Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:36, 12 March 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lauren Southern article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12089138 https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/1966721/lauren-southern-releases-terrifying-controversial-farm-murders-documentary/

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is covered by MOS:GENDERID. Based on discussion at Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 1#Lauren Southern Becomes a Man, she identifies as female and female pronouns should be used. Use of masculine pronouns should be reverted per WP:BLP

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada: British Columbia / Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Lauren Cherie Southern (talk · contribs) / Lozza77 (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (declared here; declared here) Vandelay451 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021

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

OK, I'll try my request again. I'm not the most experienced user, so I think my "every man" viewpoint is valid. Ms. Southern is quoted as saying Hitler was just a SJW, but that term could not be gleaned from the context. I had to open another window to find it means Social Justice Warrior. If you would just make the acronym a hyperlink (or whatever the Misplaced Pages term for that is), then a simple "click" would have answered my question and I could continue to learn about this person.

Thank you for your time, a non-political user in Austin, TX 2600:1700:E0:1FB0:AD5B:EF2C:428F:159 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

For the "white nationalist" label controversy, can we actually analyse the sources? Some listed don't even say it while others are tenuous.

Here's the 5 sources - https://en.wikipedia.org/Lauren_Southern#cite_note-white_nationalist_bundle-6

First one constantly describes her as alt-right, not white nationalist. Just a single time it comes pretty close when it notes she's made accomodations to stay within the movement but also that she denies being white nationalist, and never calls her white nationalist again, instead alt-right throughout.

Second one doesn't explicitly call her a white nationalist, closest is this: "And when it comes down to it, there isn’t much daylight between the politics of Southern, which are white nationalist, and those of Australian conservatism as it has developed in recent decades." So he's saying her politics is white nationalist, which I admit is pretty close. More importantly though I note that this author cannot be relied on as an arbiter of white nationalism as he describes modern conservatism in Australia as basically white nationalist. Also worthy to note that the Guardian is left wing, and this is an opinion piece.

Third one doesn't call her white nationalist at all, calls her alt-right: "Camus's notion of the Great Replacement has been spread by right-wing and white nationalist figures across the world. In July 2018, Lauren Southern, a Canadian alt-right figure posted, a video titled 'The Great Replacement' on YouTube that got over 250,000 views."

The fourth source itself isn't saying she's a white nationalist, it's reporting on the catagories of a study on YouTube radicalisation. Those authors roughly divided 360 channels into 4 catagories, so I'd say it's problematic to use this given Southern is an afterthought as just one of 360 channels and roughly divided in a very limited number of catagories.

The fifth source: "it is an open secret that white nationalists are the primary group making the most noise about the ostensibly out-of-control killing of white South African farmers. Most notably, Lauren Southern, a Canadian nationalist ... released the movie Farmlands." So says "Canadian nationalist" not "Canadian white nationalist". The implication is there given it's written just after saying white nationalists are doing it but it's not explicit and specifically chooses to call her nationalist, not white nationalist.

I think we need some more widespread sources describing her as white nationalist for Misplaced Pages to write this as a fact. The vast majority of sources don't and most of these 5 aren't good enough to use in support. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 8#RfC: Inclusion of alt-right, white nationalist, and Great Replacement details in lead GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody there actually looked at the sources, they saw there were sources and so supported it. I'm saying that these sources don't actually support the designation. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion includes detailed discussion of many sources, so I don't see how that's an accurate summary of the RfC. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see it's just people saying there are reliable sources stating it, nobody actually analyses any particular source. I've analysed the sources here and clearly at least several of them should be removed as they don't support the designation. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Maybe the label should stay, but several of these sources don't support the designation and should be removed. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

IP, the sources you reject are discussing Southern as a white nationalist. The kind of hair-splitting "analysis" you are engaged in is clearly motivated by POV, and IMO is incompatible with the purpose of the encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Some of them sure, but the 2nd, 3rd and 4th should be removed for the reasons stated. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No; these sources do support the claim. To take the second, for example: saying that Southern's politics are white nationalist is literally the same as referring to her as white nationalist. "White nationalism" has no other relevant meaning - you aren't even splitting a hair in this case; you are just imagining a distinction that does not exist at all. Newimpartial (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Who are you arguing against? I even said that it's pretty close to saying she's white nationalist, my problem with that source is that it's an opinion piece in a left wing publication and the author has a ridiculous definition of white nationalism, saying mainstream Australian conservatism is practically white nationalist. Can you address that point, and the points for the 3rd and 4th sources. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop moving the goalposts, please. Why do you think the second source is "opinion"? As far as the Guardian being "left wing", that assertion isn't relevant to WP sourcing policy, which is what matters here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, they raised the opinion issue in the original post, and the Guardian piece is labeled at the top as an opinion piece. I think the other provided sources are sufficient to retain the descriptor, so could we remove this one? Firefangledfeathers 17:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't render for me with an "Opinion" label, but I wouldn't object to its removal per BLP - nor does that affect the overall strength of sourcing IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What about the third source, which doesn't call her a white nationalist at all. And the fourth source which doesn't call her a white nationalist and instead is reporting on a study of YouTube's algorithm and they grouped 360 channels very roughly into a limited 4 catagories. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: I agree the quote you pulled from the Guardian source is an improvement. Pinging you so you're aware of this discussion. Do you feel the source is still reliable enough for this use, despite being an opinion piece? Firefangledfeathers 07:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

To a degree all the sources use opinion as the description cannot be called an absolute fact like the date someone was born. The point is Southern's politics (white genocide/replacement theory) match what is termed "white nationalist". Philip Cross (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're saying. The first of those sources uses Southern as an example of a "white nationalist figure", and the second discusses her "white nationalist messages". I don't see any problem with the retention of either source. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial, disagree with IP 84's analysis on both sources, and find them to be used appropriately in the article. Firefangledfeathers 21:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we're mixing up the sources we're looking at, I mean this source: "spread by right-wing and white nationalist figures across the world. In July 2018, Lauren Southern, a Canadian alt-right figure posted..." It sets up two groups that spread this, "right-wing" people and "white nationalist" people, it places her in the right-wing group calling her alt-right, not white nationalist. For the Wired article I'm curious how a study on YouTube's algorithm that roughly grouped 360 channels into a limited 4 catagories means we can use that as a reliable source for ourselves placing any of those 360 channels into those 4 catagories. If it was a study on political philosophies or similar, then I would say ok, these people are reliable for analysing and grouping these political channels, and if they had a lot more than 4 catagories so it wasn't so hazardly divided. But it's a YouTube algorithm study and they only used 4 catagories. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think the former source is treating right-wing and white nationalist figures as two groups? I'm not seeing it - it sounds like a misreading to me. Newimpartial (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

If it was one group there wouldn't be an "and" there, it would say "right-wing white nationalists". 84.70.169.190 (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't say "right-wing figures and white nationalist figures", it says "right-wing and white nationalist figures". The text does not distinguish between the two; the interpretation that it is only discussing figures that are both right-wing and white nationalist is more plausible than that it is "setting up" two distinct groups that it does not actually distinguish. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The meaning is that the great replacement theory is pushed by both right-wing and white nationalist people, if it meant "right-wing white nationalists" it would've said that, not put an "and" in there. This is also evidenced by the fact that just after this it notes how general right-wing figures promote this "A further example of white genocide theory occured in October 2018 when President Trump and the right-wing media..." It goes on to note how George Soros is accused of being a part of this by "right-wingers". 84.70.169.190 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and that source goes on to describe the alt-right, which includes Southern, as a white nationalist movement. Firefangledfeathers 20:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be saying there is a white nationalist alt-right movement. However some alt-right figures are not white nationalist so it would be ludicrous for that source to say every alt-right person is white nationalist and I don't believe it is saying that. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the source in question is one of many that ties Southern to white nationalism. I see no policy-relevant reason to remove it; you seem to be engaged in a POV crusade. Newimpartial (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It's talking about a particular theory that it says is popular with right-wing people and white nationalists. It never identifies Southern as white nationalist, therefore the source should be removed. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

That is an extremely TENDentious reading. A more plausible reading is that the source credits Southern with spreading a white nationalist conspiracy theory. That fact is relevant to the current description in the article of Southern as a white nationalist. I think it is time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It also says Donald Trump and Fox News spread white nationalist conspiracy theories but we're not using this source to say that Donald Trump and Fox News are white nationalist. The source doesn't describe her as white nationalist so we can't use the source to do it ourselves. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It also doesn't describe Donald Trump or Fox News as creating "Great Replacement" documentaries; i.e., it does not say the same thing about Southern as it does about Trump. Please read sources for content, and not as props for sophistry. I have reached my WP:SEALION limit, now; it really is time for you to DROPTHESTICK and step away from the carcass. Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It treats great replacement like other white nationalist theories, in that both right wing and white nationalist support it, and Southern, Trump and Fox News are grouped in the right wing camp, not white nationalist camp. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

There isn't any support for that in the actual source, though. You have constructed an original interpretation of the text. Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Untrue, the source clearly sets out two types of people, right-ring people who have aided white nationalist theories, these include Southern, Trump and Fox News, and white nationalists on the other. I guess we need an RfC to decide this? I also haven't seen anything in response to my problem with the YouTube algorithm study. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a tendentious reading, unsupported by the actual text. I am not playing this WP:SEALION game and longer. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The text says it in black and white "right-wing and white nationalist figures" instead of "right-wing white nationalist figures". Then right after it notes other "right-wing" figures that support these sorts of theories. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If the text meant to distinguish between right-wing figures and white nationalist figures, it would do so, perhaps by saying "right-wing figures and white nationalist figures". The text does not actually make that distinction. Such statements as "these right-wing figures spread white nationalist discourse" simply cannot be interpreted as a source supporting "these right-wing figures are not white nationalist", without a degree of torturous reading that violates the Geneva convention. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm allegedly it already does so, with that "and", and how right after that it goes on to describe other right-wing but not white nationalist figures who promote similar white nationalist theories. The point they're making is how right-wingers who are not white nationalist promote these theories. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Where does the source say that Southern is not a white nationalist? Generally it is white nationalists who create documentaries to spread white nationalist conspiracy theories. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I added two more sources. It is easy enough to find more but the bundle is already huge and I don't really agree there are problems with the existing ones - it's just easier to add more since she's extremely heavily-covered by academics discussion white nationalist women. --Aquillion (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you quote those sources calling her a white nationalist like the other sources do? 84.70.169.190 (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Kind of a tangent, but perhaps editors here will be interested (pinging @GorillaWarfare, @Firefangledfeathers, @NorthBySouthBaranof, @Philip Cross, as you posted in this discussion and aren't already in that conversation): This article is being used as an example in this discussion about whether it's okay to directly WP:LABEL someone as being a white nationalist (e.g., rather than writing "multiple sources say that..."). Depending on the outcome of that discussion, this article might need to be changed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

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

This article is filled with opinion, speculation, hearsay and borders slander with out providing any facts. I am not defending the person but mainly the downward slide of Misplaced Pages as a whole. Please correct the unproven comments. 2603:9003:113:3E48:6947:F116:8176:201F (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Articles which are Biographies of living persons are strictly governed with the use of reliable sources being required. A check using the list at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources suggests the citations used are generally more than adequate for this task. The use of the terms "alt-right", "white nationalist" and "far-right" are supported by multiple admissible citations. For any changes to be made, you should suggest reliable sources which present Ms Southern in a different light. Philip Cross (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Listed place of birth inaccurate

We grew up in the same town and attended the same school. Which is in Langley, British Columbia not Surrey, Walnut Grove is on the border between the 2 townships but is firmly in Langley. I’m not sure what sort of source I’d need to submit to make this change, all that I have is our year book that would confirm what I am saying. Which I know isn’t a third party source like Misplaced Pages requires. 70.70.59.72 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You'll need a published source. We're going by her profile page, which is a self-published source, which plainly states "Lauren Southern was born and raised in Surrey, British Columbia". —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

pardon me if this edit is the improper way to do this. I am

New to the backend of Misplaced Pages, so my apologies. I have a published source saying that Lauren was raised in Langley, I tried posting a link but I think my discussion thread was deleted because of it. 70.70.59.72 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Mention of Richard Spencer in Race section

Under Race, it is stated that Richard B. Spencer "has advocated violence against nonwhites on multiple occasions.", but that's not mentioned in the sources. I noticed that prior to the 26th of December 2020, it read "had called for a "peaceful" ethnic cleansing of America.", which the next source supports. However, that's just once (not multiple times), and despite the oxymoron, he did say "peaceful" according to the source. I think that that sentence should be reverted to its previous iteration. EggDeployer (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

“Alt-Right”? “White Nationalist”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lauren Southern wasn't banned from Paypal

There is zero mention of Lauren being banned from Paypal in either of the sources listed. It DOES say she was banned from Patreon. Do the editors of this article even read the sources they use? That's a false statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crun31 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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

The article still claims "Websites for crowdfunding (GoFundMe), business services (Patreon) and banking (PayPal) have all barred Southern from using their services." 192.184.191.153 (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors lie and spin to advance the leftist political viewpoints and participate in character assassination and denigration of political opposition. The notion that Misplaced Pages has a NPOV position is laughable when reading through ANY conservative or political right aligned popular personality. Why is the term Far-Left not used to explain various radical left activists in America and Europe? 174.20.131.248 (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

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

The articles cited claiming Lauren is alt-right or a white nationalist are not credible sources. Tim Pool interviewed her and the revealed this Wiki as having substantial false information. At the same time, this article does not meet Wiki standards. Capitalistone (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP tells us that if someone explicitly rejects a label, then the article has to say they reject the label in the same sentence or next sentence after the accusation is made. That would be the proper response, those are the changes that need to be made. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't seem to find that recommendation at WP:BLP. Could you give me a more specific pointer where to look? Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, it has been edited since I looked at it a long time ago. Still, there is WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:ATTACK to consider. Also, and this is what tenacious editors are ignoring, she has explicitly rejected the labels being assigned to her. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, the requested change is to include language that she denies being alt-right and that she denies being white nationalist. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something. If Wikiepdia says "Lauren believes X and Y" and Lauren responds with "No, Lauren believes A and B", it it now Wikipeida policy that Misplaced Pages can say "No, Lauren is wrong about what Lauren says Lauren believes." Harvestdancer (talk

 Note: As an uninvolved editor I am setting the edit request back to answered. This appears to be an ongoing discussion and it definitely appears this label is controversial. These factors make this inappropriate for an open edit request per WP:ER. —Sirdog (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone set the answered flag back to "yes" without informing me what was wrong with my suggestion that a sentence be added saying she disputes that she is alt-right or white supremacist. Before setting the flag back to "yes", please explain what is wrong with adding that information. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 01:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Harvestdancer: Hello, I was the one to change the flag, and I did make note of why I did so in my above comment. I would not change the flag of any template without providing my rationale - especially for a topic area this contentious. I will concede that I did misread your suggestion as being to remove the labels wholesale rather than add a sentence that clarifies she rejects them. That's on me. I would still argue the template should be set to answered, however. You are already discussing attempting this in another section of this talk page with another user who seems to be arguing policy points. That discussion is still ongoing. This makes it wholly inappropriate to attempt to have this added via WP:ER, which is for edits that are requested to be implemented immediately by the reviewer of said request. are non-contentious and can be enacted immediately following a review of the request's merits. —Sirdog (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I've also closed this request. It is under discussion, so does not qualify for an edit request. Although I have issues with some of the sources cited to make the statements in Wikivoice, many of the sources are more than good enough to cover the prose, so it becomes a matter of editorial judgement, not WP:BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no proof that Lauren Southern is a white nationalist

all the articles listed as “proof” are OPINION pieces. Opinions are not facts. She has never once said she was a white nationalist. 2601:647:8481:68E0:0:0:0:C7E5 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

“Alt right” and “white nationalist” are absurd

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

Rewrite first paragraph

How about this:

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

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

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

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

I would like to draw attention to Talk:Lauren_Southern/Archive_8#RfC:_Inclusion_of_alt-right,_white_nationalist,_and_Great_Replacement_details_in_lead the recent RfC, which concluded at the beginning of this year and which plainly states in the close A consensus exists for this change . Although some editors advocated for including the subject's denial per WP:WELLKNOWN, others have pointed to WP:MANDY and WP:ABOUTSELF in response. Given that the weight of reliable sources are overwhelmingly in the latter's favour, I see no need to include the equivocation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This reply addresses both videos linked. I'm going to quote from @GorillaWarfare:'s contribution to the RfC linked above. If there aren't significant RS that state in their voice that she has renounced the alt-right/white supremacy, I don't think it should go in the lead per WP:MANDY and WP:ABOUTSELF. These two videos certainly qualify as both MANDY and ABOUTSELF. Are there any reliable secondary sources that state this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022 (2)

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

Old Format; Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June 1995) is a Canadian alt-right political activist, white nationalist YouTuber and documentary film-maker.

New Format; Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June 1995) is a Canadian alt-right political activist YouTuber and documentary film-maker. Delakando (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is an ongoing discussion about changing the entire lead, and as such any change to the lead - especially a change that exists solely to remove the labels white nationalist or alt-right - is not eligible for WP:ER at this time. —Sirdog (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

She is actually not a white nationalist nor alt right

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

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

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

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

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

before editing, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view

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

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

yes it is. I am well aware of Rachel Robison-greenes work. It is literally a professors opinion. The section that briefly mentions her is called White genocide theory. It is literally one sentence she uses to compose her opinion about the theory she presents throughout the book. In that one sentence, it is this, "Camus's notion of the great replacement has been spread by the right-wing and white nationalist figures across the world. In July 2018, lauren southern, a Canadian alt-right figure posted, a video titled "The Great Replacement" on Youtube that got over 250,000 views." That is it. No where does she even mention Lauren Southern as a White nationalist. There is just an assumption from the professor.. It is clear the sources are opinion pieces. Leaving it breaks wikipeida's neutral point of view which state:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages articles that use Canadian English
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Canada-related articles
• Low-importance Canada-related articles
• Start-Class British Columbia articles
• Low-importance British Columbia articles
• Start-Class Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
• Low-importance Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• Start-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Start-Class Feminism articles
• Unknown-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• Start-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Start-Class WikiProject Women articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors