Jump to content

Talk:Lana Lokteff/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Cherry-picked puffery

Regarding this edit: For the Harper's line, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Cherry-picking the most obsequious and flattering part of an 8-page article is completely inappropriate. The article says a lot of things specifically about her beliefs and positions, and this is a terrible choice for summarizing this source. For the NPR line, what's the point? We should not include wikilinks in quotes, per WP:MOS, and the rest of the information is redundant with the rest of the article. Grayfell (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

[citation needed] for neo-nazi claims

At the bottom of the page it lists Lana as Neo-Nazi. Where is any evidence supporting this? --RandomUser3510 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A new edit has been made here that re-added Neo-Nazi again. Like before, where is the evidence to support this? --RandomUser3510 (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Video from Lana regarding White Supremecist

Regarding the supremecist statement; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oemFQLKtvx4

Possibly re-open conversation on editing given this. Huttonsoo (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

denied the Holocaust?

OK, I got here from the recent ANI and have no wish to add to your difficulties, but the wording 'denied the Holocaust' isn't quite born out by the sources. Rolling Stone certainly implies that she seeks to minimalise the Holocaust and Haaretz says "questions the Holocaust". I realise that minimalising is ordinarily included as a form of 'denial', but suggest changing to "questions the Holocaust", leaving the link to denial and leaving the quote I recently added to the cite:"“For me,” says Lokteff, … It’s like, ‘This many Jews didn’t die, alright?'”. The quote is included in both RStone and Haaretz. She appears to be a minimiser with denialist leanings (gas chambers were mainly for delousing), rather than an outright denier. Being accurate here seems to be more informative - whatever we think of this kind of evasion. Pincrete (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If sources don't unambiguously describe her as a holocaust denialist or holocaust minimalist, then I agree that a quote without editorial judgment would be better. —PaleoNeonate – 19:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Pincrete: Our article on the subject includes claims "that the actual number of Jews killed was significantly lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million" as a form of Holocaust denial. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Ian.thomson, I appreciate that trivialising or minimalising is itself a form of denial, that's why I suggested leaving the present link. However using Haaretz's own term ('questions), not only more accurately reflects the source, it also more accurately represents the kind of denier she is. To me accurately reflecting her views (which I'm sure many of us feel are simply a 'word game' on her part: "not that many dead, but I won't say how many, nor how I magically know existing estimates are wrong") is more informative than adding the 'label'.Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think her watchers are necessarily savvy enough to catch that kind of subtly, and I'm not sure why it would matter. "Questioning" is a euphemism that deniers themselves embrace, much like "revisionist". This type of "questioning" is the primary form that Holocaust denial takes. People who deny that any Jews died in WWII are about as rare as people who think the WTC was taken down by holograms. There are people who believe these things, but they are the far-fringe of the fringe, and we have to be very careful not to legitimize a fringe theory by contrasting it with something even more extreme. Since she's not an expert on anything, as far as I know, the only reason to mention her opinion is because reliable sources have mentioned it. Sources are clearly not mentioning this because she has any insight into the Holocaust, they are mentioning this because she's repeating conspiracy theories and debunked pseudoscience. The context of these sources includes the Holocaust deniers she invites onto her show, and who she supports, legitimizes, and agrees with. Grayfell (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I would still rather we do not say it explicitly, and say she questions it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Grayfell, I agree with everything you say - except "I'm not sure why it would matter". I think it does matter exactly what she says/believes, partly because it's what the sources actually say, but mainly because it's more informative. IMO are her beliefs trivialising/minimalising/deflecting the Holocaust? Of course they are. Are these the standard tricks of slightly more 'savvy' deniers - probably. Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
If we preserve the wikilink, we're agreeing that this is the underlying concept. There are legitimate academic questions about the Holocaust. There is no reason to link to any of those questions, is there? By presenting a non-neutral position in euphemistic language, we risk misleading readers. This would also be an WP:EGG, since this isn't about to any of those legitimate questions which also have articles (Holocaust studies, Responsibility for the Holocaust, Is the Holocaust Unique?, etc.).
I guess I wasn't very clear when I said I'm not sure why it would matter. It matters to the extent that it's covered by reliable sources. When I look at these reliable sources, they are linking her to Holocaust denial. We should summarize, and summaries do not have to use the exact same words as sources. This is especially important when the source's words are less clear taken out of context. We can assess what multiple sources are saying and put it in simpler language. That's really what we should be doing as much as possible, because that's part of the point of an encyclopedia, right?
So:
  • "Red Ice is a white supremacist media company that produces podcasts and videos trading heavily in Holocaust denial, ethno-nationalism and white genocide."CNN
  • "Lana Lokteff, the notorious Holocaust-denying host at Red Ice..."SPLC
  • The same Rolling Stone article says "Revisionist history is a big part of her show, and she speaks warmly of one of her guests, Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review"[1]
  • This podcast summary makes it painfully clear, if a primary source helps.
Holocaust denial has been a central, defining feature of this white nationalist's public identity. There is no useful factual difference between "questioning" and "denying" in this context, so we should go with the clearer, less loaded term. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Please leave your personal beliefs at the door

User:WikiVolunteerBen indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet, so no point in continuing. --Calton 01:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia is an unbiased and fair information source. Be respectful to others who use it and do not vandalise articles to push your own agenda. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.213.134 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going by sources, which have her as both a white nationalist and a white supremacist. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people will also agree that she is both. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources calling Lana Lokteff a white supremacist or both a white supremacist and a white nationalist:

Wikipedia defines alt right as a hate group, I'm not sure how being pro-white equates to that. White supremecy dictates that white people are superior to all other races; a viewpoint inconsistent with Lana's ethno-nationalist stance; that all races have a right to their own culture and homeland. Linking biased news articles does not carry the weight enough to warrant the obvious defamation language demonstrated on this page. Please for the sake of keeping wikipedia neutral leave slurs out of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.213.134 (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on the sources provided in the article, I think both white nationalist and white supremacist do indeed apply. Saying that the sources are "biased" isn't much of an argument. I am not reverting again due to the 3-revert rule, but the deleted material should be restored. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The Newsweek article doesn't call her a white supremacist. The steemit.com link is an opinion piece, it even says in the first line "Lana Lokteff is a European/White racialist if not an outright White supremacist. She is clearly celebrating the European world conquest and military prowess and wishes to create a world where White people dominate." The Yahoo article is a copy/paste of the steemit.com article. Those aren't credible sources. Also, if sources being biased aren't a problem, let me use the Daily Stormer as a credible site and on that site she's never been called a white supremacist.
dailystormer.name/tag/red-ice-creations/
I also would suggest that we refrain from using Jewish interest groups such as the ADL or SPLC when talking about topics and characters that have to do with white culture and white identity. Anyone and everyone is a white supremacist when it comes to those groups. We should instead focus on either statements directly from those characters (there are people that say "I'm a white supremacist", so it's fine to call them that) or completely unbiased sources. This is not about personal beliefs or opinions, but about the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.130.208.37 (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this somewhat. SmokerOfCinnamon posted links that were either severely biased and/or just personal opinion pieces. If she is to be labeled a "supremacist" we need proof for that and so far she hasn't said or done anything that aligns with the Wikipedia definition of white supremacism. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty much confirmed that she is both. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed by whom except for you? I've spent the time reading through your given articles which are biased sources to say the least and even those don't specify that she's a white supremacist. I also disagree on how you're constantly changing the article after one person agrees with you so I'll revert it back to "white nationalist" only until we actually have some proof for the "supremacist" part. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The "proof" is the reliable sources. Your opinion that these sources are biased doesn't make them less reliable. We do not look for original research that she is a white supremacist (although this would be trivially easy to find) instead, we cite sources. Multiple reliable sources directly refer to her as a white supremacist. That's enough. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Would finding multiple sources explicitly saying that she's not a white supremacist change that stance? Say for instance, other sources, which are biased as well but in the other direction. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
That you're still going on about "biased sources" tells me that you're really not getting it. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Being biased in "the other direction" would be falling into a false balance trap. We are not looking for "both sides" because we don't assume that there are only two sides, and we do not assume that both "sides" must be equally valid. We are looking for reliable sources, so if you have reliable sources saying she isn't a white supremacist, let's see them. Grayfell (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm talking about "biased sources" because it states on the reliable sources page the following:
Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include
surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
Now, I would argue that calling someone a white supremacist is an exceptional claim that needs actual proof. Thus, I'm asking for potential bias in the sources provided so far - which would be fine otherwise. We need more than a few self-published sources and those that clearly have a conflict of interest - in short, bias. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Nope. An obscure podcast host being a white supremacist isn't remotely exceptional, and if you find it surprising, that's your problem. None of these sources are primary, self-published, or have any relevant conflict of interest that I can see. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It's pretty exceptional in the way that a channel on Youtube that has over 200,000 subscribers and is supposedly white supremacist would have been banned from that platform years ago - which happens all the time. So the claim is pretty much extraordinary, if you find that surprising, that's your problem. You can't see the conflict of interest in a left wing publication like the Huffington Post writing an article about the far right and calling them names that they haven't subscribed to, that's a problem. The Newsweek article doesn't call her a white supremacist, neither does the Yahoo article.www.cre8noh8.org is a self-published blog and the steemit.com link is also a self-published blog. These are not reliable sources by Wikipedia definition, especially not when it comes to exceptional claims. Have you even taken a look at the sources and read them? WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
If you're saying that because she's moderately popular, she can't be a white surpemacist, then you are trying to inject WP:OR into the article. If you have a reliable source which says she's not a white supremacist because otherwise she would've been banned from youtube (or for any other reason) let's see it. Among those reliable sources used in the article, I have not seen any which dispute this label, even if not all of them directly apply it to her. Also, I don't think you actually know what a conflict of interest is, making this a comical waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Not at all. I just think that, because she is moderately popular, the claim is rather exceptional. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
http://dprogram.net/red-ice-tv/am-i-a-white-supremacist/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oemFQLKtvx4 specifically say that she's not a white supremacist. She even mentions the articles referenced right now in the Wikipedia article about her. This is a reliable source, so I'll add that to the Wikipedia page and change the article accordingly. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
You are completely wrong about these being reliable sources, as they do not have a positive reputation for fact checking or accuracy. Good lord, that site hosts an audio book of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That's a very poor choice if you're trying to make the case that she's not a white supremacist. Grayfell (talk)
I completely disagree. Left-wing media calling someone from the complete opposite political spectrum a white supremacist without fact checking what a white supremacist even is (someone who wants to rule over other races) are just as unreliable, if not more unreliable than the site I referenced. You also obviously didn't watch the Youtube video, in which she makes fun of exactly the sites referenced in the article and say that they're stupid and wrong. I'm reverting it back, try actually watching the video, which completely negates what you've been saying and her being a white supremacist before deleting the sources. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Look, when your arguments center around supposed "left wing media" and your sources are youtube video, it's highly unlikely you're going to convince anyone. On Wikipedia sources are either reliable or non-reliable. Whether they're "left wing" or "right wing" is irrelevant. See WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Good, then it shouldn't be a problem to call my source reliable, as well. The video is her explaining that she doesn't want to rule over other races, nor being a white supremacist - explicitly. Clearly, the sites referenced so far can't be reliable because they didn't fact check what a white supremacist is, nor whether she actually identifies as being one. How are those non-fact-checking sites more reliable than the sites which I posted? Being left-wing or right-wing is irrelevant in this regard. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
...then it shouldn't be a problem to call my source reliable
To call them "reliable", they'd first have to be, you know, reliable. "Because I said so" is not really the strong argument you seem to think it is. --Calton | Talk 09:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
You're making my point for me. Calling the references currently in the article "reliable" is just that - a claim by someone. They say she's a white supremacist when she's stated herself that she's not. Logically, that means that the sources are wrong and thus, not reliable. A reliable source would have fact-checked that claim first before stating it in an article. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
You're making my point for me. I have done no such thing. You, on the other hand, are further demonstrating your basic misunderstanding of what are reliable sources here -- have you even bothered to read the links you've been given? -- and your self-serving, counterfactual interpretation of guidelines, policy, and practice here. Like many other street lawyers before you, you appear to have confused Wikipedia with some sort of incantation-based magic system or some sort of video game: if you are clever enough to use just the right words or find the right cheat code, you can automatically compel action and "win". That's not how it works, here or in the real world. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, you just said that my sources aren't reliable, just like I'm saying that the sources currently in the article aren't reliable either - which made the point for me. I'm not a street lawyer, nor did I ever claim to be one. Please keep your personal attacks against me to yourself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which by it's own definition focuses on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title. The sources I provided are reliable in the way that they state accurate information. I never used the "just because I say so" argument - you did, by calling one source reliable and another non-reliable. I read the whole article regarding reliable sources and specifically, this point stood out to me: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
As I've already shown, the sources provided in the article have not done their job of fact-checking and accuracy, therefore they should be removed as well as the "white supremacist" label attributed to the Lana Lokteff article which is solely based on those non-fact-checking sources. If you can't understand my reasoning, that's not my problem. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a street lawyer, nor did I ever claim to be one. Ah, so your logic is that no matter what one does or what people say, the ONLY thing that counts a specific self-declaration. Nope, not how the real world works.
You've wasted enough of everyone's time. Unless some ELSE has something substantive to add, I'm closing this soon. --Calton | Talk 05:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
By your logic I can just call you anything without backing it up and that's what you have to be declared as. You're wasting my time and the time of everyone on this talk page. My goal is to put factual information into the article. No one has proved that she's a white supremacist, she doesn't identify as a white supremacist, she also doesn't want to rule over other races, which is the main thing about white supremacism. None of the references in the article itself can prove that she's a white supremacist either, they just claim it without fact-checking. They are not reliable sources. Also, it doesn't work like that, you can't just shut out other opinions by closing them, because you deem to be a know-it-all. Are you gonna insult me some more or are you actually going to bring something to the table? I told you multiple times why this should be changed. Where the fuck are your arguments? WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Read the very first response in this section. Then read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I did. You don't get my point, that's the problem. Also, the way people like you and Calton post on here makes me question whether Wikipedia is actually unbiased. Anyway, I've changed the article so that it reflects both her own declaration and how media writes about her. Let's put this to rest. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Since Lokteff is not a reliable source for statements of fact (not even close) she is not a reliable source for the definition of white supremacy. She seems even less knowledgable about the term's other people are using to describe her than she is about history, which is almost impressive. Since her nonsense about not wanting to rule over others is rightly ignored by reliable sources, and elsewhere is seen as a misdirection which only the credulous or gullible accept, this doesn't belong in the very beginning of this article. Don't agree with me? Okay, fine, find reliable sources discussing her preference. This means third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. This reputation is established through outside means, not Wikipedia editor's opinions. Reputable peer-reviewed academic publications, journalists with editorial oversight and a history of retractions and corrections, perhaps some industry awards would help... these are signs of reliability.

That said, I do think her rejection of the term could be added, perhaps even to the lede, but the lede should not be hamfistedly tortured into being an extension of her own PR. This needs to be proportional to how it's covered by reliable sources. Something like "Lokteff has denied being a white supremacist" at the end of the paragraph would be the absolute most, and only out of respect for WP:BLP. Grayfell (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The first part of your post is entirely your own opinion. I disagree, Vox is not a "reputable peer-reviewed academic publication" by any means, neither are the other sources that call her a white supremacist. I'd be fine with adding that she denied being a white supremacist as that would accurately state the truth and that's all I care about. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Calling something an opinion doesn't make it an opinion. Please read the entire sentence. I also listed "journalists with editorial oversight and a history of retractions and corrections". This covers Vox, which has a relatively positive reputation, and a positive track-record for retractions and fact checking according to other journalists. Grayfell (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
If you're phrasing something in a clearly subjective and biased way, that makes what you're saying an opinion by definition. Can you show me the "positive track-record for retractions and fact checking" that Vox apparently has? Retracting something after someone else points out that you're spreading misinformation isn't good journalism and positive, it's the opposite. Example: https://www.poynter.org/news/vox-retracts-story-based-fraudulent-research Good journalism doesn't have to retract but fact-checks beforehand. I bet that if Lana Lokteff pressed charges for defamation against Vox they'd have to retract their white supremacist claim as well. So, how exactly is Vox a reliable source then? WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
That's pretty funny. Yes, if they were forced to issue a retraction, the source would be less reliable. What the hell does that have to do with the source now?
Per WP:RS: One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Vox was one of five outlets mentioned by Poynter as issuing retractions for this incident (which has an article, by the way: When contact changes minds). Retractions are a good thing, because it means they are taking this seriously. Grayfell (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
"What does it have to do with the source now?" The source publisher has been found guilty of not using proper fact-checks in the past. Who's to say their current article states the truth and not more misinformation? WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Nowhere were they "found guilty". They issued a retraction, as did the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, among others. These are overwhelmingly considered reliable outlets on Wikipedia. A source which refuses to admit it was ever wrong about anything, or which only does so under legal pressure, would be less reliable (and also childish). It's not that complicated. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Vox is overwhelmingly considered a "reliable outlet"? That says a lot about Wikipedia. I know it's not complicated, but in this exact case, there is no way that she fits into the "white supremacist" description, especially not if you're using the Wikipedia definition of white supremacism. The sources are just not accurate and it should matter enough to consider not using them in this article, no matter how "reliable" they otherwise are. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for content on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research about Lokteff's beliefs. Your opinion that a source is not accurate based on your personal familiarity is irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Once and for all. Who says exactly which sites are reliable and which are not. Because we're going in circles here. Who says that Vox is reliable while a page I'm linking isn't. Who decides? Because, honestly, all I'm hearing is "my source is reliable, because a few people agree with me on Wikipedia while the same people don't agree with you". Is that how it is? Because that's not how truth works. I read the "reliable sources" article on this page about 50 times by now and still there's no way you could ever make an argument that "Vox" is reliable while the sources I posted are not without referring to the argument "I know some people and they agree". Just because my sources didn't have to retract anything yet, doesn't mean they're more or less reliable than the other sources. Also, Calton and Volunteer Marek are editing the article all the time without posting anything in this article or discussing anything whatsoever. Why is it, that you had already agreed on changing the description on the article to what we agreed upon but when they're reverting it without posting ANYTHING on here, you decide to revert it again as well? She clearly denied being a white supremacist, you saw it yourself. So why is this not being allowed to be mentioned in the article? It's the damn truth. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Source reliability, as with almost everything else on Wikipedia, is based on WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia was started in 2001, so this includes the previous 17 years of consensus which forms our reliable source guidelines. This means that even if you and I agreed on something, that doesn't override what the rest of the community has agreed upon in the past. If you think neo-Nazi outlets like dprogram.net and nordfront.se are reliable sources, you do not understand what "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" signifies. You could, if you really wanted to, propose those sources to WP:RSN, but I think there's a real chance you would be blocked for wasting time and trying to insert neo-Nazi propaganda into Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a "mainstream" bias, in that we represent ideas in proportion to their coverage in reputable sources. "Reputable" means a reputation among experts. Expertise is determined by the mainstream, for better or worse. This is an encyclopedia, and we do not legitimize WP:FRINGE ideas, such as scientific racism, white nationalism, or Holocaust denial. Even if you believe these ideas are correct, they are still not recognized by real-life experts as legitimate.

As for the line about denying being a white supremacist: it isn't really that clear. She mostly mocks the idea that "white supremacy" even means anything at all. The video is pedantic, evasive, and sarcastic, but says almost nothing of substance, and implies things which are false or irrelevant. She demonstrates that she doesn't understand what the term means and doesn't understand why it's applied to her. So what's there to say about this? As has already been said, a reliable source would be extremely helpful. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Exact quote from the video: "So what is a white supremacist anyway? 'a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races' - she's quoting the Merriam-Webster dictionary - Do I have an allure to rule over other races and subjugate them as my slaves so that they can clean my house, take care of my family and run my errands? Come on, it's so stupid. No white person in my scene wants this, in reality, we want the complete opposite. Doesn't sound like something a white supremacist would say now, does it? "We want the complete opposite" is implicating her and the people she represents and associates with. She doesn't want to rule over other races or have control over them, in fact, she wants the opposite. This is the definition of denial. She denies being a white supremacist by denying wanting to rule over other races. Furthermore, I don't understand how you could even make the point that she doesn't understand what the term means. She's reading the frigging dictionary definition and immediately after, she says that neither she nor anyone she knows wants any of this. Also, you haven't answered to my questions regarding Calton, Volunteer Marek, their absence of discussion on here and their constant disruption on the article page by editing and reverting the line we both agreed upon days ago. They clearly just want to disrupt and have nothing to say on this talk page. Additionally, once again, the current sources, including the much-discussed Vox article, don't even explicitly state that she's a white supremacist at all. So we don't even have a reliable source calling her a white supremacist in the article right this moment. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds exactly like something a white supremacist could say, because it's evasive waffle, and has been hammered to death, she is not a reliable source. She introduces a brief definition, ignores any inconvenient alternate definitions, and then extends her chosen definition to an absurd degree. She than dismissed her own absurd definition as being too absurd, specifically because she made it absurd. Perhaps she learned this trick from the Stephan Molyneux school of not-actually-saying-anything.
I'm guessing they don't post here because they've heard this all before a thousand times. You're not really introducing anything new anyway, so I can't say I blame them. Grayfell (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Are you Jewish? Serious question. Drmies already established that the sources in the article don't call her a white supremacist. Just because SmokerOfCinnamon decided to post some unreliable sources on here (which even you would consider to be not reliable) he added the "white supremacist" label after just one day of no one responding. I want to revert that back to it's original state which is more accurate. Also, what you just said was inaccurate. She even took another definition from Google into account which also doesn't apply to her. Obviously, you wouldn't count that as an "alternate definition", would you? What's your definition, the one that applies to pretty much every right winger out there? How about "a white supremacist is anyone that disagrees with my point of view"? WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for disusing the article (see wp:talk), so unless this article is about one of our eds what they say, do or think is irrelevant. As to the subject being a white supremacist, simple question can someone provide me with sources that say she is?Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

By the same token can someone provide the quote where she says "I am not", not just asked "am I "?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

She says that it's stupid and ridiculous to assume that she wants to rule over other races and/or hold them as slaves. In the same video, she reads the Merriam-Webster definition of "white supremacist" as well as the Google definition of it and says that she wants the opposite of that. Wanting the opposite of what the definition of "white supremacist" says equals to denying being a white supremacist afaik. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
No saying she is not one does. Going out of her way to prove she does fit that definition is not saying she is not one, it is saying she does not fit that definition of one. Sorry but if she does not actually say she is not neither can we. All we can say is that she thinks she does not fit the Merriam-Webster definition of "white supremacist". But then, maybe, that is the point, a non denial.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Still, the point that none of the articles in the references on the Wiki article about her say that she's a white supremacist either. So we shouldn't include that claim at all as there haven't been any reliable sources in the article itself. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources for "white supremacist"

That said, I support including her denial, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oemFQLKtvx4, even if it's only a strong implicit denial; after all the last 2 here are also only strong implicit accusations. It's true she does not explicitly say "I am not", but she clearly rejects the title in general, so we can write that. --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

OK I can go with this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Youtube is not a source, and there is no independent, secondary source showing that she is not a white supremacist. I removed the reference. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Please don't. She is entitled to dispute a rather derogatory claim about her own opinions, per WP:ABOUTSELF, which is part of WP:BLP, and rather important. --GRuban (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
It is a source for her claims, as long as it is her youtube feed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree it is policy but WP:Aboutself should change. Its confusing ,escpecially to new users and it may lead to a slippery slope. I don't blame myself for tripping up over it and I am sure there some regulars who would agree with my change. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sock

For archives and editors: WikiVolunteerBen turned out to be a WP:SOCK of Hansnarf, although there were also other reasons for their recent block. —PaleoNeonate – 18:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

They may be back, I think we need page protection.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Pretty unbalanced

Sarah Jeong's article deals with this much better. I know there aren't as many sources to cite for Lana in comparison to Sarah Jeoung, but at least over there, a balance exists. Lana denies being a white supremacist. I think the article would be better if it included phrases similar to

" Liberal media characterize her as being white supremacist" or
" Lana has received a strongly negative reaction in liberal media, which characterize her views as being white supremacist"

If Sarah Jeong gets the benefit of having both sides represented then Lana should too. RandomUser3510 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

That's textbook false balance, as well as being WP:OR. Which reliable sources say "liberal media" characterize her as such-and-such? What sources use the phrase "strongly negative"? It's also unfortunate that you would have us present "negative" before "white supremacist". It is not that they chose to characterize her as negative first, and then chose white supremacist as a way to convey their disgust. They characterize her as a white supremacist because of the things she has repeatedly said, and because of the other white supremacists she has aligned herself with. This is "strongly negative" as a natural and obviously appropriate consequence of her own actions, not some arbitrary opinion plucked from the void. Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The "strongly negative" phrase isn't anything particularly specific just something of a template for a future edit. I understand that WP:OR exists but the article is literally the opposite of what she identifies as, and this isn't even mentioned except for one sentence in the References section. I know lots of liberal sources are used and no original research but mentioning her views in the article is pretty fair. She's in a pretty unfair situation, where most of the media sources that write about her claim she is something she disavows. Edit: This is referring to the white supremacist claim in the leading sentence. RandomUser3510 (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
White nationalism is not "literally the opposite" of white supremacy unless one is using a contrived definition of white supremacy. Lokteff's video about being a white supremacist is extremely vague and internally inconsistent. She uses shifting definitions and selective interpretation to "deny" accusations that nobody seems to actually be making. As an encyclopedia, we should aggressively avoid these kinds of word games and use direct language when possible. Reliable sources have evaluated her statements and behaviors and have come to the conclusion that she is a white supremacist. Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Jeong's article and Lokteff's article have been treated exactly the same way: they reflect the content of the reliable sources. If there are other reliable sources arguing against Lokteff being a white supremacist (and please note that her own claims do not count as reliable sources), then we can consider changing the content of the article - but until that happens, there's no reason to make a change. Lokteff's denial of the label is included in the article. However, even if there are reliable sources disputing the label, the proposed wording strikes as being an inferred circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacy. Specifying "liberal media" creates the impression that any characterisation of Lokteff as a white supremacist stems from a liberal bias, not from rational argument. This doesn't work because, to quote the wiki article I linked, a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false. It also strays into OR/SYNTH territory.
The bottom line is this: what do the reliable sources say? If they say white supremacist, we say white supremacist. Until and unless there are reliable sources disputing that, the article should stay as it is. Marianna251TALK 22:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia's definition of white supremacy:
"White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races, and that therefore, white people should be dominant over other races."
Not using Lokteff's definitions but that above. Here are some quotes:
1:33 "Do I want to lord over other races and subjugate them as my slave so they can take care of my family and run my errands? ...In the reality we want the complete opposite."
2:09 "It doesn't mean that I want to exterminate and enslave other races"
This is the opposite I was referring to. Wikipedia's definition of white supremacy doesn't match her statements here. Also she doesn't say anything about white people being superior in the same video. On one hand we have lots of liberal sources claiming one thing, but on the other hand her own statements say the opposite. Yet only the sources are being mentioned in the article. WP:ABOUTSELF allows the video to be a source. Maybe a good phrasing for a better lead to address this would be:
"Lana Jennifer Lokteff (born March 14, 1979) is an American white nationalist that has been described as a white supremacist[3]. Lokteff has disputed the "white supremacist" label"[4] <- [her video as reference]. Being a YouTube personality, she is part of the alt-right movement."
That looks like a good lead to me. What do others think?--RandomUser3510 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I stopped reading the moment you reached for the "Wikipedia definition" argument. For the umpteenth time:
1) WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. We do NOT self-source. In that way lies recursive madness
2) WP:OR means we do NOT concoct arguments whereby if source A says "X" and source B says "Y", therefore X + Y = "Z", not "Q".
3) As per the above, we go by what reliable sources say DIRECTLY about the subject (Lokteff), not whatever motivated reasoning has led you to. In other words, we need a source that says "Q" directly about the subject. Instead, we've got sources that say "Z". Don't like it? You can try to get the bedrock policy changed, but that's not happening. --Calton | Talk 23:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup. The video where she discusses this is not actually clear enough to be useful for her own rebuttal. It's so evasive and sloppy that it's not a clear explanation of who she is or how she describes herself. This article doesn't say that anyone has accused her of wanting to literal enslave people, and it's not even remotely clear what the "opposite" of that would mean. As I've said (multiple times) she has concocted a boutique definition of white supremacy, interpreted it in the narrowest sense possible, and then sort of claimed the definition doesn't apply to white people in her "scene". This is a cheap rhetorical trick in a video full of nothing. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Calton OK use a different definition if you wish. For #2, she is saying she is "Z" in your example. There's no third party here; it's by Lokteff. Just to play devil's advocate I can sort of see how you would apply WP:PRIMARY here. Lokteff just doesn't have many sources about her, and the ones that do (outside of her video) happen to describe her as white supremacist. I think a key difference here with the Sarah Jeong article is that there was an abundance of sources to choose from with Jeong's case.
@Grayfell If you take the definitions of white supremacy they typically include domination over others. This can include enslavement or subjugation, etc.
I am only suggesting that a future edit include that Lokteff rejects the label "white supremacist"/ her interpretation of it. I realize the video goes all over the place but it does at times contain pretty specific quotes like what I listed. I don't see why she would make the video if she didn't have those beliefs.RandomUser3510 (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" part of the verifiability policy applies here. It says one of the red flags for such content is challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. The reliable sources we have at the moment say Lokteff is a white supremacist. The only source we've got to counter that is Lokteff herself, i.e. a self-published source with a conflict of interest. Therefore, Lokteff's view is a challenged claim with only a bad source to support it, and thus should be treated with extra caution, not form the basis of an argument to change her article. Her video is practically the opposite of a reliable source.
Also, in case an analogy will help: Harold Shipman denied he murdered anybody, but he was proven to have killed at least 218 people, which is the highest number of confirmed victims attributed to any serial killer in the world. All the reliable sources say things like "Serial killer Shipman"/"Shipman, a British serial killer"/etc. There is no point playing around with words to say something like "Harold Shipman was a British doctor who has been described as a serial killer" just because he claimed he never killed anybody. The sources flatly say he was a serial killer, so we say he was a serial killer. The sources for Lokteff flatly say she is a white supremacist, so we say she is a white supremacist. The comparative scarcity of sources is irrelevant. Marianna251TALK 20:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
OK use a different definition if you wish.
It doesn't matter what damned definition you use to concoct your self-serving WP:OR argument, Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources actually say about the subject, not by what you or her wish Wikipedia would say. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Marianna251 You bring up good points. I think my issue when starting this section was how it compared to Sarah Jeong's article, but Lokteff's situation is different through its lack of sources. I still think there is room to mention the video somehow in the article (Harold Shipman's article mentions his denials for example), but that can be for another day. Helped --RandomUser3510 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad that helped. For the record, though, Lokteff's rejection of the label is included in the article, albeit as a footnote. Marianna251TALK 08:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
She isnt a white supremasict. Nt being pro-diversity doesn't = white supremasict. This is a clear violation if NPOV. Should be changed to some consider her a white supremasict.--2601:3C5:8200:B79:BDA3:F50F:E9BA:13EA (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I have no issue with this idea, but it can equally be argued do any RS contest the claim? Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit war on white supremacist vs white nationalist

Vox article mentioned doesn't say that she's a white supremacist, it just calls a bunch of women that without providing any proof for it. The Vox article is also biased because Vox itself is a very much left-wing publication with an agenda.

Proof: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Furthermore, she refers to herself as a white nationalist and speaks frequently on white nationalism, not white supremacism.

Examples include:

https://angrywhitemen.org/2017/03/16/white-nationalists-applaud-as-lana-lokteff-boasts-that-women-elected-trump-and-hitler/

https://angrywhitemen.org/2016/05/30/janice-fiamengo-to-white-nationalist-talk-show-host-men-are-living-under-a-feminist-version-of-sharia-law/

https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/lana-lokteff-interviews-greg-johnson/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alt-right-youtube-stars-stop-pretending-give-full-throated-endorsements-of-ethno-nationalism/

The fact that people like calling her a racist doesn't change the fact that she's a white nationalist, not a white supremacist. Therefore it is only logical that the edit made by SmokerOfCinnamon - which was based on his own assumption - is undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansnarf (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


Calling someone a white nationalist doesn't mean they are not a racist and a white supremacist. All white nationalists are racists and white supremacists. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide a source for all white nationalists being racist and white supremacists? That's just a completely false statement. Hansnarf (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Nah, it's common sense. Anyway, it doesn't matter what she describes herself as. What matters is how reliable sources describe her.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
"Nah, it's common sense." If they are the same why are there distinctions to begin with? Why not merge all the articles together?--RandomUser3510 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
they should indeed be merged together.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
no wonder people say Wikipedia is biased these days. Can't even differentiate between a white nationalist and a white supremacist.
https://i.imgur.com/VWvtaLU.png -> https://i.imgur.com/pYtnmhZ.png -> https://i.imgur.com/KajSb5e.png THIS is what you guys are doing. Great job. Calling everyone a nazi and racist, which a both slur words. What a fucking joke this site has become. Hansnarf (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This should not call her a "white supremacist". Quoting leftist Socialist rags like Huffpo and Vox. Is Wikipedia also run by communists?? Jtiderencel17 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

They are RS, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Articles with consensus of opinion aren't necessarily indicative of accuracy. The "reliable sources" cited in the article are opinion articles, using opinionated language, without showcasing concrete examples. If a Wikipedia article is describing someone as a "white supremacist," we had better see some clearly supremacist tweets/quotes from Lana. Otherwise, the language wants for an edit ("has been accused of being" rather than "is a").
From the citations for this claim:
  1. ADL citation. Only one section of this article mentions Lana. The dedicated paragraph only describes her association with other people and topics that are also supposedly white supremacist: Lana Lokteff is a white supremacist who runs internet media company Red Ice TV ... that celebrate "European identity and culture." Lokteff has interviewed numerous white supremacists on the show. ... In May 2017, Lotkeff appeared in a video segment with Jared Taylor of American Renaissance to discuss "the women of the alt right." No relevant sources, elaboration, or direct examples. This is an accusation by association.
  2. HuffPo citation. This article off-handedly mentions Lana with the description, "the prominent white supremacist media figure Lana Lokteff..." No relevant sources, elaboration, or direct examples. Accusation by association.
  3. Bustle citation. This article commits the same infraction as the above: an off-handed comment styled, "Lana Lokteff, a prominent white supremacist figure..." No relevant sources, elaboration, or direct examples. Accusation by association.
  4. SPLC citation. While this source also includes yet another off-handed nod to Lana as a white supremacist: "Lana Lokteff, whose white supremacist and antisemitic views were not secret and indeed broadcast from her Twitter account (here's what Lokteff was tweeting the month before Sommers' interview was published)." Finally, a promising hyperlink to Lana's white supremacist tweets! And then you see ... nothing damning. No racial slurs. The supposed inferiority of any racial or ethnic groups is not mentioned at all. No relevant sources, elaboration, or direct substantive examples.
This article is need of substantive citations with direct links to Lana's racist/supremacist tweets, quotes, and video transcripts. // Lunaerys (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Lunaerys: I have moved this to the bottom per WP:BOTTOMPOST. Inserting a comment smack dab in the middle of a discussion from almost a year ago will only cause confusion.
As for the substance of your comments, this isn't how Wikipedia works. These are not all opinion articles as the term is understood here. We are not interested in compiling editors' original research on her past racist statements. We do not second-guess reliable sources, nor do we demand reliable sources prove every claim just because some editors don't think they are good enough. If they have not elaborated on why she is a white supremacist, this may be because its obvious, or perhaps because she isn't significant enough for these sources to bother going into tedious detail. Likely both, but that's not the point. Sources support it, and so far, no reliable sources refute it. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Forza2020: Please see WP:LR, which states: "do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer." In addition, the material you are deleting is is backed up by several other references that are attached to it including [2], [3], and [4]. Thank you, Aoi (青い) (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC).

User:Forza2020 has been blocked on WP:NOLEGALTHREATS grounds. No sense in letting this continue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Fair point. I would highlight though that none of those are reliable sources according to WP. This is an article about a living person - and one who has clearly denied being associated with the label of 'supremacist'. Such libel and defamation are acceptable grounds for a lawsuit in the United States of America, and one which this person could pursue against several parties if so desired. Without this living person personally declaring she is a 'white supremacist', that claim and associated sources should be removed, based on Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. She has also publicly contested (see comments here for example [5]) the characterization, after apparently failing to properly correct this with her own edit attempts. Wikipedia is thus, itself, becoming vulnerable to a lawsuit for defamation of a living person. I am considering taking this to administrators to correct this before further damage occurs. Regards, Forza2020 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: 

   Neutral point of view (NPOV)
   Verifiability (V)
   No original research (NOR)

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Forza2020 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please elaborate why you feel these do not qualify as reliable sources. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It does not solely rely on whether they are "reliable" or not, though they are not. They are not academic sources, or sources from an official, government agency. Furthermore, the sources are largely from independent media or unofficial, private, partisan sources. They are not grounds for inclusion, especially since this living person has never publicly described herself with the descriptor of 'supremacist'. The defamatory accusations of the sources provided are grounds for lawsuit in the United States, and may experience such. Thus, they should not be included in a Wikipedia article. You also need to re-read WP:Biographies of Living Persons:

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. " Forza2020 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing about this is gossip, and invoking privacy is just silly. If she wanted these beliefs to be private, perhaps she shouldn't have produced countless hours of public media explaining them. She has been very, very vocal in expressing overtly white nationalist beliefs, and white nationalism is a euphemism for white supremacy. Her boutique, selective definition of the term changes nothing, and it's not some great mystery why reliable sources use this term. Reliable sources are the evidence that Wikipedia is concerned with. The only reason any reliable sources are talking about her is because of her involvement in a racist movement.
Presumably this has something to do with the attempt by Lokteff and co. to evade YouTube's recent ban. Perhaps this will work better for them than it did for Infowars, or perhaps not. Regardless, the only arguably reliable source I could find for this also supports the use of "white supremacist" in clear terms. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Wikipedia reflects sources, and since many sources use this term, the problem Lokteff has is not with Wikipedia, it's with sources.
Further, threats of legal action are prohibited by Wikipedia's terms of service. Vaguely insinuating that Wikipedia is "vulnerable" to a lawsuit is an attempt to use legal threats to suppress undesirable speech, and is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not threatening legal action, but merely stating that defamation is grounds for lawsuit. This is not using legal threats to "chill undesirable speech". That is, in actuality, what is being done to Miss Lokteff currently. Wikipedia is not a place to make defamatory accusations towards living persons. It is not a tabloid or a conduit to promote a partisan (far-left), private NGO like the ADL or SPLC. Neither of them are academic or official sources. They are private, partisan organizations, and are not free to make defamatory accusations against US citizens without facing legal consequences. They are not unbiased, official, or reliable academic sources. She has never described herself as a 'supremacist'. The sources you have provided are highly partisan and not reliable, and are contested by this person herself. 'White nationalism' is also not identical to white supremacy. To claim such is ridiculous, and without merit or support. There would be no need for the inclusion of both terms if they were synonymous. She has personally never described herself as a 'supremacist', and has criticized attempts to defame her as such. She has also tried to correct that on this article herself. An article about herself needs to put her own self-descriptions first, not the defamatory accusations from non-academic, unofficial, partisan and private sources. You are also failing to take into account this living person's privacy, personal safety, and own views on such libelous comments made about her in the citations that were given. Until genuine, reliable sources are given, in addition to her own views on such descriptions, such descriptors will be removed as per WP:Biographies of Living Persons. You both are also guilty of making unsupported defamatory accusations of her as 'racist' and now as a 'neo-Nazi', both again completely unsupported and defamatory, which underlines your lack of credibility and personal bias in this dispute. Thus, your personal contentions are invalid. The burden of proof is on you to provide reliable sources, or sources from herself, describing Miss Lokteff with terms such as 'supremacist'. Regards. Forza2020 (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, please read this about the SPLC:
"As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics." [6] Forza2020 (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lana_Lokteff/Archive_1&oldid=965068248"