Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 4

Far-right 5
The suggestion that Southern is far-right (source no.5) is not properly supported. The site canadalandshow.com is clearly biased in the article an in the whole. Quote "CANADALAND also reached out to Southern but has yet to hear back. When CANADALAND contacted her earlier this year for an interview concerning her exit from The Rebel, she replied simply, “No, you guys suck balls.”" This could clearly upset them and make them to write a negative article about her. They also don't cite anything that she has said/done that could be considered far-right. She is a journalist and covers fringe and far-right activists, but this does not imply that she herself is a far-right activist.

The suggestion is not well supported, it needs more evidence from a better source. As a result of this wiki article, most media have picked up that she is far-right, without providing any evidence which is saddening to see. Hope my request makes sense. Deadlybanter (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Upset? Haven't hear that argument before. Reliable sources, as reasonable people, are fully trusted to discuss a person even if that person dislikes them. As a self-described journalist, Southern would be expected to understand this. In other words, Southern doesn't have the ability to discredit a source merely by childishly insulting that source. She can say what she wants to them, and they can cover her anyway. As has already been discussed, the source is sufficient for the claim that she is far right. There are also plenty of examples of far-right positions she has endorsed (such as the "great replacement", a racist, pseudoscientific, and thinly disguised European version of the white genocide conspiracy theory) but Wikipedia doesn't really use her positions to describe her ideology, because that would be original research. Instead, we use reliable sources, such as all those which describe her as far-right and alt-right. Grayfell (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The Canadaland show is not a reliable source, though. They're worse than Rebel Media. Southern feeds far-right narratives. That is the ONLY sense in which she could be called "far right," and to me, that's not enough. Bizud (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Generally, when commenting on a month-old posts, it's better to add to the bottom of a discussion, otherwise it's a coin-flip whether or not the person you're responding to will even notice. In this case I did, but it's still kind of pointless, since later in this discussion there are multiple additional sources for this point. If you think Canadaland should be replaced with one of the dozens of other sources describing her as far right, (say The New York Times for example) perhaps start a new discussion on that farther down. Grayfell (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm not talking about alt-right. I haven't read all the discussions in this thread, I am only discussing this one article on which the claim that she is far-right is based. Nothing more, nothing less. No need to show your bias by needlessly mentioning "plenty of examples of far-right positions" while citing none that would mention her involvement in it. I looked into the article on CANADALAND again and the term far-right is used 4 times - once in the headline, twice in a statement provided by 'HOPE not hate' and once saying "that Patreon’s ban had to do with her coverage of the Identitarian Movement". Notice that the word coverage, not support has been used.Deadlybanter (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to me like a basis for deeming a source unreliable. Please read the the relevant guideline. FWIW I was involved not that long ago in a discussion on another article talk page about the reliability of Canadaland, and the consensus was that it was reliable. Unfortunately I'm having trouble tracking down that page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Guessing it was Talk:Gavin McInnes. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and that refreshes my memory. It's not consensus but helps to elaborate the pro/con arguments as to whether Canadaland is generally reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The term far-right is a loaded phrase. Having that as the first thing to describe a person if far from being objective. It is sort of poisoning the water. I suggest the following change: Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[4] 1995) is a Canadian far-right[5] political activist, Internet personality, and journalist[6] associated with the alt-right.[7][8][9] -> Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[4] 1995) is a Canadian political activist, Internet personality, and journalist[6]. She is being associated with the alt-right[7][8][9] with some sources refering to her as far-right[5]. This is a more accurate representation of reality, as it acknowledges, that there is not a universal consensus on calling the Lauren Southern 'far-right'. Also it moves politically charged language like 'alt-right', 'far-right' to the background in favor of more neutral descriptors such as 'political activist' or 'journalist'. [David Valouch 18th March 2018] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.45.102 (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is universal consensus among all reliable sources that Southern is far-right. Unless you're aware of reliable sources that say otherwise? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the certainty to say that 'all' sources claim her to be far-right? As far as I am aware she denies being far-right; I would say asking a person about their political believes is the most reliable source. Than again I am not saying to remove the mention of far-right all together. I am suggesting to rephrase the first sentence to avoid using politically charged language in the very beginning of a presumably objective and impartial article. The term far-right is subjective and judgemental. [David Valouch 21st March 2018] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.45.102 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please review our verifiability policy. We rely on reliable sources. Southern is not a reliable source for this purpose. A large number of independent, reputable sources have called her far-right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * if you maintain Lauren southern is far right or Alt right that is not a neutral point of view is it? Can ytou list the large number of sources? the point isnt that sources say it but on the INFORMATION those sources contain. The classic example is claims about WMD in Iraq. there were a large number of sources saying it but they were all quoting each other in a merry go round. What would have been evidence was an eyewitness or a photograph of them or them being used but that never emerged in spite of the "large number of independent reputable sources". Also ther are alt right sources they regard her as not being alt right. ther is the leader of the Libratarian Party who doies not regard her as alt right. what are they not included to maintain a neutral p[oinbt of view?Isaw (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how our neutrality and verifiability policies work. We reflect the reliable sources, and those sources don't need to back up their conclusions with "INFORMATION." I understand your concern, but such a major change to our community standards would require consensus in a different forum such as WP:VPP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The "far right" tag looks ridiculous. Who or What is far right, then? Anyone that is to the right of Pol Pot? Or because somebody expresses concerns that muslim-mass-immigration to Western countries may not be a very smart idea? A source that makes claims, but doesn't back up it's information is per definition not reliable. 105.4.7.11 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

suggestion
There is no scientific source, which defines Southern as far-right. So it is not a fact. There are just openions from media outlets, which descripe sourthern as far-right right-wing or alt-right. My suggestion would be:

"Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[4] 1995) is a Canadian political activist, Internet personality, and journalist[6]. In 2015, Southern ran as a Libertarian Party candidate in the Canadian federal election. She worked for The Rebel Media until March 2017. In addition, she has written for Spiked,[10] the International Business Times, and The Libertarian Republic.[11] Southern continues to work independently and publishes videos on YouTube.

In 2017, Southern supported the nativist group Defend Europe opposing the action of non-governmental organizations involved in search-and-rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. She was detained by the Italian Coast Guard for blocking a ship carrying refugees.[12] In March 2018, Lauren Southern was also detained while trying to enter the United Kingdom and officially banned from entering the country. A spokesperson for the British Home Office said that "her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good."[13]

Southern is widely described as right-wing, far-right or associated with the alt-right."

Greetings from Austria--Fleritarus (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Please review our verifiability policy. It doesn't require scientific sources, just reliable sources such as the ones that are cited. I see no basis for making any change based on the fact that these sources aren't scientific. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please reade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people). We should not setting aktivists because of media outlets. It should me make clear, that this are opinions about Southern. As long as there is no politic science study about or with about Southern, we should not setting "far-right" as fact. It should be more neutral --Fleritarus (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but in the german speaking corner of wikipedia we only use political attributes of activits in the intro if its political clear on the basis of political science. This is not the case here. We have diffreant opinions of a person. Its not clear. --Fleritarus (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take you at your word that that's how it's done at German Wikipedia, but it's not how our policies work here. I don't know what WP:BIO has to do with it. There's no dispute that Southern is notable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont know acactly how WP:BIO works in the english Wikipedia, but the commin groubd is, that it should be neutral. Is this diffrent here? --Fleritarus (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We use reliable sources to determine what is and is not neutral, and reliable, independent sources are saying she's far right. A neutral article will reflect reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are lots of reliable sources and they dont agree with the term "far-right" as a fact. They even do not say that this is a political fact because of ...I think that i did make a good compromise with my suggestion. Opinions are not facts --Fleritarus (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it's a fact, not an opinion. It's a description of Southern's views. It's not value-laden and it's not relative to the speaker's ideology. Many far-right activists are well aware that they're far right and don't complain about it. Of course many of them wish more people would agree† with them, but that's another matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. political facts are based on political science. This is not the case here. We have diffrent opinions of a controversial person. This should be considered in the intro. --Fleritarus (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What reliable sources don't agree with the term "far right" as applied to Southern? Using a broader term like "right-wing" or "libertarian" is not disagreement, in case that wasn't clear. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "right-wing"

"right-wing" "right-wing" "right-wing" "right-wing" "right wing". (Again: Even if there would be only sources which describe here as "far-right" its would be not a political fact. "Southern is XY") --Fleritarus (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "right-wing" "libertarian" and "far-right" are diffrent political terms --Fleritarus (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * None of the above sources are relevant, in that none of them dispute the more specific term "far right" by using the more general term "right wing". Could someone else remove or hat Fleritarius' irrelevant comment, please? Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course these sources are relevant --Fleritarus (talk) 14:33, 20 March 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 more extreme nationalist,[1][2] and nativist ideologies, as well as authoritarian tendencies.[3]" The term "far-right" is not more specific. its a hole diffrent political view than the standard right-wing view. --Fleritarus (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You offer no reliable sources for the above, Fleritarius. Even if you did, your claim that the subject of this article represents "standard right-wing politics" is unsourced and untrue. In fact, it is prima faciae absurd. I do however agree the far right is a hole, though I wouldn't specify what kind. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're over-reading that article. It says far-right politics are further to the right than the standard political right. The word "standard" is critical here. Right-wing politics is a spectrum. Far-right means on one end of the spectrum. It doesn't mean off the end of the spectrum. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, right-wing people can also be far-right people but only in the political science. We discuss media outlets. There is a reason why media outlets label people as right or leftwing. Far right or far left. That was my problem at the beginning. We dont discuss political scientific sources, we discuss media labels and therefore i made a neutral suggestion how we can make the intro more neutral, because the sources are not clear. We have diffreant opinions of Southern and this should be considered in the intro --Fleritarus (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

No, we have sources that are more specific and ones that are less specific. This isn't about political science. It's about standard, non-technical English usage in reliable sources such as reputable news media outlets. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we have many journalist-sources that dont want to label Southern as far-right and therefore it is not a fact. It is very simple and my suggestion is much more neutral --Fleritarus (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If some journalists use the more general term, this is not evidence that the more precise term soea nkt apply. Because logic. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Please considere my arguments. You dont do that--Fleritarus (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have considered your arguments, and they are unsupported by logic or the evidence you have presented. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Great talk --Fleritarus (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"far-right" This is the Wikipedia article on far-right politics. The article assiciates the term far-right with fascism and believes about inferiority/superiority of certain groups of people. Are there any reliable sources to show that these are L. Sauthern's believes? In this discussion some bald statemets were used like: "all reliable sources". The ONLY source cited for the far-right label is a single article talking about the reason why she was banned from Patreon. The term far-right is being used without any justification nor citation of any other source in said article. For these reason it would be best to rephrase the introduction in a way that reflects that this is an opinion of some people rather than an objective fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.45.102 (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

L. Sauthers also is/was member of the Libertarian party. According the the relevant Wikipedia page, this party's political goal is to limit the power of the gowernment, this is directly opposite to far-right ideologies that are ofthen associated with fascism and statism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.45.102 (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Nothing in Far-right politics says that all people who are far-right are fascist, statist, or bigoted. All that is implied here is that Southern is on the same end of the left–right political spectrum as those groups. Which is a verifiable fact, not an opinion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Dr. FleischmanThe left–right political spectrum link you supplied says "Right-wing extremist parties are harder to define other than being more right-wing than other parties, but include fascists and some extreme conservative and nationalist parties" I think it is quite clear alt right and far right denote hyper nationalist nazi like parties. So where does southern fit this identifiable "fact"? where does she state anything that agrees with far right attitudes like racism ?What are the criteria of verification and what is the "fact" that defines far right?Isaw (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

She's clearly far-right and widely described as such by reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There is only ONE source cited in the article. This 'source' does contains no justification for the usage of far-right. Is has been pointed out in the paragraph above, her political believes are directly contrary to certain political phenomena most frequently associated with far-right politics. This makes a strong case to rephrase the opening sentece of the page to be less politically charged. --AROULE (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The Independent describes Southern as far-right. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lauren-southern-far-right-canada-racist-calais-detain-uk-ban-enter-visa-a8254116.html The National Post describes Southern as far-right. http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/far-right-figures-say-they-were-deported-from-britain The Guardian describes Southern as moving 'in far-right circles' and also as 'odious', in an article headed 'The Far Right'. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/18/far-right-activists-barred-britain-state-speech The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix describes Southern as far-right. http://thestarphoenix.com/news/world/perma-banned-far-right-activists-deported-from-britain-for-racism-including-ex-rebel-contributor-lauren-southern/wcm/6c83e0f8-387e-4c6b-9993-98e8d4ca8a32 Newsweek describes Southern as alt-right and far-right. http://www.newsweek.com/us-blogger-among-three-alt-right-activists-denied-entry-uk-840782 Luton Today describes Southern as far-right (she distributed racist leaflets in Luton last time she was in the UK, hence her denial of entry). https://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/far-right-activist-denied-entry-to-uk-after-distributing-racist-material-in-luton-1-8411543 CNN describes Southern as far-right. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/13/europe/activists-denied-entry-uk-intl/index.html The Daily Mail (which WP isn't supposed to cite, but what the hell) describes Southern as far-right. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5493105/Journalist-anti-Muslim-activist-barred-Britain.html The Langley Times (from her hometown in British Columbia) describes Southern as far-right. https://www.langleytimes.com/news/far-right-activist-from-langley-denied-entry-to-uk/ Reuters describe Southern as far-right. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-deportations/british-authorities-ban-three-foreign-right-wing-activists-idUKKCN1GO2LO The Daily Beast describes Southern as far-right. https://www.thedailybeast.com/three-far-right-figures-were-denied-entry-to-the-uk UK Business Insider describes Southern as far-right. http://uk.businessinsider.com/far-right-tech-platforms-gab-youtube-bitchute-2017-9 CBC describes Southern as far-right. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.4224329/why-the-defend-europe-anti-migrant-ship-was-briefly-detained-in-cyprus-1.4224732 The New York Times groups Southern with 'the new far right.' https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/magazine/for-the-new-far-right-youtube-has-become-the-new-talk-radio.html Detecting a bit of a pattern here. Khamba Tendal (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * K. How do you reconcile that her libertarian political believes are in direct opposition to statism and elitism most commonly associated with the far-right? Also are these independet sources? Or is it that describing her as far-right just sort of caught on and nobody really gives it a second thought. --AROULE (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Far-right politics is a big tent. Yes those are absolutely independent sources, as they have no affiliation with Southern or any related party. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well-done for the list of news outlets describing her as far-right! What is the fact here? The fact is that "a number of 'well-established news outlets' describe Southern as far-right." Dot. Judging whether such description is correct or not is an opinion. Moreover, the sources mentioned are almost exclusively outlets considered "liberal" or "center-left" to "left" (see The Guardian, The Independent, The New York Times), thus potentially biased in matters concerning the political spectrum. The most reputable source out of them is Reuters and it DOES NOT describe Southern as either far-right or alt-right!
 * What is a fact to begin with? A fact is a statement that is consistent with reality or can be proven with evidence. The evidence here is the list of news articles. But it is evidence for such description being made, not for the description being valid or true. NEWSORG further states this: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis."
 * It implies, especially due to the apparent controversy here, to show what kind of evidence those news articles provide for their labeling. If no such evidence (scientific article, court decision) can be found (in those articles), such articles are worthless in supporting the label, and the statement should be modified as Fleritarius suggested at 12:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC), but the last sentence should read: "Southern is described by liberal media as right-wing, far-right or associated with the alt-right." The label "liberal media" might require more elaboration.Galapah (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject is Canadian, and is uniformly described in Canadian media as "far right" or "alt-right" (except by her far-right former employer). It would be improper to introduce the expression "liberal media", which in any even has no meaning in a Canadian context. Newimpartial (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The context issue - I cannot argue against, since I am not familiar with the US/Canadian differences well enough. However, the statement "uniformly described in Canadian media as" is original research, unless supported by a reliable source. (Besides the sources provided were mostly non-Canadian. And I referred to what was provided.) And, again, even if a reliable reference for "uniformly described as..." can be cited, it does not provide basis for validity of the label, thus the rest of my argument stands.
 * Example: if all reputable media refer to a certain chemical compound as "safe to use", it is correct to say that media widely refer to the compound as safe to use. Whether this is a fact is another question, and we obviously do not rely on media as an evidence for that.Galapah (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It is "correct" to say that, but it's still bad writing. This isn't medical content, and a political pundit isn't a chemical compound. In this context, "has been described as" is filler. The only additional meaning conveyed by this bloated phrase is implying doubt, and that's a form of editorializing. Among other problems, this is also condescending to readers, since they are perfectly capable of doubting things on their own. If many, many reliable sources describe her a certain way, and few (if any) refute it, Wikipedia should use direct, neutral language and accept the reliability of those sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Editorializing means expressing opinion, and what I suggested is exactly the opposite. Can you back up your policy that Wikipedia should just accept reliability of the sources? Since this is against principles of critical thinking. Galapah (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your critical thinking doesn't supersede my critical thinking. This is why we use reliable sources instead of original research. There are a lot of reasons your suggested approach isn't appropriate, but let's focus on the manual of style and common practice on Wikipedia. WP:WEASEL specifically cautions against this type of phrasing for this reason. In a general sense, we don't assume that sources may be wrong about their field without a very good reason, because otherwise everything would have to be hedged and all content would be an unreadable mess of "according to" and "some experts have said" and so on. In this case, journalistic sources are assumed to be competent regarding politics. In a more abstract sense, political positions are inherently simplified. This is by design: it's shorthand. The term "far right" is not capable of conveying the entirety of a person's beliefs, and everybody already knows this. Equivocating on this insults the intelligence of the reader because nobody thinks that the term "far-right" has this standard of proof. By setting it up this way we are implying that some reliable sources refute this, but this is both false precision, and as far as I know, wrong. No reliable source refutes this, and there is no consistent standard by which this could be empirically "refuted" anyway. Grayfell (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "there is no consistent standard by which this could be empirically "refuted" anyway" - I am not sure I understand what you meant. You mean no standard by which her labeling as far-right can be refuted?
 * Ad WP:WEASEL, this does not apply here. This rule cautions against inserting implicit views that are not referenced, which results into reader not being able to consult the source. That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting the opposite: to make the statement neutral and stick to hard facts (and provide sources). WP:WEASEL states "(...) may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source."
 * "we don't assume that sources may be wrong about their field without a very good reason" A good reason can be potential left-leaning bias as I documented above. Now, I am not giving a definitive proof of media being generally biased or being biased in this particular issue, but this evidence should raise caution in operating with such labels. (Canadian media is pushing us all to be Liberal)
 * WP:LABEL advocates caution with labels like neo-Nazi or extremist, and that is how far-right is often understood (Far-right politics). Furthermore, Biographies of living persons states "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. (...) In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."" This rule should be applied here, since the label far-right has strong negative connotation.
 * Wikipedia is supposed to provide factual, neutral, unbiased, backed-up content. It has nothing to do with assumptions about readers's intelligence.
 * Additionally, this very question was addressed by some reliable sources. (NY Times: We’re All Fascists Now, NPR: Ultra-Wrong: The Problem with Labeling 'Ultra Right') Galapah (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable source which says "Southern is not far-right" or something. Otherwise, we have a large number of sources from a surprisingly broad range of ideologies which support this, and none which directly refute it, so we should accept that reliable sources know what they are talking about. Having a "left-leaning bias" is not an argument against reliability, because:
 * A source can be left-leaning and also accurate.
 * We cannot come along after the fact and say "it says she's far-right, so the source must be leftist, and therefor it's not reliable".
 * Being opposed to extremism doesn't make sources "biased" against extremism any more than being opposed to disease makes doctors "biased" against disease.
 * If any of those sources about liberal bias in the media mention Southern, let me know, but otherwise it's a distraction.
 * Caution is called for, absolutely, but this isn't a platform for advocacy. If a mountain of reliable sources say something, Wikipedia should also. There is no profound difference between "sources say she is far-right" and "she is far right". All we can do is summarize sources, and if we didn't trust those sources for some reason, we shouldn't even mention it in the first place. Since nobody has validly explained why we shouldn't trust the huge number of sources on hand, we trust them and can use simple language.
 * By "empirically refuted", I mean that there is no pass/fail test for "far-rightness", but I admit this is getting lost in the weeds. The gist is this: Reliable sources can assess her statements and actions, and decide that she is far-right based on that assessment. Directly interpreting information is something good sources do (and bad ones, for that matter) but it's not something Wikipedia should do. This is WP:OR. We don't get to look at her actions and say "that's not really far-right, so the source isn't trustworthy". The test, for Wikipedia, is only what reliable sources say. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Lol, Lauren Southern is as Far-Right as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is Far-Left.--Kebman (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's core policies boil down to this: If reliable sources say X, then we can say X. If you don't think we should say X, or if you think X should be watered down, qualified, or changed in any way, then you'd better find some policy or guideline to back up your position. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right 5
Lauren Southern is not alt-right and believes in the basic principles of the US Bill of Rights as any other conservative. Unless you would like to say that half of the population of the USA is extreme, then you will have to adjust this article since there is no affiliation between Lauren Southern and the alt-right except for debates she has had in opposition to them and when she talks about how she is not alt-right and believes in many "liberal" ideas such as freedom of speech and religion (might I add that the idea of the basic rights of humans being liberal ideas and opinions is bullshit). Lauren Southern may not believe in Islam but that does not mean she hates the people who do. Lauren does not believe in ILLEGAL immigration but that does not mean she is against all immigrants. Lauren also may not support homosexuality but that does not mean that she hates all people who are. Wikipedia, I am very disappointed in you since millions of people a day check on your website for information when this information is clearly biased and incorrect. Before allowing this bias into your articles, please watch a few of Lauren's videos just to see what kind of person she actually is and how a lot of the world sees her just as this article does although they have never even seen any of her actual content. 1anonymous123 (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Having watched some of her videos, I think that reliable sources are correct in describing her as far-right and extremist. It doesn't matter what I think though, and it doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what sources say about it. She is free to say what she wants, and the rest of us are free to respond by describing her speech in whatever way we feel is appropriate and accurate. Wikipedia isn't the place to debate who has the best opinions, instead we attempt to summarize what reliable sources have to say. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The term "AltRight" is ambiguous. It only appeared in the lexicon in last two years. As history moves forward it will be more and more unclear what it refers to. It is unclearly defined terminology; that should be avoided in an encyclopedia. What should be written are her positions on various issues she talks about (immigration, gender, religion, whatever), and what should be avoided is simplistic labeling. She also seems to be changing as she goes, so simple labeling is disservice to her and reader. GangofOne (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Why would its ambiguity become more unclear? There are already many, many sources discussing the term, the movement, its usage, etc., and with time more sources will surely be published. If her position changes, reliable sources will cover that, or else we can decide how to include unreliable ones if it's a BLP issue. I agree that we should discuss her positions, but the lede is not the place to go into details, it's the place to summarize. Reliable sources summarize her position in part by saying that she is associated with the alt-right. The quantity of these sources has increased since this was added to the article, also. Grayfell (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please list the videos you watched and the parts in them which identify LS as racist or Alt right? Otherwise, you are against posting HEARSAY! I'm detecting an "only true Scotsman" fallacy on "reliable sources" here since the goalposts are constantly shifting. the original "reliable sources" are not there anymore and when one hearsay source is challenged another replaces it. we can go on forever doing that. You need to produce a source which shows her as alt right i.e. as supporting racism or racial supremacy or similar policies. In the absence of that you should not be portraying a living person as a racist until you produce evidence! Saying someone else called her alt right isnt evidence! On what evidence is there calling her alt right or extreme right based? In the absence of that the designation of her as alt right should be removed until you can produce evidence from a reliable source! and a newspaper or a highly respected person saying there are WMD in Iraq iant evidence of WMD in Iraq! If they actually saw the WMD then that is a different matter. But the sources you are quoting fall short of witnessing LS being racist or doing things that alt right people do.Isaw (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Plkewase must be "please" I guess? Everybody makes typos, but there are so many here this is actually difficult to understand, so please slow down.
 * Anyway, as I already explained, it doesn't matter what I think, or what videos I've watched, or what research any other editors have done. What matters is what's published by reliable sources. The article doesn't say she's a racist, it says, correctly, that her views are on the far-end of the left-right spectrum. I could explain why I think that's accurate, but would you accept that? Would you care? I doubt it, and it wouldn't matter either way. If you want to talk about WMDs in Iraq, do it elsewhere. That comparison isn't as relevant as you seem to think it is, and this article is for discussing Lauren Southern, not Hans Blix, or the many other reliable sources which disputed WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Typos fixed. My keypad was freezing requiring me to type in several sentences before the screen unfroze.


 * So if she isnt a racist what other CRITERIA for her far right does she fulfill? What views put her on the far right end of the spectrum? Just saying she has far right views is uninformed opinion. You have to show the view and allow people to decide. And that is not doing original research! You are a not repeating the experiment or doing a new experiment you are just showing where in the experiment particular measurements have been made. Yes I would care for you to explain why it is accurate because then we are agreeing to objective criteria. and whether I care or not anyone can then see the objectively verifable data. anyone can see the comment Southern made or the act she did and judge for themselves rather than "take our word for it southern is a racist /far right/alt right extremist" Based on what data?Isaw (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * as someone who highlighted Blix and Scott Ritter at the time the "groupthink" was against me any people could produce hundreds of media articles from "reliable sources" saying WMD existed in Iraq. The point is relevant in the sense of comparing loads of disparate media OPINIONS to actual evidence based on what Southern did or said and not what people think she did or said without actually seeing or hearing it... in other words "hearsay". The WMD issue was decided on by hearsay not actual facts, and Southern is being labeled alt right in the same way. Loads of sources callinbg her extreme right does not make it true. showing her doing or saying something racist woiuld be evidence.Isaw (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Biographies_of_living_persons says " material about living people can affect their subjects' lives" and " such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." Passed 10 to 0 at 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) as the First Principle of editing such an article. This isnt happening in the case of Lauren Southern. Calling her extreme right can affect her life. so why is any attempt to remove this until it is discussed resisted and the attribution included in the article instead of having it  removed until a decision to include it is reached?Isaw (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It has already been discussed over. and over. and over. and over. Time to move on please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I was asked not to post in oither discussions and post at the bottom. When I do Im told it was discussed earlier. Where? Where for example was the " such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." discussed which is a meta discussion about editing of content of the article and not the nature of that content. Even iof the content might make her look bad it is meant to be removed until the matter is discussed. Im trying to discuss it and you are saying this was already raised. Where? Isaw (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * this isnt showing balance at all! Vox in a few thousand words on a European movement mentions Lauern Souther in one sentence buried at the end of the article and calls her "alt right" with no supporting evidence at all. This is taken as a "reliable source". the Leader of the Libritarian Party endorcing Southern as a candidate for his Party however is not considered a "reliable source" and southern is depicted as "alt right". So called "reliable sources" are continually removed and replaced with others as they are queried. this isn't fair comment. Why isnt the Liberitarian Leader reference included? Isaw (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, stop inserting comments into the middle of other people's posts. How many times does this have to be explained?
 * Asking us to perform original research is futile and tedious. If you don't listen to what we're saying, how likely do you think it will be that we'll keep responding to you? Many reliable sources support this label and that number has grown significantly with her recent refused entry into the UK. A substantial subset of these sources provide at least some explanation for why they apply that label. If you know of reliable sources which refute this characterization, let's see them. Otherwise, it's not up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to repeat explanations to you which are already provided by sources. Your personal rejection of those sources, or their definitions, is not Wikipedia's problem. Drop the stick, please. Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the part of the edit by Edaham that added the phrase "associated with the alt-right" in the lead. Other opponents have explained lengthily and alluded to WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:BLP in general; I think it's enough to say WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It appears to me -- sorry if I am misinterpreting or forgetting someone -- that "associated with the alt-right" is opposed by (O1001010, 193.80.37.179, 197.229.154.158,  1anonymous123, 2A02:C7D:B417:4800:A021:8D43:9DB3:E721, A7exro,  Art of Free Speech, Deadlybanter, Fleritarus (maybe), GangofOne,  Gedoughty02,  Isaw, Peter Gulutzan,  Serpentmars,  Waltercool) ... and is supported by (Cullen (maybe), Edaham, DrFleischman, Grayfell, Newimpartial). So either there is consensus opposing Edaham's addition or there is no consensus, and the addition has been properly reverted with a good-faith objection, and this is a BLP, so re-insertion will be a violation of Wikipedia policy WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. If several editors want an RfC e.g. -- "Shall we add the words 'associated with the alt-right' at the end of the first sentence so it reads 'Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June 1995) is a Canadian far-right political activist, Internet personality, and journalist associated with the alt-right.'"? -- we can go that way.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There are three sources specifically attached to the "associated with the alt-right" statement. Removing the statement without removing those sources is misrepresenting those sources which is unacceptable. The consensus on Wikipedia as a whole is that articles must reflect reliable sources. If you do not think these sources are reliable, or that they are being accurately summarized, you will have to explain why. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not determined by majority vote. If a whole bunch of new editors with no understanding of Wikipedia community standards come here and insist insist insist that Southern isn't this or that, that's not an appropriate basis for removing verifiable content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To Grayfell: The cites weren't added by the edit that I was partly reverting -- so much for your claim that I "misrepresented" something; and I said "I think it's enough to say WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV" -- so much for your demand that I address something else. To DrFleischman: consensus is also not determined by minority vote; some editors whose newness you disparage have made some points or aren't so new. To all others: I said "re-insertion will be a violation of Wikipedia policy WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE"; Grayfell ignored that and re-inserted; so the immediate issue is: is this indeed a violation? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy-based consensus is clearly in favor of the "disputed" material, and no amount of drive-by POV editing will change that. No violation has occurred. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * many thanks for letting me know. In future please avoid blanking adequately sourced information without explanation based on additional sources. We don’t vote info in and out of the encyclopedia. Edaham (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * False accusations about my reverting don't affect the issue, but apparently the other opposers have left the field, so I will not pursue this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good Edaham (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, the opening sentence could be modified to produce a more accurate and objective statement: Eg ″Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June[3] 1995) is a Canadian political activist, Internet personality, and journalist[4][5] associated by some sources with the alt-right [6][7][8] and described by others as ′far-right′. [a]″ 190.121.43.79 (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Associated by some sources" is WP:WEASEL wording. Additionally, that proposed wording would imply that 'far-right' and 'alt-right' are mutually exclusive, which is not accepted by sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only is it weasely, but it's also an inappropriate expression of doubt, and it violates our neutrality policy, specifically WP:YESPOV, which forbids us from presenting facts as opinions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Concerning WP:WEASEL the page says "Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." so using the wording of the suggestion to refute the edit is contrary to the page you are citing. The page indicates that it is fine to use 'associated by some sources' as long as you say what sources you are talking about. Concerning WP:YESPOV the page indicates that the Wikipedia page should 'Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.' which the current page fails to do by presenting only the view that she is associated with the alt-right, which is contested (as evidenced by the very sources used in the article). Finally, concerning expression of doubt no use of any of the 'expressions of doubt' was suggested in the proposed edit. It feels to me that the current content is in breach of neutrality and that at least a '{'{'Disputed'}'}' flag should be put on the page. Ecliptica (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources say something, Wikipedia can also say that thing. If unreliable sources dispute that, we cover that position in proportion to how reliable sources cover the unreliable ones. The problem here is not attribution, it's that "associated by some sources" is distancing language. It's implying without stating that other sources might disagree, or associate her with some other movement or whatever. The problem with weasel words is not what they say, it's what they imply without saying.
 * Your ping didn't work because you failed to add it at the same time as your signature, but don't bother pinging me again, please. Notice that this section is "Alt-right 5", meaning there are four other sections covering this exact issue in the talk page's archives. This has already been discussed to death over several months, so if you have something to say about it, make sure it's damn good or brand-spanking-new. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me that a quick ", although she personally rejects such labels." wouldn't be amiss at the end of the first sentence. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Or even at the end of the first sentence of the "Views" section. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"Journalist"
No, she isn't a "journalist", she's a far-right Internet personality, that's all. --Tataral (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, reliable sources say she's a journalist too. Not just Fox News. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that she ever worked professionally as a journalist. She's a far-right Internet personality who has barely left high school, and who's only known for far-right political activism, not journalism. --Tataral (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources like Al Jazeera and Fox News (and yes there are more) don't have to provide evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not regard her as far right or a journalist but she has published a book and is capable of writing and was paid by a media company to do so. this would qualify her to join the National Union of Journalists although I doubt she would bother. Isaw (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Southern definitively worked as a journalist for Rebel Media. She also makes content with some journalistic integrity, while she probably also qualifies as an activist. But then, is Eva Bartlett really just a ‘blogger’?--Kebman (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tatara1 Saying she is a journalist does not imply she is a good journalist, or that other journalists would approve of her work. If someone routinely or professionally produces content in which they report on current events, they are a journalist, especially if they self-identify as such, and especially if other journalistic or expert sources refer to them as such. One can be a far-right Internet personality and a journalist too. In this article, failing to call her a journalist would misleadingly omit a major reason she is noteworthy. Acone (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Youtube source
"She has been described as far-right and alt-right, though she claimed she is not alt-right, in a video that was part of an argument with the YouTuber Thunderf00t." I don't think that it is necessary to quote a Youtuber's nickname in a bio, especially in the beginning. It is also explained in the source itself. The main idea is that Southern denies being alt right, and that's what matters. The "argument" part seems irrelevant imo, therefore should be removed. --Media Data (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence in question in response to your suggestion, let me know what you think. Thanks. MutchyMan112 (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB Removed self-serving self-published source, praising the quality of the publisher's work. This video claims to respond to someone with “an agenda of character assassination” against the publisher. (4:11).

Its entire topic is how this critic allegedly “let the snide malicious jackass side of you get the best” and “went on to make some wild conspiracy theories”. (5:26)

For example, it attempts to justify a statement in a previous video by presenting the publisher's own view: “Much of the anti-Trump movement has become simply vitriolic and hateful rather than a group of people that are putting forward coherent arguments.” (2:09) The publisher even makes the astonishing claim “I don't focus on white identity as one of my main topics” as the basis for not being alt-right. (6:21)

The publisher summarises by dismissing the critic's videos as “just nonsense”. (21:19)

This source's clear purpose is to present the publisher's own views on the critic, on politics and on the quality of her own work. It is undeniably self-serving, making it unsuitable as a citation in a biography of a living person. Whitefirefly (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this article a promotion to Lauren Southern's ideas?
This article lacks neutrality, ie, first section: " though rejected the label "alt-right" in response to the YouTube video “Lauren Southern YES DISHONEST AS HELL!" with a link to her Youtube channel as a reference, is it a joke? By the way, many reliable sources proved that she is far right, but this has been deleted days ago without justification, nothing on talk page, and no one feels bothered about it? And what about the UK ban (was it a ban? nobody knows), since now we've got conflicting sources? Problem is that Southern posted a picture on her Twitter showing that she was "banned", however this shouldn't be taken as a main source! That's why this article lacks neutrality.--Media Data (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There's certainly been some attempts at whitewashing. I find such efforts amusing, because they deny what her fans actually want. It's mostly her fans who have been doing the editing recently. Others will arrive. Give it time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you. I think the article quite clearly states she is seen in a negative fashion far-right and alt-right but she disputes these claims. It also talks about times when she said incorrect such being banned from the UK when she wasn't. Anyway, this is Wikipedia. If you see something that isn't following WP:NPOV, be bold and change it! MutchyMan112 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The bombing of Melbourne
The article states "In Brisbane, Lauren Southern supported bombing the Australian city of Melbourne, quoting the Bible." I've got two problems with that: First, the source article is located behind a paywall and inaccessible to most people (I'd say the majority of the world's population doesn't feel like subscribing to/paying for an Australian news website). Second, the statement is blatantly wrong and aimed at making her look like a horrible person. Wikipedia should be neutral. What she said is, that she does NOT feel like Melbourne should be nuked; as she believes there's still a silent majority of reasonable people there. Also, the entire statement was clearly meant as a joke. In no way did she ever say that she truly feels that Melbourne should be nuked, or that she would be in support of such a thing. Source: https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/lauren-southern-insults-melbourne-city-fires-back/news-story/820aeccdc9e8f0ddf936b878c195a81a 188.155.102.242 (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have seen the paywalled article. The headline says she wanted the nuking, but when the article actually gets around to quoting Southern we read: “So far my trip in Australia has been absolutely lovely, wonderful country, wonderful people … And then there’s Melbourne,” Ms Southern told an appreciative audience. “You know that old tale in the bible where Abraham is talking to god about Sodom and Gomorrah. He’s like begging with god and says ‘god, if I can find ten good people in Sodom and Gomorrah, please, do not nuke Melbourne. “We did find a few hundred good ones there — there is a silent majority I believe in Melbourne so we can’t nuke it yet guys I’m sorry.” That appears to confirm what 188.155.102.242 says. Whitefirefly added this. Does anyone support Whitefirefly's edit? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * “we can’t nuke it yet” comes across as a call for this to happen in the future – when the Australian city ceases to have a “silent majority” of “good people”. She even apologises, seemingly for saying it's too early, as though sensing impatience. The reported interpretation takes account of the word “yet”. It is perfectly valid. Whitefirefly (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What a surprise. A News Ltd/Rupert Murdoch publication, behind a paywall, with a misleading headline. I often think Wikipedia should prohibit the use of Murdoch outlets as sources. There is an understandable message in what Southern said. Of all the Australian cities, Melbourne is the most liberal, and the general culture there would not be one she would find welcoming. Brisbane, on the other hand, is in Queensland, commonly seen as the home of right wing politics in Australia. Her statement is one to be expected. So there is no surprise there. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Addressed issues of paywall (1) and joke (2). Updated to indicate bombing call was intended as a joke and supported this with a non-paywalled source. Whitefirefly (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It now reads (in the lead) "In July 2018, she went on a speaking tour of Australia and called for the country to be bombed, quoting the Bible, as a joke." (and later) "In Brisbane, Lauren Southern supported bombing the Australian city of Melbourne, quoting the Bible." with cites to The Australian and news.com.au. Looks to me like undue and misrepresentation, but I'll interpret HiLo48's remark as support for Whitefirefly's edit. Anybody else? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The headline of the article in The Australian, and its failure to acknowledge anywhere that it was a joke makes it the most horrendously deceptive hit piece I have ever read in my entire life. If a stand-up comedian were to say this at a comedy show, no one would bat an eyelid. The article goes far beyond the normal variations in journalistic perspective that controversial speakers always attract. This is different.

The article in question makes a direct accusation of a serious crime – that of inciting violence. As a rule, news outlets do not accuse someone of a crime unless they have been convicted in a court of law. Lauren Southern was never convicted of anything in her entire life. For this reason, there is a clear identifiable ground for concern relating to the citation being potentially libellous or defamatory.

In addition to omitting the critical fact of her statement being a joke, the grounds for concern here are substantially exacerbated by the headline, which itself makes the accusation. The headline is shown whenever a user hovers over the citation and again in the References section.

The fact that the comment was made in jest and was a joke has not been disputed by anyone. It does not appear to have been contradicted by any news source. It is also the clear view of Australian law enforcement that Lauren Southern is totally innocent of any crime, which is evidenced by the fact that no action has been taken against her whatsoever. The article's headline and critical omission are both likely to mislead readers into thinking otherwise.

In order to prevent readers from ever being mislead in this way, I am removing the citation to the article in The Australian. Whitefirefly (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Resolved the extraordinary discrepancy between the apparent accusation of a serious crime in a citation's headline and the absence of any subsequent action by law enforcement, by removing the citation. Whitefirefly (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be so certain that it is "the clear view of Australian law enforcement that Lauren Southern is totally innocent of any crime". It is a crime in Australian to incite people to violence, and to speak hatefully of other races/ethnic groups, but some bigots are simply not worth chasing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2018
This page contains inaccuracies and bias political opinions on Lauren Southern. One such inaccuracy is when the article states that she handed out flyers while in Luton. This is false, and can be seen is her video entitled "'Allah is gay' -Here's What Happened in Luton". Other false claims are that she promotes RealLaurenSouthern (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You would also have to clearly explain what changes you are proposing in a "Change 'X' to 'Y' " format.
 * Note: the OP is now blocked under WP:REALNAME. Meters (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The citation is perfectly correct that she displayed the quoted message. The only inaccuracy I found was that this exact message was on posters hanging from her table rather than flyers. However, the flyers still had the same message in different words and described Allah as transgender, which Lauren Southern says is a mental disorder. If this is what the user meant by "false claims", then creating a Talk topic complaining about "inaccuracies and bias political opinions" based on such an inconsequential detail was very cynical and astoundingly disingenuous. Whitefirefly (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reworded the sentence about flyers so that it matches both the cited article and the video. The quoted text describing Allah as "a Gay God" was on the posters hanging from the table, not the flyers. The flyers simply described Allah as "gay" (and as other things, including "trans", which Lauren Southern regards as a mental disorder, and therefore an insult). This was an immaterial difference which, in all seriousness, did not merit either a Talk post or an edit. Whitefirefly (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggested update to Views | Gender section Mrsewnsew (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Under the Views area, Gender sub-topic, there is a mention of the following: "She criticized legal recognition for changing one's gender, because doing so might be "dishonest"."

What is missing, and what I believe if crucial to the understanding of this position is the fact that she made an attempt to change the gender on her state-issued identification. Without any prior belief that she felt "male", or was transgender herself, she was able to go through the process of changing her state-issued ID from "female" to "male". Much of her position is rooted in this experience. I therefore believe the following should be added to lend context to her "argument": "She was, herself, able to have the gender changed on a state-issued ID in Canada without believing she was transgender."

Google searches are littered with stories about this, but the experience was documented on YouTube, and took approximately an hour.

Citations include: https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/lauren-southern-man/ https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/wait-is-lauren-southern-really-a-man-now.547096/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wncuy16R5gA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFf4xU6cmdA https://fairplayforwomen.com/canadian-lauren-southern-becomes-man/ https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/o-t-lounge/lauren-southern-is-legally-a-male/68331943/page-3/ https://www.therebel.media/lauren_southern_becomes_a_man

Mrsewnsew (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * your citations are bad. Please read WP:RS. w umbolo   ^^^  15:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Rounding Views and Subscribers
Clearing up a minor note here -- I embeded the YouTube personality infobox into main infobox as module yesterday. Originally pulled a copy of the template from the Red Letter Media page. Thought these two comments were from the official template, but apparently were from that specific article's edit history: Seems like a reasonable enough guideline, but might not apply perfectly to this page due to differences in subscribers and views.
 * Please keep this figure rounded down to the nearest ten thousand; any different rounding behavior should be discussed on the talk page first.
 * Please keep this figure rounded down to the nearest ten million; any different rounding behavior should be discussed on the talk page first.

DirkDouse (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. For whatever reason, there are many editors who rush to update subscriber counts whenever they notice a discrepancy. This is fine and good, but it does choke-up the edit history enough that can inadvertently conceal vandalism, errors, or controversial edits. Limiting the field to round numbers seems like a very good way to reduce this problem, so I support it. There's also the issue that a few hundred subscribers isn't likely to be encyclopedically significant, making that level of detail potentially misleading. Still, if we end-up edit warring over it, it's probably not worth the hassle after all, and I would rather let people do what they're going to do. Time will tell, I guess. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Race
A section |Race, re what Southern said about Richard Spencer, has been removed twice (by Fz4r and me) and re-inserted twice (by Nblund and Greyfell). The sources now are Abbotsford News, Buzzfeed which references Youtube, and an SPLC blog which references Abbotsford News. But (a) the section quotes Spencer but there's nothing suggesting that Southern knew or approved that quote so it's synth; (b) the section quotes Southern but cuts off her final words about Spencer -- "He doesn't believe in whites being superior" -- so it's a misquote. Without the synth and the misquote there's no story here, which probably is why it didn't get much attention. Anyone willing to defend Nblund and Greyfell's re-insertions of this section? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the SPLC article is an op-ed, but the other two sources don't misquote anything. Saying Spencer is not a supremacist is the same as saying he doesn't believe in whites being superior. w umbolo   ^^^  15:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the synth argument: the Abbotsford news mentions Spencer's endorsement of ethnic cleansing as context for the Southern quote about a white ethno-state. How is it synth to repeat a connection drawn in a reliable source? It's also not a "misquote" to truncate a quote. I think it's worth noting that your edit summary was a complaint about BLP and sources and that complaint has been addressed. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 16:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)