This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This entry is written completely from the "alt-left" side of the political debate, and as such contains significant factual errors and outright opinions.
Lauren Southern is not alt-right, and the sources used to "confirm it" are all sources with significant left bias. It would be more correct to call her a right-libertarian and allow people to make up their own minds as to what the undefinable "alt-right" is. Furthermore, the article presupposes boats linked to severe human trafficking are part of "organizations committed to save-and-rescue operations." If someone is trying to write an unbiased entry, they failed miserably in this. If I could change it myself, I would.
Instead I would suggest saying, point blank, "sources with significant left bias refer to her as alt-right, but Lauren Southern considers herself a conservative libertarian."
Also in the interest of fairness, I would suggest saying "Lauren Southern supported the nativist group Defend Europe whom the left claims is opposing the action of non-governmental organizations committed to save-and-rescue operations in the Mediterranean, but the right sees as opposing the actions of non-governmental organizations committed to supporting illegal immigration and human trafficking."
If you're going to put political bias in it (which, IMO, is wrong to begin with), it needs to have both political biases, not just one. Art of Free Speech ( talk) 16:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
16:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed - the article is a leftist farce (sadly like so much of Wikipedia) - the normal "mainstream media" lies about Lauren Southern being "far right" or "alt right" when she is actually a conservative. Note to Wikipedia - if you do not understand the difference between a conservative and a National Socialist then the conflict between the conservative Winston Churchill and the National Socialist Adolf Hitler must really baffle you. And, of course, all the other lies are presented as facts - for example the Marxists engaged with human traffickers to bring illegal immigrants into to Europe are described as being engaged in "search and rescue operations". 2A02:C7D:B417:4800:A021:8D43:9DB3:E721 ( talk) 10:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
shouldn't there be a citation for the claim that she is "far-right"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.111.205.96 ( talk) 11:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The SPLC alone is not sufficient. Organisations, reporters, media outlets etc should not be relied upon on assigning somebody a controversial label like 'far right,' especially if they don't identify with it themselves. I can find probably thousands of references from journalists that call Obama a communist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2BC4:3100:4D94:2A0D:7527:79DC ( talk) 19:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
No, there is no creditable citation for the claim that the subject is "far-right". The using of the term "far-right" have racial and violent undertone to it, which is not something that the subject is related to. The cited source of Vice and Vox both have left biased which does not present information on a neutral perspective of Wikipedia. I suggest change the term "far-right" to "conservative". O1001010 ( talk) 11:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I think "right libertarian" is a better way to describe her political position. For example she has stated she wouldn't be as a big a advocate for border security if there weren't such generous welfare systems in Europe and the US. Flaviusvulso ( talk) 16:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The misuse of "far-right" to refer simultaneously to mainstream right figures or parties such as Jordan Peterson, Ezra Levant, UKIP, Lega Nord, while also using it to refer to Richard Spencer, David Duke, BNP, and Golden Dawn simply discredits the source and helps the actual far-right find legitimacy and public acceptance. Humanophage ( talk) 08:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Fox News lists her as exclusively "right-wing." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D ( talk) 00:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
References
In December 2017 a scandal erupted on Stormfront when Ms. Southern was accused of race mixing, with some purported photos of her with Africans were posted. In light of her defenses of Western Civilization, this caused considerable consternation in alt-right circles. https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1233788/ Her comment sections on her youtube videos have also been full of the accusation, which so far as I know she has not responded to. 107.77.209.204 ( talk) 05:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change 'far-right' to 'right wing' Gareth1893 ( talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Who is saying Southern "is" Libertarian? She ran as a Libertarian candidate, which saya nothing about her prior or subsequent views. Her avowed "identarianism" certainly isn't libertarian. Reliable sources refer to her as far right and alt-right, and so should WP. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest changing "far-right" to "classically liberal", in modern parlance "conservative-libertarian" describing Lauren's politics.
I don't even know what "far-right" means. But Lauren's positions are clearly in line with classically liberal, modern conservative/libertarian principles. 47.32.19.11 ( talk) 08:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
"reliable sources" should not be stemmed from biased information, which on this matter, Vox and Vice are clearly biased. The sited sources are clearly the personal opinion of the media author themselves. Using your own logic, these sources should be nullified. The Wikipedia sourcing standards should at least be from a neutral point of perspective. Until a neutral source can be referenced, the said term should be removed. O1001010 ( talk) 11:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Please don't scatter the same arguments all over the talk page. Pick one discussion, preferably the latest one, and make your arguments there. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Grayfell: in special:diff/822202045 you removed the cited tweets from Lauren where she stated:
Then in special:diff/822202200 you removed the categories which were supported by the cites you removed.
Your summaries stated:
Lauren Southern is a reliable source regarding her own viewpoints and her own heritage. Any other sources making such statements about her could base the information upon asking her questions like the ones she answered on Twitter.
Your request for secondary sources to confirm this is unnecessary. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states:
Until we know relying on secondary sources is possible, we must rely on a primary source. Are you saying I did not take extreme caution? I didn't interpret anything for myself, this is used to establish basic info.
Per WP:WPNOTRS:
I believe my use of them was cautious and avoided original research. I believe I took specific facts from them, as our policy says we may.
While I realize that secondary are preferred, that is only if they exist. If they do not exist, we should use the primary source. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 06:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I have a problem with the sources cited for claiming Lauren Southern is "associated with the alt-right." They are highly biased outlets (e.g., Vox, [1] Southern Poverty Law Center [2]), but, more importantly, two of the cited articles each only mention Lauren Southern's name once, cursorily, and then merely call her "alt-right" without explanation. Additionally, the MediaMatters.org article [3] called Southern "alt-right," without giving reasons, and then listed a number of controversial things she has said and/or done which are not easily defensible as evidence of her being an alt-right figure (in my opinion, the facts presented seem quite irrelevant to the matter); MediaMatters cited Vice News and even BuzzFeed as two of its sources. There is no discussion of her ideas and whether these align with what is rationally perceived—according to reasonable standards of definition—as alt-right, i.e., as constituting a politics of identity based around concepts of race and White racial supremacy. It is not fair to call an individual alt-right without due corroboration of the claim. It is not appropriate to use the same descriptor for Lauren Southern as one would for, let's say, Richard Spencer, unless the one making the claim gives evidence; this inflates the meaning of the term and results ultimately in misrepresentation and misinformation. If it is to remain in her bio that she is "associated with the alt-right," it ought to be demonstrated with clarity that Southern at least meets even Wikipedia's definition of alt-right [4], and this is not demonstrated in the bio or in the references. Simply relying on Vox and the SPLC as reliable sources on account of their previously having been categorized as such does not excuse an irresponsible, haphazard article from either of them; in fact, it diminishes their reputation as reliable.
To be clear, I am not opposed to using the term "far-right" to describe her. I believe this can be corroborated based solely on the fact that she spent time at Rebel Media, and is additionally corroborated by the Canadaland article [5] (ref. 33). However, far-right is not synonymous with alt-right; Merriam-Webster, for example, defines far-right very broadly, [6] while being more specific with regard to alt-right. [7]
Gedoughty02 ( talk) 04:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
A similar fight occurred in July when Patreon and GoFundMe, two crowdfunding sites, banned several accounts associated with the alt-right. One of them was used by Lauren Southern, a Canadian activist and journalist who made a name for herself with inflammatory stunts like disrupting a refugee rescue mission in the Mediterranean Sea.[1] The source is specifically saying she's "associated with the alt-right". So without dipping into your own boutique definition of "alt-right", what's the problem, here?
already the most prominent woman on the alt-right. [2] This article was also reprinted in Vanity Fair [3] which is a small but real sign of greater significance. The people who "perceive" her as alt-right are reliable sources, and those are the perceptions we care about. Grayfell ( talk) 09:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't you see that all these sources are just repeating what has been said before without proving the connection to the alt-right? The rumor that she is alt-right started when Vice, Vox etc. published the articles mentioned above. Then all the other media started using it without question. Now you can find plenty of examples of media calling her that, but no source is provided that would substantiate the claim. Now if this is the way that Wikipedia determines whether a description of a person is correct because it has been mentioned a bunch of times in the news, and none of the news outlets support the claim with facts then this system is flawed. Deadlybanter ( talk) 10:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlybanter ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
So if someone calls her alt-right, and then more people repeat it relentlessly, through this amazing logical loophole she BECOMES alt-right. Wow. Just wow. Deadlybanter ( talk) 09:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Dr. Fleischman So the WMD were in Iraq after all? There point is hearsay isnt evidence. also as regards wikipedia policy you posted on my talk page the following /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons which says under Biographies of living persons Passed 10 to 0 at 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) in relation to " material about living people can affect their subjects' lives" ( describuing someone as alt right can and does affect their lives) that " 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." I removed the alt right allegation and you re included it. Where do I go to address that infringment of wikipedia policy? Isaw ( talk) 18:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that the atricle should be written in the male form. Since October 2016 Lauren Southern is a man therfore every "she" schould be replaced whith a "he" and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.246.90 ( talk) 16:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. The use of the she/her pronouns is very problematic. It should be corrected immediately to reflect Lauren's gender identity as male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.196.166 ( talk) 02:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Come on guys, Lauren is just Libertarian. Even the proof given (a "patreon" media) isn't enough serious to classify it as Alt-Right.
Alt-Right guys are mostly pro-white, strong insulting and internet trolls. I don't see any of that on Lauren.
She's a truly believer of free speech, like most Libertarians, so she mostly defend any kind of speech from the left (even antifa) and the right (even alt-rights), but that doesn't make her Alt-Right.
So, change the classification, unless you can provide direct proof where she's supporting alt-right movements.
-- Waltercool ( talk) 07:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
"right-wing" -- 193.80.37.179 ( talk) 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "right-wing" "right-wing" "right-wing" "right-wing" "right wing" So its not clear, that she es "alt-right". The intro should be changed -- 193.80.37.179 ( talk) 09:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2604:2000:DD50:8C00:9C4:FF32:82F8:C321 ( talk) 05:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I Want to add Category:Opposition to Islam in Canada, because she doesn't want Islam in Canada nor in any other Western Countries.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-43393035 101.224.10.84 ( talk) 17:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
With regard to her activism against NGO Ships, Surely this should read "Search and Rescue ships, or something similar? While the Aquarius is funded and operated by NGOs, its purpose is essentially that of a lifeboat. It's purpose is to save lives at sea. The moral duty to save lives at sea is well established and applies equally to all in peril, regardless of how they got there.( Indeed it even rescued the "Defend Europe" ship C-Star)
I feel that the section title Support for the targeting of NGO ships is confusing and doesn't really get the point across. Indeed the entire section really fails to get the point across.
Perhaps Obstruction of Search and Rescue Operations would be more appropriate?
-- 139.153.56.67 ( talk) 12:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
currently reads "stated purpose of tracking and stopping collusion between NGOs and human traffickers." feel "collusion" and "human Traffikers" should both be removed, saying NGOs is sufficient without shading it to support her agenda. suggest "stated purpose of and stopping between NGO rescue ships."
The claim that the NGO's she attacked were human traffickers requires support from a source other then identity europa, a white nativist group described by the British government as a terrorist organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.19.86 ( talk) 12:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
i don think that identity europa's stated purpose should be described as objective fact, because to frame there narrative as factual is not objective and sanitizes them. currently the article implies the rescue boats were human traffickers. as the above poster stated they are a white power group described by the English and italian gov as terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.19.86 ( talk) 15:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The beginning of this articles claims Lauren Southern is "far-right" and "associated with the alt-right". The first claim is substantiated by an article that claims she is far-right, but provides no evidence itself within the article. It merely makes the claim in a vacuum, just as this Wikipedia article does, meaning this Wikipedia article has just as much authority of making the claim as the piece it uses as a source for the claim, which equates to no substantiated authority at all. This means it can only be substantiated as opinion and is not sufficient to back the claim that the subject is far-right on a Wikipedia article, and should therefore not be considered a legitimate source for the claim. It would be advisable to provide specific examples of her actions and thoughts, with the appropriate amount of context and allow the reader to judge the facts as they are. The defining characteristic of being far- right (or alt-right for that matter) is a sense of superiority over other "groups" of people, be it by race, ethnicity, class, etc, based solely on these arbitrary characteristics, often times coinciding with poorly sourced or poorly executed reasoning. There is no linked evidence suggesting the subject of the article holds these views, other than other linked sources that make the same claim with no substantiated evidence of such a case (other than they make the unsubstantiated claim themselves, all sites that are quite blatant about pushing a specific political narrative). This makes this article seem intentionally misleading, and the action of making these evidently unsubstantiated claims leads one to believe that there is a strong politically driven directive to slander the subject of the page. For the sake of intellectual integrity within Wikipedia, there should be no unsubstantiated claims made with a political agenda. This is blatant propaganda (the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.- according to Dictionary.com) that requires careful evaluation of the source articles and subsequent editing my multiple people in order to insure only adequately backed claims are made and that the public that accesses Wikipedia get an honest and unbiased (as much as it could possibly be) look at the topic of their interest.
Note also that being associated with the alt-right is a very vague claim considering anyone remotely on the right of the political spectrum, or even holding slightly right-leaning views, can be ""associated with the alt-right". This means that people with very left-leaning views who have an opinion about a specific topic that is today associated with the right side of politics, are suddenly labeled as being "associated with the alt-right" (which according the it's Wikipedia page, is "loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined." This is precisely because of situations like the one presented on this page. Historically the alt-right had a more precise meaning, but has lost that meaning with the recent oppressive push of far-left politics that seek to subjugate or demonize people along the lines of its political directive [for the record I am traditionally left-leaning but because I support people's right to discuss current issues I too am considered far-right, mostly by people who have very little understanding of politics, but I guess if you repeat something enough and loudly enough eventually people start to believe you, but I digress...).
There are many politically charged edits to articles throughout Wikipedia nowadays, so a call back to simply providing unbiased factual information would seem appropriate. We might as well start somewhere since the alternative is indoctrination into a world-view that has neither been clearly defined, nor clearly discussed because its tenants rest on its ability to shut down any and all opposition. A7exro ( talk) 19:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
19:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove "associated with the alt-right. This is not true and is based only on opinion. Serpentmars ( talk) 18:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Not done. The description is based on sources. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This entry is written completely from the "alt-left" side of the political debate, and as such contains significant factual errors and outright opinions.
Lauren Southern is not alt-right, and the sources used to "confirm it" are all sources with significant left bias. It would be more correct to call her a right-libertarian and allow people to make up their own minds as to what the undefinable "alt-right" is. Furthermore, the article presupposes boats linked to severe human trafficking are part of "organizations committed to save-and-rescue operations." If someone is trying to write an unbiased entry, they failed miserably in this. If I could change it myself, I would.
Instead I would suggest saying, point blank, "sources with significant left bias refer to her as alt-right, but Lauren Southern considers herself a conservative libertarian."
Also in the interest of fairness, I would suggest saying "Lauren Southern supported the nativist group Defend Europe whom the left claims is opposing the action of non-governmental organizations committed to save-and-rescue operations in the Mediterranean, but the right sees as opposing the actions of non-governmental organizations committed to supporting illegal immigration and human trafficking."
If you're going to put political bias in it (which, IMO, is wrong to begin with), it needs to have both political biases, not just one. Art of Free Speech ( talk) 16:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
16:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed - the article is a leftist farce (sadly like so much of Wikipedia) - the normal "mainstream media" lies about Lauren Southern being "far right" or "alt right" when she is actually a conservative. Note to Wikipedia - if you do not understand the difference between a conservative and a National Socialist then the conflict between the conservative Winston Churchill and the National Socialist Adolf Hitler must really baffle you. And, of course, all the other lies are presented as facts - for example the Marxists engaged with human traffickers to bring illegal immigrants into to Europe are described as being engaged in "search and rescue operations". 2A02:C7D:B417:4800:A021:8D43:9DB3:E721 ( talk) 10:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
shouldn't there be a citation for the claim that she is "far-right"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.111.205.96 ( talk) 11:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The SPLC alone is not sufficient. Organisations, reporters, media outlets etc should not be relied upon on assigning somebody a controversial label like 'far right,' especially if they don't identify with it themselves. I can find probably thousands of references from journalists that call Obama a communist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2BC4:3100:4D94:2A0D:7527:79DC ( talk) 19:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
No, there is no creditable citation for the claim that the subject is "far-right". The using of the term "far-right" have racial and violent undertone to it, which is not something that the subject is related to. The cited source of Vice and Vox both have left biased which does not present information on a neutral perspective of Wikipedia. I suggest change the term "far-right" to "conservative". O1001010 ( talk) 11:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I think "right libertarian" is a better way to describe her political position. For example she has stated she wouldn't be as a big a advocate for border security if there weren't such generous welfare systems in Europe and the US. Flaviusvulso ( talk) 16:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The misuse of "far-right" to refer simultaneously to mainstream right figures or parties such as Jordan Peterson, Ezra Levant, UKIP, Lega Nord, while also using it to refer to Richard Spencer, David Duke, BNP, and Golden Dawn simply discredits the source and helps the actual far-right find legitimacy and public acceptance. Humanophage ( talk) 08:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Fox News lists her as exclusively "right-wing." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D ( talk) 00:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
References
In December 2017 a scandal erupted on Stormfront when Ms. Southern was accused of race mixing, with some purported photos of her with Africans were posted. In light of her defenses of Western Civilization, this caused considerable consternation in alt-right circles. https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1233788/ Her comment sections on her youtube videos have also been full of the accusation, which so far as I know she has not responded to. 107.77.209.204 ( talk) 05:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change 'far-right' to 'right wing' Gareth1893 ( talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Who is saying Southern "is" Libertarian? She ran as a Libertarian candidate, which saya nothing about her prior or subsequent views. Her avowed "identarianism" certainly isn't libertarian. Reliable sources refer to her as far right and alt-right, and so should WP. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest changing "far-right" to "classically liberal", in modern parlance "conservative-libertarian" describing Lauren's politics.
I don't even know what "far-right" means. But Lauren's positions are clearly in line with classically liberal, modern conservative/libertarian principles. 47.32.19.11 ( talk) 08:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
"reliable sources" should not be stemmed from biased information, which on this matter, Vox and Vice are clearly biased. The sited sources are clearly the personal opinion of the media author themselves. Using your own logic, these sources should be nullified. The Wikipedia sourcing standards should at least be from a neutral point of perspective. Until a neutral source can be referenced, the said term should be removed. O1001010 ( talk) 11:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Please don't scatter the same arguments all over the talk page. Pick one discussion, preferably the latest one, and make your arguments there. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Grayfell: in special:diff/822202045 you removed the cited tweets from Lauren where she stated:
Then in special:diff/822202200 you removed the categories which were supported by the cites you removed.
Your summaries stated:
Lauren Southern is a reliable source regarding her own viewpoints and her own heritage. Any other sources making such statements about her could base the information upon asking her questions like the ones she answered on Twitter.
Your request for secondary sources to confirm this is unnecessary. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states:
Until we know relying on secondary sources is possible, we must rely on a primary source. Are you saying I did not take extreme caution? I didn't interpret anything for myself, this is used to establish basic info.
Per WP:WPNOTRS:
I believe my use of them was cautious and avoided original research. I believe I took specific facts from them, as our policy says we may.
While I realize that secondary are preferred, that is only if they exist. If they do not exist, we should use the primary source. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 06:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I have a problem with the sources cited for claiming Lauren Southern is "associated with the alt-right." They are highly biased outlets (e.g., Vox, [1] Southern Poverty Law Center [2]), but, more importantly, two of the cited articles each only mention Lauren Southern's name once, cursorily, and then merely call her "alt-right" without explanation. Additionally, the MediaMatters.org article [3] called Southern "alt-right," without giving reasons, and then listed a number of controversial things she has said and/or done which are not easily defensible as evidence of her being an alt-right figure (in my opinion, the facts presented seem quite irrelevant to the matter); MediaMatters cited Vice News and even BuzzFeed as two of its sources. There is no discussion of her ideas and whether these align with what is rationally perceived—according to reasonable standards of definition—as alt-right, i.e., as constituting a politics of identity based around concepts of race and White racial supremacy. It is not fair to call an individual alt-right without due corroboration of the claim. It is not appropriate to use the same descriptor for Lauren Southern as one would for, let's say, Richard Spencer, unless the one making the claim gives evidence; this inflates the meaning of the term and results ultimately in misrepresentation and misinformation. If it is to remain in her bio that she is "associated with the alt-right," it ought to be demonstrated with clarity that Southern at least meets even Wikipedia's definition of alt-right [4], and this is not demonstrated in the bio or in the references. Simply relying on Vox and the SPLC as reliable sources on account of their previously having been categorized as such does not excuse an irresponsible, haphazard article from either of them; in fact, it diminishes their reputation as reliable.
To be clear, I am not opposed to using the term "far-right" to describe her. I believe this can be corroborated based solely on the fact that she spent time at Rebel Media, and is additionally corroborated by the Canadaland article [5] (ref. 33). However, far-right is not synonymous with alt-right; Merriam-Webster, for example, defines far-right very broadly, [6] while being more specific with regard to alt-right. [7]
Gedoughty02 ( talk) 04:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
A similar fight occurred in July when Patreon and GoFundMe, two crowdfunding sites, banned several accounts associated with the alt-right. One of them was used by Lauren Southern, a Canadian activist and journalist who made a name for herself with inflammatory stunts like disrupting a refugee rescue mission in the Mediterranean Sea.[1] The source is specifically saying she's "associated with the alt-right". So without dipping into your own boutique definition of "alt-right", what's the problem, here?
already the most prominent woman on the alt-right. [2] This article was also reprinted in Vanity Fair [3] which is a small but real sign of greater significance. The people who "perceive" her as alt-right are reliable sources, and those are the perceptions we care about. Grayfell ( talk) 09:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't you see that all these sources are just repeating what has been said before without proving the connection to the alt-right? The rumor that she is alt-right started when Vice, Vox etc. published the articles mentioned above. Then all the other media started using it without question. Now you can find plenty of examples of media calling her that, but no source is provided that would substantiate the claim. Now if this is the way that Wikipedia determines whether a description of a person is correct because it has been mentioned a bunch of times in the news, and none of the news outlets support the claim with facts then this system is flawed. Deadlybanter ( talk) 10:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlybanter ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
So if someone calls her alt-right, and then more people repeat it relentlessly, through this amazing logical loophole she BECOMES alt-right. Wow. Just wow. Deadlybanter ( talk) 09:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Dr. Fleischman So the WMD were in Iraq after all? There point is hearsay isnt evidence. also as regards wikipedia policy you posted on my talk page the following /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons which says under Biographies of living persons Passed 10 to 0 at 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) in relation to " material about living people can affect their subjects' lives" ( describuing someone as alt right can and does affect their lives) that " 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." I removed the alt right allegation and you re included it. Where do I go to address that infringment of wikipedia policy? Isaw ( talk) 18:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that the atricle should be written in the male form. Since October 2016 Lauren Southern is a man therfore every "she" schould be replaced whith a "he" and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.246.90 ( talk) 16:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. The use of the she/her pronouns is very problematic. It should be corrected immediately to reflect Lauren's gender identity as male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.196.166 ( talk) 02:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Come on guys, Lauren is just Libertarian. Even the proof given (a "patreon" media) isn't enough serious to classify it as Alt-Right.
Alt-Right guys are mostly pro-white, strong insulting and internet trolls. I don't see any of that on Lauren.
She's a truly believer of free speech, like most Libertarians, so she mostly defend any kind of speech from the left (even antifa) and the right (even alt-rights), but that doesn't make her Alt-Right.
So, change the classification, unless you can provide direct proof where she's supporting alt-right movements.
-- Waltercool ( talk) 07:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
"right-wing" -- 193.80.37.179 ( talk) 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "right-wing" "right-wing" "right-wing" "right-wing" "right wing" So its not clear, that she es "alt-right". The intro should be changed -- 193.80.37.179 ( talk) 09:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2604:2000:DD50:8C00:9C4:FF32:82F8:C321 ( talk) 05:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I Want to add Category:Opposition to Islam in Canada, because she doesn't want Islam in Canada nor in any other Western Countries.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-43393035 101.224.10.84 ( talk) 17:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
With regard to her activism against NGO Ships, Surely this should read "Search and Rescue ships, or something similar? While the Aquarius is funded and operated by NGOs, its purpose is essentially that of a lifeboat. It's purpose is to save lives at sea. The moral duty to save lives at sea is well established and applies equally to all in peril, regardless of how they got there.( Indeed it even rescued the "Defend Europe" ship C-Star)
I feel that the section title Support for the targeting of NGO ships is confusing and doesn't really get the point across. Indeed the entire section really fails to get the point across.
Perhaps Obstruction of Search and Rescue Operations would be more appropriate?
-- 139.153.56.67 ( talk) 12:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
currently reads "stated purpose of tracking and stopping collusion between NGOs and human traffickers." feel "collusion" and "human Traffikers" should both be removed, saying NGOs is sufficient without shading it to support her agenda. suggest "stated purpose of and stopping between NGO rescue ships."
The claim that the NGO's she attacked were human traffickers requires support from a source other then identity europa, a white nativist group described by the British government as a terrorist organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.19.86 ( talk) 12:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
i don think that identity europa's stated purpose should be described as objective fact, because to frame there narrative as factual is not objective and sanitizes them. currently the article implies the rescue boats were human traffickers. as the above poster stated they are a white power group described by the English and italian gov as terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.19.86 ( talk) 15:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The beginning of this articles claims Lauren Southern is "far-right" and "associated with the alt-right". The first claim is substantiated by an article that claims she is far-right, but provides no evidence itself within the article. It merely makes the claim in a vacuum, just as this Wikipedia article does, meaning this Wikipedia article has just as much authority of making the claim as the piece it uses as a source for the claim, which equates to no substantiated authority at all. This means it can only be substantiated as opinion and is not sufficient to back the claim that the subject is far-right on a Wikipedia article, and should therefore not be considered a legitimate source for the claim. It would be advisable to provide specific examples of her actions and thoughts, with the appropriate amount of context and allow the reader to judge the facts as they are. The defining characteristic of being far- right (or alt-right for that matter) is a sense of superiority over other "groups" of people, be it by race, ethnicity, class, etc, based solely on these arbitrary characteristics, often times coinciding with poorly sourced or poorly executed reasoning. There is no linked evidence suggesting the subject of the article holds these views, other than other linked sources that make the same claim with no substantiated evidence of such a case (other than they make the unsubstantiated claim themselves, all sites that are quite blatant about pushing a specific political narrative). This makes this article seem intentionally misleading, and the action of making these evidently unsubstantiated claims leads one to believe that there is a strong politically driven directive to slander the subject of the page. For the sake of intellectual integrity within Wikipedia, there should be no unsubstantiated claims made with a political agenda. This is blatant propaganda (the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.- according to Dictionary.com) that requires careful evaluation of the source articles and subsequent editing my multiple people in order to insure only adequately backed claims are made and that the public that accesses Wikipedia get an honest and unbiased (as much as it could possibly be) look at the topic of their interest.
Note also that being associated with the alt-right is a very vague claim considering anyone remotely on the right of the political spectrum, or even holding slightly right-leaning views, can be ""associated with the alt-right". This means that people with very left-leaning views who have an opinion about a specific topic that is today associated with the right side of politics, are suddenly labeled as being "associated with the alt-right" (which according the it's Wikipedia page, is "loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined." This is precisely because of situations like the one presented on this page. Historically the alt-right had a more precise meaning, but has lost that meaning with the recent oppressive push of far-left politics that seek to subjugate or demonize people along the lines of its political directive [for the record I am traditionally left-leaning but because I support people's right to discuss current issues I too am considered far-right, mostly by people who have very little understanding of politics, but I guess if you repeat something enough and loudly enough eventually people start to believe you, but I digress...).
There are many politically charged edits to articles throughout Wikipedia nowadays, so a call back to simply providing unbiased factual information would seem appropriate. We might as well start somewhere since the alternative is indoctrination into a world-view that has neither been clearly defined, nor clearly discussed because its tenants rest on its ability to shut down any and all opposition. A7exro ( talk) 19:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
19:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)This
edit request to
Lauren Southern has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove "associated with the alt-right. This is not true and is based only on opinion. Serpentmars ( talk) 18:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Not done. The description is based on sources. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)