Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 7

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.

Today has seen a miniature editing war between two camps: one claiming Lauren Southern promoted the White Genocide theory, and one that claims the opposite. Just looking at the sources provided by the former camp, they don't seem to support the claim very well. Source [95] merely says Lauren Southern "plays up" to the narrative. Source [96], besides seemingly being an unreliable source, does say Southern promotes the theory but does not give any explanation. In fact, the article only claims she is known for promoting the theory in their description of Southern. [97] does again claim Southern supports the theory, but does not say where she has said such things. In source [98] they merely claim Southern has said the farm murders in South Africa could be what leads up to a genocide - that doesn't promote any theory about ongoing genocide, nor does it promote anything but the idea there is a risk for genocide against white South Africans. That can hardly be called "promoting the white genocide theory". All in all I think the sources are at most a mixed bag with either no such claim being made, or at most an unsupported claim being made that Southern promotes the theory. I therefore do not believe that Wikipedia should make any statements of fact such as "Southern has promoted the white genocide conspiracy theory" until direct and conclusive proof can be shown. Zuurman1 (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian source is an op-ed by a writer. Also not reliable. wumbolo ^^^ 21:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

About to turn off my light, bit it does seem that at best we can say she's been described as.... Doug Weller talk 21:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless a specific example can be cited (White genocide conspiracy theory is a wide-ranging topic) is should be deleted. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my first edit of this, if the source doesn't back itself up then it's not reliable and should not be used a citation. The default position in an "edit war" should be to remove the unsubstantiated white genocide section until reliable sources given. gareth1893 (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No we don't generally reject reliable sources merely because we don't think they adequately support their arguments. "Playing up" a white genocide narrative and "promoting" are roughly synonymous, and those sources all attest that Southern's white genocide narrative parrots the one that comes from groups like Afriforum and the Suidlanders. That's probably because, as Vice documents, Southern went to South Africa at the invitation of the Suidlanders, and her documentary is essentially a rehashing of their propaganda. Nblund ^talk 22:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"No we don't generally reject reliable sources merely because we don't think they adequately support their arguments." Well it's not a reliable source then is it if it's not supporting its claims? Gareth1893 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"Playing up to" and "promoting" something carry different meanings, in my opinion, the latter being more explicit. Playing up to could merely mean insinuating, while promoting would be actively trying to convert others to her point of view. Again, the sources really do not add up to a statement of fact where the wiki can reasonably say Lauren Southern promotes white genocide. You also seem to gloss over the not insignificant fact that "white genocide" is not synonymous with "the genocide of white South Africans". Zuurman1 (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Southern's documentary promotes the same "White Genocide" narrative that is promoted by Afriforum. Here is a non-exhaustive list of sources explaining this:

• The New York Review of Books:Southern made a film about “white genocide” in South Africa, a conspiracy theory that was picked up by Tucker Carlson on Fox News and led President Trump to tweet about the subject
• Guardian: Southern’s treatment of this subject is selective, lurid, and plays up to the long-established far right meta-narrative of “white genocide”.
• Vice: "White Genocide In South Africa" has become the meme de nos jours in hard-right circles... Within weeks of each other, hard-right commentators Lauren Southern and Katie Hopkins both turned up in South Africa, to make parallel documentaries unpacking the fictional tragedy for their audiences...The spark for both of their trips, and indeed for the entire meme, can be traced to an organisation called Suidlanders
• QZ.com: Pundits have picked up AfriForum’s message, some going as far as to label the farm attacks a genocide. “If it continues, I fear there is going to be the beginning stages of what many would call genocide,” the Canadian far-right political commentator Lauren Southern said on the Breitbart News Sunday podcast.
• News24:Following this awareness campaign, alt-right and conservative media personalities such as Lauren Southern and Katie Hopkins have come to South Africa to report on the supposed dangers faced by white South Africans.
• Vox:AfriForum has been incredibly effective at spreading its propaganda, particularly online....Lauren Southern with the European alt-right group Identity Evropa made a documentary about the subject
• Politico:So why these rumors of an uprising against whites in South Africa now?... I’ve been receiving emails for a year or two now from anxious friends abroad about tidbits they’ve read about growing anger towards white people here—mostly in the U.K. tabloid press or on the Twitter feeds of the Canadian right-wing provocateurs Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux.
• Columbia Journalism Review white supremacists across the world have been raising a false alarm about it for more than a decade, and the fear that black Africans will violently rise up against whites has been a far-right trope since shortly after World War II. ...in June [2018], Lauren Southern, a far-right Canadian “citizen journalist,” debuted a professional-looking documentary about the subject to her followers

There's no sensible question here. Nblund ^talk 22:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you please prove these are reliable sources and that the claims are backed up? Gareth1893 (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• As your fourth source clearly states, Southern does in fact not claim at all that there is an ongoing genocide of white South Africans. She hardly could have made a documentary about something she herself claims doesn't (yet) exist, as your first, third and sixth source try to say. Your sources may be in print, but they contradict each other and contradict the documentary as Gareth1893 pointed out below.
• Your second source again does not claim Southern "promotes" white genocide. We've been over this.
• Your fifth source makes no mention of a claim about white genocide. White farmers in South Africa undoubtedly face dangers, but even Southern herself says it's not a genocide. Not sure why you included that source here.
• Your last source only claims Southern has made people worried about "growing anger towards white people". Again, not a genocide.

Your sources either contradict each other, contradict primary sources or do not make the claim that Southern promotes white genocide in the first place. There is indeed no sensible question here, and that is that a statement of fact about it certainly should not be in an encyclopaedia. Zuurman1 (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

As Lauren documents 69:03 "does this amount to genocide?" 69:05 "Not yet" 69:06 "but according to organizations like Genocide Watch" 69:09 "and taking into account everything I have seen and heard on the ground" 69:14 "South Africa is stepping closer to that reality every single day". She denies there is currently a white genocide in South Africa in the documentary and has done so on Twitter and other places Gareth1893 (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is called a dog-whistle. It's kind of Southern's MO. Lots of people who have fringe viewpoints do this as a way to maintain some semblance of credibility. But Wikipedia isn't obligated to play along with the charade when reliable sources dismiss it. Nblund ^talk 22:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't obliged to play along with your agenda. The point is these sources (at least on this issue) are demonstrably not reliable. Why is it so important to you that she is labelled a propogator of the white genocide conspiracy? Again, the sources that were given have been shown to be unreliable. Gareth1893 (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Gareth, you may be inexperienced on Wikipedia, but the mass of sources provided by Nblund above are generally regarded as reliable sources (per, for example,

original research, which Wikipedia specifically disallows. Newimpartial (talk

) 00:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are they regarded as reliable? This is a question I've been trying to get an answer to. All I've done is demonstrate they're not reliable and to provide primary sources for citation of why the secondary sources are incorrect. Can you please explain to me why these secondary sources are reliable but the primary sources I've given are not?Gareth1893 (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, accusing Gareth of

original research and not Nblund is quite arbitrary. After all, OR includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". As I have pointed out above, the sources quoted by Nblund do not conclusively say Southern promotes the white genocide theory, if they do not outright deny it like this one. I would propose deleting the paragraph on white genocide or at least changing it into something along the lines of "Southern has been accused of... She herself has denied the allegations" etc. Zuurman1 (talk

) 07:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've discussed this before on the talk page, see Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 5#White genocide conspiracy theory. Yes, the Quartz article quotes Southern as anticipating a possible genocide. Quartz has several articles on the topic that are quite sympathetic to the idea that white farmers are vulnerable, but it rejects claims of a current racist genocide. I really don't care too much about the wording in the article, but a link to White genocide conspiracy theory is very inappropriate as is calling Southern's views a conspiracy theory. wumbolo ^^^ 09:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Fwiw I agree about the sources. I urge Nblund to stick to conclusions reached by sources. Four of the provided sources don't mention any genocide, and the other four are saying in order: Southern made a neutral film about the conspiracy theory, Southern promotes the conspiracy theory (and this is a minimum, the source almost calls it propaganda), Southern made a film about facts we don't like, Southern says a genocide might become possible in the future. Now, saying that Southern supports a conspiracy theory is only verified by the second and maybe the third source. The second source is an op-ed by a writer as I've already said, and the third source calls violent murders "fictional fantasy", I definitely wouldn't cite a racist source. wumbolo ^^^ 10:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

So we can at least agree to remove the four citations you mention first and confine our discussion to the remaining two? I think this is getting blown out of proportion and exaggerated. Gareth1893 (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, a few relevant reports that may be of interest to editors here:

• The Sydney Morning Herald: "One of the boosters of this theory [white genocide], Canadian alt-right activist Lauren Southern, who made headlines on her recent visit to Australia, produced a documentary about violence and white South African farmers."
• CNN: "More right-wing figures propagate 'white genocide' narrative: The narrative of an alleged “white genocide” in South Africa is picked up by more far-right figures internationally. It starts with Canadian far-right personality Lauren Southern, who appears in a documentary called "Farmlands" while visiting South Africa."
• Fortune (magazine): "Despite the lack of solid data, the racially-charged issue of South African farm murders has recently become a cause célèbre among “alt-right” activists across the world, with figures such as Mike Cernovich, Lauren Southern and Katie Hopkins enthusiastically pushing the 'white genocide' line."

@Wumbolo: I think you need to click those links and use ctrl+F for the word genocide - the CJR source is the only one that doesn't use that term, and it's clearly talking about the same thing every other source is discussing. Moreover, they all tell the same story: Southern is a major proponent of the claim that farm attack in South Africa are racially motivated and that they constitute an existential threat to white South Africans. Every single source documents that this is a talking point that originates with white nationalist groups in South Africa. The common term for this myth is "white genocide". None of the sources say that Southern documented "facts we don't like" - and that statement makes me wonder if you're not buying in to a myth here yourself. To be clear: no reliable source supports the claim that there is an impending genocide in South Africa, multiple reliable note that farm attacks have declined and the murder rates of whites are lower than average. This is a myth - and saying she produced a "neutral documentary" is sort of like saying that Loose Change Zeitgeist was just asking questions about 9/11 and alien jesus. Nblund ^talk 13:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: So because white nationalists talk about something that means she beleives there's a white genocide? Again, why are these sources classed as reliable when they don't substantiate their claims but Lauren Southern's first hand denial deemed unreliable? Gareth1893 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

She went to South Africa at the behest of one of the groups that promotes the white genocide conspiracy theory and produced a documentary that parrots their talking points. She may stop just shy of saying "there is a white genocide", but she's clearly promoting the idea by falsely claiming that one is impending.

WP:ABOUTSELF: statements by a person about themselves can be used in some cases, but we generally don't consider them reliable when they contradict independent second party sources. Wiley Brooks claims to have lived for decades without eating or drinking, but reliable sources dismiss that claim, and we side with the reliable secondary sources in that dispute as well. Nblund ^talk

15:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Your example is a demonstrable scientific fact, not an accusation made against someone or a claim of their opinions. Gareth1893 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, murder rates have risen, and other crimes are underreported. [1] wumbolo ^^^ 16:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Vox doesn't say it explicitly, News24 doesn't mention it, and the Politico piece is actually a letter by a random person, almost certainly without editorial oversight. wumbolo ^^^ 17:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I said that farm attacks have dropped, not the national murder rate. QZ, the same source your citing, explains this in a big bold headline. "White Genocide" is literally in the headline of the News24 article. Nblund ^talk 17:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of click bait? A headline is not a reliable source. Gareth1893 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not "the same source your citing" when I'm citing a different article.

WP:SYNTH. wumbolo ^^^

17:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This is from the BBC: "According to the best available statistics, farm murders are at their highest level since 2010-11." [2] wumbolo ^^^ 17:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The BBC said this about a specific year. If you think that source supports Southern's claims, you're misreading it. The most up to date reliable sources say that Farm Murders have decreased and that there is no evidence for the claim of widespread killing of white South Africans. Snopes, Politifact and The AP dismiss these claims as baseless and note that the long term trend is decreasing. And Southern's evocation of "genocide" is utterly groundless, and frankly not worth debating.

As for sourcing: you haven't addressed tht here, and

Bennv3771 produced three additional sources which describe Southern as a "booster", and "propagating" or "enthusiastically pushing" the white genocide line. You haven't raised any issue with these sources either, yet you've twice removed the statement that Southern has advanced white genocide conspiracy theory despite explicit support from multiple sources. You also haven't raised any issue with the (extremely well-documented) statement that the farm murder claims echo the views of white nationalist groups. This is explicitly supported by virtually every source I've seen that discusses the issue, and you haven't even voiced a reason to doubt that claim. I think you know this won't fly. Nblund ^talk

18:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the fact that these sources claiming Lauren Southern is propagating the white genocide are not reliable as all these sources do is make an unsubstantiated claim. Gareth1893 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Snopes and AP support these claims. From AP: "The murders on farms are proportionately higher than South Africa’s overall murder rate because farms are generally more remote and exposed". From Snopes: "Africa Check reported that South African police don’t track crime statistics by race", and "although since hitting a low point in 2013-14 [farm attacks and murders have] been on the rise." wumbolo ^^^ 19:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Those three sources were posted on the talk page, but not on the article. I would support putting them in the article to reference the fact that Southern supported or promoted the conspiracy theory, but I would not support a sub-section for it for two reasons. First reason is that a section with two short paragraphs does not need splitting (it makes the article ugly), and the second reason is that we don't need to agree with a POV-pushing sockmaster. Of course, it is absolutely necessary to mention Southern disputing her support for the conspiracy theory, per

WP:PUBLICFIGURE. wumbolo ^^^

19:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Support what claims? Snopes says that farm attacks are on the rise, but murders hit 30 year low in 2018, you've conflated them, and I'm struggling to assume a good faith reason for why you would conflate these since it's fairly clear in the Snopes article. You're also conflating "farm murders" (which may be higher) with the murder of white farmers. You're either being disingenuous or you simply aren't reading if you think that any of these sources support Southern's claims of widespread racially motivated killings of white South Africans. They don't.

Mkay, I don't know what sock you're referring to. You can add more sources and address "ugly" content without removing well-sourced claims. Feel free to add those sources if you think the five we already have are insufficient, but I don't see any reason for removing the claims. Nblund ^talk 19:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES. You can call me "disingenuous" for quoting sources you provided. wumbolo ^^^

19:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@

talk

) 00:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see now Wumbolo was referring to an already blocked user who originally(?) added the content. I agree that this white genocide stuff doesn't need its own subsection as it stands, and that there should be some mention of RSes associating Southern with the white genocide stuff, but her denial should also be noted.

talk

) 00:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo: just to be clear: you didn't quote Snopes directly, you quoted most of the sentence, but then said (in brackets) that [farm attacks and murders have] been increasing. The immediate context of that actually makes it clear that murders were at an all-time low but that attacks (a broader category) have increased somewhat. So you altered the quote in a way that directly contradicted the intent of the author. I'm not holding out for an apology or anything, but your paraphrase was definitely misleading. Nblund ^talk 00:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Then why does Snopes say "[farm attacks have] been on the rise. (Recorded incidents include “murder, [...] according to AgriSA.)" wumbolo ^^^ 08:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

All this

The point here is that the articles are not a reliable source since they do not back up their claims. We are not engaging in original research, I am not drawing any conclusions outside of denying the reliablility of the citations. How can these be reliable sources if they don't substantiate their claims? Gareth1893 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@

talk

) 00:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Few sources actually directly say Southern promotes the theory, and at least one source says Southern explicitly denies a genocide is happening. It's clearly not a black and white issue in sources. Zuurman1 (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've watched quite a few of her videos, including the Farmlands documentary [3]. It consists mostly of interviews; the only times she narrates are the intro (brief history) and character introductions. Just because some people describe the events as "(impending) genocide" doesn't necessarily mean she promotes this hypothesis. She only mentions it twice, both times in the context of character narration. Any and all sources that claim otherwise are unreliable per
  WP:COMMONSENSE. If we say that Southern promotes this hypothesis on the mere basis that she has mentioned it, we must say that the above sources promote it, too. M . M
  09:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

unreliable' per COMMONSENSE is not a policy-compliant argument against

WP:RS. Newimpartial (talk

) 11:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have removed this and this source from the article. The sentence (which is worded well and I do not disagree with) suggests that the sources claim Southern is a proponent of the white genocide theory, but the former source is unreliable and the latter does not support the claim made in the sentence. The other two sources are fine and I see no further reason to alter the sentence. Zuurman1 (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing those sources because they're kind of extraneous, but I do feel like I should point out that mediabiasfactcheck.com is not considered a reliable source for judging the reliability of other sources (see

WP:RSP). QZ is citing Southern as an example of a pundit picking up Afriforum's message and calling the killings "genocide". You might believe that the quote indicates that her position is more circumspect, but that's clearly not the source's interpretation. She's invoking the term when there's no evidence for a racial motivation, much less a coordinated genocidal intent, behind the killings. Nblund ^talk

22:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: I was not removing content just because I don't like it (I apologise if I can across that way), I explained my reasoning. I admit I was wrong about the references' reliability (sorry for that) but I was arguing for the article to be concise as it seems needlessly inflammatory. Gareth1893 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC) An edit I started before I got the notification from Bradv (hence why I haven't undone it) was undone with the sole reason being " I don't see why this should be removed"(@Doug Weller:). This is a clear example of removing content because someone doesn't like it. I haven't undone it because I don't want to be banned for edit warring but explanations should be given when changes are made. Gareth1893 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Southern, like a lot of far right figures, is an inflammatory person who holds inflammatory views. Wikipedia shouldn't sensationalize them, but we're

WP:NOTCENSORED and we don't write articles with an eye toward making people look good. I might agree that a lengthy paragraph on The Great Replacement would be excessive, but normally we try to offer a brief explanation of unfamiliar concepts in-text in addition to linking the main article. For instance: on John Snow's page, we link to miasma theory

, but we also offer a one-sentence in-text summary of the idea because it's necessary context for the entry.

Whatever your reason for removing content, you are a fairly inexperienced editor who came here because of a tweet, and you're clearly still learning the policies. Please follow

WP:BRD and bring your discussions to the talk page rather than repeatedly removing content when other editors object. "No reason for removal" is vague, but that's a valid reason to not remove something. It's kind of up to you to start the discussion on the talk page. Nblund ^talk

20:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I did NOT come here because of a tweet. If you read the tweet carefully you'll see she tweeted because I made an edit, not the other way around. Inexperience does not make me wrong like you are implying in the first sentence. I have contributed to the discussions, I made different changes with reason, I did explain myself and was met with vague responses. Discussions can't be had if vague responses are given Gareth1893 (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't repeatedly remove content, what I removed today was different (I have no wish to edit war) and I'm happy to discuss, all I was asking for was a proper reason for my edit to be removed which then leads on to discussions. If I make an edit and it's removed with a vague response that is not a good place to start a discussion. Gareth1893 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, regardless of your reasons, you're new and you are editing in a contentious topic area. I gave a more detailed explanation of my reasoning in my previous response. Please seek consensus here.

Regarding this edit from User:VwM.Mwv the three citations contain the same quote and all three preface it the same way. Southern has: "come to the defence of American alt-right leader Richard Spencer...", "defended him, saying...", and "defended Spencer in the past, stating...". The edit summary also doesn't really explain why the context for Spencer has been removed. Nblund ^talk 14:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

We should mention the quotation only, not speculations into what does or doesn't constitute "defense" per

WP:WEIGHT. Same goes for the Spencer bio (though that one isn't really a big deal for me). Btw, does discussion this really belong in the "White Genocide" talk section? M . M

14:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That's nonsense,

WP:WEIGHT..? That's wrong on so many levels. Please compare the discretionary sanctions alert + warning I have posted on your page. Bishonen | talk

15:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC).

Thanks for taking this issue off the article talk. I think it's more about how WP:WEIGHT is supposed to be interpreted. I'll reply on my talk page. M . M 15:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: Inexperience isn't a sufficient reason to removed edits, I do however appreciate full feedback and reasoning behind the removal of edits. I just don't think it's reasonable to remove different edits I have done and to give vague respones such as "I don't see why this should be removed" since it's not a matter of whether one personally likes something, Wikipedia would be a mess if it mattered whether someone merely liked or disliked what was being said. Further, I was not disputing that the sources claimed she had defended Spencer, I was saying that expanding on his views isn't necessary here as he was already branded "alt-right leader Richard Spencer" in the passage. I never removed the Richard Spencer thing entirely and would not do so without discussion and reason. Gareth1893 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reference for Richard Spencer, "who had said "Hail Trump" in a speech at a white nationalist gathering, and had called for a "peaceful" ethnic cleansing of America"? Gareth1893 (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gareth1893: This, clearly mentioned in the article. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: Thank you, I didn't see that as a citation for the above as it seemed to follow another statement. Gareth1893 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This source is a prime example of a self published source. Core content policy says we do not use self published sources as sources for content on BLP's. This is consistent with what is in WP: RSP since it could potentially be used as a source on non-blp articles. However, it still can't be used as a source here. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Kyohyi, am I missing something? Lauren Southern didn't write that article. Bradv🍁 19:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

WP: USESPS (I know USESPS is only an informational supplement, but it is linked to from WP: SPS) --Kyohyi (talk

) 19:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Kyohi, I think you've made the same "textbook" argument about the SPLC being self-published and it's never gained traction as far as I'm aware. Hope Not Hate is a charitable organization with a research team, and the citation is being used with in text-attribution to reflect their statement - not for a fact about Lauren Southern. I felt citing Hope Not Hate was helpful here because they were more direct in noting that she was an advocate of the idea, but lots of additional sources note that she is an adherent of the theory: the Foreign Affairs article cites Southern as an example of a proponent of "The Great Replacement". So do Sydney Morning Herald and The New Yorker. There's clearly no cause for outright scrubbing any connection to the theory. Nblund ^talk 19:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, the section for WP: RSP notes to be wary that the use of the SPLC conforms to BLP, and BLP has the same position as WP: V on self-published sources regarding BLP content. So I do think there is some pretty clear traction, but I don't think people want to discuss it openly. It is a very popular advocacy group afterall. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSP. I think because of this it could be argued they have a biased against Southern so if other non-biased references are available I believe they should be used as citations instead. Gareth1893 (talk

) 21:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Just a couple of points on WP:SPS and WP:USESPS:

1. WP:SPS does not explicitly or implicitly assume the definition and scope for "SPS" that are provided in USESPS; in particular, WP:SPS does not discuss the use or otherwise, for various purposes, of corporately-published sources that are both independent and reliable (a category that includes in principle both government and international org. publications, as well as those of advocacy groups).

2. USESPS is not in its entirety complaint with policy; for example, it baldly states that SPS do not contribute to Notability, whereas WP:V and WP:N provide for a category of SPS (namely, independent and reliable ones) that do. Since the USESPS essay is not reliably policy-compliant, it can't really be used as evidence that any particular practice is or isn't compliant to WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That's why I also pointed to note 10 on WP: V (which is also in WP: SPS). Note 10 is policy, and WP: USESPS description of self-published sources is in line with note 10. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in that footnote supports a blanket prohibition on citing advocacy group in BLPs, and this same argument was rejected in RFCs for Politifact and Sciencebasedmedicine.org. Moreover: the statement wasn't really "about" Southern, it was about HNH's description of Southern. We quote Richard Spencer in the article as well, but he's obviously not a reliable source for statements of fact, we're just describing his views.

@Gareth1983 - there's no prohibition on using biased sources (

WP:BIASED), and sometimes its more neutral to explicitly cite a biased critic in-text rather than implying a critique without attributing it to anyone in particular. Nblund ^talk

16:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: can you please explain how using this biased source here is more neutral than leaving it out? The bias of this source (in this case) affects its reliability and should be discussed. Gareth1893 (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kyohyi please note that none of the sources cited in Note 10 actually supports the expansion of the concept of SPS to credible organizations aside from profit-seeking corporations. The Chicago Manual of Style quotation, for example, applies SPS treatment to "any Internet site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body" (emphasis added) - what we are discussing here are sources that have a specific, relevant and credible sponsoring body. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You need to look at note 10 fully not just sources cited in the note. The opening sentence is telling, "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content." Advocacy groups have an inherent conflict of interest with regards to their own activity, so any internal review is insufficient to show independent review. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Kyohyi, I have of course read the entire note; I am saying that the opening sentence of the note is supported neither by the sources cited in the note nor by the WP policy consensus. And your position about advocacy groups has, as I understand it, consistently failed to achieve consensus at RfC so I am uncertain why you are pushing that PoV here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If you think consensus on policy has changed feel free propose changes at the policy page. I disagree with your opinion on consensus at RFC's, the one's shown above involved sources which show a format similar to newspapers which work on editorial independence. I did not find that anywhere on Hope not Hate's web page. The key point of note 10 is independence of fact checkers, if you think that's not required go try to change policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources cited in the note do not support the "fact checker" interpretation, nor does any part of WP:V. The fact that there is sloppy language in a note on a policy does not at all imply that the policy consensus exists that you are asserting. Sources that are independent of their subject and reliable in their field are considered reliable sources, and the only carveout from that in WP:SPS concerns the requirement not to use the self-published opinions of individuals - even when recognized as experts - to source biographical information. That is not what this article is doing, in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, you ignore the first sentence. The first sentence of Note 10 supports the fact checker interpretation, unless you think independent reviewer isn't synonymous with fact checker. Or do you think independent reviewers are not necessary for content related to BLP's. If that's your take, go try to change policy, otherwise any further discussion on this topic is unproductive here. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS have been subject to much more scrutiny than Note 10 of WP:SPS, so where they conflict, I'll go with the actual community consensus. Call me a rebel if you want, but any other approach strikes me as WikiLawyering. Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

KyohyiUser:Gareth1893 needs to go back to RSN if he wants to override discussions there. I agree with Newimpartial. I also cannot imagine a source discussing Southern that would not have some bias. If Kyohyi thinks such sources exist then why haven't any been brought here for discussion? Doug Weller talk 17:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to point me to a RSN discussion that specifically covered what is and is not self-published. The one's presented here don't cover it (they are specific to certain sources, and not the general policy), and it would probably be worthwhile to update policy to match this consensus that I'm supposedly bucking. @Doug Weller Concerning the matter of bias, I didn't make any argument about whether or not a source is biased, and I would appreciate it if you did not ascribe arguments to me that I did not make. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kyohyi: apologies, I meant User:Gareth1893 (if you searched for "bias" you would have found that). Doug Weller talk 18:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Previous discussions about Hope Not Hate have found that editors should evaluate the site on a case-by-case basis. I agree with other editors that this is a novel interpretation, especially since the source is not being used to state a fact about someone else. If you intend to edit war over it appearing in BLPs, you probably need to go ask a specific question about that claim at

WP:RSN. Nblund ^talk

19:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Case by case evaluation does not prevent us from rejecting an entire category of cases. It just means we need to actually evaluate the merits, and that the source is not de-facto usable. BLP states that we should be very firm about using high quality sources, a source which requires regular vetting and re-vetting (case by case analysis) does not fall into this category for me. To me this means not only should there be no reason to not include the source (which I don't believe is the case), there should be compelling reasons to include the source (which I haven't seen any reasons provided, so I cannot present my opinion on whether or not I find them compelling). Or at least the reasons for inclusion should vastly outweigh the reasons for exclusions. Either way reasons for inclusion should be provided, of which I have seen none. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

We haven't evaluated the merits because you've never raised any objection to the merits. You're now inventing new policy standards out of whole cloth - and I think you're definitely entering wikilawyering territory if you haven't already crossed that line. In the interest of moving the discussion along I went ahead and opened a discussion at

WP:RSN for you here. Nblund ^talk

21:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

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

FAR RIGHT??? libelous and wrong

LAUREN IS A CONSERVATIVE NOT fAR-RIGHT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.130.141 (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

188.30.159.250 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2019 (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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

current version

2018 migrant crisis actions

In November 2018, Southern released a video showing an Advocates Abroad worker apparently encouraging fraud by migrants at

reference - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10384606/ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ_fz9EW5Iw Byk7 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done I reworded the paragraph slightly and used a National Review Source rather than linking to Youtube. Nblund ^talk 20:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but I still suggest to have the link there, since it's available for free. Maybe like this?

In May 2019, Southern released a documentary about the migrant crisis and its consequences called Borderless. The documentary was removed from Youtube^[3], but it was reuploaded soon.^[4]

WP:ELNO item 16) Nblund ^talk

20:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

https://laurensouthern.net/a-new-chapter/ She is done with political commentary, documentary making, and all use of social media. States that she is returning to university in hopes of completing her undergraduate, and graduate degrees, and that, "maybe you’ll read my name on papers, in journals, or as a byline in articles." 2601:982:4200:A6C:A0FA:EC37:B807:E1B1 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

What a weird blog post. We should give her the benefit of the doubt, but as she has a history of publicity stunts (such as the gender one she mentions in her "retirement notice") we should avoid leaning too heavily on this until it's picked up by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help with sources for her reaction to the Christchurch terrorist attack. The terrorist cited the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory in his manifesto and seems to have been a fan of hers. She took down here "Great Replacement" video temporarily, until she realized that other people had copies anyway. --84.19.140.150 (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Citations should not be sought out to match a point of view. If they are there use them but this reads like you are specifically want citations to fit a narrative.

The terrorist was also a "fan" of Pewdiepie and many other people. It's unclear how many of these people he actually supported as he said himself he wanted to create as much chaos as possible so name dropped in his video to smear others.

Do you have proof she only rereleased it when she released other people had copies? The video seemed to be down before the Christchurch attack.

Gareth1893 (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In the lede, it suggests that she was "barred from entering Britain". I'm not a legal expert, but surely she would have been barred from entering anywhere in the UK, and not just Great Britain. Can this be verified and either the lede changed to reflact the fact that she was barred from the UK as a whole (for how long?) or from the island of Great Britain distinctly? --82.2.5.153 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's complicated. "Britain" commonly refers to the UK. Since "UK" is used earlier in the sentence, this usage helps to make the sentence more readable. If she tried to charter a boat to Brecqhou or something I'm sure we'll hear about it and we'll have to rephrase for clarity. Until then, I think the current wording is readable and clear-enough. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's complicated at all. Britain is the name of the island (more correctly Great Britain), and the United Kingdom is the name of the country (more correctly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). While "Britain" is used to refer to the UK, it is ambiguous. The UK is not ambiguous. --82.2.5.153 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The lede also describes Southern as being "far right", when she actually ran as a candidate for a libertarian political party. Yes, there are sources from publications describing her as "far right", but libertarianism isn't (so far as I'm aware) particularly defined by how far left or right a person is. Libertarianism is basically the opposite of dictatorships or authoritarianism. The "far right" and "alt-right", if I'm not mistaken, are also generally authoritarian. So, not libertarian. The opposite.

Can we see the article distinguish better between what some publications have labelled her, and some of the activities she has been involved in (such as joining a libertarian party), and better identify what she actually was during her politically active period? --82.2.5.153 (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

See

WP:SYNTH and cite a reliable source which specifically explains this in relation to Southern. Without that, this seems like a simplistic interpretation of the left-right spectrum (which is itself intentionally simple). White nationalism, such as through racial immigration restrictions, is extremely authoritarian, and she has endorsed and defended those policies. She apparently prefers to use some other euphemism to describe these positions, but as an encyclopedia we should use plain, direct language. Grayfell (talk

) 20:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Also note that many individuals and organizations have been known to combine far-right and libertarian positions without experiencing any apparent contradiction or even tension, q.v the

John Birch society. Newimpartial (talk

) 20:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this is what someone is versus what Wikipedia labels them are often two different things. Journalists often cite each other, and Wikipedia cites journalists, so it is very easy for a journalist or two to drive someone into being 'far right' regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. Lauren Southerns political compass puts her centre-left. But due to the mountain of media that sledge her as far right she will forever be buried under that label like most other centre-leftists out there until the current institutional power ceases to be held by the extreme left wing. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And if reliable sources refer to the subject as "centre-left", then WP can do likewise. But until then, your claim that media "far right" = "centre left" is horseshit

original research. Newimpartial (talk

) 14:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact remains that some people are left-libertarian, some are centre-libertarian and some are left-libertarian. Is that original research? There are differences between the left, centre and right. There are differences between libertarian and authoritarian. But being libertarian or authoritarian does not automatically correlate to left or right wing (or centre). So is it original research to suggest that libertarianism correlates with the far-right, as this article seems to imply? --82.2.5.153 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No original research. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

While looking at something else on WIKI, I noted that you can reference her movie directly.

I offer the reference here. I suggest that it be inserted after the reference to the Movie under the "Race" sub-section. Use the text immediately below to put in the reference which will come out as shown:

Farmlands (2018)^[1].

Now, because I noticed that the final version cleaned everything up, here is the actual insert to be placed into the text, but without the "ref" and "ref" so that it will print out properly:

Farmlands (2018)

(insert "ref" start here) (insert double entry marks "{{")

cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_bDc7FfItk&t=3s |title=Farmlands: South Africa's Farm Murder Documentary |author=Lauren Southern |date=June 25, 2018 |via=Youtube

(insert double exit marks "}}") (insert "ref" end here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.44.192.8 (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It is a fine documentary.

All the best,

James 202.44.192.8 (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

As one of the millions who encountered Southern through her two recent documentaries, I'm quite surprised to find scant mention of these publications in this profile. Indeed, as a Wikipedia editor striving for neutrality I'm very concerned about the state of this entire article. But to the immediate point: Southern is currently described as a "political activist" and a "YouTuber." To be quite honest, I'm not even sure if these are legitimate categories for anyone; they are more adjectival and indicative of the medium she uses that descriptors of what she actually is. She should be described in the first sentence as a "producer of documentary films" since this is what she is known for to (I would argue) the largest group of people. Further, in the opening paragraphs, instead of building up to a narrative of Southern as _____ (while assuming good faith I think its pretty clear how she is being portrayed), details of her documentaries should be given. It seems to me that these documentaries are the most significant thing Southern has contributed and that has warranted her notoriety. For reference we should look to Laura Poitras and the opening paragraphs that describe her. While Southern might be more outspoken about her politics (Poitras has deep-seated political opinions as well), and thus deserving of some mention of them in her introductory bit, we need to strive to describe with neutrality the things that Southern has produced outside of Twitter posts. (66.254.225.218 (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC))

It is not our job to document everything she has done. Instead, Wikipedia goes by

independent sources. If you know of such sources which discuss her documentary work, propose them here, please. Grayfell (talk

) 07:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2019

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

Change violent threats to threats of violence. 122.57.204.34 (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The article says

When she asked people on the street in Melbourne "Should we kill Lauren Southern?", many had never heard of her.[54]

This is subtle bias. It states a fact, but ignores that several who did know of her did advocate violence towards her. You'd never know from the article. IF it's going to have the negative emphasis that many had never heard of her, then it should FOR BALANCE mention those that actually agreed with the premise that she deserved violence.

Montalban (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

We report what the source says, not what you, or I, or anyone else wants to say. The source says nothing about anyone agreeing to the premise, so you can't add that to the article. The nearest the source gets to reporting people's responses to Southern is: "'I don't know who that is to be honest,' responded one of the interviewees, which became a recurring theme throughout the clip.". The sentence in the article above fairly reflects what the source says. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason I can think of that our article should include "When she asked people on the street in Melbourne 'Should we kill Lauren Southern?', many had never heard of her." The line should be removed. Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Since verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion and the statement doesn't improve the article, I would agree that it should be removed. Ihuntrocks (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Having watched Lauren on You Tube, please justify why she is labeled as far-right as opposed to simply right wing. When she comments on South Africa, she goes to the farms, speaks with farmers and their families and reports first-hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.130.141 (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

If you click the citation right after that statement, you can look at the sources. Here's the link. Nblund ^talk 14:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think just because media says it, should be it. News are usually politically biased and not enough to claim facts of political theory. I agree news are good to claim historical facts, but media is business too and has to use words according to their target reader. "Far-right" tag should come from political scientists or closer role. Waltercool (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not really how Wikipedia works. If a bunch of reliable sources say something, and no other reliable sources contradict them, we don't have much basis to insert our own

WP:Original Research to contradict them. Academic sources are not always available for fringe figures like Southern, but the limited academic coverage also calls her far right. Nblund ^talk

15:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is very biased in tone. It should use neutral terms and not push a certain point of view. Mathieas (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not quite what

reliable sources. – bradv🍁

19:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV means that they're still allowed to smear this person by using leftist journalists who call them "far right", despite NONE OF THESE SOURCES having any substantial evidence proving that she is. I gotta love how Wikipedia has a policy on self gender determination (aka Bruce Jenner is allowed to be Caitlyn Jenner), but if you say you're not far-right, then that doesn't count. The hypocrisy is astounding. Never trust wikipedia 69.136.138.211 (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

She has been pushing the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory. Even in the United States, that alone qualifies her for the far-right designation; much more so in Canada, even nowadays. --Orange Mike | Talk 07:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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

As stated in her instagram post https://www.instagram.com/p/B76_b_QgoCu/ "In the midst of a chaotic life, I rediscovered my faith in the most amazing way." So she became religious.

[edit: the following is already included in the article] Also, she got married and gave birth to a child. 84.242.96.190 (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:21, 4 February 2020 (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 center right. Lauren is not far right by any means. This is slander 2605:8D80:4E0:6028:15F6:376F:8968:8CCA (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a wrong translation in reference #93: "Überlegenheit" means "supremacy", not "survival", in English. "Survival" is "Überleben" in German. I guess s.o. was confused by the adjective "überlegen" and the noun "Überleben". Jezabeliberté (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right, and I've corrected it to "superiority". It makes quite a difference to the sense of the sentence. Thank you for noticing. Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC).

I don't understand this: She OFFICIALLY changed her gender / sex status to male. Shouldn't (s)he then be classified as a man? Jezabeliberté (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Check the archives on this talk page for previous discussions. She hasn't identified as male except for the one publicity stunt. Even in the video of the publicity stunt itself, she expressed shock that she had been allowed to make the change - because she thinks it is obvious that she does not really identify as male. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

So Wikipedia doesn't follow what the law says and gender is based on what people feel they are?Isaw (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

See

MOS:GENDERID. —C.Fred (talk

) 16:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what anyone here is talking about, but Southern is female in terms of both legal and personal gender identity, per the reliable sources on the matter. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

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

relevant to mention that mass shooters were inspired by her rhetoric and those around her https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/03/15/new-zealand-terrorist-manifesto-influenced-far-right-online-ecosystem-hatewatch-finds https://thinkprogress.org/alleged-new-zealand-shooter-donated-far-right-group-steve-king-tucker-carlson-8fe73243ea88/ 2001:1970:5E26:F400:14A3:4C86:2012:567B (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The blocking template says "If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username.

If you choose to keep your current username, please send an email to info-enwikimedia.org including your real name and your Wikipedia username to receive instructions from our volunteer response team about account verification. Please do not send documentation without being requested to do so."

That seems simple enough. It's probably her but in these times it might not be. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Which is fine, she should only have one account and that one clearly identifies her. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added the {{verified account}} template to her userpage, as she has confirmed that account belongs to her via OTRS and on Twitter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)