.02. Regardless, none of these - from the Vox opinion piece to the advocacy sites - meet BLP. 68.65.122.206 (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If those are your two cents, I'd like a rebate, please. Just saying it's "garbage" is useless and irrelevant. What is an "advocacy site"? ADL? SPLC? Newsweek? Dallas Morning News? This term doesn't mean anything about how reliable these sources are. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Grayfell, the IP is just a troll. (BTW, I agree that the SPLC and ADL are advocacy sites, but that's not necessarily a bad word.) Drmies (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's obvious, especially with the "good liberal/left sites" line. I almost removed this as WP:NOTFORUM, but the "advocacy" thing comes up so often in these discussions that it seemed worth responding to.
 * This "white nationalist" vs. "white supremacist" thing has gone on long enough that there's nothing new to be said. If any article says someone's a "white supremacist", a steady trickle of IPs will keep changing it to "white nationalist". If it says white nationalist, they'll instead change it to "white advocate" or something equally terrible. It's just a euphemism treadmill. This isn't an accident. White supremacists know about these word-games, and have described it as a strategy to normalize the underlying ideology. I think Jared Taylor wrote about this in the 90s, but he's far from the only one. Reliable sources consistently use the 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' interchangeably. They mean essentially the same thing, and everybody knows it. Trying to count the number of sources which say one term over the other is missing the big picture, but I don't know the alternative. Right now I'm cynical that Wikipedia has the ability address this. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Grayfell, whether or not you believe being a "white advocate" is terrible or not is pointless. Are Hispanic advocates terrible, too? What about black nationalists? Could you please go about this rationally and not emotionally. This is not the place for emotional outbursts but for neutral and rational definitions. Being a white nationalist is different from being a white supremacist - no matter how much you want those terms to mean the same thing. Otherwise, please change the terms from all black nationalists to "black supremacist" since they obviously mean the same thing. Hansnarf (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're doing yourself any favors, here. Assuming other people are being emotional doesn't make your argument more rational, nor does it make your arguments more persuasive. The hyper-simplistic, euphemistic term "white advocate" has nothing to do with this. The point I was trying to make is that reliable sources frequently treat "white nationalist" as just another way of saying "white supremacist". This is a common occurrence across a wide spectrum of outlets of many ideologies and backgrounds. "White nationalism" is technically different from "white supremacism" and that does matter in some context. But we have to judge by this context. Many of the sources being discussed here, for this article, apply both terms in a context which suggests they mean functionally the same thing. These sources are not generally discussing her stance on "ethnostates", they are discussing her stance on "white genocide", and scientific racism, and her extremely poor grasp of history.
 * Context-free screenshots of youtube videos of Venn diagrams are not compelling or reliable sources, but they indirectly support this point anyway. "Centrism" is described as "acceptable" while "white supremacy" is "unthinkable". This isn't about the substance of these positions, it's about how they are perceived. This is consistent with the cycle of euphemisms. The underlying ideas about the persecution of virtuous white people by nefarious forces is still the same, and it's still racist pseudoscience that panders to people's fears. Dressing this up in the political outfit of "nationalism" is not neutral, and is not helpful to readers.
 * As for "black supremacy", different terms mean different things. Not everything needs to be treated exactly the same because some of the words match. We judge by sources and context, same as always. Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When it comes to "black supremacy", it means exactly the same thing as "white supremacy", just from the viewpoint of black people. If someone thinks they're superior to others and thus want to rule supreme over other races, they are "supremacists". The words and definition both matches. You described "white advocates" as something that's terrible. This implies that you get an emotional reaction that's negative if you hear someone describing themselves as a "white advocate". Per definition, a white advocate wants to help white people. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that - but you perceive it as wrong. Ergo it's just logical to assume you're emotional.
 * I provided the context for this Venn diagram, it simply shows the spectrum of the right wing in politics for majority white countries. Below the spectrum you can see how they are perceived, how you specifically perceive them yourself - as you've shown while saying how "white advocates" are terrible. Hansnarf (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Greyfall, you are being intellectually dishonest when you describe this as an instance of the "Euphemism Treadmill" phenomenon. The Euphemism Treadmill refers to the phenomenon where a normative preference is shown for one term over another, where both terms are synonymous. You haven't actually provided any concrete sources or examples pointing to a shift in terminology from "white supremacist", to "white nationalist", to "white advocate". This is merely speculation on your part - and speculation not supported by any concrete evidence, at that. Moreover, it doesn't take much research to find that you are objectively and factually wrong. The Columbia Review of Journalism explicitly distinguishes between "white supremacism" and "white nationalism" (c.f. https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/nationalist-supremacist.php). It seems that you are intentionally conflating "white nationalism" with "white supremacy", in clear violation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels 73.19.35.56 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of evidence, but the article for Lana Lokteff isn't the place to go into it. Your comment has, however, prompted some improvements to white nationalism, so thanks, I guess. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You're response is a borderline non-sequiter that entirely fails to address my point. The upshot of my previous comment was that academics explicitly distinguish between "nationalism" and "supremacism". Your response fails to address that point in any capacity whatsoever. You may choose to ignore the fact that "nationalism" and "supremacism" have explicitly distinct meanings, but if that's what you choose to do, that puts you in disagreement with the established academic literature. Lana Lokteff may well be a white supremacist. I have no doubts that she is. However, your previous comments are unrelated to Lana Lokteff, and arguably off-topic. It seems that you're simply engaging in off topic language policing on this talk page in order to enforce a particular ideological viewpoint. Specifically, you're conflation of "white supremacism" and "white nationalism" is (1) factually wrong and in disagreement with establish academic usage as discussed in the CJR article (loc. cit.), and (2) irrelevant both to the ongoing discussion on this talk page, and unrelated to the content of the article itself. 2601:603:4C7F:9A40:D505:A8CB:FE07:AF68 (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please learn to properly indent your comments if you intend to continue this.
 * Yes, perhaps my previous comments were off topic. That doesn't mean your comments are therefore helpful. If you have no doubt that she is a white supremacist, you're just wasting time. The CJR source doesn't mention Lokteff, making its use here WP:OR. Additionally, it is a prescriptivist resource for journalists (not academics) so it is not directly applicable to Wikipedia, since Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. It also specifically mentions that the two terms are often used for the same ideologies, sometimes even interchangeably. The source supports that this is, in fact, common usage. If your goal is improve the article, this isn't helping. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone please protect this page. Thank you. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A compromise about the "White Supremacist" description
I propose an intro that looks something like this: "Lana Jennifer Lokteff (born March 14, 1979) is an American white nationalist YouTube personality who is part of the alt-right movement. She is the host of Radio 3Fourteen. She has been described by the SPLC and ADL as a white supremacist although she denies this, stating "Do I want to lord over other races and subjugate them as my slave so they can take care of my family and run my errands? ...In the reality we want the complete opposite", another editer has a link to the video where she says that.

There have been cases of reliable sources slandering people. The SPLC was sued for describing Maajid Nawaz, who is Muslim himself, as an "anti-Muslim extremist". That's a pretty gross misunderstanding on their part. Certain CNN guests have a record of comparing Trump to the Nazis and other dictators, quite indiscriminately. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-guest-trump-hitler-stalin-mao-the-five

I think when the media describes someone as having "white supremacist" beliefs, and that person denies it, we should give a voice to both the accused and the accuser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogatyr (talk • contribs) 05:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Her video on the topic has already been discussed several times on this talk page, but has not, as far as I know been given credibility by any reliable sources. At this point, this is not optional. It is not clear what she is actually saying in this video, since she clearly doesn't want "the complete opposite" of this in any meaningful sense. We cannot rely on editors to summarize this for us, nor to pick their personal favorite quotes to spruce-up the lede. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt this video appears to be a rhetorical trick. She has proposed a contorted and simplistic definition of the term "white supremacist" and has implied that this faulty definition doesn't apply to her "scene". So she either doesn't know what white supremacy means when people use it to discuss her ideology, or she does know and doesn't like that the term is unflattering. Neither of these are Wikipedia's problem, since we are not a platform for public relations.
 * Since we are not a platform for self-promotion, and the SPLC is still far, far more reliable than she herself is, this would be disproportionately favoring her own fringe views over the views of reliable sources. Unrelated sources about other people discussing other topics is original research, and is inappropriate. If you have reliable sources about Lokteff, present them. If you do not, this proposal of "compromise" is false equivalence.
 * Your comment about slander could be perceived as a veiled legal threat. Be aware this is not permitted, per No legal threats, so you should make your intentions crystal clear. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think she had denied it, may though change it to " although she denies this based upon her definition of white supremacy".Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, stating "her own definition" preserves NPOV. Also, Grayfell, how is that a legal threat? I'm not just imagining that the SPLC committed slander. Did you not read the links I posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogatyr (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the Nawaz case, and know that it doesn't apply to this article. It also doesn't mean what the SPLC's many detractors think it means, at least not to Wikipedia. Saying that the SPLC "commited slander" is not legally accurate. Read No legal threats carefully, and do not introduce legal terms to this discussion just to push a specific point, as this will be seen as an attempted chilling effect.
 * As I said last time, the video where she discusses this is not actually clear enough to be useful for her own rebuttal. The video is vague to the point of being evasive. She is not a reliable source, and is not qualified to define white supremacist, nor any other term. She is sort of refuting the term, but not really, and she is sort of doing this by pretending it means something it doesn't. Including this context, it doesn't seem particularly significant to me, which is why I still think a reliable source should be used for this. Grayfell (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Your comment about slander could be perceived as a veiled legal threat. You are basing this on the sentence There have been cases of reliable sources slandering people.? That's pretty astonishing. 2601:547:901:3690:886B:7BF3:BF58:C164 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No. As I said, the Nawaz case is not comparable and doesn't apply here at all, so this unrelated example is not an excuse to introduce "slander" as a free-floating threat. At best it's pointless and misguided, and at worst it's an attempt to introduce a chilling effect. When joining a conversation, please read the whole thing, not just the parts you don't like. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing
Recent comments from a blocked editor have said that Lokteff has edited this page. Lokteff and anyone else involved with Red Ice has a conflict of interest for this article, and should carefully read Conflict of interest. It may also be helpful to read Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Anyone who is compensated for editing must disclose this fact, and must abide by Paid-contribution disclosure. Having a conflict of interest doesn't mean a person cannot edit at all, but in most cases, edits should be confined to the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

fix dead link
Her entire channel was deleted from youtube, but someone re-uploaded the "Am I a White Supremacist" video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwM9Rg-HAI8 I appreciate the footnote that she rejects the label. That's fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:B00:29B5:4560:1DBA:C9AF:BEA9 (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this person a white supremacist?
So I came here to find out. I read the article and it says she is. I think.. Oh. I wonder why Wikipedians think that? So I read the whole thing. No reason given. So I look at the "sources" and I find a list of people who don't like her claiming that she is a white supremacist. Really? That's the 'proof' is it? Seriously wiki. Get a grip. Opinion of a hostile source? That's all you have? All that proves is that people throw insults when they don't like each other... Is it not possible to simply link some sources where this person says something or does something which demonstrates that they think one race is superior to another? To attract such a nasty label from others there must be loads of quotes which could be included in the article. Please add some? Currently having this article like this is just fueling the minds of people who are into conspiracies. Thank you. MrN9000 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. If reliable sources provide quotes, perhaps they could be considered, but for editors to compile relevant quotes would be WP:OR. It would also be giving a promotional platform to this person merely to prove a point. If you have some policy-based reason to dispute that this "list of people" is a list of reliable sources, present it. Your personal opinion on those sources is not relevant, and that you think a source is "hostile" to a white supremacist does not make it unreliable in any way. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "that you think a source is "hostile" to a white supremacist does not make it unreliable in any way." Can you honestly not see how your argument is circular and so proves itself to be invalid? Honestly?  You really can't see it???  Your argument is based on the assumption that this person is a white supremacist. Maybe you can provide me your source for that?  Or is your opinion fact? Your logic might have worked during the time of witch trials and ducking stools, but we have evolved slightly since then.  Currently having this article like this is just fueling the minds of people who are into conspiracies. Claiming you can't do that because of OR is BS and you know it.  Are quotes used in other articles on Wikipedia?  You don't need to do OR.  Go and find the quotes used by the sources who are claiming she is a white supremacist.  They must have lots right?  That would be their research and so not OR.  I'm amazed you did not realise this.  Please add some proof this person is a white supremacist to this article and please stop implying that we are not allowed to do so.  That's just silly. MrN9000 (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, my "argument" is that Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. Throwing around the names of logical fallacies accomplishes nothing. This has all been discussed before, above. Lokteff is not a reliable source, and is not an expert in anything, so her opinions, including specific examples of her ideology, are not relevant without context from reliable sources. Those sources say she is a white supremacist. To arbitrarily highlight specific quotes from an unreliable source to prove a point would be inappropriate for multiple reasons, WP:OR being just one. If you have some valid reason to doubt the reliability of these sources, present it, or take it to a noticeboard. If you just want to play rhetorical games, do so elsewhere. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your argument was a fallacy yet you are not wrong? I correct your logical error and so I am playing games?  Stop it.  ... I have no idea why you are talking to me about unreliable sources.  At all. Why are you?  Um? ... I am asking you to use quotes or information taken from the sources which this articles editors (you) already consider to be "reliable".  Use this to back up the claims made in the article.  Just go to those "reliable sources" and highlight specific quotes which they used and put them into this article.  If you do that it will make this article much better.  Or you can ignore me and continue to have this article look like it was written during the witch trials. I could get a carrot and we could put it onto her nose if you like?  MrN9000 (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because our policies on wp:rs, wp:v and even wp:npov say we go with what RS say, as to quotes "...the prominent white supremacist media figure Lana Lokteff..."Lana Lokteff, whose white supremacist..." I only bother to quote two of our sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what you are doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2xlQaimsGg My favorite part is that in the Monty Python witch trial the witch gets to publicly claim that she is not a witch, whereas here on Wikipedia she does not even get that privilege. What progress. ... MrN9000 (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see so you ask where does the source say it, I give you an example. As to the rest, you know what I am not going to respond other then to say read the talk page history.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I give up trying to improve this page.... Editors here apparently have no wish to do so.  I came to this page to try to find out if this person is a white supremacist not to try to change what it says.  I still don't know if she is because this article does not tell me.   If you know of any reason why that has been claimed by these sources (or anyone) please tell me?  I actually do want to know.  I am researching this person.  I think that's why people read pages here sometimes..  Is this person a white supremacist?  Do you know?  If so how? There must be more than this to make these kinda claims.  I would have thought? ... I give up.  I guess I will go read the rational wiki page on this person.  It's probably has some actual information on it or some kinda explanation to back up what they say.  Good day.  MrN9000 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Missing book
After a and the invitation by, I bring an excerpt of Seyward Darby's book: "Her ancestors fled the Bolsheviks. “[She] left the house in a simple dress, with gold coins and small bits of jewelry sewn into her garments,” Lana’s mother, Vera, once wrote of her own mother. “She wore a very lightweight jacket, so that observers would think her simply out for a walk. This ‘walk’ began the very long journey”—to China and then to the Philippines, and eventually to San Francisco. Vera grew up hearing stories about the fates of people who weren’t able to escape the Soviet Union, which made her staunchly oppose communism. She also heard “richly illustrated Russian fairy tales, which had come from another time—when people were not forced to leave home—for somewhere else."

I readed the book parts about Lana and checked the used sources, as these Lana's mother blog posts used to support the above quote. Darby's book looks like a useful RS for our readers to get a fact-checked picture on Lana, her conspiracies and hateful speeches. Because this, I would like suggest to add it to support lede and also this small addition to Early life section, obviously maintaining the actual sources from NPR and Guardian:
 * Lokteff was born in Oregon. Her ancestors are Russian immigrants that escaped from the Soviet Union.

Best regards. Ixocactus (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the soviot union did not exist in 1917. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)